TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FAO: Psychology and Philosophy students/majors
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

FAO: Psychology and Philosophy students/majors

Have you ever read anything by William James?

He's, by far, my favourite author. A great scientist and an insightful thinker, he made numerous contributions both to philosophy and psychology - and that's no small achievement: the guy was the poster child of Pragmatism (without whom I don't think we'd know about Peirce today) and the founder of the first psychological laboratory in America. However, he seems largely forgotten nowadays.

None of my friends that study psychology know about him (and, when they do, it's because I was the one that introduced them to him). 2010 is the centennial of his death, and apparently it isn't being celebrated anywhere (not even in Harvard, his alma mater).

Anyone care to tell me why? Did Bertrand Russell outflank him after the "Pragmatism vs Logical Positivism" battle? Did Henry James draw all the attention to him? What is going on?

I've read some of his psychology stuff.

I don't know how anyone who has studied psychology wouldn't have o.o

I don't know why he's not more popular, though

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I don't know how anyone who has studied psychology wouldn't have o.o

Me neither. Come to think of it, I suspect he was eclipsed around here by his German counterpart because he's always mentioned in introductory courses, and the situation seems to be the opposite in North America, as far as I understand.

Well, Wundt came first and then Titschner and James followed. People should be learning about all three for introductory psychology

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Well, Wundt came first and then Titschner and James followed. People should be learning about all three for introductory psychology

When I took Psy 101, we just skipped him. And I dropped the course

ps.: By the way, Titchener came way after the other two, didn't he? He was born exactly 25 years after Bill, and James published his Principles a few years before Titchener penned his first book.

Not to take this too off-topic, but it seems like since the early 20th century there has been no radical or major new psychological or philosophical movements... Is this because we reached maybe a brick wall in understanding or that maybe it just takes many decades for any of them to become really apparent?

It seems like there is a somewhat more hostile view of new thoughts these days in regards to those subjects with people over all being more conservative and professorial (as in more steeped in the study of past movements and conforming to them while abstaining from diverting from them in any sort of radical or new way).

Or I am just confused? Just what I have noticed with my somewhat limited experiences in the actual technical terms of the fields.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Or I am just confused?

I'd say so. My current research owes quite a lot to philosophical developments that took place after WWII, and the cognitive revolution also took place in the latter half of the previous century - that was yet another groundbreaker.

I could spend a whole day talking about what happened in the last century and I wouldn't be able to tell you the whole story

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Or I am just confused?

Yes. Extremely.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I'd say so. My current research owes quite a lot to philosophical developments that took place after WWII, and the cognitive revolution also took place in the latter half of the previous century - that was yet another groundbreaker. I could spend a whole day talking about what happened in the last century and I wouldn't be able to tell you the whole story

But unless you study it then it doesn't really seem to be all that well known... I mean that is the case with a lot of things I guess...

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby But unless you study it then it doesn't really seem to be all that well known... I mean that is the case with a lot of things I guess...

Psychology is completely different now compared to how it was at the beginning of the 20th century.

Really, I have no idea what you're talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Psychology is completely different now compared to how it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Really, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Uhh that from most peoples perspectives they never hear of any of the new psychologists or psychological theory? Their work isn't as pervasive to modern culture as those of the more "classical" schools of thought (I use that term loosely to describe anyone that is pervasive).

Maybe you do not see it coming from inside the sphere of influence.

I guess what I am trying to say is that more people equate modern psychology to Dr. Phil and Oprah rather than actual legitimate people in the field, where as in the past the legitimate people in the field were the ones most known.

Also posting a lot to get my new sig, and hence word out of my new release.

I haven't studied this guy in my 6 years of Psych lol

The most I've read outside of journals and texts is Oliver Sacks' "Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat"

Didn't finish that either

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I guess what I am trying to say is that more people equate modern psychology to Dr. Phil and Oprah rather than actual legitimate people in the field, where as in the past the legitimate people in the field were the ones most known.

Same with philosophy, to a degree.

This is because academic fields have grown increasingly specialized, and are often largely impenetrable (or at least very confusing) to those who haven't formally studied them. Legitimate psychologists are rarely popular anymore because most of them never write for a popular audience in the first place.

I do not honestly recall whether this guy was mentioned, but I will admit that I am guilty of ignoring the psychologist/philosopher who came up with it and focus heavily on the theory/postulations instead. I have had profs who have even said "I only mention their names because they want to be mentioned, not because it is important to know."

Meh... knowing who came up with what can make you sound smart, but I don't think it's really that valuable to know, so long as you understand the theories etc. I am the same with history too. Don't need to know the actual date.. maybe just the year it happened. I feel these details are extraneous.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I do not honestly recall whether this guy was mentioned, but I will admit that I am guilty of ignoring the psychologist/philosopher who came up with it and focus heavily on the theory/postulations instead. I have had profs who have even said "I only mention their names because they want to be mentioned, not because it is important to know." Meh... knowing who came up with what can make you sound smart, but I don't think it's really that valuable to know, so long as you understand the theories etc. I am the same with history too. Don't need to know the actual date.. maybe just the year it happened. I feel these details are extraneous.

I agree with you to an extent, it is the knowledge about the theories in psych/phil that educate you, not necessarily knowing the stories behind them. But having learned a little both ways, I can say that learning the complete story (what was going on at the time in the world, in the theorist's life, their research, what did they do wrong, accidentally stumble on etc., and then how the research or theories affect the community) is pretty valuable. Where I have learned this it has often been from the prof themselves teaching it in class. It's also way more interesting and engaging to learn about it this way.

Also we probably don't focus TOO much on the people or the names these days simply because there are so god damn many of them - if you want to cover psych comprehensively in a 3 year undergrad degree, you are going to have to leave that level of detail out of it.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzQi I agree with you to an extent, it is the knowledge about the theories in psych/phil that educate you, not necessarily knowing the stories behind them. But having learned a little both ways, I can say that learning the complete story (what was going on at the time in the world, in the theorist's life, their research, what did they do wrong, accidentally stumble on etc., and then how the research or theories affect the community) is pretty valuable. Where I have learned this it has often been from the prof themselves teaching it in class. It's also way more interesting and engaging to learn about it this way. Also we probably don't focus TOO much on the people or the names these days simply because there are so god damn many of them - if you want to cover psych comprehensively in a 3 year undergrad degree, you are going to have to leave that level of detail out of it.

This! +1

I saw a banner hanging from a freeway overpass on the way to work this morning that read, "PSYCHOLOGY IS EQUIVALENT TO MURDER".

quote:

Originally posted by idoru I saw a banner hanging from a freeway overpass on the way to work this morning that read, "PSYCHOLOGY IS EQUIVALENT TO MURDER".

The fuck? Where?

Just after the Ship Canal Bridge on the way into downtown. Probably got removed by now.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru I saw a banner hanging from a freeway overpass on the way to work this morning that read, "PSYCHOLOGY IS EQUIVALENT TO MURDER".

Scientology has a beef with psychiatry. I wonder if they've expanded that to include psychology?

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzQi I agree with you to an extent, it is the knowledge about the theories in psych/phil that educate you, not necessarily knowing the stories behind them. But having learned a little both ways, I can say that learning the complete story (what was going on at the time in the world, in the theorist's life, their research, what did they do wrong, accidentally stumble on etc., and then how the research or theories affect the community) is pretty valuable. Where I have learned this it has often been from the prof themselves teaching it in class. It's also way more interesting and engaging to learn about it this way. Also we probably don't focus TOO much on the people or the names these days simply because there are so god damn many of them - if you want to cover psych comprehensively in a 3 year undergrad degree, you are going to have to leave that level of detail out of it.

Precisely, that's why I like to study the authors almost as much as I like to study what they said: it gives the whole more cohesion, and what sounded like magical bits of disconnected refutation as seen by geniuses then becomes a more elaborate portrait of a continuous teamwork.

And consequently, the theories I remember best are:

-Zimbardo's deindividuation
-Milgram's obedience
-Rosenhan's "On being sane in insane places"
-Davison's discriminative law of effect

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Uhh that from most peoples perspectives they never hear of any of the new psychologists or psychological theory? Their work isn't as pervasive to modern culture as those of the more "classical" schools of thought (I use that term loosely to describe anyone that is pervasive). Maybe you do not see it coming from inside the sphere of influence.

One reason for this is that psychology is leaning more towards research with technology that was obviously lacking before. More people are involved with the research being conducted, so you wouldn't really hear much about individuals. Movements aren't as prevalent because there are many different established perspectives in psychology: behavior genetics, cognitive, evolutionary, developmental, social-cultural, etc.

I have a bit of a different perspective because I am interested in the behavioral neuroscience aspect of psychology and could happily decipher fMRI scans from various studies for the rest of my life. I like the way things have changed, that they are based more in science than the philosophical (though I know that does have its place). I would rather spend time on newer breakthroughs instead of focusing on individuals. But I did learn about William James and I remember him because he amused me, unlike most of the older psychologists who made me want to punch something.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.