the different disciplines that attempt to explain the behavior and actions of human beings, drawing upon different perspectives, each conceptualizes or thinks about human beings in fundamentally different ways. A biologist might think of us as bundles of genes with innate biological tendencies, an economist might think of us as rational and utilitarian decision-makers, a psychologist might think of us as a “learning machine” or as a complex bundle of unconscious and repressed emotions, a sociologist might think of us as someone who occupies specific social positions (i.e., upper class, African-American, female).
Perhaps most important, I have argued that since each perspective has something of interest to contribute and that their ideas are complementary to one another rather than being contradictory. In other words, to say that one is greatly affected by rewards and punishments – as do behaviorists – doesn’t invalidate the fact that one’s social class – whether one is rich or poor – also contributes greatly to how one behaves. What does differ – and this is important – is how one might go about trying to modify an individual’s behavior and the policy implications that follow.
For this summary – response paper you will compare and contrast the sociological way of thinking about human beings with that presented by two other disciplines discussed in the class lecture notes. What are the main assumptions of each and how do they differ in their recommendations to change peoples’ behavior?
