I was a behind-the-retina visual neuroscience guy for years, and we used to delineate the world exactly that way. We considered ourselves the "hard science" guys and the psychology/development/behavior guys the "soft science" guys (we had snide names for them, like the School of Arts and Crafts).
The older I get and the more I observe, the more I'm convinced that both sides are co-mingled in some really bizarre ways.
1) I do think that the hard-science aspects of your brain (neurotransmitter levels, overall brain state, synaptic organization, genetic variations) have a huge impact on how you react to the circumstances in front of you. Within that tiny, 2-10 second decision-making period, you're almost 100% on autopilot. Over the immediate time interval in front of you, you're in far less control than you think.
2) But I also believe that the soft sciences stuff gradually remodels the hard-science aspects of your brain over time. The mantra "fake it till you make it" is incredibly accurate. Behavioral overrides of existing patterns over a long enough period of time will undoubtedly lead to brain chemistry changes that make them more comfortable -- but that door swings both ways (it can make things worse as well).
3) And finally (as if anyone cared, fuck you guys in advance), I think we like to think that our frontal lobes assess situations and guide us toward action. I personally think that a huge majority of the time, our older brains make the call and our frontal lobes actually spend their energy justifying the decision.
tl;dr
That's why I went for the best of both worlds, clinical neuropsychology
Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using EliteFitness