Thinking is a common and basic human process that helps in decision making and other cognitive processes. Critical thinking occurs through different processes and stages, and these are explained differently based on a number of conceptual frameworks that define the thought process. There are various perspectives from which the human thought process is viewed and analyzed. Among these conceptual models the biological and psychodynamic perspectives make up the most popular conceptual frameworks that define human thought and behavior-which is characteristically a product of the thought process.
Biological perspective hold that a person’s thought process and behavior are determined by various biological factors such as their genetic makeup, biological rhythms (circadian rhythm), endocrinal functions or brain functions-just to mention, but a few. This perspective holds that human thinking and behavior is a product of biology that can be treated scientifically. Therefore, it is a matter subject to scientific analysis and rigor. Common beliefs in this perspective include heredity, which determines behavior and disruption of biological functions, which could also alter thinking and behavior. The perspective also holds the belief that all human behavior is inherited and evolves with time to fit the person.
On the other hand, the psychoanalytic perspective is based on Sigmund Freud’s work, which states that behavior and thoughts are based on conscious thoughts and experiences. This perspective holds that human behavior is a product of the guidance of conscious and subconscious minds. The theory also holds that humans have no free will to make decisions. The perspective is also cognizant of the influence that past experiences hold on thinking and behavior. According to this theory past experiences may influence present thinking and behavior through the subconscious mind.
The two theories adopt different models of conceptualizing thought processes and behavior. They address different behavioral and cognitive issues differently, but they arrive at almost the same answers. Evidence from both perspectives implies that they have substantial grounding in defining patterns of thought and behavior. However, this definition is not clear-cut of absolute.
The biological perspective uses methods such as case studies, experiments co-relational studies, questionnaires and double blind trials experiments, which put to exercise scientific rigor and support some of its findings. On the other hand, studies in the psychodynamic perspective have also shown substantial evidence that supports their cases. As such, it can be concluded that both perspectives indeed hold some truth in defining cognitive processes and behavior.
However, the fact that each perspective holds a seemingly closed view about causes of mental illnesses makes the sole reliance on one of the methods rather limiting. For example, if one is mentally ill, it would be rather false to belief that the illness is solely caused by the environment or by heredity. The debate about nurture and nature has revealed that the environment as well as heredity has significant influences and it is virtually impossible to get an outcome that is solely a product of the environment or heredity. The outcome of any situation is often an inter-play of the two factors. Therefore, mental illnesses are more likely to be cases resulting from an interaction of biological and environmental factors.
In conclusion, human cognition and behavior is conceptualized via different perspectives. However, what emerges is that human cognitive processes and behavior are products of two different systems that interact to deliver a certain behavior or thought process. This implies that human behavior is a result of an inter -play of biology and the environment. This perhaps explains why research has shown that a dual approach to treating mental illness is efficient. Practitioners are now recommending the use of pharmacotherapy as well as psychotherapy in treating problems such as depression and psychosis.