InThinking Revision Sites

INTHINKING REVISION SITES

Own your learning

Why not also try our independent learning self-study & revision websites for students?

We currenly offer the following DP Sites: Biology, Chemistry, English A Lang & Lit, Maths A&A, Maths A&I, Physics, Spanish B

"The site is great for revising the basic understandings of each topic quickly. Especially since you are able to test yourself at the end of each page and easily see where yo need to improve."

"It is life saving... I am passing IB because of this site!"

Basic (limited access) subscriptions are FREE. Check them out at:

www.StudyIB.net

Misunderstandings in biology

  • /
  • Psychology textbook/
  • 2. Critical thinking in psychology/
  • Misunderstandings in biology

There are many common misperceptions about the biological approach.  Often, the nature of these misperceptions is rooted in an "all or nothing" approach when evaluating research.  Three of the most common misperceptions that are made in exam essays are:

*  One of the problems with the biological approach is that it is reductionist.

*  One of the problems with this biological study is that it does not take culture into consideration.

*  Animals are used to avoid ethical considerations.

Better understanding the complexities of these issues in the biological approach will make your critical thinking much stronger on exam day!

The issue of reductionism

Although you might not believe this, reductionism is often seen as the key strength of the biological approach. Reductionist arguments are based on the idea that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that complex behaviors be reduced to explanations of individual factors. So, it is the idea that we could find a neurotransmitter that is responsible for depression or that a gene could be responsible for resilience. And this - by the way - would be an amazing find!  It could actually lead to an effective treatment for depression or, from the military's point of view, an effective means of testing soldiers for resilience before they go into combat, lessening the threat of PTSD.

Reductionism is based on the idea of Occam's Razor - that is, that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one and researchers should test simpler theories before testing more complex theories. 

This is seen as a strength of the biological approach because biologists try to identify specific factors that could be empirically tested in order to establish a cause and effect relationship.  A lot of the great biological research has actually been able to disprove these simple arguments - and this has given us a better understanding of the complexities of human behavior.  To argue that a study provides evidence of a cause and effect relationship but is a problem because it is "reductionist", is, therefore, not a very strong answer.

Some students also argue that the approach itself is "reductionist."  This is also not correct. In the field of biology today there is a great understanding of the interaction of environmental and biological factors. Although a study may be reductionist, the approach itself cannot be criticized for being reductionist. 

Often on exams students write that HM is "reductionist because it argues that memory is localized."  First, the study was a case study.  The approach was holistic.  Secondly, the idea that memory is localized in the brain is far from "reductionist."  Biologists have found that the consolidation of semantic memory from STM to LTM takes place in the hippocampus, but memory formation is much more complex than that and biologists recognize this.  A better example of reductionism would be an argument that a complex behavior like sexuality could be attributed to a gene (e.g.. Bailey & Pillard), but even there, Bailey & Pillard recognized the role of environment.  In the modern world of epigenetics, one may have a gene, but it takes an environmental stimulus to "turn it on."

The issue of culture

One of the common evaluations of biological research is that the sample was not cross-cultural.  One of the fundamental principles of biology is that we share a common biology.  Although there are genetic differences (e.g... sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis), it is assumed that the basic brain structure and functions of the nervous system are the same. 

When looking at samples, a more common problem is the sample size.  This is often the result of two factors.  First, if the researchers are studying a specific medical condition, for example - Broca's aphasia - there is a limited population that may be studied.  In some cases, such as the case studies of HM or KF, there are very few such examples of such extreme brain damage, so the sample size is small.  Another factor is the cost of doing research.  fMRI scans, for example, are expensive - not to mention that access to such technology may be limited.  This may also be a reason for a small sample size.

The issue of animal research

Animal research remains a contentious issue in the study of human behavior.  Often on exams students hold the misperception that the reason that we do research on animals is that we are able to violate ethics.  This is actually incorrect - or at best, an oversimplification.  Don't forget that there are clear and strict guidelines for the treatment of animals in research.  It is true that animals do die in research and that a cost-benefit analysis must be made in order to determine whether the death of the animal is "worth it."  However, it is rarely mentioned that the other key reasons that animals are used include, for example,  the ability to see several generations in a short period of time, which is essential for Alzheimer's research.  Or the fact that the genetic and physiological make-up of animals is very similar to humans and thus the results can be generalized to some extent.