The Place of Purpose (intention) and Causation in Psychology
A tradition from Aristotle through William James recognizes that behavior is purposeful rather than merely reactive. However, the only evidence for intentions was subjective. Behaviorists following Wundt, Thorndyke, Watson, and others rejected introspective reports as data for an objective science of psychology. Only observable behavior could be admitted as data.
There follows from this stance the assumption that environmental events (stimuli) cause behavioral actions (responses). This assumption persists in cognitive psychology, which interposes cognitive maps and other postulated information processing between stimulus and response, but otherwise retains the assumption of linear causation from environment to behavior.
Another, more specific reason for psychologists' rejecting notions of purpose or intention was that they could not see how a goal (a state that did not yet exist) could cause the behavior that led to it. PCT resolves these philosophical arguments about teleology because it provides a model of the functioning of organisms in which purpose has objective status without recourse to introspection, and in which causation is circular around feedback loops.
Read more about this topic: Perceptual Control Theory
Famous quotes containing the words place, purpose, causation and/or psychology:
“Being fooled, by foolery thrive;
There’s place and means for every man alive.”
—William Shakespeare (1564–1616)
“I am firmly opposed to the government entering into any business the major purpose of which is competition with our citizens ... for the Federal Government deliberately to go out to build up and expand ... a power and manufacturing business is to break down the initiative and enterprise of the American people; it is the destruction of equality of opportunity amongst our people, it is the negation of the ideals upon which our civilization has been based.”
—Herbert Hoover (1874–1964)
“The very hope of experimental philosophy, its expectation of constructing the sciences into a true philosophy of nature, is based on induction, or, if you please, the a priori presumption, that physical causation is universal; that the constitution of nature is written in its actual manifestations, and needs only to be deciphered by experimental and inductive research; that it is not a latent invisible writing, to be brought out by the magic of mental anticipation or metaphysical mediation.”
—Chauncey Wright (1830–1875)
“Psychology has nothing to say about what women are really like, what they need and what they want, essentially because psychology does not know.... this failure is not limited to women; rather, the kind of psychology that has addressed itself to how people act and who they are has failed to understand in the first place why people act the way they do, and certainly failed to understand what might make them act differently.”
—Naomi Weisstein, U.S. psychologist, feminist, and author. Psychology Constructs the Female (1969)