Whether you know it or not, you are a psychologist. You may not have the formal training, but at some point in time (and probably with a certain regularity) you have contemplated and continue to contemplate the mental processes and behaviors of yourself and of others around you. Humans are rational beings, so this is what we are programmed to do. As the father of modern philosophy René Descartes said, cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"). In philosophical terms, Descartes was referencing human existence, however his systematic reasoning would later trickle over into the sciences and lay in part the foundation for what is now modern-day applied psychology.
In epistemological terms, psychology (like the natural sciences) is based on empiricism. In other words, the knowledge gained by studying human thought and behavior comes from observation and experience that is grounded in sound theory. However, the complexity of human nature means that the interpretation of human experiences and behavior is somewhat subjective, which is where rationalism has its place in this field. The complexity and variability in human behavior can make the study of psychology seem impossible and sometimes even futile (I have felt this way more than once). But I can assure you, it is not! It is precisely these intricacies and inconsistencies that draw us in and keep us here.
This might explain why psychology has seen such a wide array of theoretical approaches for understanding the human capacity of being. Perhaps the most poignant approach, the classical interpretation of the field, is Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis (if you're a psychologist reading this, you probably can't count the number of times that have you been asked in a bar or social setting whether or not you are analyzing the people around you). Without Freud, the commonplace conversations about Oedipus complexes, libido, repressed memories and dream interpretations would not exist. Known as "the first force", psychologists of psychoanalysis did a great deal at advancing theory. However, their psychoanalytic theories and therapeutic techniques were derived for treating psychopathology. In other words, their work contributed very little to understanding the mental processes and behaviors of everyone else.
So behaviorism came along. Behaviorists were "the second force" of psychologists who began to focus more on observable behavior rather than unobservable events taking place inside the mind. Amongst them was the famous Ivan Pavlov, and yes, his dogs. If you are unfamiliar with Pavlov, he provided the most famous example of classical conditioning (controlling behavior by building associations between stimuli) whilst studying the physiology of digestion in canines. In his experiments he would ring a bell, then give the dogs their food. After a few repetitions, the dogs began to salivate at the sound of the bell alone. This process may sound simple and asinine (I am downplaying its complexities for simplicity purposes), but its implications in behavior modification are valuable in behavioral therapies. However, operant behaviorism models rely on rewards or punishments. That is to say that individuals persist in behaviors because they are reinforced by the receipt of a reward or because they wish to avoid punishment. So wait a second! How does one explain why individuals persist in behaviors that do not offer a reward, or engage in behaviors that will lead to punishment? Ahhaaaaaa...
Let me introduce you to "the third force": humanistic psychology. The humanistic approach to psychology is centered around the individual and emphasizes the inherent need for self-actualization and reaching one's full potential. This concept was showcased in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs (that triangle shaped like a food pyramid that has basic needs at the bottom (e.g. breathing, food, water, sex, sleep) and the good stuff, or self-actualizing stuff, at the top (e.g. creativity, problem-solving, spontaneity, acceptance)). It is that alluring idea that we are born with a natural tendency towards growth and goodness, and under the proper fostering circumstances, we can reach our full potential. This is why monkeys will persist for long periods of time to solve a puzzle even though there is no external reward for solving it, or why rats will cross electric grids to explore new territory. We are just a bunch of living organisms trying to satisfy our intrinsic needs for growth and potential!
At this stage you are probably wondering when I am going to wrap this up. Don't fret, it's late and I am tiring too. So far, this post has aimed to provide a short (and incomplete) history of psychological theory and the three "forces" over the past century. As you can see, new theories build upon old ones, so establishing chronological order gives clearer insight into the vicissitudes of the psychology field. That said, let it be known that we are nowhere near finished here! I would like to leave you with one last thought, which is to consider how we might meet these inherent human needs for growth and self-actualization. What motivates an individual to engage in certain behaviors? What motivates you in your own behaviors? What have you observed in the behavior of others? I will give you a hint: there are intrinsic motivators and external motivators. In my next post, I will lay the framework for motivation theory, and in the meantime I will let you ruminate on everything I have written here. Or you don't have to, that's totally up to you...
No comments:
Post a Comment