Psychology (Six Main Theories)

[Dimi]

Well this is part of a homework assigment that I'm supposed to do and I need opinions based on the six theories in psychology. Psychology is the scientific study of human and animal behavior. Well in my textbook they are six explanations based on how behavior is viewed.

1.Neurobiology: Behavior viewed in terms of biological responses.

2.Behaviorism: Behavior viewed as a product of learned responses.

3.Humanism: Behavior viewed as a reflection of internal growth.

4.Psychoanalysis: Behavior viewed as a reflection of unconscious aggressive and sexual impulses.

5.Cognitive Psychology: Behavor viewed as a product of various internal sentences or thoughts.

6.Sociocultural Psychology: Behavior viewed as strongly influenced by the rules and expectations of specific social groups or cultures.

So my questions are these...

1) Which do you believe out of the six makes the most sense to you? Which one do you find is the most effective way to learn about human behavior?

2) Which one do you least agree with? Is there something that just seems a little off or does one of the six do little help on studying behavior?

[Bleachfangirl]

1) Which do you believe out of the six makes the most sense to you? Which one do you find is the most effective way to learn about human behavior?

Behaviorism makes the most sense to me. A baby learns to speak by copying the sounds it hears from others. A person would say "bless you" to someone who just sneezed because they were taught it was polite to do so. Before you're really taught something though, you can learn how to do it just by copying others first. It seems to be the most common theory to me. Then, psychoanalysis seems like the best way to learn about natural human behavior. Impulses are instinct, and that seems like where most human behavior comes from.

2) Which one do you least agree with? Is there something that just seems a little off or does one of the six do little help on studying behavior?

I don't think neurobiology makes much sense. It seems really close to psychoanalysis because both are basically actions brought on by natural instinct, right? I don't think many people go on their direct biological or sexual impulses and thoughts. Aggression too. People think more about what is right in their society and social surrounding before doing most things. Going straight out on impulse is too wild, and everyone feels a little cautious about that.

[Pete]

Behaviorism and Sociocultural Psych. make the most sense to me, as they seemingly go hand in hand, at least as far as I'm concerned. You learn behaviors from your society and from your parents/ caretakers. Just as behaviors are representative of the responses learned, you have to look at where the responses come from. I'm stealing Bleachie's example here, cause it's a good one. Why do we say "bless you" when people sneeze? Well, because it's a learned behavior from our parents, and they learned it from their parents and so on. Eventually, you'll run into someone new to the country or custom, who has no idea what it is or why it happens. Through observing others in society, it's quite possible that they'll start doing it too, out of politeness and because it is somewhat expected as a response to a sneeze in a western civilization (no clue on the east). In one aspect, these two principles are radically different, especially in cross-cultural dealings, but I feel that they largely follow the same principle, because ultimately they lead to the same thing: normal socialization.

For cross-cultural dealings, you can see how one's "original" upbringing (behavioral psych) can differ from the ideas of (sociocultural psych), because different cultures all present different norms and roles. However, I think that in order to reach a form of assimilation in a society, one must follow that society's customs. This comes from following and mimicking those who are considered assimilated members. It can range from dress, to speech patterns, etc. However, this would be considered behavioral at the same time because the product (how you act) would be shaped by learned responses ("If I wear this/ say this/ do this, I will be mocked, and therefore need to modify my behavior so as not to be.") At which point, such internalizations would become part of the cognitive behavioral schema, which is opening a whole other can of worms.

I could make a case for each of these theories, but the above two appeal to me the most and seem to make the most sense.

I do however feel that psychoanalysis is the least agreeable. While I have respect for Freud and his body of works and all of the progress that he was responsible for creating psychology as a reputable science, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Not everything stems from sexual or aggressive impulses, in my opinion. Granted, if you ultimately dumb everything down, and strip every menial action down to it's bare bones, you can make an argument otherwise.

Lets see:

In this very post I complimented bleachfangirl for a good example and called her "Bleachie." Freud could argue that I complimented her in hopes that she would give me some attention, which would ultimately be considered a pleasure. Also, because I used a nickname, it could be seen as a term of endearment, meaning that I want to have sex with her, because I displayed some form of affection. And naturally, I want sex because sex would be the ultimate form of pleasure, and according to Freud's pleasure principle, humans will ultimately seek that which is most pleasurable to them.

Can you see why I'm a little skeptical on this one?

I'm also skeptical on biological psychology, mainly because it implies the same thing as psychoanalysis, with a slight twist. Biology more or less dictates that everything is done in order to procreate and further your species. So, using Bleachie once again, I complimented her because apparently I want to appear as the best of my species, in hopes that she will see me as the best available male and will want to further the species with me. A bit of a mouthful, but also a bit misguided in my opinion. For animals, sure, I can believe this; but I'd like to give the human race a little more credit than that.

[Furore]

Cognitive Psychology and humanism seem to make the most sense to me going solely on the brief descriptions given. I might change my mind with further research, but as it stands, cognitive psychology makes sense to me as it's pretty much how my mind seems to tick. I'm ruled by my thoughts which can often be more erratic than most people's seem to be. That and as I see reactions differing greatly person to person at times, some of the other alternatives seem flawed in that respect.

Humanism as I've seen a lot of change in others AND myself resulting from internal growth. A lot of people change through their experiences for better or worse. Some 'grow up' as the wording goes...
(That said, some habits, behaviours or mannerisms may be unbreakable or close to it anyways. ><)

For the one that seems most off to me, I'll say sociocultural psychology. I do notice some clones who draw too much inspiration from culture's collective 'what's hot' list, yet many others just do their own thing with minimal cultural invasion. I've noticed that in many cases the creative people set their own trends or just do their own thing, practical people couldn't give a stuff and just do what's comfortable or practical, and then there are those who follow the trends of society. A prime example would be clothing. Some dress expressively yet not following a trend, some dress practically, and some go with a given trend.

None look completely sound to me though. Looks like it depends on the individual person in question more than anything else.

[Momo Mastermind]

Let me begin with saying I LOVE [[LOVE]] (LOVE) -LOVE- psychology. I've studied it for years, and although I've probably forgotten most of it, it has left a lasting impression on me. I was extremely serious in gaining a degree in psychology, but on a last second decision I decided that it wasn't for me- someone elses problems aren't something I want to swim in. I chose writing instead.

1) Which do you believe out of the six makes the most sense to you? Which one do you find is the most effective way to learn about human behavior?


I don't stick with one "school of thought" with psychology. Each section has it's own restrictions in thinking, and one, I believe, must have a well observed eye for all of them to trully help a situation. Also- this is most commonly viewed as the wacky way, but I trully do believe Freud hit it on the nail with a lot of his psychoanalytical views and theories. A LOT of society, back then AND now, is run by suppressed sexual desire. Our advertisement systems are DESIGNED to hit into this key note and control our views of beauty and disgust- it's sickening. He was a genius of another time period though, because back then where he lived, sex was NOT an open thing and what happened in the bedroom literally stayed in the bedroom. He was sort of looked down upon for his open statements about sexuality and he was not given enough credit for his time.

Another "father of psychology" I really like is B. F. Skinner- the father of behaviorism- or at least "radical behaviorism". This is the field which says that who we are is shaped from what we have experienced, who we've interacted with, and what we have had done to us [something that violant memories of childhood brings multiple personalities [Dissociative Identity Disorder] and other stressful disfunctions]

So while I think we DO need all of them, psychoanalysis and behaviorism are what I believe to be two key factors in MOST psychological cases.



2) Which one do you least agree with? Is there something that just seems a little off or does one of the six do little help on studying behavior?

Well the one I have the most problem with and always have had a problem with is humanism which [I could be wrong] is I think a better way to sum it up; "Everyone is basically, to the core, good- and one must work away the shadows to reveal the true good beneath them." That's what I've always been taught... bull-****ing-shit, I don't agree with this for a second. Not to mention the "father" of humanism is a quack himself... lmfao. Francesco Petrarch... okay, I'm done insulting him.. lmfao.

[Sinister]

1) Which do you believe out of the six makes the most sense to you? Which one do you find is the most effective way to learn about human behavior?

Many of them simply restate the same thing in different uncertain terms. Each has their favorite Deus ex Machina that they think explains away the human condition. I suppose the one that makes the most sense is a hybrid of Humanism and Behaviorism. I'm a big fan of both Skinner and Maslow. Besides as a Taoist, I like a mix of opposing forces. I also figure that with such a broad selection it's unlikely I overlooked much.

2) Which one do you least agree with? Is there something that just seems a little off or does one of the six do little help on studying behavior?

Psychoanalysis? No...I just really hate Freud...

...also hate Nietzsche and all his melodramatic existential stupidity...

Come to think about it...I'd have to say all of Psychology. They all stumble and trip through the human brain like a drunk looking for his car. They have made some fascinating findings and contributed to philosophy and the scientific community and I do find their finds very interesting... But something about their determination to contradict themselves fiercely and transcend past the realm of science into philosophy, where science does not belong.

-Sin

[Jin]

1) Which do you believe out of the six makes the most sense to you? Which one do you find is the most effective way to learn about human behavior?
I'm sorry, but I do not feel that choosing one of them is possible. If you think about it, all these theories are absolutely correct as long as you leave out the notion that all human activity is determined by the same principles. When you look at it that way, it's just common sense.

Our biology affects how we act? Yes, of course it does.
Our experiences affect how we act? Yes, of course they do.
Internal growth affects how we act? Yes, of course it does.
Subconcious agression and sexual impulses affect how we act? Yes, of course they do.
Internal thoughts affect how we act? Yes, of course they do.
The surrounding culture affects how we act? Yes, of course it does.

2) Which one do you least agree with? Is there something that just seems a little off or does one of the six do little help on studying behavior?
I don't see how anyone can even attempt to believe that only one of these is correct. In my opinion, sentient actions are too complex to be definitively explained by any theory, but if it is possible, I don't think any of these specifically are even close to the mark when used exlusively.

The mind, for all we know, may not even exist the way we think it does at all. It could be, as in Buddhist philosophy, simply another sense, no different than sight or touch, creating the illusion of a self. There are thoughts, but no thinkers. I suppose that's for another debate though.

[Joe]

1) Which do you believe out of the six makes the most sense to you? Which one do you find is the most effective way to learn about human behavior?

hmm, it seems to me that NONE of these theories/principles alone can be the rigth way to do it. Human behavior is governed by ALL of these. think about it, have you ever been influenced by your friends? that's number 6. Have you ever lost your temper, given in to your aggressive drives? that's number 4. have you ever talked yourself through a difficult time, or through making a decision? there's number 5. Are the choices you make now different from those you made in the past? there would be number 3. Have you ever learned how to do something, from watching someone else? there's behaviorism. And as for neurobiology, have you ever thought differently based on how you felt physically? I bet all of us have.



As for the second question, I don't disagree with any of these, as they are all sound ideas. Well, sound ideas, when taken as a collective whole, not as individual snippets of theory.



Regards,
-Steel

[Asheis]

Ahh...

All of these are so complicated... it's really hard to make a concrete discision...

I LOVE neuropsychology, I absolutely love it! Well.. I love knowing how all the neurotransmitters in our brain work, and how connected, yet separate each of the lobes of our brain are! basically I took a neurobiological psychology class, and I feel in love! I'm seriously considering a minor! But, I do dislike the neuro-biological model... It seems so cold, and there are major problems with "diagnosing" people.. It's all about gradations!

Anyway,

As for my favorite... I do love my psychoanalysis.. It's more than just freud... there were dozens of offshoots the biggest problem with him is that much of his psychology reflects the ideas of the time. I do think that as a species, our main goal is to seek pleasure. Though I wouldn't go so far as freud and say that most things that give us pleasure are sexual.

My biggest beef with psychoanalysis and freud is that it's too rigid. Once that critical developmental stage is passed, you can NEVER change who you are, and what motivations you... absolutely no fun.