Archive for ‘Beginning of Scientific Psychology (Part III-A)’

The question of Perception Vs. Reality has been deep-rooted more than we may think to this modern way of thinking. It is an interesting thought of whether or not what we perceive is reality, and honestly I believe that it depends on the definition of reality. If you mean the truth of the world, all that is will be as it is and what not, then no. There are many times where we all will take a look at the same object, place, or ideal and have a different thought, belief, and view of these things. Sometimes our thoughts are on complete opposite poles, so to speak, of viewpoints. Regardless of where we stand in our views, it neither hinders nor helps, sustains nor changes the reality of the situation, nor of the meaning or existence of the thing we think or debate about. So in terms of a concrete, worldly truth, no.

However, in regards to reality as how it is to US, or a better definition would be how this certain object, truth, or ideal exists to us and maybe even certain proofs that can affect how we think and act, then yes. Basically, if we talk about personal reality, then yes perception is the only truth to that. What we perceive to be right, exist, or the meaning behind something will be, to our own individual lives, the right way to think. It doesn’t mean that it IS right, however to us at that time it is. For Example, look at different thoughts on the War right now. There are some who think that we are doing ultimate good both for ourselves and all the other countries affected by our influence, while there are still other people who believe that this War is a mistake and is doing nothing more than hindering peace and taking lives. No one knows for sure which one is right, we could all collectively, in fact, believe that it is inherently bad, however would not make it more or less true. However, to our own personal thought, we are right and that is the “reality,” of sorts.

The last question would then be, would personal reality really be considered Reality? That is a question that only yourself can answer, I feel. However, that just my reality of the situation!

You see what I did there, tied in personal reality to a pun? That’s right…I went there…

It has been a long standing question as to whether the book of genesis and the story of creation was a real story or a metaphorical one, with people standing strongly on both sides of the issue. The church has historically fought for it to be a true literal story, but has recently changed that with new evidence over the past century for the theory of evolution. Doubts of the story grow as more and more evidence is gathered. Even the psychological evidence is over whelming. Or is it? What does does questioning such things say about our faith and if we practice and teach evolutionary psychology does that make us bad Christians?

The so called evidence for evolution through the use of psychology is an explanation for ones actions through the use of a evolutionary story, sounds stretched. Example, why do men care more about sexual infidelity while women care more about emotional infidelity. Evolutionary psychology states that men want to pass on their genes as they always have and they can never really be sure the child is theirs, while the woman has need a man in the past to survive and with out his emotions invested in her then he may move on. The idea of evolutionary psychology is based on the fact that this explanation makes since, but their is no proof. I don’t believe this should deter us from teaching it though in fact i believe we should, but not as fact and using it in practice (how ever we may) should be limited to seldom at best. I’m not just talking about Christians either as i believe in evolution myself and find no fault in believing in genesis as a metaphorical story and believing in evolution. From an evolutionary stand point we are called to question everything we see thats how we survive and grow, so i say it makes one a better christian to question the bible and its parts.

I was really intrigued after last class thinking about the whole idea of perception and reality. The concept of a phantom arm is really interesting because it shows just how amazing the human brain is. I think someone brought up the idea of perceptions and reality. In the case of a phantom arm, people perceive something that is not in fact reality. It got me thinking about this quote I once heard from the principal where I attended high school. He would say “perception is reality.” I really used to agree with that idea and it really seemed to make sense to me. If you perceive something, it feels very real or very much like reality to you. Therefore, you have must take it into consideration and treat it seriously. An example he used was in the instance of working with the parents of his students. He would say that some parents would have the perception that he was unapproachable when in fact he wanted to be approached by parents. Since the parents’ perception was that he was stand-offish, then the reality was that he was doing something to make them think that; therefore in some ways he was being unapproachable.

At first, I used to agree with that statement; however, I feel that the last class discussion really challenged my thinking. Someone may perceive that they have an arm, but that may not be the reality. Sometimes I hear people’s perceptions that are so far-fetched that I cannot even begin to see them as reality. However, part of me can see the other side of the coin as well. When it comes down to it, I really do not know what I believe about this idea of perception and reality. So, I guess the question I am posing is this: is perception really reality? I would love to hear everyone’s opinion.

Hey guys! So, I enjoyed delving into biological and evolutionary psychology on Friday, especially the watching of the ted.com video. It reminded me of a Discovery Channel special on human mating trends, more specifically: kissing. I did some web browsing and found some interesting theories that I’ve pasted links to at the end of my post. Basically, in some circles scientists postulate kissing evolved from an exchange of food from mother to babe or as a means to detect suitable pheremones for potential mates. Cool, right? I also enjoyed the comment made in class (sorry can’t remember who said it) pointing out how much of these “theories” for the origin of behaviors is conjecture or guessing. I believe the comment was in response to the video on smiling and its disarming effects. Healthy skepticism keeps a theory in check; I mean, isn’t the research processes a lot of guess and check? Informed guessing with experimental checks, but still…

Brace yourself for speculative thinking:

http://laurafreberg.com/blog/?p=187

http://www.helium.com/items/839279-why-we-kiss-the-science-of-kissing

Evolutionary psychology is very interesting, yet as a Christian sometimes I struggle with it. As a student, I see the research, read the scientific facts and hear the theories. They seem to make sense and fall into place. Yet, as a Christian I was raised and taught about Creationism and how everything began with God. The story of Genesis accounts the creation of the world and how God in all his majesty made something out of nothing and made man in His image. Genesis 1:27 says “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Are men and women the way we are because that is what God intended for us? Or are do have biological and behavioral differences because we evolved that way? I have been pondering that for a while. It is hard for me to believe that our actions stem from our want to preserve our genes. I believe when you look at life on a genetic level, you take away everything that I value in life. For me the best things in life include love, family, and friendship. Evolutionary psychologists say that men and women are attracted to those who have compatible genes, yet I believe that I am attracted to people based on their personality and heart. I want kindness, compassion and loyalty, not just someone who’s genes will mix well with mine to make children. It is interesting to note though that it was also God’s plan for man to bear children. The following verse in Genesis states “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

While it is hard for me to accept attraction on a genetic level, I find myself believing in the adaptation of species at the same time. I think it would be ignorant to not acknowledge that people grow, learn, and adapt over time. So then I wonder how much is adaption and how much is evolution? Or are they one in the same? Maybe God created man as an intelligent species so that we could change and survive.

One of the things that interested me the most about the recent chapter was the life of Charles Darwin and his contribution to Psychology. I have studied Darwin’s theory since elementary school but after re-visiting it I have been able to understand how influential his theory truly was. The first thing that I noticed was that Charles Darwin did not come up with the theory completely by himself. Evolution had been a thing discussed before his time; Darwin was the first to approach evolution in the way that he did.

Something else that struck me was that Darwin believed in God which growing up I came to conclusion that if you do believe in evolution then you cannot believe in God. The last major thing that I took from his life was the power that a furnished idea can have on a multitude. Darwin realized how challenging his theories were and had no intention on publishing him during his lifetime. Even after his work was published he had another man to stand in his place defending it.

From all of this I have been reminded of the importance of historical theories and events. Every “new idea” comes from the ideas of the past. The mistakes that our ancestors have made and the ideas that they have developed have helped us discover what we have today. It is also important for us to realize that today, we are making history for future generations and that the progress as and the mistakes (no matter how insignificant or incorrect they seem) will shape the future. Lastly, simple ideas can change how people view the world and it is our duty to make sure that we handle them carefully. All of this is really simple but at the same thing very complex. It is good to be reminded that the work that we accomplish now will be a stepping stone on which generations will build upon. It gives the definition of significant a whole new meaning for me.

Yesterday in class we talked a little bit about a man who was, in his time and even today, both a walking miracle as well as a scientific phenomenon: Phineas Gage. For those that don’t remember, Phineas Gage was a foreman for the American railroad business back in the mid 1800’s. He survived an accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head, destroying much of his left frontal lobe and leaving him with significant behavioral and personality changes. Following his accident, he lived for almost twelve more years before he died in San Francisco in 1860. Below is a picture of Phineas holding the tamping iron that pierced his brain and left him, according to those close to him, “no longer Gage.”

As I mentioned before, Phineas’ injury changed both his behavior and his personality considerably. My question is: where does the soul fit into this story? Are personality, behavior and the soul intertwined? If so, was Phineas’ soul changed because of an alteration to his biological make-up, as were his personality and behavior? Or is the soul completely outside the realm of biological explanations like brain functioning? How are the soul and personality related, if at all? I’m sorry for the question spree, but I am really interested in different theories regarding this topic. These questions may be better answered with definitions of the terms we are dealing with: the soul, personality , and behavior. I have provided links to the definitions below if you would like to use them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soul

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personality

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behavior

…

Two years ago I took a biology class and one of the assignments was to pick a book, read it and reflect over it. The book I chose was Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. I remember little about it unfortunately, but I do remember really liking it and I know that that book is the reason I have been so interested in human capacity for empathy ever since. When we were talking about the evolutionary explanation for laughter (specifically how it related to the injury of others) in class I couldn’t get the concept of empathy and its relation to evolution out of my head. The answer I was concocting turned out to be incorrect but I still want to share it because I like it and I wish it were true, if only so I could have been right.

My thought was that in a social situation wherein someone is potentially injured the natural response, especially if this is someone we like, is to immediately empathize. The effect of this is a great deal of tension. If the potential injury turns out to be a legitimate one then we try our best to help this person and in the process we relieve our tension. If, on the other hand, they are uninjured the tension that was built up still has to be released. I feel like the link between laughter and tension was established in class, but I could be incorrect. Either way, I just wanted to share this as an example of me attempting to think theoretically.

As already mentioned, Evolutionary Psychology is crafted using a great deal of conjecture based on correlations (and less on tangible derivations). But what about the implications? Are we really just an increasingly complex version of lower animals, galvanized to our current state of success through centuries of adaptations brought about by our environment and random genetic shifts that offer either advantages or impediments? Can “the human being” really be debased all the way back to a primal ancestor?

It seems increasingly common to find people who have no problems with the idea, especially considering evolution’s increasing popularity. Obviously, depending on your views, this may vary considerably. Those that subscribe to Creationism may obviously feel drastically different about the situation. I personally feel we accept the idea far too readily. Are we really no more than the success of feral ancestors centuries ago, brought to success by random chance and good genes to boost our odds? Could it really have been so easy for some other dominant creature to take the reins of civilization, had events occurred in a slightly different fashion?

The video on the origin of human expressions had me wondering if the explanations for how we came to be are really that simple.  Can something as complex as social interactions and varying facial expressions be tied all the way back survival mechanisms back in a less sophisticated state? I’d like to think not, but in the same way evolutionary psychology offers more conjecture than evidence, I have nothing with which prove it wrong.

What about laughter (as brought up in class)? What survival mechanism did that serve? Is it possible that as time went on and people become the more “dominant” creature on this world, we were able to socially develop these behaviors in a time where security and time were not scarce resources (as in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), as a complex byproduct of increased social interaction?

It’s the implications that bother me the most, that our dominion on this world is more a product of chance and our claim to it even less tenuous than before, that at the core we have our primitive ancestors driving our race, that our behaviors can be traced back to behaviors that promoted survival, engineered by instrumental conditioning. Looking back, it’s kind of like comparing us to machines. As much like I’d like to take a stand and say no, that we’re something above all that, I have nothing with which to prove it. We could just be a bunch of over-glorified primates for all I could prove.

On Monday, when we were talking about Kant and his take on the idea of Tabula Rasa, or blank slate, I was reminded of one of my favorite shows from last year: Dollhouse. This clip describes the basic idea of the show, but if you don’t want to watch it I can sum it up for you.

Basically it’s about an organization that rents out people. These people’s personalities are wiped when they come in and they are programed with different personalities for the different jobs. It’s a really interesting take on the idea of tabula rasa, because at first it seems as though everyone is indeed a blank slate. However, as the show progresses you begin to see the ‘dolls’ or ‘actives’ develop personalities or have basic personality traits. One of them is basically psychotic, as was his personality before he volunteered to be in the dollhouse. It’s really interesting from a psychological standpoint to see what the creators include in the basic personality traits and what is the extras they get from being programed. One of the things that is included in the blank slate for a lot of the dolls (excepting the psychotic one) is morality, which is one of Kant’s ideas. The show is really interesting and poses many psychological questions, not to mention ethical ones. I would definitely suggest it to anyone who is okay with lots of crazy ideas.