“we will always learn more about human nature and personality from literature than from psychology”?
This is a quote from Noam Chomsky, to what extent would you agree.
-
Sponsors
-
This is a quote from Noam Chomsky, to what extent would you agree.
|
|
Alma said,
Wrote on November 28, 2010 @ 4:58 am
Maybe, I try to learn about human nature through books like The Power Of Now (Eckhart Tolle) or Deepak Chopra books.
curly said,
Wrote on November 28, 2010 @ 5:20 am
Psychology is learning about human nature and personality from all sources including literature. So, the quote makes Noam Chomsky seem ignorant.
hja said,
Wrote on November 28, 2010 @ 5:54 am
“always” usually never happens with literature, because literature changes with the culture and the people in power of the times. I do believe that fiction, especially scifi/fantasy/horror reveals the philosophy, desires, and fears within a person’s heart. Also when one studies the archtypes of a genre it can reveal the human psyche on a mass scale.
EmilyRose said,
Wrote on November 28, 2010 @ 6:21 am
I think that’s true to a significant extent. The best source of information about human nature is actual humans. Literature typically presents a complete picture of human nature in individual cases (i.e. the nature of the characters in the book) according to the author’s understanding of human nature, including the kind of intuitive, subconcious aspects of that understand that might show up because the author just knows it’s what the character would do, without having a concious explanation for the behavior. Psychology presents scientists’ synthesis of human nature, and is limited to what said scientists not only are conciously aware of, but also identify as important or relevent. So both literature and psychology present a filtered view of human nature, but psychology is generally more filtered, and so is a less complete source of information.
But that doesn’t mean that literature is “better” than psychology, just that it’s different. The purpose is different. The main “goal” of science (at least, science that gets funded) is to improve the quality of human life. For psychology, this includes treating and preventing mental illness, reducing subclinical negative experiences, creating an environment to allow optimal development, and so on. While literature may provide an intuitive understanding of human nature, psychology provides a more objective view, and presents clearly defined pieces of information that serve as a framework for systematically concieving of and evaluating specific, transferable treatments or environmental standards that can be applied to these ends. It provides an element of objectivity and universality that allow specific treatments or interventions to be applied to other situations in which they are likely to be effectively, allowing the expertise of an individual to be applied without direct involvement from an individual with similar expertise, so that it’s not necessary for everyone providing treatment or services to be experts in every possible area encounter.