Differing Approaches to Human Psychology: An Exploration and Discussion - Coursework Example

Section/# Differing Approaches to Human Psychology: An Exploration and Discussion The debate between heredity and environment is one that has been ongoing since before modern psychology was understood or widely practiced. However, in the light of continued scholarship, this debate has come to be differentiated in many different ways and understood as having a causal relationship to the way in which individuals behave and understand the world around them. As such, the following discussion will be concentric upon seeking to define this ongoing debate within psychology as it exists with relation to evolutionary psychology as compared to social constructivism. Introduction: Human knowledge and understandings of psychology are not a static constructs. Rather, as information grows and the scientific process corrects itself, new theories are put forward and evidence for them is analyzed. Looking back over the past 150 years, one of the most profound changes that human thought and scientific knowledge has taken is according to the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution. Although this has typically been constrained to an understanding of biological life science, the theory of evolution also portends a great deal of definition and possible understanding with regard to such diverse and interrelated fields as human psychology, sociology, and ultimately the way in which human interaction and individual emotions are exhibited within the current environment. However evolutionary psychology is not the only approach towards understanding how human emotions develop and what causal factors contribute to this development. In addition to evolutionary psychology, another well utilized approach is that of social constructivism. Within the social constructivist’s frame of understanding, human emotion is defined, limited, and normalized via interactions with other individuals; not through the evolutionary standpoint. Although such a necessarily short analysis is not sufficient to delineate and thoroughly measure such a broad and nuanced topics, a survey of the respective issues at hand will herein be discussed as a way of leveraging a further level of understanding within the mind of the reader. This acceptance of evolutionary theory with respect to psychological interpretations has oftentimes been dubbed evolutionary psychology (or EP) (Buss 1999). Whereas it cannot be understood that evolutionary psychology is a flawless theory that helps to explain the mechanisms by which psychology is understood at each and every level, the following analysis will seek to weigh some of the challenges and arguments against evolutionary psychology and determine whether or not these challenges merit a reconsideration of the theory as such. One of the most strident forms of criticism of evolutionary psychology that currently exists is according to what is termed as “optimality principle”. At each the very core definition, the optimality principle refers to the fact that evolution is capable of providing the entity that it acts upon with an optimal level of efficiency (Nesse, 1990). In short, this underscores and underlines the very core tenet of what the theory of evolution itself puts forward; specifically and especially according to the biological constructs of the theory of evolution. In such a manner, the individual who ascribes to and evolutionary psychology approach must therefore that that many of the actions and psychological responses/thought processes that are exhibited within the test subjects must necessarily be evidence of the fact that the optimality principle has a hand to play in the way the human emotions and psychological responses are developed and differentiated (Ingraham et al, 2012). Those that resist such an interpretation put forward the understanding that the optimality principle is an ineffective measurement of how and why behavior and psychological response is exhibited in the way it is. The most obvious shortcoming of the optimality principle is the fact that measurement within any one specific period of time is an ineffective means of determining whether or not the optimality principle, and by extension evolutionary theory, can have a positive or negative impact upon human psychology. In short, rather than this shortcoming being a means for an individual to reject evolutionary psychology as an incomplete theory is minimal. The ultimate reason for this is the fact that evolutionary psychology functions in exactly the same way that the biological theory of evolution functions. Rather than taking current exhibitions of behavior and/or human psychology as the unit of measure, one must consider the fact that whatever is represented within a given case study is merely indicative of a process of change that has differentiated itself based upon evolutionary pressure (Zajonc, 1980). As such, positive and negative approaches that reference such an outcome must not be concentric on defining the human psychological construct as good, bad, evolved, failed, working, or effective. Rather, the means by which such an approach can more appropriately be understood is with regards to defining it as a progression and growth based upon prior levels of psychological theory and/or reality that were previously represented (Prinz, 2005). In much the same way and by the same token the human biological processes have been differentiated and refined over a process of millions of years, evolutionary psychology proposes that the same pressures has helped to differentiate the means by which psychological responses are exhibited over time (Prinz, 2004). As such, the theory makes no specific claim that perfection or some type of increased level of goodness is evidenced within the current time as compared to the past. Rather, the only claim that is put forward by evolutionary psychology is with regards to the fact that current exhibitions of human psychology are a more evolved way of responding to the stimuli that exists within current and past environments (Kruger & Armenti, 2012). Problems with Evolutionary Psychology as a Theory: The Social Constructive Approach and Rebuttal As one might expect, the social constructivist point of view is one that places a high premium on the way in which individuals interact and the inference and meanings that these separate interaction spring. Naturally, this particular approach stands in contrast to the way that evolutionary psychologists understand theory as it applies to the way in which human emotions are predicated. Whereas the evolutionary psychologist would likely be of the understanding that emotional responses are merely predetermined mechanisms that have developed over centuries, the social constructivist would point to the fact that the emotional responses that are exhibited in day-to-day interactions are invariably the result of reinforcement of behavior and prior experiences taken place within the lifetime of the individual. As can be seen, the social constructivist standpoint is one that is necessarily more involved in the nuances of personal experience; as compared to the more detached and universal application that evolutionary psychology would purport to engage. Furthermore, as a function of further analyzing the social constructivist response to analyzing evolutionary psychology, the following section will be dedicated to analyzing some of the weaknesses and shortcomings that evolutionary psychology represents; at least from the standpoint of the social constructivist point of view. One key issue that social constructivists cite concerning the inability of evolutionary psychology is with regards to the so called “lags in development”. As such, the “cost of adaptation” is referenced as defining what the correcting influence allows for the changes in stimuli, reaction, and subsequent changes to psychological reaction and behavior that exists within humans. This is a particularly interesting topic and unit of analysis due to the fact that the biological counterpart of psychological evolution has left a complex yet evident fingerprint upon the globe with respect to the physically tangible evidence that exists as a result of archaeological research. Whereas scientists that study the fossil record are able to point to his key and specific changes in species Through the course of millions of years, and analysis of human psychology from such a standpoint is almost impossible to discern. As such, the amount of extent evidence that exists which promotes an understanding concerning the legitimacy of evolutionary psychology is all but nonexistent. This creates a causal and speculative breakdown with regard to the extent that scientists and psychologists to integrate with such a theory can further promote the legitimacy of their claims (Durrant & Ellis, 2013). The testability of the hypothesis is in and of itself extraordinarily difficult to promote. Although it does bear a unit of similarity and comparable nature to the biological aspects of growth and development that are illustrated in the fossil record, no such tangible proof or discernible records exists within the realm of psychology. As a means of countering such an argument, those scholars and scientists who ascribe to environmental psychology as a means of explaining current and past human behavior and thought processes promote the idea that although it might be impossible to firmly delineate a key set of responses and/or and environmental setting that might exist many tens of thousands of years ago, the pressures and realities of the human existence can be inferred within the current era and a great deal of insight can be made with regard to the way in which the early homo sapiens, and subsequent human populations, evolved to exhibit a reaction and evolutionary response to these pressures (Plutchik, 1995). For instance, evolutionary psychologists point to the fact that human pregnancy, the need for hunting and gathering, the importance of community, and many other factors can be evidenced even within our own complex and fast-paced society. As such, even though no legitimate record exists of the world at this time, a general level of inference can of course be provided. Another approach that individuals who are skeptical of evolutionary psychology oftentimes exhibit is what is referred to as a reductionism and/or determinism approach. Within such a constraint, those individuals who believe that social and psychological evolution is an ineffective measurement of current behavior and human thought processes promote the understanding that a strictly evolutionary delineation of human psychology reduces the overall level of inference that can be gained with regards to the way in which nurture and nature impact upon human psychological response. However, as a means of countering such an argument, the reader should be aware of the fact that both nature and nurture are exhibited within the theory of evolutionary psychology. Within such a way, nature is of course exhibited according to the fact that psychological response is affected as a function of environmental pressure (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). Conversely, nurture in and of itself does not need to exist as a wholly separate component of the evolutionary process. As has been proven through anthropological and archaeological research in the field of biological evolution, nurture in and of itself can have a direct impact upon the way in which specific behaviors and/or species variation is exhibited time. Another core argument that exists against evolutionary psychology is what is known as “the cost of adaptation”. Whereas within the field of biological evolution it is somewhat easy to denote particular species that struggled and/or ultimately became extinct as a direct result of their inability to adapt, the realm of human psychology does not oftentimes pose such stark levels of contrast between success and failure; or between life and death. Due to the fact that psychological choices oftentimes are impacting only upon the individual himself/herself, the degree and extent to which extrapolation can be made based upon an entire population, or an entire race, is greatly different from the level of extrapolation it can be made with regards to the biological levels of evolution that have thus far been discussed. Of all of the arguments made against evolutionary psychology, it is the cost of adaptation argument that is perhaps the most salient. However, what must be noted, alongside the information which has already been presented, the fact that the current exhibition of human psychology within the world is not and should not be accepted as the final and determinate version of evolutionary success. Rather, the transient nature of human psychology, and the means by which it continues to morph, evolved, and grow, is only further proof of the fact that the cost of adaptation is exhibited within behavior rather than existence and further propagation of the species as such. In this way, seeking to measure the correct determinant is the more applicable measurement in defining whether or not psychological evolution is a salient construct and worthy of consideration within the field of scientific research. Ultimately, researchers who have grappled with explaining evolutionary psychology within the construct of the cost for adaptation note the fact that humans, at least within the current era, have a variety of somewhat involved mechanisms and means of solving a great plethora of different at active problems. Rather than being able to specialize in any one particular field, this denotes that a high level of knowledge is spread equally throughout a broad and vast psychological dynamic. This of course forces the reader to understand that both nature and nurture go a long way in determining the levels and extent to which the individual will incorporate with this broad body of knowledge. Although some of this can of course be considered as a biological necessity for life, much of the interaction and definition of reality that exists within the field of psychology is also concentric upon the level and extent to which nurture can impact such a realization on the individual. As such, a great level of differentiation necessarily exists with respect to psychological evolution based upon the particular population or unit of measure that is delineated. Regardless of this deviation that might exist, a baseline of standardization also exist with regards to evolutionary psychology and provides the basis by which researchers are able to draw further inference with regards to this topic; both in the current era as well as the past. Although psychological evolution is not an ineffective measurement for each and every aspect of psychology, as a result of some of the shortcomings which have been delineated, it nonetheless represents an effective measure of many of the ways in which human interaction and modes of thought and realization take place. Conclusion: As a result of the information that is been presented, it is further belief and understanding of this author that a more effective and nuanced level of integration for evolutionary psychology can be affected by implementing further research into the field of the coalescence of nurture versus nature with regards to this. Whereas the information that is thus far been engaged due notes that there is a connection between the two, the exact nature and the means by which this impact generations populations of human beings is a salient issue to consider and research. Furthermore, it is the interpretation of this particular author that even though a vast amount of research has been conducted with respect to the salience of evolutionary psychology and its overall relevance to the realm of research, social constructivism is a far more determinant means by which understanding can be achieved. However, this fact notwithstanding, it is still not sufficient to warrant that the evolutionary psychological approach should be dispelled and ignored. Instead, it should be appreciated and engaged as a useful tool in certain circumstances of the means of understanding nuances that might otherwise be forgotten or misunderstood. Bibliography Buss, D 1999, Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of The Mind, Allby & Bacon. London. Plutchik, R 1965, ‘What is an emotion?’. The Journal of psychology, 61(2), 295-303. Durrant, R & Ellis, B 2013, Evolutionary psychology, Handbook of psychology, Vol. 3: Behavioral neuroscience (2nd ed.) pp. 26-51 New York, NY US: John Wiley & Sons Ltd PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 August 2013. Cassidy, J & Shaver, PR (Eds.) 1999, Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. Rough Guides. London. Ingram, G Campos, J Hondrou, C Vasalou, A Martinho, C & Joinson, A 2012, Applying Evolutionary Psychology to a Serious Game about Childrens Interpersonal Conflict, Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 5, pp. 884-898, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 August 2013. Kruger, D, & Armenti, N 2012, SPECIAL ISSUE ON APPLIED EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY, Journal Of Social, Evolutionary & Cultural Psychology, 6, 3, pp. 257-259, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 August 2013. Nesse, RM 1990, ‘Evolutionary explanations of emotions’. Human nature,1(3), 261-289. Prinz, J 2005, ‘Are emotions feelings?’. Journal of Consciousness Studies,12(8-10), 9-25. Prinz, J. 2004, ‘Which emotions are basic’. Emotion, evolution, and rationality, 69-87. Zajonc, RB 1980, ‘Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences’. American psychologist, 35(2), 151. Read More