Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, Human Potential and Psychology

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/21

Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman is a renowned psychologist, speaker, and best-selling author dedicated to fostering creativity and self-actualization. Known for his pioneering work in intelligence and human potential, he challenges traditional measures of success, advocating for a personalized approach that emphasizes individual journeys over standardized assessments. Dr. Kaufman hosts “The Psychology Podcast,” one of the most popular in its field, and is among the top 1% most cited scientists globally. With teaching stints at Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania, and NYU, he has published extensively, including the influential Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization, redefining Maslow’s hierarchy for modern times.

Kaufman shares insights from his career dedicated to exploring human potential beyond traditional metrics like IQ. He emphasizes that the mindset—whether one views themselves as a victim or empowered—can greatly impact achieving goals. Kaufman discusses how cultural shifts toward competitive victimhood influence behavior and contrasts this with the empowerment needed for true self-actualization. He reflects on his evolution from viewing intelligence as solely multiple to recognizing general intelligence’s role. His new book, forthcoming in April, highlights how personal narratives shape potential and resilience amidst challenges.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman. He has an extensive and impressive background in intelligence research and humanistic psychology. He is an author and educator with a broad reach in significant psychological constructs. What was the first time you became genuinely interested in both the conceptual and academic aspects of intelligence, creativity, and human potential?

Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman: I have been interested in this topic for as long as I can remember. As a child, I was placed in special education due to an auditory learning disability, and many people dismissed me as unintelligent. However, I worked hard to prove that I was capable. Much of my career as a scientist has been dedicated to finding alternative ways of measuring potential and identifying people’s greatest sources of self-actualization and human potential—beyond traditional IQ tests or cognitive abilities, which have often been the primary focus of K-12 education.

Jacobsen: I enjoy interviewing individuals who dedicate their lives to focusing on one or two key topics. Since you have concentrated on creativity, intelligence, and potential, what are the currently accepted or established perspectives or definitions of human intelligence and creativity?

Kaufman: There is no single answer, as scientists rarely agree on everything. That’s different from the answer you wanted to hear. <laughs> I once explained on Sam Harris’s podcast that intelligence is learning, understanding, and perceiving what is. Imagination is the capacity to envision, learn, and perceive what could be. Creativity involves the deep integration of intelligence and imagination.

Jacobsen: How do you approach self-actualization, especially when coaching individuals seeking assistance in becoming more self-actualized? Is this rooted in Abraham Maslow’s work?

Kaufman: Yes, it is. When I began my career, I believed intelligence was the most crucial aspect to address for potential. However, as I expanded my focus to include creativity and self-actualization, I realized it is not our role to prescribe or limit what people can achieve. Instead, it is our responsibility to help individuals discover what they most want to actualize and provide them with the resources to contribute positively to society.

I have developed various scales and conducted numerous studies to explore how people can achieve self-actualization. My research on creativity and openness to experience, a personality trait I have studied extensively, is highly relevant to understanding self-actualization. Openness to experience is likely the best personality predictor of self-actualization.

Jacobsen: Are there ways in which someone’s personality structure could be less aligned with openness to experience when it comes to self-actualization, as opposed to more aligned?

Kaufman: It depends on what one wants to actualize.

Jacobsen: That’s an excellent point. 

Kaufman: For instance, if someone harbours hatred and resentment and seeks to actualize the potential to oppress others, openness to experience might not be the most relevant predictor. But that is not the kind of self-actualization I am referring to. Overall, creative actualization tends to be generative and improve the world. 

Jacobsen: When you’re doing this work with people, how are they typically defining making the world a better place? Or is it as individual as a fingerprint?

Kaufman: I don’t focus on that metric as much as the belief that if we help people with their purpose, exploration, and motivation for giving more love to the world, the world will be a better place. I have developed a reimagining of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and created a coaching program called Self-Actualization Coaching.

We’re launching a six-month program next year, a full certification program for coaches. With Self-Actualization Coaching, we focus on the needs for safety, security, connection, and self-esteem, which form the “boat” itself. We also help people open their sails and move toward their most valued port with a spirit of exploration, love, and purpose. Growth is the deep integration of exploration, love, and purpose. Not everyone has to make a grandiose impact on the world, like starting a new nonprofit or scaling up the kazoo. I am a big advocate for “being love” and creating synergy with one’s being in a good way for oneself and the world. 

Jacobsen: Do you use any of the mentalism of “The Amazing Dr. Scott” in Self-Actualization Coaching?

Kaufman: That’s a hilarious question. I sometimes get clients who say, “Show me a trick. Read my mind.” I would love to put on a stage show called Unlock Your Mind with The Amazing Dr. Scott, where I show people in the audience that they are using only a small part of their full capacity. That’s a project I’m interested in and am working on securing funding for.

Jacobsen: Does the Human Potential Lab work inform the Self-Actualization Coaching work?

Kaufman: The Human Potential Lab is the solo series of my podcast, where I try to educate the audience publicly. I hope all these efforts feed into an integrated system. If my goal hierarchy is cohesive, then at every level of analysis, each goal should contribute to my top-level aim of increasing human potential. I hope they’re all synergistic.

Jacobsen: How do you view that work from a humanistic psychology model? You have the work around self-actualization, academic research, and studies in intelligence and creativity. How does a humanistic psychology frame bring much of this together, if at all?

Kaufman: The field of humanistic psychology? Well, there isn’t a significant field of humanistic psychology anymore. It was quite influential in the sixties, but it has since diminished. However, there are still psychotherapists with a humanistic orientation and some training programs in the country. The general philosophy of humanistic psychology is that we want to understand what makes people feel fully alive. We are interested in the experiential nature of their being and how it contributes to well-being, contribution, and social action. Some psychologists still embody that spirit, but it is no longer a dominant movement. I would say it’s a small minority within the field of psychology.

Compared to humanistic psychology, positive psychology receives much more funding, has more conferences, and has more practitioners in my field. However, I have a deep love for humanistic psychology. I identify as a humanistic psychologist. Humanistic psychology values the dignity and worth of each individual. That is something distinct from focusing solely on happiness or achievement. It has an inherent value of its own.

Jacobsen: Do you think it’s a broader view of human potential than happiness or achievement?

Kaufman: Yes. It’s a philosophy. Maslow saw it as a philosophy. He wanted a broader movement. I would love to believe that I am part of a modern-day human potential movement grounded in science. In my view, that is what the modern-day human potential movement should look like. 

Jacobsen: Regarding what you mentioned about the human potential movement, what are some critiques or criticisms you receive that have an evidentiary basis compared to those that are less grounded in evidence and more rhetorical?

Kaufman: I don’t get much criticism. I don’t know. No one criticizes me. I am trying to understand what that means. Maybe it means I need to be more famous. <chuckles> I don’t know. I am fortunate to have the respect of my colleagues. I work hard to build an evidential basis for my arguments. I’m careful when making bold claims. I would face criticism if I were more flippant, impulsive, or grandiose in my claims, but I prefer to build things bit by bit.

Kaufman: The Self-Actualization Coaching program has been years in the making, following iterations of smaller three-day courses that we put on. So, my careful style makes it less open to criticism. A good scientist will take in new evidence and change their opinion.

Jacobsen: What beliefs or ideas have you held as true or tentatively true in the earlier parts of your career but have since changed or adapted based on new evidence?

Kaufman: One significant example is that I initially believed human intelligence was only multiple—that Howard Gardner was correct, and multiple intelligences were all there was. I thought there was no such thing as general intelligence. I changed my mind after researching IQ and realizing both are true. We each have a unique profile of cognitive strengths and weaknesses but differ in general intelligence– this includes our ability to integrate and hold information in working memory and our capacities for visual-spatial reasoning, verbal comprehension, and basic cognitive functions that influence multiple abilities. That is one area where I changed my view.

I also changed my mind about the biggest predictor of human potential. I have a book coming out next April where I argue that while most of my career has been focused on ability, intelligence, and creativity, the biggest predictor of potential is the story you tell yourself about your setbacks and experiences. Whether you maintain a victim mindset or feel empowered to continue and have hope despite setbacks seems to be a much more powerful factor in reaching your goals than I previously focused on. 

Jacobsen: Do you think general culture leans more toward a victim or empowerment mindset when people face the ups and downs of life?

Kaufman: I believe our culture is currently entrenched in a victim mindset, which is part of why I followed this cultural trend and wrote this book. Everyone tends to view themselves as the victim of the opposing side. Additionally, it is rarely acknowledged that multiple victims can exist simultaneously. We are living in an age of competitive victimhood. It has become a privileged position to be seen as the victim rather than the perpetrator.

Everyone competes for that coveted spot of being perceived as the victim. Of course, there are real victims, and that is true. However, many people understand the power that comes with being perceived as the victim. Does that make sense, Scott Jacobsen?

Jacobsen: That makes sense, Dr. Kaufman. Regarding that, I have heard and been told differing opinions about North American culture becoming more narcissistic over the last few decades. If that is true, in your expert opinion, is it related to the phenomenon you mentioned about victimhood, or is it unrelated?

Kaufman: It’s a great question. I have yet to conduct an in-depth analysis myself. Still, I have read works by those who have, such as Bradley Campbell, who wrote extensively about different cultural dynamics, including honour and victimhood cultures. There has been a rise in victimhood culture in the United States, which has not necessarily been observed globally or in previous periods of American culture. So, yes, there is a rise. And I’ll leave it at that for now.

Jacobsen: Let’s do a quick recap. You have the Self-Actualization Coaching program. You have the Human Potential Lab. You are in the top 1% of most cited researchers globally in psychology. You practice mentalism under the title “The Amazing Doctor Scott.” This seems to follow in the “The Amazing James Randi tradition.” You are also classically trained as a vocalist and cellist, showcasing a broad range of professional and personal development.

Kaufman: I would say more like “The Amazing Kreskin,” who was a mentalist, in particular.

Jacobsen: You are someone who has engaged in building a lot of professional and personal potential in various ways. What areas would you want to expand your potential outside of your upcoming book in April if you had the time?

Kaufman: Probably in the romantic relationship domain. Is that too personal?

Jacobsen: No. This is an open space. You can say whatever you want.

Kaufman: Well, I want to be a good man. 

Jacobsen: How are you defining a good man? What would you consider a good man to be in a perennial sense or the current era?

Kaufman: I would define it as someone who respects women. Beyond that, it’s about being a good human. There isn’t anything specifically unique to being a good man beyond the traits that any person would strive for to be good, such as being a responsible citizen and taking ownership of their own body and mind. That’s an existential definition.

Owning the space you take up, in a humanistic psychology kind of way—that’s what it means to be a good human. However, being a good man boils down to respecting women.

Jacobsen: What are some of the ways you see, as a psychologist, that women are disrespected in America today, particularly in emotional or psychological terms?

Kaufman: Well, when it comes to leadership positions, that’s a significant area. I have a separate research program focused on the “light triad” of leadership versus the “dark triad” of leadership, and we find significant sex differences. For example, the upper tail of the dark triad—traits like narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—tend to be dominated by men.

It’s interesting and worth examining how we create more opportunities for both men and women who are natural, empathetic leaders. There’s a paradox because those who do not desire power are often the people we would most want in positions of power. Yet, they are the least interested in pursuing it. Conversely, those most interested in power often differ from those we want to lead, which presents a complex issue I grapple with in my research.

Jacobsen: Part of your response noted how gender plays a role in the dark triad, with men being more prevalent at the higher end.

Kaufman: ye but there are dark triad women.

Jacobsen: Right. So, I’ll take that as partially overlapping but mutually distinct distributions.

Kaufman: Yes, exactly.

Jacobsen: With that gender difference, is it significant enough, and is there sufficient evidence to argue for heredity over environment, or vice versa? What aspects of American cultural pressures tend to foster and bring out these traits in men more than women?

Kaufman: There is a strong focus on the bottom line and doing whatever it takes to achieve it. However, we are witnessing significant cultural shifts in various organizations. I am currently working on a major project focused on human-centered leadership and what that looks like.

I’m excited about that project because it’s set to unfold over the next couple of years. Much of it will involve a significant cultural shift to make the bottom line include employees’ self-actualization. That’s a substantial change right there.

Jacobsen: Last question: What is your favourite quote from any psychologist?

Kaufman: I have a favourite by Abraham Maslow: “One can choose to go back toward safety or growth. Growth must be chosen again and again; fear must be overcome again and again.”

Jacobsen: Great. Scott, thank you so much for the opportunity and your time today. I appreciate it.

Kaufman: Thank you. Was it a valuable interview?

Jacobsen: It was.

Kaufman: Sweet. Sweet. Thanks for thinking of me, Scott. I appreciate it.

Jacobsen: I appreciate it. Thank you, Scott. We’ll be in touch.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.