After having taken many a psychology and sociology class over the last four years, I’ve noticed that, while there’s a lot of overlap between subject material and thought process, each discipline makes a point to differentiate itself from the other. This usually takes the form of underhanded comments made about the other, all while stating the same basic theory as their rival, just in (psychological, sociological [choose one]) terms instead of (psychological, sociological [choose one]) ones.
This creates a rift in the scientific community, but worse than that, it hampers scientific research. When one discipline acts “superior” or “more scientific” than the other, it doesn’t just create animosity—it eliminates the possibility of partnership.
But the disciplines are so similar in terms of what they try to explain: human behavior. Granted, one focuses on the internal processes of the mind while the other is concerned with the how external factors place pressure on us. Their similarities and differences, though, are precisely why they are so well-suited to help each other. Human behavior is not entirely determined by one’s mind, but neither are we defined by our circumstances (Nature v. Nurture, anyone?).
Our best way of advancing research of human behavior is acknowledging that neither can exist without the other and using that to our advantage.