The Psychological Record, 1969, 19. 645-648.

COMMENTS AND QUEIUES

26

the boundaries of occurring evenq _~~__~I~a!.Iy._th~ fallacy of reducing

CO~Il\IENTS

"onefacet()fdualis!!Ll<!Jb~Lol~r __whe!L~_t!t" are fabulous constructions.

2. ..Evid~tJQQL isJ~e fact that reductionists are influenced. by

an undue glorification of their 0~1l_ type oJ work. We are not surprised
.',vlientnose-\vho-specialize in electrically recording organic changes
(EKC's, CSR's, EEC's) look upon electrical and physiological data as
the ultimate realities of psychological behavior. They, then, advocate
the reduction of emotions (feelings) to energy mobilization, while the
great mass of adustmental behavior including thinking, rmisoning,
perceiving, learning. speaking, remembering, composing, painting~ ?ancing are converted to such physiological states as hormonal, nutrttional,
temperature, and respiratory conditions. ,lLmay__also _be_~id" of such
theorists that they are frequently. ,?,:eril}l~s~e4J~Y_I!hY5icala,nd cherni-ail a~~ratus- ilild- 50- i_l!.clJ!!~.J~~vard__ tecl.1.n~~gical e~()~~~~cy rather
than to the elucidation of confronted ev~nts.

27

AND QUERIES:

THE BASIS FALLACY IN PSYCHOLOGY

One of the most deeply rooted fallacies in the psychological domain
is the widespread tenet !~th~_subj~~t matterof psychology requires _
the s!!pl!.q!"~ e>J a I?joIQg!~a:1 !Jasis for its existence and operation. This basis
doctrine is a cultural institution which has-taken on various complexions with changes in psychological circumstances. We shall consider
two of its aspects, an earlier essentially mentalistic one, and a later
behavioristic version. These are closely interrelated and currently viable,
III all of its guises, however, t1~~~~ctrine constitutes a perverse
'!1~_lllis.l~adiDg_d9gma, the i~!.eRl'!l~ss of \vhicll is glaring: To -examine
it critically soon prompts a complete rejection with a consequent improvement in the understanding and description of psychological events.
--~-,

~~.l}PP9:s~Jion ..that -one sort ..Q{. d~t.~nLr.eqtljr.t:~" a J9!mc!!J:~9!L.i~

aUQtllet: _~.ugges!s t"~a.t tI.le . ~asiS. .. QQ.l;q~~~,.!~~~c}~!tv.ativ~~Jlf~:t:lh metJilisical-phantasies .as J~~ I~OI~~og(}J.,~ity _o/..pJum.ome.na.. symbollZeo 'by
the expressions "unity" or "hierarchy" of the sciences. However, our increst is in a special institution belonging to the localized domain of
psychology. ~listoticall~ dates from the.p~rioc:j...Q{mt~a]g;;tJion_that.the
so~1 or IJ.lind cannot. be_~~.!'ted s~p.a.~~tely fr~IJ1_.the body_which sustains !t.. Latertlie biological supports for transcendental entities assumed an autonomy of their own and influenced writers to regard them
as caryatids holding up either psychical or behavioral superstructures.
'Vc consider the basts dogma briefly as it operates under mentalistic
and behavioristic auspices.

3. There are good reasons for admiring physics, for its achievements are outstanding and it has the great advantage of profiting directly
and immediately from advances in technology. Aside from its conquests in its own domain it supplies instruments for many other sciences
including psychology. And ye~~.~~mJ)_tphysi~s to sovereignt>: oy~r_
psvchology or any other science cannot be sustained. The behavior of
~ dYnamos, catboae1Ubes, moving particles, and so on is certa~nly important, interesting, and useful, but are not the same values attributable
. to the behavior of human and other organisms? Mo.r.g~y'~r) as _an ._~~~
" vanced modern .cJi~J.E1.i!1e... npjly~~~. does not lack d.eficiencies. ~h~re
are manv difficulties of observation and explanation. Uncertainties
abound in physics, ~y-~!!cisl'!!-!s__r.aQ].p'mJ..~he~ we .consider the
doctrines of such wrlte!.5.,as J~U$, llobr, ~<!dlt~,:g~~n,_ Br~dgman, and
--many others. Here looms up a great paradox, psychologists look for
science in physics, while physicists seek a rock of a~es
in the transcendentalism of spiritistic sensations, and the solipsism
of the individual psyche.
OBSERVER

".b.

jP"/""'t ..

<>

THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF AHND OR CONSCIOUSNESS" r';.v

amo*deIOf

.,

.:rf.1i~jrpI!rQpableJgrm oLthc basis tenet stems from the belief th~tL ('~" 'r-~
!he data of psychology ar~_ps)'chlceiJiphenomena or experiences which,.:'7(....
C'!~lJ10(~~~t. in their own right, _b~LQ!lly_by sufferance of other kinds ;;-..I".!:~:
of entities which sustain them. It is represented in the literature of - .'.~"-~ -,
psychologyvy'such 'familiar expressions as "the brain (or nervous sys- .,..;: 0:.'tcm) is the organ of mind" and the "physical (or neural) dimensions of ... :.: ~/
consciousness." The latter expression symbolizes the notion that some ."~;:,.~.-':'".
aspects of the psychic elements called "sensations" are associated with
; ~7""
actual and putative functioning of the nervous system.
&'

Is it not clear that the mentalistic version of the basis doctrine exists
only-6yYrifueoftlie animism tliat stilloo]orsthe-tlltiildng of psyeholog~~lg Cannot psr~liOl~&!cal~~!i.!--like~~.i~k!~1_I>~rc~iving, rememberil!g. feeling, and so on be describeaexclusively in naturalistic terms?
UriJesSffiey'cnn-,-thcre is 'no-sCience of psychology, for theessentlal thing

28

, !

COMMENTS AND QUERIES

about a science is that it investigates some confrontable happeni?g.

Fortunately there is no difficulty in specifying the nature and oper.~tion
of psychological events. The immediate ~ata of ps}'c1~ology .are obviousIy the behavior or adjustments of orgal1~sms to ~peclfi~ objects, eve?ts,
or conditions existing in their surroundings, or 10 their own orgamzation and acti~n, howsoever such data arc subsequently interpr:ted. ,To

"

.r~ILfr.9)lLpsy.cbk interpr~ta!io~~~~ to_~~<?id t~_I!ce~_(or bIolQg~c::a.!

bases.
, ~---'
'

7
I

S
, .
/

THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF BEHAVIOR

Insofar as the behavior version of the basis tenet r:sts on the po~
tulare that psychological events require nonps}'chologlcal su,pport~ It
surely is only a variant of the mentalistic version, an? hence ~s sub~ect
to the same objections. On the other hand, pS~~lOloglStS who l1~lent!On
ally ignore:. ,~r_ reiecJ_t_he__mental and sir~pW. regard p~ycholo,glcal behavior'as inevitably. (l~'p~n~ent upon biological (par!lcularl}. neural)
slriicturcs an<t'tunctiolls still invite .the .riticism of mismte~prl'tmg both
psyc)iO)ogicat~1!a.-biol<)gi(:alevents, as .well as the relations between
them:-Bilt since the behavioral version IS after all presumed to ~e exclusively concerned with confrontable behavior om? th.ere~orc .IS the
more plausible version of the basis dogm~ we must mq.Ulre lIlto. Its admittedly factual grounds. The most obvIOUS of the.se IS t~at ~Pl~~ all
psydlol~g~c~'!'jata consist of the _behavio~r ~f ~r~ams~s'.. _b.lOloglcral fa:tors --a.'fe inevitably parts of __~\.:~!y_psyc..holo~~! _sI!~a_bon. Now It
devolveS\lpon us to define psychological and biological. data and ~s
pecially the relations between, them. This we can a<;c?mpbsh b.y ns1d ('ring the two following contrasting views. The guiding question IS, of
course, :lfC biological,~the basi~_ior psyc~~]ogical_~vents?

co.

BASIS VEHSUS CO-PHESENCE IN A FIELD

i

,f ;~<.' ~ / \Vhat role does the biology of the organ~sm pla~ in. its ~sychologi~I : \ cal behavior? A.!.Q!!SlLVi(i ~~~-.!~!:?~~. H~at _~!~~s_ q~l~~tl~ m~ph~s. the ,ab-

i '~(V.1L\ .~tructin&.~Ltne...J:.espollSe-.faetOl~oU~ oLth: !ptal_~~,~~lolog1cal~ltuatlon.

,.t~,' TliCliCliilvior of an organism as response IS III no sens~ so~cthmg-other
r;:,.~(
than its biological a~tiv!ty. This is the c,!se i~ both biological and psyl>" , . ;
chologlcal situations. In. both types.::>f slh~abon ~he other f~atur~_s.~v~
~..'
have to take account of are the stnnulatmg objects, and the settmg
l:.{',}_' -I ~onaUions in which-tlmy interact with ~he organism. But. ~)}~it11e_r.~ase
t ~J' ,"t...f'.!.e_~Qi.Q1QgicaL str~c~u!.~~ . om,?_ !,:!!!!:!~on_s ~(--.the org;;t.!!~m a IJas.1S .(01'
' / '."\ something else call~~ ~~~~~lor. The blolo~lcal features of the orgat~m
I It,\
ollvimls)y -co-operotc in a complex field With many other factors. I
\/1,1'
The role of biological factors in psychological fields is greatly H.)
luminatcd by a comparison of biological and psychological situations.
. On the biological levet behavior is obviously the functioning or oper?tion of the cellular or tissue organization of a particular organism 111
!.trrJs!tiye .re~<?~~!l~..~i_~~~~~I~.e~~~,~iy?ly .Si~I.Jp~~. ~nvironI11en~a~. conditio~s:-..
Biological responses are tlius eqUivalent to the molecular processes

CO~IMENTS

AND QUERIES

29

mentioned. 9-1!-.tl}~_d~li~telJ~ psychological level there is evident a more

elaborate interaction of the organism with a complex spectrum of objects ~ and conditiOns' so that theresponses cannot be described as simply-illovelnents;sccret~ons. conductions, and so on. The biological components-'ora~psychological response comprise a specific adjustmcntal
pattern displayed by the the total structure of the organism as it Interacts with stimulus objects, Most of thc human organism's behavior is \
conditioned mainly by the characteristics or properties of stimulus ob- (
jccts. ~e_.m!ly.. thcn Iook upon .thc behavior of the organism as rela\\
lively independent of its tissues and organs. This situation is excellently
illustrated "by the' enormous variations of speech behavior performed ':'
by organisms equipped with similar biological tissues and organs. J!t, /' ;'~
all complex human behavior it is the cultural rather than the biolo- r-. ~
gicarfeaturestllat assume the domiminf role. Certainly to make' the an- I }J.~~;
alomf-ana-pnysiology of organisms into supports for psychological t' "('l~
behavior is a flagrant vivisection of events and a traduction of obser- :/~"
vation and description. To regard biological componcnts of behavior 'l' .' '
as bases turns out to be onlyanarllitraryusageword.
' ,''-rL'11.
/

ora

~Underlying this fa.lsifi.ca. lion ord~eripti';;- is -th~.~.erroneo.us, noti.on ,. ~

~f cause....Cau~ !~_~su,I!!ed h:!J)..~_31. determining ~r creating pq~er that (-~ .. p~()(!u~~~_~_mct~~~ other than itself, so !hat some ,. psychic process \ '?r::: i
anteuates _a~(t ongmares-some type of behavior or vice versa. When the '-"
biological is assumed to bring about the .mental there is the added notion of a biological guarantee for some unobservable apparition. In general,
c" determinative 'notion of 'cause contrasts Y,!tl.t~tl~_Y.i~ly"jpat

~l!.!!!~P_Y_~_~,.,~~r_lie.!~..~~:2Ci'giii!ib.~t:.Qltaj,QEs...!!LQl:,~~

.. which conbi6utft.!9.....~~.J.!!lppeiiing of an event. The flame of a match in

no wise ~e~~r~itd.s .dr Ir:afes-":-i'ii--explOSi1nbut on~y completes the

(,
syncrasy 0
e m IVI ua actors necessary or a certain event to occur,,;r.~,:
including the presence and flammability of the exploding materials., In_. ..,,;.
t~lis. ~ense we ~ay look _~l?on the anatomical and physiological factors
'; ~
~_!hJ!~Isi~lcin&. talking, and fccling--ns-'parfiCij;i:'lrifs in the" adjust- ,/.;/~I
melltaLac~.
- .._--_. ,~ --_...-- .'-'-'--_.. '.
~-,'.. ,.~:
Cr:eati'y~causal interpretations mask the fact that psychological

events are field events and invariably involve interactions with stimulus
objects as well as numerous additional components. Thus the response
p~~~e of an interaction is misin,te!,prett:cl_as r_~uirI~g ~~ j~o~~e~
POWC!_ or calisa~Lt?!.i-r~sident1ri-t he organism. Since ilie --mental aspect
M is intangible and invisible tlie-Dialogical-factors are presumed to be the
(1 detcrmining or at least the sustaining factors.

BASIS VEnSUS PIUOR EVOLUTION

Psychological events nrc essentially developmental, they originate
and mature in definite cvolutional ways. Every ad;ustmental interaction
follows embryological interactions and depend upon the attainment
of a particular stage of organismic maturity. Until a ccrtain stage of

Ii.

c
r: ~~ I

.:>

'.. Cr..J

COMMENTS AND QUERIES

30

The Psychological Record. 1970, 20, '23.' 30.

___biological development _~_~acjl~!J_t11~r~-is ~IO opsychol()gical behavior

at "all."Also,-ilnfil-Uiel)iological development of the organism is complete there is a unique evolutional parallelism of biological and psychological development. Par; IJassu with the development of biological coordinations the organism develops crawling, walking, talking, and increasingly accurate manipulatory behavior. .ltjs. to _be noted, however,
..-;? .that the_ p~cI!Qlogi.~L cYQlution_.Qt1>~h~yiQr.~pl)_tI~l:l~s~ 19!1g .afte!" the
prol~icaL~YQlut!.Q!LQot!I!~_ C!~~ga~!i~!~!s~p}llpl~.!, tn fact q~l~j!lg .~ .Jl.~o~-
~ longed period .<?f !l!~ qrganisln'~_l~O!m'!L deterio~!!.Y.!!L;.~~LI!la.Y c.o.ntimw
1iiltn-fliC'demise of the organism."
-

31

COl\llvlENTS AND QUERIES

INNATE INTELLIGENCE:
ANOTHER GENETIC AVATAR

<So

C.

Psycholog!c~l !>!!u~iQ~,-C,QD).m:~~~ . .iJd~e~~.I.~~. __~....E-_!?J?l~gi~~I ..2.!:-.

~n}~.l\ccordingly, trle general stability and precision of that behavior
are conditioned by the hygiene and intactness of the organism's allatomy, physiology, and chemistry. Th~J_o~s_nLorganst.the.pathology of
cells and tissues, and the imbalance of its. molecular..status may inter"l'~-\vitlrlhc'p~ydl~~~~i?~rP~~i~.~~n~:nci.?,f.t~~L9rg~lli~m: Ho\vever; the
_ co-p~scnce-or~ycnologlc~~.~E~tQ~<?~Qg~~_~l.~~e~~~~. not .~~PP'!?rt ar:tY
notion of tllClatter as-a -basis for the former. To assert that biological
e\~cil1Sdcterriiine psychological-events-excepf as interacting stimuli is
sure to invoke the specter of supernaturalism.
"-'~....... \. ' ''L.- \.

,-.-

May we conclude otherwise than that the basis doctrine leads to

the falsification of psychological data? Not only is the doctrine totally
invalid but it also has_serious consequences, a few of which we point
f
out. A pri~ary one, of.cou~se:t~uift~e stress o~ t~e biological factors of
psychological events mevItably JtnRhes mC~ltahst1c proccsses that they
I
i s~rt. This is as true of behavioristic interpretations- as~orllrin-be~
~. t \<.l'",;.haviorlstic ones. Again, the stress of bodily factors usually result in the
~~,}-.,t~,~ emphasis of the brain which makes it into a surrogate for the soul. But
; \ t" J, 1. ~ even when the brain is glorified ~ith~~! _~n hll!l:lf!di.~te. suggestionqt menell .'IJ\J
~'Ulrsm ltleads to the development of analoglca! .brai!l models which en"

(fJ

',)\ ~~

Gi'

.~rcetlie erron".?"s~s~pa!ali".n

of that organ from the rest of the biological

orgamsm Of\mlCll it is a single integral part. Such models make of the

bram a storagebin ~-tape for ideas, associations) and other invented
powers and processe
nother not too incidental consequence is the wellnigh universal view that.physiological psychology supports the dogma of
a biological basis for experience andliehavior, arid-cilcoiiiigesth~_bcH~f.
'lli-excn~~~~_.~n
...~tj~Jhihjtory. ..states, drives, determiners; .and variO~SI
innate propC],nsities. Finally, it is apparent that an unavoidable eonse
the basil dogma is its influence in precluding anthropologica
components from/descriptions of complex human psychological events

quenceor

,OBSERVER

rt;);
~,. .. ,

-r

ttl/~{ ".d.''-0:3. d,', r~1 ;ptf {":Jh~l/,

l ' t: ;1"C'~
JA'L-.;/-;.,. . . . . . .
.{:f!'J.}l.f..,,?'
((C- 't~~'771t-:
. , ~(~;;k.'
it
;)--?"te: '"t[.'j?
l )
t" . c..
I.
7" / ~.'
~4t ,;c:: :l ! (. ~-t../ G.-I z.. .L
J

;;

l'

t. t

'

'.

"4- t:

t.
,.

!_.

'4"'"

'

The recent upsurge of racial problems has again revived

debates concerning mental inheritance. In the present Comments
consideration is given to the teachings of genetics and objective
p~chol0rr. whic?, should expunge the dogmas of "heredity vs, en.
Vltonment and nature VB. nurture,' as wen as the doctrine that
behavior and its qualities can be generationally transmitted.

La~enting the difficulties of propagating a novel theory, Planck

the e~ment fou~der of th.e quantum Movement wrote in his Scientific
-:t"tobwgra,J!ly, ~ _new SCientific _~~l:ltb_ 4~es _D.0.!. triumph by convincing.
l_t~_~.~~onent~~ ~l1a~in~_theIll.~~cJ~eJig~tt OlJt- rather because its
?~~o~~nt~..!v~n.!.u_ally:o!e, and a ne;v generation grows up that is famil- .~
lar.~_.~! [planck, 1949, ~. 3.'3]. Of course Planck was thinking of ""f'
phys~cs, his chosen field. Little did he know how much worse eondi- ~~
~ions are in other fields, and especially psychology. In the first place,
:,..1
III psychology clashes of opinion do not usually relate to scientific truths
but to int~n~ctua~ fallacies. Again, since in__most psychological issues
there .a~~ !1~m~~h~~l~ _~ ~0~..1, ~al1acies do not die with the demise of
g~~~!~!.I9nsJ' .r~h~!_t~~ey _l~~.e on ,~y_ peri~~!c _r~~~recp:~_n. In psychology"
fallacies only oecome quiescent until some new occasion arises to
quicken them.
. This melancholy reflection upon the psychological situation is
stimulated by the fact that recently there has flared up again the problem of innate racial intelligence (Comment, 1969) and still more by
the fact that an accomplished experimental psychologist, a professor in
a highly prestigious university t publicly proclaimed his acceptance of
the faI.lacies that intelligence, or qualities of behavior, is hereditarily
transmitted, and that IQs arc mainly genetically determined.
t

J./
~
.

~
~ ~~:

Why have these unmitigated errors now come to life again, not ' ~~~..
~
only among some technical psychologists, but also among students of
society. and P?litics~ as well as laymen? ~Qoubtless.. i_~ is_l?_a~t~~~h:_Ewing_
to ~e mc~easlmJ .~~~~hes be.t~:~ ~hf~ ~!~~k aI!crwlilte_citizemy.~f Q\!f
nation. ThIs escalatIon of intestmal diSliarmony has beco..netne occasion
lor resurrecting the argument that some souls are inferior to others and
that this variability correlates with skin pigmentation and other biological traits. The latest revival of the historical polarizations of hered-

I{