|
Post by thecrystalmaiden on Jan 15, 2006 1:39:14 GMT -5
So I just recently started up a Psychology class in my college's 5-week session.
On the first day of class, an interesting debate was started by our teacher - it had to do specifically with "behavioralism" vs. "humanism." Behavioralists say that every action we make is predetermined by the experiences we've had, while humanists say that every person is gifted with "choice" and if a person takes a specific path in a certain situation, but is then somehow transported back in time to that exact same moment, they are capable of making a completely different choice. Behavioralists say that a person is not capable of making a different choice because if they are truly in that exact same moment with the exact same experiences to draw on, they will inevitably come to the same conclusion.
Keep in mind that in this argument, the definition of "choice" is being able to go back to that exact same moment and take a completely different path.
When the debate first started, I completely supported the humanists in thinking that a person has the capacity of going back to that exact moment in time and making a different choice. This is because I do believe that humans have an amazing capacity to change their ways. However, the more I debated with the behavioralists, it dawned on me that every action we make is based on previous experiences, even such decisions as simple as "chocolate or vanilla?" Why do I choose chocolate? Because I like chocolate. Why do I like chocolate? Because I previously experienced the taste and found that I enjoyed it, or maybe a friend told me I should try it. etc. etc. So if I was transported back to that same exact moment, would I truly choose vanilla based on my past experiences? No, because if I only had those experiences to draw on, then I would reach the same outcome. It's who I am, after all.
So now I am leaning more towards the behavioralists, simply because every argument I can come up with for the humanists I can explain by the behavioralist way of thought.
You're all bright and intelligent people on this board - what do you think of behavioralist vs. humanist? And please keep in mind what we mean by "choice" this time around, simply if a person was put in the exact same moment twice, are they truly capable of taking a completely different road? We are our actions, after all. =)
Debate and respect! ^_^
|
|
|
Post by Dimensional Leaf on Jan 15, 2006 4:15:48 GMT -5
Nice Crystalmaiden. We don't know. I think that if we believe we have the choice, then we have it. If we think that we are programmed by conditioning and experience to choose always the same, then we will inevitably create the same realities over and over. Personal reality are created by what we choose to believe and where we lay our attention. This is me writing from that creation. Don't rely. "It's who I am, after all"
|
|
|
Post by Sáille on Jan 15, 2006 5:25:12 GMT -5
"It is not our abilities which show who we truly are. It is our choices." You've got the ability to choose many different things. Yet it is not those abilities which shape you in making the choice. It is the choices you make which shape you. By making one choice, you discover a whole new ability. But if you never make that choice, you never discover that ability. I believe that our abilities are shaped by our choices. Life always begins with a choice. Am I going to be born or not? And you don't have any abilities to rely on at that moment. You just make the choice. But you could very well make a different choice. So I think I'm a humanist.
|
|
|
Post by radaeron on Jan 15, 2006 5:34:29 GMT -5
Sounds like a very interesting debate. It seems to me that the behaviouralists are bordering on determinism (de·ter·min·ism Audio pronunciation of "determinist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-tûrm-nzm) n. The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.) I am a determinist, so it looks like I'd be a behaviouralist Although I think we have an illusion of choice, simply because we can't see the future. So whether we'd do something the same over and over or not, people can still say they made a choice so they feel in control
|
|
|
Post by nimue on Jan 15, 2006 13:07:16 GMT -5
It could be argued that I'm a humanist. I believe that we are all free to do whatever we want to do. However, often the most logical, and indeed, easy choice to make is to rely on past experiances and use them to make your descision. I also feel, however, that if a human being truly wishes to wipe their slate clean, then they can.
Nimue
|
|
|
Post by djgirlcherise on Jan 15, 2006 13:58:09 GMT -5
Will power and choice definitely override predetermined behaviour. However, mathematically, I'm sure it can be proven that there are great odds against this.
But, that's what life is, a one in a million choice.
|
|
|
Post by radaeron on Jan 15, 2006 14:00:34 GMT -5
Mm... It is something I heard somewhere... (And for all I know right now it could've been said by a friend or on a film ) "What is life, but a series of choices"
|
|
|
Post by waterjag on Jan 15, 2006 14:18:42 GMT -5
Pre-determined behavior is what I am, the choices in my life arise at choosing what pre-determined behavior pattern I follow.
|
|
|
Post by Kivawolfspeaker on Jan 15, 2006 14:36:45 GMT -5
My question is, if you go back in time, do you have the memories and experiences of the time SINCE the time your going back to or are they erased in the process of going back time?
I guess that is the big question of me because the answer to that question can change the debate.
|
|
|
Post by Kivawolfspeaker on Jan 15, 2006 14:52:04 GMT -5
Keep in mind that in this argument, the definition of "choice" is being able to go back to that exact same moment and take a completely different path. quote] Well, my first reaction to this definition was no moment is exactly the same as any another, so time travel would have to be have to be possible, otherwise by this definition, people who believe in choice believe in something that is not possible.
|
|
|
Post by luz18 on Jan 15, 2006 14:54:42 GMT -5
Well, it does make sense to take a behaviouralist stance, simply because it makes the most sense. However, I'm also intrigued by humanism. In quantum physics, there is such thing as parallel lives/universes, in which we live a different life than the one we lead now. I think they are different because at that moment in time when we chose the chocolate ice cream in this life, we chose the vanilla in the other (parallel) one, which took us altogether on a different path. (Sounds a bit dramatic with the ice cream and all, lol, but do you get what I mean?) Could it be possible that *both* theories could co-exist?
|
|
|
Post by CrystalMaiden on Jan 15, 2006 15:28:57 GMT -5
Well Luz, I actually like the idea of both theories co-existing because rarely is the answer to anything within an extreme. Also, I really need to stress everyone that in this scenerio, the definition of choice is being transported back to that exact SAME moment, exactly the same, with the EXACT same experiences to draw upon (such as, no knowledge of the future interfering to change the outcome of the decision), and whether or not a person is truly capable of choosing a different road.
For instance, a man murders his wife in a passionate rage. Did he truly choose to murder her (by the definition we're following) or is it that every past experience in his life, including his childhood upbringing, relationship with his wife, daily stresses, etc. has led him to this moment and his actions were truly the only outcome based on the person his experiences have shaped him to be? Even knowing that he would be punished by the court system influenced his actions, even the illusion that he has a choice influenced his actions, but if he was transported back to that exact same moment he made the decision with NO new outside influences, is he truly capable of not murdering his wife?
It's true that we make decisions and come across "forks" in the road a million times a day, it's no debate that human beings struggle with those kinds of "choices" all the time, but the question is WHY do we make those decisions, and are we capable of being transported back to that same instance and making a completely different decision based on the same set of experiences and knowledge? This is why I say remember what the psychological definition of a choice is, because what a few of you are saying is logical but doesn't take into consideration what is really being asked here.
A human being can change course, yes, but what causes a human being to change? Outside influences acting upon it. Maybe a friend helping them, maybe a teacher, maybe an influential movie, but always an outside force influencing the human experience that leads to a change. So if a person is influenced by their friend and decides to go on a diet to lose weight, if they were transported back to that exact moment to make the decision all over again with no new knowledge or influences, could they really choose not to go on the diet, or is the decision inevitable?
It's not a bad thing either way, actually I think the behavioralist argument shows just how much human beings needs each other to progress in life. When I look back on my life, I see every decision I've made as having been effected by someone or something else at some point, and when I try to visualize myself going back to that moment in time with no knowledge of the future, I honestly can't see myself making any other decision because every choice I made is inherently the person I am, shaped by my own experiences.
|
|
|
Post by Kivawolfspeaker on Jan 15, 2006 15:56:28 GMT -5
What's more important whether people can actually go back in time or why they want to??
|
|
|
Post by radaeron on Jan 15, 2006 15:59:05 GMT -5
Imo, the "Why" is always more important.. For instance, someone wants to go back in time to stop Hitler coming to power.. or something major like that.. heck!
Even pushing a little child over 30 years ago could've changed the entire face of reality!
|
|
|
Post by Uriah on Jan 16, 2006 13:31:21 GMT -5
It seems to me that many times the thoughts that we have are entirely random. Some times when someone talks about a situation or a person it brings up certain thoughts and feelings and at other times( not being exactly the same ofcourse but similar) different thoughts or feelings will arise. I do believe that there are many pathways in the brain and some of them ... well, I can't say trigger randomly but there are so many connections that I believe another path could be chosen. We are made up from our experiences and many times they contradict a great deal. I don't think we could really know unless we experienced it or could test it one million times.
|
|
|
Post by pearldancer on Feb 5, 2006 1:39:03 GMT -5
CM
What did your class have to say (if it came up ) about the fact that we have the ability to analyse ourselves and uncover our hidden mechanisms? It seems to me that the thought experiment put forth could hold true in the one instance but when you look at life as a series of choices I definitely do not think that it would hold true for all of them. But then. .. .learning to analyse ourselves is part of our experience the next time a decision comes up so . .. hmmm. . . you got me! : )
|
|
|
Post by thecrystalmaiden on Feb 7, 2006 15:00:15 GMT -5
Well, it was just an introduction to psychology and it didn't say much about our individual abilities to analyze ourselves and uncover hidden mechanisms, only that a certain psychologist classified the ability to self analyze as a specific kind of intelligence that not all people have the same capacity towards. Such as some people analyze themselves/other people more than others. It didn't say much about the fact that we have that ability in the first place. I can't pretend to know much about psychology only having taken one class in it, but so far it seems to take for granted the fact that we self analyze and experience the feeling of making a "choice" in the first place. Eh, it's just an interesting conundrum.
|
|
|
Post by HellFireV4 on Jul 27, 2006 14:54:22 GMT -5
I don't like the idea of everything being controlled without a choice but outside curcumstances can effect your desicions. To be honest I'm interested in the theory of going back and being able to relive your past and remake your desicions. I'm not sure if this was a dream, reality or message or whatever but for some reason I have memories of redoing my earlier years of primary school, but I developed amnesia from stress so my memories before I was 13 are pretty messed up, oh well, something inside me just wants to learn to defy time so I guess I'll try to develop a method. I think I went off subject here ...oh well...bye p.s. if anyone has some theories on time travel message me on HellFireV5 or somethin (My account isn't activated yet )
|
|
|
Post by Gefiro on Aug 6, 2007 15:32:37 GMT -5
Everybody is born with pre-determined behavior, but as long as you are aware of it you can decide to change it or not. I think people make big deal out of these sort of arguments because they try to tell specific actions that people will make. In the universe there are all kinds shades of gray, however, some people are more closer to one of the extremes than others.
|
|