Rebekah Hernandez's Archive

Hey guys:). I really wanted to see what you all thought of my major paper topic. So I wanted to post a HIGHLY modified version of my paper for you all to comment on:). Enjoy:)
The debate of whether man is inherently good or inherently evil has long pervaded the history of philosophy and psychology. For example, great philosophers such as Socrates and Plato believed in man’s inherent capable of goodness. Later philosophers and psychologists who followed this line of thinking included such well known figures as Rogers and Maslow. In this view of man, the environment is often blamed for the evil that takes place in this world. Therefore, “man can be good if certain conditions are met” (Staub, 1978, p. 14). Moreover, when those conditions are not meet, and instead the environment facilitates evil, man will have a high propensity of acting in evil ways.
In the history of psychology, many landmark studies have revolutionized the conceptualization of evil by providing evidence that normal well functioning individuals can, and will, act in ways that are evil. Studies such as the Milgram experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the BBC prison study lend themselves to the idea that man will turn toward evil under the right conditions. Therefore, man is controlled to some degree by the environment. Moreover, that environment can make the average good man or good woman act in evil ways. Agreeing with both Rogers and the experimenters, this writer believes that man is good by nature, but that the environment can affect and change that nature; therefore, evil is a product of the environment not a product of an individual’s nature.
In conclusion, as stated, what is responsible for evil? The environment, the situation, the conditions, and the pressures found therein. In Ervin Staub’s The Psychology of good and evil: Why children, adults, and groups help and harm others, Staub’s position is grounded in the belief that evil is created by the environment. If evil is a product of the environment it seems reasonable to assume that if one understands how evil is created it can be decreased and instead good can be promoted; this is the exact position that Staub takes. As a result, there appears to be some hope in applying the knowledge of the production of evil to reduce it and promote good. In short, if man is inherently good, as I believe, then we can aid in the production of an environment that will facilitate the good that is already in humanity. Therefore, with hope in the belief that humanity is inherently good, we are left with the duty of taking action to ensure that man is allowed to embrace the good that is at mans core.

In Festinger’s social comparison theory (1954) he “suggested that people compare themselves to others because for many domains and attributes there is no objective yardstick to evaluate ourselves against, and other people are therefore highly informative” (Baron, Branscombe, Byrne, 2008, p. 134). Nowadays, this theory of the 1950’s seems like common sense; of course we compare ourselves to others to know where we stand. It is interesting, however, that certain things come into play for us to engage in social comparison: one of the most prominent is that we must have feel uncertain. Think back to any movie where one of the main characters is out of his or her element and looks to those around to know what to do. Here the main character is actively engaged in social comparison. When we are not in situations of uncertainty, where we must compare our actions to others so we know how to act, who do we compare ourselves to? The answer depends on the motive for the comparison. In the first example, it is to gain knowledge in uncertainty. At other times it is to asses ourselves and our actions or to feel good about ourselves. Normally, feeling good about ourselves trumps the desire for an accurate assessment. When we are acting out of the norm and we do want an accurate assessment of ourselves we normally compare ourselves to people that are similar: sharing in common with us the broad domains of gender, experience, values, or race, etc… We do not compare ourselves to people in a different social category because that can lead to a less positive comparison result. For example, let’s say someone is a beginning singer and is in a singing group with other beginners. He or she might think, “Well, compared to the others in my group I am a pretty good singer”. However, if that same person compares him or herself to an advanced singing group no doubt he or she would feel remarkably less positive about his or her singing ability. What should one take away from Festinger’s comparison theory? Should it be that you should compare yourselves to people who are less successful or talented than you in a particular domain? I suppose if one’s goal in life is to feel good about oneself, and not strive for an accurate assessment, I think that the above comparison can be beneficial and certainly has its place at times. On the other hand, if someone desires to grow and improve I would recommend comparing yourself to people who are slightly more successful in a certain domain so you will have something to work towards. As a singer, sometimes I compare myself to singers that match my skill level and think “I’m a pretty good singer” and at other times I will compare my singing to singers that a far more skilled and think, “Man, I have a long way to go”. In conclusion, Festinger was correct that we compare ourselves to others. Furthermore, we compare ourselves to different groups based depending on the motive for comparison. Lastly, while comparing to a particular group to feel good certainly has its place, let us strive for improvement (where improvement is feasible) when we engage in social comparison by comparing ourselves to groups that motivate self-improvement.

Four years ago when I first took introduction to psychology, Albert Bandura and his research both shocked and fascinated me. One of his experiments that struck me the most was the Bobo doll experiment. The experiment, a clip of which is provided in this post, involved children observing others act aggressively towards a doll and then acting in the same manner observed on their own accord. This experiment made such a deep impact on me because I would say my whole life revolves around children and as such the subject matter concerned me greatly. The reaches of Bandura’s various experiments, such as the Bobo Doll experiment, extends to the learning that is occurring because of the entertainment that our children are viewing today. Movies such as Saw come to mind that perhaps very young children are not viewing, but children in their early teens are most certainly viewing. These early teens, I would argue, lack the mental capacities to process such violent information in an adult like manner because their brain, their frontal lobe in particular, is not fully developed. Not only do children in their early teens lack the mental capacities to process such violence, but they are also learning many negative things, aggression for example, from the violence they are viewing (as is everyone else watching these disgusting films). According to the social learning perspective of Bandura in reference to aggression “human beings are not born with a large array of aggressive responses at their disposal. Rather, they must acquire these… through direct experience or by observing the behavior of others” (Baron, Branscombe, Byrne, 2008, p. 340). Not only do humans learn aggression from the observation of others, but whether or not someone will act in an aggressive manner is dependent on many factors including the person’s past observed experience with aggression (Baron, Branscombe, Byrne, 2008, p. 340). Therefore, if a person observes aggression either directly or vicariously, through such movies as Saw or video games such as Grand Theft Auto, they are more inclined to act aggressively imitating the behavior they observed. That is not to say they will act aggressively because many factors go into aggression besides social learning, but they are more inclined to act aggressively. As someone who hopes to be a mother in the future, the possibility for social learning to be detrimental to my future children is unsettling to say the least. It brings to bear questions of how to raise my future children. For example, in an attempt to shelter my children from the harmful effects of social learning through the entertainment industry should I forbid all such materials? On the other hand, if I do forbid all such materials how much will my children rebel in response to being sheltered? I am not sure of the answers to either of these questions. Fortunately, the observational learning that I did of my parents actions in raising me and my brothers provides a very balanced example. They kept me sheltered, but not so sheltered that I would want to rebel. Hopefully, I can be as good of a parent. In summary, the implication for daily life, such as how to raise one’s children, due to research by individuals like Albert Bandura affects not only the science of Psychology, but also the private sector. Isn’t that one of the beautiful things about Psychology, as humans and the way they interact with each other are more deeply understood it gives the informed individual power to affect their environment more positively (or negatively as the case may be).

Bobo Doll Clip

The familiar story of the man who was speared through his frontal lobe has haunted me since “Introduction to Psychology” with Doctor Acorn at the University of Texas at San Antonio some four years ago. Many of you will perhaps find this slightly amusing or believe that I am in jest, but I think you too are afraid, you are simply in denial if you think you are not (no insult intended). Think of who you are… what is it that defines you? I am not speaking of your relationship with God which should define Christian’s because thousands of spears through the brain could have no power to alter one’s eternal relationship with God. But who are you? And what if who you were completely changed? For example, what if one of your core qualities that defines you is faithfulness? However, you are in an accident and your brain is damaged and you are no longer faithful and, as a result, you abandon you spouse and children!!! Are you the same person having lost a core quality that affects your life and the life’s of those around you? No. I would argue that if you lose those qualities that make you who you are, faithfulness in this example, you are not the same person. I asked the question of “who are you” and I have asked the same question of myself. The answer I have come up with time and time again is that I am a lover of people. I literally, almost without reservation, love everyone. Furthermore, that is how I define myself by how much I love others. For instance, I work hard to maintain a close to perfect GPA because I want to be a child psychologist and help children. I work extremely hard in my studies so I can be the best child psychologist possible so I can be the best possible help to the children I will treat. Therefore, my whole motivation for working so hard and clinging to perfection is to help others because I love them. What if that was stripped form me and I no longer cared and loved others? Then I would lose who I am and I would cease to be Rebekah Grace Hernandez. More often than not, I do not support assisted suicide especially not for myself. However, if I ceased to be myself by no longer loving others because of an accident, for instance, I do not know if I would want to remain on this earth. This is almost the point at which I would say to myself… yes, pull the plug. Now I think you can perhaps understand why I am afraid of Phineas Gage and why his story has haunted me for years. It is because I am afraid of losing who I am and my friends saying, like Phineas’ friends said of him, “She is no longer Rebekah”. Not only is there fear involved in this idea, but also multitudes of questions. Namely, if we can lose the core of who we are in an accident are we still that person somewhere deep down or were we ever that person? Or, a religious question: what if you loved God and tried to follow him before the accident and then after you ceased desiring a relationship with God and sinned in excess… would that change where you spend eternity? While I realize that the case of Phineas Gage was not as extreme of a change as some of the other hypothetical situations I have posed, I hope the exaggerations of Phineas’ past condition have conveyed my point of how frightening what happened to Gage is in reality. Perhaps, you like me, have realized that you are afraid of Phineas Gage too… if not then watch this clip from Finding Nemo about denial (obviously intended as a light anecdote to a heavy discussion).

Finding Nemo Denial

(If i put the link in wrong here’s the address.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX45UT-NQ3E

I would love to believe that we have all posses’ free will. Furthermore, I venture to speculate that many of you would love believe the same thing. After all, if we are living a life that was determined before we drew our first breath what is the point? Why live in this grief stricken world where man strikes out against man and young girls are sold for sex if we have no control over ourselves and by extension over anything else? If the horror is true and free will is a non-existent we are effectively puppets on strings, every movement manipulated.
Many of us are psychology majors and from intro have heard of the nature/nurture debate. A nature stance is similar to Thomas Hobbes belief that humans are machines. We are born with a certain blue print that makes us who we are in virtually every respect as a machine is constructed with a blue print that determines its function. A nurture stance is similar to John Locke and his “blank slate” where we are born into this world with a blank blue print and our experience writes on it and determines what we will become. Which of these two do I believe in more strongly? Well, both and neither.
On the nature side, studies have shown that the temperament of an infant can be observed and that observed temperament is consistent over time, suggesting our personality to be innate. Moreover, when one looks at twin studies the data is more shocking displaying that prediction of countless aspects of one twin can be made accurately by simply looking at the other twin. Even more shocking to the Christian, Dr. McAnulty mentioned in class that susceptibility to believe in God can be linked to biological functioning in the brain!! How crazy is that!! (I would like to see that study by the way Dr. McAnulty) On the nurture side, we can look at studies like those that Bandura performed where children learn by mirroring other children; the experience determining what was learned. We can also look at the familiar Pavlov experiments of conditioning. It is then, as you have heard before, a combination of nature and nurture that makes an individual who he or she is.
My point is not to teach you what you already know, but to ask a question. If biological make-up is one part of the puzzle and experience the other part, is there any room left for free will? Every person is born with a particular blueprint (nature) and then experience works within that blueprint (nurture) to create the person. Therefore, the person seems to have no choice in either the blueprint that was provided or the scribbles made on it by experience. The biggest reason that this debates weighs heavily upon me is because I believe in God, but I also believe that every human is a product of his or her environment within the context of his or her biological make-up. We certainly cannot choose our biology and while, to some extent, we can choose our environment our biology almost determines how we will act within that environmental context that we have chosen (to go even further, our biology may even make the choice of what we choose to be our environment.)
In Light of all this, it seems as though I do not believe in free will, but I actually do not because of logic, but because of desire; I want to believe in free will. Most of this has to do with the unfortunate reality of the hell. I would love to pretend that there is no such place and I wish more than anything that everyone would spend eternity with Christ, but scripture makes it obvious that I pretend and wish in vain. Christ would not tell us to enter through the narrow gate if there was no wide gate that leads to destruction that many enter through. In the end, I choose to believe in free will because I refuse to believe in a God that creates people to go to hell. God creates a man with the biological make-up that is not favorable to believing in Him. Then God allows that man to be put into an environment that is also unfavorable to believing in Him. However, God still sends that man to hell because the man never believed (How could he?). If God creates men or woman like this, I do not want God to be my God. God cannot be a good God if this is true. Therefore, while I believe that nature and nurture leave little room for free will, if any, I make room because a shear unwillingness to believe that God would send people to hell simply because they were products of a crappy set of genes and an equally crappy environment.
I thought this music video is funny in reference to “puppets on strings” from my first paragraph: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZfsmLP2T3Q

And isn’t it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are (Plato, Republic).  Our reality, or our truth, is what our environment, and the constituents therein, presents to us as reality and truth. As a fetus our reality and our truth is the uterus: the fluid filled bubble that is our home for some nine-months. Sounds are muffled, light is barely perceived, and the world is inches wide. When born the world becomes bigger and we are no longer encased and held captive in a bubble, but, eyes shut and crying, have we escaped the limited reality of our former home? I would argue that we have not escaped a limited reality and I think that Thomas Kuhn and Plato agree with me.

Kuhn is famous for the idea of paradigms or “the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by members of a given community”(quoted on page 10 of our text). My understanding and definition of paradigms is a universal boxed in way of thinking that incases all individuals in a community and limits their reality and their ability to discover truth. Kuhn’s paradigms can be directly paralleled to my literature class in which we have been studying paradigms. In this class, I have learned that history is marked with different paradigms that box in the inhabitants of that time period. Without exception the paradigms of large communities deal, to some extent, with the mystical or the rational. For example, in the 14th century the paradigm was virtually all on the mystical side of the scale. If you were born blind it was because you sinned somehow: a mystical explanation for a biological malady. Paradigms are not incapable of change, however, or the box does not always remain the same shape. When a considerable amount of negative events occur the paradigm no longer works, the box no longer fits, so it changes. Continuing with the example of the 14th century, the 14th century was filled with negative events: two of the major ones being the 100 Years War between France and England and the Black Death. These events brought the mystical paradigm into question. For instance, it did not make sense that Priests, who were supposed to be holy, at most churches had to be replaced weekly because they were dying so rapidly from the Black Death. Beating after beating of the mystical paradigm box caused it to change shape and the paradigm became extremely rational in the 18th century. In modern time our paradigm is found somewhere in the middle of the mystical and rational. After hurricane Katrina or the earth quake in Haiti, for example, both paradigms explanations could be seen (see the attached links). The point is that, like it or not, we are incased in a paradigm box that we think and function inside.

Plato, similar to Kuhn’s belief that communities and scientists function within the paradigm of their time, illustrated his believe that we live in a limited reality through the allegory of the cave. A man is chained in a cave, he is incapable of moving his head, he experiences only the shadows on the wall, and he is captive to that reality. Then he is “…let loose, and suddenly compelled to stand up and turn his head and look…” (Plato, 380BC). Once the man is loosed and he “looks” his reality is drastically changed and, in effect, his paradigm changed or his way of seeing the world changed.
In light of Kuhn’s paradigms and Plato’s cave, I am worried that perhaps (unless we experience another Black Death) it is hopeless to see reality and truth. Indeed, it would be nice if we could all be “let loose” from the paradigm box, or cave, that is our home and venture to see reality and truth. As Christians, however, we profess confidently that we know the truth. Keeping with the allegory of the cave, however, we believe that we did not venture out of our cave to discover the truth. But the truth came into the cave and revealed itself to us in the form of Jesus Christ: who proclaims himself to be “the truth” (John 14:6). Therefore, we do know the truth if we know Jesus and we do know the reality that is His kingdom, but, knowing this, let us still be conscious of the fact that we live in the world which puts us in a box and it is only when we have left this world that “…[we] shall see fully…” and we will be free of the box (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Video: Mystical Paradigm Explanation of Haiti Earthquake

Video:Rational Paradigm Explanation of Haiti Earthquake