Thread: Whats your Psychology?

Since psychology has many different focuses within its own philosophies I was curious who identifies with what philosophy? If not particular philsophy exist than express your interest in psychology?

Philosophy:

Cognitive (i.e., the mind drives behavior)
Behavioral (i.e., reinforcement/punishment and conditioning drives behavior)
Evolutionary (i.e., genetics drive behavior)
Physiological (i.e., biological systems drive behavior)

Or any combination or addition thereof

Interests:

Any of the above but also

Social Psychology
Therapy
Psychiatry
Developmental Psychology
Humanist Psychology

Or any combination or addition thereof

ME: I'm a behaviorist (in training) who uses operant and classical conditioning to explain behavior. The operant I consider the explain the "nurture" aspect while I use evolutionary and physiological psychology to explain "nature" aspects of an organisms behavior.

Originally Posted by bazlyx

Since psychology has many different focuses within its own philosophies I was curious who identifies with what philosophy? If not particular philsophy exist than express your interest in psychology?

Philosophy:

Cognitive (i.e., the mind drives behavior)
Behavioral (i.e., reinforcement/punishment and conditioning drives behavior)
Evolutionary (i.e., genetics drive behavior)
Physiological (i.e., biological systems drive behavior)

Or any combination or addition thereof

we were learining about survival of the fittest/ natural selection etc the other day in science and i thought that it might be of some relevance.

2 factors drive the characteristics of an animal, genetic and the environment. Nature vs Nurture.

the Genetic characteristics at birth deturmine the Potential characteristics while the environment deturmines the actuall characteristics/ behaviour of an animal.
[/b]

http://www.aynrand.org/


Welcome to the Web site of the Ayn Rand Institute, the authoritative online source for information on the life and works of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, author of the famous novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." —Ayn Rand


Neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive by any random means, as a parasite, a moocher or a looter, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment - so he is free to seek his happiness in any irrational fraud, any whim, any delusion, any mindless escape from reality, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment nor to escape the consequences.
-- Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue Of Selfishness

I tip my hat to bazlyx for an interesting first post and note that the evolutionary must determine the physiological which may be adapted by the behavioural, often creating the appearance that the cognitive is the controlling factor.

CT I place Atlas Shrugged amongst my three favourite books.......but Rand was wrong. Her view of man as a heroic being works for those who are heroic beings. Those who lack physical or intellectual powers, or who are damaged by social, cultural or familial abuses, have little chance of rising to heroic status. Ultimately her views are flawed because humanity is flawed.
She says we can rise above this: in that I agree with her. But she sees this rise as the rise of the individual, standing on their own, motivated by inner strength and conviction. I see it as the rise of all humanity, acting in concert, stretching out a hand to help those less gifted, less sure footed, so that all can reach the goal together.

I agree but see her views as meaning that if a person stands up for what they believe in then they would become a chorus of humanity becoming one with each other for all their voices would act in harmony even though they are but one.

But in the process she 'passes by on the other side'. Consider the shop girl whom Dagny's brother marries in order to demonstrate, publicly, how noble and magnanimous he is, and, privately, to have somone to worship him. When she realises what an inconsequential nobody her husband is her world falls apart, for she incorrectly deduces that if what she thought the noblest was in fact corrupt, then the world is a dark and horrible place without hope. Her only solution is to commit suicide.
Dagny could have prevented this by showing her that there were people of integrity and commitment, but she fails to do so. To me this is because she is so wrapt in her own enlightened self interest (the cornerstone of Rand's philosophy) that she fails to notice its passage into dark self righteousness.
That, for me, is where the philosophy fails.

Originally Posted by bazlyx

Since psychology has many different focuses within its own philosophies I was curious who identifies with what philosophy? If not particular philsophy exist than express your interest in psychology?

Philosophy:

Cognitive (i.e., the mind drives behavior)
Behavioral (i.e., reinforcement/punishment and conditioning drives behavior)
Evolutionary (i.e., genetics drive behavior)
Physiological (i.e., biological systems drive behavior)

Or any combination or addition thereof

Interests: Any of the above but also
Social Psychology
Therapy
Psychiatry
Developmental Psychology
Humanist Psychology

Oh I am cogitive psychology all the way. I do not mean that I am going to debate that the mind is the sole driver of human behavior, although I think that it is potentially the most powerful. I think there are people who stubbornly resist all attempts to condition their behavior by means of reinforcement or punishment. I think that genetics, biological systems and chemistry (which are all part of the same thing in my view) obviously play a significant role especially when something is seriously wrong, but that in the healthy human being, the determining factor in most human behavior is the mind. More importantly perhaps is that it is the mystery, nature and operation of the mind that my interest lies.

And now I am going to do something that is probably unforgivable. I am going to suggest an example in which opinions and feelings run so high that it is likely to send to whole discussion into a tailspin. I am going to broach the topic of Homosexuality. Opinions on what is the driving force of homosexual behavior has become a raging political nightmare, especially in the US. There are those who want to say that it is all genetics so they can claim that gay rights are on equal footing with the rights of race and sex. But I think this is clearly flawed because race and sex are not about behavior. Next thing you know we will be looking for the genetic causes of religion. The most logical compromise although all the christian right will detest me for suggesting it, is that gay rights can at most claim equal status with the freedom of religion. This has particular appeal to me because the same places where religion is no considered inappropriate are the same places where I think the open display and making public issue of homosexuality (or heterosexuality either for that matter) is inappropriate. So I am saying that the determining factors in homosexual behavior is cognitive (mind) and behavioral (habit) not evolutionary (genetics) or physiological (chemistry).

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

I agree but see her views as meaning that if a person stands up for what they believe in then they would become a chorus of humanity becoming one with each other for all their voices would act in harmony even though they are but one.

[request for clarification]
I'm just lurking here, but I would like to interject that this makes no sense to me. Doesn't it imply that those standing up must all believe in the same thing? What I am missing?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Those who lack physical or intellectual powers, or who are damaged by social, cultural or familial abuses, have little chance of rising to heroic status.

Well, just one more interjection; who does that leave out?
And I would expect that no-one would develop the strength of character implied by 'heroic' without experiencing adversity, and gaining the determination and healthy support to the ego from overcoming the adversity.

I wasn't going to add an uninformed opinion, but I changed by mind, being congenitally incapable of keeping my mouth shut.

I will also add a layperson's perspective here [I sleezed out of the psychology and philosophy requirements for my degree, so I have no idea what I am talking out], if I may.

If there is a genetic element to behavior, it probably remains with us all our lives, although modified by personal and cultural experiences. Still, that just sounds like socio-biology to me.

As an individual develops, the motivations for behavior progress from the biological, through the behavioral/conditioning, and ideally to the cognitive [though I swear some people never reach the cognitve, as they refuse to engage in cognition ...]. However, I do believe the behavior learn in the 'conditioning' state is the strongest and that the only way to effect an individual's behavior is through through 'conditioning', behavior modification techniques. Is my terminology acceptable?

As an adult who has never studied either psychology or philosophy, but has watched people develop over several decades, I find this obvious. Children break rules to meet an immediate need, or to get attention; adults break rules to further a greater good, or to get attention.

Oh, and my primary interest in the disciplines is group power structure and dynamics; specifically, how to play nice, but still get what I want. [Not that I would admit that anywhere but in an anonymous forum].