Topical Blog Week #2 (Due Thursday)

My topic was simply, why is it important to study the history of psychology? It obviously fits into the first chapter, because it starts out talking about it in the very beginning, and goes on to elaborate. I chose this topic because I felt like I needed more "history" behind the "history". Or in other words, I wanted to know different peoples ideas of why it is important to study history. Up until just recently I have not been the slightest bit interested in the history of anything, and the college I previously went to was going to let me graduate without any course in this topic. I wanted to know why I am being required to take this course. The book got me pumped up to learn, so researching and listening to other peoples ideas and thoughts about this topic have really gotten me excited to educate myself on the history of psychology!

The book gave me great reasons to be excited about learning history, and what I found online gave me more of an understanding of why it is important. First of all, the youtube video on the Milgram study, is a great video, but if you watch the first two minutes of it, you will get a good chuckle! I for one, do not want to be one of those people. This is one good reason to really get ahead on the history of psychology, it also reiterates how much history plays a role in psychology. Psychology IS history. The brain has been around for ever, and learning how it has evolved is history, and psychology. The two areas of study really overlap each other, and if I want to get my Ph.D. I better know what I'm talking about.

The issue of not knowing the history of psychology is obvious. This is why 200 out of 300 universities have a course in the history of psychology for the benefit of their undergraduates full knowledge of the subject matter. A common error in history is for one to be completely arrogant (like the beginning 2 minutes of the Milgram youtube video link below). People like to use history to prove a point, like Gordon Wood covers in his interview (other youtube clip link below). It is fine to use history to prove a point, it's actually a good thing to back up your ideas with educated points from past psychologists and philosophers. What often happens is people distort the truth. This alone is embarrassing, and a good reason to really know your history.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/281368-3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1wKZqnsi6E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMsw8yxT7GM

I choose to research the topic problems in studying history. Since the book is called, "A History", there is the assumption that there are multiple versions of the same content. As a history major I am more interested in history than psychology, but connecting psychology to history is a way to make the topic more interesting for me. History is written by those who are in power, by the victors of battles and ballots, but as a historian one can look at the traces of other perspectives that would have existed at a time in question.

A main theme of interpreting history is knowing history isn’t an exact science. There are many histories based on many different people who experienced the same event. History takes in to consideration of variables like: culture, society, and politics. The colonization of new and exotic lands can be seen as manifest destiny or the extermination of the indigenous populations. Using the phrase, “to the victor goes the spoils” spoils can also mean the privilege to write history; imposing the dominate biases and experiences to define and event. Therefore, history is just one person’s or a group of people’s story of what was; even primary sources cannot be seen as fact without looking at the bigger picture.

Studying the bigger picture and taking into account background information, experiences of all parties involved, and other interpretations. Understanding the context in which an event occurs is curtail; back when Columbus sailing the ocean blue superstition, fear, and magic were seen as fact for what was unexplainable at the time. Using primary documents is good since there isn’t another person’s perspective being shown, but knowing the context of which they lived allows historians to know the biases from the beginning and pull out as many facts as possible.

A part of interpretation has to do with what actually gets recorded in history. Looking at American history one sees the experiences of the dominate group, white Christian men of middle to upper class. Throughout our history African-Americans and Native Americans have made contributions to our safety, freedom, and prosperity, but these individuals are rarely mentioned or just briefly discussed. Similarly, our need to assimilate immigrants or natives takes away their histories. Native American tradition was all destroyed in the 1800s when many nations were forced to assimilate and become “civilized.”

History can teach us a lot, but we must be able to decode it from the dominate culture. Even psychology will have these biases that will have to be analyzed to come up with a fair history that is only one person’s interpretation of what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLlyDCT_0Is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U5cNiYcNVQ&feature=related
http://www.sacw.net/India_History/IHabibCommunalHistory.html
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/primarysources.asp#interp

One of the things that intreseted me the most was a rather simple idea, Why study the history of Psycholgoy ? As a history major i was always interested in why and how people made mistakes in the past and what we are doing as a society today to rectify these mistakes and make sure something like that doesn't happen again. I think that his can be applied to the history of psychology but in a much different sense. Because it can be viewed as a younger field than some of the other disciplines there isn't as much history to go through, however people are still studying the same things today as they did almost 130 years ago. So with this in mind i decided to go out and research how the history of this subject can be taught, how to teach it, and simply why do people want to know about it.

Maybe it is because most of my history education goes back so far, but for whatever reason the idea of how young psychology is really stuck with me after reading the first chapter. I think it really shows the complexity of the field that these researchers are studying in and just how difficult it can be. Sticking with that concept I was also amazed at why people are still studying the same things now? Did we not get it right the first time ? Is there even more gold to be gotten to? Is there ever a definite answer? These are all questions that floated around my mind for a while after reading the chapter because,unlike other history disciples that are very fact based psychology is much more open to personal interpretation and theories. I would say that there is never a definite solution, but then when I see how long Pavlov's dog experiments have been around and how universal the information is i find it comforting to see that there are examples of closure and final solutions in the field, which is great for a history major because thats what I am used to dealing with.

History can also be an inspiration for some people, they can look at a past experiment or situation and come up with a brand new way of doing that experiment, or dealing with a similar situation, or come up with a completely new idea that would not have been possible if they hadn't gotten that original information. The last idea is one that really gets me interested I always enjoy reading about somebody who was inspired by someone else's work and creates something totally new, but still pays respect to whatever influences they had. This can be applied to psychology in a number of ways and it is something that i am really hoping we get to go deeper into. Although psychology is described as being young it becomes obvious very fast that its also extremely complex and can not be explained quickly or simply as the amusing YouTube video would have you believe. It is in these complexities that I hope to find a nice niche of information and find a foothold for finding a topic that really interests me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1wKZqnsi6E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhqumfpxuzIhttp://psychology.about.com/od/psychology101/u/psychology-basics.htm

The most interesting part of this chapter for me was the reasoning why we should study history. From reading this chapter and research on the net there are many reasons as to why we should study history. One of these is that is allows us to understand people and societies. This is very important in the study of psychology because we are looking at behaviors that exist and why the mind allows certain behaviors to occur. History allows to see trends in the past and currently and see if there are links in them. History also helps to provide moral understanding and identity. We can understand others by studying histories perhaps of their culture or ways of life. With this information we can connect better with others and prevent unnecessary conflicts. It also helps us to develop several skills such as assessing evidence and different interpretations of parts of history. It also develops many other skills especially critical thinking. One other interesting concept as to why to study history is to that is allows us to know ourselves. By knowing history we understand bits of what made us the way we are and the society we live in the way it is. Also, it allows us to have a sense of pride about who we are and where we come from and allows us to develop a guide to use in life as a society.

http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm

http://www.historyguide.org/guide/study.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_we_study_history

What I found to be the most interesting part in the first chapter was the section on problems with the writing of history. I myself accept what is written and taught in history classes to always be true because it had actually happened, so how could it be wrong? After reading the textbook and looking further on the internet, that is not necessarily true, there are many ways that in error in writing history could have occurred.

There are so many millions of things that have occurred in the past, some we know about, and a lot that we do not. There is no way that every important event, in every country, at any given point in time could have been documented. Even if there had been documentation, there’s no guarantee that it is still available. According to Anthony Gorst of the University of Westminster in 1995, the British government preserves only about 5% of all documents. Also, many governments do not release the preserved documents for at least twenty five or thirty years, and some countries, such as China, do not open their archives at all.

Other than Government texts, people’s own recollection of an event may not be correct. One example is that a person may have accidentally forgotten or could have interpreted something incorrectly. Another example is that the person purposely leaves something out as to not give themselves a horrible reputation. For countries with strict government censorship, the only opinion or view on a subject is that of the governments, due to lack of freedom of speech.

Historians also have difficulties coming to a similar conclusion when reading the same document. This is due to the historian still being too close to the event to not have any biases. The most reliable historical documents available today are government bills or laws and diaries that never expect to be published.

http://www.bfley.com/ecolint-history/Historiography.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography
http://vu-nl.academia.edu/ChrisLorenz/Papers/402701/Comparative_Historiography_Problems_and_Perspectives

My topic I chose to do is presentism. In the book presentism is described as a way to look only in the terms of present concepts. I know this is a popular way for many people to accidently view history, by using our culture now and not the past's terms and concepts. I find it interesting because I think it is important to understand the past to understand the present as well, but not in a bias way. I want to understand history by using past terms and cultures, not viewing it in the terms that we use now. Presentism fits into the book when discussing old versus new history. Presentism is the more outdated version of looking at how to study history, historicism is the more "new" way to study history.

Presentism was first used when British hisotrians wrote about the past to help suite their own beliefs creating misleading ideas and concepts. It was the belief to evaluate history through our (present) terms. For example, looking at the 1800s through our language and culture and not through theirs. This is often called "Whig" history- the view that history has been a progressive story up till now.

In many psychology books up until fairly recently, have used presentism to look at psychology's history. It showed that past theories seemed true to the current ones, ignoring some of the older theories. Some in history do not think presentism is necessary because why study history when we are using our terms and culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BJek
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4087/is_200610/ai_n17194400/

I thought that the information regarding the Historicist vs, Presentist views of history was interesting because it relates to Cultural/Moral Relativism and philosophical views of absolute truth and right or wrong. Is it completely unfair to interpret or judge the actions of historical figures based on our present-day understanding/values? Goodwin apparently intends to lean toward the Historicist view, as he claims that we have to understand why the individuals made the choices that they did in the context of their cultural environment. While I think that this is an important aspect of history, it does not provide us with a complete picture. If we are to learn from history, I believe that it is necessary not just to understand the environmental causes behind the actions, but also to view those actions against the broader backdrop of our current understanding. In this way we can see the relevance of historical events to contemporary events.

The Historicist view draws from Hegel, who argued that history was spawned by the Zeitgeist: that events happen because they are inevitably bound to happen under given conditions; and if historical figure x were not the agent, then a new historical figure y would have taken the same action/made the same discovery, thus supplanting x’s position in history (an argument which also rather neatly explains ‘multiples’). The individual is the product of society -shaped by the Zeitgeist- while the society is an evolving entity greater than the sum of its parts (as it is built upon prior events/knowledge). Thus, Hegel thought that it was necessary to understand the cultural context if one wished to understand the historical figure/event.

However, if we take a purely Historicist position and interpret historical events only in relation to their historo-environmental context, we end up with an ambiguous or relativist view of events: cultures are isolated in space and time, making it difficult (if not impossible) to compare them meaningfully (let alone make ethical judgments). So it seems that if we want to make meaningful comparisons between cultures, we have to find common ground: either universal norms that pertain to all cultures (few and far between), or a common perspective that we apply equally to those cultures - which is somewhat akin to the Presentist view.

The Presentist view of history does interpret historical events/figures through the lens of modern understanding. This is useful in that it allows us to draw relationships between separate historical figures/events, and suggest their relevance to modern society. What we want to avoid however is a Revisionist view of history - interpreting historical events/figures either too strictly according to a modern perspective (i.e., Goddard was an idiot for promoting IQ tests to screen immigrants) or in a way so as to justify a particular belief (i.e., Political history demonstrates a decided trend toward liberal democracy, so we are justified in imposing our political beliefs and will upon non-democratic countries). Goodwin touches on this when he refers to Bailyn saying that we must “overcome the knowledge of the outcome.”

David Hackett Fischer wrote that “historians cannot avoid making moral judgments, and indeed they ought to make them, but… they should be aware of their biases, and write history in such a way that their biases do not create a distorted depiction of the past” (“Presentism (literary and historical analysis)”, Wikipedia). It will be interesting to see just what kind of balance Goodwin strikes between the two views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_%28literary_and_historical_analysis%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historicism

Something I found interesting in this chapter was the topic entitled "Why Study Psychology's History?" This fit into the chapter in that it was obviously an introductory section; it worked very well in the place it did, directly following the section called "Why Study History?" The book did give several reasons for studying the history of psychology and its significance; however, I needed a little more back up to support that idea. Psychology is something that is going to be consistently changing and growing, so why is it so necessary for us to know the history of all of the theories? It turns out the Internet had quite a bit to say about this topic.

Studying the history of psychology is of utmost importance for many reasons. First, psychology is still a relatively new science. We are still working on many theories that we have been studying for the past century! Since it is so new to our society, it is necessary for us to study the past in order to gain clues to psychology's future. Just as in any scientific field (like medicine, for example), understanding the field's history is key. Another good point is the following: we study the history of psychology partly in order to give credit to those who deserve it. I had never thought of this idea before, but it makes a whole lot of sense - what would our concept of classical conditioning be like if we were unaware of Pavlov's existence? Where would psychology students be without knowing of Freud's work and its impact on the field? Giving credit where credit is due is a very important (and often overlooked) reason for studying psychology's history.

Another reason for learning about the history of psychology is that it educates us about human behavior. Before we can acknowledge and diagnose what would be considered "abnormal" behavior, we must first know the definition of what is considered to be "normal" behavior. This is where psychology and its history comes in. The field's history also shows us that the idea of normal/abnormal is constantly changing, depending much on the time period and the culture.

According to experts, "Studying the evolution of psychological theories will help you understand contemporary psychology better. Also, current psychology has become so fragmented that sometimes it seems our history is the one thing that unites us." There are two great points here: First, by learning about past theories and experiments, we are better able to understand the theories of today. This also helps us to think more critically, becoming more able to spot bad theories and be skeptical of them. Secondly, psychology is a very diverse and specialized field - it is easy to get lost in all of the different categories and subtypes. Psychology's history may be a way to "unite" all the different groups and categories of the field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1wKZqnsi6E
http://www.blurtit.com/q973955.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~histpsy/abstracts.html
http://www.helium.com/items/1353220-studying-the-history-of-psychology

I decided to do research on a thought I got from the interpretation problems section. This section has a lot of good points within it. One point is that a reader of history should be careful not to take everything he or she reads at face value. Just knowing that there are things in history or even everyday life that may be misconceptions was interesting to me. The book did a great job of explaining why there are misconceptions (Ex biases) but, the example given about Boring did not do a whole lot for me. In my research I set out to find a more concrete example of an interpretation problem or misconception that would make sense to me.

Of the research I did on misconceptions nothing stood out more to me than a great debate about photographic memory. For years people have argued both in favor of and against there being individuals with photographic memory. The problem is in the interpretation differences and biases individuals have in defining what this type of memory is exactly.

Within the studies done on photographic memory most have proved that there are individuals with extraordinary memories, but they do not necessarily have photographic memory. Photographic memory is thought of to be perfect recall. There is one case however that may be the proof that photographic memory does exist. In this study a woman (Elizabeth) was tested who appeared to be able to recall things in their entirety. The biases and interpretation issues come into play with this research because Elizabeth ended up marrying the man who was her researcher and was never tested again. Since there are studies that appear to be for and against there being this kind of memory, there is still no clear cut answer to this question.

Doing my research on photographic memory have definitely drive home the fact that interpretation problems play a large role in history. When looking at all of the sites I was never sure what was true and what was not. From now on I think I will be much more skeptical of some of the things I am told are true.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-there-such-a-thing-as
http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1693
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#Psychology

After our class discussion on Tuesday my interest was sparked in the works of Edward Boring. What especially interested me was the nerve research he did on himself. I wanted to learn if he or other psychologists throughout history have done other research using themselves and I also wanted to look at other research methods of psychologists. This ties into the chapter by showing how before psychology was widely accepted and well-funded, what researchers would go through to support their claims and show how they collected the research they need to support them. The topic I have chosen interests me primarily because of how much dedication these early researchers had to their field and also because I would like to know more about how these scientists were able to find answers to their questions.
I was able to learn through about.com that there are several different types of research methods for psychology such as a simple experiment and correlational research. Boring’s experiment on the nerve endings in his arm would classify as a simple cause and effect experiment. He wanted to see how long it would take the nerve regenerate once it was severed. I also found on about.com that the classification of Borings research on the nerve in his arm would classify as experimental psychology.
Over time experimental psychologists have researched many different ways to test the complexity of the human mind according to Wikipedia.com. Also Boring was one of many psychologists over the course of history in this field. Charles Bell was another researcher interested in the process of how nerves worked. However, instead of using himself he studied on rabbits, disproving that nerves were vibrations or spirits in the body. Although according to psychology.jrank.org Bell was not a psychologist but his findings on nerves and the brain were very useful to the field of psychology. Other experimental psychologists throughout history would be Ernst Heinrich Weber, Gustav Fechner, George Trumbull Ladd, and Charles Sanders Peirce. Peirce’s biggest contribution to the field of Psychology is his invention of the randomized experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_psychology
http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/799/Sir-Charles-Bell.html
http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/Psychology_Research_Methods.htm

It was interesting to read about John Popplestone and Marion McPherson and the work that they did in order to get more interest into the history of psychology. These two were very important for this field of psychology, so I think it is important that they are recognized for the work that they have done in gathering artifacts and starting the Center for the History of Psychology. I chose them for my topic, because I enjoy history when it is more hands on which is experienced in a museum.

I was unaware that there was a psychology museum in Akron Ohio, where John and Marion were professors. This would be a really interesting place to visit, because artifacts from experiments that I have been leaning about for the past few years are located there. This would be really exciting to see and would make me more interested in those particular experiments, because I would feel more of a connection to the experiment.

The Center for the History of Psychology continues to grow and the mission of the museum is to promote further research in the history of psychology. They get the general public interested in the history and it helps to fund further research. I think this is a great way to do this, because the general public is not going to pick up a psychology textbook and start reading about experiments, but going to a museum and experiencing the history would get people excited about psychology. This is a great way to display history, and I would love to visit this museum.

http://www.library.ohio.gov/marketing/Newsletters/TheNews/2010/October/CenterHistoryPsychology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mmXwFGLMGo
http://www3.uakron.edu/ahap/about/collection.phtml

I chose to do my topical blog on the most famous historian of psychology and sometimes called the father of the history of psychology, Mr. Edwin G. Boring. Boring fits into the chapter and class because we are studying the history of psychology, and he is considered to be the most famous historian of all psychologists. I'm interested in learning more about Boring because I found the "close-up" in the textbook to be quite interesting. Despite the unfortunate connotation of his name and many people's opinions on history I worried I might have the same thoughts on him until I read the "close-up" and found out his work and studies are anything but boring. I found his research topics while at Cornell to be very impressive and kind of badass. The nerve regenaration where he severed a nerve in his own arm as well as his study of visceral sensitivity in which he swallowed a stomach tube and poured different substances into the tube to discover the sensory effects. I was blown away when I read this, and I find it very interesting that many psychologists and scientists put themselves in danger in order to further their understanding of their bodies, and the reactions and consequences that come with putting their bodies through some unpleasant experiments.

After choosing to look into Edwin Boring and doing a little searching I decided to focus on articles that Boring wrote himself. The articles I read are not specifically about the history of psychology, but actual psychological work that Boring did himself or gave speeches on. Either way it can be related to the history of psychology. When Boring wrote about the research he did with intelligence tests he discussed the nature versus nurture debate because Boring and others attempted to see if intelligence was heritable. Boring chooses the inductive approach to knowledge in that he found the results inconclusive and felt more testing needed to be done. Boring's belief that more testing must be done to figure out whether or not intelligence is heritable shows psychology and science in general had changed over time. His method of intelligence testing is rather out of date as well because since the publication of his article a couple more intelligence tests were created as well as revised many times. We can also see Boring furthering the discipline of psychology in a speech he gave describing how important it was for psychologists to question other psychologists theories. He gave a couple examples of situations in the field of science and medicine in which people questioned the effectiveness of hypnosis and how long it took for the practice to become accepted (before modern anesthetics were created that is) as well as Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood throughout the body. He stressed how important it was for psychologists to debate their theories and ideas with each other in order to further the field and make it more respectable. We can also see the changes that have come in the study of perception. Boring discusses his thoughts on a the immediacy of duration related to one's perception. I don't know much about perception in psychology, but if I did I feel like I could come up with some differences between what Boring wrote about and what is known today. Through each of these articles we can see how psychology has changed from then til now and how far psychology can continue to go. The articles help us to see some of the old theories of psychology and help us look at how they have changed.

http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/sup/Boring_1923.html
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Boring/controversy.htm
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.uni.edu/stable/1415901?seq=1&Search=yes&searchText=edwin&searchText=boring&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedResults%3Fla%3D%26wc%3Doff%26acc%3Don%26gw%3Djtx%26q0%3Dedwin%2Bboring%26f0%3Dau%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26jo%3D%26dc%3DPsychology%26si%3D1%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26so%3Drel%26hp%3D100%26Go.x%3D20%26Go.y%3D7%26Go%3DGo&prevSearch=&item=3&ttl=101&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null

My topic is why one should study the history of psychology, or to study the history of anything. This relates to chapter one in that it discusses why psychology students or students of any discipline should take history courses. Some degrees or disciplines do not require students to take a history course of their chosen subject or a traditional history class. The chapter shows how important history can be in understanding, analyzing and forming valid arguments. History has a distinct process in how it is used in research papers and in how it is used to validate arguments, facts, and various statistics. I am interested in history because, in order to truly understand the present and future, one must look at the past experience and knowledge of those who came before us.
Studying the history of psychology is important because knowing the history surrounding the decision made by noteworthy people within the psychology discipline may help one to understand how they came to that decision or conclusion. Looking at societies political, religious, economic, and social structure of the time period may have helped to create an environment that would lead one of these individuals to their discoveries or new developments. It would be beneficial for students of psychology to use this history background in the above subjects to form a better understanding as to why or how this development occurred.
Another important reason to study the history of psychology is that in the present it is difficult to see the errors in our process of thinking. In an article, it shows how we come to the psychology with learned perceptions of people, places, things, and different thought processes. It is difficult to see how what we are doing now may not be entirely correct. History allows us to go back and examine thought processes; we can do this by looking at people’s decisions and their outcomes. History can show us the past errors of our ways.
Another reason to study history is often times in a traditional history class, students of history learn about many noteworthy people who discover new things in education, technology and just about every other field. These discoveries can be revolutionary! The enlightenment period in history is a perfect example about how many aspects of society changed or didn’t change based on the new ideas being introduced at this time. Studying the history of psychology would be a great way to learn how psychology affected people, countries and also helped to shape our world as we know it today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImCnynPV7R8
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb34212.x/abstract
http://www.helium.com/items/1353220-studying-the-history-of-psychology

I chose the ever-interesting life of John B Watson. In the opening chapter of our textbook, the author speaks time and again about context and how important it is when analyzing popular or controversial psychological theories. To take it a step further, I think it’s important to learn about the lives of the people who introduced those theories. It adds another perspective and possibly motivation behind the theory.

As a challenge to myself, I scoured the archival section of the chapter (the one I found least interesting) for something to grab hold of my attention… and I found it: “John Watson, behaviorism’s founder, burned all of his remaining notes, correspondence, and rough manuscripts… when ‘his secretary protested the loss to posterity and to history, Watson only replied: ‘When you’re dead, you’re all dead.’’”

A few short Google searches later, and BOY, did I hit the jackpot. His life reads like a brilliant fictional novel. First with the “boring” background:

John Broadus Watson was born in 1878 to a devoutly religious mother and a not-so-fantastic father to whom he gave a lifetime of resentment. The family led an impoverished life just outside of Greenville, South Carolina. He went off to university at the age of 16, was the principal of a small private school five years later, then went to University of Chicago in 1900 where he pondered:

“More and more the thought presented itself: Can’t I find out by watching [animals’] behavior everything that the other students are finding out using [human] O[bserver]s?”

(That quote – to me – sounds like the beginning of a theory that humans’ reasoning abilities are irrelevant went it comes to predicting behavior. You can see why he was asked to become a Full Professor at Johns Hopkins… even though he was only just 30. Amazing.)

This is where things get really interesting.

Three years into his stint at Chicago, Watson met (and later married) a love-struck student who’d early on been mortified when forced to hand in a love letter she’d written to him during an exam. He and Mary Ickes later had two children. John prematurely became the head of the Psychology Department at Johns Hopkins after the previous head was caught in a brothel and handed over the position before running off to Mexico.

John and his colleague began increasingly specific (and controversial) research and questions about sex and sexual behaviors. It’s rumored that John was obsessed with sex – hence the subject matter – and that when his wife became ill and lost interest, he began “studying” (ahem) with many other women. One of them was grad student Rosalie Rayner. Rayner’s parents were social elites who often hung out with the Watsons, and during one such dinner, Mary snuck off to Rosalie’s room and found love letters to prove the affair. Mary’s brother tried to use them as blackmail, but was unsuccessful.

The people at Johns Hopkins had learned from Baldwin’s scandal and, when Watson refused to end the affair, kicked him to the curb. None of his colleagues supported him and the “biggest name in psychology” was shunned. Headlines declared his divorce the scandal of the day.

The prestigious Watson – father of Behaviorism – was reduced to door-to-door market research! He eventually became a success in the field, getting the Queen of Spain to agree to sell Ponds Cold Cream. He also created one of the first infomercial-style ads, the first one for toothpaste.

He went on to write child-rearing books (don’t coddle them – unfortunate because his and Rosalie’s eldest committed suicide), unusual articles on sex (he was a huge supporter of sex education, specific positions and “wholesale necking” in college) and others on marriage and life (“Why 50 Years From Now Men Won’t Marry” and “Why I Don’t Commit Suicide”). The editor who rejected the last article – regarding suicide with surprisingly pessimistic views on life despite the title – ended up killing himself six months later.

John would later say that he should not have written about child-rearing since he was not much of an expert. He’d been known to tell parents that masturbation was not psychologically damaging during a time when children’s sleeves were often pinned down to avoid “infantile masturbation.” He also wrote that spanking should not be an option. Regardless of your opinions on the matter, he seemed to write first, regret later.

Watson lived out his life on a huge 40-acre estate, but he wasn’t able to realize his dream of “raising” a baby farm with separate groups of races living apart but equally, then observing their differences and similarities. He instead drank a quart of whiskey each day and often challenged visitors to outdrink him.

Rosalie passed away suddenly and it devastated John. She’d been – according to friends – the love of his life and he’d never cheated on her. He became a hermit and spent most of his time with his dogs. He was still alive, but people often treated him as if he was a long-gone legend. He sent his son to receive an award for him in New York in 1957, and he died the next year at the age of 80.

All of this put together paints a very interesting picture for his theory of Behaviorism. At the very least, it adds a level of intrigue to the man’s work.

http://www.brynmawr.edu/psychology/rwozniak/watson2.html
http://a-s.clayton.edu/mccarty/PSYC3540/Web%20links/watson.html
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_B._Watson#Little_Albert_experiment

I decided to do my topic on the archives mentioned in chapter 1. The Archives of the History of American Psychology (AHAP) was by far the most interesting thing that I had the opportunity to read about. These archives are located at the University of Akron in Akron, Ohio. This fits in to the chapter by giving us insight on the importance of preserving record of our past psychologists and to keep interest in psychology by letting people know that these famous studies and researches that were documented still exist today.
AHAP was founded by John Popplestone and Marion PcPherson in the year 1965. Included in this collection of archives there are papers from over 750 psychologists, 20,000 photographs,6,000 films, 1,000 apparatus’s and 50,000 volumes including rare books. AHAP includes pieces of psychology history such as the shock stimulator used in Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority studies. It also includes objects used in the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo. This building is a full 75,000 square feet, four floored building committed to holding some of the greatest studies in the world.
Overall, reading chapter one of the book and doing some research on AHAP has really started a fascination with wanting to visit the archives at some point in my life.

http://www.uakron.edu/ahap/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_of_the_History_of_American_Psychology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mmXwFGLMGo

I was intrigued by the relativism that seems to be inherent in the historicist approach to history, as opposed to the presentist notion. I would not advocate a presentist account of history, because I think it would be very naive of us to think that our culture is too much better than past cultures. At the same time, when we talk about history, we are talking about actual events, and so the postmodern relativism that creeps into the edges of the dialogue about historicism makes me very uneasy. I think it is a given that when we discuss history, we are necessarily talking about events that either happened or did not.

The text, in its discussion of relativism toward the end of the chapter, mentioned some groups who deny the Holocaust, then claim (in posh, post-modern style) that their interpretation of history is just as good as any other historian's. After all, none of us were there.

I think we should use the best available evidence in terms of primary sources to evaluate past events. We should recognize that historicism is broad and encompasses multiple narratives, which is necessary. At the same time, we should not feel pressured to accept all narratives as equally valid, because some simply are not valid in light of the evidence.

Historicism also implies a kind of moral relativism. I think it can be very tricky to examine history in terms of moral progress. I believe in moral progress; I believe that our society is more moral than it was a hundred years ago, and that it will be more moral a hundred years from now. But I do not think we can hold individuals in the past to the standards of our time (in a presentist fashion). We can understand that a society as a whole was less ethical or more ethical than our current one, but we have to recognize that individuals are the products of their societies.

Wikipedia's entry on historicism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism

This source does a fairly good job of laying out the flaws in the relativist position as well as the universalist position (comparable to historicism vs presentism): http://philosophy.livejournal.com/1963718.html

Here is a source about the dangers of presentism from a historian's perspective:
http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2002/0205/0205pre1.cfm