When I was looking through the spring 2010 classes being offered here at the university I had one thing in mind; get that last lib ed out of the way. My boyfriend then suggested that I take a class with him, but that it must be a 3000 level or higher course. So I narrowed my search, and when I found this class I was immediately interested in what material might be covered.
As an aerospace engineering major I base many of my interpretations of the world around me on logic and reasoning. However, I truly enjoy debating issues of a more philosophical nature. Even before this class started my boyfriend and I were talking about the apotemnophilia article by Carl Elliot, and I was eager to share the information with my mother, roommates, etc. Before we even began debating nature versus nurture discussion immediately turned to the issue.
I, though claiming to be very scientifically minded, find myself unable to commit to one side or the other. My instincts tell me that science will always prevail, provide concrete answers to the many forms the big question "Why?" takes. And yet, with matters of psychology, I think that the idea that the environment someone lives in or grows up in can have an incredible influence on his or her character. While reading Pinker and Lewontin I found myself avidly agreeing with what both were saying, despite the differing viewpoints on human nature. Both arguments make sense to me.
Before meeting my boyfriend I would have told you that science can explain everything, I would have told you that psychology is silly and the only way to explain why people have any type of disorder could be explained by a neuroscientist. But when you date a psychology major, your eyes open up to many other possibilities.
In my own little way I have a problem that I could logically explain using either argument. I hate fish. Can't eat a single bite of any type of seafood. According to the nature argument expressed in Pinker's article, I might have some wiring in my brain that makes the smell of any seafood seem incredibly unappealling. And yet Lewontin's nurture argument could also explain the situation. At the age of three I watched my dad skin and prepare a live fish. The experience could have left me unable to eat something after seeing how it became my food. I see the logic in both arguments, so my logically approach to life seems to fall a bit short, unable to offer the one true solution.
So now I find myself torn between the two possibilities explaining human nature. I hope that the discussions in this class will help me find a more concrete argument to stand on, but until that point I will maintain that a healthy balance must be found between nature and nurture to fully explain this incredible thing called the human condition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you make a valid point, that a healthy balance is required to understand this issue. Im a biologist, and strongly believe that genetics plays a role in behavior. There's too much evidence for heritable connections to deny that point. There is also too much evidence for learned behavior to deny that nurture plays no role in behavior (try explaining where memories come from without environmental causes). The only reasonable conclusion to make is that both play a role, and perhaps even other things we are not aware of. Our minds are products of the real world, so there are countless numbers of real influences that shape them.
ReplyDeleteI think it is also unfair for many people to accuse psychology of not being science. I used to think this way, and although psychology may be a young path of study it is conducted similarly to the other sciences. No psychologist's claims will be respected as until they are tested, just like any biologist or chemist would have to do.
I completely agree with this! I can't wait until we delve into this a little further in class. I also agree that it is silly to deny genetics role in behavior.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brandon in saying Psychology is a young path of study. It totally is, and that's what makes it so interesting. We are just scraping the surface of this complex study and without genetics it will be for nothing, science needs that solid ground to work off of.
I say don't push the genetics out of the picture, and try not to take offense to what they may or may not say about you. Risky statement I know, but most of us wouldn't deny that we got our blue eyes or brown hair from anyone but our genes. Therefore, I truly believe some part of our behavior is genetic as well.
Psychology IS a very young field of study. If you look back at how other "fields" were started, you may discover that the paths are very similar (this is my own speculation combined with some elementary knowledge of early physics, astronomy, etc). The first experts in the field would often make claims that were completely unsubstantiated, or only vaguely supported by early research or experiments. It is then the job of future generations to prove or disprove these theories.
ReplyDeleteSitting in class, I can't help but notice the amount of psuedo-psychology being discussed. I think one major pitfall of discussion about psychology is the use of hypothetical constructs (something that you assume exists for the purpose of description, even though it does not exist on a physical level... a "bond" between a stimulus and reaction is a perfect example of this... psychologists talk about strengthening and weakening these bonds, but no physical bond actually exists). Everyone uses them without even thinking about it, but it can create real hurdles when definitions are not clearly combined. One of the most prolific minds in early psychology, Clark Hull, used hypothetical constructs extensively, and no researcher was able to prove him wrong because Hull would simply change the workings of certain constructs to refute any claims from those who questioned his theories.
It's important to be conscious of these restraints when discussing a mental process in class.