Psychology's Ongoing Argument In Human Science

There have been a many number of theories on development and many of them will influence the way professionals work with children and young people. Psychologists have different views and theories about how children learn, some feel that a child’s ability is innate and others that it depends on the opportunities that are given. This is the ‘nature versus nature’ debate.

The first core concept suggested by From Neurons to Neighborhoods depicts human development forming from the interplay of an individual’s biology and experience. Early scientists in this particular field created testable hypotheses to understand the dynamic interaction between the nature-nurture phenomenon. For example, some scientists such as Arnold Gesell considered emerging skills to be the product of an individual’s genetic make-up, while others, such as John B. Watson, speculated human behavior was determined by the surrounding environment (Shonkoff & Philips, 2001, 23). Moreover, Nobel Prize winner Ivan Pavlov’s and North American scientist B.F. Skinner’s research in behaviorism

The nature vs nurture issue has been a controversial argument among psychologist for decades. This argument exposes two different views. One of them emphasizes that our personality depends solely on genetics (nature). On the other hand, the second view suggests that humans “develop through experience” (Myers 2013, SG 6) (nurture).

Perhaps almost all branches of knowledge as we know them today have a strong link with ancient civilizations. The ancient Greek civilization is one of them. Not that the contribution of other ancient civilizations such as the Mayan or Egyptian are of less importance, it’s just that the ancient Greeks can be accredited for being the promoters of the natural sciences. Psychology as we know today is the study of mental functions and behaviors, however it is believed that psychology stemmed out of philosophy. The word psychology in Greek translates as psuche which means the vital breath or the human soul. Philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle have had great influence on the ideas of modern day psychology. There interpretations of the mind, soul, and behavior have a strong association with the thoughts and theories of psychologists such as Freud, Skinner, Pavlov, and others.

Jaegwon Kim thinks that multiple realizability of mental properties would bring about the conclusion that psychology is most likely not a science. Several functionalists, specially, Fodor, take up the opposing stance to Kim, supporting that the multiple realizability of mental states is one of the reasons why psychology is an autonomous and justifiable science. Essentially, Kim think that in order for mental states to be multiply realizable then psychology must be fundamentally broken; with human psychology encompassing properties realized for humans and alien psychology encompassing those mental states realized in the alien way etc. I will demonstrate that even if one supports and allows the principles behind Kim’s argument they do not

Through history, the idea of nature vs. nurture has been a hotly debated issue. Nature, or genetics is often believed to be the most important aspect of a persons’ upbringing, as nature is something intrinsic to any one person. However, many debate that nurture, or the care and encouragement of any human life, trumps nature. The earliest evidence and rebuttals of these theories have been honed and developed over time by specific psychologists and educational theorists – all who hoped to prove their own ideas as fact at one time in history.

The British Psychological Society states that ‘Psychology is the scientific study of people, the mind and behaviour’ (BPS). In this essay I will be discussing what is actually meant by this and whether psychology fits into both the traditional views of a science, as well as more contemporary perspectives. It is widely suggested that Psychology is a “coalition of specialities” meaning it is multi-disciplinary (Hewstone, Fincham and Foster 2005, page 4). I will therefore examine whether it could be considered wrong to think that all parts of the discipline should neatly fit into one view of a scientific approach.

The field of psychology is steadily expanding due to the progression in technology, which is being driven by the advancement of civilization. More and more time is spent on the internet, which has gradually altered the method in which primary communication takes place. Previously face-to-face interaction was touted as the primary method of interfacing with one another, now communication via the internet is almost mandatory to establish and maintain healthy relationships (Greenfield and Yan, 2006). This is especially true amongst children, adolescents and teenagers. The need for psychologists have never been greater in order to assess how individuals are able to acclimate to this societal change. Traditionally, there are two methods in which children, adolescents and teenagers communicate via the internet, through social media and video games. Each primary method presents their own unique social challenge. In response to the issues in of teenagers over use of the internet, psychologists are providing assistance for internet addictions at a greater rate. The first method utilized by mental health professionals is traditionally counseling and if those efforts fail, then the potential exists for adolescents to be placed on medications.

The American Psychologist Association (APA) defines psychology as ‘the study of the mind and behaviour . The discipline embraces all aspects of the human experience — from the functions of the brain to the actions of nations, from child development to care for the aged. ‘(Association, 2014). With such an extensive definition, it is not overly surprising that its scientific kudos has been used to propagate political dogma, including abominable beliefs such as the innate inferiority of black people (Howitt and Owusu-Bempah, 1994) and to facilitate the legalislation of racist laws such as the American Jim Crow laws that placed severe restrictions on the rights and privileges of African Americans in 1877 (Brown and Stentiford,

The nature vs nurture debate is one of the most enduring in the field of psychology.How far are human behaviors, ideas, and feelings, INNATE and how far are they all LEARNED?These issues are at the

Authored by Keith E. Stanovich, How to Think Straight About Psychology is a known work of the psychology world which was published in 1986. Beginning courses in psychology use his text frequently. Stanovich primary purpose for writing the text is to bring attention to his observation that the public’s understanding of psychology is different from psychology as a modern science. Psychology as a modern science explains the underlying functions that shape human attitudes and behavior. To the people who misunderstand this, the field of psychology is not a real science, but a pseudo-science instead. How to Think Straight About Psychology describes people’s several false impressions of psychology and it gives its readers a factual understanding of the field as a modern and scientific psychology while explaining how this science works.

A long time ago, I heard about the myth that people only use 10% of the brain. At first I thought that only people who were not in the field of psychology or neurology would believe this misconception. Until I read that in one study one-third of psychology students answered that people only use one-tenth of their brain power (Higbee & Clay, 1998, p. 471). Then, when people kept asking me what I thought about humans only being capable of using ten percent of their brain and reading things like 59% of a sample of individuals who went to college in Brazil believe in this myth and that six percent of neuroscientists agreed (Herculano-Houzel, 2002), I understood that I was reading about one of the most prevalent myths in

The nature-nurture debate has been a common topic among psychologists for years. Those who support the nurture side of the argument believe that human characteristics and abilities are a product of evolution and genetics. I, on the other hand, support the nature side of the debate. I believe that we learn through experience growing up with the people or things around us and the general environment we are exposed to. When you are growing up with your siblings, you resemble similar intelligence levels with your siblings, as goes with the parents who took care of you as you were growing up. It’s something that does not happen right away, but, if you are accustomed to those surrounding you for a long period of time, no matter who it is or what

Intelligence is used by everyone to help them in everyday life. Where people get their intelligence, however, is debatable. A person is born with an amount of inherited intelligence; this intelligence is considered nature, genetic, or heredity. Then there is intelligence that comes from the ability to learn from experience; this intelligence is impacted by nurture or the environment. It is known that both genetic and environmental factors determine intelligence, but the subject is controversial among professionals. Does nature or nurture have a bigger impact on intelligence? Is it true that some people are born with high intelligence, but are limited by their environment? Given the proper tools, can a person increase their intelligence? How accurate are IQ tests?

Some may say intelligence is an innate trait, but really intelligence is not innate. Innate means that you are born with it. Intelligence isn’t something that you are born with, as one grows so does your intelligence. If you train your brain in a specific topic it could be math, science, history, etc. you can become more intelligent, but first let’s back track for a bit.