TEXT E Human relations have
commanded people’s attention from early times. The ways of people have been
recorded in innumerable myths, folktales, novels, poems, plays, and popular or
philosophical essays. Although the full significance of a human relationship may
not be directly evident, the complexity of feelings and actions that can be
understood at a glance is surprisingly great. For this reason psychology holds a
unique position among the sciences. "Intuitive" knowledge may be remarkably
penetrating and can significantly help us understand human behavior whereas in
the physical sciences such common-sense knowledge is relatively primitive. If we
erased all knowledge of scientific physics from our modern world, not only would
we not have cars and television sets, we might even find that the ordinary
person was unable to cope with the fundamental mechanical problems of pulleys
and levers. On the other hand, if we removed all knowledge of scientific
psychology from our world, problems in interpersonal relations might
easily be coped with and solved much as before. We would still "know" how to
avoid doing something asked of us and how to get someone to agree with us; we
would still "know" when someone was angry and when someone was pleased. One
could even offer sensible explanations for the "whys" of much of the self’s
behavior and feeling. In other words, the ordinary person has a great and
profound understanding of the self and of other people which, though
unformulated or only vaguely conceived, enables one to interact with others in
more or less adaptive ways. Kohler in referring to the lack of great discoveries
in psychology as compared with physics, accounts for this by saying that "people
were acquainted with practically all territories of mental life a long time
before the founding of scientific psychology." Paradoxically,
with all this natural, intuitive, common-sense capacity to grasp human
relations, the science of human relations has been one of the last to develop.
Different explanations of this paradox have been suggested. One is that
science would destroy the vain and pleasing illusions people have about
themselves; but we might ask why people have always loves to read pessimistic,
debunking writings, from Ecclesiastes to Freud. It has also been proposed that
just because we know so much about people intuitively, there has been less
incentive for studying them scientifically: why should one develop a
theory, carry out systematic observations, or make predictions about the
obvious In any case, the field of human relations, with its vast literary
documentation but meager scientific treatment, is in great contrast to the field
of physics in which there are relatively few nonscientific books. According to the passage, an understanding of the self can be______.
A.highly biased due to unconscious factors B.profound even when vaguely conceived C.improved by specialized training D.irrelevant for understanding human relations