Section 3-2: Who's Who? and Who's Right?

Pictured: A way cooler group than Aerosmith
-Image courtesy noticas.universia.es-

As this is a Journal, this section will not focus exclusively on facts regarding the following individuals, rather my own personal views on their opinions as they relate to the field of psychology. Starting with the field of behaviorism brought to light by B.Watson, expanded upon by B.F. Skinner and diversified by Albert Bandura and Walter Mischel.

-Courtesy of stolaf.edu-

I have previously stated that I find behaviorism to have its place in psychology but I do disagree with certain aspects of the field. one of such is captured perfectly in a famous statement by B.F. Skinner, "Free will is an illusion". While I hold this may be true for animals because they act primarily instinctively and have only basic thought processes I believe that the decision making process in human beings is more complex than that. Skinners model of behaviorism cannot explain human actions in the face of adversity, as these actions go specifically against the desired or predicted choice as described in the behaviorist model. (In my written Journal I had used draft-dodging as an example, however as I would learn throughout the course, the difference in an individuals actions in these type of situations can be determined by previous experience and different types of reinforcement provided.)

-Courtesy of coisadavid.br.com-

Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Alfred Adler explored more on the unconscious parts of human behavior, and some of the revelations made by the trio are amazing... I find myself understanding and agreeing with most of the insights made by these individuals... except I have my own varying opinion on one area of development. That is that the ego and superego are uniquely human, and that only the id is a universal concept. While I believe that the superego is uniquely human (morals and standards of what is acceptable by society). I believe that the Ego is universal and develops around maturity from infant to child of any given species. My example to back this up is as follows. If you show a monkey a banana being offered as a gift in the hands of a potential mate, and then place a cliff between the two individuals, the monkey will not walk off the cliff. It wants the instant gratification of nourishment and reproduction but knows well enough to delay achievement of this gratification until a moment where its own longevity is not being compromised. If animals only had the "id" they would throw caution to the wind and leap off the cliff as the benefits if achieved outweigh the consequences of failure according to the pleasure principle.

-Courtesy of neatorama.com-

The last area of psychology I wish to address in this section is the Humanistic approach of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. The Ideals in this area of psychology currently fit in line with my own and I believe in all of the core principles and practices involved in this field, one that particularly touches base with me is the hierarchy of human needs (parodied in the adjoined picture). Perhaps it is because I have lived through the hierarchy myself, at one point having to make the decision between buying groceries and paying the rent on time, to moving to a new location where I have no peers with which to communicate... working up to my current goal of obtaining a post secondary degree, I do not think I would succeed in this endeavor if I did not have the building blocks from the hierarchy underneath me to support me. With the support of the hierarchy though I am competent and confident in my current post secondary studies.




So who is right? depends who you ask. In psychology there is still much debate over which views are correct, incorrect, congruent, in-congruent. The young field of psychology still has much ground to travel before any absolute definitions are made. I am exited to be a part of its evolution and watch it continue to mature into its own field.