The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology

Abstract

The outline for theoretically unified psychology is offered. A new epistemological system is used to provide a unique vantage point to examine how psychological science exists in relationship to the other sciences. This new view suggests that psychology can be thought of as existing between the central insights of B. F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud. Specifically, Skinner's fundamental insight is merged with cognitive neuroscience to understand how mind emerges out of life. This conception is then joined with Freud's fundamental insight to understand the evolutionary changes in mind that gave rise to human culture. By linking life to mind from the bottom and mind to culture from the top, psychology is effectively boxed in between biology and the social sciences.We have a surfeit of facts. What we do not have, and most of us in the quiet of our nights know it, is an overarching conception of context in which we can put these facts and, having done so, the truth then stands a chance of emerging. (S. B. Sarason, 1989, p. 279) It is well known that there currently is no unified theory of psychology. There is so much ambiguity and so many theoretical schisms that students are taught to be skeptical of any unified approaches. In his popular book How to Think Straight About Psychology, Keith Stanovich (2001) characterized the difficulty in theoretically uniting the field as follows:The diversity of psychology guarantees that the task of theoretical unification will be immensely difficult. Indeed, many in psychology would argue that such a unification is impossible. Others, however, are searching for greater unification within the field . . . . No matter what their position on the issue, all psychologists agree that theoretical unification will be extremely difficult and that such a unification will occur years in the future, if it is to occur at all [italics added]. (p. 3)Stanovich further commented that many who first learn the subject matter are disappointed to discover the absence of a unifying perspective. However, he ultimately minimized the problems associated with disunity and suggested that the diversity of approaches in psychology is a strength.Although I applaud Stanovich's pluralistic approach from a political perspective, I take a different view on the issue of theoretical disunity. My view is similar to the one held by Arthur Staats (1983), who has articulated the problems associated with disunity as clearly as anyone. He observed:Psychology has so many unrelated elements of knowledge with so much mutual discreditation, inconsistency, redundancy, and controversy that abstracting general meaning is a great problem. There is a crisis, moreover, because the disunification feeds on itself and, left unchanged, will continue to grow. (Staats, 1991, p. 899) Others have expressed similar concerns. Paul Meehl (1978Meehl ( /1992 It is simply a sad fact that in soft psychology theories rise and decline, come and go, more as a function of baffled boredom than anything else; and the enterprise shows a disturbing abs...

Conscious thought is for facilitating social and cultural interactions: How mental simulations serve the animal–culture interface.

“…Instead, we suggest the goal of explaining oneself is to secure and maintain social rewards, including approval, validation, and acceptance by the group (e.g., Henriques, 2003). The true inner reasons for the action are therefore much less important than the ability to reconcile the actions with the values and norms of the group.…”

The motivation to control and the origin of mind: Exploring the life–mind joint point in the Tree of Knowledge System

“…The figure base represents the folk modules that direct the individual's attention toward and enable the automatic and implicit processing of social (e.g., facial expressions), biological (e.g., body shape of hunted species), and physical (e.g., use of objects as tools) information patterns that have been invariant during hominid evolution and have covaried with survival or reproductive outcomes; an example of an invariant pattern is that generated by the prototypic shape of a human face. These represent the respective domains of folk psychology, folk biology, and folk physics, and are consistent with the fundamental domains of knowledge proposed by Henriques (2003). I elaborate on these Figure 1.…”

How does psychotherapy influence personality? A theoretical integration

“…Scientists commonly use several conceptual dimensions to distinguish among the topics they study. Among the most important of these is the molecular-molar dimension or dimensions (Henriques, 2003). The molecular-molar dimension separates smaller systems of interest from larger ones.…”