Image source  

My previous post was about change.  Should you wish to read this please click here:  

https://steemit.com/psychology/@serioustruth/change-is-good-and-always-will-be

During this last week I have been thinking a lot about the following topic. Social learning. I watched a video about a social learning experiment, and it fascinated me so much that I decided to do some more research on this topic.   Please click on the link if you want to watch this video. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEhSk71gUCQ 

What is the definition of the social learning theory? 

The Social learning theory is the view that people learn by observing others. This is associated with Albert Bandura's work in the 1960s. The social learning theory explains how people learn new behaviors, values, and attitudes. For example, a teenager might learn slang by observing peers. 

                                                           

                                                                             Image credit

Do we do things because we learn this  behavior from other people in our environment? Let us look at one social experiment done in the early 1960's called the Bobo doll experiment.

In the early 1960s, Albert Bandura conducted a famous experiment called  the Bobo doll experiment. In the experiment, he had children observe a  video of an adult aggressively playing with toys, including a Bobo doll.  A Bobo doll is basically a large blow-up doll that looks like a clown.  The adult hit the Bobo doll, knocked it down and even jumped on it while  yelling words like 'pow!' and 'kick him!' The children were then  allowed to play with a variety of toys, including the Bobo doll, and  results indicated that more than half of the children modeled the adult  and engaged in the same aggressive behaviors with the Bobo doll. This modeling was called Bandura's social learning theory.   

So all these kids in this experiment followed the example of the adults.  Makes you think, doesn't it?

Determinism

the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers  have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.  

Does this mean that children with violent parents will also become violent parents? 

Some behaviorists strongly believe that the concept of "free will" is only a disguise for the real cause of human behavior.  According to research done by Skinner in 1971, we are just not aware of the environmental influences that tricks us into believing that we have a free will. If humans observe and imitate what others do, does that mean that they actually DO NOT have a free will? 

If this is the case, a person that commits a crime will therefore, not have a choice in committing the crime, because he/she is influenced by environmental circumstances and may have a personal history of violence and crime. Because of this history, it makes breaking the law unavoidable. Is this the case of monkey see, monkey do?

                          

                         Image source

In contrast does this mean that a person who has not been exposed to crime, will therefore not commit a crime? Good behavior will be rewarded with good behavior.

What about evolution?   

 Sociobiology is a field of scientific study  that is based on the hypothesis that social behavior has resulted from evolution and attempts to examine and explain social behavior within  that context. 

Some supporters of determinism adopts a biological outlook.  They say that it is not the external influences but the internal forces that determines a person's behavior. Behavioral genetics.  To a large degree, we are who we are because of our genetic makeup. Genes can however not determine our behavior BUT they play a humongous role in what and why we do something.  

Compatibilists however believe that free will and determinism goes hand in hand. According to them determinism is necessary for having a free will.  They argue that a choice, involves the priority of one course of action towards another, or a sense of how choices will turn out.

Personally I have a big problem with determinism. I believe that  I am responsible for my own actions. Determinism is totally inconsistent with self-control, which forms the basis of our moral obligations.  I am not going to commit a crime, because my grandfather committed a crime.  I believe I have a free will and a choice to decide whether I want to commit a crime or not. I have never been influenced easily.  Especially not by my peers.  The only influence that I have ever had is when I followed an example.  My parents were both hardworking and so am I.  Is that because of genetics or due to the example I had growing up?  Possibly both.    We do sometimes pick up some behavioral patterns from other people, and sometimes we do follow examples. This is human nature, BUT  I believe that we do things out of choice, and possibly  just because we are curious and not because we have to.  If the bell rang, would you have stood up, just because other people did?

Although it is a fact that our brains often unconsciously decide to do something (even before we even know we made a choice)  I am still not a biochemical puppet. I make conscious decisions and believe that my decisions are not influenced by my environment or even by my ancestors. I may be wrong, but for now, that is what I choose to believe.  Any person that knows me, know that I am a very strong-willed person.     

I for one am not a sheep!

 I am totally up for a good debate.  Please comment.   Thanks for reading.  

❤ Keep on Steeming ❤