History & Systems Psychology
Chapter 1 – The Study of the History of Psychology
Chapter 1 – This chapter explores the nature of historical studies and the biases often encountered in those studies. It talks about
the questions of nature/nurture and mind/body that have both philosophically and scientifically remained unanswered for several
thousand years.
The role of the environment or “zeitgeist” is debated and its contribution to the formation or dissolving of philosophical and
scientific schools of thought.
This online lecture briefly explores the philosophical thought of the ancients as seen in Greece. This brief overview if meant to help
the student see that current human thought is not so new and indeed it is often qui
Questions for Chapter Assignment: use Book and Online Lecture.
1. Describe, compare, and contrast the personalistic and naturalistic theories as conceptions of scientific history. Explain the
various ways ideas of how historical facts can be distorted.
2. Why might it be said that the zeitgeist influences both advancement and stagnation in a science?
3. Define “school of thought” and discuss it in terms of Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigms in scientific evolution and how they change
and evolve. (You should be detailed about his theory) What is meant by the idea of ‘power’?
A Little More About the Zeitgeist!
In 1955, the famous psychology historian E. G. Boring wrote the article “Dual Role of the Zeitgeist in Scientific Creativity” that was
published in Scientific Monthly. In it he defined the Zeitgeist as being the overall temperature of opinion that affected scientific,
social and political thinking. He said it was always in flux, being altered by current events and that these changes are not really
predictable. It is the unconscious and hidden effects of this climate of opinion that strongly affects the thinkings and doings of men.
This Zeitgeist has a dual role to play in scientific discovery. It can act as both good and bad to the advancement of a new idea. Think
about it. How can it act in a negative way? It can cause a school of thought to stay around too long, even when it has stopped being
able to answer newly arising scientific questions. It can also block new theory that is good and sound because the climate of the times
is not yet ready for that new theory. We will see both of these negatives working as we go through this course so be on the watch for
them. Perhaps structuralism is a good example. Remember that when you get to that chapter.
Conversely, it can act for good, promoting positive change when the climate is right. Often there is a new idea that probably has been
simmering or in its infancy for a while, but when presented, it takes the scientific community by storm because of the “perfect timing”
of the theory’s presentation to that community. Darwin’s evolutionary theory is a good example. Ideas similar to Darwin’s theory had
been talked about for generations, but only in small, rather insignificant groups of scholars and philosophers. Darwin’s theory was
published to the scientific community and it changed the entire focus of all the sciences – not just psychology. Also, we will see that
Wallace had a like theory developed totally independent of Darwin’s and presented at the same time. Any time you have a great theory
developed independently by several individuals, it is a sign that the Zeitgeist was ready to propel it into acceptance – at times a
rather controversial acceptance.
This Zeitgeist is often responsible for the rise and fall of theory and the power of various accepted schools of thought. That gets us
on to another topic that you will be interested in – how schools of thought gain and lose power over time.
As questions occur that are not satisfactorily answered by the current paradigm in power, the anomaly stage begins to develop. New
ideas may emerge from individuals that help to answer these anomalies. As they successfully do so, they may begin to gain some power –
usually at the loss of the power of the “normal science” paradigm. As these unanswered questions continue to mount up, the accepted
paradigm may continue to loose power and a new paradigm may continue to gain power because of its ability to answer the new questions.
This is the crisis stage. Eventually we may have a complete overthrow of the accepted paradigm and the new paradigm takes its place
with all the power of the former school. This new paradigm or school of thought will then become the “normal science.” As you can see,
this may not happen in an instant! It may take time for power to be relinquished – sometimes the old guard (scientists) simply and
literally die out! You will see this time and again as you study the history of psychology. Look for it and look to see if you can see
how the various components of power change allegiance as you venture through the semester.
A Word About the Chemistry Mixture Versus the Compound – Understanding Reductionism and Molarism!
You will be studying lots of terms at the beginning of this course. Many are found in the glossary of the online course and many also
in your book. There is also a glossary at the back of your book and on the Thomason Publishers Website that I gave you in the syllabus.
Use these sources to learn and understand these terms as they are important to your understandings for the entire semester. I want to
talk about two terms specifically to make sure you understand the differences. Your book refers to the “chemistry compound” when
looking at the meanings of the terms molecularism and molarism.
Let’s first start with molecularism. Actually elementalism, reductionism and molecularism all mean the same for our study. They refer
to a way that a scientific questions is viewed. If you view science in a molecular or reductionistic way, you start with the parts and
they build up to the whole. An example might be looking at the actions of neurons to understand why humans behave the way they do. This
is an “inductive” approach to researching science. This would be like looking at a chemistry mixture. For instance, you have salt and
you have pepper. You put a cup of each in a big bowl. You stir vigorously, but no matter how long you stir, you can still see that it
is a mixture of salt and of pepper. In this way, the sum of the parts is equal to the whole because each thing retains its unique
parts.
Now let’s look at the idea of molarism or a holistic stance in viewing research. This is really the opposite. A molar or holistic view
starts with the whole rather than the parts to understand what is going on. In this way you might look at the overall behavior of the
whole without reducing it to its component parts. This is the position we will find in the phenomonalogists like William James and the
Humanists. Those that espouse this position use a “deductive” approach and for them, the chemistry compound is “the whole is not equal
to the sum of the parts”. Let’s look at this. If you have some oxygen and you have some hydrogen and you put them together in just the
right way, you get water. Now, water does not resemble either oxygen or hydrogen. It is a completely new thing with its own unique
characteristics. Do you see how these ideas differ from each other? Let me know if you do not, but remember this because we will see
these opposite viewpoints “battling it out” for power and acceptance in various schools of thought.
A Few Quick Thoughts…
If psychology was not a pre-paradigmatic discipline, it would mean that there was one grand theory that explained all human behavior –
and all animal behavior for that matter. There is not one and thus we are termed “pre-paradigmatic”. Remember, a paradigm is a
framework which is used to promote research. It is the theories that are in play for a school of thought.
Remember that we never really “prove” anything. We simply gather more evidence that something may be true. You can however disprove
something – that is the easier part.
We have to be careful about the questions that we ask in psychology. If we ask “metaphysical” questions, we will draw incorrect
conclusions. A metaphysical questions is one that is based on assumptions and not fact. Those assumptions may be wrong. If so, all
research done under those assumptions may be flawed. Phrenology is a good example of this. When you look at the movement of phrenology
in Chapter 3, think about this.
Remember, the currently accepted goal of psychology is to 1. describe, 2. understand/explain, 3. predict and 4. modify/control. Keep
this in mind as you go through the semester.
Human thought is redundant! You will find that as we go through this history of psychology, different theories will be rejected only to
become the accepted theory with often only minor alterations decades or a century later. Look for this because at times you may think
you are on a bit of a roller coaster with these ideas being accepted, then rejected, then accepted and on and on and on. Although the
book starts talking about the beginnings of psychology through philosophy in the 1500s, understand that the ancient Greeks and Romans
also talked about the same things.
In your own words. No Quotes may be used.
Chapter 2
This chapter discusses the role of philosophy in the early 15th to 17th centuries. Psychology is not a formed discipline, but the
British philosophers beginning with Descartes will lay an important foundation for the future psychology. They will examine sensations
as the unit of perceiving of the individual. There will not be an emphasis on the actual biological correlates to perceiving, but
rather an evolving effort to bring philosophy out or the rational way of thinking.
Questions for Chapter 2 Assignment:
1. Differentiate the ideas of Descartes and Locke to both the mind/body problem and the nature/nurture problem. How do they differ and
how are they the same? What ideas ae nativistic?
2. Why might the the efforts of Babbage and Ada be of interest and significance to the development of psychology? Draw upon the book
and your own ideas for this answer.
3. The British ideas of association and empiricism developed through the 1700s and 1800s, bringing the discipline of psychology closer
to becoming a real science. What are the main principles of the British Empiricists and Associationists as seen in Berkeley and James
and John Mills? Did Berkeley’s ideas of primary and secondary qualities agree/disagree with Locke and why?
A Bit of Background Before Descartes
Although your book starts the study of the history of psychology in the 1500s with Descartes, much of what was thought of from
Descartes to the present day was also thought about with the ancient Greeks and Romans and even before. Such questions as the Mind/Body
question, or the Nature/ Nurture question or the idea of whether the mind was active or passive had been discussed by Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle and even the ancient peoples of the Middle Eastand the Asiapeninsula. Much of the writings and understandings (Socrates never
wrote down anything) of the ancients were lost during the Middle Ages. The period between about 500A.D., after the fall of Rome, and
1250A.D. was a period of little intellectual thought. There was no printing press and written texts were done chiefly by hand in the
monasteries of the church.
The Middle Ages was a time of the cruelty of the Crusades and barbarism from numerous sides. It was a time of dramatic differences in
classes with most being illiterate. The Christian Church was in control of both the secular and the spiritual thought of the day –
permeating all facets of the lives of the people. All the classics were essentially lost. Interestingly, the Arabs and Islam still knew
Aristotle’s writings and made advances in science, philosophy and medicine, but because they were not in line with Christian beliefs of
God as the supreme director of man, they were discounted. Jewish thought was also more advanced during this time, but it too was
ignored.
As the Middle Ages advanced, there came a reawakening of Classical thought due in most part to the translations of St. Thomas Aquinas
of some of Aristotle’s works. St. Thomas (1225–1274) was of the Dominican Order and learned of Aristotle from a mentor. He set about
translating some of his works although some are lost forever. He only translated those that would be in line with the Church, however,
so that he could somewhat peacefully exist with the Church. If he had translated things that were completely against the doctrine of
the Church, his voice would not have been permitted to be heard. And so the biases of history can clearly be seen!
With Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in 1436 – 1440, the ushering in of a new age of communication came about. It was a
monumental occurance and helped to start bringing information to the masses and helped in ushering in the beginning of the Renaissance.
Challenges were to come to the Church like the Reformation which talked about how religion should help man and not enslave him. This
began to erode what had been absolute power of the Church. The great minds of Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Harveyand Newtonbegan to be
known. It was interesting that the road was a bit bumpy for these great minds as they still needed to keep their ideas somewhat in line
with the Church if they were to be permitted a voice. Many stayed in trouble almost constantly!
Scholasticism was the philosophical movement of the latter Middle Ages. It was the attempt to balance philosophy and Church doctrine
and reasoned that if all paths to truth lead ultimately to God, then the varying paths should not be a problem. Click here for more on
Scholasticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism). It is within this climate that we start the philosophical background of
psychology with the great writings of Descartes.
Descartes’s Two Great Contributions
As you read, you will realize that the two most important contributions that Descartes made to the developing philosophical thought was
the idea of Innate and Derived Ideas and the Mind/Body Dualism. Let us look at the first contribution. The idea of innate ideas is one
that we will run into over and over again in our studies. It is not a new idea: Socrates and Plato had their “forms”; Leibniz with have
his “monads”; Kant will have his “a priories”; Jung will have his “archetypes”; and the Gestalts will have their “perceptual
organizations”. The names are different, but all of these ideas talk about those understandings that we bring into this world that help
us understand the world. These are our biological inheritance. Conversely, the idea of derived ideas coming from experiences we have in
life are also talked about by all of these theorists. In the last chapter lecture, I said that human thought is amazingly redundant.
That is not necessarily bad but I think you can see what I mean. Remember, for each of these theorists there were those who opposed
their ideas and felt that we bring no biological inheritance into this world – we are born with a blank slate, a Tabula Rasa according
to Locke, in which the mind is a blank and experiences write upon this slate. These experiential writings are what we use to make
associations and thus understand the world. The British Empiricists and Associationists take this stance – obviously opposing Descartes
original idea.
If we examine the idea of the mind and body and how they may or may not interact, we will see that Descartes felt that the body could
influence the mind and vice versa. This was new because earlier beliefs felt only the mind could influence the body and not also the
other way around. If you believe that there is a separate mind and body, then you are a dualist. If you believe that they are the same
thing with no separation, you are a monist. We will run into both numerous times in our studies. Descartes would be an interactional
dualist because both mind and body interacted with each other. A Parallel Dualist would be one that believed that both body and mind
existed as unique entities but did not influence each other.
A Few Quick Thoughts
Descartes’s idea that the mind and body are separate is a “dualistic” stance. Those that believe this are called dualists and may
believe that the mind and body interact, one controls the other or that there is no interaction at all. Descartes’s Reflex Action
Theory demonstrates that the body can be independent of mental thought. With his ideas of involuntary body responses and involuntary
learning as exhibited by his “squinting girl passion”, Descartes is certainly a precurser to the Behaviorist thought seen in Chapter
10.
If you disagree with Descartes’s dualistic stance and believe the body and mind are one – just as the inside and the outside of a
circle are one – then you are a “monist”. We will see both positions in our continuing study of the history of psychology.
A good way to study the British Empiricists and Associationists is to write down what they ALL believed in common. They all were
reductionistic, materialistic, positivistic and deterministic. Then learn what unique ideas came from each.
Think a moment about George Berkeley. Here was a scholar, a scientist and also a very spiritual man. That combination is not always
found in science. How did he solve the problem of science versus God with which he was presented? Think about it as you post your ideas
about his dilemma.
Chapter 3
This chapter involves the rapidly occurring events in the field of physiology in the 1800s. Carl Lashley said “if philosophy is the
father of psychology, then physiology is the mother, and right now, the mother has the upper hand”. You will see that this “upper hand”
begins to become evident in the 1800s with the rapid emergence of theories on nerves and brain that help in the understanding of
behavior.
Questions for Chapter 3 Assignment: Use book and online lecture
1. What is the evidence of the earliest writings on the human body and its functioning as described in the online lecture?
Additionally, explain Müller’s Doctrine of the Specific Nerve Energies and the Bell–Magendie Doctrine and how they contributed to the
development of psychology as a discipline.
2. Why was Germany a fitting place for the advancement of psychological ideas and the establishment of psychology as a scientific
discipline? Explain how these reasons relate to the idea of “power” already discussed.
3. Phrenology is an example of faulty empirical research using a false assumption. Describe phrenology and how it was applied to the
general population? What are the positive contributions of phrenology to the advancement of psychology?
4. What were the accomplishments in physiological issues during the 19th century ” Golden Age of Physiology” that were important to the
beginning discipline of psychology.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!
