Hi TOK List,

 

  Continuing with my obsession with emphasizing the problem of psychology and showing how it appears in intro texts, today I offer the view from Robin Kowalski and Westen’s Psychology. The first chapter is title Psychology: The Study of Mental Processes and Behavior. This book adopts a more social, cultural and contextual view, hence the use of the word “study” here instead of “science”. At one point, it defines psychology at one point as the scientific investigation of behavior and mental processes. This book emphasizes that psychology is the area that lies at the intersection of biology and culture, writing:

 

Biology and culture establish both the possibilities of what and the constraints within which people think, feel, and act. On one hand, the structure of the brain sets the parameters, or limits, of human potential. Most 10-year-olds cannot solve algebra problems because the neural circuitry essential for abstract thought has not yet matured. Similarly, the capacity for love has its roots in the innate tendency of infants to develop an emotional attachment to their caretakers. These are biological givens.

On the other hand, many adults throughout human history would have found algebra problems as mystifying as do preschooler’s because their culture never provided the groundwork for this kind of reasoning. And though love may be a basic human potential, the way people love depends on the values, beliefs, and practices of their society. In some cultures, people seek and expect romance in their marriages, whereas in others, they do not select a spouse based on affection or attraction at all.

 

As far as I can tell, these authors make no attempt to define either behavior or mind/mental processes in any way other than thru the major perspectives they review (i.e., behavioral, evolutionary, psychodynamic etc.). They do make an allusion to the blind men and the elephant re the theories. But, given that they don’t even recognize that they need to define mind and behavior, it is hard to see how their frame could outline the beast. Also, I found it interesting that the cover had dogs on it, but it did not seem to dawn on the authors that animal behavior was relevant AND NOT AKIN to “biological givens” (which, BTW, is a huge problem in itself as biology is the science of the dimension of Life, which is a complex adaptive landscape, and thus not a “given” at all).

 

One look at the ToK System and one knows these individuals are operating off the wrong descriptive metaphysical system of understanding. I will say again, our complete and utter failure to have an adequate frame for the concept of Mind and thus the science of psychology is, arguably, the most blatant failure of modernist Enlightenment systems of thought. And when we consider the meaning and mental health crises, maybe folks will start to wake up to the fake that we need a fundamentally new way of thinking about behavior and mental processes.

 

Best,

Gregg