How Psychology Hijacked Biology: The Long History of Turning Brain Anatomy Into Subjective Interpretation
BY: OMOLAJA MAKINEE
One of the most important but least discussed problems in the history of Behavioural science is this:
Scientific anatomy repeatedly discovered structural truths about the brain —only for psychological interpretation to convert those discoveries back into subjective narratives.
Again and again, biology uncovered:
- physical organisation,
- developmental architecture,
- neural differentiation,
- and behavioural structure,
while psychological methods transformed those findings into:
- symbolic abstractions,
- interpretive metaphors,
- philosophical stories,
- and subjective theories of mind.
Under psychextrics, this pattern represents one of the deepest historical fractures in modern science:
The hijacking of structural anatomy by worldview-centric interpretation.
1. The Original Problem: Behavioural Science Had No Structural Interpretative Engine
Neuroscience and anatomy evolved by mapping:
- tissue,
- neural pathways,
- embryological segmentation,
- sensory organisation,
- and cephalic differentiation.
But Behavioural science itself never possessed a universal structural interpretative method capable of explaining what those anatomical structures behaviourally meant.
This vacuum became filled by Psychology and Philosophy. And this is where the long hijacking began.
Psychology and Philosophy did not emerge from cephalic architecture. They emerged from:
- introspection,
- symbolic reasoning,
- moral theory,
- conceptual interpretation,
- and sentient worldview.
Under psychextrics, both systems remained worldview-centric rather than biologically structural.
Their explanations changed according to:
- civilisation,
- historical period,
- cultural assumptions,
- political systems,
- cohort-driven pressure,
- and philosophical fashion.
Yet because Behavioural science lacked its own biological interpretative engine, psychological methods became the dominant translators of anatomical discovery.
The result was catastrophic.
2. When Anatomy Met Interpretation
As Neuroscience advanced during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, anatomists and comparative neurologists began uncovering the layered organisation of the brain.
The nervous system was no longer viewed as one undivided organ. It became recognised as differentiated architecture.
Researchers such as:
- Wilhelm His Sr.,
- Ludwig Edinger,
- and C. Judson Herrick
attempted to biologically ground behaviour through anatomy itself. This was revolutionary.
But because Behavioural science still lacked a structural interpretative framework, psychological methods immediately moved in to interpret the discoveries symbolically.
3. Edinger and Herrick: The Evolutionary Brain
Ludwig Edinger and C. Judson Herrick attempted to apply Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory directly to brain organisation. Their central idea was simple:
The brain carried evolutionary history inside its own structure.
Older regions represented ancient behavioural systems. Newer cortical regions represented advanced behavioural adaptation. This transformed the brain into an evolutionary ledger.
Edinger mapped:
- paleencephalon,
- archipallium,
- neopallium,
- and neencephalon
as layered remnants of behavioural evolution.
Herrick explored how primitive sensory systems, olfactory pathways, and limbic structures influenced behavioural selection and cortical activation.
Their work represented one of the first serious attempts to replace speculative philosophy with biological organisation.
But the interpretative framework surrounding evolution at the time introduced major conceptual problems.
4. The Rise of the Evolutionary Ladder Illusion
Edinger’s model operated within the nineteenth-century assumption of a phylogenetic ladder: a linear progression from primitive organisms upward toward human superiority.
This produced a dangerous oversimplification. Older brain structures became associated with:
- instinct,
- emotionality,
- reflex,
- animal drives,
- and primitive behaviour.
Newer cortical regions became associated with:
- civilisation,
- rationality,
- intelligence,
- morality,
- and conscious control.
The brain became psychologically divided into:
- beast below,
- human above.
Modern evolutionary biology has since demonstrated how flawed this interpretation was.
A reptile is not a frozen ancestor. A fish is not a primitive baseline. Each lineage evolved independently for millions of years according to ecological necessity. Likewise, complex cognition can emerge outside six-layered mammalian cortex entirely.
But by then, the damage was already done.
5. Psychology Hijacks Anatomy
This is where psychological methods demonstrated their extraordinary ability to hijack biological research into subjective interpretative systems.
Edinger and Herrick intended to biologically ground behaviour. Psychology transformed their anatomical findings into symbolic metaphors about the human condition.
The layered brain became:
- instinct versus reason,
- unconscious versus conscious,
- primitive self versus civilised self,
- emotional animal versus rational human.
The anatomy dissolved into narrative. This became the foundation upon which twentieth-century Psychology expanded.
6. Freud and the Biological Metaphor Machine
No figure demonstrates this transformation more clearly than Sigmund Freud.
Freud himself trained under neuroanatomical traditions emerging from the same scientific environment influenced by comparative evolutionary anatomy.
But because living neural traffic could not yet be observed directly, Freud converted anatomical layering into symbolic psychological architecture.
The:
- Id,
- Ego,
- and Superego
became psychological reinterpretations of evolutionary neuroanatomy itself.
Primitive structures became unconscious drives. Higher cortical systems became civilised restraint. The nervous system became mythologised into symbolic behavioural theatre.
This was not structural biology anymore. It was interpretative psychology wearing anatomical clothing.
7. The Black Box Problem
The same process occurred within Behaviourism.
Because the subcortical brain became interpreted as a vague emotional “engine” providing generic arousal, psychologists increasingly argued that behaviour could be explained without studying anatomy directly.
Human behaviour became attributed primarily to conditioning, environment, experience, reinforcement, culture, and learned association. The physical brain became treated as a “black box.”
Once again, anatomy was sidelined while interpretation took control.
8. The Plasticity Loophole
Herrick’s emphasis on cortical plasticity unintentionally intensified this trend. The expanding cortex became interpreted as infinitely modifiable and behaviourally unconstrained at birth.
Psychology seized this idea enthusiastically. If the cortex was highly plastic, then:
- experience,
- environment,
- socialisation,
- and culture
could supposedly explain nearly everything about human behaviour.
Biological structure faded further into the background.
This became one of the most powerful loopholes in twentieth-century psychological theory:
The belief that subjective interpretation could replace structural behavioural mapping.
9. The Real Historical Pattern
Under psychextrics, the historical pattern becomes unmistakable.
Again and again:
- anatomy discovers structural organisation,
- psychology converts it into symbolic interpretation,
- biological precision dissolves into narrative abstraction.
This happened with:
- evolutionary layering,
- unconscious drives,
- emotional regulation,
- memory systems,
- personality theory,
- behavioural conditioning,
- and executive function.
The structure becomes discovered scientifically —then psychologically reinterpreted through worldview-centric metaphors.
10. Why Psychological Methods Keep Doing This
Psychextrics argues that this occurs because Psychology fundamentally lacks structural grounding.
Psychological methods interpret behaviour through:
- subjective observation,
- symbolic abstraction,
- cohort analysis,
- philosophical assumptions,
- and sentient narration.
As a result, Psychology naturally converts anatomy into interpretative stories about consciousness, identity, morality, civilisation, and selfhood. Its methods are worldview-dependent.
This makes Psychology extraordinarily adaptive culturally —but structurally unstable scientifically.
11. The Psychextric Critique
Psychextrics proposes that Behavioural science requires its own biological interpretative engine independent from psychological narration.
Behaviour must be interpreted structurally through:
- cephalic labour,
- gateway architecture,
- signal integration,
- contextual weighting,
- behavioural latency,
- and distributed governance systems.
Under this framework:
- lower cephalons are not primitive beasts,
- the cortex is not a rational king,
- emotion is not irrational animal residue,
- and consciousness is not an executive ruler.
Instead, behaviour emerges through:
- distributed cephalic participation,
- signal negotiation,
- memory indexing,
- contextual valuation,
- and integrated behavioural rendering.
The nervous system becomes: not symbolic theatre, but biological governance architecture.
Conclusion: The Brain Was Anatomically Correct Long Before Behavioural Science Could Interpret It
Perhaps the greatest irony in modern science is this:
Anatomists were often mapping behavioural truth long before Behavioural science possessed the interpretative framework necessary to understand what the anatomy meant.
The structures were visible. The gateways existed. The cephalic differentiation was already present.
But without a structural behavioural interpretative engine, psychology repeatedly translated biological organisation back into subjective narrative. Psychextrics emerges precisely against this historical pattern.
It argues that Behavioural science must stop interpreting anatomy through worldview-centric psychology and begin interpreting behaviour through cephalic structure itself.
Because the history of Behavioural science may ultimately be the history of biology discovering reality —while psychological interpretation repeatedly turned it back into metaphor.
Back to: 👇