|
FAO: Psychology and Philosophy students/majors (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| fughawzi |
| 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. :conf: |
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. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzQi
-Rosenhan's "On being sane in insane places"
|
Heh, studying this for abnormal psych.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kq-7uvVOoyk
Can't get it to embed. :/ |
|
|
| Lews |
Well that was spooky. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by fughawzi
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. |
It's the same across the sciences - how many Einsteins, Planks or Bohrs have we had in the past thirty years? You don't get narratives of individuals anymore, it's more labs and teams and universities.
Also, the guys at the beginning of the 20th Century were basically inventing modern psychology, and it had profound effects on how we viewed ourselves. It was seismic, a kind of impact on society that no modern psychologist or theory could match without completely ripping up the textbooks.
I read about this in the paper a little while back. Pretty shocking, and mana from heaven for the paranoid. Keep it away from ********. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| 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". |
Did you alert the relevant authorities that ******** is in your area? |
|
|
| Konijn |
| Lira, read Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club this summer; i guarantee you'll find it interesting. |
|
|
| Chimney |
| Going to do psychiatry after medschool. A long way left though. And for the video that was posted previously in this thread, it's not an exact science. The human mind is endlessly complex, but humans try their best to explain it. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
We don't hear about people any more because no one is bold enough to say their theory explains everything. Look at Freud, Skinner, Manslove...I mean Maslow, they tried to explain all human behavior. Research now will never make that claim, they never say their research proves anything, and they have gone the specialist route.
James was ok, he is not that popular because he was mainly a Philosopher that started a psych lab in America. I'd much rather read Skinner, or even darwin. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I read about this in the paper a little while back. Pretty shocking, and mana from heaven for the paranoid. Keep it away from ********. |
I recall people bringing this research up in arguments around here, using it to backup the case against the validity of psychology. But people need to remember that that this was 1973. Psychology and psychiatric medicine have come a long way since then.
Something else to think about with the rising rates of mental illness is that we have come such a long way. New technology, new/better research, changing attitudes, etc. lead to better understanding of mental illness; which leads to better assessment and treatment. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Konijn
Lira, read Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club this summer; i guarantee you'll find it interesting. |
It's on my to-read list. Did you like it?
I've got his "Pragmatism: A Reader" and I liked it very much.
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
We don't hear about people any more because no one is bold enough to say their theory explains everything. Look at Freud, Skinner, Manslove...I mean Maslow, they tried to explain all human behavior. Research now will never make that claim, they never say their research proves anything, and they have gone the specialist route. |
Same in my field... it's inevitable, I think, the body of knowledge just grew too big.
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
James was ok, he is not that popular because he was mainly a Philosopher that started a psych lab in America. I'd much rather read Skinner, or even darwin. |
And weren't they philosophically inclined scientists as well? Sure, not as much as James, but isn't it something that set them apart from their peers? |
|
|
| Lews |
Erm, weren't pretty much all of the early psychologists philosophers?
Partially because science was just so damn limited back then and they couldn't actually study the brain or our neural networks or any of that fun stuff Fughawzi loves. Wundt was a philosopher and so was James, because they couldn't really do that much more then philosophize and a few simple studies back then.
William James was one of the first functionalists, if I recall correctly. Wanting to figure out what each part of the brain did, how it did it, and why. Though he's more famous for writing the first psychology textbook. Though apparently not that famous..
Skinner certainty wasn't as much of a philosopher as James or the other early guys, but he was still a philosopher. Walden Two, anyone?
It really wasn't until lately, Joss, that we've had the science and technology to be able to see what is going on in people's brains and bodies. Many of the earlier people's theories (i.e. Freud's) have been disproved and people aren't just making crazy theories out of their asses now.
But, as Jack said, it was all the earlier pioneers that you have heard of who really were inventing modern psychology and it's hard to compete with them in terms of popularity. Hell, the only psychologist I can think of off the top of my head would be Zimbardo. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
Perhaps a bit off topic, but if you wanna read some real ed up , check out this link:
http://www.oakridgeclassaction.ca/index.html
The court documents reveal in detail what the doctors did. Particularly the stuff in 'Volume 2'. |
|
|
|
|
