Please read chapter 7. After reading the chapter, 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 do you find more interesting Functionalism or Structuralism?
What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
Think of a topic from an earlier chapter. How does the current chapter relate to the topic from the earlier chapter we have already read?
What PERSON from the chapter would you like to learn more about? Why?
One thing I found interesting in this chapter was Edward L. Thorndike’s research on instinct and intelligence. It was interesting that he used newly hatched chickens. I liked how even if though the landlord evicted the chicks from Thorndike’s apartment he still continued the experiment from William James’ basement; that’s dedication. Regarding the experiment I thought the reactions of the chicks wasn’t unexpected, coming from the experience of a farm girl. It is interesting that scientists would study the reactions of chickens to try to better understand the way brains work; because chickens are so similar to humans.
I also found the part about Herbert Spencer, not Darwin, inventing the phrase “survival of the fittest” leading to social Darwinism. I think it is also interesting how social Darwinism can be related to the ideal of the American Dream. Only the hard working citizens rise above their current status and if someone isn’t successful it is their fault because they are lazy and deserve whatever they get. This isn’t surprising given the time at which Spencer lived; immigration in the United States was starting to grow and poverty was becoming an ever increasing problem.
Finally, I thought the book’s perspective on John Dewey was interesting. Dewey worked on refining the idea of the reflex arc as well as becoming influential in educational psychology. Dewey is best known for leading the progressive education movement. It is interesting learning about Dewey right now, since in one of my education classes we are learning about Dewey as well. This book puts a more positive light on Dewey, even though the negative effects of progressive education can’t be blames on Dewey.
A part of the chapter I didn’t find as interesting was the section on Robert S. Woodworth. A part from using independent and dependent variables be used for experiments, I thought this section was boring. It could have been his background information seemed it repeated itself or because this section was just too philosophical. Either way I was not engaged while reading this section; and just ask Dewey students need to be engaged to learn.
To me, I found structuralism more interesting because it depended so much on the work of one person. Without Edward Titchener structuralism may have never come about and other aspects of psychology may not have evolved without having to defend what they were and how they research was validated. Titchener was also interesting because when it came to structuralism, it seemed it was the science everyone loved to hate.
Reading this chapter made me realize that even within the domains of psychology experts had their difference in opinion as to what constituted being psychology. Structuralism and functionalism show this and even though structuralism is history we can still benefit from the gains that were made both directly and indirectly from its existence.
Titchener and his Experimentalists group were also in the last chapter we read. In this chapter the group is explored more deeply as is the issue of why women weren’t allowed. This chapter shows the anti-sexists view of Titchener, which is also interesting. The Experimentalist provided a link to the best jobs or schools through the many prominent men that were in attendance, showing why women like Ladd-Franklin were frustrated at not getting in.
From this chapter I would like to learn more about Thorndike. Even though a good part of the chapter was devoted to him, he was the most interesting to me. I remember learning about him years ago in my intro class, but since then I haven’t. I would like to learn more about the origin and construction of his experiments; specifically how they worked if they were truly so poorly put together.
One of the topics of the chapter that I found interesting was Titchener’s view on the structural elements of the conscious experience. He described that there are three different ways that we can comprehend something. We are able to comprehend our world by sensations, images, and affections. Our sensations help us to perceive our world, images are the basic components of ideas, and affections are the basis of the emotions we feel about each other. He theorized that sensation is made up of different factors that contribute to how strong the sensation is. Sensations are made up of quality, duration, intensity and clearness. Each one of these factors goes into how we perceive the sensation. Titchener’s felt that imagery could be broken down into much simpler terms. He stated that images or ideas had two fundamental qualities either being pleasant or unpleasant. All of these things together that Titchener theorized about go on to make up or collective conscious.
I also found the bit on social Darwinism to be quite interesting as well. Herbert Spencer said that in order for things to evolve naturally they should be left alone. There should be no government interference in business and that those who had great success should not be penalized for it. He based his reasoning on the fact that the businesses that see more success are more fit for society and that if businesses failed it was because they simply were not fit. Unfortunately this thinking fostered an even larger gap between rich and poor and helped to continue the superiority of the white male.
Another topic from the chapter that intrigued me was the reflex arc theory. John Dewey proposed that our reflexes happen in one fluid motion. This was contrary to the theories proposed by earlier theorists of stimulus, information processed, then reaction. What he proposes makes sense because the brain would process all the stimuli at once and then tell the body how to best react to it.
I found the introduction to the chapter relatively uninteresting. It was full of a lot of useful information and it also set the stage well for the chapter. However, it felt like the introduction kind of drug on for just a bit too long before the author started to get the most necessary information of the chapter.
I think as a whole structuralism makes more sense from a psychological perspective because everyone is different and therefore each of us has our own introspective process for our conscious experience. However in general I was more interested in the functionalist approach. It seemed a little more radical especially for the time with its base in Darwinism which wasn’t a widely excepted view either. I found it interesting how they tried to put a natural spin to the social world with social Darwinism. I also found it interesting how they thought certain people were more likely to succeed. I also think that understanding these two views are very necessary to better understanding the history of psychology and this chapter did a great job of setting a base for them.
There are many topics that relate to earlier chapters such as research’s building on others work and ideas. One of the topics that stuck out most to tie in with other chapters is definitely the section on social Darwinism. True social Darwinism is not Darwinism at all but the basis for this theory is derived in Darwinism which helps it to easily tie into earlier chapters.
The person I would like to learn more about is John Dewey. The book had a lot to say about this researcher in the field of psychology and I would really like to further explore his reflex arc.
One of the first things I found interesting in chapter 7 was the main elements of conscious experience. I found the differences between images and sensations to be very interesting. I had never really thought about the differences of seeing images, versus feeling sensations, and basing them on a specific quality, amount of time that they continued and the vividness with which they occur.
I found the part on Dewey to be very interesting, and his view on education. I thought that his point of view on education of drill, memorization of facts to be very important. It was really neat to see him create a laboratory school in 1896. I think it’s noteworthy to many educators and psychologists that in 1896 people realized that roll and rill, memorization and repetition were not correct means of educating the youth, and yet only in recent years in some schools this policy has changed.
I also find it very interesting how much of the important new discoveries in psychology were occurring in Chicago, in the Midwest. In a boom town, during one of the most progressive time periods in our history so many new thought processes and ideas were being discussed.
I did not find the section on Thorndike to be very interesting and for some reason that section was hard to read and get through. The section did improve when reading about the Thorndike-mills controversy. I think part of the reason I don’t find interesting, is because it deals with animals and research. Regardless of whether the animals are treated well, I always have disliked using them for research.
I found functionalism more interesting because of how one reacts and adapts to the environment rather than how the structure of their thoughts and feelings. Functionalism seems to be a more important element in psychology rather than structuralism.
I think one of the most important things in the chapter in regards to its importance to the history of psychology is functionalism, because it looks at the individual’s response to their environment. The response to the environment and why they respond that way seems to be an important theme or issue of study in psychology, based on my readings in this class and other psychology classes pertaining to education.
I think the functionalism aspect in this chapter, goes along with a previous chapter in that, a psychologist whom I can’t remember his name, used his dogs and some sort of signal that caused them to drool, or the association with eating or something along those lines. When I read about functionalism it reminded me of that section of reading, and I believe the story about this psychologist and dogs were discussed in class as well.
I would like to learn more about John Dewey, I find this section in the book to be one of the most interesting because it has a lot to do with education, from what I read and his background was educational, political, and the book presented him has having and “ideal” American background, as a history major, I always find these traits to be intriguing.
While reading this chapter the first thing that I found interesting was functionalism. I thought that it was more interesting than structuralism. It is more interesting to me because I like learning about how body parts move and operate. I always think about how I am built and how I am able to do the things that I can do. This would be more interesting and enjoyable for me to learn about.
Structuralism was still interesting to me. I like how people are able to organize and map out the mind. I would like to see the progress that has been made with those kinds of studies. I think it is neat to look at a picture of a brain and see labels connected to various sections of the brain that illustrate what that area of the brain does.
The third thing that I found interesting was Thorndike’s Puzzle Box Learning. I think it is interesting how he took animals and studied them when they were hungry. I think watching animals search for something they need is interesting because it illustrates Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Animals when hungry will do almost anything to get food. In Thorndike’s experiments they have to pull on a loop cord, press a lever, or step on a platform. This would be neat to see how fast animals would learn to do this after a couple of trials.
One thing that I did not find interesting or at least I was not able to pay as close attention to it was Wesley Mills’ criticism of Thorndike’s work. I believe that Mill’s had a decent argument here, but I just didn’t care to read about how Thorndike’s experiment wouldn’t be creditable.
This chapter relates to the earlier chapters because it describes new psychologists and their studies. I think some of the new vocabulary terms helped me correlate this chapter to the others as well.
The first thing I found interesting in this chapter was Titchener's "How to Fail in Laboratory Psychology." I found all of his points to be very funny! I liked how he was able to mix valid information with humor in order to better relate to his pupils. It's a great way to make a perhaps boring topic much more interesting. Another topic I found interesting was Titchener's concept of "stimulus error." This is when people tend to talk about things by describing the actual stimuli themselves rather than the reactions the person experiences. I didn't know that such an error existed; the introspective attitude seems like a difficult way of thinking, but it's very interesting to read about. The final thing I found interesting in this text was Thorndike's work with puzzle boxes. Thorndike made a monumental impact on modern psychology; his theories on animal learning are said to be precursors to many more modern theories in operant conditioning.
Although I found some of Titchener's theories to be interesting, I didn't really enjoy the section on structuralism in general. I found functionalism to be much more interesting (as I preferred physiology to anatomy in high school) than structuralism. Therefore, the first half was pretty boring to me compared to the second half of this chapter.
I think the most important thing when learning about the history of psychology would be Thorndike's work. He is very well-known to psychologists today, and operant conditioning would probably not exist if not for him. For example, a topic from a previous chapter that relates to this would be B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning. This is extremely close to Thorndike's Law of Effect, and Skinner was probably extremely influenced by him.
I would like to learn a bit more about Robert Woodworth. Before this chapter, I had never heard anything about him, and his work sounds pretty interesting, especially the part about the S-O-R model. I would like to learn more about that.
The first thing i actually found interesting was Titchner and his "club" called the Experimentalists. Titchner had a problem with the APA mostly for personal reasons it seems, and I like how he decided to just start his own group and focus on experimental psychology solely. In the meetings the group members presented their work and findings to the rest of the gorup. I think with sharing information and rotating labs this helped evolve experimental psychology more.
Another thing that caught my attention was the section about social Darwinism. herbert Spencer first invented the famous statement, survival of the fittest. However he meant it in a different way than Darwin did. Social Darwinists thought that evolutionary forces were natural and nobody could interfere with them. People were poor, or failed because they simply weren't "fit" to compete with the strong and rich people. Basically social Darwinism spread the gap between different races, and class even further creating more social inequality. I found it very interesting that this was the beginning of fuctionalism in studying abnormal behavior and using psychology practically.
Another thing I found interesting was Edward Thorndike. His interests developed into animal behavior, and I found this subject to be very interesting because I know very little about it. His experiment with baby chicks was interesting as well. He would put baby chicks into a maze and watch them jump and chirp at the walls until they found their way out. After several times in the maze, the chicks stopped the behvaiors that didn't help them and went along their way to the end of the maze. Thorndike's most famous research on animals is his experiment with cats in puzzle boxes. Thorndike was trying to show that the nonsuccessful attempts were being stamped and the impulse to go the right way will be stamped in by rewarding the pleasure system. Trial and error was a big part of his animal experiences. Thorndike came to conclude that the cats conduct was influnced by what they had seen, not learned.
One thing that I found not interesting was the extended introduction and background of Titchner. Titchner is a very important man and influence on psychology but I felt that it was over extended and dull expecially when talking about the manuals and how to teach a laboratory class.
Hands down I find fuctionalism to be more interesting to me because I find behavior and physiology to be fascinating and it always keeps my interest. Structionalism is important too, but it never really sunk in as well as fuctionalism does. I'm more interested in the functions of psychology than the structure of it.
I think learning about functionalism and structinalism is important to understanding the history of psychology because both were and are very important aspects of how psychology evolved and what the psychologists did to improve the science.
Many of the psychologists in this chapter were trained and learned from some of the psychologists/philosphers from the previous chapters. Titchner was a student of Wundt (as were many). These chapters all really relate to each other. Charles Darwin's ideas of evolution in chapter five relates to functionalism and how it got many psychologists thinking in a more evolutionary way.
One person I would really enjoy learning more about is Edward Thorndike. I think him and his animal research is really fascinating and exciting. I would like to know more about his reseults and what other experiments he performed or contributed to.
I found the differences between German and American students procedures/drills was an interesting read right away. I was interested in the German freedom that came from the students pretty much having the chance to do anything they want by running their own experiments and discussing concepts with their more experienced students. I think that most students would dream about having this kind of room to breathe and experiment, however I have always found that some sort of adult guiding presence is helpful. Then the American universities were doing drill courses, which as the name implies mean they were going back to the basic and classics. I think that these students may not be as creative and inventive as their German counterparts, but I would think that it is safe to say they are much more acclimated with the laboratory. This acclimation could lead to new discoveries that feed off of their original base knowledge, i.e. knowledge leads to creativity.
One thing that I did not enjoy about this chapter was the section about the quantitative experiments that were being conducted by the students, I realize this is a small section but my dis-interest in this type of information goes back to previous chapters and even spills into some of my other classes outside of this one. For example, I rather enjoy economy classes but I prefer to learn about more abstract ideas and how things affect us on a larger scale (qualitative ideas). I do not do well with all of the more specific formulas and algebraic equations that go along with these more abstract ideas. So as much fun as it is for me to read about sensory reception and other ideas like that, it is equally as boring for me to deal with number equations and the speed of telegraph keys. Although I do understand how vital this process is to information gathering.
Social Darwinism was cool to me because it was something that I had never heard of but the more I read it the more it clicked and made total sense in my mind. I really enjoyed it because it had a lot of connections to Darwin’s Evolution theory, but was applied to everyday living and in this way it seemed to be even more interesting than it was before. Obviously it is easy to see the relationship between the books view on industry’s not being fit and being left to fail, and our own economy a few years ago that was interfered with by the government and ended up bailing out those massive corporations. It was very cool to see an idea that was created so long ago have a massive impact on today’s world.
Darwinism was also a topic from a few chapters back that showed up again, like I knew it would, and I was more than happy to learn more. I was always interested in this idea, not for its religious reasons but simply because I thought it was interesting. Here, instead of survival of the fittest animal, they talk about applying it to modern society and the effects it can have on businesses and companies. However, it’s hard to swallow the whole “if successful, fit” “if fit, successful” notion, but I feel like that is too big of a concept to discuss now.
Dewey’s progressive education was a brilliant idea. Being a history major I am always interested in the Progressive era and turn of the Century America. With all the reforms happening it is not surprising that someone would take a stand on education. Dewey seemed to be the kind of teacher most students want to have equal opportunities, creating an inviting classroom, and fighting against a tired and broken system. It is great to see a psychologist that took what he learned and helped integrate it into a classroom and seeing it become extremely effective. I feel like there are definite similarities between things he said and what we do in this class and only a select few of my others. Dewey also seems to be a man that I would be willing to learn more about both as an educator and in the psychology field.
The first part of this chapter that I found interesting was Titchener’s “How to Fail in Laboratory Psychology.” I found this list to be amusing! I found it interesting because today there would be a list of how to succeed instead of how to fail. I liked this approach, and I do agree with Titchener, in that I do not believe many students would take offense to this list, because it is so good-natured.
I also found Titchener’s group, The Experimentalists, to be interesting as well. I enjoyed the fact that because he didn’t have to same feelings that the APA did regarding experimental research, he created his own group. This group met occasionally and discussed various aspects of experimental research. I did find it interesting that women were not invited to attend because Titchener did not want the men to worry about behaving appropriately in front of women.
The section on John Dewey was also interesting to me. I enjoy reading about people who are willing to stand for change in regards to something they believe is wrong. I enjoyed learning about his push for educational reforms. More than just his stance, I also enjoyed learning that he created a laboratory school to learn more about how children learned best in the classroom setting. I also enjoyed learning about how he campaigned for women’s suffrage during a time when women were seen as inferior beings.
I felt that the section on Titchener had a lot of interesting aspects, but it was a very long section that made it overall uninteresting for me to read. I felt that it could have been condensed, which would have made it easier to get through.
I found functionalism to be more interesting than structuralism. For me, I felt that functionalism was more relatable to by personal interests. For example, I am interested in individual differences and how people adapt to their environments, which is an aspect that functionalism covers more widely than structuralism.
I think that the background of both structuralism and fundamentalist approaches are important in understanding the history of psychology. These are two different approaches that helped to form the field of psychology as it is studied today. By learning about these approaches, we can get a better view of how psychology has developed as well as learning about important people who assisted with this progression.
I think that this chapter relates to the previous chapter on the topic of women inferiority. In both chapters we read about how women were not included in certain aspects because of the time period. In the previous chapter, women were not allowed to attend certain schools, and in this chapter, women were not invited to take part in Titchener’s club.
I would like to learn more about John Dewey. I think that from what I read in the book his work seems very interesting, and I really enjoyed reading about his activism.
The first thing I found interesting in this chapter was E. B. Titchener's experiment of how he used students in labs to do drill courses, which students would study the classic studies on how everything worked instead of doing actual research. I thought this section was interesting because I thought all students studying psychology do some research about a topic, but I was wrong. In the section, it explains that in American Universities students would conduct these in the laboratories.
The second thing I found interesting was John Dewey. I found John Dewey's theory of Reflex Arc interesting because of the different elements in the stimulus producing sensation to act or give the signal for the motor response. We all need to use our senses to act on what we do in everyday life.
The third thing I found interesting was Edward Thorndike's theory of animal behavior. I found him interesting because he used baby chicks and put them in a maze to see if they would be able to use a different pattern to get out. I knew that psychologists used animals in their experiments, but I didn't know that he used the chicks for their intelligence. It was very interesting section.
I found the background information of Titchener was very uninteresting to read. I found that this section kept going on and on about his background information, and I thought they could of shortened up the information instead of going into detail after detail.
I found functionalism to be more interesting because how our body parts react to what environment we adapt to is different than what our minds think. I also thought that functionalism has actually worked in the field of psychology and structualism is not really talked about with psychologists.
Social Dariwnism relates to this chapter because it talks about the theory with how its all natural and not every human alters the environment. It also relates to functionalism.
I would like to learn more about Thorndike's theory of animal behavior intelligence especially with the mazes and the puzzles. I am interested in it because I love animals, and want to see what other information there is about the intelligence of these animals.
I thought Titchener as a character was very interesting. He just seems like such an eccentric person. I also find it interesting that his methodology was so groundbreaking in its attention to detail, but because it was founded on introspection and the assumption that people can reliably and impartially report their own experiences (and that they can be *trained* to do so), it was ultimately a flawed methodology. It's a sad irony, really. I also appreciated his sense of humor in the excerpt: "How to Fail in Laboratory Psychology".
I was also interested in Woodworth and his involvement in developing a better approach to experimental psychology. Whatever else they're taught in Intro to Psych, every psychology undergraduate learns that correlation does not imply causation, and that is to a large extent due to Woodworth. I think it's really cool to read about one of the people who forged the methods we use today in psychology.
I was very interested by the characters in this chapter. In particular, I appreciated Thorndike's irreverent attitude. I think irreverence represents the spirit of science. He was not afraid to criticize his elders, such as Wesley Mills, and he helped to pioneer a dominant paradigm in psychology, although he did much more than his work in behaviorism.
I was not very interested in the structuralist approach to psychology. I think it's important to learn about it, and to learn about Titchener, but I didn't find structuralism very interesting.
I found functionalism to be much more interesting, because it wasn't so much a theoretical framework as a foundation for theoretical frameworks to come. It helped pave the way to behaviorism, cognitive psychology, abnormal psychology, social psychology, etc. Structuralism just seems like such an introspective dead end.
I think learning about the relationship/competition between structuralism and functionalism will help me obtain a useful insight into the development of various fields of psychology from functionalism.
The relationship between psychology and Darwinism seems to be a recurring theme in the history of psychology. As a Darwinist, I was a bit disturbed to see Darwin's ideas laid out prescriptively by Herbert Spencer, and I hope that we as scientists can learn a lesson in humility. It is one thing to argue for a theory, it is another to disadvantage entire groups of people on the basis of the truth of that theory. Any theoretical framework could be wrong, and all of them are to some degree. No scientific "certainty" (scare quotes for the impossibility of scientific certainty) is worth inflicting suffering on human beings.
I would like to learn more about Thorndike, because he just seems like such a great character. In short, he was a bad-ass who challenged authorities in his field, not just on the basis of youthful rebellion, but with the spirit of scientific endeavor (he even calls Mills out for not being enough of a scientist to try and replicate his results before criticizing them). He embodies so much of what I think the spirit of psychology should be.
John Dewey is the first person that I came across to be of some interest. What I found interesting about him is his thoughts on the reflex arc. He didn’t believe that the reflex was divided into three different parts or elements, which I can’t say I do either. But what he did believe about the reflex arc is that it’s a way of adapting to the environment. Using the candle as Dewey’s example, it shows that by seeing the flame on the candle and reaching for it, that the frame is hot. Therefore, the hand quickly withdraws from the flame and the candle. We adopt to this environment by learning that the flame on the candle is hot, and with the heat comes pain. Most people don’t find pain very enjoyable and we learn to stay away from the flame because it causes pain. What amazes me is how young most of these guys are when they graduate high school and college. Dewey was only 15 when he graduated. Others had their doctorate by the age of 18. I’m 21 and I’m working on by bachelor’s degree. I can’t image how smart these guys had to be to get that far at such a young age, or maybe it wasn’t as long of a process to get a degree back then…
Harvey Carr was an “ok” interesting kind of guy. You don’t hear about people that are interested in studying mazes for a living. It’s also nice to see that at least one of the many great psychologists had financial problems. The way the others make it sound it was like cake getting into college and paying for it…ha-ha, yah right! The question that I still have for him is what exactly did he do with the mazes?
The most interesting person of this chapter was Thorndike. He also liked to work with mazes but at least he had a research goal in mind. He sort of reminds me of a zoologist. He did work with a few different animals and studied how they reacted and got out of the mazes. Thorndike started off with chicks and then moved on to cats. Both of them kind of did the same thing, they would jump or craw and the walls for a while. Once they figured out that that’s not getting them anywhere they finally started walking around in the maze and found their way out. Over time the animals would, instead of clawing or jumping around, they would start looking for the exit.
I can’t say that I found this chapter incredibly interesting. I’d have to say that the least interesting part about this chapter was Robert Woodworth. His little section was a little boring to read. I’m also not a fan of the independent and dependent variables, all thanks to research methods. So reading that he was the first person to really use them didn’t come across me as cool or neat.
When it comes to structuralism and functionalism, I’d have to go with functionalism. Why? Because it deals more with people’s behaviors and to me I see psychology more as watching people and their actions. Plus I like learning about behaviors.
The person I would pick to do more research on is Thorndike. He was the most interesting in this chapter. I’m curious on what else he did with the mazes and animals, and of course other researches he has done in his life time.
The first topic that I found interesting from chapter 7 is Edward L. Thorndike and his interest in animals and intelligence. One study that he is widely remembered for is his study on how cats learned how to escape from constructed puzzle boxes. In a way you can say Thorndike is a lot like Pavlov and Watson. Thorndike was a leader of the functionalist movement and was interested in how individuals adapted to their environment. Over all I really liked Thorndike's study of instinct in baby chicks. This was studied by placing them in mazes formed by books that were placed on end. Thorndike said that they just made a lot of noise, and jumped out of the maze by climbing the walls. Eventually, they eliminated these behaviors and found their way out. This was interesting to me because I have actually tried to do the maze thing with baby chicks. They do try to jump out and end up making a mess out of everything.
The second thing that I found interesting in chapter 7 is connectionism. Thorndike called this "trial and accidental success." According to this chapter, an animal learned to make connections between certain stimuli in situations that required them to escape. By making these connections, they were then successful in their escape. According to Thorndike, this first connection is accidental, causing the behaviors to be repeated until successful. This is interesting to me because this happens in every day life with people.
The third thing that I found interesting in this chapter is Titchener's idea that the main elements of conscious experience are sensations, images and affects. According to Titchener, the elements of images and sensations have characteristics of quality, intensity, clearness and duration but sensations are much clearer than these images. The qualities of affects are unpleasantness and pleasantness. This was interesting to me because when you think about the mind, this statement can be very accurate.
The least interesting thing that I found in this chapter is Titchener’s lip key that was used in voice reaction time. The right side of the key would then be inserted in the participant’s mouth, and when the participant opened their mouths to respond to a certain stimulus, a circuit would be broken and the clock would be stopped. I just found this not interesting because I thought it was a little weird to put something in someone's mouth.
I found functionalism more interesting that structuralism. Psychology is mainly about behavior, and how this affects people and their decisions. Functionalism has a lot to do with abnormal behavior, and when it comes to psychology, I am especially interested in abnormal behavior.
I can't say that I believe this chapter will completely help me understand the history of psychology, but understanding people and their different contributions is definitely a start. Like all of the other chapters, this is how the chapter intertwines with another. It introduces us to people and their contributions to psychology.
The person that I would like to do more research on is Thorndike. I feel that his interest in animals and their intelligence is fascinating. I am especially interested in learning more about him because when I was younger I always did mazes for my animals. In that aspect, I can relate to him and his interest in this research. I also want to know more about trial and error learning and what kind of research he conducted in this field.
Chapter 7 began talking about Tichener, the person I was least fond of from this reading. He seemed like a stuck up man who would not accept anything but his own ideas. I understand he came from a different culture and wanted to follow those beliefs, but he seemed to try and oppress those ideas onto his colleagues in America. This “gentlemanly” conduct of Tichener’s did not seem to pertain to women, either. Because people did not want to follow his beliefs on structuralism, he had to create his own group to hear what he had to say or discount competing theories, saying they did not use the experimental control that he used in order to get accurate results. That seems a little childish to me, but I guess if you want your idea to get out there, you do what you have to do.
I did enjoy Tichener’s list on how to fail in laboratory psychology, however. In all the other lab classes I have taken (which is a LOT considering I’m a Biology major), there always seems to be at least one person who interrupts the professor, works really loudly, comes in late, or tries to question the processes that have been tested over and over again by actual scientists. I thought the chart described some of my classmates pretty accurately!
I also thought Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinism was an interesting concept. I had first thought that Darwin was the one who coined the phrase, “survival of the fittest,” but that is not the case. The extra credit movie “Monkey Trial” mentioned social Darwinism, so I was glad it was talked about in this book. Reading this section also reminded me of the current movement “Occupy Wall Street” because the 99% non-wealthy Americans are standing up against the 1% wealthy. If these people trusted social Darwinism, they would believe that they are not the 1% because they are not the fittest people to become that wealthy.
One thing I did not find very interesting was Tichener’s structural elements of human conscious experience. I feel like we have read about sensations and images a lot in this book, so I just felt like I was repeating the previous chapters again. The same thing goes for reaction time experiments; there has to be some new ideas coming soon!
I think that functionalism is more interesting than structuralism because I like to know how and why things work. Using Tichener’s analogy, I would much rather study the physiology of the human body than the anatomy of it.
I think functionalism is the most important thing from this chapter because it is America’s psychology. Everyone besides Tichener seemed to be interested in using animals, children, and insane, which opens research up to so much more exploration. This concept allowed psychologists to search for new answers and develop psychology into what it is today.
Introspection was talked about in this section, and it was also mentioned in chapter 4 in Wundt’s laboratory. It is not surprising Tichener was a major believer of introspection, considering he and Wundt were good friends. Even though it is now known to be a very inaccurate way of recording observations, it is still an interesting part in psychology’s history.
I would like to read more about John Dewey. I thought his ideas on educational reform and the reflex arc were really interesting, and I would like to know more about them. The fact that he was also an advocate for women’s suffrage also intrigued me.
The first piece from the chapter I found interesting was the relationship between Titchener and the APA. I found it interesting that a leading psychologist of the day didn't agree with the main organization that was trying to further the field of psychology which he argued the meetings of the organization didn't accomplish the goal of furthering psychology. I also thought it was interesting that he started his own organization, the Experimentalists, to fix the problems he had with the APA.
The second piece of information from the chapter I found interesting was the section on John Dewey and his attempt at educational reform in the early 1900's. Dewey was way ahead of his time in this regard because his suggestions to teach people and children, learning by doing and interacting with one's environment, were not utilized by the majority of schools until well into the century. I also thought it was interesting that he created his own Laboratory School in Chicago to study how children learn.
The third item I found interesting was Thorndike's study of puzzle box learning with cats. I found his explanation criticizing the claims of higher mental powers for animals to be fairly humorous and entertaining. I found it interesting how almost every little piece of information was systematically studied and recorded even making sure to use the same animals throughout the experiment. I also found it rather interesting that the boxes he built were pretty poorly constructed compared to other small items that early psychologists built.
I didn't think the section on Harvey Carr was very interesting. It was kind of cool that he figured out a better way to create a standardization of mazes, but I didn't find it to be anything remotely more than that.
I found functionalism much more interesting than structuralism because it looks to answer the how and why questions of studying the brain compared to structuralism just studying the what type of questions. There was also much more information on functionalism in the chapter compared to structuralism who basically just had Titchener's section on it. I liked functionalism covers a wide area of topics. I did however appreciate how Titchener and structuralism was very adament about using experiments in order to support a theory.
I think Thorndike and his work will be the most useful in understanding the history of psychology because he contributed a good amount to the field of psychology. His Law of Effect also contributed greatly to Skinner's theory of operant conditioning which is integral to any psychology course today. The Thorndike-Mills controversy also demonstrates the importance of having peer review to either agree or disagree with a psychologist's work.
I was reading about trial and error learning in Thorndike's section and thought it related to Lloyd Morgan in chapter 5. Morgan basically came up with the same answer as Thorndike in his study of animals figuring out a maze of simple task, by trial and error. They both figured out that animals probably don't have higher mental learning, and the functionalists would want to know why that is.
I'd like to learn more about Thorndike because I kind of liked his connectionism theory, and I found his work with cats to be kind of neat.
One of the first thing I found interesting in this chapter was how Titchener described and explained what sturucturalism is. He explained it with the idea that it is just like anatomy. Just like an anatomist organizes knowledge about the body, so would a structural psychologist with the human mind. He went on to compare that functionalism is more like philosophy in the idea that a phisologist would look at parts of the body and how they function and the functional psychologist looks at how the mind works to adapt the individual to the environment. This is interesting to me and makes complete sense in the way he describes it.
In addition to how Titchener explained things, one of the other things I found interesting in this chapter about him was how his primary purpose of research was to determine the structure through experimental research. He said that in addition to functionalism and structuralism there was also a third goal for psychology which was explanation. He wanted to understand how the nervous system produced the various sensory, perceptual and cognitive phenomena that interested him. Not much of his research focused on this goal of explanation, but he still credited it as a goal.
One of the other things that caught my attention in this chapter was Thorndike and his pzzle box. He also intersts me so I always enjoy reading about him. I like the idea that he always thought he could do better. He was always striving. He would repeat experiments and he would control the learning history and the environements of the animals he studied.
The least interesting thing to me in this chapter was the section on the Chicago Funtionalists. Mostly because it was about history and dates of specific events and money, rather than people and the things they did, I skimmed over this section quickly.
I find functionalism more interesting because it is more about examining what is going on rather than how it is set up. It focuses on the human conscious experience rather than the structural elements and I would much rather learn about the experience.
I found functionalism more interesting so I’m going to talk about the “Functionalists” even though they wouldn’t consider themselves functionalists.
Dewey thought of the idea that stimulus producing sensation, central, processing producing an idea, and the act or motor response was too simple a way to explain how we go about responding to things. He thought f it more as a function of adapting the organism to its environment. We have learned throughout our development that we must grasp things, which is reinforced. By being able to grasp things we are increasing our coordination which will also lead to more difficult tasks. This explains the first part of Dewey’s explanation learned history. The second part to his explanation is “a learned event”. We learn things that hurt us, things we like, etc by experiencing them and then associating it with the object when we see it again. The example Dewey uses is grasping a flame. You would first see and grasp the flame. The second part would be being seared by the flame and withdrawing your hand. Now “seeing a burning candle is no longer mere seeing; it is the seeing-of-a-light-that-means-pain-when-contact-occurs” (226). It focuses on how the organism adapts to the changing world through learned experiences.
I also found it interesting that Dewey launched progressive education. We had discussed in previous chapters the importance of children learning through interaction with the environment. Previous studies had shown the children that lived on a farm had more knowledge than children in urban areas when they first entered school. Dewey hated the strict ways schools were set up so he created “Laboratory School”, to study the best ways in which children learn. Dewey also found that “children learn by interacting with their environment-they learn by doing” (226). This seems like such an easy concept to us now, but it was not fully proven until Dewey’s Laboratory Schools.
Thorndike’s theory of connectionism I found to be very interesting. I had briefly learned about it in introduction to psychology, but I got to see it more in depth in this book. He used cats and three different cages with different escape mechanisms. He found that at first they cats used instinctive ways to try to get out: biting or clawing. After mistakenly coming across the answer to open the door, the cat would learn to continue the action if it was trapped again, as the way to get out. He also found that if a cat learned a way to get out of one box and was put into another box with a similar exit strategy, it would get out faster. I think this study is so interesting, because it can be directly related to the way humans go through problems. In situations like being trapped, your instinctive reaction is to thrash to get out. After calming down you have time to find a way out. Once you get out, you know for the future the way to get out of this situation. This also relates to Dewey’s idea of learned events. I think Thorndike would be an interesting person to do more research on, especially the Law of Effect and Law of exercise, which wasn’t really discussed into detail.
After reading the section on functionalism I think its further study would be most beneficial into the study of history of psychology. I think it’s more important to study how and why things are the way they are, than what they are. (This probably would make me more of a functionalist)
I thought section on Angell was very boring. It gave insight into his upbringing, but didn’t say much about what he did besides argue that functionalism was better than structuralism. He did clarify that functional psychologists want to study mental operations, the “how?” and the “why?” of consciousness where as structuralist’s would study the “what”.
How does we make a bridge out of a highway? Let us forge a bed out of two sliding chairs, eventually our rear ends will fall to the floor and we will wake with soreness abound. The brick licks some day-old grits mailed direct from a Waffle House in Naples, Florida. When are we? Emotional Elements are like Plum Wine in the Amana Colonies, I never have time to stop and pick some up. So I appreciate Titchener and “The Structural Elements of Human Conscious Experience.” I was very interested in reading of the sensory elements, attributes, and clearness.
I have a very close friend colleague out of Des Moines, IA by name of RahBahWintahBahtum who spends his time in service of others. Lately he has been set up in Joplin, Missouri where horrifying tornado happenings have devastated the people and area. In responding when I raised questions concerning his experience and his new life outlooks he responded, “things are getting darker, but clearer.” I have thought much about what he said since that day. RahBah is not the type to “ramble on,” either is he a kind to explain himself too much. He provides opportunities for me to contemplate and apply for myself. So what did he mean, “things are getting darker, but clearer?” I think he is challenging himself with experience, I think he is living his life for betterment of others, I think he has felt great sadness and grief, I think he has offered relief, I think he is traveling a tunnel in fear and faith, I think the light guiding him is the light he selflessly gives up to someone else, I think he is getting adjusted to darkness, I think he has developed night vision. I think RahBah is a Spy.
I feel that we cannot have functionalism with structuralism. I am glad someone else is doing the structure part though, because reading those accounts was boring and not interesting to me. I enjoyed reading on the functionalism of things. Reading that Titchener was not much ado about application turned me off right away. What good is having a fast metabolism if we don’t use it?
I greatly enjoyed reading about Robert Woodworth and “elective” curriculum. I find this relates to our class specifically and also to educational philosophies discussed earlier in our text book. I am excited to research more about Woodworth and the S-O-R model to apply in rehabilitation and education environments. Thanks!!
The first thing I found interesting about chapter 7 was Titchener's "How to Fail in Laboratory Psychology". It was very interesting because I laughed through the whole thing. It was like reading the advice of a kid in high school biology class. He sounded like he really had fun making these, and it was really funny to read.
The second thing I found interesting was the chick experiment. Edward Thorndike had baby chicks try and work their way out of a maze (books standing on end). I thought it interesting because I have never heard of studying chicks and mazes. It has always been rats, which has made the stereotype "lab rats". Never had I heard "lab chicks!". I also found it interesting that they actually figured it out!
The third thing I found interesting in chapter 7 was the actual picture of one of Thorndike's puzzle boxes. I have been learning about these kind of learning tools for animals, but have never actually seen one. It looks very home made, which interests me a lot.
One thing I didn't find interesting was the bit on "from oxford to leipzig to cornell". I found it boring to read and wasn't really interested in learning about it.
I found functionalism more interesting because I would rather know about how and why things are/work. It seems more in-depth and interesting to learn about WHY than WHAT.
A lot of the different experiments mentioned in earlier chapters have made an appearance in chapter 7. This might indicate how important these experiments were in the history of psychology. The most useful thing to take out of this chapter having to do with psychology would have to be all the different experiments. Ranging from Tichener's olfactory experiments to Harvey Carr's mazes.
I would love to learn more about Edward L. Thorndike and connectionism. I found him very interesting.
I found the section on the Manuals written by Titchener to be very interesting. What was first so interesting to me was the fact that German universities allowed students to run and investigate their own research while American universities developed drill courses which rather than running their own experiment, they were to investigate someone else’s research and repeat those studies. It is interesting because from one perspective it is as if American universities are moving backwards rather than forward. From the other perspective, though, it is as if we are establishing the building blocks to run our own studies and learning the basics so that mistakes are not made later in life. I also thought it was interesting that the students ran the studies on themselves rather than other participants which can cause error in the study in that they know what to expect because of all of the research they have done on the subject, causing them to react similarly to participants in the study previously.
I also found it interesting how biased Titchener was when he insisted so much that the laboratory have “tight control.” He was so focused on the “generalized adult mind” that he did not worry about differences between one mind and another. He also only used adult minds in his studies and only generalized his findings which only pertained to them. If he is so concerned with control and controlling variables, I believe that he should have used all types of individuals to really prove his research to be true. He also wrote The Manual which is essentially the beginning of research methods, and if I learned anything from that class it was randomization and the importance of doing so when doing research.
Finally I found the section on puzzle box learning to be very interesting. Thorndike built his own puzzle boxes and placed cats in them. There would be one way to get out but the cat had to figure it out for itself. Once they finally learned how to get out, they would repeat the behavior, this is using operant conditioning; the cat is rewarded- being able to get out of the box. From here, Thorndike came up with the theory on trial and error learning. From here he developed his Law of Effect, which summarized essentially means that behaviors followed by reinforcement will most likely recur and those which are followed by punishment will likely stop from occurring. Later he modified this and found that reinforcement is more effective in producing learning. He also came up with his theory on Law of Exercise, “practice makes perfect.” He found this to be truer when it came to motor skills and is not typical when applying to higher forms of learning.
What I found to be the least interesting were the sections on structuralism. This section seemed to be very repetitive and did not flow well. It just seemed to me as though this subject required you to understand the basics of perception and sensations which I have yet to have a class in and honestly am not that interested in. It also was written in a very “sciencey” manner that I just do not especially enjoy. Therefore I obviously preferred functionalism and found it to be much more interesting. Other than basic concepts drawn from structuralism, a tight lab setting, it really is not used today. Functionalism focuses more on behavior and mental processes which I have always found to be very interesting.
I think that the sections on Thorndike will be most useful in understanding the history of psychology because I have always been interested in behavior and behavior modification. Behavior modification can be applied in so many situations and is incredibly interesting to learn how to use these methods on yourself and in others. This section also cleared up some questions I had from my behavior modification class which was incredibly helpful.
The functionalist way of thinking is definitely related back to Darwin from chapter five. Functionalism is “focused on the study of human conscious experience from an evolutionary perspective, concerned with studying the adaptive value of various mental and behavioral processes.” We learn from our experiences and progress and learn from all of these.
The person I would like to learn more about from this chapter is Edward Thorndike because I found his research to be most interesting and applicable to life today.
Finally we get a little humor in this textbook! Joking – I don’t think I’ve ever read a textbook that was funny. So reading the section on How to Fail in Laboratory School was a very nice surprise. The humor was very witty and the best part was it was very relatable. My first semester here at UNI I took both general chemistry and general biology. Both of these classes had labs, and since were introductory courses, contained a lot of freshmen. Therefore I saw many freshmen, or just students in general, make the same “mistakes” as Tichener described.
I’m a big animal lover and thought the portions on Thorndike were interesting to read. It was nice for his more popular study that he used cats instead of rats. Rats are gross. He was concerned with how cats were able to escape out of trick boxes. He explained that animals were able to do this by making “connections” with certain stimuli, and therefore calling it “connectionism.” He also came to this theory by studying baby chicks through mazes.
I know a lot of people already wrote about him, but I really liked John Dewey and his theory of reflex arc. Describing this as an adaptation to an environment seems so complex, when in reality its very simple and makes complete sense if you ask me. The candle example illustrates this best; we feel its hot, so we pull our hand away. This is so important, especially for the young who can’t comprehend that a lit candle is always warm.
Social Darwinism didn’t draw my interest as much as I thought it would. Besides the whole “survival of the fittest” not originating from Darwin, the whole thing bored me and I had to read it twice to comprehend what I had read. I also don’t know if I agree that every human doesn’t alter the environment in some way.
The person I would like to learn more about is the maze guy, Harvey Carr. I’d like to know about this, because I find mazes very interesting. When I was a kid I traveled a lot in the car or on planes to visit relatives, and one of the things I would do to pass the time was draw my own mazes.
You hear a lot about structuralism and functionalism in psychology classes. They were both very important to the evolution of psychology. It’s nice to know the background on each of these topics, therefore I found this to be the most helpful in learning about the history of psychology. Though I hate to admit it, it’s important to know where things originate. Between the two, I’d definitely have to favor structuralism. The brain fascinates me, so its fun reading about the organization of it, or our “mind map.”
Once again, we heard in this chapter how women struggled in psychology and the world of education. This is so mind boggling to me as well as frustrating. How did people not THINK back then?! It makes me very grateful that so much progress has been made for women’s rights.
John Dewey was especially interesting to me because I see him a pioneer in the educational world. He saw that children needed to interact with the environment in order to learn. He launched the progressive education movement which was intended to make this possible. Dewey was also a man who wanted equality and actively fought for this.
The second thing I found to be interesting was what Harvey Carr did for the research world. By standardizing mazes he made it possible for the studies to be more reliable and also more easily replicated. It is things like this that make psychology an ever evolving field.
The last thing that I found interesting was the experiments that Edward Thorndike did. I think that working with animals and watching them try to escape boxes would be a fun job. I believe that he put a lot of detail in his work and because of that he was able to make a lot of good generalizations. For instance he rejected the idea that animals went into a lot of complex reasoning.
What I did not like about this chapter was that it addressed Titchener and introspection again. I really did not pay a lot of attention to this section because I am not a fan of theory at all. I was however please to see that in this chapter that more people began to openly discredit it. For example with people saying the extensive training that Titchener recommended only created a greater bias.
I personally find functionalism to be a lot more interesting that structuralism. I find it more interesting because I believe that it is a more complex idea. Instead of just looking at what, functionalism focuses on the why and the how. I do think that structuralism had to be created in order for people become interested in and create functionalism.
I think what I can take from this chapter that will help me understand the history of psychology is that psychology is always changing. Theories can be respected one day and looked at as foolish the next. This tell me that for everything that was being published both back then and now there is probably someone who either disagree, or who is willing to ask question about it.
The parts of this chapter that talked about American psychology relate really well with last chapter. In this chapter they talked a lot about the advancement of psychology in America. It was interesting to think about how in the chapter before that psychology was just becoming popular here. In chapter seven it was almost pointless to leave the country to do psychology because you could do just as good if not better in America. I really like how the chapters tie in and how you are able to see and learn about the constant growth of the field.
John Dewey is an individual that I would like to learn more about. It is pretty funny to me that 1890’s he was trying to address an issue in the schools that is still an issue today. The issue is the way that children are being taught is not the best way for them to learn. I would like to see how people responded to this then, and most importantly I want to know why this problem could not have been handled then.
It’s a paradox, but I thought the least and the most interesting thing in the chapter was the section on Titchener. To me, Titchener sounds like kind of a hypocritical d*bag. He said that the ‘fundamental problem’ of introspection was that one could not have a conscious experience and reflect on that experience at the same time - but then, as his third way of ‘dealing’ with the problem, he says that lab personnel can be trained to do precisely that (HMP, 217-218). (Was this training, or indoctrination? Goodwin poses a very good question[HMP, 215].) Everything had to be 'his way or the highway' with Titchener: he lectured in his academic gown, arguing that “the attire conferred on him the right to be dogmatic” (HMP, 222); he joined the APA so he could promote his theories, co-opted the APA Journal so that he would have control of 1/3 of its pages, and quit the APA three times when he wasn’t getting his way. He also didn’t want formal presentations of papers or published descriptions of activities at his little ‘club’ meetings (HMP, 215).
He was also one of the people who promoted the “Old Boys Club” mentality of early psychology (which I actually find interesting, as a phenomenon in itself - since we tend to expect intellectuals to be more ‘enlightened’ about these things). Titchener and the Experimentalists helped each other into “good academic positions” and excluded women from their discussions because they would “undoubtedly interfere with the smoking” [HMP, 216]).*
Of course I find Functionalism more interesting than Structuralism; I think I’ve shown a lack of patience (and -admittedly- understanding) for that aspect of psychology in these several blog posts. People were really starting to do things with comparative psychology and child psychology at that time - yet Titchener disregarded their work. He wasn’t even interested in psychiatric disorders - as the ‘insane’ could not be reliable reporter of their introspective experiences. That just seems crazy! But I do think that understanding the development of Functionalism will be helpful in understanding the history of psychology, since it was not the dead-end that Structuralism was.
I could also rant about the introduction to the section on “America’s Psychology: Functionalism” and the description of “rugged individualism” and “social Darwinism” - whereby the few rich convince the many poor that individuals have to either make it or break it on their own. (Did you read that Topeka, KS now wants to decriminalize domestic abuse, saying that the cost of prosecuting the offenders puts too much strain on the city’s budget (http://thinkprogress.org, 10/06/11)? What population do you think will be hit hardest [sorry!] by that?) This is really a bastardization of Darwin’s work on natural selection (HMP, ch. 5).
I would like to know more about John Dewey. I agree with his argument that dividing phenomena into discrete parts imposes an artificial structure on our perceptions that does not jibe with practical experience (HMP, 225).
*I like a good cigar myself, but in the words of Groucho Marx, “I take it out of my mouth every once in awhile.”
I found the section about Thornedike’s puzzle and learning section interesting. He tested animals to see if they could learn how to escape by pulling a cord. He called the first process of trying to escape trial and accidental success, and eventually after multiple times this behavior becomes learned. I also found the criticism interesting about the construction of his boxes. Most text books would leave that detail out and just talk about the impact of his work. This is information that most people are probably unaware of, but I found it a bit humorous. Although, Thornedike was not cut out to be an architect, he made great contributions to psychology.
I found the part about failing in the laboratory interesting. The humor that Titchner had in this probably reflects his character. I liked that he did not make it how to succeed; being a college student we get papers like that usually in a syllabus that most people just skim over. If I received a paper like this, I would certainly read it. This also saves the teacher from the little annoyances that are suggested, because I am sure each one of these points stuck with the students just because of the humor. I thought this was very clever of Titchner, and although not really important to my understanding of psychology, it helped break up the “normal” textbook reading, and I found it interesting.
Finally, I found the section about Titchner. He did a lot of experiments to benefit the field of psychology, and he worked towards making things more classifiable instead of just an observation that was hard to actually think of tangibly. I think this helped the average individual to understand more about psychology. His work was all done in a laboratory, so it helped psychology to gain more credibility as a science, which allows it to viewed more highly. Titchner did a lot of work for one individual in the field of psychology, and his contributions are still beneficial.
I did not find the extensive information on each person to be interesting. I think a little background on people to see where they came from is great, but for each person it seemed like their whole life story was included. I started to skim those sections to get to the part where it actually discussed what contributions that individual made for psychology and not whether their Father was good or not in business.
I found structuralism more interesting than functionalism. Structuralism is more analytical, and I would like to be a counselor someday, so analysis is very important and useful. I don’t think that a “generalized adult mind” is achievable, but it is good to have a basis. When working with people, it should be understood that everyone is different, but the majority of people usually fall in an average category, so this can be very useful.
I would like to learn more about Harvey Carr because the section about him was short, and I didn’t quite understand what he did even after reading it twice. More extensive detail about his work would have been nice. Funtionalism relates to the section about Darwin, because his ideas were used with social Darwinism and adapting to ones environment. Without Darwin’s work, these ideas may not have been thought of, so Darwin’s ideas were good contributions.
Chapter seven introduced us to two major topics, structuralism and functionalism. Throughout these two topics, there were many psychologists introduced along with their studies. The first thing I found interesting was the background of E.B. Titchner. Often times I am not interested in the background of psychologists but for some reason Tichners was more interesting. I think it could be due to the fact that he worked with John Watson, who I’ve learned about. When I can relate people to one another and I know about the other ones work, it seems exciting, almost like putting a puzzle together. I also found it interesting that Titchner studied at Wundt’s lab. Titchner also spread the word of German psychology by translating books by Wundt and Kulpe into English and this lead him to create his own texts. I just thought it was awesome that Titchner had worked with all of these psychologists, especially since their work is so popular.
The second thing I found interesting in this chapter was Spencer’s system come to be known as social Darwinism. “Social Darwinists believed evolutionary forces were natural and inevitable and any attempt on part of humans to later these forces was misdirected and harmful.” I thought this was in interesting movement because it was so blunt; towards the bottom of page two-hundred and twenty-three, when it gives examples of fitness or unfit. I would have to say I agree with some of the ideas I was just shocked to see them because anymore, if people were to say that, there would be a lot of pissed off people.
The third thing that caught my attention in this chapter was John Dewey. He believed that there were three separate element components. They were, stimulus producing sensation, central processing producing an idea, and act or motor response. Dewey also believed that there was a continuous circuit rather than an “arc.” I actually really liked the example he gave talking about a child and a burning candle. The conclusion of this example after a child reaches for a burning candle, seeing a burning candle it “no longer mere seeing; it is the seeing-of-a-light-that-means-pain-when-contact-occurs.” This is an important thing to understand and is also easy to understand, but some people still do not agree. I also found Dewey’s background to be very interesting as well. One thing I really liked that he argued was “psychologists studying human action should not be concerned with microscopic analysis into elements, but with how the act functions to promote organism’s well-being in the struggle to adapt to its ever changing world.” I really like this idea and think that it could be very beneficial to follow.
The section I found least interesting was “the manuals.” I think that just mentioning the manuals and giving a brief idea about them would have been enough. This section just seemed to drag on and included a lot of information. The thing is, I felt like a lot of the information was beginning to be repetitive. I am not saying that it isn’t important to know about the manuals but I guess to the extent that this book went into detail about them seemed a bit unnecessary.
I found that both structuralism and functionalism were both interesting and important, each in their own way. What sold me on functionalism was when John Dewey made the argument that I have listed above. I agree that it is important to view how people act and adapt to the changing world. Even though it is important to look at the human mind, sometimes actions speak louder. Again, I think both are equally important in their own way, I just think that functionalism may tell us more and is interesting.
Just like other chapters, I feel that all of this information is helpful when it comes to us, as students, understand the history of psychology. I think that it is important for us to see that there are multiple individuals that have contributed to psychology. I have often noticed in my other courses that we review the same psychologists. I like how this book has given us a variety and it helps us get to know other people who have contributed such as, Carr and Angell for example. I think that all of the people listed throughout this chapter and the others are important for us to know in order to understand the history in psychology. Without them, psychology may not be what it is today.
Titchner was presented to us in the last chapter. Along with his ideas of observers having to be highly trained, we now have learned that Titchner also had opinions on gender differences. There were many other people that were brought up in this chapter that were taught by people we have previously learned about. The fact that Titchner worked with Wundt in his lab was interesting just because we know who Wundt is so it makes the information more valuable. Like other chapters, we were able to learn about new psychologists which is extremely important because often that is limited. Too often we go over the same psychologists in ever psychology course, this book has done a good job by introducing the people who often get overlooked.
I would like to learn more about Thorndike. The reason he stuck out to me was because he was willing to take on critics. I think this is a big deal because many people allow others to break them down, but not him. Seems more like Thorndike accepted the challenge. He also stuck out because he did a lot of animal research and I thought it was interesting to know that his landlord had removed his animals. He was also a leader of the functionalists. All of these made Thorndike memorable. I would like to learn more about what he did and what he accomplished throughout his lifetime.
I seemed to be having problems logging in, so I’m going under Loren Varney now instead of seasqueaker. Just FYI for the TAs. Hopefully this will remain the same throughout the semester.
Interesting thing #1: Titchener’s indecisive membership with the American Psychological Association. Edward Bradford Titchener resigned his membership twice only to rejoin both times. He had several “issues” with the association, from the name (American – he was a Brit) to the unwillingness of the organization to punish a fellow member for allegedly plagiarizing Titchener’s works.
Interesting thing #2: Herbert Spencer introduced the phrase: “survival of the fittest,” not Darwin. The difference between Darwin’s and Spencer’s ideas of what constitutes “fitness” go from any attribute that furthers the species’ survival (Darwin) to any characteristic that helps a species win the fierce battle over scarce resources.
Interesting thing #3: Thorndike’s baby chick mazes… maybe because the idea of little fluffy chickens running through a maze of books is so cute, or maybe because their progression from frantic escape tactics to “learning” the escape route is fascinating. Thorndike’s landlord “evicted” his subjects, most likely because they were too chirpy.
Thorndike’s puzzle box studies and “trial and accidental success” data were interesting, too. As a parent, I’ve seen trial and error learning in my children and once the connection is made, they don’t soon forget it.
Finding something less interesting always seems to be the hardest part of the chapter assignment. Probably the biographical portions of Robert Woodworth’s section. I get tired of reading the famous people who complained that they wouldn’t be significant or have any influence.
I found Functionalism more interesting than Structuralism since I think evolution plays a large part in how we were formed physically and mentally, and we’re constantly evolving as a society and individually. I suppose the study of Functionalism has built on Darwinism that we learned about earlier in the book. The differences between the two and where they intersect, though, are the most useful parts of this entire chapter.
I’d like to learn more about Thorndike since he seemed to be very inquisitive. I’d wager he has some very interesting studies and theories that weren’t explored in this chapter.
When first reading chapter seven I struggled but as I continued to read to gained more knowledge about functionalism. I found many different things interesting! I did struggle but I was able to get understand key points, or what I thought was key points.
The first thing that sparked my interest was when it was talking about Titchener about the observers. From observers it continued to talk about reaction time and how the observer would let go of the telegraph key when he observed a stimulus. Once they felt or received a stimulus they would let go and then go it again in order to get a different stimulus. From this the apparatus was able to show proof so to peak of the results. Titchener was handy in experimental psychology.
Second was the reflex arc theory with John Dewey. John Dewey suggested that our reflexes happen in one fluid motion. When this was talked about I instantly thought about your reflexes with your knee when you visit the doctor. To me this made sense because I felt that the brain would receive the message and make everything happen at once. Dewey is best known for leading the progressive education movement. His views on education was very informal. I also felt like Dewey is someone that we can take more interest in due to his findings and understandings.
Lastly I found it very interesting on how much of the important new discoveries in psychology were occurring in Chicago, in the Midwest. I found this interesting because that is not far from our state. It would be very interesting to find out what find of experiments were happening in other close states.
I did not find Thorndike very interesting because we have learned about him in so many other chapters. It is very repetive at times and then tends to bore me and have no interest. I liked what he did just was tired of reading about it.
I would like to know more about Dewey. I know that he was talked about in the book and a large section was about him. Just was hoping to learn more :)
A few weeks ago, while reading A Modern History in Psychology, I found myself learning more about Chuck Darwin that I ever knew prior to taking this class. It is my understanding that it was actually Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," after reading Darwin's On the Origin of Species in Principles of Biology. Survival of the fittest basically says that the biggest, strongest, and most competent species will outlive and dominate the weaker species. Although this concept does make sense, I have not taken a stance on evolution. I do believe that there are certain circumstances in which the big does outlast the small, and only the strong survive. While reading this chapter, the concept of Social Darwinism had me intrigued. Social Darwinism applies the ideas and principles of evolution to modern society. Like natural selection, the theory of Social Darwinism states that the wealthiest, most powerful and biologically superior will survive in society while the poor and weak will fail. The idea, in some societies, is that the "fit" will improve the working and living conditions and the "less fit" simply drag everyone else down. As I read about Social Darwinism, i couldn't help but be reminded of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. The Holocaust had much to do with "natural" selection, killing as many non-Aryans as possible, in attempt to breed and maintain an ideal nation. If that's not a prime example of Social Darwinism, then I don't know what is.
Although I am not sure if I agree with functionalism rather than structuralism, or vise versa, I do agree with Tichener that it is important to understand function before one can fully understand structure. I like that the book compared the structuralist viewpoint with the question "What is consciousness?" and compared the functionalst viewpoint with the question "What is consciousness for?" I don't think it is fair to pick one side or the other, its like comparing apples tp oranges.
I did find Robert S. Woodworth to be an interesting character in this chapter. He thought that it was not only important to study the stimulus and the response, but also the organism that stood between them. This is another great example of psychologists asking questions and finding answers, rather than just accepting the findings of other psychologists.