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

___________________
Nothing to see here

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.

___________________
Nothing to see here

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

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

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?

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

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?

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

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.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

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

___________________
Nothing to see here