Archive for ‘The Beginnings of Scientific Psychology (Part III-B)’

While preparing for the quiz last week, I was struck by one of the terms that we were asked to define:  recapitulation, so I decided to do some more research on this term.  I have gathered that there were several forms of this recapitulation theory (which was influential, but is no longer accepted).

One of the earliest recapitulation theorists was Ernst Haeckel who believed that a developing embryo followed the evolutionary phases of each species that was in its evolutionary line.  He made drawings of human embryos in each phase, sometimes overemphasizing the features that he wanted to highlight, but these drawings were used in biology text books.  Haeckel showed how human embryos start out with gill like openings that eventually develop into the jaw and throat area.  He said that this was because humans had a fish-like ancestor. Modern scientist have rejected this theory in part because even though some stages of embryonic development may seem to look like another species, at no time are these apparent similarities functional.  That is the openings that look like gills could never function as gills.

Other theorists who embraced the recapitulation theory applied it to areas such as social development, child development, and education.  Herbert Spencer believed that children learned knowledge in the same order that human species mastered the knowledge originally.  G.S. Hall believed that there was a one-to-one correlation between child development and evolutionary stages.

There is an interesting article discounting the recapitulation theory on the Institute for Creation Research which you can peruse at your leisure here: http://www.icr.org/article/heritage-recapitulation-theory/.  It links Freud to the recapitulation theory, basically stating that Freud believed that all psychosis was functional for our species sometime during evolution, but is no longer useful.  Consider the following:

In a 1915 paper, Freud demonstrates his preoccupation with evolution. Immersed in the theories of Darwin, and of Lamarck, who believed acquired traits could be inherited, Freud concluded that mental disorders were the vestiges of behavior that had been appropriate in earlier stages of evolution.”

The evolutionary idea that Freud relied on most heavily in the manuscript is the maxim that ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,’ that  is, that the development of the individual recapitulates the evolution of the entire species.

I feel like the recapitulation theory is another example of confirmation bias.  It is a theory that seems palatable to many atheists, that life is just a series of explainable patterns.  Of course confirmation bias also occurs with Christians. People latch on to anything that will help support what they already believe.   Sometimes, even proof to atheists that God doesn’t exist is proof to Christians that he does.  I remember when we were talking in class about the brain’s response to God and religion.  We said that people often say that because there was an area of the brain that is active when we are engaged in religious or spiritual activities, that it proves that it the feelings are physiological instead of any spiritual connection.  As a Christian, I think, that those brain connections are proof that there is a God.  Why wouldn’t God make our brains receptive to him?

Watching the video with Dr. Taylor really intrigued me. The way she described it as a scientist was really cool. But at the same time it kind of made me nervous. Like the stuff we talked about on Wednesday (I think it was Wednesday). Sometimes when people ask me why I believe that God exists I respond with the stories of when I have felt him unmistakably. And yet, now that I know there is a part of my brain that produces that feeling I am left with the necessity of a faith based on more than just a feeling, however strong. When I realized that what I considered was proof of God’s existence was really just firings of neurons, the stilts that had held up my faith were swept away. In that moment I discovered what my faith was really made of. Apparently during the last few years a foundation has been being built under these stilts, and what I really believe about why I believe in God was made clear to me. Last fall I took a class called the Gospel of John, and through that class and some other experiences, I have been learning that true faith in God is more than just proofs that we are shown, but instead a choice. People are going to try to convince me of a million different things, and many of them are going to have equally convincing proofs on either side of an issue. At some point I just have to decide what I’m going to believe. Granted, I will only make choices within reason. God has given us intelligence to be able to discern between the ridiculous choices and the plausible ones, it would be irresponsible to just throw up my hands and leave it up to choice. But after looking at all the evidence, it will come to the point when I need to may a choice. And before I even knew that religious experiences were firings of neurons, I had already made my choice to believe in God. On that foundation is my entire life based. And as an added note, it occurred to me that having a “God module” part of the brain does not negate the feelings that it produces. The God I believe in makes sense, and even religious experiences can have scientific backing and still be legitimate.

Dr. Jill Taylor’s talk struck a chord in my inmost being. I cannot hold my peace on the issue; her conversation reminded me of teachings on meditation and its wellness promoting benefits. Her description of transcending the boundaries of her body and becoming one with the energy around her reminds me of accounts of Buddhist meditations and sounds familiar to some of the goals stated by Sufis. Also, within Christian meditative practice, wellness and a feeling of connection with the everything that is God is a possible side effect of enduring practice.

So I have to speculate: is the right brain’s functioning enhanced through meditative practice, and, as a result, the experience of God?

Also, can the right brain be trained, promoting the benefits of right brain dominance as described by Dr. Taylor? I know of a book entitled: “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain” by Betty Edwards that is an instructional book for drawing, using techniques that seem to be right brain specific.

I am very interested in the functionality of the right brain area and what the possible benefits could be of further research. Perhaps I’m catching optimistic whiffs of the convergence of science and religion. One can hope, right?

One of the schools of psychology I really enjoying learning about is the concept of behaviorism. Chapter 20 briefly discusses Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Through some of his experiments (one being the Bobo Doll experiment), Bandura discovered that we are observational learners. It is amazing to me, especially with children, what we learn from other people just by observing. A story my grandpa likes to tell people is about the first time I played tee ball. He said I picked up the bat, walked over to the plate, and right before I got in my stance I turned around and spit. He thought it was hysterical. When I think about this story, I cannot help but think about observational learning. I had seen baseball players on TV spit at the plate so I did it too. I was modeling what I had observed through others. It made me think about the things I do today because of what I have observed. I began realizing how our behaviors are greatly affected by stimuli or the environment. We are greatly influenced by what is around us. I think we are affected by our environment more than we realize or like to admit at times. The concept of behaviorism or observational learning is not something I 100% believe in. However, I feel it raises valid arguments. It reminds me to be careful with what and who I surround myself with because I could be developing certain behaviors without even realizing it. I probably should be more consciously aware of what I am allowing to influence my way of thinking, but even more so the way I am behaving. It also reminds me to be grateful to be around people and in a place that can potentially lead me to behave in better ways. It even reminds me to model myself in a positive way because I can never know who might be watching me. I am not saying that I would pick the side of nurture in the “nature vs. nurture” argument. I just find behaviorism and especially the idea of observational learning interesting.

As I was thinking about perception and apperception, I was reminded of this youtube video Basketball Perception that I had seen a few years ago. Even though I perceived the gorilla on the screen, I did not apperceive it. I did not pay any attention to it because all my attention was focused on counting the basketballs. It is crazy to think that I was watching the screen so intently and focusing on the details that I completely missed a major change in the environment. If you take this simple example and apply it to life, it almost scares me. Am I giving my attention to the wrong stimulus’s? What details of life am I not apperceiving? According to Wundt, apperception is under my control and I will apperceive what I pay attention to. Therefore, I try to remind myself not to give all my attention to just one thing. I think many times people go through life and while they perceive the things around them, they do not actively pay attention to them. For example, every morning I drive to school. I perceive the cars and people on the street, but by the time I get to school I have no real recollection about the drive or the details of it.

While all this may seem like common sense, I think its important not to overlook it. Perception can have a great impact on what we learn, how we organize information, and how we behave in response to what we perceive. Therefore, I believe its important to give attention to a wide variety of environments, people, ideas, etc., in order to broaden our horizons.

As a result of our talk on Wednesday about the “God module,” I decided to take a better look at the article on Bb critiquing Dawkins’ God Delusion. For the most part I have to agree with it. Often Dawkins looks at Christianity or any religion and has over simplified it. Differing creations stories in the Bible are seen as contradictory pieces of empirical evidence rather than the compilation of the character of the complex nature of God. In this instance, Dawkins has failed to be a true student and learner concerning these texts. He expects all of the Bible to be fully taken at face-value with no consideration of Hebrew literary style and genre. Prose is different than poetry, betrothal scenes are different than mysterious scenes of angelic strangers (Jacob at the Jabbock and Moses’ Bridegroom of Blood) and Hebrew numerology conveys more meaning than it does fact (ex: 40 years [Israelites in the wilderness] and 100 years [the age of each generation listed in Exodus 6] very commonly refer to the time of a generation and not an actual period of time). Dawkins seeks to convey expert advice concerning the validity of religion, yet he is not engaging several of his greatest critiques and most important texts in the process. The readers of many texts (including the Bible) understood what was taken at face value and what was considered to be a rhetorical or literary device. Some of Dawkins critics believe he is merely looking at religion as a “straw man.” In other words, he has taken something complex and has simplified it in such a way that it can be easily knocked over and invalidated. In his writings, yes it seems he has failed to dive more deeply in this subject matter of theology. However, his own life does not attest to what he says. While studying abroad in Oxford, I attended church at St. Aldates with one of Dawkins’ neighbors. I don’t recall his name anymore, but he was an extraordinary Christian. He had a wonderful wife and family, and created his own organization, VIVA, in his 20s to help connect impoverished street kids and local humanitarian efforts around the world with one another. He often reached out to Dawkins, and was a friend to him. Though I don’t know how these efforts went, I do know Dawkins is (due to his location) in a continual relationship with an extraordinary believer. I don’t think this is an accident. Theology may be made a straw man, and the God module may be seen as the straightforward reason for inklings of God, but a compassionate neighbor is no delusion.

I also feel the need to address the God module while I am on the general topic. I see no discrepancy between a part of the brain wired for theology and the existence of God. I am reminded of the curses God puts on the man and the woman as they leave the garden. God seems to be acting mercifully when he curses them. Their lives after the fall will be full of pain, selfishness, feelings of superiority, a lack of care for others, etc. God is merciful when he creates a longing in Adam and Eve for something more. In their pain they will cry out to God and find him. In their longings, they will be made whole again. It is this desire and longing that God wires into us that reminds me of the God module.

One thing that I enjoyed reading about in preparation for class was the chapter on functionalism and the development of experimental psychology in the United States. Chapter 11 discusses how functionalism helped bring a change to Psychology and how it was important to not make the assumption that psychology in the U.S. began with functionalism. Hergenhahn makes it clear that while Titchener (a famous functionalist) believed that experimental psychology was the only true form of psychology, nonexperimental psychology was equally important. You must be able to understand what came in the beginning to understand new ideas.

Last blog post I mentioned how important it was to realize that what we are doing now will be stepping stones for those who will come after us. I will go further to say that it is really important for us to know the history of Psychology to fully understand what we will be doing the rest of our lives. I have always found history to be an interesting subject but have not always remembered the importance that it held. The dates, people, theories, and other parts of this book that we are introduced to are what piece everything that we have learning about psychology together. In my opinion, it has really given meaning to what I am learning now.

Functionalism brought forth new concepts and ideas such as the focusing on the differences of organisms instead of the similarities. Instead of trying to discover a description of the mind, functionalists wanted to understand its function through different research methods. Such methods included research on animals and abnormal people. These ideas eventually opened the door behaviorism which is brand of Psychology that we still use today. Psychology is always improving and getting better and while from the beginning I knew this class was important I now I have a fuller understanding of how significant the history of psychology really is.

Our recent talks regarding biological psychology (also related to machinist, materialist, and determinist theories) all seem to reduce man to a very simple creature, leaving little room for faith or the soul even. In addition, psychology as a field of study, is one of the more atheistic career fields, and honestly, it all appeared a bit disconcerting for a while there. Although I am not particularly fond of the idea that in the human brain there exists a “God module” which allows room for that which goes undetected by the senses (the soul, faith etc.), the implications for further learning about the human brain are astounding. Brain stimulation and imaging are now the norm and the field of psychobiology is emerging at a breakneck pace crashing in on a wave of enthusiasm and support in the scientific and educational communities. The possibilities seem endless, but what will be the cost of such a rationalist perspective?

I do not believe such a rationalistic approach would produce monumental scientific strides without great care and responsibility. And as Dr. McAnulty reminded us on Wednesday, correlation does not imply causation. Just because a part of our brains light up during meditation doesn’t mean we are necessarily “wired” for religious experiences. As for me, I take comfort in the prevailing popularity of the scientific method.

In our recent lectures that have focused extensively on the biological explanations of psychology (in addition to the illustrative videos) I’ve gotten the impression that it could (and might be inclined to)  explain just about every disorder of the mind through purely physiological explanations. This is definitely helpful in that the more accurate we in describing the problem, the more accurate our solutions might also become. Despite this benefit, it has a tendency to inadvertently to reduce what makes us human to a simplistic exchange of nervous signals (or the lack of this exchange in the case of disorders). In its own way, it kind of robs us of the human element.

As already explained it class, very little of the community are extremist enough to believe everything is biological, but it surprises me as more and more becomes readily explainable through mostly biological means. I wonder if the day will eventually arrive when most, if not all of our mental processes are explainable through physiological phenomenon, and just what that would imply should it ever come to pass. It brings to mind the thought that perhaps everything that makes us human, our experiences, memories and emotions might not be nearly as unique or personal as we thought. Could everything that makes up each one of us in some (maybe not so) distant future be recreated through the proper stimulation of certain parts of the brain (and the proper genetic sequence at birth)?

The implications of such a reality are a little jarring (should science actually get so far). What does this imply about us? Is the physical arrangement of matter really what makes each and every one of us? Or is it something deeper inside each mind that science has yet to discover? What does this imply about the soul, and if related, what role does it play in who we are and what makes us so differentiated? I guess it kind of ties back to that age old debate of empiricism vs. rationalism, in that it’s hard to say (at least for now) how much of ourselves we ought to attribute to the mental/rationalistic world and how much to the physical, material one. Part of me wouldn’t be disappointed if that was a question to which we never found a concrete answer.

In class we watched the video of Dr. Jill Taylor where she discussed the sensation of having the left hemisphere of her brain go completely silent during her stroke. As a research scientist, she mainly used her left brain. When that logical part of her brain was gone she felt as if she had reached nirvana. Now she described the main functions of both hemispheres of the brain. The left is the logical, organized, critical thinker of the two. The right being the artsy, abstract side. When she was in the middle of her stroke, she saw no boundaries between herself and everything around her. She saw beyond the limitations the left side of the brain had set for her.

When we refer to philosophers and those who see beyond the limitations of our perceptions, which side of the brain do you think they have put most in to use? With the explanation Dr. Taylor gave, it is very possible that they where able to use more right hemisphere than left hemisphere. Philosophers and great psychologists are able to think outside the box, see past stereotypes and common perceptions. The logic and common sense that the left hemisphere controls must be somewhat moved aside in order to see beyond to something new. The right hemisphere is needed to see more abstractly and beyond the boundaries made by the left hemisphere. So can it be said that a sign of a great philosopher is found in a person with a more dominant right hemisphere?