[vinnomot] Humanism and Psychology: (Introduction 2): Understanding ourselves and our universe

 

Understanding Ourselves and Our Universe: How Psychology Can Turn the "Mysteries of Human Nature" into Useful Tools for Self Improvement and Success in Life

 

Part 2: A very brief history of psychology
Pioneers of SciPsy Summary
At the birth of psychology, not unlike today, non-scientific approaches were much more popular and influential, and were exemplified by the NEC (non-empirical constructs)-riddled psychodynamic (or Psychoanalytic) Psychology of the Austrian medical doctor, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) (photo). Freud's legacy in psychology is a profoundly ambivalent one in that he, more than anyone else in history, popularized the "study of the mind" and its treatments. But the very popularity of his theories also had a powerfully negative effect on the development of scientific psychology. It was as if scientists thought, "Why research something that may not even be scientific?" -- referring to Freud's metaphysical concept of the "mind" or "psyche." Freud used introspection (literally, looking within oneself) as his primary means of studying how the "mind" worked, and he placed great significance on people's unreliable self reports and memories of how they thought, felt, and acted, emphasizing odd fantasies and dreams (which Freud called "the window to the soul"). While these are undoubtedly fascinating methods of investigation, they are clearly unscientific and, not surprisingly, they have not led to many valid insights into human psychological phenomena nor useful treatments for psychological disorders. From his studies, Freud, his followers, and subsequent like-minded theorists -- called Neo-Freudians -- developed general hypotheses about human psychology which have proven very valuable (e.g., that early experiences can greatly influence a person's later psychological development, and that psychopathology (disease of mind) is much more common than was previously thought). They also postulated specific hypotheses about how the "mind" worked (e.g., the constant debilitating battle among NECs like the repressed unconscious id, the personal conscious ego, and the conscience-like super-ego), which psychodynamic psychologists and psychiatrists believed were the keys to both understanding human psychology and treating psychopathology.   (Continue Down, please)
Unfortunately for the field of psychology and its patients and clients, those specific theories and treatments have not proven valuable in the long run. Thus, psychodynamic psychology is now widely recognized as having been a long, convoluted detour on the path to psychological understanding and treatment. It was based on non-empirical constructs, and such theories and constructs have simply not proven helpful, nor have they led to successful therapies. (One might even say that the only real question is whether psychodynamic theory and therapy caused more problems than it solved, or vice versa; and it is a close call, either way.) Thankfully, there were more scientifically oriented researchers who picked up the baton from Darwin and Wundt, and pursued the slow-but-sure path to real knowledge about psychology. Although breakthroughs into the "black box" of the brain had to await many decades of research, early psychologists who contributed greatly to a psychology based on reason and scientific evidence were William James (1842-1910), John Dewey (1859-1952), and perhaps the four greatest early contributors to scientific psychology in history: the Russian medical researcher, Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936), the American "Father of Behaviorism", John B. Watson (1878-1958), the preeminent theorist-technologist, B. F. Skinner (1904-1990), and the theorist and researcher whose work led most directly to the aforementioned breakthroughs of the late 1900's, Canadian psychologist D. O. Hebb (1904-1985), whose book The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory proved seminal to future scientific understandings of the human brain and its functions. The research-based theories of Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner dealt with the "black box" problem in a much more scientific way. Since they couldn't study the brain directly, they concentrated on studying everything that went into the brain (i.e., stimuli), and everything that came out of the brain (i.e., responses), and developed testable hypotheses about what must be going on in between (i.e., inside the brain) that would explain human psychology. This Stimulus-Response Psychology (S-R) couldn't have been more different from Psychodynamic Psychology, and the opposing sides exhibited great disdain for each other, with advocates of psychodynamic approaches saying S-R Psychologists studied everything but the all-important "mind!" But while psychodynamicists speculated about non-empirical hypothetical "mental" constructs, behavioristic researchers studied the real empirical constructs of stimuli and responses. Others such as D. O. Hebb and Wilder Penfield in the 1940's and 50's operated on non-human brains to see how the brain mediated Ss and Rs, and then tried to generalize their scientific results to human psychology. Ironically, some of the greatest breakthroughs in understanding how normal "minds" work came through the analysis of abnormal human psychology, demonstrated by the wounded brains (and consequent pathologies of thought, feelings, and actions) of soldiers from World War II and Korea. Gradually, scientists' findings -- and their very successful applications to real world problems -- turned the tide away from non-scientific toward scientific psychology, ushering in the late 20th century's explosion of breakthrough theories and treatments and making real progress for the first time. One important turning point was the publication of D. O. Hebb's book in 1949, which theorized in detail from a strictly scientific perspective how brain cells determined specific functions of human cognition. Once a significant number of scientists began to study the human brain -- instead of NECs of the "mind" -- breakthroughs leading to a true understanding of the causes and effects of human psychology followed relatively rapidly. Today, scientific psychology has discovered many of the natural laws and principles that really govern "human nature;" i.e., how and why people think, feel, and act as they do in general, and -- given sufficiently valid individual information -- why any specific person thinks, feels, and behaves as s/he does. (In psychology as in all sciences, the better the data, the better the theories and the more accurate and useful the resulting predictions and interventions.)	Pioneers of SciPsy To many, William James (1842-1910) was the first major American psychologist. He helped psychology turn from the structure of consciousness to the mind as expressed through learning, habits, and perceptions (derived from Darwin's evolution theory). Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) was a Russian physician and neurophysiologist whose study of digestive systems provided the key evidence for learning via "classical conditioning." His work spurred later learning theorists in the U. S. and around the world. John Dewey (1859-1952) was an American philosopher, educational innovator, and psychologist. Founder of the functionalist school of psychology, which emphasizes studying human efforts to adapt to their environment as the key to understanding human psychology, Dewey was strongly influenced by the work of Darwin and James. American psychologist John B. Watson (1878-1958) was the "father of behaviorism." He pioneered "S-R Psychology," which led to scientific psychology. B[urrhus] F. Skinner (1904-1990), a follower of Watson and mentor of many psychologists, was perhaps the greatest American learning theorist and practitioner. He emphasized the conscious or "instrumental" use of learned behaviors to attain reinforcements. D[onald] O[lding] Hebb (1904-1985) was the Canadian psychologist whose breakthrough work on the study of the brain to understand human intelligence helped change the course of psychology from non-empirical constructions to brain structure and chemistry.
For one example, we now know the basic answer to the age-old "nature versus nurture question": i.e., are good (and bad) people "born that way" -- and thus presumably unable to change; or do their environments "make them that way" -- so that changing their environments can presumably change their psychology? The answer is both! We now know that all human psychology is governed by three (yes, only three) natural determinants: 1.  our genes (our DNA and RNA -- deoxyribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid, respectively), which pre-program our psychological instincts and potential capabilities, and predispose us to develop particular ways of thinking, feeling, and acting; 2.  our learning (conditioning through environmental experience), which programs and re-programs exactly what we think, feel, and do; and 3.  our trauma (central nervous system damage), which can re-program and even de-program our repertoire of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. These determinants interact in lawful ways from the moment of conception to the end of the sequence of brain death to produce every thought we think, every emotion we feel, and every behavior we do. Just think of that! The answer to any "why" question about anyone's thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors, anywhere, anytime, is either "She/he does that instinctively", or "She/he learned to do it that way", or "She/he can only do it that way because of trauma", or some combination of the three. And if you give the "learning" answer to any such "why" question, you'll be correct the vast majority of the time. Let's briefly look at another example of how scientific laws and principles provide powerful tools for psychology, and in this instance, humanism. Historically, one of the most useful theory-building tools of science is the Law of Parsimony (also known as Occam's Razor -- which roughly means "Occam's Rule" -- and was named after the English Earl of Occam). The Law of Parsimony states that when two or more explanations (or theories) account equally well for the same results, the simpler one (the one requiring the fewest causal agents) is best. One major implication of this law for psychology is that for every psychological function or dysfunction for which science can find a natural cause, all paranormal, mystical, or supernatural causal agents can be dismissed as "unparsimonious," regardless of how many (or which) people believe in them. This would apply, for example, to every psychological disorder previously attributed to "demons" or "gods" or "avenging angels". Again, pause for a minute and reflect on the implications of this principle. The Law of Parsimony does not mean that we can disprove the role of supernatural agents in psychological functions or dysfunctions, but it does mean that we can render such explanations or theories as completely superfluous and, therefore, practically useless. In other words, when psychological phenomena are scientifically demonstrated to be caused by natural agents, there's no "effect" left for supernatural agents or powers to "cause;" e.g., no talents and skills that are "blessings bestowed on the faithful by a supernatural being," and no problems and dysfunctions attributable to "punishments for sins." If these examples of SciPsy are understandable and useful to you, try the Basic and Comprehensive Modules. There are a lot more where these came from!
Summary, Conclusions, and Humanistic Implications
So what's the bottom line? What can science tell us about the myriad "mysteries of human nature?" After all, people have been using proto-scientific (early precursors) and quasi-scientific (similar but less effective) methods to study human psychology for at least 2500 years. And as we've learned in this module, the scientific method itself has been applied to at least some degree for around 100 years. A fair question is, "What have we learned thus far?" And a fair answer is, "A great deal!" (And far, far more than most of the public -- even the relatively well-informed public like humanists -- can imagine.) The subsequent modules in this course will provide scientific answers to many mysteries of human psychology. Here, at the end of this Introductory Module, we can offer some hints as to where we'll be going in later lessons, and how we'll get there: We'll address in greater detail where most human thoughts, feelings, and behaviors come from, how they're developed, and how they can be changed, (and how religions used/abused the psychological techniques to individually and collectively brainwash humanity, instilled superstitions and exploited religion for controlling and conquering men's minds ; whoever controls minds, controls the bodies and so conquers and controls the world without guns…`. !). We'll cover the relative contributions of the genes, learning, and trauma to human psychology, and what tools of psychological technology non-scientists and non-psychologists can use to effectively change their own and others' psychology. With each major step along the way, we'll address how psychological knowledge relates to humanism, and how humanists can apply that knowledge for the betterment of themselves, their societies, and their world. Thus, the very good news -- for both humanists and all of humankind -- is that scientific psychology has already progressed far enough to broach a cautious but exciting hypothesis; i.e., that all of the previously mysterious "psychology of the human mind" is really just scientifically discoverable "biochemistry of the human brain." (This theorem will be discussed in detail in the Comprehensive Module.) If this is true, and all the best evidence indicates that it is, the implications are enormous! Not only would it mean that all the mysteries -- both great and small -- about human psychology are ultimately knowable through rational inquiry and scientific research, but it would also imply that we could essentially discount all paranormal and supernatural explanations for human psychology as functionally baseless and useless. What an exciting prospect!

 

 

---

Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___