For the 6 marker question, couldn't you argue it is psychic determinism as Leigh have gone to college with no external factors, such as being rewarded or forced, so there must be some unconscious factors driving Leigh to enact the behaviour? Thank you for all these videos I'd be crying during paper 1/2 without them!
Hey, thanks for the kind words, and you're welcome! (Glad you didn't cry in Paper 1 and 2!). In terms of psychic determinism, I can see where you're coming from. You could argue that the superego would create feelings of guilt and force us to go to school because we don't want to let down our parents/society. However, I probably wouldn't use that in this question as there isn't anything obvious there in the application. The question is just distinguish between two types, rather than explain why Leigh would or wouldn't go to college, and the two most clearly referred to in the stem (in my view) are biological and environmental. -G
Hey, thanks for your kind words 🙏 much appreciated. I think it depends on your definition of free will. If your personality is the cause of the behaviour, surely that's still determinism. In my view, if a decision can be predicted, then that's more in line with determinism. I'm agnostic about it on one level. Given that we would be unaware of many of the innate and unconscious factors that potentially shape our behaviour, I don't think we can sensibly support the free will position. I therefore see the options as soft or hard determinism. I do think we can make some degree of choice between a set of available options, but is it free? Surely if we weigh up the consequences (our perception of which is arguably also shaped by biopsychosocial factors), then we haven't made a truly free decision? So do we have free will? I'm not sure we can have. What do you think? -G
@@GalbraithDoesPsych Thanks for the answer! I'm of the view that, as long as there is some kind of logic behind actions and decisions, surely our decisions are determined by the internal and external factors that influence our decisions? Hence, internal and external factors (basically nature and nurture) determine our behaviour. In terms of predictability, since even now we don't fully understand structures like the brain, I think it's difficult to properly consider all factors that influence behaviour. Even the legal issue, which is a subject of controversy in this debate, could be justified by this kind of determinism - maybe the presence of the law could act as an environmental determiner (i.e deterrent, especially to those who were, for example, more strictly disciplined as children), and cases exist just to further understand the determining factors more comprehensively before making a decision? Then, if guilty, rather than letting them go to exercise their free will and control themselves, the prison environment can act as an environmental determiner to (hopefully) 'correct' their behaviour, as long as other underlying determiners aren't interfering. Although this doesn't explain the 'illusion' of free will - why can we consider different possibilities and decisions before deciding on something? Is that an example of soft determinism?
You're welcome! Yes some great points there. That's what I'm getting at with some of my points. If it's influenced at all, it's not free. But it does depend on how you define free will. In terms of your last paragraph, that sounds like soft determinism, yes. That's often understood as the idea that we have a choice, but it's constrained by internal and external factors (or we chose from available options) - like what you've said. I just think it's impossible to conclude we have total free will. Even with what we think of as simple or conscious decisions, there are probably things underneath that we don't even know about or cannot even measure. -G
could u mention that deterministic views i.e. biological determinism - the idea of a "criminal" gene or genes for mental disorders could influence social eugenic policies, for instance a researcher who suggest that low IQ was entirely genetic and so the feeble minded were euthanized, could u even link this to designer babies- the idea that genetic screening before birth could be carried out and genes are altered in order to prevent criminality or disorders
your disclaimer about frosties LOL😭😭
16 marker on determinism tysm!!
Hey, hope you smashed that then 👍
-G
For the 6 marker question, couldn't you argue it is psychic determinism as Leigh have gone to college with no external factors, such as being rewarded or forced, so there must be some unconscious factors driving Leigh to enact the behaviour?
Thank you for all these videos I'd be crying during paper 1/2 without them!
Hey, thanks for the kind words, and you're welcome! (Glad you didn't cry in Paper 1 and 2!). In terms of psychic determinism, I can see where you're coming from. You could argue that the superego would create feelings of guilt and force us to go to school because we don't want to let down our parents/society. However, I probably wouldn't use that in this question as there isn't anything obvious there in the application. The question is just distinguish between two types, rather than explain why Leigh would or wouldn't go to college, and the two most clearly referred to in the stem (in my view) are biological and environmental.
-G
Amazing revision video as always. I was wondering, what's your personal stance on the free will/determinism debate? Would be interested to know.
Hey, thanks for your kind words 🙏 much appreciated.
I think it depends on your definition of free will. If your personality is the cause of the behaviour, surely that's still determinism. In my view, if a decision can be predicted, then that's more in line with determinism.
I'm agnostic about it on one level. Given that we would be unaware of many of the innate and unconscious factors that potentially shape our behaviour, I don't think we can sensibly support the free will position. I therefore see the options as soft or hard determinism.
I do think we can make some degree of choice between a set of available options, but is it free? Surely if we weigh up the consequences (our perception of which is arguably also shaped by biopsychosocial factors), then we haven't made a truly free decision?
So do we have free will? I'm not sure we can have.
What do you think?
-G
@@GalbraithDoesPsych Thanks for the answer! I'm of the view that, as long as there is some kind of logic behind actions and decisions, surely our decisions are determined by the internal and external factors that influence our decisions? Hence, internal and external factors (basically nature and nurture) determine our behaviour. In terms of predictability, since even now we don't fully understand structures like the brain, I think it's difficult to properly consider all factors that influence behaviour. Even the legal issue, which is a subject of controversy in this debate, could be justified by this kind of determinism - maybe the presence of the law could act as an environmental determiner (i.e deterrent, especially to those who were, for example, more strictly disciplined as children), and cases exist just to further understand the determining factors more comprehensively before making a decision? Then, if guilty, rather than letting them go to exercise their free will and control themselves, the prison environment can act as an environmental determiner to (hopefully) 'correct' their behaviour, as long as other underlying determiners aren't interfering.
Although this doesn't explain the 'illusion' of free will - why can we consider different possibilities and decisions before deciding on something? Is that an example of soft determinism?
You're welcome!
Yes some great points there. That's what I'm getting at with some of my points. If it's influenced at all, it's not free. But it does depend on how you define free will.
In terms of your last paragraph, that sounds like soft determinism, yes. That's often understood as the idea that we have a choice, but it's constrained by internal and external factors (or we chose from available options) - like what you've said.
I just think it's impossible to conclude we have total free will. Even with what we think of as simple or conscious decisions, there are probably things underneath that we don't even know about or cannot even measure.
-G
could u mention that deterministic views i.e. biological determinism - the idea of a "criminal" gene or genes for mental disorders could influence social eugenic policies, for instance a researcher who suggest that low IQ was entirely genetic and so the feeble minded were euthanized, could u even link this to designer babies- the idea that genetic screening before birth could be carried out and genes are altered in order to prevent criminality or disorders
Yep. That's what I mean by the implications of determinism. Really good idea. To talk about it, I mean. Not eugenic policy itself... 😅
-G
@@GalbraithDoesPsych ok thank you