Motivational Courage Wolf Blue Night Moon Poster by hizli_art
Make custom prints online at zazzle.com
Motivational Courage Wolf Face Head Poster Print by hizli_art
View more Workplace home office wall Posters
Showing posts with label animal motivation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animal motivation. Show all posts
Motivational Courage Wolf Posters
Motivational Courage Wolf Blue Night Moon Poster by hizli_art
Make custom prints online at zazzle.com
Motivational Courage Wolf Face Head Poster Print by hizli_art
View more Workplace home office wall Posters
Desire and Purpose
The concept of purpose is one which appears to be of fundamental importance for the theory of motivation. This concept has, however, been the object of radical disagreement among psychologists. Some of the latter have regarded it as furnishing the clue to all psychological thinking, whereas others have rejected it entirely as a basic explanatory principle. Mechanists have naturally objected to accounts in terms of purpose, whereas more sentimental thinkers have found this notion the easiest one to use in their attempts to solve the problems of human motivation. For a long time, philosophers have contrasted explanations of the purposive type with those in terms of mechanical causation; they have implied that the distinction between so-called final and efficient causes is fundamental, and that the two notions are incapable of being reduced to a common denominator.
It is our view that this conflict between the purposive and the mechanistic theories is attributable to a confusion of ideas and to superficiality of analysis. Purpose, as it is understood by the man-in-the-street, is undeniably a factor in life, and no amount of introspection or physiological research can rule it out. A psychology which eliminates purpose cannot possibly correspond with the facts. However, the man-in-the-street cannot tell you what purpose actually is, although it is quite likely that he will give an account of it which closely resembles that which is offered by the purposive psychologist or philosopher. The commonest confusion is of course that between purpose and function. Probably no enlightened modern thinker intends to identify these two ideas, but their complete separation appears to present emotional difficulties. The mere fact that a structure is subservient or instrumental to the maintenance of life seems to endow it with purpose.
The exact import of Darwin's teachings has probably been missed even by many of his most devout adherents. Possibly he did not perceive it in its broadest aspects, himself, since he was concerned to show that the purposive account of organic structure and function could be superseded, instead of dealing directly with the facts of evolution, without any reference to purpose. The essence of Darwin's formula lies in a proposition which seems almost tautological. It says that only those structures can continue to exist which are so constituted as to make them capable of existing. So long as the universe exists it will contain structures, and some of these will endure, substantially unchanged, longer than will others. No structure endures forever, but its life will be long in proportion as its constitution is such as to contribute to stability. If old structures are destroyed, the conservation of matter and energy demand that new ones should be generated. Nothing could be more in harmony with rational expectation than that the structures which continue to exist--like those of organic species--throughout long periods of time, should be so constituted as to be capable of maintaining such existence. Otherwise, as Darwin correctly indicated, they could not be here. If we regard the process of evolution, thus, from a strictly objective standpoint there is certainly nothing in it anywhere to suggest the notion of purpose.
If, on the other hand, we make a careful study of purpose, we find that it is by no means independent of the Darwinian principles. Although purposes do not explain evolution, evolution can certainly explain purposes.
It is our view that this conflict between the purposive and the mechanistic theories is attributable to a confusion of ideas and to superficiality of analysis. Purpose, as it is understood by the man-in-the-street, is undeniably a factor in life, and no amount of introspection or physiological research can rule it out. A psychology which eliminates purpose cannot possibly correspond with the facts. However, the man-in-the-street cannot tell you what purpose actually is, although it is quite likely that he will give an account of it which closely resembles that which is offered by the purposive psychologist or philosopher. The commonest confusion is of course that between purpose and function. Probably no enlightened modern thinker intends to identify these two ideas, but their complete separation appears to present emotional difficulties. The mere fact that a structure is subservient or instrumental to the maintenance of life seems to endow it with purpose.
The exact import of Darwin's teachings has probably been missed even by many of his most devout adherents. Possibly he did not perceive it in its broadest aspects, himself, since he was concerned to show that the purposive account of organic structure and function could be superseded, instead of dealing directly with the facts of evolution, without any reference to purpose. The essence of Darwin's formula lies in a proposition which seems almost tautological. It says that only those structures can continue to exist which are so constituted as to make them capable of existing. So long as the universe exists it will contain structures, and some of these will endure, substantially unchanged, longer than will others. No structure endures forever, but its life will be long in proportion as its constitution is such as to contribute to stability. If old structures are destroyed, the conservation of matter and energy demand that new ones should be generated. Nothing could be more in harmony with rational expectation than that the structures which continue to exist--like those of organic species--throughout long periods of time, should be so constituted as to be capable of maintaining such existence. Otherwise, as Darwin correctly indicated, they could not be here. If we regard the process of evolution, thus, from a strictly objective standpoint there is certainly nothing in it anywhere to suggest the notion of purpose.
If, on the other hand, we make a careful study of purpose, we find that it is by no means independent of the Darwinian principles. Although purposes do not explain evolution, evolution can certainly explain purposes.
The Mechanism of Learning
The problem to which we must direct our attention is that of the process by which lines of specific conduction, or response control, are laid down through the cerebral cortex. This problem is substantially identical with that of the physiological nature of learning. We have already reviewed some current theories regarding this process in our discussion of doctrines of animal motivation. Our present task is to consider these views more critically and to endeavor to develop a satisfactory theory for the purposes of our own discussion.
The reader will recall that experiments upon animals, supplemented by observations upon human beings, have suggested the following explanations of learning.
In the first place, all authorities agree that if nervous conduction occurs through a path, this path is thereby reduced in resistance and will conduct more freely in the future. This is the principle of use, exercise, or practice. Furthermore, it is pretty generally agreed that primitive learning requires a principle of random movement or "trial and error" response. The organism must be able to "experiment" with its reactions in order that it should succeed in the adoption of satisfactory behavior in any given situation. The essential problems in connection with learning of this sort appear to be, first, that of the physiological basis of "random movement," and, second, that of the nature of the process of "adoption," "stamping in," or "learning by experience."
We have seen that the majority of psychologists have attributed this fixation process to some feature of the satisfaction of instincts, appetites or desires. Thorndike has formulated the effect in terms of pleasure-pain, comfort-discomfort, or satisfyingness-annoyingness.
The reader will recall that experiments upon animals, supplemented by observations upon human beings, have suggested the following explanations of learning.
In the first place, all authorities agree that if nervous conduction occurs through a path, this path is thereby reduced in resistance and will conduct more freely in the future. This is the principle of use, exercise, or practice. Furthermore, it is pretty generally agreed that primitive learning requires a principle of random movement or "trial and error" response. The organism must be able to "experiment" with its reactions in order that it should succeed in the adoption of satisfactory behavior in any given situation. The essential problems in connection with learning of this sort appear to be, first, that of the physiological basis of "random movement," and, second, that of the nature of the process of "adoption," "stamping in," or "learning by experience."
We have seen that the majority of psychologists have attributed this fixation process to some feature of the satisfaction of instincts, appetites or desires. Thorndike has formulated the effect in terms of pleasure-pain, comfort-discomfort, or satisfyingness-annoyingness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)