History and Systems of Psych. Psychology Assignment

History and Systems of Psychology 
Name
Institutional Affiliation
 History and Systems of Psychology
Question 1
a) Influence of Structuralism and Empiricism on Watson’s Proclamation 
Structuralism was a school of psychology started in 1879 by Wilhelm Wundt, championing for what he called elements. Proponents of structuralism argued that conscious elements could be broken down into their components and be identified by those elements (Watson, 1913). Wundt carried out much research in the laboratory, seeking to prove that all known elements could be broken down into their basic elements. Watson’s proclamation that he could take anyone at random and train him to become any specialist was a refutation of the structuralist school of psychology that had dominated the society at that time. Watson was opposed to structuralism because it argued that a person’s nature could be deduced from individual components of individual behaviors. His emphasis that he could train infants to become any specialist implied that infants are like blank-plates. That they are born without anything and that they could be taught new behavior depending on the type of environment that they were exposed to. 
Unlike structuralism, proponents of empiricism argued that knowledge is learned by experience. When Watson said that he could train infants to become whatever he wanted, he ruled out the possibility of the impact of genes on a person’s behavior. From Watson’s point of view, people are born without knowledge, and they only gain knowledge after exposure to experiences. According to Dewey (2008), Watson declared that he was a behaviorist. Behaviorists ruled out introspection, which was a special type of structuralism that claimed that one could do a self-examination of personal thoughts and feelings. Watson made his proclamation because he was opposed to the idea that thoughts or feelings had anything to do with a person’s behavior. He championed for a field of psychology that emphasized that behaviors be learned. An example is when one places his finger in the fire. If a child places a finger in the fire and the fire burns the finger so that the child feels pain, the child will grow up afraid of fire. Empiricism holds here because the knowledge will have been gained from experience. This, however, is against structuralism or introspection which could have called for one to inspect the feeling of pain and find the cause of pain. Structuralism focused on private behavior, while empiricism and behaviorism focused on external observable factors. 
b) Some Psychologists would support 
It is still common to find psychologists supporting the role of external factors on behavior. Even though some psychologists argue that genes have a direct influence on behavior, behaviorists still support Watson’s school of thinking because he carried out a study in the lab and proved that behavior is learned. Operand conditioning and classical conditioning are extensions of Watson’s behavior. Proponents of operant conditioning argue that behaviors are learned. Behaviors can be positive or negative. Positive behavior can be learned through reinforcement or punishment. If for instance, a child cries every time one goes to the supermarket, and one tells the child that if she does not cry, she will be rewarded, the child will learn to keep quiet every time they go out to the supermarket. The reward can be in the form of a toy. The toy is reinforcement, and it encourages positive behavior. If one wanted to eliminate or diminish the unwanted behavior, one could introduce punishment for bad behavior. Classical conditioning is still related to Watson’s behaviorism because it entails learning new behavior based on the environment that one is exposed to. This is a school of psychology that thrives on Watson’s theory of behaviorism. 
Q. 2. Nature vs. Nurture Debate
The nature-nurture debate focuses on the origin of human behavior. In this debate, nature is defined as genetic, while nurture is attributed to external factors such as the environmental exposure. Proponents of nature debate argue that behaviors are innate, implying that behaviors are carried in the genes. Proponents of nurture argue that behaviors are influenced by environmental factors, implying that behaviors are learned. Aristotle, Plato, and Descartes are three philosophers that contributed to this debate.
Aristotle, Plato, and Descartes were Greek philosophers interested in the psychology of the human mind and development. According to Lewkowicz (2011), Plato and his pupil Aristotle had conflicting answers on the debate of nature and nurture. Plato was a rationalist, implying that he was an ardent supporter of the innateness of knowledge. He believed that people are not born like blank slates. Instead, he argued that knowledge is carried in the genes. He argued that knowledge is buried somewhere in the mind of the perceiver and it develops in steps as one experiences life. The emphasizes on the innateness of behavior proves that behavior cannot be learned. This is especially evident in the society today. Children brought up in a religious background end up committing crimes that leave their parents wondering. There are also cases where children brought up by alcoholic parents end up not being alcoholic. If behaviors were to be learned, then one would expect that every child from an alcoholic home ends up becoming alcoholic. 
Unlike Plato, Aristotle had a different view on the nature-nurture debate. Aristotle argued that behaviors are learned from the environment that people get exposed to (Lewkowicz, 2011). Unlike Plato, Aristotle was an empiricist, implying that he advocated for a sense of self-perception and induction. He rejected the idea of inherent existence and proposed that human behavior is a collection of experiences. Aristotle rejected the idea that human thoughts are inborn. He, instead, argued that human thoughts and knowledge are a collection of experiences, some from parents and others from the environmental exposure. Aristotle belongs to the group of behaviorists, who believe that people can be trained to become anything that one wishes irrespective of the genetical composition of the individual. If, for instance, one wants to have doctors, one could embark on teaching them from the infant stage, and they can grow up to become what one wanted irrespective of the composition of their genes.  Today, Aristotle’s school of thought is still relevant in behavioral psychology. It is common to find some psychologists arguing that behaviors are learned from the environment. Children go to school and are taught mathematics. If they are not exposed to tutors that teach them, they could not grow up to become mathematicians automatically. 
Descartes shared the thoughts of Plato, implying that he was a rationalist. He believed that behavior is inborn and cannot be affected by the external environment. The interaction between the innate nature and the external environment are the factors that make one suitable to the external environment. It is, for instance, impossible to argue that the natural mind can exist independent of the external environment. If one carries genes of mathematics, one will grow up to become a mathematician, even when one does not go to school.
Similarly, if one carries genes of a smoker, one will deviate from the moral standards of the society, even if one was brought up in a religious background. The environmental factors cannot suppress or eliminate this behavior. They only modify the behavior by providing a viable environment for one to realize his true potential. This is similar to Plato’s school of thought.
A good example is in the society where parents bring up children in the same environment. They are given the same food, provided with the same parental guidance, but some end up rebelling. This does not have anything to do with the environment. It is just a matter of genes which have differentiated, and a new behavior has surfaced. 
Q. 3. IQ Test Debate
Intelligent Quotient (IQ) tests are tests administered to children to test their intellectual ability. Even though anyone can take an IQ test, these tests have found important application in environments with children because they have been found to predict the future success of children. There have been, however, misunderstandings on the relevance and reliability of IQ tests. This has created what scholars have called the IQ debate. Proponents of the IQ debate argue that IQ tests are the accurate measure of intellectual abilities. Opponents of IQ tests argue that the tests are narrow and do not provide a true measure of intellectual abilities. 
Proponents of IQ tests argue that they help in determining the child’s intellectual ability, making teachers and parents to know the intellectual requirements of the child and place him in the necessary environment. Teachers can use the IQ scores to determine the classroom that children fit in and provide special requirements for those with low IQ scores. In the absence of IQ scores, children with low intellectual abilities would find it difficult to study in the mixed class environments. Another advantage is in how schools can use the IQ scores to develop children in a manner that will benefit them in the future. If a student scores high in sciences, the school can consider helping the student to propel him in that career. This early identification of talents and abilities saves time because children know where they belong from a tender age. It also acts as a form of motivation to children because they know where they are going. This saves them time because they can concentrate on whom they want to become. 
Another advantage is in the manner IQ scores are used as a tool to test and analyze behaviors. IQ scores are carried out at childhood because it is assumed that one has not been exposed to too many environmental factors that are likely to interfere with the results. The results obtained from the childhood age should be reliable. In cases where researchers want to understand the differences from racial or gender perspective, IQ tests are reliable sources of data for analysis. Different cultures have different behaviors, and it can be possible to determine the prevalence of a certain type of behavior from the IQ scores. The statistical data can then be analyzed to provide the society with an understanding of how a specific social group works or behaves. 
Despite the above advantages, IQ tests have faced rejection from different types of members of the society. Some of the concerns have been on the actual limit of tests that IQ tests are designed to measure. They are only focused on logic and critical thinking, ignoring other abilities such as creativity. People that have scored poorly in IQ scores have ended up becoming successful in other fields, even after IQ scores have written them off. Additionally, due to their limit in the intellectual scope, IQ scores motivate some people to work hard while those that have scored low are considered stupid or failures. Intelligence crosses different facets and cannot be defined from the narrow perspective that is mostly used in IQ tests. This is reverse discrimination and cannot be allowed in an advanced society. It creates stereotypes, especially for children that end up leading successful lives when they have been rated with low intellectual abilities with these scores. 
Another point that underscores the reliability of IQ tests in measuring innate intelligence is how it fails to fulfill its predictability. People are multidimensional beings, and IQs tests should consider all other factors that motivate people to learn. Additionally, people learn differently in different environments. Sometimes it takes time for one to adjust to the environment before learning. IQ tests have high chances of misjudging slow learners because they will be rated wrongly and are likely to produce different results.  If indeed intelligence is innate, then people that are found by IQ scores to be intelligent should end up leading successful lives. According to Balter (2011), people that have ranked with low IQ have ended up leading better lives compared to those with high IQs. If indeed intelligence was innate, IQ scores could be consistent and not vary with age. Psychologists prefer taking IQ scores in childhood because they want to predict the level of success in a person’s life. Experience increases with age, and this is the reason why IQ scores t...