Critically evaluate the Learning Perspective in terms of the following categories: a) Reductionism vs. non-reductionism b) Structuralism vs. functionalism c) Objectivity vs. subjectivity d) Nomothetic vs. ideographic

explanations of complex wholes in terms of the units of which those “wholes” are composed are the only explanations that are worthwhile. This entire idea makes perfect sense considering the fact that the learning perspective focuses on the idea that the environment (stimuli) totally affects someone’s behavior (responses) from the moment he is born. Pavlov’s research on dogs and their responses to a number of stimuli in the 1920’s solidifies this position. On the other hand, we happen to have the approach of non-reductionism that rivals that of reductionism. Its main ideas are as follows: Thorough knowledge of organisms cannot be gained through knowledge of nerve activity and muscle movement or through knowledge of stimulus-response connections. There is a hierarchy of levels of explanation, from the sociological to the psychological down, eventually, to the physical and chemical. No one level can account for the whole of behavior and all levels are needed for a complete explanation. Finally, a human cannot be reduced to stimulus-response connections. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is apparent here that the core ideas of behaviorism are contradicted by non-reductionists who state that each and every single level of explanation is required for complete understanding of behavior.    The second debate will be discussing about is that of structuralism vs. functionalism. The main ideas of the concept of structuralism that concern behaviorists are that psychology should concern itself with the elementary processes of conscious experience. Additionally, supporters of structuralism suggest that the structure of consciousness and immediate mental experience can be broken down. The concept of functionalism rivals that of structuralism and states the following: Behavior should be studied in terms of its functional value (what the behavior is for) in adapting the person or animal to its environment. The concept is actually based on Charles Darwin’s ideas of evolution in species, ideas that would later on influence behaviorism heavily. Furthermore, functionalism suggests that the primary function of consciousness is to enable humans to behave in ways in which will aid survival through adaptation to the environment. Behaviorists generally agree with the belief that behavior has a functional value. However, they disagree with the possibility sensations and feelings being elements of conscious experience, an idea present in structuralism, as well as with the use of introspection as a way to investigate these conscious experiments.    We are now moving on to our third debate which happens to be that of objectivity vs. subjectivity. We should begin by shifting our attention towards objectivity. This particular concept revolves around the belief that experimental data should be collected in a way that makes it quantifiable. Supporters of the concept state that the aim of investigations should be to be objective, generalisable and accessible. Their main target should be to have freedom from influences of experimenter’s values, interests, expectations and prejudices. All these ideas are strongly associated with the learning perspective, since it is know secret that learning psychologists aim for objectivity in their research, at the same time making strong use of numbers and quantitative data in general. The concept standing against objectivity is subjectivity. In contrast to with the ideas of objectivity, subjectivity focuses on the belief that research should be based on data that is qualitative. Supporters of subjectivity claim that qualitative data provide richer and more valid data than quantitative data. They believe that the interpretation of data should be carried out by the researcher and may be a different interpretation to that proposed by others. For them, description is a factor as valid as measurement itself. It is obvious, of course, that the use of qualitative research methods such as interviews, observation, and case studies does not sit well with learning psychologists due to their desire to be as objective as possible in their work.    The last debate we are going to go over is that of nomethetic vs. ideographic. The most important ideas of the nomothetic happen to be: Theories depend upon the scientific observation of a number of participants. The aim is to arrive at general principles or laws of behavior which apply to everybody. Individuality is not considered important. On the contrary, the ideographic states that research addresses the wholeness and uniqueness of the individual. Its target is to provide a complete and in-depth picture of the individual. Generalisability and predictability of findings are of no importance. Once again, it is apparent that the ideas of the nomothetic feature greatly in behaviorism, considering the research conducted by psychologists such as Pavlov and Skinner on animal subjects. These experiments helped to develop specific theories like those of operant and classical conditioning. The father of behaviorism himself, J.B. Watson, stated that the objective of learning psychology is to arrive at laws that govern human behavior and can help in controlling it.    Having made an attempt to critically evaluate the learning perspective based on a number of major debates in psychology, I can safely state the belief that a number of concepts that actually spawn from the learning perspective itself, including reductionism, structuralism, objectivity and the nomothetic, form the basis of those major debates and provide us with the opportunity to understand the entire concept of behaviorism much more smoothly.