Monday September 5th
We’ll start focusing our discussions on the Biological aspects of behavior this week, but there’s still a little more by way of introduction that I’d like to go over with you today—basically, how did scientific psychology get here? How have views of human nature (and that there even exists such a thing as human nature) changed in intellectual history—I’d like to give you a context to what you’ll be learning. The kind of things that we will be covering in the Biological module—evolutionary approaches to behavior, physiological underpinnings, genes and behavior—these are all relatively recent approaches, some very recent. Without a historical context, it might seem that this is the way psychologists have always viewed behavior. There are certain key concepts that guide our inquiry in Psychology, that become apparent especially I think from the biological perspective. If it is the case that human behavior (and therefore by extension, the human mind) is a subject for scientific study, then what we study must be fairly uniform across individuals—the scientific approach is about general principles, not about individual behavior. That is, if individuals varied so much in their behavior to make within group variability so wildly divergent, then there would be no general conclusions we could make about behavior—no general principles to discover, let alone to construct a coherent theory about behavior—every individual would be so unique to make the study of psychology irrelevant. (There are some intellectuals in the social sciences who continue to feel this way!!) To even pose the questions “what do humans, as a species” do, as we will when we take an evolutionary approach, we have to focus on what makes humans similar to one another. Of course, we’re all individuals with major differences in many of the details of our behaviors, but psychology is often concerned with general human tendencies, not specific details of behavior. We are all far more alike than we are different, especially in many important ways.
Key concept #1:
Universal Behavioral Tendencies exist (this is another way of saying there is such thing as human nature). Let’s step back from behavior for a minute to make an analogy by looking at non-behavioral traits. Clearly, any two humans (other than identical twins) are quite different in appearance. You’ve got blond hair, blue eyes, I have brown hair, brown eyes. I’m short, you’re tall. Our facial features are arranged differently. Our skin has different pigmentation. Let’s step outside this classroom, as diverse as it is, and consider all the people in the world. Clearly, a wide range of physical appearances. BUT…now think about on a physical level, what physical traits are similar among all humans. Basic body plan. Sense organs. Arrangement of features. Motor skills. Even the rate at which we acquired these skills during childhood constrains a very tight range. Physically, physiologically, this is obvious. As different as we appear to be on the outside, we differ by a tiny, tiny fraction of the genome. Even when we say that siblings share on average, 50% of their genes, that is a misrepresentation. We share on average 50% of the genes that differ among humans. That’s not very many! Indeed, any two humans differ in their genes by one tenth of one percent. Those differences account for the different ways we look, and as we’ll be discussing later…at least in part, the different ways we behave.
So let’s take that same approach to behavior—yes, we’re all different—you’re a vegetarian, you’re a carnivore—but you both eat. You speak English, you speak Vietnamese, you both speak….think about all the behaviors that all people do, across cultures—we all are concerned with survival, happiness, reproductive success—even if you don’t want to actually have kids, there are many behavioral tendencies associated with reproductive success that are universally practiced—looking good for potential relationship partners, gaining wealth and status to secure resources, using the means that are locally acceptable to you among peers (those that are likely to be relationship partners) to gain status—whether that means adhering to a particular code of conduct, a mode of dress, whatever it is. So there may be plenty of room for variations in the implementation of these behaviors, but when you break down what humans really spend their time doing, we’re all pretty much the same.
The implication of their being Universal Human Behavioral Tendencies across cultural and geographic boundaries is that there is something in the 99.9% of the genes all humans share that determine the basic structure of our behaviors—those universals—the things we all do. That is, that there are innate behavioral patterns that don’t need to be taught. Those innate behaviors are those that served our evolutionary ancestors during the development of our species. What about the .1% of the DNA that differs among humans? We’ve already discussed the non-controversial idea that DNA must account for the physical traits that differ among us, but we’ll also discuss the idea that this difference appears to account, in large measure, for some of the behavioral traits that differ among us too…with in some cases, alarming detail. So this is
Key Concept #2: At least some of the variation among behavior in individuals is due to differences in our genes. This idea is one we will be expanding on a great deal in the next week, but I’d like to take some time to explore its history.
That there are innate behavioral tendencies that are shared among along humans and that some of the variations that exist in behavior between individuals arise from differences in our genes doesn’t sound terribly controversial. However, since the bedrock of what we will be covering in this course rests on these assumptions, I’d like to take a little time to explore their history. This doesn’t sound like a controversial idea, but it has taken some time to become accepted in mainstream intellectual life, often with great hostility.
So let’s start at the beginning of scientific psychology—mind you, I’m not simply referring to biological approaches, but to the time when questions about the mind and behavior left the realm of speculation, introspection, and religious explanations to give way to an approach based on careful and systematic observation, and the scientific method. This occurred in the late 19th century.
Disclaimer—not discrete starting point—many earlier discoveries in physiology anatomy philosophy laid the groundwork for the first early psychologists—see
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/Mind/Table.html
Arguably the most important 19th century thinker that contributed ideas about the existence of a basic human nature, and therefore laid the groundwork for the scientific approach to behavior was Charles Darwin, who was the first to truly place humans in the realm of the animal world. His theory of evolution by natural selection was bold enough as it was—he took the next step of predicting the discipline of evolutionary psychology—the first Key Concept—universal behavioral tendencies that are selected by reproductive success.
The first actual Psychology laboratory was established in
Germany in 1879 by Wilhelm Wundt…he was the first to
take the introspective process that characterized the study of mind and attempt
to describe the mind from a scientific perspective…his focus was on describing
the structure of the mind’s elements, which he broke into: sensations, images,
feelings. He was influenced by the early
physiologists who trained him in
The next major contributor to modern Psychology was William James—an early American psychologist who in 1890 published Principles of Psychology. James’ major contribution, in addition to establishing an experimental psychology laboratory in America at Harvard, was a theory called functionalism—distinguished from Wundt’s structuralism—in that it focused on the functions of the mind, rather than trying to understand it’s structure. He also formed a “biologically grounded theory of instincts and linked these with the psychological development of emotion and habit”. To stress the importance of instinct, I’d like to read from James himself…click here to see the highlighted text I read in class.
James was overshadowed however, by other developments in the early 20th C. Most notably, the contributions of Sigmund Freud, who attributed human behavioral tendencies to early life experiences, and the later emergence of the field of behaviorism.
The early part of the 20th century saw some very important developments—first was the discovery by Pavlov of conditioned responses, and John Watson who chose to focus on observable behavior rather than mental events, which were unsuitable for scientific study. Both of these individuals saw the movement of the field away from instinctual behaviors toward a focus on learning as a shaper of behavior. Watson believed that all behavior is learned. He once boasted that he could make any healthy baby into any kind of adult merely by controlling the child’s conditioning. The taking over of modern psychological inquiry by behaviorism was stunning and really strengthened the centuries old notion of
The Blank Slate—first formulated by the philosopher John Locke in the 17th century—as the epitome of the human condition.
The basic idea of The Blank Slate is that humans are born with few, if any, innate instincts. Human behavior, instead is formed entirely by experiences and importantly, by culture. The implications of the Blank Slate doctrine leads to an idealistic, humanistic view of human existence, indeed, the Enlightened view on which American political philosophy is based—we all have the power to achieve greatness, there are no inherent abilities, that we can become whatever we choose, given the appropriate upbringing. This view epitomized the predominant intellectual view of the other burgeoning social sciences in the early part of the 20th century—anthropology and sociology and led to the adoption of what is now referred to as The Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) or social constructionism…that culture or “society” is an independent superorganism, capable of determining the behavior of the individual. That there is no individual consciousness outside of “society”—it declared “society” to be the most important determinant of behavior.
The doctrine of The Blank Slate allowed progressive thinking into the intellectual mainstream—indeed it was because of the predominance of this view that other, older, more oppressive doctrines were eliminated from mainstream intellectual life. It was the belief that people, or groups of people, had inborn traits that had led to the some of the worst atrocities in history—in fact, Darwin’s ideas had become co-opted by so-called “social darwinists” and the basis of eugenic and genocidal policies is based on the fact that certain groups of individuals, less desirable groups are “born that way” and must be eliminated lest they reproduce and their progeny take over. So Blank Slate thinking, supported by behaviorist dogma that all behavior is shaped by the environment became the predominant view of the 20th century.
Pinker explains the history of the concept in much more detail in his book, The Blank Slate, and refers not only to the BS but to two related doctrines that follow from it: Noble Savage and Ghost in the Machine.
The problem is, the view is incorrect. Now, let’s be clear—the moral philosophy as embodied in the American Constitution—that all men (and women, for that matter) are created equal— is the morally correct viewpoint and no-one in modern Psychology argues that. The problem is that recognizing innateness of mental faculties a) does not imply immutability, b) does not dismiss the role of culture, but recognizes it as a function of the biology of the individual, and c) has nothing to do with a moral philosophy.
Let’s take sex differences for example—more and more evidence suggests that male and female brains differ from one another and the discoveries that are made in this area add to the richness of what everyone can tell from the time they’re babies—boys and girls, men and women, differ from one another. This is not a surprise! But those that ascribe to the Blank Slate mentality would have that culture, society, and differential rearing practices are what cause males and females to differ. And in fact, they take the moral high ground in their convictions—completely ignoring the scientific evidence, they insist that not only are sex differences purely cultural, that it is wrong to study them. Because you see, to claim that men and women are different is to say they are unequal…therefore one must be better than the other. The fallacy here of course is that the science is silent on morality. These discoveries are irrelevant to the moral ideals of equal opportunity and equal rights. It simply does not matter whether innate differences exist. Discoveries about an innate human nature have been surprisingly controversial because they threaten, if interpreted incorrectly, to progressive ideals that have characterized much of 20th century intellectual history.