THREE CONTROVERSIES

IN PSYCHOLOGY 

It is important to remember that psychology is a very young science. Indeed, psychology as a discipline did not exist much before the 1880's, and it wasn't until the early 20th century that psychology was accepted as a major discipline at most American universities. As a result, psychology is still defining itself, particularly as it emerges from older disciplines such as religion, physiology and philosophy. 

As psychology strives to define itself, three major controversies, or theoretical issues have emerged that greatly affect how psychologists approach their work and research: First, the mind- body controversy. That is, is the "psyche" a physical organ, such as the brain, or does it represent a nonphysical entity, such as a mind. Second, the controversy of nature versus nurture impacts the discipline. It is quite controversial whether an individual is who he or she is because of innate, inherited characteristics or because of environmental variables. Finally, the question of free will versus determinism greatly affects many areas of psychology. This question asks whether individuals truly choose to act in certain ways, or whether their behavior is pre-destined as a result of their genetics, their environmental situations, or even their inherited psyche. All three controversies impact one's view of psychology and the individual. 

The Mind-Body Controversy: 

The mind-body controversy asks what, if anything, is the difference between the mind and the body. That is, is there a distinct and real difference between the physical brain and the mental mind. A 16th century philosopher, Rene Descartes, was one of the first to bring out this issue. His philosophical viewpoint, called Dualism, suggested that the body, a physical entity, was controlled by physical laws, while the mind, a nonphysical spiritual and thinking entity, was controlled by nonphysical laws. In contrast, the British Empiricists (such as John Locke) argued from a Monist point of view. That is, these philosophers viewed the mind and body as one. They believed that the "mind" was simply a physical organ (e.g., the brain), and was under the control of physical laws just like any other body organ. 

This controversy has several implications for psychology. First, if the mind is NOT subject to physical laws, will we ever understand it by studying the brain? Second, if the mind is governed by mental laws, what are these and how do we study them? Finally, if the mind and body are one, perhaps we should ignore more mentalistic explanations of behavior and concentrate on neuroscience and brain physiology as explanations of behavior. Thus, if we take a monist view, therapy should be ineffective, and psychopharmacology the appropriate way to study and manipulate behavior. In contrast, a dualist approach would concentrate on treating the mind not with drugs, but from a mentalistic perspective such as talk therapy, meditation, or spiritualism. 

The Nature-Nurture Controversy: 

The nature-nurture controversy asks whether heredity or the environment have a larger influence over an individual and that individual's behavior. Nature proponents, such as Richard Herrnstein, William Shockley, or Arthur Jensen suggest that individual differences in intelligence, abnormal behavior, or personality are largely due to inherited characteristics. They cite as evidence studies indicating that IQ appears to be largely inherited. In addition, various studies investigating personality types show that an individual is born with a personality such as easy-going or difficult, and that these characteristics remain throughout the life span. 

In contrast, individuals such as B.F. Skinner or Albert Bandura suggest that environment plays the larger role in shaping an individual's personality and behavior. They cite studies showing the impact of the environment on the developing child. Studies which show a link between violence in the environment and later violent behavior; the effects of TV on later behavior, or children that are abused that later grow into abusers provide support for their viewpoint. 

Again, this controversy has major implications for psychology. If personality traits are largely inherited, there is little a psychologist can do to change the behavior. In contrast, if the environment highly impacts the developing individual, then environments can be altered to produce what are deemed positive behavioral characteristics. 

Free will versus Determinism in Behavior: 

The final controversy is that of free will versus determinism in our behavior. This issue asks are the actions of a human the product of free will (choice), or are individuals simply machines which respond to the environmental or inherited variables presented to them? 

Western society has a long historic tradition of free will. Certainly, religions such as Christianity and Judaism are based upon this concept. The legal system assumes that an individual has free will when he or she engages in a behavior. Psychologists such as Carl Rogers have been outspoken proponents of free will. Indeed, Rogers suggested that free choice is the most essential part of the human being.

In contrast to the free will approach, psychologists such as John Watson and B.F. Skinner have been proponents of determinism. John Watson was one of the first psychologists to suggest that humans have no free will, but are merely responding to the environmental variables that shape their behavior. Indeed, he was made quite famous for suggesting that, if he was given a dozen young infants and complete environmental control, that he could turn them into any personality type and give them any vocation that he chose. Needless to say, many parents and psychologists strongly disagreed with this. 

B.F. Skinner presented a much more refined version of this controversy. He stated that the existence of free will cannot be proven scientifically, and thus should not enter into scientific discussions. Rather, he felt that we could investigate the effects of environment on behavior, and that clear conclusions could be drawn from scientific investigations and manipulations of this sort. However, he also pointed out that as our environment affected us, we also affected our environment in return. Thus, individuals are not only determined by their environment, but they help determine their environment. 

Several implications emerge from this controversy. First, the issue of good versus bad behavior must be dealt with. Are individuals truly responsible for their actions? Second, if we are not responsible for our actions, how can we control or change behavior? 

Conclusions: 

One implication of these three issues facing not only psychology, but any discipline which manipulates an individual's behavior or attempts to change characteristics of that individual, is to what degree scientists can affect behavior and personality. Unfortunately, our scientific methods, and the resulting information we gain from such experiments, often get ahead of ethical and philosophical implications of such discoveries. For example, if behavior is hereditable, what are the implications of detecting genes for alcoholism, obesity, or aggression? When do we test, and what do we do with this information? If environment is responsible for much of our behavior, are we responsible as a society for providing an appropriate environment, and do we excuse those who do not benefit from the appropriate situation? If one's behavior is determined, and we do not have free will, should an individual be held responsible for his or her actions? These are issues we must face, not only as scientists, but as tax payers, citizens, and even parents. There are no answers as yet- and there may never be, but we must strive to understand and contemplate the outcomes to these questions if we are to understand psychology and the behavior of both others and ourselves.