I do not agree with you Noam Chomsky!

Noam Chomsky, an author or many books, once said “...we will always learn more about human life and human personality from novels than from scientific psychology.” At first glance, Chomsky’s claim seems reasonable. To learn more about human life and human personality, one would find that novels would be a more reliable source than scientific psychology. When coming upon the word “scientific,” one immediately thinks about the principles of science and the scientific method. However, when combining science and psychology, a different result is achieved. Scientific psychology can prove to provide a greater value of information about human life and human personality. In an episode of “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit,” the detectives discovered that the pedophile in their case had a large tumor in her brain, causing her to react in a way that was not natural for her. Although this was a fictional story, the thought presents itself as a scientific avenue of learning about human personality. Nevertheless, in order to make a claim about where one would find a more valuable source of information for human life and human personality, it is necessary to discuss the knowledge issues that consume this statement.

There are many ways of learning. When one searches for information to support an argument, the first place that may be searched is the Internet. A second place would be through books. If a student wishes to learn more about art, he may take a few art classes or visit several art museums to learn the techniques, different types of paint, and even textures that can be used. If a scientist wants to learn how vitamin A affects planaria, she may conduct an experiment. When searching for knowledge, you use what you believe is to be the best approach. In this case, searching for knowledge about human life and human personality through novels or scientific psychology is rather broad. The reason for wanting to learn such things is critical in that it will lead us into an appropriate way of finding the information. If one wants to learn about human life and human personality to write an anthropological essay on a certain type of people, then novels may prove to be more effective. However, if one wants to learn about this for the purposes of scientific study, then scientific psychology is the relevant approach.

Wanting to learn about human life and human personality has several problems. According to Chomsky, novels are the appropriate and superlative resource. However, novels are fictitious, containing characters whose actions may be exaggerated. Novels are also written with biases. To an individual with an eager desire to learn about the lifestyles and personalities of humans, using novels may serve as a hindrance to the individual, because it is limited to one person’s point of view of the situation at hand. Although it is confined to one perspective, novels do, nonetheless, contain human actions. For example, the novel Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad provides an account of a visit into the jungles of Africa through the eyes of a European. From reading the novel, one may come to observe that many humans, or more specifically Europeans, believe that they are immortal. The main character, Marlow, does not once confess a fear of going into the jungle and dying, even though he is surrounded by death. However, this assumption that Europeans believe they are immortal is limited, because it is derived from the personal perspective of Marlow. We are taking one person’s opinion and using it as a foundation for an opinion of our own. The novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury is an excellent novel that articulately displays the attachments that humans make with certain things or people. However, the book is written, just as Heart of Darkness, through the eyes of one character. Indeed, the narrator does his job by narrating the story, but it does not present the narrator’s point of view. We are ultimately traveling through the beliefs of one person.

Although novels are extremely limited, they prove to be useful for studying individuals’ reactions to certain events. On a personal level, one is able to discover the feeling of having something as precious as books being ripped away from you or traveling into a gruesome truth about greed. To an anthropologist interested in a certain indian tribe, a novel written from the perspective of an indian may prove to be useful in their studies. However, to that same anthropologist, the novel may be disadvantageous in that some of the facts may be untruthful or exaggerated.

To some, scientific psychology may be a better source of knowledge when dealing with human life and human personality. Scientific psychology delves into the human mind and what makes us function the way that we do; however there is also a gray area in the matter, just as there is in many other types of sciences. If one claims that scientific psychology is a more accurate avenue of learning about humans than novels, then am I to assume that if I meticulously study the behaviors and lifestyles of gorillas, that I will know better than the gorillas do about being a gorilla? Observational study is effective in some areas of knowledge, such as natural sciences and human sciences, but what about the ethics involved? Novels provide some insight into human decisions and reactions, while scientific psychology can come from observations. There is some truth to Chomsky’s statement that novels will provide a better knowledge of human life and human personality, but the information that comes from scientific psychology can be useful.

Chomsky’s use of “scientific psychology” is ambiguous. He does not specify the area of scientific psychology, nor does he state that novels are more useful than all areas of scientific psychology. If the interest is neurological scientific psychology, then the information that stems from it is rather useful to studying human life and human personality. Many things that compose human personality come from the way our brains function. The previous example of the pedophile and the tumor is an excellent deduction from neurological scientific study. If reading a novel through the eyes of this pedophile, would we know that there was something considerably wrong in her brain? No, we would not, because she does not know that there is something wrong. As readers, we would only be able to use the information that is given to us; that information would be simply that she was acting much differently than before. However, because of scientific psychology, we were able to discover what was truly wrong.

Cognitive scientific psychology is another area that may prove to be useful in learning about human life and human personality. Becoming well-acquianted with how the human species comprehends thoughts or acquires knowledge will allow oneself to know, scientifically, about human life. With that said, is it viable to assume that knowing scientifically the reasons why humans act the way that they do, we learn more from scientific psychology about human life and human personality than we do from novels? The answer to the question is no, because we still are not able to find the personal or ethical aspect of the claim. Simply knowing why humans act the way that they do through a scientific psychology produces a gap when trying to learn about human life and human personality: “how do certain things affect them?”; “how does the loss of a loved one affect a human?”; “what occurs in the mind of a human when faced with a grave decision?” These questions may sometimes be answered through novels, because they are personal accounts of specific situations.

Returning to the example of the pedophile, according to neurological scientific psychology, she should have returned to her normal life, free from her uncontrollable behaviors towards young boys. However, is that assumption a valid one? If viewing it from a personal perspective: no, because it could be possible that the woman had enacted in those behaviors preceding the development of the brain tumor. If viewing it through the scientific psychological aspect, then yes, the woman should be able to function normally and properly. Ergo, it is difficult to fashion such a claim that suggests that one area of knowledge is a much better source than another area.

It seems then, that neither novels or scientific psychology provides a better source of information pertaining to human life and human personality. Novels provide an excellent first-hand perspective, while scientific psychology explores deeply into behaviors, habits, etc. of humans. There is some merit in Chomsky’s claim, however because of its ambiguity, we cannot, as knowers, completely agree with the claim.