Psychology Articles

There are different fields of psychology each assuming a study of different aspect of human behaviour as it relates to social, mental, emotional and developmental issues. Whilst clinical psychology looks at diagnosing and treating disorders of the brain, emotional disturbances and behaviour problems, child psychology looks at the mental and emotional development of the child and is also a part of developmental psychology which takes into consideration the study of change in behaviour that occurs throughout the lifespan of the child.

Cognitive psychology looks at how the human mind receives and interprets impressions and ideas while social psychology examines how the actions of others influences the behaviour of an individual (Webster’s New World Medical Dictionary).

Consequently there are several schools of thought on the subject and countless tests, assessments and research have been carried out in these different branches of psychology, each addressing issues and causes as they relate to human behaviour. The branch of psychology relating to the child however has seen a great deal of interest over the years. Understanding the mystery that is the child has been the subject of endless studies and debate. Out of this has emerged a great spotlight on the family hence greater recognition is placed on the impact of various family related factors on the overall development and social interaction of the child. Some of these factors include the roles of parents or guardians, spousal separation. Children are seen as vulnerable beings who are therefore easily affected by changes to their ‘familiar’. Since these impacts so greatly on the child, quite a lot of children enter the school system each year plagued with varying behavioural issues. These issues as we will come to see later on can have dire consequences for the child as well as those having responsibility for the child.

The idea that children are extremely complex individuals is brought out in the emphasis that psychologists place on childhood studies.On the one hand are those children who are anxious and afraid while on the other are the ones with aggression and deceit. However there are also those who do not fall into either of these groupings. From some of the highlighted studies carried out in different parts of Britain, it was found that the percentages of school age children who are considered as having behaviour problems is quite high with some studies showing as high as 33% in combined levels of behaviour difficulties. These problems are as varying in types and levels as they are in root causes among which are gender and class. Some of these problems are seen from quite an early age and while some children will grow out of it others will continue to display difficult traits for quite some time. This may to a great extent depend on the cause of the problem. It becomes obvious that the role of the teacher can offer a situation that in itself can be quite a complex and daunting task especially for an individual who has no understanding of psychology as it relates to the child.

Having the knowledge of how and why children react the way they do to certain situations,and understanding how and why they are influenced by the people and situation created by their environment, will undoubtedly assist the classroom practitioner in assessment of and planning to meet the needs of these children. An understanding of how the classroom situation may offer challenges particularly to younger children is crucial to helping children adjust to and consequently enjoy their school life.

It is however in understanding the behaviour and more importantly the root cause of it that any individual can begin to address it in the appropriate context. Barnes proposes two contrasting perspective on behaviour as it relates to children with difficulty.The first from a medical point of view where the child’s behavior is inherent while on the other hand the problems are borne out of the social situation of which the child is a part. Whether or not either of these models is in fact correct is not very relevant but presents the idea that difficulty in children can be borne out of various contributing factors. Also, he highlights the idea that a “difficult” child can be something of a perception on what difficulty is. For one individual a child may be problematic while for another who is able to identify certain traits and characteristics, the child is perfectly normal and manageable.

The term difficult is quite relative. Difficulty in children will therefore manifest itself in different ways /forms and to different individuals. In this respect one might question whether this is indeed a difficult child or is it rather that the child is relating to different situations and individuals in a different way, testing the boundaries perhaps? An individual who is firm and set certain boundaries for the child may find it far easier to deal with that child than one who is more relaxed and does not set clear boundaries. Then again there are those children who because of some of the factors mentioned before, will display difficult behaviour.This behaviour will manifest itself in different ways. While some troubled children are withdrawn and shy others will act out their insecurities in a totally different way often being boisterous and angry, refusing to conform to requirements. Some of the common factors that often manifest itself in school age children are tantrums, withdrawal, and refusal to conform among others.

It is in understanding the groupings children’s behavior is generally classified into that the teacher will be able to cope in the classroom.

One of the key roles of the teacher apart from the ability to teach is the ability to maintain class control which involves managing behaviour in the classroom. As mentioned before, classroom behaviour will manifest itself in different ways. This involves children who refuse to do as asked, including completing tasks, children who are constantly out of their seats disturbing others, consistent talking and even bullying. Ultimately the teacher has to be able to deal with and understand difficult children. This task can prove quite challenging. Pupils come to school from all types of backgrounds and situations and consequently with all types of issues.

With the focus of the Education system today so result driven, teachers are placed under extreme pressure to ensure that students achieve often unrealistic targets. Schools are often also guilty of placing expectations on pupils based on school type, region and age rather than focus on the individual child and his/her circumstances. Therefore they are seen as problematic when their behaviour falls outside the acceptable range of tolerance and age appropriateness.

In order for all students to achieve their maximum potential the classroom atmosphere must be free of any and all situations which may be stressful to both the pupils and the teacher, for there to be a consistent approach to learning and teaching in the classroom it is important that the teacher be armed with a lot more than an excellently drafted lesson plan. This awareness begins with the process of the entire school understanding key issues in child development and child psychology. While most schools today have a behaviour policy and generally they do try to enforce this, it is more important for schools to focus on child development issues in order to understand and deal effectively with behavior in children. What teachers need most therefore are not so much insets on enforcing the behaviour policy but looking more closely at understanding the causes of the behaviour.

Some schools of thought believe that schools should develop a ‘consistent’ Behaviour Management Plan that incorporates different techniques. These techniques together should enable the schools to deal with the most common classroom behaviours. This involves the teacher’s ability to develop and apply different strategies that will address behaviour in the classroom. This encourages the use of a fixed set of rules.The problem with this however is that as we have mentioned before no two children are alike and similarly no child’s problems are the same. Assuming however that the teacher has got grounding in psychology as it relates to children, this model can in effect be quite instrumental and effective. It is however important that key issues are addressed. Some of these will include consideration given to the stage and development of the children in question, ensuring that the child is treated with respect and fairness, considering whether it will enable the child to meet targets and achieve goals and whether it allow for continuity outside of the classroom. However to conform to this school of thought without taking into consideration the above issues associated with that child could possibly lead to further problems for the teacher and ultimately the child.

A teacher who is armed with the psychological facts is undoubtedly in a good position to be able to understand and therefore cope effectively with children displaying difficult behaviour. Being aware of the fact that a child with temper tantrums may only be craving attention, other children behaving out of sort or acting up in class may simply be rebelling against the inability to express themselves at home. Expressions of fears and mistrust in others may stem from deeper more disturbing causes either imminent or suffered at an earlier stage in their development. Problems at home, in their society, within their peer groups, childhood development and socialization, parental bonding or lack of it, sibling rivalry, peer pressure, molestation are only a few of the issues that children come to school with. The teacher is not just a facilitator but a confidant and often has to deal with issues that students will confide in them. It is aslo important therefore that the teacher be aware of certain protocols governing student’s confidentiality issues and how to proceed in identifying the right channel through which to direct the child. Since the child spends a much greater part of the day in the care of the teacher, the teacher is in a good position to spot inconsistencies and changes in a child’s behaviour patterns. This is where being able to identify and put a name to symptoms might prove crucial to helping a child going through a difficult situation.

The ability to differentiate between behaviour that is relevant to a child’s developmental stage as against behaviour that is distinctly caused by psychological disturbance, will be crucial to the early years teacher. But an understanding of when this behaviour is a normal attribute for a child of that age and when it is not, is key to pinpointing the emergence of a problem. Clinginess, bed wetting and tantrums are named as key traits among these young children. While these will be acceptable in very young children it becomes a concern if these traits continue into later stages of development. Certainly, an awareness of how children relate to environmental changes and routines will sometimes impact negatively on their behaviour.Some children may display different patterns of behaviour at home than at school. Then again acceptable behaviour will be relative to the expectations of those making the judgment and also to each individual child.

Since one must first underpin the cause of the problem in order to be able to attempt to find a solution, the teacher who has no understanding of psychology will try to apply various conventional methods of discipline to remedy a child’s behaviour and in doing so may only worsen the situation. Some simple remedies can sometimes alter a child’s behaviour in a radical way. So a child who acts up because he/she lacks attention,given small ‘jobs’ or tasks of responsibility in the classroom can change so much of that child’s behaviour because the child now begins to feel self-worth and see him/herself as being as good as or even better than other children. All that the child needed was a confidence boost.

History:

Forensic psychology came in light in the twirl of the twentieth century. In 1901, William stern studied on recollection of memory course. He made his students to analyze a picture for few seconds and then asked questions to them relating to it. He then concluded from his research that memories which are recalled are in general not precise. Lead-in query are frequently use in police force cross-examination and in inquiring spectators. The first forensic psychologist is often said to be “Hugo Munster berg”. He wrote a book which was published in 1908 which was titled as “On the Witness Stand”. There were some other scientist who has created some test which is helpful for the legal proceeding is Sigmund Freud and Alfred Bi net. There studies suggested that the time taken by an individual to answer a question may possibly be an aspect in determining guiltiness or incorruptibility.

About forensic psychology:

It is the interface between psychology and the law, so all psychosomatic services offered for the official community is forensic psychological services. The services provided are both medical and forensic in nature. It is also known as the application of science and its answers to the queries relating to the rules and regulation of the legal system. The term “forensic” came from “forensic” which means the forum it is a Latin word. Presently it refers for the purpose of technical and scientific principles to carry out a challenging process which is possible with a well-educated and highly professional scientist.

Key terms:

Some key terms in forensic psychology are Insanity, Expert Witness, Competency, Jury Consulting and Criminal Profiling. Some motivating Sub fields contained by this Psychology are social psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, criminal investigative psychology and clinical-forensic psychology.

Pros and cons in the field of forensic psychology:

Pros: Helping Others, Opportunities, Varying surroundings, acknowledgment and Personal Fulfillment, long-lasting Education, threat of Injury, no independent work it always teamwork, and Burnout Risk.

Cons: long-lasting Education, threat of Injury, no independent work it always teamwork, and Burnout Risk.

Qualities needed in Forensic Psychologist:

Desirable ability, aptitude, and acquaintance are the key qualities for forensic psychology. Those with an aspiration to work must be patient, flexible, at ease working with others, and take pleasure in doing research. One also have to be a good quality speaker for the reason that a lot of people who do work in this field work as specialist spectators at a few point through their career. An expertise in irregular, motivational, scientific, and social psychology is also main features to be victorious in this field. Additionally, working in this field requires continuing education throughout career, even after 5-7 years of graduate school. One cannot be a certified psychologist with out a doctoral degree.

Institutions for Master degree courses

A few Terminal Master Degree courses for practicing a profession in Forensic Psychology are Forensic Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the University of Melbourne.

George Anto is a Copywriter of Psychology, Forensic Psychology, Community Psychology. He written many articles in various topics such as sports Psychology. For more information visit: http://psychegames.com.

From two Greek words: psyche, which means the mind or the soul and logos, which means study, the science of Psychology has been studied and defined by many people throughout the ages. Hilgard, Morgan, Silverman, and Schlesinger are just a few. A careful analysis of their foregoing definitions of psychology reveals common points: Psychology is the scientific study of the behaviors of living organisms; the term behavior must not be solely attributed to man’s physical reactions and observable behavior; and thoughts, feelings, and attitudes are also connected to the term behavior.

The primary goals of Psychology are mainly to describe, identify, understand and explain behavior, to know its factors, and to control or change behavior. Psychologists often apply their knowledge and understanding of human behavior to solve issues and help in our society. Different areas of specialization in Psychology are studied to provide better understandings of this science.

Among these are the traditional fields consisting mainly of: Clinical Psychology which deals with the diagnosis, treatment, and evaluation of psychological problems. It also relates to Psychiatry which pertains to more serious problems; Counseling Psychology which deals with administering, storing, and interpreting psychological exams; Educational or School Psychology which deals with students’ learning and adjustment; Community Psychology which deals with problems of the aged, prisoners, and other problems in the community.

It also focuses on providing accessible care for these people; Social Psychology which deals with the behavior of man individually and in groups; Industrial or Organizational Psychology which deals with issues of people in the workplace; Personality Psychology which is concerned with the uniqueness of a person; Developmental Psychology which deals with factors affecting human groups; Experimental Psychology which focuses with the basis of scientific research; Physiological Psychology which is concerned with the functions of the brain; and Comparative Psychology which targets the differences of the species.

Aside from these, several branches of Psychology were discovered during the 70’s. Forensic Psychology deals with legal, judicial, and correctional systems. Environmental Psychology is primarily concerned about issues relating to the environment. Computer Science, on the other hand, uses computer programming for behavioral analysis. There is also Engineering Psychology which seeks to make the relationship between man and machines; and Psychopharmacology which deals with the relationship of behavior and drugs.

Furthermore, the latest fields of Psychology that were recently developed consist of: Health Psychology which focuses on multidimensional approaches that emphasize lifestyle and health care systems; Sports Psychology which applies psychological principles to improve performance and enjoy participation; Cross-culture Psychology which examines the role of culture in understanding behavior, thoughts, and emotions; and Women Psychology which emphasizes the importance of promoting research and study of women.

Allan enjoys writing up on a variety of subjects. Other than the above topic, he also likes to set up sites on different topics. Do check out his new site which covers useful information on spinal decompression.

Developmental Psychology describes an individual’s development process starting from the day of his conception to through to his death. It takes into account of all the factors that contribute towards building up of a human being. There are many factors that contribute towards building a person and these factors have been studied in order to understand “what makes us tick?”

When a child is conceived, his parents pass him on the genetic material. This genetic inheritance is a first step in the contribution towards our development of any kind. Obviously the genetic inheritance is all by chance but other factors that are not controlled by chance yet affect heavily towards psychological development of an individual are the environmental factors. How an individual psychic develops due to the environmental factors plays an important part in understanding the reasons for that individual committing to crime. Since this development starts from conception, therefore all the events during pregnancy will also play an important role in developing our psychological state. It has been found that factors such as mother’s mental state during pregnancy and her smoking and drinking habits effects heavily towards producing a child that is more likely to commit a crime. Other factors such as exposure to neurotoxin after birth, hypersensitivity, and male gender also predispose the individual to become a deviant and commit crime. Also if the parents are from a poor background, large family size or are divorced, this would also put the individual at a risk of likely to commit crime. This is understandable as parents contribute heavily towards development of a child. Therefore if the child is lacking in parental force or attention, he is lacking in his development. This could cause flaws in his personality, which in effect could make him weak and when presented with an opportunity to commit crime will not be able to resist. On other hand a child from stable background that had a complete and fair attention of his family and was given love and care. Punished when did something wrong, and awarded when performed well, that child will grow up to respect values and morals because they have been shown to him throughout his developmental years which will make him strong in character and would not commit crime if ever presented with the opportunity.

Farrington 1991 has given several factors, which relate the psychological development to risk of becoming delinquent. He has mentioned factors, such as Poor parent-child communication, lack of guilt in the child, maternal depression, poverty/low socio-economic status, maltreatment, television violence, early onset of other disruptive behaviour, poor academic achievement amongst many other. In conclusion, how we develop throughout our life, plays a vital role in us becoming a deviant and likely to commit a crime. Therefore in order to deal with crime and eradication of it, it is important to deal with these factors and to minimise the exposure to the risk factors will cause a normal development of an individual and less crime committed

What is De-individuation?

De-individuation theory describes a state of an individual’s mind which by nature is a good human being but when in a group situation, will react completely different to his usual good-natured self and act in a way, which is not acceptable under normal circumstances. This person will lose his self-identity in a large group and will act on behalf of the group rather than himself. His reaction will reflect the reaction of collective behaviour of the group, which could be completely different from his individual behaviour. Therefore this person has said to lose his self-identity and has become accustomed to de-individuation.

The example would be how people behave in a crowd situation. In a match crowd for example, which consists of many respectable individuals, but when overtaken by the emotions of the game and collective mood of the crowd will tend to misbehave and this will give rise to the hooligans. These mindless hooligans may be very soft natured human being in their normal lives but within a match crowd lose their self-identity and become irrational and irresponsible and just represents the crowd’s mood only. They seem to be overtaken by the anonymity and excitement of the crowd, which cause them to stop evaluating their own behaviour.

This theory was developed to explain the violence and irrationality of the crowd. How does a group of seemingly normal individuals become an unruly mob? All this makes the crowd fickle and explosive, and prone to anti-normative and disinherited behavior

http://www.manchesterscience.co.uk

In 1972, Thomas Nagel first introduced what is now known as the “epistemic gap” amongst contemporary philosophers. It was described in his paper “What Is It Like To Be A Bat?” and the gist of the argument was this: one cannot fully understand the mind unless one is experiencing that mind.

Nagel took the example of a bat because bats are so fascinatingly different than humans; they hang upside down most of the time, use echolocation, they are nocturnal, and most eat nothing but insects. Could a human ever convincingly claim that he knew what it was like to be a bat? Nagel didn’t believe this was possible – I agree.

Can the same be true amongst humans? Can another human fully understand the mind of another, or, does one have to be in the first-person to understand the mind more clearly?

Philosopher Frank Jackson wrote a paper in 1982 titled “Epiphenomenal Qualia” where he introduced the famous thought experiment known as Mary’s room. It goes like this:

“Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. (…) What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete.”

These arguments by Frank Jackson and Thomas Nagel are two of the most famous papers in support of the idea of qualia – a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. It is an idea often associated with the mind/body dualism (the belief that the mind is in some-part nonphysical, and therefore a separate entity from our physical bodies).

The epistemic gap does not prove any such thing however, and it is perfectly compatible with a materialist view of the mind. The real questions that the epistemic gap provokes is within the field of psychology and the scientific method itself.

Science is science – we believe – because of its objective, empirical, and third-person approach to knowledge. Science has often given men the ability to step outside of the happenings of natural phenomena, study them, test them, replicate their findings, and come to conclusions.

There is no doubting the breakthroughs and advancements science has come to offer man throughout the centuries. It would be foolish to deny these achievements.

Even in Western psychology (which is quite a young field relative to the natural sciences), researchers have made incredibly discoveries of the mind and how it works. We have devised useful models for how the mind perceives sensations (Psychophysics), how it processes information, stores memories, and solves problems (Cognitive Psychology), how the mind changes throughout the human lifespan (Developmental Psychology), how the mind builds associations and how these associations affect our behaviors (Learning or Experimental Psychology), how the brain or the “physical anatomy of the mind” works (Neuropsychology), and we’ve been given the chance to take all of this information and apply it to a variety of other fields: Clinical Psychology, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Sport Psychology, and even Forensic Psychology.

There is no denying the leaps psychology has made, all in the name of proper science. This is knowledge we would likely have not gotten any other way if it were not for the extraordinary and rigorous scientific method.

However, there is good reason to believe that Nagel and Jackson are right and that we cannot fully explain or understand a mind from an outside view. This is the belief that once science carries out its full course of discoveries that there will be something left unsaid about the mind (our understanding of the mind could never be as complete as our understanding of the physics on our planet). Unless – we redefine science.

But I believe we already have the techniques used to fully understand a mind – or at the very least, our own mind.

To understand this technique properly, we need to first drift away from the Western logical positivist philosophy of “if you can’t measure it, then it isn’t real,” which I believe has plagued much of modern day intellectual thought. Instead, I turn to the philosophies of the East – who have been studying the mind far, far longer and far more thoroughly than the West.

In particular I am fond of Buddhism which – like Western Science – takes pride in an objective approach to the study of phenomena. But there is a important property of the mind that Buddhists acknowledge and scientists go out of their way to ignore: the mind is – before all else – something that must be experienced first-person, or it wouldn’t be a mind at all.

This brings me to the practice of meditation – or more generally – a mindfulness of our inner worlds. There is a world in all of us that is subjective, personal, and completely our own. We cannot let anyone in it no matter how colorful our language or how much experience we share with another human being – it is ours and ours alone – and there are aspects to it that can only be dealt with by our self; no therapist, psychologist, family member, friend, scientist or spouse can ever figure it out for you.

Neither Buddhism or Science can rightfully claim to know how to bridge the gap between the subjective and objective. Both try their best to be objective at different vantage points: Science takes a third-person empirical approach while Buddhism takes a first-person empirical approach. Why can’t the study of the mind include both?

There is a fast growing interest in the West in meditative practices, yoga, tai chi, and other mind/body, holistic and alternative medicines for physical and mental health. This suggests there might be a vacancy in the West’s psyche, perhaps due to a combination of an incomplete scientific view of the mind along with an overwhelming nihilistic and atheistic attitude toward what would be deemed the spiritual or “mystic” aspects of man.

Many of these so called mystical practices are lumped into the demeaning pop psychology term “New Age.” Followers of so called New Age practices are said to be gullible and weak-minded – and perhaps some of them are. But it is also my belief that introspection and reflection on one’s mind can be the most rewarding and therapeutic practice for better mental health, the sharpening of one’s mental skill set, and a complete understanding of how the mind truly works (in the context of how it operates in the head of the individual and not by inference of a third-person observer).

Because of this I am very welcoming of these alternative and non-scientific studies of the mind. I in no way mean to deter scientific practices (I believe their should always be a science of the mind and a scientific study of human psychology), but I will stand up for the little guy on this one – science is not the giant be-all end-all of knowledge. It has its limitations, and we must be open to alternative studies of the mind. Sometimes we should turn our senses inward — and we may find there is some gold of truth to be discovered.

http://www.theemotionmachine.com

In 1972, Thomas Nagel first introduced what is now known as the “epistemic gap” amongst contemporary philosophers. It was described in his paper “What Is It Like To Be A Bat?” and the gist of the argument was this: one cannot fully understand the mind unless one is experiencing that mind.

Nagel took the example of a bat because bats are so fascinatingly different than humans; they hang upside down most of the time, use echolocation, they are nocturnal, and most eat nothing but insects. Could a human ever convincingly claim that he knew what it was like to be a bat? Nagel didn’t believe this was possible – I agree.

Can the same be true amongst humans? Can another human fully understand the mind of another, or, does one have to be in the first-person to understand the mind more clearly?

Philosopher Frank Jackson wrote a paper in 1982 titled “Epiphenomenal Qualia” where he introduced the famous thought experiment known as Mary’s room. It goes like this:

“Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. (…) What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete.”

These arguments by Frank Jackson and Thomas Nagel are two of the most famous papers in support of the idea of qualia – a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. It is an idea often associated with the mind/body dualism (the belief that the mind is in some-part nonphysical, and therefore a separate entity from our physical bodies).

The epistemic gap does not prove any such thing however, and it is perfectly compatible with a materialist view of the mind. The real questions that the epistemic gap provokes is within the field of psychology and the scientific method itself.

Science is science – we believe – because of its objective, empirical, and third-person approach to knowledge. Science has often given men the ability to step outside of the happenings of natural phenomena, study them, test them, replicate their findings, and come to conclusions.

There is no doubting the breakthroughs and advancements science has come to offer man throughout the centuries. It would be foolish to deny these achievements.

Even in Western psychology (which is quite a young field relative to the natural sciences), researchers have made incredibly discoveries of the mind and how it works. We have devised useful models for how the mind perceives sensations (Psychophysics), how it processes information, stores memories, and solves problems (Cognitive Psychology), how the mind changes throughout the human lifespan (Developmental Psychology), how the mind builds associations and how these associations affect our behaviors (Learning or Experimental Psychology), how the brain or the “physical anatomy of the mind” works (Neuropsychology), and we’ve been given the chance to take all of this information and apply it to a variety of other fields: Clinical Psychology, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Sport Psychology, and even Forensic Psychology.

There is no denying the leaps psychology has made, all in the name of proper science. This is knowledge we would likely have not gotten any other way if it were not for the extraordinary and rigorous scientific method.

However, there is good reason to believe that Nagel and Jackson are right and that we cannot fully explain or understand a mind from an outside view. This is the belief that once science carries out its full course of discoveries that there will be something left unsaid about the mind (our understanding of the mind could never be as complete as our understanding of the physics on our planet). Unless – we redefine science.

But I believe we already have the techniques used to fully understand a mind – or at the very least, our own mind.

To understand this technique properly, we need to first drift away from the Western logical positivist philosophy of “if you can’t measure it, then it isn’t real,” which I believe has plagued much of modern day intellectual thought. Instead, I turn to the philosophies of the East – who have been studying the mind far, far longer and far more thoroughly than the West.

In particular I am fond of Buddhism which – like Western Science – takes pride in an objective approach to the study of phenomena. But there is a important property of the mind that Buddhists acknowledge and scientists go out of their way to ignore: the mind is – before all else – something that must be experienced first-person, or it wouldn’t be a mind at all.

This brings me to the practice of meditation – or more generally – a mindfulness of our inner worlds. There is a world in all of us that is subjective, personal, and completely our own. We cannot let anyone in it no matter how colorful our language or how much experience we share with another human being – it is ours and ours alone – and there are aspects to it that can only be dealt with by our self; no therapist, psychologist, family member, friend, scientist or spouse can ever figure it out for you.

Neither Buddhism or Science can rightfully claim to know how to bridge the gap between the subjective and objective. Both try their best to be objective at different vantage points: Science takes a third-person empirical approach while Buddhism takes a first-person empirical approach. Why can’t the study of the mind include both?

There is a fast growing interest in the West in meditative practices, yoga, tai chi, and other mind/body, holistic and alternative medicines for physical and mental health. This suggests there might be a vacancy in the West’s psyche, perhaps due to a combination of an incomplete scientific view of the mind along with an overwhelming nihilistic and atheistic attitude toward what would be deemed the spiritual or “mystic” aspects of man.

Many of these so called mystical practices are lumped into the demeaning pop psychology term “New Age.” Followers of so called New Age practices are said to be gullible and weak-minded – and perhaps some of them are. But it is also my belief that introspection and reflection on one’s mind can be the most rewarding and therapeutic practice for better mental health, the sharpening of one’s mental skill set, and a complete understanding of how the mind truly works (in the context of how it operates in the head of the individual and not by inference of a third-person observer).

Because of this I am very welcoming of these alternative and non-scientific studies of the mind. I in no way mean to deter scientific practices (I believe their should always be a science of the mind and a scientific study of human psychology), but I will stand up for the little guy on this one – science is not the giant be-all end-all of knowledge. It has its limitations, and we must be open to alternative studies of the mind. Sometimes we should turn our senses inward — and we may find there is some gold of truth to be discovered.

http://www.theemotionmachine.com