Tyler Lotz's Archive

Third Force psychology is based on the premise that all people are inherently good; that through a conscious evolution of attitudes, values, and beliefs, one becomes a self actualized individual with the inner wisdom and confidence to guide their own life in a manner that is personally satisfying and socially constructive. This resonates with me and the way I was raised to think. As a whole, i find that third force psychology carries many of the attributes of existentialism like the search for self actualization and self formed attitudes and values. These things are, to me, a very important feature of any modern theory of human nature. I was raised to think for myself and not just believe everything everyone tells me. However, i was also raised in a certain religious background that didnt support certain sorts of critical thinking. This served to be a stumbling block for me in my search for self actualization, as i had to question things that i had never been permitted to question before. This is probably true for many more people than I would like to think. Most of our parents and families and churches, no matter how hard they may or may not have tried to let us find our own answers, burned certain ideas into our head without our permission. Ideas about God, about the good life, about morals and who we should and shouldnt associate with. Things like this are inevitable, though not necessarily wrong, and through a healthy amount of self knowledge through the lens of existentialism and third force psychology as a whole we can modify our learned ideals and form our own that we can be confident in.

Psychoanalysis is a huge part of modern psychological thinking. In fact, whenever I mention to someone that i am studying psychology, the first thing they think of is me sitting next to a person laying in a chair, asking them about their childhood and stuff. To the popular media (aka movies tv shows, anywhere u see a “psychologist”) this psychoanalysis style psychology is to many average people the only form of psychology that exists. We are always looking for deeper meaning behind almost every form of expression. Just look at http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Independent-Film-Road-Movies/Psychoanalysis-CINEMA-AND-THE-UNCONSCIOUS.html  This article is about the relationship between movies and media and freudian psychology. We are just about always exploring into the forces behind everything. This sort of thinking has shown to be extremely popular in all sections of society and the media for a long time and will continue to be for a long time to come.

I think behaviorism style psychology is a huge part of our daily lives.  I agree with our professor when he says that it is seemingly the most attractive and easily applicable form of psychology, without the vagueness of evolutionary psychology. Behaviorism is a huge part of advertising and organizational management. Rewards and pairing and behavioral conditioning are thrusted apon us at a very early age and throughout our lives. Just watch television for 5 minutes and you will see a commercial pairing their product with some sort of desirable outcome. An example would be a beer commercial, showing a lot of attractive people having fun and laughing, usually 1 or 2 guys surrounded by a ton of pretty women. We may have already discussed this, but also gambling is a huge behaviorism trap. with variable timing on rewards we are trained to think “maybe this next one will be it” and keep pecking that button so to speak.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8PLXnqhuNc

Evolutionary psychology resonates with me on many levels, yet i still am not entirely convinced. It seems easy to say that our preferences all hearken back to the days of the cavemen, saying that much like any species we have merely adapted in the ways that allow us to pass on our genes. I have heard very convincing arguments that explain modern sexual preferences (such as wide hips and large chests in women, which evolutionarily speaking would have indicated a higher ability to survive/succeed at childbirth) or even the way we eat   (our love of fatty sugary foods, which evolutionarily speaking would have only been available from fruits and other desirable snacks that would have been scarce during most of our evolution.) These arguments seem to make perfect sense, but it almost seems as if we are taking the easy way out. I agree with the criticism that we discussed in class that said that we could make up an evolutionary explanation for just about any phenomenon in life. I cant think of a single exception. Empiricism runs strong in my veins, and so i have to ask “where is the proof?” We are guessing so much about our evolutionary paths and have very little actual data or experimental studies to support these theories. I find that evolutionary psychology, while great to toss around the coffee table over a beer with some friends for some scholarly debate, is nothing more than pointless theorizing, with no applications seemingly for modern day science.

The greek philosophers have greatly influenced our modern way of thinking. Scholars such as Aristotle, the father of virtue ethics, challenged people on a large scale for the first time to think critically and not take anything for granted. A lot of how we think and run things in our modern times are based off  of the ideas pioneered by the greeks. Plato’s allegory of the cave is a great example of the “thinking outside the box” that flourished around this time period. As a human race we are often quick to take things at face value, we will assume that the majority opinion is truth. Things such as standards of attractiveness, religion, social do’s and donts, the things we place value in, etc. all are decided by our environment and the people around us. A true intellectual will search for the truth of things for himself, questioning and extrapolating, instead of accepting what others say is true. I think that this idea is very much reminiscent to the greek philosophers. We can also see this in play in higher education. We are taught to analyze and criticize and question everything. I personally think that it is impossible to truly believe something is true without experiencing it for yourself. I don’t accept  what people around me say on faith, I choose to discover for myself the truth of things with my own senses. This sort of empiricism runs my thought process, and I’m sure that many others who are called to higher education can say the same. The greek tradition runs strong, and we still use their theories and ways of doing things as a basis for a large percentage of our own modern thought processes, at least among us “Scholars”.

I consider the “good life” to consist of two major ingredients before all else. First, a good life is defined by the interpersonal relationships and memories that are left behind after one’s passing. That is to say, the friends and relationships you make and the good deeds you do, remembered by those that survive you, add value to your life. Conversely, ones life would be almost meaningless if one did not ever form any sort of bond with other persons, if one never fell in love and was loved, or never laughed so hard with a friend that ones sides hurt for days. These are necessary elements to what i consider to be “the good life”. Element two is basically to have a goal. The second ingredient to a good life is to be able to do something that you are passionate about, to be devoted to something. Whether it is religion or science, being able to devote oneself to a goal adds meaning to your life, and working in a profession that you enjoy and are passionate about will make it much less boring (over the years you will grow to hate your career unless there is a part of it that you are truly passionate about) and will give you motivation to succeed. These two things, relationships and a goal or passion, make up what i think to be a “good life”.