The human brain is arguably the most complex organ with an incredible ability to gather and interpret information. Humans use their minds to observe the external world and communicate their elucidations to other people. Studies indicate that a small part of the brain is responsive to mental and emotional processes. In contrast, the more substantial subconscious component of the brain controls most of the human behavior. Scholars argue that the subconscious functions developed after years of human evolution.
Article Annotation
Chapman, G. (2007). Evolutionary psychology, complexity theory, and quantitative social epistemology. Futures, 39(9), 1067-1083.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In this article, Chapman sought to explore the link between knowledge and the complexity theory. Complexity theory has shown that there is a limit to human knowledge. This is because complex non-linear systems cannot be modified in an exact manner and humans can never discern when these systems are modelled. The primary argument of the article is that indeed there are limits to human knowledge. The author uses several arguments to augment on the limits to human knowledge. He first addresses the limits of self-knowledge. Chapman argues that humans are strangers to themselves and the conscious "I" has a limited understanding of self. The subconscious "me" on the other hand, has a significant influence on most of what humans do. Further, Chapman argues the concept of evolutionary psychology in the context of its impact on the development of the subconscious mind. He primarily focuses on the compartmentalized functions of the human brain. He also elaborates on the complexity theory and focuses on the various theory tenets and how they explain the limitation of human knowledge. Chapman concludes that the functional organization of the human brain remains partially understood. In the context of the conscious and subconscious human mind, human knowledge remains limited.
Chapman's argument is built upon studies carried out by other theorists in the field. For instance, he refers to the complexity theory and evolutionary psychology research to support his argument on the limitation of human knowledge. He also alludes to other research findings in the field, such as quantitative epistemology to further augment his ideas. The author uses analytical possibilities to explain various variables such as complication, complication and complexity in the context of complexity theory. The analysis gives the article a quantitative approach to addressing the link between human knowledge and complexity theory. Several components of human knowledge are used in the analytical possibilities of understanding and explanation.
The article is relevant to contemporary research on the human brain and other psychological research. This is because it gives insights into understanding the human mind in the context of the conscious and subconscious brain components. These brain components explain human behaviour and perceptions, thus vital in psychological research. The author also identifies critical areas in modern research of the human brain that have been overlooked by other researchers. This helps to inform researchers on possible gaps in research that they can study. Chapman argues that human understanding of social responsibility is as a result of human free will rather than evolutionary influence. Human behaviour should, therefore, be understood in the human context and not environmental setting. This argument would mainly be relevant to social psychologists in explaining human qualities and behavior. The argument goes against the view that the environment influences development of human qualities and behavior. It would, therefore, be essential to either validate or disapprove Chapman's understanding by conducting more research on the human mind.
