A. To quote a really old Saturday Night Live routine, "It's both!" But that's not much of an answer. This is part of the reason why definitions of psychology can be so infuriatingly fuzzy. One might argue that psychology, properly speaking, is the study of thought, while the brain is clearly the domain of biology. Fair enough. But back in the 1920s, when psychologists discovered that thought was all but impossible to measure, given the tools and techniques of the day, some prominent psychologists changed the definition: psychology was now the study of behavior. Also fair enough. But if you're going to investigate the causes of behavior, biology clearly has an influence. Biological psychologists (also called "physiological psychologists," "behavioral neuroscientists," and many other things, not all of them printable) have long been trying to explore what structures of the brain are responsible for what specific behaviors, as well as the role of hormones and other biological systems and their influence our behavior.

One of the boldest frontiers in psychology today is the intersection between biology and behavior, as scientists begin using the newly invented tools to investigate the function of living brains to see in great detail which areas of the brain are related to which behaviors, and even thoughts. It's fascinating stuff. Daniel Schacter, in Harvard, has even been investigating whether certain patterns of brain activation are related to whether you're going to remember a new fact or not.

As for the study of human thought, keep in mind that the Behaviorists, the dominant school of psychology in the United States for nearly forty years, felt there was no point in studying thought, since you couldn't observe or measure it. Techniques developed in the 1960s led to the cognitive revolution in psychology, which permitted scientists to gain some real insight into the way we actually think. This work has begun merging into neuroscience (so we have...um, "cognitive neuroscientists"?), helping us to map specific regions of the brain and how they relate to thought.

So, it's both, and sometimes both at once. Hope that's clearer.

Q. Is psychology boring?

A. I admire the courage of a student to submit a question like this to their psychology professor...with their name on the card! Still, perhaps it's not such a silly question as we might think.

I can toss off the obvious answers: I don't think so. Some people don't think so. That depends on you. But it's far more interesting to ask "what makes something boring?" and this question will tell you quite a bit more about whether psychology is boring or not.

Almost by definition, "boring" is something I'm not interested in. But what makes something interesting? One feature is novelty, or newness. According to some theorists, animals (including ourselves) prefer a "best" level of emotional excitement, or arousal. Too much excitement, for too long, is stressful. Too little excitement (boredom) is also stressful. We find boredom to be unpleasant, so we seek interest elsewhere. In a classroom, we sleep, daydream, instant message each other and play games on the laptop (did you think I don't notice?).

Sadly, most classrooms are boring almost by definition. Sitting still for an hour, paying attention to one speaker who just talks on and on means no new stimulation...hence, boredom. Notice television: the rapid changes of scenery, the fast moving dialog: all designed to be changing all the time to capture your attention. Television is an attention-capturing machine. Yet, for many of us, it's a trap: you can't tear your eyes away, yet you become vaguely dissatisfied by the simple, repetitive stories, bland laugh tracks, and all of the tricks used to keep us glued to the set. No wonder some of us actually prefer the commercials to the programs: they're short, changeable, and cut up the program into manageable chunks.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (don't ask how to pronounce it) has been working hard on his theory of "flow," which argues boredom results when the challenges of a situation are much lower than our abilities. He also argues that we give up and become sour when the challenges of a situation are much higher than our abilities. The best (and most interesting) spot is when the situation perfectly challenges our abilities.

Thus, if psychology is far over your head, you will stop paying attention and be in a bad mood. You now have fifty minutes a day, three days a week to kill, doing...nothing. You will be bored. Similarly, if you already know everything, and there's nothing new to challenge you, you'll also be stuck with nothing to do, and be bored. In order for the material to not be boring, you have to feel you are capable of learning it, that there is a good reason to pay attention, and you work at learning it. Those who put effort into the course are least likely to be bored by it.

There are also many students who just find the material interesting, without necessarily working at it. It might be that regardless of their ability, they feel the material engages their interest, much like watching a television program. Or perhaps they don't feel the course really is above their ability.

Which brings us right back to square one. I don't find class boring, because I'm usually working hard at it. Some people don't find class boring, because they are working hard at it. Some people who are not challenged, either because they've had it before, or because they've given up, find it a horrible waste of their time. If that describes you, it's probably a good idea to find another course of more interest. Life's too short.

Q. Why do people have reflexes?

A. A biological question! A reflex is an automatic response, something we do without thinking. After that simple definition, we can get into all kinds of trouble. Rene Descartes, who gave this matter some thought, argued that reflexes are purely mechanical behaviors. If I step on a tack, the nerve impulses will travel to the spinal cord, which will return orders to the foot to lift it right away, without bothering to tell the brain first. While this is all true, you might also argue that a well-trained behavior, one that you do automatically, is a "reflex," even if it was learned, not mechanically built-in. A football player who learns to spin right every time somebody tries to tackle him has a learned reflex: the behavior occurs automatically, without thinking.

Now that we know what they are, why have them? Without them, you'd probably be dead. A reflex is usually a protective behavior, something that keeps you from further danger. Most psychologists argue that many reflexes have evolved: the earlier protohumans who lacked the reflex to flinch when something big and heavy flew at their head probably didn't survive as well as the protohumans who had such a reflex. Thus, the reflex becomes part of our inherited behavior.

Submit your own question: email me at dushayr@morrisville.edu

See earlier "Ask Dr. Bob" pages:

2003

August 25
September 1
September 15
October 20
November 17

2004

January 26
February 16
March 21
August 23
September 22

2005

Go to the Intro psych homepage

Back to Dr. Dushay's homepage