Okay, so before making any rash statements claiming that I have no idea what I’m talking about (which very well may be true), hear me out:
I love studying psychology. I remember taking an introductory psychology course in high school and not really thinking much of it until I realized, many years later, that I actually remembered much of what I learned. Coincidentally (or maybe no so), the same thing happened with me and biology. I was always good at it, but never fully understood the depths of my interest in it until my first year of college, where I took Bio I with the most fantastic professor that I think I will ever have. But I digress.
When you think of psychology, despite the vastness of the subject, the first person that comes to your mind is probably Sigmund Freud. Freud, though having an endless number of people who outwardly reject his ideas, was one of the most influential figures in modern history. Despite the controversy revolving around his seemingly “obscene” or “taboo” ways of thought, much of his language has integrated its way into our own vocabularies. The Subconscious/Unconscious, The Oedipus Complex, The Freudian Slip; These are all examples of Freudian terms whose complexities are often taken for granted when used in general conversation. Whatever you may think of him, there is no denying that “Good Ol’ Siggy” and his ideas have helped to morph society into what it is today.
When I first began my journey into the study of psychology, I avidly believed in everything that Freud had said. This is probably because my father would speak about Freud very often, and also because my late grandfather Jack Herman, who was a well respected professor of psychology at both Adelphi University and Pace University, had some Freudian aspects to his own psychological methodologies and ideas. I was so fascinated by what he proposed, but I was especially drawn to his idea of the subconscious. That we are driven by desires that, for the most part, we do not consciously recognize, mostly those of sexual denominations, was an earth shattering idea to me. Whenever the thought of, “Why did I do/think/say that?” crossed my mind, the answer would usually fall into some kind of Freudian explanation. Everything made sense.
At this point in my life, as much as I wouldn’t have liked to admit it, I was not very scientific in my thought processes. In retrospect, I thought so highly of Freud not only for the reasons mentioned above, but mostly because his ideas were the only ones of which I knew. It’s easy to think you understand everything there is to know about a subject when you only know one sect of that subject. I had not known of the many other psychological sects and ideas that, in reality, REALLY give Freud more than a run for his money. I guess it’s true that the more you know about something, the more confusing and complex that “something” seems to be.
My ideas about psychology really began to form a solid foundation when I took my introductory psychology course in my first year at Muhlenberg College. When presented with the ideas of intuitive psychological thinkers such as Erik Erikson, Abraham Maslow, B.F Skinner (though I really never liked his ideas), and many others, it occurred to me that Freud’s ideas have quite a lot of competition. As I was at the same time realizing my love for biology (and my hatred of general chemistry), my sense of what I seemed to be believable and true began to parallel that of those who avidly follow the scientific method.
It’s because of my delving into a more scientific way of thought that I began to question many of Freud’s ideas which, as well as the ideas of many other schools of psychology, seemed to not have an awful amount of “scientific/biological” basis. While many of their ideas were appealing to me, much of what they said had little to no “scientific/biological” backing.
If you think about it, Freud was very much a philosopher as much as he was a clinical psychologist. I’m not claiming Freud’s idea to be “wrong” as much as I think they are, at times, too general and not backed up enough by psychological or scientific studies.
(I’ve given much backstory here, and I if you’re still here, I will tell you that the “scene setting” is almost done.)
What has now really drawn me in is what could be considered a mix between biology and psychology, which is neuroscience. While I may be biased in saying this (Actually, I 100% am), neuroscience is one of the most important subjects to study in contemporary society. This is because seemingly everything that we are and do has a neurological component to it. One of the many reasons why I love neuroscience is because you can literally see and understand the biological mechanisms that underly all human action. Even the outcomes of things like psychoanalysis, which for a time could only be seen by changes in how an individual felt and acted, can now be attributed to changes in the levels of neurotransmitters and neurohormones in the brain, with the help of PET and MRI scans of course.
At this point, it almost seems like the study of psychology may as well not exist. How does our heart beat without out conscious control over it? Neuroscience. How and why does the experience of love feel the way it does? Neuroscience. Why does drinking alcohol make us feel good? Neuroscience. How does our brain physically develop as we age? Neuroscience.
It seems like everything that makes us human beings, from cognitions to emotions, can be attributed to some kind of biochemical change in the brain. Why even bother having such broad and interpretive psychological ideas to what we do if there is seemingly a neuroscientific and biochemical aspect to it all? Psychology should make way for more “scientific” ways of thought, right?
There is, however, one problem that I have with neuroscience: In a sense, the study of neuroscience can dehumanize us and can lead people to think that all we are is a series of chemical reactions in the brain. Why think of ourselves as unique individuals with free will when, in reality, we are just a slave to organic chemistry? Everything might as well be seen as predetermined and out of our control, right?
Let’s examine these ideas by referring to the ideas of our good friend, Charles Darwin; Rather, let us look at the interpretations of his findings and how those interpretations are applied to human civilization. Charles Darwin is the “main man” so to speak when we speak of Evolution, and more specifically, natural selection. For much of what we are, we can thank natural selection. In theory, all of our traits have emerged as a result of mutations in our genome which have been beneficial in allowing us to adapt to our environment. Unless you live in southern USA, it’s hard to deny the concreteness of the theory of evolution, as many fields of study, from archeology to ecology, have provided an abundance of supportive evidence.
Now, should everything we have become be attributed only to the theory of evolution, and more specifically natural selection? I would say no, and here’s why: We as organisms, according to the study biology, are alive because we feed ourselves nutrition and water. Also according to the study of biology, we live so that we can reproduce and pass our genes along to the next generation of offspring. Sure, on a macro and very oversimplified level, this makes sense, but what happens if we zoom in? Look at human civilization. We do more than just eat and reproduce. We have social structures, infrastructure, government, recreation, etc…. Sure, all of this aids in our survival, but I’m pretty sure that every other organism that lived on Earth has found ways to survive without the need to build New York City or go to a hockey game.
More importantly, we humans don’t always play by the evolutionary rules. Why do parents of a child with a terrible disorder, such as Cerebral Palsy, even bother caring for him or her? If a child will not live past the age of 20 and will most likely never reproduce, why put any of your energy and resources into allowing this child to live its life? This seems to be against the very basic principles of evolution, no?
The answer to why parents devote their time and energy into a child with a deadly disorder is because, despite what a more ignorant biologist may think, we are far more than just our biology and chemistry. It’s always heart warming when you hear about parents giving their disabled children the best lives they can have. Sure, ignoring this child and allowing him/her to not live so that you can focus on producing a more “fertile” offspring is the most evolutionarily efficient way to do things, but human beings are far more complex than that. We have morals and feelings derived from cognitions. We are not just the biological principles of our actions.
In the same way, we humans are more than just our brain chemistry. Sure, neurotransmitters, neurohormones, neurons and synapses are all vital for us to be able to live, and they most definitely do shape who we are, but we are not slaves to neuroscience and biology. Psychology is an important field of study and should remain that way because knowing what chemicals change our mood will not help us in determining why we act one way in one social situation but another way in another social situation. Neuroscience can help us understand why we experience the feeling of love, but it can’t explain why we fall in love with one person but not with another. Neuroscience and biology can help us to understand the fundamental causes of our actions, but they cannot necessarily explain the social and psychological complexities of our minds.
What will be most beneficial in the future for all of us is if there is a harmony between biology and psychology. Just like chemistry can work with biology to explain the mechanisms and consequences of certain chemical reactions, biology and psychology can work together to explain human action from a fundamental level to a more situational level.
Daily Contemplations 