[Week 16] FINAL DRAFT

Believing Behaviorism is Arrogance

No Man's Knowledge Here Can Go Beyond His Experience." / John Locke

 All scholars prove their hypothesis and discover academic facts by their empirical research and discovery. Even in the case of proving philosophical truth by logic, the process of proving itself is one kind of empirical found. So, human's researching and understanding toward the world has no choice but to be narrow because there are some mysterious secrets which cannot be realized by human's experience such as absolute truth in philosophy. However, positivism says that a human can uncover all of the secrets about the world only by science and technology. For example, behaviorists in psychology stated that psychologists should except invisible and abstract things such as desire in their research to study the human's mind. However, Is it true? No, psychologists can't understand the human mind correctly only with one viewpoint – behavior.

 Science is defined as a field that are composed of assured and universally empirical found which anyone can't refute. So to speak, science is 'universal' and based on 'experience'. Many psychologists argued that psychology should be a science. It's a right statement because the human mind has some universal pattern such as reinforcement and attachment , but it is different from others'. So it is essential to categorize psychology as a science to research the human's mind systemically. However, Many psychologists get their too high horse, saying that they can prove all secrets related to human's mind with high technology such fMRI in 21C. Furthermore, Richard Dawkins, a famous scientist, had confidence to conquer human's originality by science in his book, The Selfish Gene. On the other side,  some innovative scholars realized that behaviorism that reflects this attitude the best in psychology cannot explain the human's mind. For example, these scholars refuted the behaviorists' opinion, saying that behaviorists see all human's psychological mechanism as compensate and reinforcement like animals. So, like them, I would try to refute the scholars who over-believe the power of behaviorism, suggesting the fatal error of positivism and actual case which shows that behaviorism is limited in the research of the human's mind.

 There are many evidences that prove that behaviorism can't be the complete mechanism of the human mind solely. From now on, I will suggest many real examples in psychology and the limitation of positivism to support my idea.

 First, behaviorism only focuses on 'what human does'. For example, behaviorists set certain situation to lead some response from the subjects and record what the subjects did. Skinner's box of reinforcement is the most representative case of this. Skinner only recorded the change in the monkey's behavior, giving different stimuli, and he stated that the change of behavior is caused by reinforcement. However, in psychology, it is more important to reveal how reinforcement caused the change of behavior and influenced the human mind. Behaviorism can't explain this process. It only can find the change of behavior.

 Second, behaviorism depends on only empirical finding. Like behaviorism, positivism which focuses on visible evidence and the scientific method of research depends on empirical experience. Although positivism revealed many phenomen a around us objectively, The world is filled with things we can't experience such as the universe, the God and the quantum mechanics. As a result, positivism was replaced by round sight to overcome this problem. Sociologists began to consider religion which cannot be explained by science as an important element to explain the society and human. As behaviorism is categorized in positivism, it is possible to say that psychologists should replace behaviorism by cognitive-biological approach which focuses on not only visible behavior and physiological process, but also the abstract, cognitive information processing to research abstract and invisible things in our mind such as consciousness.

 Third, behaviorism ignores basic diversity of the human mind. Psychologists pay attention to find the universal pattern of the human mind because they wanted to find persuasive theory which could be applied on all people's mind. However, behaviorism displays the humans mind in diagram form too much. For example, Chomsky's the theory of language acquisition which is a representative example of behaviorism generalized every person's process of learning language. In fact, people learn a language in various way. Also, behaviorism ignores human's case-by-case characteristic. In the same condition and stimuli, human's behavior and psychological mechanism can be different because of individual's characteristic and cognitive process. However, behaviorists try to apply same patterns about the human's mind to all people.

 People who over-believe the power of behaviorism think that they can understand all secrets of the human mind with behaviorism completely because many mysterious secrets of the human mind are proved by behaviorism. In their opinion, 'the human mind' in psychology is only measurable human behavior because psychology is one kind of science and the human mind is the object of psychology - science. They consider the emotion, instinct and unconsciousness as the worthless things to research and except these things from their subject of researching. So, they argue that behaviorism can explain all of 'the human mind'. However, their topicality is wrong. According to Wilhelm Wundt, who was the pioneer of modern psychology, psychology is the field which study human's memory, emotion, desire, behavior, cognition, relationship and so on. Also, today's many psychologists study not only human's behavior, but also the mechanism of emotions. Even if their topicality is right, behaviorism still cannot explain all mechanisms about the human mind because behaviorism can only show that it is possible to manipulate human's behavior by giving different stimuli. It cannot explain how that behavior can be lead from human's brain fundamentally. So to speak, behaviorism can't reveal all secrets of the human mind in any case.

 It is hard to deny that behaviorism helped psychologists to prove most of the secrets about human's behavior. For this reason, Tolman and Skinner have been considered as the great psychologists in the world. However, many psychologists are over-believing the power of behaviorism, stating that they can prove all secrets of the human mind with behaviorism. I think this attitude is scientists' arrogance. Actually, it is apparent that behaviorism cannot explain all mechanisms of the human mind because it only focuses on 'what human does', not 'how human's behaviors were lead', depends on empirical founding like positivism and ignores the diversity of human's characteristic and psychological feature. It is important to realize the limitation of behaviorism because there are many things which psychologists haven't proved yet. If psychologists continue to use only behaviorism, psychology cannot advance. As a result, it will be limited to research only about human's superficial behavior and its name will be replaced by 'behaviology'. The most important part of psychology is how certain psychological mechanism such as attachment, sexual desire and reinforcement can be lead. As these mechanisms are different to be explained only by science, psychologists should concentrate on another way such as instant hypnosis and neo-behaviorism.  I wish to psychologists to admit the limitation of behaviorism and to try to develop other way to research invisible mechanism in our mind more effectively. Finishing this essay, I want to give one saying to psychologists.

I have just found shallfish in the ocean of truth. There are infinite truth we haven't found in the sea.

- Isaac Newton

Reference

Goodreads.com. (2010). John Locke's Quotes. Retrieved

             from http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/51746.John_Locke

Tor. G. Jacobsen. (2014, February 15). Theory of Science - What is Positivism?. Retrieved

             from http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/02/15/theory-of-science-what-is-positivism

Steve Pinker. (2011, October). The Human Mind. 

             Harvard Sampler. Cambridge:Harvard University Press

Explorable.com. (2009, September 16). Definition of Science. Retrieved

             from https://explorable.com/definition-of-science

Richard Dawkins. (2006, March 16). Preface to 1976 Edition. 

             The Selfish Gene. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

B. Hangenhahn. (2008, March 13). Neobehaviorism.

            The Introduction to the history of Psychology. New Tech Park:Cengage Learning

Iloveenglishwords.com. (2010, June 6). 4.1 Child Language Acquisition Theory. Retrieved

            from https://aggslanguage.wordpress.com/chomsky

Jstor.com. (2012, July 3). Proper Object of Psychology. Retrieved

            from http://www.jstor.org/discover

Saul McLoad. (2008). Wilhelm Wundt. Retrieved 

            from http://www.simplypsychology.org/wundt.html

BrainyQuote.com. (2014). Issac Newton Quotes. Retrieved 

            from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/i/isaac_newton.html

[Week 15] CITATION

I memo sources I cited in my essay. I'll write these sources with APA style in my final draft.

*Example

http://blog.naver.com/ysh910727?Redirect=Log&logNo=20201574185


*Memo

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/51746.John_Locke / John Locke's Saying
http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/02/15/theory-of-science-what-is-positivism / Definition of Positivism
Harvard Sampler (Harvard Univ. Pressing) / Behaviorists' Opinion about invisible mechanism
https://explorable.com/definition-of-science / Definition of Science
The Selfish Genes (Richard Dawkins) / Dawkins' Opinion
An Introduction to the History of Psychology (B. Hangenhahn) / Psychologist's Refutation to Behaviorism
Opening Skinner's Box(Lauren Slater) / Skinner's Box
https://aggslanguage.wordpress.com/chomsky / Chomsky's Theory of Language Acquisition
http://www.jstor.org/discover / Proper Object of Psychology
http://www.simplypsychology.org/wundt.html / Wilhelm Wundt's Definition
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/i/isaac_newton.html / Issac Newton's Sayings

[Week 14] PEER EVALUATION (1)

My Evaluation about 20720 장세희's Second Draft

According to the rubric above, what grade would you give this essay? Why?
제 점수는 4점입니다. 그 이유는 persuasive essay의 구조에 잘 맞게 글을 쓴 것 같고 본인의 주장에 대한 설득적인 이유들을 제공했기 때문입니다. 다만 1점을 깎은 이유는 본 에세이가 '소셜미디어에 있어서 규제는 금지되어야 한다.' 란 주제로 글을 쓰고 있는 건지, '박근혜 정부는 나쁘다.' 란 주제로 글을 쓰고 있는지 글을 읽는 내내 혼란스러웠기 때문입니다.

How does this essay need to improve to get a better grade?
앞서 말했던 대로 도입부에 자신이 쓰는 글에 대한 주제를 좀 더 명확히 하는 것이 좋을 것 같습니다. 문법적으로 고쳐야 할 부분도 어느정도 있는 것 같고요.

Thesis

What is the thesis?
소셜미디어에 있어서 정보의 규제는 금지되어야 한다.
Is the thesis clear and debatable?
토론의 주제로는 적합하다고 판단되지만, 글 안에서의 이 주제는 명확히 드러나지 않은 것 같습니다.

If you (The reviewer) wrote this essay, how would you have written the thesis?
박근혜 정부가 실시했던 내용에 대한 비중을 조금 줄이고 최대한 정치적인 중립을 유지할 것 같습니다. 그러한 후에 '정보의 규제'라는 측면에서만 보았을 때 정부의 정책이 어떠한 한계점을 가지는지 설명함으로서 narration을 작성한 후 논지에 대한 논거들을 제시할 것 같습니다.

Any other thoughts?
그거 말고는 완벽하네요.

Classical Argument

Can you easily identify the 5 parts of the classical argument? If no, what parts are missing?
구조 면에 있어서는 완벽하다고 봅니다. 세월호 참사를 제시하면서 제 관심을 확실히 사로잡았고 그 사건의 구체적인 내용들과 당시 대한민국의 상황을 밝힘으로서 훌륭한 narration을 작성한 것 같습니다. 논거 3가지도 명확히 구분해서 작성하였습니다. 조금 아쉬웠던 것은 예상 가능한 반박을 마지막 결론 부분에 삽입한 것이 조금 안타깝네요. 결론은 여태껏 자신이 주장한 내용들을 다시 한 번 명확히 하는 부분인데, 이 부분에서 반대 측 입장을 제시해버리면 조금 혼란스러울 것 같습니다.
Does the introduction catch your attention? Does it comfortably lead to the thesis?
훌륭히.

Does the narration give all the necessary background information to understand the topic?
너무 많이 주어서 오히려 정치적 중립성이 떨어지는 면이 있었던 것 같습니다.

Does the confirmation adequately support the thesis?훌륭히.

Does the refutation and concession address a realistic counterpoint? Does it adequately dispute the counterpoint, or respond in a reasonable manner?
주제만 놓고 보아서는 꽤 괜찮은 반박이었다고 생각합니다. 그러나 이 글에서 필자의 주장에 설득력을 부여하기 위해 제시하였던 '세월호 참사' 에 있어서는 별로 현실성 없는 반박이었다고 생각합니다. 왜냐하면 결론 부분에서 자녀들이 다양한 매체 속에서 유해한 정보를 접할까봐 부모들이 규제를 하는 경우를 정보 규제의 긍정적 부분으로 제시하면서 예상가능한 반박을 제기하였는데, 이 글이 말하는 '세월호 참사 속 숨겨진 진실'이 과연 유해한 내용인지 의문이 가기 때문에 이 상황에서는 적용될 수 없다고 생각합니다.

Does the conclusion summarize the article and address the larger significance of the thesis?
잘 했다고 생각합니다. 다만 결론에서 refutation 부분은 좀 앞으로 당겨주었으면 좋겠습니다.

What suggestions do you have for improving the classical argument structure?구조적인 면에서는 대체로 훌륭하나, 결론 부분의 refutation만 앞으로 당겨주면 더욱 훌륭한 글이 될 것 같습니다.

Persuasion

When you started reading the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis?
찬성합니다.
When you finished the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis?
찬성합니다.

If your mind changed, why? What parts of the essay were persuasive?
_

How could the author enhance the persuasive parts of their essay?이 주제에 관해서는 많은 논의가 있었던 만큼, 이 논지에 대한 논거 역시 정형화 되어 있다고 생각합니다. 필자는 이 정형화 된 논지들을 사용했고요. 좀 더 참신하고 새로운 논지를 제시하면 더 할 나위 없이 좋겠습니다. 더불어 세 번 째 논지로 사용한 '박근혜 정부 입장의 모순' 은 '소셜미디어에서는 정보 규제가 금지되어야 한다.' 라는 논지의 통일성을 해친다고 생각합니다. 그 이유는 이 논지가 박근혜 정부에게만 해당되는 건지, 아니면 모든 매체에서 해당되는 건지 이 논지를 통해서 충분히 혼란이 야기될 수 있기 때문입니다. 이러한 이유로 특히 세번째 논지는 수정이 필요하다고 생각합니다.

Research

Is the author using research effectively?
네.

Is the research from appropriate sources?
네.

Are the sources obvious?
네.

Are the pieces of evidence relevant to the thesis or essay?
네.

Are there any parts of the essay that need evidence to support the claims?
조사 면에서는 딱히 없는 것 같네요!

[Week 13] 2nd DRAFT

No Man's Knowledge Here Can Go Beyond His Experience." / John Locke

 All scholars prove their hypothesis and discover academic facts by their empirical research and discovery. Even in the case of proving philosophical truth by logic, the process of proving itself is one kind of empirical found. So, human's researching and understanding toward the world has no choice but to be narrow because there are some mysterious secrets which cannot be realized by human's experience such as absolute truth in philosophy. However, positivism says that a human can uncover all of the secrets about the world only by science and technology. For example, behaviorists in psychology stated that psychologists should except invisible and abstract things such as desire in their research to study the human's mind. However, Is it true? No, psychologists can't understand the human mind correctly only with one viewpoint – behavior.

 Science is defined as a field that are composed of assured and universally empirical found which anyone can't refute. So to speak, science is 'universal' and based on 'experience'. Many psychologists argued that psychology should be a science. It's a right statement because the human mind has some universal pattern such as reinforcement and attachment , but it is different from others'. So it is essential to categorize psychology as a science to research the human's mind systemically. However, Many psychologists get their too high horse, saying that they can prove all secrets related to human's mind with high technology such fMRI in 21C. Furthermore, Richard Dawkins, a famous scientist, had confidence to conquer human's originality by science in his book, The Selfish Gene. On the other side,  some innovative scholars realized that behaviorism that reflects this attitude the best in psychology cannot explain the human's mind. For example, these scholars refuted the behaviorists' opinion, saying that behaviorists see all human's psychological mechanism as compensate and reinforcement like animals. So, like them, I would try to refute the scholars who over-believe the power of behaviorism, suggesting the fatal error of positivism and actual case which shows that behaviorism is limited in the research of the human's mind.

 There are many evidences that prove that behaviorism can't be the complete mechanism of the human mind solely. From now on, I will suggest many real examples in psychology and the limitation of positivism to support my idea.

 First, behaviorism only focuses on 'what human does'. For example, behaviorists set certain situation to lead some response from the subjects and record what the subjects did. Skinner's box of reinforcement is the most representative case of this. Skinner only recorded the change in the monkey's behavior, giving different stimuli, and he stated that the change of behavior is caused by reinforcement. However, in psychology, it is more important to reveal how reinforcement caused the change of behavior and influenced the human mind. Behaviorism can't explain this process. It only can find the change of behavior.

 Second, behaviorism depends on only empirical finding. Like behaviorism, positivism which focuses on visible evidence and the scientific method of research depends on empirical experience. Although positivism revealed many phenomen a around us objectively, The world is filled with things we can't experience such as the universe, the God and the quantum mechanics. As a result, positivism was replaced by round sight to overcome this problem. Sociologists began to consider religion which cannot be explained by science as an important element to explain the society and human. As behaviorism is categorized in positivism, it is possible to say that psychologists should replace behaviorism by cognitive-biological approach which focuses on not only visible behavior and physiological process, but also the abstract, cognitive information processing to research abstract and invisible things in our mind such as consciousness.

 Third, behaviorism ignores basic diversity of the human mind. Psychologists pay attention to find the universal pattern of the human mind because they wanted to find persuasive theory which could be applied on all people's mind. However, behaviorism displays the humans mind in diagram form too much. For example, Chomsky's the theory of language acquisition which is a representative example of behaviorism generalized every person's process of learning language. In fact, people learn a language in various way. Also, behaviorism ignores human's case-by-case characteristic. In the same condition and stimuli, human's behavior and psychological mechanism can be different because of individual's characteristic and cognitive process. However, behaviorists try to apply same patterns about the human's mind to all people.

 People who over-believe the power of behaviorism think that they can understand all secrets of the human mind with behaviorism completely because many mysterious secrets of the human mind are proved by behaviorism. In their opinion, 'the human mind' in psychology is only measurable human behavior because psychology is one kind of science and the human mind is the object of psychology - science. They consider the emotion, instinct and unconsciousness as the worthless things to research and except these things from their subject of researching. So, they argue that behaviorism can explain all of 'the human mind'. However, their topicality is wrong. According to Wilhelm Wundt, who was the pioneer of modern psychology, psychology is the field which study human's memory, emotion, desire, behavior, cognition, relationship and so on. Also, today's many psychologists study not only human's behavior, but also the mechanism of emotions. Even if their topicality is right, behaviorism still cannot explain all mechanisms about the human mind because behaviorism can only show that it is possible to manipulate human's behavior by giving different stimuli. It cannot explain how that behavior can be lead from human's brain fundamentally. So to speak, behaviorism can't reveal all secrets of the human mind in any case.

 It is hard to deny that behaviorism helped psychologists to prove most of the secrets about human's behavior. For this reason, Tolman and Skinner have been considered as the great psychologists in the world. However, many psychologists are over-believing the power of behaviorism, stating that they can prove all secrets of the human mind with behaviorism. I think this attitude is scientists' arrogance. Actually, it is apparent that behaviorism cannot explain all mechanisms of the human mind because it only focuses on 'what human does', not 'how human's behaviors were lead', depends on empirical founding like positivism and ignores the diversity of human's characteristic and psychological feature. It is important to realize the limitation of behaviorism because there are many things which psychologists haven't proved yet. If psychologists continue to use only behaviorism, psychology cannot advance. As a result, it will be limited to research only about human's superficial behavior and its name will be replaced by 'behaviology'. The most important part of psychology is how certain psychological mechanism such as attachment, sexual desire and reinforcement can be lead. As these mechanisms are different to be explained only by science, psychologists should concentrate on another way such as instant hypnosis and neo-behaviorism.  I wish to psychologists to admit the limitation of behaviorism and to try to develop other way to research invisible mechanism in our mind more effectively. Finishing this essay, I want to give one saying to psychologists.

I have just found shallfish in the ocean of truth. There are infinite truth we haven't found in the sea.

- Isaac Newton

[Week 12] Plan for 2nd Draft

1. My Self Evaluation

According to my first draft and self evaluation post, I thought that I should make more creative attention gradder for my readers, remove repeated part in my essay to make my essay clearer and more logical. Also, I need to my alternative about my topic - neobehaviorism.


2. Sam Teacher's Feedback

He pointed the grammatical mistakes and misused sentences as the biggest problem of my first essay. So, I wil focus on modifying them using software's help and korean teacher's help.


3. Clarify Outline

1) introduction : attention grabber : John Locke's saying
                           explain my topic   : Explain a limitation of empirical discovery with positivism
                                                              (Suggest a behaviorism as one kind of behaviorism!)
                           declare my thesis  : BEHAVIORISM CANNOT EXPLAIN ALL THINGS!

2) narration     : Definition of science
                          The Legitimacy of scientific research method in psychology
                          Behaviorists' arrgance (ex. Richard Dawkins)
                          Some brilliant psychologists' refutation and new way to research

[Week 11] SELF EVALUATION

1. What score do you think you deserve?
2 points because I followed the form of persuasive essay well and gave rich supporting evidences and ideas. Also, My conclusion has a sense of disclosure which can make people agree with me.


2. What did you do well and what could you do better?
a) First, I think that I did persuade people to agree with my thesis in creative way because I suggested the limitation of behaviorism by giving the limitation of positivism. Second, I suggested rich evidences which show the limitation of behaviorism. Third, I suggested the alternative of behaviorism which can help psychologists to understand inner mechanism such as dream more completely.

b) I think that I repeated my thesis too much in my 1st draft. I will remove logical surplus in my essay and make my essay simpler and more logical.


3 .Which part of the classical argument did you use the best? Which part could be improved?
a) I think that my confirmation is the strongest part in my 1st draft because I gave various persuasive and logical supporting ideas.

b) I think that my introduction should be improved because my introduction used only boring saying to grab audience. Only this way can't grab the audience enough.


4. what's your strategy for your next draft?
a) Make more creative attention grabber in introduction
b) Write concession.
c) Remove repeated part in my essay and make draft more logical and simpler.
d) Emphasis my alternative - neobehaviorism.

+1st Draft+

No Man's Knowledge Here Can Go Beyond His Experience." / John Locke

 All scholars prove their hypothesis and discover academic facts by their empirical research and discovery. Even proving philosophical truth by logic, the process of proving itself is one kind of empirical found. So, human's researching and understanding toward the world cannot help by being narrow because there are some mysterious secrets which cannot be realized by human's experience such as absolute truth in philosophy. However, positivism says that human can uncover all of secrets about the world only by science and technology. For example, behaviorists in psychology stated that psychologists should except invisible and abstract things such as desire to their research to study mind. Is it true? No, psychologists can't understand the human mind correctly only with one viewpoint – behavior.

 Science is defined as a field which are composed of assured and universal empirical found anyone can't refute. So to speak, science is 'universal' and based on 'experience'. Many psychologists argued that psychology should be a science. It's right statement because human mind has some universal pattern such as reinforcement and attachment but it is different from others'. So it is essential to categorize psychology as science to research the human's mind systemically. In fact, not only scholars who study humanities, but also scientists are studying human's mind especially the information processing. However, Many psychologists get their high horse, saying that they can prove all secrets related to human's mind with high technology such fMRI in 21C. Furthermore, Richard Dawkins, famous scientist, had confidence to human's originality by science in The Selfish Gene. In spite of this attitude, some awaken scholars realized that behaviorism which reflects this attitude the best in psychology cannot explain the human's mind. For example, these scholars refuted the behaviorists' opinion that behaviorists see all human's psychological mechanism as compensate and reinforcement like animals. So, I would try to refute the scholars who over-believe the power of behaviorism with suggesting the fatal error of positivism and actual case which shows that behaviorism is limited in psychology.

 There are many evidences which prove that behaviorism can't the whole mechanism of the human mind solely because early psychologists realized so. From now on, I will suggest many real examples in psychology and the limitation of positivism to support my idea.

 First, behaviorism only focuses on 'what human does'. For example, behaviorists set certain situation to make some response from the subjects and record what the subjects did. Skinner's reinforcement - box is the most representative case of this. Skinner only recorded the change of monkey's behavior, giving different stimuli and he stated that the change of behavior is caused by reinforcement. However, in psychology, it is important to reveal how reinforcement caused the change of behavior and influenced the human mind. Behaviorism can't explain this process. It only can find the change of behavior.

 Second, behaviorism depends on only empirical finding. Like this, positivism which focuses on visible evidence and scientific method of research like behaviorism depends on empirical experience. Although positivism revealed many phenomenon around us objectively, The world is filled with things we can't experience such as the universe, the God and the quantum mechanics. So, positivism was replaced by round sight to overcome this problem. Sociologists began to consider religion which cannot be explained by science as important element to explain the society and human. As, behaviorism is categorized in positivism, it is possible to say that psychologists should replace behaviorism by cognitive-biological approach which focuses on not only visible behavior and physiological process, but also the abstract, cognitive information processing to research abstract and invisible things in our mind such as consciousness.

 Third, behaviorism basically ignores basic diversity of the human mind. Originally, psychologists pay attention to find the universal pattern of the human mind because all people have different mind each other. However, as there are universal pattern in the human mind obviously, the academical field about the human mind can exist. However, behaviorism displays the humans mind in diagram form too much. For example, Chomsky's the theory of language acquisition which is representative example of behaviorism generalized every person's process of learning language. In fact, people learn language in various way. Also, behaviorism ignores human's case-by-case characteristic. In the same condition and stimuli, human's behavior and psychological mechanism can be different because of individual's characteristic and cognitive process. On the other hand, behaviorists try to apply same patterns about the human's mind to all people.

 People who over-believe the power of behaviorism think that they can understand all secrets of the human mind with behaviorism completely because many mysterious secrets of the human mind are proved by behaviorism. In their opinion, 'the human mind' in psychology is only measurable human behavior because psychology is one kind of science and the human mind is object of psychology. They consider the emotion, instinct and unconsciousness as the worthless things to research and except these things from the human mind. So, they argue that behaviorism can explain all of human mind. However, their topicality is wrong. According to Wilhelm Wundt, who was the pioneer of modern psychology, psychology is the field which study human's memory, emotion, desire, behavior, cognition, relationship and so on. Also, today's many psychologists study not only human's behavior, but also mechanism of emotions. Even if their topicality is right, behaviorism still cannot explain all mechanisms about the human mind because behaviorism can only show that it is possible to manipulate human's behavior by giving different stimuli. It cannot explain how that behavior can be lead from human's brain. So to speak, behaviorism can't reveal all secrets of the human mind in any case.

 It is hard to deny that behaviorism helped psychologists to prove most of secrets about human's behavior. For this reason, Tolman and Skinner have been considered as the great psychologists in the world. However, many psychologists are over-believing the power of behaviorism, stating that they can prove all secrets of the human mind with behaviorism. I think this attitude is scientists' arrogance. Actually, it is apparent that behaviorism cannot explain all mechanisms of the human mind because it only focuses on 'what human does', not 'how human's behaviors were lead', depends on empirical founding like positivism and ignores the diversity of human's characteristic and psychological feature. It is important to realize the limitation of behaviorism because there are many things which psychologists haven't proved yet. If psychologists continue to believe only behaviorism, psychology cannot advance and it will be limited to research only about human's behavior and its name will be replaced by 'behaviology'. The most important part of psychology is how certain psychological mechanism such as attachment, sexual desire and reinforcement can be lead. As these mechanisms are different to be explained only by science, psychologists should concentrate on other way such as instant hypnosis.  I wish to psychologists to admit the limitation of behaviorism and to try to develop other way to research invisible mechanism in our mind more effectively. Finishing this essay, I want to give one saying to psychologists.

I have just found shallfish in the ocean of truth. There are infinite truth we haven't found in the sea.

- Isaac Newton




 Source

www.simplypsychology.org
m.blog.daum.net/ilgwan
www.aboutpsychology.com
www.terms.naver.com
www.koreanpsychology.co.kr
www.youtube.com
Opening Skinner's Box (Lauren Slater, 2005)
Harvard Sampler (Steven Pinker, 2012)
Myers's Introduction of Psychology NEW EDITION (David. G. Myers, 2008)