Please read chapter 3. After reading chapter 3, please respond to the following questions:
What were three (3) things from the chapter that you found interesting? Why were they interesting to you? What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? Why?
What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
How does this chapter relate to chapter 2?
What topic would you like to learn more about? Why?
There were many interesting aspects of this chapter, but one of the most interesting to me was the discovery of the speed of nerve impulses. I found it interesting how he used electricity on a frog’s leg and then tested it from several distances in order to get the most accurate time estimate. The time he arrived at was about 90 feet per second or 60 miles per hour. This speed is not very fast compared to early estimates, however, since the impulse only has just a few inches to feet to travel the reaction time is almost instantaneous.
Another topic I found interesting was the theory of unconscious inference. This theory harkens back to empiricism in that experience helps to guide you. Our senses especially sight are very distorted. Blood vessels and fluid get it the way of what we actually want to perceive. Helmholtz came up with the theory of unconscious inference to combat these distortions. Take for example a person coming closer the image gets bigger as the person comes closer but we know that people don’t just grow rapidly. This is where unconscious inference comes into play the size change helps us to unconsciously register that the person is coming closer.
The section on the discovery of the verbal language center of the brain I found very interesting. I thought it was interesting how all of Tan’s actions, responses and intelligence were normal but his ability to speak. So after his brain was examined and he was literally missing a chunk of his brain in one part it only made sense that the damaged area was the area keeping Tan from speaking properly.
There wasn’t a whole lot in this chapter that didn’t interest me. There were a lot of discoveries and interesting studies in the time laid out in the chapter. If there was one un-interesting part it would have to be the beginning of the chapter and the introduction. It was needed to get the background set for the chapter but it was just a bit slow going.
There are many things to take away from this chapter for the history of psychology. For the first time physiologists were beginning to study the brain and how it relates to the body through nerves. Also knowing some of the ground breaking tests to discover these processes will be very helpful in anyone’s understanding of psychology. In relation to chapter two chapter three builds on the ideas developed by some of the early philosophers. For example take unconscious inference and how it can be applied to empiricism. Chapter three is the next step in line to the actualization of the science of psychology. A topic in the chapter that I would like to learn more about would just be the mapping of the brain in general and what the brain controls. I would like to learn this in order to just understand the brain better and get a better grasp on how complex the brain really is.
The first subject I found especially interesting in this chapter was about Joseph Guillotin and his invention, the guillotine. The guillotine was invented to provide for a quick and painless death, humane to those who received beheading as their punishment. What most interested me, though, was the research gone into the individuals who had fallen victim to the guillotine. After the person’s head had been so quickly removed from the body, twitching still occurred shortly after the head had been removed. This first brought up the question as to whether or not the person was aware of what had happened and if consciousness still remained. Research done by Bischoff proved that this was obviously untrue which brought science one step closer into the nature of basic reflexes.
I have always been fascinated by the brain and brain functions. Gall and his research on the brain, later known as phrenology, was a very interesting and fun section to read. What was first so interesting to me was his religious background and how his interest in science and development of his theories through research were rejected by his family and the church he grew up following. Luckily this did not stop him. He was the first person to confirm that the right side of the brain controlled the left side of the body and vice versa. He also determined that the mental abilities of a specie correlated with the size of their brain. What was most innovating, though, was how he studied the brain and the brain structure. Scientists and anatomists to this point had only dissected and studied different structures of the brain cutting from the top down. He developed the method which started from the bottom which allowed him to trace the interconnections between the structures.
While it has been told and retold in every psychology class I have taken over the last couple of years, the story of Phineas Gage has always been an interesting one for me. Gage was a well-respected railroad worker who suffered a horrible injury, an explosion thrusting a tamping iron through his head, causing damage to his frontal cortex. What is most interesting is how the injury caused a dramatic change in his personality and behavior. Before the accident he was a hard-worker and kind man, but after he was a rude and irresponsible individual.
What I found to be the least interesting in the chapter was that on Helmholtz and his studies on vision. While vision is incredibly important in the study of the brain and its function, I have never been truly interested on how the two connect. I also found the information incredibly dry and presented in a very research-based way. Yes the rest of the chapter had a lot of research and research information in it; the way it was written though followed a story-telling pattern and is just generally more interesting to me.
This relates to the second chapter because there is a clear connection between mind and body and Descartes theories on the nervous system functions helped to put this all together at that time. Also the study of the brain really solidifies that the mind truly is necessary for body function (obvious now but a huge question at the time). While today we realize that “animal spirits” are not the cause for all of this, at the time, it was the only way Descartes could put it all together.
I believe that the entire chapter is useful in understanding the history of psychology. The study of the brain is incredibly important when dealing with emotions and thought processes and knowing the history and learning where the research came from is just very interesting. It is also crazy to think that over the past two-hundred years there has been so much more research done and while clearly we know more about the brain than we did back then, there is still so much more to learn. I myself want to keep learning about the brain and the progression of research and knowledge over time.
The most interesting part of the chapter for me was the story of Phineas Gage. I found it interesting that not only did he survive, but through his survival we learned important physiological centers of the brain. After the accident and losing part of his frontal cortex Phineas’ personality and behavior changed for the rest of his life, twelve more years.
I also found reflex action to be interesting, especially when scientists were studying the effects of recently decapitated people and animals. Although grotesque the French Revolution led to reflex discoveries including muscle twitches after death were involuntary. Using frog muscles neurologist Robert Whytt was able to discover the importance of the spinal cord. I found this interesting because in high school we did the same experiment described in the book.
Finally, since I am interested in multiples in history, I found the Bell-Magendie Law interesting. Even though their discoveries yielded different conclusions, one was right and one was wrong, an argument about plagiarism soon broke out. I think it is interesting that Bell, who made the discovery first, but was clearly wrong, would make such a big deal about Magendie’s discovery. Since Bell had friends in high places he was able to leave his name in history as discovering the functions of the roots of the spinal cord.
One thing I didn’t find interesting was learning so much about the specific energies of nerves. I don’t exactly understand what is has to do with psychology, but being a history major I don’t know a lot about psychology. Helmholtz, while known for building the bridge between physiology and psychology, but there was so much information about him and his work I lost interest trying to sort through it all.
The case of Phineas Gage and Broca’s discoveries of the speech center were the parts that are most relevant to the history of psychology. The Gage case provided psychologists with evidence that the brain has specialized areas and a person can still live without certain areas of the brain, but their live will be different. Broca’s work with the brain provided the location of the speech center, but also other aspects of the brain as well.
This chapter relates to chapter two because both discuss the history of important discoveries that pushed psychology into becoming a legitimate science. Chapter two dealt with philosophers and chapter three with physiologists; both were trying to understand the relationship of the brain to the body.
I would like to learn more about how Helmholtz and how he thought the senses were lying to us and our brain. While reading this part I was a little confused about what he was trying to say.
I’m kind of at a loss, because I don’t think that there actually were three things that I found interesting in this chapter. Mostly, I was kind of confused as to what things like reflex-theory and color-theory had to do with psychology. Aren’t those purely biological functions? Goodwin mentioned these ideas in chapter 2 also, but I’m still not sure where he is going with them. (Perhaps just the biological basis for sensory input?)
I thought that the information on the American phenomenon of phrenology was interesting. We still do think of the body in mechanical terms, so it is easy to understand why they would apply that same logic to the brain. In fact, it is difficult to understand why that same thinking does not apply to the brain. If the brain is the seat of the self - all we think and know and feel (emotionally) - then shouldn’t we be able to distinguish between the ‘abnormal’ brain of an ax-murderer and the ‘normal’ brain of a Sunday-school teacher? And if we can identify the difference, shouldn’t we be able to fix it? It seems like these people were asking reasonable questions, given their understanding of the science at that time.
They may have been cruelly disappointed, but I don’t think the failings of phrenology are that much different than the failings of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual today- which tries to reduce the unique mental health issues faced by hundreds of millions of individuals into 400 convenient formulas.
I think Goodwin got it right when he said that what drew people to phrenology was its “promise to deliver practical applications to improve daily living.” That was the excitement of the Victorian and Modernist view of science: we fully expected it to solve all of our problems, and make life better for all of us. Maybe we’re still looking for something like that.
(I, for one, am still waiting for my flying car and 7-course dinner pills.)
As for a topic I’d like to learn more about… Well, TBH I didn’t really understand any of the last few pages, where he was talking about cutting spinal cords in dogs and measuring response times. An explanation of that would be helpful.
The first thing that i found interesting was on page 65 where the Author talks about Reflex Action and Whytt studies on it. I have always found this sort of thing rather interesting especially the part about voluntary actions being caused by will and involuntary actions being controlled by the spinal cord. He discusses how these things are related when talking about pinching the leg of the recently decapitated frog and the actions that occurred.
Charles Bell couldn't seem to catch a break, first he gets beaten to the punch by Magendie when talking about posterior and anterior roots, and then second with the specific energies of nerves. The latter idea was what I found to be more interesting. The example of the tongue possibly being the source of two different energy types was interesting to me because I had always assumed that it was the source for taste, while others were convinced it was for touch. I was interested in this because it shows that there can be a big difference in opinion even in something that I thought was universally agreed upon.
For whatever reason I absolutely hate learning about eyes, color, perception, accommodation and all that stuff. Ever sense high school I've had a hard time trying to focus on it and get a grasp. This was absolutely no different. Pages 71-74 were just brutal for me to read. It is one of those topic areas where I struggled with it early on and have never really gotten a good grasp on it ever sense, and really don't see what it has to do with psychology but I am confident that there will be some reason for it and it will help contribute to our class.
I never knew the correct term for "phrenology", but am glad that i read about it. Even before reading about it in this chapter, I had skepticisms about how accurate it was or even if it was taken seriously at all. So it came as no surprise to me to see that it started out as a legit study but was eventually brought down to what they called a pseudo science. I had a very basic interest in the whole "doctrine of the skull" thing because in my mind it was just a cute little novelty. However, i found it really difficult to buy into the whole idea of knowing everything of importance about somebody simply by the shape of their skull. I think it is almost impossible to know everything about somebody and i certainly doubt that were are going to find it out simply by the size of their melon.
This chapter did a good job of connecting back to chapter 2 right away when talking about reflex action and its impact. Descartes was a big contributor to that ideology and the author makes several notes of that when presenting us with new information, but still giving credit to predecesors.
Chapter three was interesting and full of good information about that brain. Although I did find it a slow read I also found a couple of things to be interesting. The first one would be Franz Josef Gall. I found it kind of ironic that his parent thought/hoped he would become a priest, but started studying the brain and got his books banned by the church and had an unholy burial when he died. Before his death he did come up with a few good ideas. One thing that I liked about him was his involvement in the confirming of the contralateral function. I learned about this a few years ago in my high school anatomy class. I always thought that it was weird how the left side of the brain controls/operates the right side of the body and vise verse. The other thing that I found to be interesting was his theory that people (his fellow classmates) who had protruding eyes had a better since of memory. Now I know why I don’t have the best memory…
The next thing that I liked about this chapter was the story about Phineas Gage. Reading about his accident with the tamping iron made my head hurt a little bit. It’s crazy that it only knocked him unconsciousness for a little bit than was walking in the doctor’s office and talking with a friend while waiting. This description seems more like a minor injury then a near death experience. Plus it took only two months to recover. At first it seemed like the spike going throw the bottom of his left eye to out the top of his skull did nothing to affect him at first. However, it goes on to tell that his personality changed radically and that he was no longer able to have a productive work life. Gage’s repetition went down the drain as well. Gage lived twelve more years then died at the age of 37. I did look up the picture of his skull that they mentioned that was in the museum. To me, it was a cool thing to see.
The third thing that I found interesting was Broca and Tan. It does go along with the Gage case a little bit and I think that is why I liked reading about it. Tan, as he was called, was in the hospital for 21 years! That is my entire life time!! After ten years Tan began to lose control over the right side of his body and after eleven more years his conditions continued to deteriorate. By the time that Broca had meant Tan he had lost his ability to speak and was on his death bed. Broca had noted that Tan was a smart person and was aware of his surroundings. After Tan did pass away Broca was able to look at his brain where he found what looks like a whole in Tan’s brain. Tan’s condition was called motor aphasia. Broca went on and founded another condition called sensory aphasia. I find this interesting because I’m interesting in how the brain works, but mostly about the problems that can come along (ex: mental disorders due to brain damage). It’s just something that interests me.
What I didn’t find interesting was Bell-Megendie Law. This section was a bit of a bore for me and I’ll be honest, I did skim through the last half of it. I do feel sorry for the poor puppies that were experimented on, poor little guys, but it’s all in the name of research right? There were a few more parts that I didn’t care for so much but reading the Bell-Megendie section was at the top of the list.
Hm, I’m not sure what the most useful part of this chapter would be to be honest. I think that being able to dissect a person brain that had an abnormality is useful in the field. It gives us and understanding on how the brain works and what controls what. It shows us what the damaged part of the brain affects as well. It also helps to look back and improve the understanding of the brain.
How do chapter two and three relate? Well, chapter two mentioned the mind and body theory. Chapter three is the brain and the body. So, in a way they are similar. The way chapter three differs is that it’s the brain (not the “mind”) and how it works with the body like the eyes, motor skills, and personality more than just the mind controls that body. I think they are kind of the same in the matter that it’s both the brain and the body.
I’d like to learn more about Broca’s research findings and more about Gall. Those two stud out the most to me. I’d also like to see the reports on Phineas Gage’s accident. That would be neat to see too!
As a result of reading this chapter my eyes ached. This chapter was pretty long, but it was filled with some good stuff. I thought Hermann von Helmholtz lived one hell of a life. He seemed to be busy with all sorts of studies and I find it interesting how much work he has done. He has made several contributions to both physiology and psychology. I believe he is important to discuss more in class because he had a lot to do with all sorts of subjects in both areas.
Previously in the chapter towards the beginning I thought it was interesting when they talked about the functioning of the nervous system. The nervous system is quite amazing when you put some thought into it. Just thinking about my fingers typing these keys makes me think about how fast my brain is sending a signal thought my nerves causing them to move and punch the right keys to create sentance structure on this screen.
However I did not like the part of that section where decapitation was discussed. Some physicians believed that it is possible to still have conscious behaviors after your head is separated from your body. Just because one's eye lids twitch or their body shakes after they face the guillotin doesn't have mean in any way shape or form that they are controlling that consciously. Unless I see somebody without their body look and wink at me, that theory will never lie true in my mind.
A third thing I found interesting in this chapter was Franz Gall's work on the study of the brain. He identified the fibers that connect the two hemispheres of our brain. I find his information to be very relevant to our study because our brain function is what separates us from every other animal on this planet. To know the beginning explanations of how our brains are constructed and funciton have to be some of the most vital information one could have when studying psychology. It is to me the most important thing in this chapter in my opinion that will help me understand psychology.
I thought this correlated with chapter two because of all the people that are mentioned. There were multiple people in the chapter that were not mentioned in chapter two. Their discoveries and observations in their fields have been important discoveries that have helped people learn about pyschology.
Finally what I believe is esssential to consider is Flourens's work with ablation. I thought it was fascinating how he removed parts of the brain from several animals and illustrated how this is where the mind rests. He proved that animals missing parts of their brain portray abnormal behavior and function in ways that animals of the same species would not demonstrate if they did not have a chunk of their brain gone.
I might also Add Phineas Gage would bring about a great discussion and that it should also be mentioned throughout the semester. I remember watching a video in high school about him. I honestly do not know what to say besides he is one lucky dude to have survived that tamping iron.
In Chapter 3, I found several things that did in fact peak my interest. One of them was about guillotines and decapitation. It is interesting to see how things of the past were handled and what some of the questions were running through people’s minds. I had never honestly thought about the head possibly having consciousness for a certain amount of time. This problem and interesting question was studied by Theodor Bischoff. He tested the heads of decapitated criminals right after execution. With his studies he confirmed that consciousness did in fact stop once the head was removed. Beheading seems barbaric enough as is it is in modern society and I could not imagine what it would be like to witness something like this let alone study it. It is however, good to know that the person does not feel anything afterwards or linger after decapitation, that would make this form of punishment even more barbaric.
Two other people I found interesting where Gall and Spurzheim in the section on phrenology. This is also another new concept to me, phrenology. Phrenology once was a legitimate study of the brain but has since turned into people trying to read the character or personalities of others by looking at bumps on individuals’ heads and skulls. This study or now pseudoscience was started by Franz Josef Gall and later popularized by Johann Spurzheim. This is interesting to me because I would never have imagined that someone would look to bumps on a skull for personality traits. It seems just very bizarre to me but overall very interesting and I can understand its attraction to the general public.
The final thing that was interesting to me was the story of Phineas Gage. It is remarkable that this man survived in the era that this happened. It is sad however, how much he was changed and his life altered so seriously. The story of this man has helped others and scientists in the end to better understand the brain better.
The least interesting thing to me was over Hemholtz and measuring neural impulses. I am not a person who interesting in mathematics or too much biology so it was a little hard for me to get through. I do understand however that his work was indeed important especially with vision.
I think the studies of the brain and how certain parts if damaged can have drastic affects on people is the most important thing to be learned in this chapter when relating it psychology. It helps give possible explanations to disorders and better understand of people who do have brain injuries.
This related to chapter 2 because many of the philosophical questions that were asked in that chapter were put to the test in this one. Chapter 3 contained research on the nervous system which further expanded on the ideas presented in chapter 2.
The topic I would like to further look into is the phrenology. This concepts just seems to bizarre but so interesting that it would make for an interesting class discussion in my opinion. It would be interesting to understand more of why this idea caught on so well.
Throughout chapter three, I did find several things interesting. One of which was the section on Flourens and the Method of Ablation. I found this section interesting because I enjoy reading about people who are willing to come up with reasoning as to why they disagree with statements, other than using just their own opinions. Flourens disagreed with the concept of phrenology and so he did experiments using ablation to prove his point. His research helped to find the actual functions of areas. Had he not attempted to disprove phrenologists’ claims, the wrong parts may have been identified with incorrect functions for a period of time.
In my Biological Psychology course, we covered Broca’s area. I liked looking more into the background of how this area was discovered. I had never heard the story of “Tan,” but I found it very interesting. I also enjoyed learning about how “Tan’s” issues progressed and how his condition gradually spread in his brain, paralyzing different parts of his body. I found this interesting because I enjoy learning about the brain and all of the purposes of the different sections.
I also found Karl Lashley’s section to be of interest. I enjoyed this because he had planned on career options other than psychology, and yet ended up gravitating toward experimental psychology. He settled at “the intersection between biology and psychology.” He was also elected president of the APA.I enjoyed this because I too had different intentions with my future, until I took an Into to Psych course. I found the information about him to be very relatable.
The part that I was least interested in was about Helmoltz. When I first began reading the section I found it really interesting that he “built a bridge between physiology and psychology.” However, as the section continued it seemed to drag on. I felt that the section was much too long to be able to appropriately keep focused.
I find the concept of knowing which parts of the brain perform which features to be useful in understanding the history of psychology. This chapter included studies in which people dissected and used ablation to determine brain functions. I find this to be useful because learning the history of the research which helped to initiate the field of psychology is important to know.
This chapter relates to the previous one in that they both look at different contexts which together create psychology. Chapter 2 was based on the philosophical part, and chapter 3 is based on the physiological. The field of psychology includes aspects of both of these contexts. Both chapters covered the concept brain and body connections which is a key point in the field of psychology.
I would like to learn more about Helmoltz. While reading the section, I could not focus enough to comprehend what I was reading, so I think a verbal explanation may be useful in helping me to understand the work he was doing.
The first thing that was interesting to me in this chapter was the early research on whether or not the brain was the controller of voluntary actions or not. I found it fascinating that when people were beheaded by a guillotine, their extremeties continued to move and twitch even after they were decapitated; thus, it led people to believe that the brain was not, in fact, the center of consciousness, and the controller for voluntary action must lie somewhere else. However, after further observations (including shouting in the bodyless heads' ear!), the original theory that the brain WAS, in fact, the center for consciousness was again reinforced. I found this interesting because it seems so ridiculous now that they would go so far as to stick their fingers in the decapitated head's nose to see if it got a reaction; however, back then, I'm sure it seemed perfectly reasonable.
Another point in chapter three which I found interesting was Flouren's method of ablation, in which he removed specific sections of the brain and observed the following effects. This was, I assume, an early attempt at studying phrenology, and I find the whole method of ablation to be pretty interesting. The damage caused by removing parts of the brain would be too risky for me; however, I have watched a video in which the different effects of pressure on different areas in the brain were shown, and it was extremely fascinating. What Flouren discovered was an idea that is pretty commonplace to us now, but back in his day, I'm sure it was fairly groundbreaking: The cortex acts as a whole, and the amount of disability is proportional to the extent of the damage done to the cortex.
One final thing I found that interested me was, of course, Phineas Gage. It does get a little tiring to hear of Gage in every psychology class in existence, but it's definitely an attention-getting case. Phineas Gage, as we all know, received a metal railroad pole of some sort through the frontal lobe of his brain. As a result, he suffered some nasty consequences, but, surprisingly enough, not entirely debilitating ones. In fact, he was able to function normally enough; however, the changes in his personality were shocking. Once a docile, kind man, he grew aggressive and raucous, even bawdy and lewd in his behavior. This helped scientists a lot with the clinical method and studying the consequences of damages done to a specific region of the brain.
The only thing I found to be uninteresting in this section was the Bell-Magendie Law. I'm not really sure why; it just didn't hold my attention as well as the other portions of the text.
I honestly think that everything in this chapter is extremely useful to know when studying the history of psychology. There isn't much I'd leave out if I were to rewrite the chapter myself, and I think all of the information given is fairly beneficial for us to know. Of course the Phineas Gage case and phrenology are especially important to modern psychology, and I think discoveries in that area were of utmost importance to advances in the field of psychology.
This particular chapter relates to chapter 2 in that both chapter (philosophy AND physiology) involved finding that mind-body connection and figuring out just how the brain is interconnected with the body.
I'd like to learn more about Golgi. There wasn't much information on him compared to everyone else, and I'd be interesting in knowing a little bit more on that topic.
The first topic I found interesting in this chapter was the guillotin. The guillotin was one method that was used for executing soldiers, prisoners, in the late 1700's especially during the French Revolution. The most interesting section about the guillotin was after the decapitation of a person's head, the body would still be twitching and there was a question whether the person knew what was going on during the execution. Further research by Bischoff proved it to be untrue, and it was the basic reflexes that caused the twitching.
The second topic I found interesting was Bell-Magendie law. I found Bell-Magendie law interesting because he found that the posteiror roots are controlled by sensation and the anterior roots controlled motor responses of the spinal cord. After the finding it proved that we have sensationa nd movement in our spinal cord that sends messages within our brain.
The third topic I found interesting was Phineas Gage. Phineas Gage was interesting because he survived a huge brain injury working on the railroad and became a part of the clinical method. The clinical method was studying the behavior and mental consequences after a specific brain injury. Phineas Gage was working on a railroad, when a tamping iron went into his brain and underneath is left eye. After the brain injury, he would never be the same person as he was before.
The least interesting topic I found in this chapter was Helmholtz's studies. I found it very hard to read this section about the conservation of energy, the speed of neural impulses. I don't really know much about the brain and neural impulses, but fond it very boring to read and confusing on how the neural impulses have a high speed.
This chapter relates to chapter 2 because Descartes developed the nervous system and functioning with mind-body question, and this chapter continued to find body-mind questions.
I-d like to learn more about the term pherenology. I have never heard of that term, and I would like to discuss what exactly pherenology does for the brain.
The first thing from the chapter that I found interesting had to be the short description of the French physician Joseph Guillotin and his invention of the guillotine. Obviously I knew what his invention was for it is a very famous form of execution, and it was nice of the author to add in a little action to the beginning of the chapter to get me interested. I also found it interesting how they studied executions to see if any consciousness still remained after the head was removed from the body. It was also interesting that even after the head was removed the bodies would still twitch and move a little bit so it allowed scientists to want to study the nature of reflexes.
I also found all the research and accomplishments of the German physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz to be quite interesting mainly for the fact about the amount of work he completed in his lifetime. His contribution to psychology being that he bridged the gap between physiology and psychology was very important to psychology, but his work in physics also helped form one of the basic laws of energy, the conservation of energy, which is taught in all introductory physics classes. I believe I was taught it in high school chemistry as well. I thought it was quite amazing how he studied so many different parts of the body from neural impulses to vision to hearing. I thought his measurement of the speed of neural impulses was kind of interesting too in that he figured out that the nervous system involved the movement and reflexes of the physical body took measurable amounts of time and were not simultaneous. I also found it quite interesting that Helmholtz helped to create the trichromatic theory of color. I've known of the theory through prior classes, but it was interesting to find out that he and the English scientist Thomas Young developed it.
I also thought that the method of ablation was very interesting just because it seemed kind of awesome that Pierre Flourens would literally cut out part of an animal's brain and then observe the effects. I also found it interesting that a lot of his work completely proved the fake science of phrenology to be wrong and inaccurate. I had heard of this process in my intro to psychology class, but I hadn't heard the term ablation used to describe it. I think its a very interesting way to study the functions of different parts of the brain, and I assume it's still in use today.
I found the information on the studies of the nervous system and behavior to not be very interesting at all. I found it to be rather boring and got tired of reading about neurons, synapses, and the cortex. It just got repetitive and I had trouble keeping up with it, but that partly has to do with the fact that it's toward the end of the chapter, and I was getting tired of reading.
This chapter relates to chapter 2 because they are both concerned with figuring out the connection between the mind and body. They also both are showing how different aspects of science such as philosophy and physiology eventually developed into the entire study of psychology.
I'd like to learn more about some of the studies of ablation because I just find it to be interesting. I'd also like to hear more stories and instances like Phineas Gage who survived a freak accident of having his head impaled by a piece of tamping iron. I thought it was incredible that he survived it, but even more so to hear his story of how his personality changed after the accident and what he was still capable of doing.
I found this chapter to be very interesting at times, and extremely boring at times. I will start out with what I found not so interesting.
I could probably find more than one, but one topic I really didn't get anything out of was Helmholtz: The physiologist's physiologist. I found it extremely boring and didn't really see the psychological connection between Helmholtz ideas on vision and audition. I might understand that it would be good to know how different people who have various psychological problems differ in these areas having to do with vision and perception, but I just really wasn't interested in learning about this.
The first thing I found interesting in Chapter 3 was phrenology! I have heard of this before, but never had any background information on how the idea came about. It was really interesting to me because it makes sense on one level, but obviously is completely false. It amuses me to learn about what people thought our brain was and how it worked back when we very first started examining it. To now know what they didn't know is mind boggling (excuse the pun, ha). Also, it was interesting to learn that the phrenologists were not interested in examples that did not support their case when being challenged. This made me kind of raise an eye brow, if you will, because it seems uncanny to just blow off other peoples ideas. It's kind of comical, to know now that they were wrong in their ideas, but at the time never wanted to hear other peoples opinions who weren't "on their side".
The second thing I found interesting in this chapter was all the animal studies. The pigeon study that Flourens did was particularly interesting. One, because they were nonchalantly doing all these animal studies, when today (at least I hope) we don't do as many of these animal studies that clearly impaired them for the rest of their small animal lives. Although, looking at it in the light of science, we wouldn't have known all these complex things about the brain, if it wasn't for these studies.
The third thing that really shocked and interested me was the crazy Phineas Gage story! This was a great tool for scientist to learn how the brain works. Not to mention that he actually lived! I would like to research this more, the picture is extremely interesting just to look at!
I think the most beneficial part of this chapter, as far as learning history, was learning about all the different people who contributed to what we now know today. Thanks to the people who had interest in how the human brain works from the very beginning, we now know what we know. Everyone in this chapter was extremely intellectual and deserves great recognition in the history of psychology.
A few topics overlapped in chapter 2 and 3. Barkeley's vision studies and Helmholtz. Chapter three is basically more people study similar things that people in chapter two did, just more in depth and maybe more science based as well.
As I said before, I would love to learn more about Gage's accident. I am usually not very interested in the brain, but to know how much he changed because of such an unfortunate event sounds interesting to me.
Chapter 3 was much more interesting than the past chpaters in my opinion. I found many more things that peaked my interst and kept me engaged in the reading. The first thing that I found interesting was at the very beginning when discussing the function of the nervous system. Decapitation caught my eye when talking about how facial movements continued after the head had already been chopped off.Bischoff's tests of having the decapitated head smell salts and someone yelling in its ear to see if they could still hear fascinates me. I still don't really believe that the victims couldn't feel anything, but the studies were interesting nevertheless.
The second thing I found interesting was Flourens and his Method of Ablation. This section was probably my favorite. Phrenology was interesting too, but Flourens was set out to prove that phrenology was a hoax. Flourens used ablation to remove certain things from teh brain to watch the effects. Most of his studies were on the cortex and removing all or part of it in his subjects (dogs and pigions).
The third thing that I found interesting was about Broca and the patient "Tan". "Tan" was healthy in every way besides not being able to use his words. "Tan" started to deteriorate throughout his 21 year stay, but he still had his intelligence. Motor aphasia was discovered, the inability to speak, but everything else is perfectly normal.
Absolutely everything about Helmholtz and his ideas bored me to tears. I never had any interest in vision and certain aspects of perception and reading this section was really hard because I just find zero interest and its never really sunk in so I have a hard time understanding it totally and its relationship to psychology.
I think the majority of this chapter will be highly important to understanding history especially understanding how the brain works and how our theories of the brain have evolved over the decades.
This chapter relates to chapter 2 in a couple of ways. One chapter 2 talked about Descartes and his model of relex action and how the body was a machine. Chapter 2 focused on the philosphers and chapter 3 focused on the physical actions of the brian. They both connect because they combine to continue to evolve psychology.
I would like to learn more about ablation because I find it beyond fascinating. I also would like to learn more about the brain generally because I think it is important and interesting to know and understand how we funciton.
This chapter was the most interesting chapter so far for me. I am a Biology student, and I have a fascination for physiology of the brain, so this chapter was right up my alley. There were a lot of topics from this chapter that I learned about in all of my anatomy and biology classes, and one of the things I found interesting was reading about how these ideas came about and all the people who put these ideas together. Biology students do not get a history lesson on who came up with brain localization, or who coined the term “synapse,” but instead we just learn what the concepts are and what they do and how they may dysfunction. I got to learn these concepts with a new perspective, as a historian, which was fun and different to me. It is a little said I did not know the names of Gall, Fritsch, Hitzig, Ferrier, Sherrington, and many others before reading this chapter, but that is the reality of modern day biology courses. I feel like I have a better understanding of the biological world now that I know some of the names that should be given credit for furthering it.
I also thought it was interesting when the book talked about Golgi and Cajal, and their contributions to the neuron. It was funny that Cajal used Golgi’s own staining techniques to disprove his theory that neurons were connected to each other in a network. I also imagined what the Nobel Prize ceremony must have been like with the tension between those two. I loved the rivalry that the book illustrated.
Another interesting topic from the chapter was phrenology, and the way it was viewed as a “pseudoscience.” It made me think of it as a fad, or like a “pop culture” of its time, just like horoscopes and psychic readings are today. Of course it would be the Americans who eat this stuff up and want to know what kind of person they were by the measurement of their skull. We as a culture seem to buy into a lot of pseudoscience stuff today. I can see the cheesy commercial now…
Although there was not much that did not interest me from this chapter, the part that I found least interesting was on the trichromatic theory and other discussions on visual perceptions. I had heard of these theories before, and it was not an idea that jumped out at me in the chapter. There were just a lot more interesting things throughout chapter three that grabbed my attention greater than this topic.
I think the most important thing to get from this chapter in learning the history of psychology is localization of brain function. As physiologists found where certain areas of the brain controlled certain behaviors, they can begin to learn how it is happening. I think knowing about the brain and where certain functions are mapped out helps psychologists learn why people may behave a certain way, the basic question in psychology.
Chapter 3 relates to chapter 2 because it talked a lot about the mind and perception of the mind, just like chapter 2 did, just in more detail. Physiologists also took an empiricist approach to studying the brain, just like the British philosophers from chapter 2. British empiricists began using a more logical perspective in how they viewed the world in order to find the “truth.” I think physiologists did the same thing, and veered away from hunches and looked more at scientific methodology.
I would like to know more about ablation studies and what sorts of things scientists did to their subjects. It is really interesting, and I want to know how they could successfully do some of these experiments without killing the test subject.
Three things from the chapter that I found interesting were phrenology, ablation, and the section about Phineas Gage.
I thought it was really interesting to see phrenology transition from a legitimate science to a pseudoscience (and almost back again with the repopularization of localization). I definitely see the problem with the methods used by phrenologists. It's essentially confirmation bias in action; counting the hits and ignoring the misses, without making what Karl Popper called "risky predictions" that could falsify the theory. Falsifiability is a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition to qualify a theory as scientific.
Ablation is an interesting topic because it annihilates so much public belief about brains. I think it's a common misconception that brain damage equals death: How do you kill a zombie? Shoot it in the head! We tend to see the brain as one organ rather than a collection of parts working in unison, each with its own function, and the notion that you can cut out part of an organism's brain and see what functions it can still perform turns that entire principle on its head.
The same is true for Phineas Gage, the man who survived having a tamping iron blasted through part of his brain. Ablation and the case of Phineas Gage really show how little we understand the brain (by "we" I mean the public at large, although I'm sure there is much to be learned even at the cutting edges of neuroscience). The idea that these three concepts share (namely that the brain is not one uniform organ, but can be broken down into parts) is incredibly interesting to me, because it raises the issue of whether consciousness can be broken down into its parts, or whether it is greater than the elements which comprise it (essentially vitalism v materialism as discussed in the text).
I found pretty much this whole chapter to be interesting, but if I had to pick a least interesting thing, it would be the initial work on nerve impulses, because I just think it's frankly less interesting than cutting up brains.
I think this chapter as a whole can be useful in understanding the breadth of psychology, because it illustrates a change in emphases over time from physiology alone (nerve impulses) to consciousness (implications of physiology on sensation and perception) and back again (ablation and mice in mazes).
I thought Helmholtz's problem of perception was particularly relevant to the classical argument between the rationalists and the empiricists. On the one hand, this seems clear evidence that we can't *really* trust our sensory inputs; they will always be skewed. On the other hand, I think empiricists would argue that the question of what something "objectively looks like" is nonsensical, and that all that really matters is that our senses give us a consistent enough input to be coherent.
I would like to learn more about the parts of the brain that control various functions.
This chapter had a lot of interesting facts about the early research on the nervous system. There were a lot of things and facts in this chapter that interested me however the first piece of information that I found to be interesting was the topic of phrenology of Gail and Spurziem I really liked to read about how this theory that each part of the brain performs and specializes in performing a specific function became really popular and with time was discredited and labeled as a pseudoscientific theory. The other thing that I found interesting in this chapter was the topic of the measurement of the speed of nerve impulses. I really found the experiment of Helmholtz very interesting to read about as he proved that how much speed the nerve impulses had through literally separating the two i.e. the motor nerve and the muscle. The third topic in this chapter that I found interesting was the research of Karl Lashley specifically his research on the concept of equipotentiality I found this concept interesting as it very clearly explained that the process of learning was not dependent on the localization of brain function but it was a result of the equipotentiality and the law of mass action i.e. learning depends upon the equal and mass action by the different areas altogether.
The thing which I found to be least interesting was about Brocas area as I do not feel that speech has much of relevance in the field of psychology and is not extremely necessary to know about when studying about the higher mental processes.
This chapter relates to chapter two as in chapter two initial desire to know about the relationship between the mental processes and human functioning was made and this chapter compliments and completes the further studies and inquiry in that direction.
The topic I would like to know more about is the topic of phrenology and the reasons it became popular and also the detailed reasons it was later discredited and disregarded.
I found it very interesting and actually pretty inspiring that Helmholtz made so many discoveries and was able to provide a solid foundation on so many ideas, especially those that we still use today. Helmholtz’s idea on the law of the conservation of energy particularly stood out to me because it’s a term that I hear so often in present day media. Also, the fact that he invented the ophthalmoscope and wrote the three-volume Handbook of Physiological Optics that was published over an eleven-year period.
Our textbook goes on to talk about Helmholtz’s color-matching experiments. I found it interesting to read about his original idea on the subject, the trichromatic theory. This theory states that when red, yellow and green-sensitive fibers of the eye are stimulated equally, they will make a pale or white hue. Therefore, Helmholtz thought the eye must contain three different kinds of color receptors. His work in this area was not completely correct, but it did lay the foundation for the opponent process theory. This was especially interesting to me because it is an idea that I have learned about many times in art classes. I actually remember doing this experiment for the very first time. Just as the book suggests, my Introductory Art class teacher had us stare at a piece of paper with a red box on it for a short amount of time. When we turned to a plain white piece of paper, a green box suddenly appeared before our eyes. I swear the entire class thought it was some kind of magic trick. I couldn’t help think about this specific memory when I read about the work of Helmholtz and color vision.
I feel that chapter 3 was packed with great information, especially at the beginning. I actually found myself reading very slow, making sure that I understood the terms and concepts provided. Although the localization of brain function is an interesting concept, it just didn’t hold my attention quite like the beginning of the chapter did.
In reference to chapter 2, I don’t think it had a lot to do with chapter 3. In chapter 2, I noticed philosophy was the common theme and in chapter 3, I found myself thinking more about “the bridge between psychology and physiology.”
The most interesting part of this chapter was about Phrenology. I think it is so interesting that this was believed to be a valid science, and people really bought into this. Gall used confirmation bias in his “evidence” for this theory because he only took into account the cases that matched his theory and disregarded the cases that did not match. Even though Gall knew not every case was true he still believed it and did a great job convincing others during this time that this was a valid science.
Another thing that I found interesting was the story about Phineas Gage. Although I have heard this story many times, I still find it fascinating that a man can live through a severe head wound, and to see its effects on him. It would be very unethical to inflict this wound on someone to study the effects that the brain damage has on a person, so the only way to study it is by studying individuals who have brain damage. This case ended up supporting phrenology, which has obviously since been disproven.
I also found the section about Broca interesting. I have always enjoyed the anatomy of the brain because I find it so fascinating how the brain works and is able to do extraordinary things. Broca got the unique opportunity to work with this patient and then through his curiosity he was able to make a great discovery for the anatomy of the brain.
I did not find any of the biological section and terminology interesting. I did not like the beginning of the chapter when it talked about the nervous system, reflexes, and other things that related to biology and more medical information. I felt like I was reading a biology text book, so I did not find that part interesting.
I think phrenology helps to understand psychology today. This seems weird to pick this, but I think it really shows how far we have come with theories and technology. Modern day psychologists could be compared to phrenologists of the past because a phrenologist could “detect” personality issues and “determine” why a person would act in a certain way. I think this shows how far psychology has come, and shows that we still have much to learn about in psychology.
This chapter related to chapter two, because it dealt with individuals whose thoughts and theories are what psychology today is based on today. They also both talked about individuals who had an abundance of curiosity, so they took it upon themselves to make discoveries and theories about different topics that they researched. I would like to learn more about Phineas Gage, because it said that Harlow took “meticulous notes” so it would be interesting to see what all he wrote about in his notes.
Chapter three has by far been my favorite chapter. I don’t know if any of you have taken Biopsychology with Professor Walsh, but if you haven’t, you totally should. The class is tough, but its interesting factor makes it doable. I loved learning about the brain and the nervous system and how that all pertains to our behaviors, thoughts, feelings, etc. So you can see why I really enjoyed reading this chapter. Funny how much faster you can read something when you actually get into it, right?
I’m almost embarrassed to admit it, but after reading the chapter, the first thing that sticks out in my mind is the very beginning about the Enlightenment period. Now I know how unbelievable this sounds, because in my very first post, and probably in almost every post after that, I’ve talked about how much I hate history, or at least don’t enjoy it. However, as I read about the Enlightenment of our country and how psychology fit into that, it fascinated me. I think the number one reason why this was the case is because a year ago I took at Humanities III class here at UNI. I was not a fan, obviously. On the other hand, I enjoyed reading the introduction to this chapter, remembering that topic from a year ago, and making the connection in my brain. It’s also nice to have psychology be called a science, even way back them. I know some refer to it as a “soft” science, and that really irks me for some reason.
The next thing on my “most interesting” list is so obvious… so over done… yet I can’t help it. I’m being honest, and this is what I liked the most! The story of Phineas Gage never ceases to amaze me. I’ve heard about it in probably every single one of my psychology classes, including my psychology course I took in high school, and I still can’t get over it. I’m not going to explain the story, because it’s been beaten to death in all of our brains, but it still fascinates me. Our brains are miraculous. The way our brain can adapt and overcome a foreign object being driven through it, such as a metal stake, is beyond incredible.
Finally, the last thing I picked to be on my top three list was the section on neurons. Neurons play an extremely important roll in the human body. They provide protection as well as extreme pleasure. I also find it interesting that they had to essentially “destroy” the brain to find our neurons. They were able to cut sections and trace the neurons by soaking the brain in alcohol beforehand, solidifying the organ. This procedure makes me think twice about going out on the town of Cedar Falls… Damn you Carlos and your delicious margaritas.
What I found less interesting ties back into my hatred for history. The hardest part to get through was Helmholtz’s life story. Once again, we have another psychologist who didn’t start off in the field, but rather in a much more boring science (my opinion, don’t mean to be offensive). I also found it sad that he couldn’t go into the field he actually wanted to go to. Obviously this is a good thing, otherwise we wouldn’t have many of the important theories we have today (such as the conservation of energy). Helmholtz helped in many other ways in psychology, such as perception. This topic I found to be more interesting, which helped me get through the very long portion on physicist turned psychologist.
The most useful thing in the book to help me understand the history of psychology was probably the first part, where it talked about Enlightenment. It helps to know what is going on in the world and where psychology fits into that big picture. Now I don’t think that section helps us understand psychology overall the best. However, I do believe that picture helps us understand the history of psychology the best.
Chapter two was nice introduction to this chapter. Chapter two was the beginning of psychology being a science, and this chapter did a more thorough job of developing psychology into a science. Chapter three did so by discussing the biological aspects of psychology.
I’d love to learn more about the brain, neurons, synapses, etc. When it comes to the nature vs nurture phenomenon, though I definitely see where it’s both, I’m a firm believer in the nature portion. I like to hear about biopsychology as I feel like the more I learn about neurological psychology, the more my theories and beliefs are supported. I came into UNI as a biology major, and then switched to psychology after my intro course with Walsh and my first chemistry class. Biopsychology is extremely fascinating to me and I love learning about it as much as I can.
I found phrenology’s doctrine of the skull, Flourens work, and Phineas Gage to all be very interesting topics in this chapter. The doctrine of the skull interested me because I am sure at the time it sounded great to a lot of people. Another reason I found it interesting because the researchers of it did not care about the people who were contradictions to their way of thinking. The work that Flourens did to interested me because he was a man on a mission. Flourens saw a way of thinking that he did not agree with and he attacked it head on. I like Flourens because I think a lot of people like to disagree with things but they do not have a better way or really a different idea at all. I also found the story about Phineas Gage to be interesting as I am sure most did. First off just from looking at the sketch it is surprising to me that he even survived the accident. Secondly the fact that he had a personality that was completely opposite of what he used to have stuck with me also.
I really enjoyed reading this chapter and found almost everything pretty interesting. I guess I would have to say that the something least interesting would be the section that talks about the clinical method for studying the human brain. It was least interesting because it all was basically common sense to me. It could have been more interesting if someone had donated their self to the study of science or something …. but at the same time that would also be kind of weird.
Reading about the enlightenment in this chapter was pretty useful in understanding the history or psychology. It is obvious that in this period people began to ask questions that they may not have asked before due to authoritative figures. With a greater amount of people starting to look for scientific ways to gain knowledge and truth psychology bound to be influenced. I think that have a grasp on what the enlightenment period was about definitely help understand the shifts in thinking in psychology.
This chapter relates to chapter two because the things in this chapter would have never come to fruition without chapter two. The philosophy that made up chapter two brought a lot of questions that needed to be answered to the table. Chapter three contains a lot of examples of individuals and times in which some of the philosophies and ideas were put to the test using legitimate methods to prove or disprove them.
I would like to learn more about studies in animals where parts of the brain are strategically removed, and the animal is studied. I just think that research done on these animals is really unique.
I just want to start this post by saying that I find all of the discoveries talked about in this book thus far are truly amazing to me. The fact that people were able to come up with all of this “stuff” that has now lead to the field of psychology that we know today is just mind boggling. Throughout this chapter I was trying to decide if I was in a biology class or psychology class. I then realized, psychology is a science and it is important to understand all aspects of people, even the parts that don’t seem that important.
There were many parts of this chapter that grabbed my attention. First, I would like to start off with Theodor Bischoff who conducted tests on decapitated heads of criminals’ right after execution. The reason this called my attention, along with many others I’m sure, is because things like that don’t happen these days. When looking at the history of psychology many of the researchers were able to perform studies then that we aren’t allowed to do now, unless you want to go to jail for the rest of your life. None of Bischoff’s work could have been done without Joseph Guillotin who made the guillotine possible. The basis of Bischoff’s work came from the many questions that were asked related to the events after the decapitation of an individual. Through his many tests, he tried to figure out whether or not consciousness still remained even after individual was beheaded. Bischoff found that consciousness did end after the head was separated from the body and reinforced the theory that consciousness resides in the brain. Without Bischoff studying this at the time it was acceptable, we may have still questioned the theory, so it’s good to have some sort of appreciation towards his work even if it was brutal.
Secondly, Robert Whytt stuck out to me. After reading this chapter I could still recall his work and I believe it has to do with the fact that he worked with frogs and even though I’m sure no one cares, I like frogs. Relating his work to my liking of frogs helped me remember his research on the physiology of the reflex. Regarding reflexes, Whytt published “The Vital and Other Involuntary Motions of Animals.” This was the outcome of the many years he invested into researching the role of the spinal cord in mediating reflex action. Here comes the frogs. Whytt studied decapitated animals (mainly frogs) and was able to show that leg muscles responded in predictable ways to physical stimulation. He did multiple trials and was able to show that the spinal cord played a vital role in reflexive behavior. Whytt’s research became the groundwork for the Bell-Magendie Law which I also found interesting to read about.
Lastly, Helmholtz on Vision and Audition was interesting to me. The trichromatic theory is based on the facts of color-matching experiments. This alone was shocking to me. I would have never in a million years thought of looking into the eye and trying to understand all of the different parts to it. I found this extremely interesting because what we see isn’t what others see and I think that is just crazy in itself. Helmholtz and Young concluded that the eye must contain three different kinds of color receptors, one for each so called primary color. The research goes on to determine that the incoming light of a particular wavelength is said to stimulate receptors to different degrees. Throughout the research there is a problem with perception. We all see something different. Many may have found this section to be dull but I thought it was interesting just because what we see has an impact on us and how we perceive the world around us.
The things I didn’t like about this chapter are thing that I have not liked in the past chapters. I guess I am more concerned about the studies that were done and the questions that were asked rather than the fact that Helmholtz compared himself to an Alpine climber. I guess that is information I could have gone my whole life without needing to know. I just feel that the book gets off topic to talk about what hospital a person was born or the fact that they were depressed at one point. I get it, we all get a little down sometimes and we all make relations between ourselves and others, but honestly, no one cares. That is stuff you write in your diary and if someone wants to read that, fine, but I guess I am more interested in the ideas and research done to prove theories rather than the more personal information that I feel is irrelevant to the studies.
I think that most, if not all, of the information in this chapter is useful in understanding the history of psychology. People had to start somewhere. There needed to be clear research that would explain that consciousness ends once a head is removed from the body. We need to understand reflexes and how the spinal cord plays a huge roll in reflexive behavior. In order to understand how we perceive things, we need to understand how it is we see it to begin with. These ideas and so many more considering the body, the organs (brain), and the nerves throughout our body are all extremely important when trying to understand humans and how they work.
“Scientific psychology evolved out of philosophical questions.” This alone relates to everything we just read in chapter two. Philosophers were full of questions, now we needed science in or to test and either answer or put aside any of the ideas that were presented. Science could now find explanations to expand on philosophers ideas. Descartes and many others tried to develop models of the nervous system and worked towards answering the mind-body questions, but it took scientists to take the next steps in order to explain them further and more realistically; rather than explaining them as “animal spirits.”
If I could go back to any topic throughout this chapter and learn more about it, it would be Helmholtz and discuss his findings a little bit more. I thought this section, although dull for a slight moment, really brought up a lot more questions. I guess the idea of how we each perceive things differently is extremely fascinating to me and is something I can’t fully wrap my mind around. This is one topic that I don’t think will ever get old.
I have been entertained thoroughly in how the author of our textbook makes effort to place events in the context of the time and place. I found the Magendie-Bell Law areas very interesting. I enjoyed learning about sensation and movement, and that different areas of the nervous systems control sensation and movement differently. There is an example of how important is the application of knowledge in the sense that Bell and Magendie may have had similar ideas of how nervous system would be affected by surgically adapting animals’ anatomy but it was Magendie who could actually perform those operations to test and thus he could make conclusions.
I also found it very interested that credit priority in regards to how intellectual property is affected by factors that I had not yet thought of. Systematic research and public publishing were some of the factors that ended up being influential in whether Magendie or Bell was credited with these findings and research. I got the impression that Magendie won, so to speak.
I felt the small portion of the chapter about Joseph Guillotin’s invention was a strong example of how important historicist perspective can be. I, up until reading this passage on pg. 65, felt as though whoever invented the Guillotin Apparatus was must have been a very evil person. Who sits around and thinks of good ways to decapitate living beings? When trying to think of the invention through the context of the times, I now feel that the Guillotin was actually a fairly humane invention relative to the previous manner of decapitation which involved “large hairy men with axes.”
I had a difficult time in following the electrical stimulation and nerve theories in that I do not think I have the background understand of anatomy concerning the brain and its activities. I also do not particularly enjoy the thought of dissecting things and surgery. I do not know how I can apply these theories to my current interest areas, and I would like to know more about how these specifics impact mental illness or the educational processes. I feel I would then be better to apply these concepts. Thanks!
It's going to be easier for me to list the memorable and interesting bits from Chapter 3, so I'll start there.
First off, I knew about Phrenology, but I'd had no idea that it was so popular in its day. I had always *assumed* that it had been debunked fairly quickly and hadn't been absorbed into mainstream culture that much. It was fascinating to learn about Fowler and Wells (marketing firm) and all their unusual pamphlets. I know this is considered a pseudoscience, but reading this section was very helpful in opening my eyes to just how important context truly is in studying history of psych. (Not to mention teaches me to be a bit skeptical about new findings even if they seem incredibly popular or endorsed by some scientists... even scientists get it wrong.)
Along those same lines, I like how determined Pierre Flourens was to disprove Phrenology using ablation. His methods seemed harsh (for the animals) but his findings were important.
I enjoyed reading the stories of Phineas Gage and "Tan" in regards to their brain damage and deaths. And I just realized how much that makes me sound like a psychopath... I mean to say that it was interesting to see how much their lives changed when their brains were altered.
Also fascinating was the Nobel Prize fight of 1906 between Golgi and Cajal.
LESS interesting to me was the Bell-Magendie Law. The discoveries made regarding anterior vs posterior spinal cord roots and their roles in sensation and response (see? did that put you to sleep yet?) were important, but not nearly as flashy and interesting as, say... the guillotine and studying the corpses just after beheading.
Which, by the way, is something I would definitely like to read more about. I had always thought that the findings post-beheading had suggested that the people WERE aware, but this chapter said Bischoff tested the corpses' abilities to react to stimuli and their movements were found to be involuntary actions.
The biggest theme from Chapter 2 seemed to be the transition from Philosophy to Pscyhology (as a lab-tested field), and Chapter 3 seems to be bridging the gap between the Neurophysiological realm and the Psychological. It's just another way to show how broad and connected this field is and the many disciplines that contributed to psychological knowledge.
The most interesting part of the chapter, along with the part that got my attention was the story of Phineas Gage. I found it interesting how when the missile shot it did not turn and come out a different spot then straight up out of his head. Also I was amazed that he even lived such a tragic event. I did feel that from his accident we were able to learn very important physiological centers of the brain. I thought it was very interesting how they noticed that because of the accident his personality and behavior changed as well. I remember there being something else like this that had happened to someone else but their behavior and personality did not change. I think it all depended of how the projectortery came in and how it exited.
Second I found reflex action to be interesting. This is because so many animals have their nerves still working even after they are separated from a part of their body. For instance a chicken when you cut its head off, the chicken’s body still tosses and flops everywhere. You when I go fishing and I tear the worm in half. The other half tends to want to wiggle away. Then when it was time to catch some bull frogs. After to cut their legs off from their body, the leg still moves. Even though their animals are now dead they still have involuntary nerve twitches. Neurologist Robert Whytt used frog muscles in his study and was able to discover the importance of the spinal cord. When reading about this I continued to think about when we dissected worms, frogs and piglets.
I found Helmholtz to be interesting as well. I liked his aspects of vision and auditory system. He also experimented with frog legs as well, which I found interesting. I would say that I found the Young- Helmholtz Trichromatic theory to be eye catching. This is because I enjoy any studies with color and how the eye catches colors and how the eye recognizes each color.
The least interesting thing in the chapter was just the beginning reading about the enlightenment and the great faith in science. I found this boring because there was nothing interesting to me. I found it to be like the boring introduction to a great story. Sometimes you just have to push forward in order to learn the good stuff.
I felt like the story of Gage really let one see how psychology works. I feel that psychology is more about the reasons for why someone does what they do. And in Phineas Gage case we were about to see how a missile through the head was able to affect the brain. If was about to relate to why did was the way he was. (thought process)
Chapter three was about the body and brain where as two was more about the mind and the body. I felt like the two went hand in hand with each other. I felt like the chapters went in great order which allowed for a better knowledge flow as well.