The mind is flat: the shocking shallowness of human psychology

[DJP]

futurelearn wrote:

What are the forces shaping human behaviour? How do we think and decide? What are the origins of human rationality and irrationality?

Our everyday conception of how our minds work is profoundly misleading. We are victims of an ‘illusion of mental depth’- we imagine that our thoughts and behaviours arise from hidden motives and beliefs and that we can understand ourselves by somehow uncovering these hidden forces, whether through therapy, lab experiments or brain scanning.

This course will show you that the very idea of these ‘mental depths’ is an illusion. When this is stripped away, our understanding not only of minds, but also morality, markets and society is transformed.

I’m going to be taking part in the pilot run of this course, as there’s been discussion on this site concerning cognition thought I would share.

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/the-mind-is-flat-2014

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I'm going to be taking part in the pilot run of this course, as there's been discussion on this site concerning cognition thought I would share.

Just make sure you know which political ideology the organisers espouse, and get some basic definitions from them about what they mean by 'science', 'mind', 'rational', 'morality', etc., etc.Sounds very interesting. Even if you find that you disagree with their political beliefs, there should be plenty of 'facts' (sic) given, which you will then be able to rework into a more suitable framework, should it prove necessary.You might even be able to teach them a thing or two! Hope you enjoy it, DJP

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Just make sure you know which political ideology the organisers espouse, and get some basic definitions from them about what they mean by 'science', 'mind', 'rational', 'morality', etc., etc.

Well, I could do but that wouldn't affect the truth or falsity of any claims they make!Much of this will come from behavioural science and behavioural economics. Homo Economicus is dying out in the universities, that's the advancement of science for you!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Well, I could do but that wouldn't affect the truth or falsity of any claims they make!

Of course it will! 'Truth' and 'falsity' are related to 'knowledge', which is a social construct, and thus has a social and class component.This will be even more evident within psychology than it is in physics.

DJP wrote:

Much of this will come from behavioural science and behavioural economics.

You do know that these are heavily ideological? You are taking the piss out of me, aren't you?Perhaps I'm missing the irony in your post, DJP?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

You do know that these are heavily ideological? You are taking the piss out of me, aren't you?

I was speaking with my tongue in my cheek, though no bad will was intended or taken I hope!But it seems to me to be evidence that empirical research does dissolve unwarranted claims. Behavioral economists and psychologists are doing the hard work for us!

[ALB]

DJP wrote:

Behavioral economists and psychologists are doing the hard work for us!

Just reading this book The Marvelous Learning Animal by a behavioural psychologist which seems to be backing up our long-argued position on human nature:http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14568718-the-marvelous-learning-animal

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Behavioral economists and psychologists are doing the hard work for us!

Well, they'll collect 'facts' which accord with their ideological theories, so we'll have to sift and re-order their 'facts' according to our ideological theories, and then use our theories to accumulate more 'facts' from our perspective, and see how this mass of accumulated 'facts' from various sources seems to 'fit' together.Science means ideology.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Well, they'll collect 'facts' which accord with their ideological theories, so we'll have to sift and re-order their 'facts' according to our ideological theories, and then use our theories to accumulate more 'facts' from our perspective, and see how this mass of accumulated 'facts' from various sources seems to 'fit' together.

So what do you think we should do with facts that contradict our true faith, sorry ideology?

LBird wrote:

Science means ideology.

I appreciate the point you're trying to make but you're over egging it here.

[ALB]

Actually, in his book The Marvelous Learning Animal Arthur Staats doesn't contest "the facts" collected by today's dominant biological determinist scientists, that the brains and brain patterns of men, women, gays, people with learning difficulties, schizophrenics, etc are different. What he is challenging is the "ideological" assumption that these differences must be genetic. He says this is just an assumption which the biological determinists have not been able to prove by showing how genes do or even could determine human social behaviour. He proposes that the differences could equally be due to the experiences (learning) of these groups being different and this having an effect on their brains.You seem to be suggesting that just because socialists favour the second possible explanation socialists should interpret "the facts" in this way. That of course would be wholly "ideological". Staats says that the view he supports needs to be backed up by a coherent theory that fits "the facts", i. e. those who take this approach must show how learning affects and changes the brain. Which is where the neuroscience and (yes) neuroscientists come in. They do indeed seem to be doing our work for us. After all, we are not qualified to do it ourselves, are we? Are you?But we are in danger of turning yet another thread into a discussion of your theory of science.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

So what do you think we should do with facts that contradict our true faith, sorry ideology?

The ideology of 'I don't use an ideology, I just use facts' is an ideology. It's a 'true faith', which can't be argued with, as we have seen, no matter what evidence is presented to contradict it, even with those who present videos that contradict it!

ALB wrote:

But we are in danger of turning yet another thread into a discussion of your theory of science.

Yeah, let's just stick to the 'facts', eh?

ALB wrote:

Which is where the neuroscience and (yes) neuroscientists come in. They do indeed seem to be doing our work for us. After all, we are not qualified to do it ourselves, are we? Are you?

I like the 'personalisation' of the argument, ALB! Always the touch of those who are unsure!In fact, yes, I am 'qualified' to argue with the results of behaviourists' and neuroscientists' work: I'm a Communist. It gives me a head start.But… we wouldn't want a 'science' thread to turn into a discussion of 'science', would we?Fancy continuing to challenge the 'True Faith' of 'objective scientific method' which neutrally produces 'facts', which we then interpret.No, 'cart before horse', or 'slab before sea', as a critical Carr would say. But then, you'd know Carr, wouldn't you ALB? Remember, the guy that the SPGB holds up as a source for ideas, but then ignores those ideas in their practice?Right, I'll leave this issue alone now, on this thread, and refer anyone who's interested in finding out how 'science' actually does work, to the Pannekoek thread.

[Author]

Posts