Our Common Nature #2 : Psychology 101
Hi everybody, Mary here.
So, here's the second post in the "Our Common Nature" series, with this time, a little post about an introduction on psychology.
Of course, as I mentioned earlier, I am no professional on this subject, so I will only talk about one point on psychology that seems very important to me. And of course, it is the very valuable debate on nature vs nurture.
Altough this debate has been left recently, arguing that nature and nurture are very linked and now impossible to differenciate, it is very important to see what caused this debate, because in the end, why have nature and nurture been disposed as opposites in the first place ? We could talk about Rousseau's "good savages" versus the "abomination" that is the civilised man, and other topics.
I believe that this debate, started by John Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), is trying to explain human behaviour from genes, environment and personal preferences. Are twins linked more than others in term of motivations, personality and actions ?
Which of our actions can come from nature (primal insticts such as survival, self-protection and empathy) or nurture (such as socialising & cooperating with others ) ?
It has been shown that nowadays, nature and nurture are linked way too much to be opposites, and that this debate is now fruitless. However, it is very important, in my opinion, to hear from this debate to understand the basics of psychology, as this debate isn't innocent and lasted for decades to try and understand the nature (biology) and the nurture (sociability) of individuals in society.
This debate was maybe more valuable in the past to express the impact of society and modernism on indivuals, but it isn't valid anymore, except for observation.
When analyzing human behaviour, it is nature AND nurture, not nature vs nurture, as they are deeply correlated in humans.
Anyways, that's it for now ! As usual, please correct me for eventual mistakes and I'll see you very soon with the next post !
And as usual, our last word : KIDNEYS !!!
Altough this debate has been left recently, arguing that nature and nurture are very linked and now impossible to differenciate, it is very important to see what caused this debate, because in the end, why have nature and nurture been disposed as opposites in the first place ? We could talk about Rousseau's "good savages" versus the "abomination" that is the civilised man, and other topics.
I believe that this debate, started by John Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), is trying to explain human behaviour from genes, environment and personal preferences. Are twins linked more than others in term of motivations, personality and actions ?
Which of our actions can come from nature (primal insticts such as survival, self-protection and empathy) or nurture (such as socialising & cooperating with others ) ?
It has been shown that nowadays, nature and nurture are linked way too much to be opposites, and that this debate is now fruitless. However, it is very important, in my opinion, to hear from this debate to understand the basics of psychology, as this debate isn't innocent and lasted for decades to try and understand the nature (biology) and the nurture (sociability) of individuals in society.
This debate was maybe more valuable in the past to express the impact of society and modernism on indivuals, but it isn't valid anymore, except for observation.
When analyzing human behaviour, it is nature AND nurture, not nature vs nurture, as they are deeply correlated in humans.
Anyways, that's it for now ! As usual, please correct me for eventual mistakes and I'll see you very soon with the next post !
And as usual, our last word : KIDNEYS !!!
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire