will be described in the prompt

¶ … nature vs. nurture debate:

The need for compromise between the dueling fields of psychology and neuroscience

In general, the debate between biology and psychology, or psychological science and neuroscience, tends to be phrased as an 'either or' conundrum. However, Miller & Keller (2000) in their article "Psychology and neuroscience: Making peace" suggest that both paradigms are necessary to shed light upon human behavior and improve the human condition. Simply finding the biological root cause of a particular problem does not necessarily offer a helpful intervention strategy. For example, depression may have a strong genetic component, but CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) can facilitate treating the condition. However, ignoring the biological components of mental illness and general human development, as Freudianism was won't to do in the past, is not useful either in terms of treating patients.

Psychology, due to the influence of Freud has tended to ignore the physical body and has suggested that psychology is more 'fundamental' than biology (Miller & Keller 2000: 213). Despite the fact that human beings are clearly both 'bodies and brains,' the field of psychology has tended to view anatomical aspects of human existence, such as motor control, as seemingly unimportant. "Researchers interested in the translation of intentions into physical actions have largely focused on anticipatory phenomena" (Rosenbaum 2005: 205). In other words, even with something as simple as picking up a pencil, researchers emphasize intention rather than motor skills. But both components of the action must be understood. Cognitive deficits spanning from brain damage to psychological issues such as OCD can produce a movement or inhibit a movement; the physical body is also a component of what makes someone ambulatory or not.

There is no doubt that physical changes to the brain can result in corresponding changes in behavior. For example, damage to specific components of the brain can produce impairment of specific kinds of memory or speech, while leaving others relatively intact (Richmond & Nelson 2007). In one case study (a patient known as H.M), brain lesions were found to be specifically responsible for the patient's amnesia, not psychological trauma or 'repression' as a Freudian might have diagnosed (Corkin et al. 1997)

If distinct enough, the loved ones of the person who is suffering these types of brain damage might even experience a sense of loss given the extent to which memory is associated with personality. Expectations of memory and behavior define social functioning in our society, and when there is damage or alteration to those functions, either as the result of brain damage, aging, or genetic factors, that translates into the afflicted person's social self being treated differently.

To take another example, the condition of autism may be rooted in various genetic and epigenetic factors, and present itself very early in life. The social deficits generated by autism can substantially affect the child's entire life, spanning from his education to career prospects to the ability to have normal social relationships. To deal with the 'fallout' of these neurological particularities may require treating anxiety, depression, and teaching him or her to psychologically compensate for certain deficits through intensive therapy. The fact that autism is not 'caused' by conventional psychological causes like bad parenting or 'refrigerator mothers' as was once assumed does not mean that psychology and orchestrating the child's environment does not have a role in treating the illness.

The two different approaches can also have a vital function in suggesting the source of specific components of what is considered a psychological illness. Autistic children often have difficulty identifying persons based upon their faces in a manner that is 'normal.' A neuroscientist will study the "specific brain systems" which "allow each person to recognize a face… Social psychologists, by contrast, take the ability to recognize faces and their expressions as a starting point and might ask how each stranger uses that ability to draw inferences about the enduring traits and dispositions of the other" (Lieberman & Ochsner 2001: 717). A neuroscientist can use an MRI to understand the differences in brain activity between autistic and non-autistic persons when they encounter a face and thus explain brain activities involved in automatic recognition. A social psychologist's perspective is required to understand why immediate facial recognition and eye contact is so important in our society, and explain the consequences of what happens when a person lacks this automatic ability. Thus "if one views brain tissue as implementing psychological functions" and also acknowledges the value of psychology in dealing with the consequences that 'brain tissue' can produce, a more harmonious interaction of the two fields can be achieved (Miller & Keller 2000: 215).