|
|
|
Revision:Psychology model answers - reductionist explanations in psychology
From The Student RoomTSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Psychology > reductionist explanations in psychology Critically Consider Arguments against reductionist explanations in psychology (30 marks)Reductionism can be defined as the breaking down of a complex phenomenon into simpler components. Reductionist explanations can be desirable by scientists of all areas because they offer a simpler explanation for a complex phenomenon. This process can be useful because the effects of one variable can be isolated. A prime example of a reductionist explanation for abnormal behaviour is brain damage. This sort of physiological reductionism reduces behaviour to the action, or malfunction of neurotransmitters and hormones located in the brain. Physiological reductionism has been considered to adopt a more humane approach to the treatment of mental illness, as it doesn’t inherently blame the patient, as the illness is beyond their control. However, to just reduce brain damage to the release of neurotransmitters in the brain is surely an inadequate explanation as it ignores environmental and cultural factors. Genetics is another physiological explanation, the idea that we inherit certain genes which promote certain undesirable or abnormal behaviour; that are once again out of our control. This is a solely reductionist-oriented explanation and once again fails to take into account any subsequent environmental or cultural factors. There are many arguments against reductionism in psychology. One of the most predominant arguments is the involvement of environmental factors in shaping our behaviour. A person’s environment can shape their behaviour through to old age, and whilst an individual may be born with certain genes, environmental factors such as society and a person’s family can shape any further behaviour. Also, experimental research does not always equate to real life and may dangerously misrepresent it. Dividing a system into parts assumes that if you put them back together, you will restore the original system. This may be true for simple systems but not for complex ones. Knowledge of the individual parts may not give you an understanding of how the whole thing operates or of its function. Pro-reductionistic arguments lean towards atomic theory. Since all animals are made of atoms, our behaviour must be explainable at this level, i.e. can be reduced to a physical level. This leads to two main assumptions. First, behaviour is nothing more than the sum of its parts. Second, there is no special “life force” added to the mix, no mental events are independent of physical events and every physical event has a physical cause. This argument dismisses the relevance of the mind and the role it plays in the development of emotional, cultural and individualistic factors. Atinkson and Shiffrin’s (1968) multi-store model of memory was a reductionist and linear account of how memory works. This could be classified as “machine reductionism”, as the brain is likened to a computer. Humanistic psychologists believe that the individual reacts as an organized whole rather than a set of stimulus-response links. This argument is governed under the concept of Holism. This approach focuses on systems as a whole rather than focusing on the constituent parts and suggests that we cannot predict how the whole system will behave from a knowledge of its components. Reductionist explanations can therefore play only a limited role in understanding behaviour. However, reducing behaviour to a form that can be studied is productive. This is indeed useful when trying to understand how things work. In reducing a concept to its component parts and simplest terms many aspects of it are disregarded. Reductionism does not give a full explanation for an otherwise complicated subject such as evolution or memory. Evolutionary psychologists explain behaviour in terms of natural selection and sexual selection. Such explanations are reductionist because they suggest that all behaviour can be reduced to genetic influences and the principle of adaptive ness. In terms of evolution the reductionist view ignores environmental factors and the huge part they play in a species evolution. By reducing it to its component parts the complicated matter of evolution can never fully be explained, thus leading to a simple but incomplete explanation. Individual factors are hard to explain under reductionism, because reductionist explanations generalise behaviour; despite being in its simplest terms. Each individual being is unique and responds differently when compared to another person. A reductionist explanation would be genetics, but the same behaviour in two people could be caused by separate environmental and biological factors, thus limiting the reductionist explanation. The concept of emotion is inherently ignored by the reductionist explanation, mainly because it is improbable that a persons emotions can be explained through neurotransmitters. However, certain hormones are released when a person feels elated, excited or scared such as adrenaline and certain endorphins. This draws to the conclusion that perhaps there is a link between behaviour (namely emotions) and the biological release of neurotransmitters. Reductionism has been criticised as being an inaccurate explanation of reality, it only uncovers the component parts, which leads to an incomplete construction of reality. Reality is probably best understood by acknowledging all aspects of explanations, both physiological and environmental or emotional. A fundamental problem with reductionism is that is lures psychologists into making impractical cause and effect links. This means that various “emergent” properties in our society such as history and economy can be overlooked, resulting in reduced accounts of human behaviour. A further argument against reductionism is that reductionist goals are inappropriate for psychology. Humanistic psychologists believe that it does not make sense to study reductionist accounts of human behaviour. Another hindrance of reductionism is the somewhat “erroneous” explanations of behaviour. Methodological reductionism aims to make the study of behaviour more accessible by reducing variables. The findings of such experimental research will inevitably have low generalizibility and cannot be applied to other settings. This is because the key variables have been simplified. For example, memory research often involves learning nonsense syllables or word lists, a simplification of real world memory tasks. However the findings are mistakenly generalized to memory in general. If memory is studied in the real world, findings may be different. Reductionist explanations can be useful, by reducing complicated concepts to their component parts behaviour can be more easily understood. However, sometimes this offers too much of a simple solution to an otherwise more complicated problem. For example giving anti-depressants to someone who is depressed may seem like an optimal solution, but this may overlook the real problem; such as family problems. This is one fundamental problem that the reductionist explanation has; many compound things such as family and genetics usually surround behaviour. Also, there are emergent properties in society, which the reductionist explanation disregards. The extent to which the reason for behaviour can be reduced depends on the type of behaviour. Each society brings different morals, cultural diversity and environments, so perhaps a more broadened perspective on the matter would be most productive to science; and psychologists. Other Useful Articles
Comments
| 
|
