Week #16 Final Assignment

The first topic that I found most interesting about this class was the Scopes Monkey Trial that we studied near the beginning of the semester and the documentary that we watched to go along with it. I found this case to be very interesting not only because it set a precedent for the challenging the law of teaching evolution but it also was fascinating to me the way that the trial in some ways was blatantly biased towards the prosecution of Scopes. I feel as though the judge making the courtroom say a prayer before the trial even started was completely unnecessary not to mention it could possibly be said to be discriminatory based on the semi-religious nature of the case. I think both Clarence Darrow and Jennings Brians fought hard for their case and in the end if anything else it got the town a name for itself and possibly the tourism it needed to keep the town alive.

The second topic that I found interesting about this semester was when I got the opportunity to look more closely at the topic of radical behaviorism proposed by B.F. Skinner. The one position that I took particular interest within this topic was the fact that many people believed the idea of radical behaviorism to be one that was at least semi antitheological. The fact that Skinner was proposing that almost everything in your life was predetermined or determined by your surroundings made a lot of people believe that he was against the traditional thinking that God had a plan for everyone. It also dove into the question of free will, which I personally think is a really interesting topic. If everything was predetermined to a degree does that mean that we had no control or no free will to decide for ourselves the decisions we make in our lives? No one really had the answer. Thinking this probably made a lot of people confused and angry, causing a lot of the commotion surrounding this school of thought.

The third thing that I found most interesting in this course was when I got to look into the little Albert study and instead of looking at it from the point of view that most history books do, a great tribute to the power of conditioning, I instead looked into the possible flaws and critical thinking within the study. What I found was quite interesting. Like the fact that Watson lied about little Albert’s health condition. He stated that little Albert was a perfectly healthy young boy, but in reality Albert had a serious terminal medical problem which caused his death at the age of 6. No one really can know for sure if this problem had any influence on the study’s result but it was very unprofessional of Watson. The other thing I found out about the little Albert study is that all of the recorded reactions to the mouse or any other stimulus were completely subjective to what Watson and his assistant thought they were. Although they made a video of the experiment all of the reactions in record on paper were those of Watson and his assistant with no operational definitions to be found.
I think the things that I’ve learned in this class has changed my view of psychology mostly because I now I look more critically at studies in psychology and especially writing in psychology. I really took to the first chapter of the book when they talked about presentism writing and how that isn’t always the best way to look at things. Ever since then I’ve been looking more into what people discovered in their own time terms. I think this will help me in the future to find future flaws in mine or others studies or paper and help me understand more of the history of psychology and its importance in the time frame that it was discovered in.

I feel like the information that I learned during this class complimented a lot of my other liberal arts courses in my educational career so far. Like I said previously, reading the book and learning about the different ways that history can be written will help me in other courses to look more critically at the information I’m learning and maybe be able to see a different persepective. I think the blog writing will also become useful in any communication setting. Writing down the things that I think and the ideas I have will better help me to communicate them verbally or written in the future whenever I need to convey an idea to someone and help them understand exactly what I am talking about.
I appreciated this course and the discussion also that we did in class. It is always interesting to see what other people have to say and the ideas that I may have never thought of. I love hearing others perspectives so that they can expand my ideas.

Terms: psychology, Scopes Monkey Trial, evolution, Clarance Darrow, Jennings Brians, radical behaviorism, B.F. Skinner, antitheological, free will, behavior, Watson, Little Albert, Subjective, operational definition, presentism

The history of psychology is more than just dates and names of people and places. When we understand the background of our field, we can understand how and why things have happened the way they did. The foundation of psychology has progressed massively throughout the years and eras. Researchers and the meaning of psychology is always to help people and wonder why people are doing the things they do. Humans are so fascinating and so are animals. Behaviors and attitudes are combined in making life original for each person. This course was more than learning about the past, but focusing to improve the present and future. The main three topics I want to focus my interests on this semester are; animal behavior, Carl Roger’s client-centered therapy approach, and asylums.



 1. Animal behavior was one of the top interests in our modern psychology book because in history we have experimented with animals to understand human behaviors and attitudes. There are many past experiments with animals that were disturbing and raise some ethical issues in today’s society. One of the main things I enjoyed learning was the behaviorism of training animals using Skinner’s puzzle-box, and operant conditioning. Skinner’s puzzle-box experiment was so interesting because the cats would keep using escape mechanisms to make the process faster. The cats would take a while to find the “trick” that would let them out of the box, and after a few trials, the cats would be fast at escaping the maze. Training animals is always a major project, and has been something psychology has focused on through animal intelligence. Rats, cats, pigeons, and dogs are all animals that were used in changing a behavior or continuing a desired behavior. Behaviorism can manipulate an animal to the point that changes their daily routines. No one wants their animals to go to the bathroom in their house, so we use behaviorist techniques to have them potty-trained. The same goes for children, we can use these same techniques on humans to have a desired behavior performed. Animals need reinforcements for these behaviors to continue the behavior.
Operant conditioning was used by Skinner and Pavlov. When a behavior is emitted it is followed by a consequence and the future chances of that behavior occurs again is due to those consequences. When the consequences are positive, reinforcement is used as a reward. In animal behavior, a treat or reward is highly recommended to control a behavior in a familiar environment. Stimulus control occurs when an outside source starts to become the stimulus. For example, a rat pulls a bar to get food and when he pulls a bar the light goes on. The rat will start to recognize that the light is associated with the food. The rat will then only press the bar when the light is on, and the light is the stimulus control. Training animals for entertainment purposes use operant conditioning and behaviorism to continue a “show” or certain routines.

 When I went to sea world when I was younger, Shamu and other dolphin shows were interesting because the animals did tricks and made it look easy. However, after reading the sections on behaviorism, one can realize that training does not happen overnight. Trial-and-error takes place continuously in training both animals and humans. The trainer can find what works for certain animals and species and what doesn’t work. Animal intelligence is completely on a different level, because each animal is different, just like each human has different learning skills. I use operant conditioning and behaviorism when I train my animals, but I have to keep at it to see the results I want. Animals are amazing, and I can’t wait to further research on today’s animal intelligence and discoveries.

 2. The second topic that was intriguing to learn about was the therapy approach of Carl Rogers. Carl Roger’s believed in client-centered therapy, which was lead by the client instead of the therapist. Roger’s used this therapy to provide an empathy relationships between the patient and therapist. Empathy is one of the best genuine ways to feel what the client does, and be a good listener. When a person achieves empathy, they can honestly understand or give accurate advice because they care. Roger’s believed that this humanistic approach to psychology was effective and requires trying to understand how a person views things.

 I honestly believe that this therapy approach would be something I would personally use if I was a therapist. I really agree with Roger’s view on empathy and understanding your patient’s thoughts and beliefs. A reflection of the client is important and Roger stressed this to other clinical psychologists, when the approach became popular in the 1960’s. When the client feels like there is someone that shows empathy to their problems, it make you want to trust that person. Roger’s created a new type of therapy different than Freud that was more logical and worked.

 I have always wondered what type of therapist I would be if I was listening to a patient. Like I have stated before in posts, all people need different kinds of help and attention, but we all want someone that we feel safe with. Most people that do go see a therapist know they need help and want someone that can guide them and give them positive feedback.
Roger’s therapy is exactly what most people want, wanting someone to listen but give positive regard back. I know personally I would love to have a therapist that understood my thoughts, and wanted me to express my feelings. Venting to a stranger is different then venting to a friend or family member, there just is a different outcome. Your friends and family want to please you and give you the response you are “LOOKING” for, and not exactly their honest answer. The best type of therapy is when a client can relate to their therapist with trust,which is called transference. When transference occurs, the bond between the client-therapist relationship is strong.



3. The third interest topic I chose was treatment of the mentally ill from the 1800-until present day. From the beginning people that are different from the rest of “us” were treated and looked upon with fear and loathing. The mentally ill were considered to be wicked or possessed. If we remember the Salem Witch Trials we can remember that they were even murdered because of their bizarre behaviors. Around the enlightenment there was a time where bloodletting was a part of treatment for the mentally ill. Bloodletting is when a doctor or professional would want to remove the diseased blood and cure the illness.

 Benjamin Rush promoted bloodletting treatment and would reduce the tension by removing many ounces of blood then return them to the community. Rush believed that this treatment was working because the symptoms would be reduced, but one can know in today’s society that is because the blood made them feel weak. It is hard to picture this kind of treatment happening in today’s society because if anyone tried to perform this horrible act, they would be sued and wiped of their doctoral license.

 However, if we really would like to think about it, for the time was it really that crazy if they believed it was working? When we donate blood today, is it almost the same thing, we feel weak and not “ourselves.” The example of donating blood can be the closest feeling that these patients in the enlightenment era were experiencing. Rush and many other researchers may have thought this was honesty the best way to treat others “morally.” If they felt like the symptoms were reduced, they felt like they were helping the patients and curing them of their diseased blood. No one can even picture this kind of treatment, but what about the asylums? People were treated just as harshly in the first housing facilities, and still neglected in today’s society.

 The first asylums were private and were not very crowded. The patients received the help they needed by using moral treatment programs and placed in outdoor therapeutic activities. These were only available though to families and people with money, that could afford this “established” kind of help. The mentally ill at this time was not as lucky and wound up in jails or poorhouses (almshouses). The poor roamed the countryside and the population of the mentally ill were growing. To picture what the poor were experiencing, when there are homeless on the streets of cities, we may overlook them or frown upon their lifestyle. Many time when the homeless are living on the streets, they develop a mental disorder. The poor are suffering when it comes to finding the best resources to improved care. This makes me wonder if the crooks and the thieves in jail at this time had a mental disorder, and did not know they could be treated/rehabilitated. The asylums did grow to allow both the rich and poor in one state-funded facility, so that was one progressive way to equality within the facility.

 Money is always an issue with healthcare, and providing the best possible care for those who desperately need it. Why should those with money be the ones to receive the best doctors and specialists? What about those families that deserve the best for being good people and struggling to survive. I have never understood why the mentally ill are at the “bottom” of the priority list in helping people. Children, adults, and the elderly are developing mental disorders on a daily basis, and its increasing. In the past they could only detect if they had a mental disorder because of certain “behaviors.” But now in today’s society, some mental disorders are not clearly visible. How can we defined what is normal compared to crazy? What is normal to one person could be something bizarre and crazy to someone else.

 Our society has not progressed enough to understand and have patience with those less fortunate then us or different. The mentally ill need housing and care-givers that are supportive and genuinely want to help them. The people that do perform to the best of their ability are kind hearted and do not care about getting paid the “big bucks” to help others.
 Inequality in asylums did not just end with separating the poor and rich, but also the men and women. Let’s not forget the hysteria era that accused of women to be “crazy” because of they had a uterus. Hysteria was thought to occur would a woman would have a seizure or nervous tics. Women were treated unfairly from the start of history, but has progressed in recent years. Women are still not on equal status as males, but continue to fight for these rights.

 Asylums have always been interesting to me, because I have been in a mental hospital once in my life. My brother has schizophrenia, and when he was placed in the hospital, I went to visit him, and I realized how white and open everything was inside the building. I believe that there could be more color and other conservation psychology used to improve the conditions for the patients. Nature and animals are two things I believe are helpful in rehabilitating an illness. Asylums are not just a “crazy house,” but should be a place that those with severe disorders aren’t just heavily medicated, but doing normal activities. 

In today’s society we can learn from the past treatments and housing conditions of the mentally ill, and continue to change to equality and better conditions. Now there are particular laws and guidelines that must be followed in housing facilities and when treating the mentally ill. As a whole, we have not reached the “perfect” solutions for the mentally disturbed, but organizations and human rights advocates fight each day to make the experience better for the patients.



 In conclusion, these three topics were very appealing to me and I compltely understood the history and want to learn more. The material from the Modern Psychology book has changed my view on many psychologists like Freud, Skinner, Watson, and many others. I also learned more about the women and minorities in psychology. The experiments and research in animal behavior, therapy approaches, and treatment of mentally ill have progressed and have changed due to the mistakes learned from the past. We can only remember that at each time has it’s own social norms and discoveries. If I have learned one main phrase it would be not to quickly judge the mistakes of the past but critique it, and understand why psychologists and scientists believed their discoveries were the best. The world’s “norms, morals, and ethics” seem to change in every era. Through the many discussions in class and analyzing research, we can understand modern psychology. There are many concepts such as behaviorism, Watson, and Freud research that built on from other classes at UNI such as; Personality Psych, Gender Differences in Psych, Developmental Psych, and Intro to Psych.


 This course was more than just a required course, but I learned that discoveries from the past is what has made our psychology progressive, today.



Concepts and Terms: skinners-puzzle box, operant conditioning, animal intelligence, Behaviorism, Pavlov, stimulus control, trial-and-error, Carl Rogers, Client-centered therapy, transference, empathy, humanistic approach, reflection, clinical psychologists, blood-letting, Benjamin Rush, asylums, poorhouses (almshouses), hysteria

1. I really enjoyed the discussion we had over Darwin’s theory of evolution. He was such a game-changing researcher in so many fields, which wasn’t his intent. His theory was incredibly important in the field of science, and created a whole new way to look at living organisms. It suggested that there was a struggle for existence, as well as natural selection. This can be seen in his observation of the finches in the Galapagos islands. Each species were altered to survive.
How does this relate to psychology? Comparative psychology grew out of our individual differences between those in our species, as well as other species. You can take this notion in many directions. But two stick out in my mind. This created a way of thinking about each person as unique and distinct, with their own way of living, dealing, and comprehending the world around them. Which is almost incomprehensible. The other side is a little more dark, and it’s the idea of eugenics. While I know it wasn’t entirely based in psychology, it is the thought behind it that makes me upset. The idea was constructed by Galton, for the enhancement of a species. It’s sickening to think that humans are capable of creating such a monster with this, especially towards other humans. It encouraged some peoples to reproduce, and certain to abstain. In it’s more aggressive form, it meant not only sterilizing the populations that were frowned upon, but assassinating (i.e. Hitler’s holocaust). I haven’t mentioned this in my prior blogs, but I spent three weeks in a capstone in Poland studying the effects of the holocaust as well as national identity. And after meeting a holocaust survivor, it really hit home that I met someone who was outright attacked because of the person he was raised as, which makes this whole subject a little more impactful.
2. Jean Piaget’s work was scattered throughout the book, from his influences to his own emergence into the cognitive psychology field in the 1920’s. Like Darwin, his research didn’t begin in the area he’s known for. When he was growing up he was intrigued by biological findings. After completing a Ph.D in biology, he became interested in epistemology, specifically genetic epistemology. Like Darwin, he noticed that person is unique , and that no two people attain, organize, and use knowledge in the same way. The finches learned (debatable word choice) or adapted to their own environment to survive. We discussed autism at one point in the semester, and this is so relevant to this idea. Each child with autism, has adapted in some way to learn. While some cases are more severe in other, their knowledge on a few subjects can put even the brightest of researchers to shame. This idea of genetic epistemology is so unique to these kids, and while autism tends to be grouped together, no two autistic people learn the same way.
3. Paul Broca, a French neurologist, was able to trace a physiological deformity in a patient named “Tan” from a psychological defect. This patient understood all that was said to him, but could verbally respond only with “Tan”. Eventually, he lost control of the right side of his body, and his health continued to spiral downward. Broca’s final conclusion on “Tan”, as well as other patients he encountered, was motor aphasia. This meant that while he could understand speech, and had normal intelligence, expressing his ideas was flawed. When Broca examined his brain, he observed that there was damage in his left side of his frontal lobe, which we now know is where speech expression is located (Broca’s area). In addition, he named another form of aphasia (sensor aphasia), that is means the person cannot comprehend speech but producing speech is not affected, creating illogical or incoherent speech.
In review, I think what I learned from these readings is some of the best works and influenced psychology the most weren’t necessarily intending to. This class has made me reflect and understand how a lot of research is (almost) luck. Had Darwin not gone on that voyage, who would have gotten the credit for evolution in the magnitude that he created? Had Broca not stumbled upon “Tan”, how long would have it been until someone realized that speech creation and understanding are two areas of the brain? As an Ed. Major, this complemented my educational psychology classes, and understanding that each student is a unique learner.
Concepts used: struggle for existence, individual differences, eugenics, natural selection, comparative psychology, genetic epistemology, autism, Paul Broca, Broca’s area, motor aphasia, sensory aphasia

The area of psychology that we learned about this semester that I was most interested in was with Gestalt theory. I was so interested in these laws of perception that I actually did a study in my research methods class on “The Principles of Proximity.” This is basically that things that are close together seem to be perceived as being a pair or group. For my study I tested one of Max Wertheimer’s statements, which was that in a paired dot table, as shown in Figure 9.5 (a) in the book, it is impossible for people to perceive the first dot as a unit, the second and third dot as a unit and so on until the tenth dot is its own unit. I gave the Research Methods class the dot test and asked if they had heard of the Gestalt principle of proximity before. In the class 11 had and 10 had not. My theory was that it would be possible for someone who had previous knowledge of the task to perform the task and people with no previous knowledge to not be able to perform the task. My results showed that only one person was able to complete the task correctly and they had pervious knowledge of the task being asked. No one else was even close which made me think that while it is possible for people to perceive the dots as Wertheimer stated it was very difficult for even those who knew of the theory. Along with The Principle of Proximity are two other related areas. The first is the Principle of Similarity. That is basically that we like to organize things based on how similar they are to each other. This is almost so obvious that we seem to forget about it, but even think of how you make friends; you try and find similarities you and others share to kick start most friendships and conversation. The second is the Principle of Good Continuation. This is that we like organize things in smooth and flowing ways. An example of this is shown in the book as Figure 9.5 (c). When we see a cross like symbol we usually think of two lines crossing each other instead of 4 individual lines or two right angles. Our mind perceives the continuing line as one unit instead of breaking it up into smaller units. The other interesting thing to me in this chapter, Chapter 9, was Wolfgang Kohler’s research on insight with apes. Insight is the idea that once we have figured something out we have a moment of insight where we finally understand what we need to do. He did studies with his Ape named Sultan to show this phenomenon. A famous study involved Sultan having to use two sticks in order to reach a banana outside of his cage. Although descriptions of how Sultan finally found out how to get the bananas have Bias depending on what you read, the fact is that none the less Sultan finally figures out the puzzle in a moment of insight and gets the banana.

The second area I was very interested in was on the treatment of mental illness. My focal point of my interest in this field lies with Franz Anton Mesmer and his practice of “animal magnetism” and “hypnosis.” I find it so interesting how so many people believed what he was doing with meditation and moving energy through the body, worked even though most of the medical community refused to accept his practices. He did give birth in a way to hypnosis therapy, which seems to be beneficial in helping people relax and release anxiety, but I am disappointed that he turned his back on how he started animal magnetism with magnets and iron and turned towards believing that he had a magical gift. I do believe that his practices were not nearly as harmful as those of Benjamin Rush who was a practitioner of bloodletting. This was where when people were sick it was thought that bad blood needed to be drained from the body to cure the illness. Rush also thought this could apply to mentally ill patients and he actually saw a great deal of success when dealing with hyperactive people, but his success was less from bloodletting causing any long term relief and more to the fact that patients were so weak after losing so much blood they couldn’t hardly function let alone be hyperactive. Some good that came to the mental illness field involved Phillipe Pinel and moral treatment. This marked a huge change in how mentally ill patients were treated. Along with Dix and Beers who helped reform mental institutions life for mentally will patients greatly improved in the late 1800s, but was far from the quality of treatment we see today. One of the great changes that happened slightly after Dix’s work was the lightening up of mental asylums. Instead of looking like prisons mental institutions began to look more and more like resorts which alone had a very positive affect on many mentally ill patients.

The final area I was interested in was with research done on the nervous system. Descartes and Whytt’s work on reflex action are the primary reasons I became interested in this area. I thought that I might find out a trick or two to improving my reaction time, but alas I did not. After reading about Helmholtz and neural Impulse speed I had a better understanding of how reflex action worked. I am a fan of how Helmholtz went about looking at the nervous system because he was a physiologist first and a psychologist second. It’s nice to have a different view on something and instead of looking at the nerves from a psychological point of view he looked at them from a more practical, I believe, view of physiology. This is not to say that the ideas of Muller are counterproductive, I just feel like we can spend our time with trying to improve and understand what we do perceive instead of arguing over if what we perceive is really real. If when I die I wake up and find that this life was all just a dream and nothing was actually real, like Muller’s idea, then I want to make sure I get the most out of this dream through the principles of this dream world as I can and I will worry about whatever reality lies beyond it once I get there.

I feel like this class has strengthened me as a person and helped me come to realizations of things that I was once confused and bothered about. My statement in the last part of my last paragraph is an idea that I only recently came upon after taking this course. It’s not to say that I have figured all my problems out and that nothing will change in the future. If anything I have learned that change is good. As technology and education advance we are apart on a never ending process of self-growth. I mean if people believed in treatments such as bloodletting back in the day and we look back and think, “That’s stupid how did they ever think that would work?” Think of what we will look back on in 100 years and say that was stupid. I can’t believe people just sat in front of computers typing papers without wearing protection against, mankillingnanorays (made up), how stupid of them, now all people from that time period self-combust when they reach 80. This class also helped me to understand the basis behind many of my other classes and to see why we have to learn about Pavlov and Freud and other famous psychologists over and over again. It’s no because we really need to know the names of these psychologists it’s because we associate the principle idea with the psychologist which helps us understand the concept. Overall I am very pleased with my learning in this class, primarily it helped me branch out and read. I am not a big reader, but in the past semester I have probably double my lifetime amount of reading and I haven’t minded at all. This is probably the biggest gift this class has given me.

Terms:Gestalt Theory, Max Wertheimer, Principles of Proximity, Similarity, Good Continuation, Wolfgang Kohler, Sultan, Insight, Franz Anton Mesmer, Animal Magnetism, Hypnosis, Phillipe Pinel, Moral treatment, Benjamin Rush, Bloodletting, Asylum Reform, Descartes, Robert Whytt, Reflex Action, Muller, Nervous System Perception, Helmholtz, Neural Impulse Speed.

The first topic that I found most interesting in this class was eugenics. Eugenics was the idea that society could take measures to improve genetic material. This could be done through selective marriages and selective breeding. Francis Galton coined the term eugenics, because he was highly interested in intelligence and believed that it was hereditary. Like animal and plant species, he believed that humans also go through the process of natural selection, and that more intelligent humans would rise to the top of society. He explained his own and his colleagues’ successes were due to innate intelligence, and produce Hereditary Genius in 1869. Galton examined family trees of people successful people, and found that talents tend to run in families, and these talents tend to be similar. For example, doctors were related to doctors, and lawyers were related to lawyers. Twin studies were also used to reinforce Galton’s idea. He surveyed 94 pairs of twins and found many similarities between pairs, even if they were living in separate environments. From his research, Galton believed that we could breed through a process of artificial selection to produce a race of highly gifted men. This included encouraging certain people to reproduce, and discouraging the poor or other inferior people from having children. The concept of eugenics became popular and Galton founded a Eugenics Society in 1908 and a journal in 1909. Eugenics is cool and kind of creepy to think about. I found it interesting because Galton was thinking of humans like animals, and even though we are a type of animal, we are generally thought of as superior. I just think it is interesting to look at the human race like that and see how we are able to play with it and mold it to our specifications.
Social Darwinism is another topic that I found interesting in this class. Social Darwinism is relatable to eugenics, because both of their outcomes results in a superior society. Unlike eugenics, this was a way of rationalizing the gap between the rich and the poor. Psychologist, Herbert Spencer promoted this new brand of evolution, and coined the term “survival of the fittest”. He believed that these survivors were the winners of fierce battles for limited necessary resources, and that evolutionary forces were inevitable. Since they were inevitable, humans should make attempts to alter these natural forces of nature, because it could be harmful to the natural balance of things. For example, if a business is failing, the government shouldn’t do anything to help them because they were simply “unfit”. On the other side of the spectrum, people with wealth that have a financial gains shouldn’t be penalized for their success by taxes, because it is a sign of their high fitness. One implication of social Darwinism that I don’t particularly agree with is that the government should not help the poor. Spencer saw being poor as a reflection of being “unfit”, and their lack of fitness would spread to unfit children if these people were supported by the government. Although I don’t agree with all of social Darwinism’s implications, I find it highly interesting. I can see where Spencer is coming from in the business world, because if a business/store isn’t fit enough to be successful, there is no need to try to force their success. For example, I love Twinkies and all of the other Hostess snacks that are bad for me, but if the Hostess company was unfit for our society, maybe it was for the best to shut down.
The negative treatment of the mentally ill was also an interesting, although sad, topic to read about. Throughout history, treatment of the mentally ill can be labeled as less than humane. These people have been a source of fear to many, and have been regarded as evil or possessed by the devil. For a long time, they were seen as nuisances to society and were better of “out of sight and out of mind.” Benjamin Rush, known as the father of modern psychology, was the first to bring a more scientific approach to the treatment of mental illness in the United States. He believed that mental illness was caused by problems in the blood and circulatory system. One remedy for these problems was a treatment called bloodletting, believed to relieve hypertension in the brain’s blood vessels. This process involved opening veins and letting the patient bleed until they reached a more calm state. This treatment seemed to work but I think that people were just delirious from the blood loss. Another one of Rush’s treatments of the time was to be put in a contraption called a gyrator. This device was used to redistribute blood to the head by being spun rapidly. Mental asylums were not a happy place to be. Patients were often chained to their beds (sometimes for years), and living conditions were far from humane. Treatment for these people was often limited to sedation and restraint, and it wasn’t until the 1920’s and 30’s that new methods emerged. One example of these new treatments was the lobotomy. It was believed that by severing the connection between the frontal lobe and lower brain, physicians would be able to bring calming relief to patients. In 1946, Walter Freeman invented a new technique for the lobotomy that was called the transoribital lobotomy. This technique involved inserting an ice pick-like object into a patient’s eye socket and into their front and prefrontal lobes of the brain. This was a major breakthrough, because it could be done quickly, but on the other hand increased the risk of death due to severing an artery. I found this interesting, because I think that it is important to know how the mentally ill were treated so we can develop new methods that will humanely bring relief mentally ill patients.
I believe that this class has changed what I previously thought about psychology. I have always loved the field, but I was able to learn more about it and to create a better understanding of the different branches. One major thing that has changed my thinking was from chapter 8. In chapter 8, Alfred Binet was working on developing tests to measure intelligence, and created terms to label mental disabilities of the time. Two of these terms were idiots and imbeciles. Idiots were severely handicapped and unable to care for themselves, while imbeciles were a little more capable but not completely independent. It is really sad to think that these terms that were used to label people with mental illnesses are now used as negative connotations. I can’t even count how many times I have called myself or others an idiot when failing to get something right. After reading this chapter, I now catch myself when I’m about to use the word idiot to mean stupid.
The material that I learned in this class really complimented my other classes at UNI quite well. I feel like it rounded everything out and connected them to help me get a better understanding, especially with my other psychology courses. This course covered psychology’s philosophical roots, and retouched different concepts that I had previously learned. This also complimented the biology courses that I have taken, because of chapter 5 on Charles Darwin. We covered Darwin in biology and talked about his theories on evolution, but I feel like chapter 5 went into more detail and helped me learn more about not only his discoveries, but him as a person.

Eugenics, Francis Galton, innate intelligence, hereditary genius, twin studies, artificial selection, eugenics society, social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer, evolution, “survival of the fittest”, fit, unfit, fitness, mentally ill, Benjamin Rush, bloodletting, lobotomy, transoribital lobotomy, Walter Freeman, frontal lobe, prefrontal lobe, hypertension, gyrator, asylums, Alfred Binet, intelligence, idiots, imbeciles, Charles Darwin.

One topic that I always find interesting is Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution. When thinking of the theory of evolution I always thought of Charles Darwin. I did not realize that Darwin was actually not even the first person to propose the evolution of the “species problem.” Charles’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin did not agree with the creation idea which is the argument from design, which happened a century before Charles, but the text told that the “best-known” pre-Darwinian theory of evolution belonged not to Charles’s grandfather either, but to Jean Baptiste de Lamarck who was a French naturalist. Lamarck, like Erasmus Darwin believed in the chain of being, being that species could be essentially lined up on a linear scale. He also believed that these changes of evolution happened over that organism’s lifetime and could be passed on to that organism’s offspring, this eventually became known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In class discussion I remember discussing a rat, and how in a sense they sort of evolved physically due to the environment that they lived in and were adapting to their surroundings, and the example given in class was the shape and size of their snout and teeth, due to the vegetation. The reason I find this topic so interesting is because it is so debatable among different populations of humans. Some firmly believe in the creation (in which a supreme being created each existence), whereas others believe in the theory of evolution. I enjoy hearing different people’s perspectives on life and their reasoning.
Another topic in the text that I enjoyed reading was the topic on mental illness and its treatments. I am unsure why in particular this topic is so interesting to me, but I have always found these sections of topic interesting to learn about. According to the text many people fear or hate individuals with mental illnesses, they may also be treated “less than humane.” People were even considered to be possessed or to be “witches.” Benjamin Rush was the first person credited in America to have a scientific approach to treat the mentally ill. Rush believed that many of the illnesses came about from issues with the blood and circulatory system. The text book told how Rush became a “promoter” of a remedy known as bloodletting. It was a cure used to fix a wide range of illnesses. Bloodletting was used to remove the diseased or excess blood. He also designed two devices for calming the blood. One being the gyrator and the other the tranquilizer. The gyrator was a “revolving board” where the patient was spun rapidly. The idea behind this was that the blood would be redistributed towards the head. The tranquilizer was a chair with straps and a boxlike device that fit over the patients head. It would lessen the person’s movement and lower their pulse rate. Today I think these devices would be considered restraints or cruel. Like the text told on page 402, what the important idea behind it, and was at the time, was that the mentally ill could benefit from therapies.
A third topic I find interesting is behavior and behavior therapy. I find the Little Albert study to have been helpful in the history of psychology, but I find it also disturbing that a child was taught to be scared of something supposed to be nice and cute for children. Watson was a promoter of behaviorists’ ideas. It was/is thought that behaviors are a result of learning. Going off from this behaviorists believed that dysfunctional behaviors could be unlearned and replaced with other behaviors. While doing the Little Albert study Watson and Rayner had no intent to take away Albert’s fear of the rat, but they had multiple theories on how it could be done using conditioning. I just find this horrible that they taught this child to be scared of a rat, but never reversed the issue with the so called “proposals” they had to do so.
I think that it was more so the discussions in the class that had a change on the way I think about psychology and the world in general, rather than just the materials from the text, because my class mates brought up thought s or ideas about each area of topic discussed that I may not have thought of right away or even at all. It made me think of how theories and treatment shave come with time and even changed, such as the treatments for mental illnesses, and even the treatments of the patients in the institutions they may be staying in to get the help they need.
This class has complemented my other classes by continuing on with theories and therapies such as behavior therapy. I think this class, especially the mental illness section and behavior sections have connected very well with my social work courses, because I have learned the background and the history of these therapies.

Terms/concepts/people:
Charles Darwin, the theory of evolution, species problem, Erasmus Darwin, argument from design, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, chain of being, evolution, inheritance of acquired characteristics, mental illness, Benjamin Rush, bloodletting, gyrator, tranquilizer, behavior therapy, Little Albert, Watson, behaviorists, Rayner, theories, conditioning

Behaviorism was one of the most interesting fields of psychology that we learned about in this course. In particular, John Watson was a very influential part of the history of psychology. Although at times he was seen as “unethical” in both his professional and personal lives, he moved psychology forward a great deal. John Watson’s “Baby Albert” experiment is one of the best known experiments in psychology, and if you are enrolled in a Psychology 101 course, you are sure to learn about it. Watson showed in his “baby albert” experiment that fear could be conditioned in humans. He did this by associating loud noises with a white rabbit. “Baby Albert” began to fear anything white and fury. Whether or not this lasted throughout life, we cannot be sure; “Baby Albert” fell ill at the age of 6 and passed away. The “Baby Albert” experiment is without a doubt Watson’s most popular studies, but there are also others that should be noted for the sake of behaviorism. Another experiment by Watson was the “Watson/Carr Mazes”. These experiments were also considered a bit “unethical” by today’s standards. Watson cut the eyes out of a group of rats so that it was impossible for them to see where they were going in their environments. He also removed sensory detectors from their bodies as well, such as their olfactory bulbs, whiskers, and bottoms of their feet. Even with all of these disadvantages, the rats were still able to learn the mazes. I found this entire section involving behaviorism and learning to be very intriguing and thought provoking. John Watson was also the president of the APA for some time. After his career in Psychology burnt in flames due to his infidelity in his personal life, he became a very big name in advertising.

We spoke quite a bit about the concept of Intelligence throughout this course. We learned that Goddard, Terman, and Yerks set up some of the first intelligence tests. These tests were not very effective because of the biases. People that were born in America always scored higher than foreigners (I’m not even sure that this part of it has changed). Intelligence tests have changed a great deal since they were first created. I think it’s most interesting that tests have become a basis for almost everything we do. For almost any profession, you have to take some sort of test that really tests your abilities, similar to an intelligence test. This course made me realize even more that I don’t believe that you can really measure intelligence. Intelligence is too much of a subjective subject matter, and cannot be easily measured. Just because someone is smart in one subject, doesn’t mean that they are a smart person. The same can be said in reverse order; just because some isn’t smart in one subject doesn’t mean that they are not a smart person.

The final part that I would like to point out is one of the first parts that we learned about, evolutionism. I think that I found this part of the course to be one of the most interesting because I have never taken a religion class or evolutionary science course in college. In this course, I was able to learn a great deal about Charles Darwin and Evolutionism. Charles Darwin had a huge influence on Psychology that I wasn’t even aware about. The beginning of his studies was when he traveled to the Galapagos Islands and found that species are able to adapt to their environments. I found this to be quite interesting because of the relation to human behavior. Humans are able to adapt to certain environments/people in order to act in an appropriate way. I think that this is similar to the behavior that Darwin observed in the Galapagos Islands. Natural Selection states that the strong will survive, and the strong know how to adapt.

I believe that this course complemented the material that I’ve learned throughout psychology and will complement the material that I learn in my future psychology courses. Not only did this course give a basic history of the fields, persons, and theories; it also acted as a “final review” and “final explanation” before graduation. Whether intended or not, I see this course as a “capstone” within our degree. Justification for this thought lies within the facts that can be easily seen: The course is a history course, and is also very broad, covering almost every field of psychology. (This reminded me of Psychology 101, because of how broad it was). It seemed to me as if Psychology 101 was a “pre-course” to our psychology degrees, while History of Psychology was a “post-course”. In this course, I was reminded of theories and individuals that I had not heard of since Psychology 101.

More importantly, I learned the long journey that brought psychology to the place it is today. I learned why exactly I’m learning the things that I am in my classes. I better learned the names and faces behind the many theories that I’ve studied over the past 4 years. This course helped my learning in other Psychology courses especially, because I was better able to remember certain theories since we had discussed them in this class. For example, I had a test question in another class about “Cognitive Theory of Depression”, and I knew the answer because we had learned about Aaron Beck in this course. In short, this course better prepared me for the fields of life that I will encounter and how to approach the history behind them.

Terms: Goddard, Terman, Yerks, Intelligence tests, John Watson, behaviorism, APA, Baby Albert, Carr Maze, Mary Ilkes, behaviorist theory, Rosalie Rayner, Galapagos Islands, Darwin, Evolutionism, Aaron Beck, Cognitive, Depression, social darwinism, Harvey Carr, Maze,

One of the topics covered during this semester that I found interesting was the discussion of Robert I. Watson and the influence he had on the history of psychology during the 1960s. Watson virtually created the study by making individuals aware of the importance history has in relation to psychology. He did so through an article that was published in the American Psychologist, which was titled “The History of Psychology: A Neglected Area”. From that point on him and a group of like-minded psychologists began to broaden the field, even creating a new American Psychological Association (APA) division. I truly believe Watson and his colleagues had a lot to do with the current outlook of the history of psychology and in a sense we as students have them to thank for having the ability to study it now. I think an important aspect to learning about certain things is first learning where it stems from and that’s why reading about Watson was so intriguing and has given me a better understanding of when this study began to prosper. Obviously this is important and relevant material because this course is teaching the exact thing Watson worked hard to promote during the 60s – his efforts paid off. This topic also relates to the discussion of why it is important to study history in general. Daniel Boorstin’s quote taken from his essay entitled “The Prison of the Present” in chapter 1 really stuck out to me. It points out that knowing and understanding history can make us more content with the present. For instance, people often wish to go back to “the good old days”, which implies simpler terms of living and happiness. This stuck out to me because I can relate to it. I’m guilty at one time or another wishing for that exact thing or even that I grew up in a different era; with the assumption that it would somehow be better. However, people often say these things not realizing that there were hardships then just as there are now and history can be used help us understand that. Before reading this section, this was a concept that I had never really put much thought into and it made me aware of how closed-minded it was of me to think that by going back to some previous time would somehow make things easier or better. I’m not saying that I’m unaware of past hardships within our history, I just think a lot of times they tend to get overlooked when individuals wish to go back to a “better” time. I think sometimes our history gets taken for granted and some people fail to realize the true importance of it and why it’s important to study it – not just in psychology, but all fields. I think before you can ever get serious about learning the history of psychology you must first understand why history is important in the first place and Boorstin helped me make sense of that.

The contributions Darwin made to psychology were also interesting to learn about this semester. Darwin’s primary contribution was his theory of evolution, which promoted a way of thinking by American Psychologists, which eventually became known as functionalism. His theory also lead to an increased interest in what came to be called comparative psychology; which is the systematic study of similarities and differences among all animal species. Darwin’s theory also led to the systematic study of individual differences; which eventually led to the measurement of differences via intelligence and personality tests. However, Darwin’s book Expressions of the Emotions in Men and Animals is one of his most direct contributions to psychology’s history. Which leads me to believe leads me to believe that in order to truly understand the history of psychology you must first be familiar with Darwin and evolution as well as the impact Darwin had within the field of psychology. However, this course also taught me more about Darwin outside his theory of evolution which is all any course seems to cover. It was equally interesting to me reading and learning about what kind of person Darwin was and where he came from as it was learning about his contributions to psychology. I think learning about Darwin’s childhood and life made me appreciate his contributions even more. His life highlights the fact that if you follow your true interests in life you can really achieve great things. Darwin wasn’t the best student and struggle to find interest in things. However, once he discovered what his interests were he followed them even when his father disapproved and managed to become one of the most recognized figures in not only psychology; but in history.

Another topic I found interesting this semester was Desecrates Disclosure on Method. In this method he described four basic rules that he used to find truth of some matter. These rules were consisted of – first: he would accept nothing as truth unless “it presented itself so clearly and distinctly to my mind that there was no reason to doubt it”, second: he would take problems and analyze them – reducing them to their fundamental elements, third: he would systematically work from the simplest of these elements to the more complex, and fourth: he would carefully review his conclusions to be certain of omitting nothing. Although these four rules seem ordinary today, they were revolutionary during the time Desecrates presented them. He was no longer going to think in the same terms as authorities (i.e. Catholic Church), but rather for himself; coming to his own conclusions based off his own logical analysis. This is important to me because it still applies to psychology today, which is intriguing to think that someone so long ago could have the forethought to come up with a method that could still be relevant today. Psychology is literally built off skepticism and this was what Desecrates was promoting. Not only was he promoting; he was doing it against the church which controlled virtually every aspect of life during this time. Being skeptical in psychology is a good thing because that is how the field has expanded into what it is today. For example, think back to all the previous theories and experiments we’ve read about throughout the semester. Although some of them seemed crazy, virtually all of them shared a common theme. That is, they intrigued others to expand on them or make them better as time went on – which lead to a better and better understanding of whatever it was being studied at the time. Some people frown upon being skeptical, but in the field of psychology you shouldn’t take anything as fact unless it can be backed by empirical evidence and it can’t be improved in any way. If it wasn’t for Desecrates willingness to go against the church and promote his method; we might just take everything someone else does or says as fact without having the drive to research it or study it ourselves. I realize this thought is a bit dramatic and probably not true; but it goes to show just how important Desecrates method was to the field of psychology.

This class has changed the way I look at psychology by giving me an appreciation of where it came from. For example, I’m interested in Industrial Organization and this class allowed me to learn about how it came to be. Like I mentioned earlier I think sometimes it’s easy for us to take our history for granted without realizing the significance of it and the impact it has had on our lives. It’s easy to look at psychology today and think the history of it doesn’t apply to what the field has become. However, what some people fail to realize (myself included before this course) is that everything that’s happening in the field of psychology today has stemmed from somewhere in its history – virtually nothing is purely original. There might be original studies; but even those can be linked to something that has been studied previously. The only difference compared to now and then is that we have the ability to create a better understanding of psychology today. As technology advances it opens new doors to the field that those before us didn’t have access to and can lead to new findings and discoveries that those before us hoped to accomplished but couldn’t because they didn’t have the tools to do so. In a sense, psychology can be looked at as one large relay. The torch keeps getting passed along; creating new subfields and new findings as technology and society changes. It’s not that psychology is totally different now and can’t be related to its past – it’s just adapted to its surroundings overtime.

This class completed other course I have taken at UNI by giving me an idea of where they originated from. This course has complemented virtually every other psychology course I have taken at UNI. Not only did it expand my knowledge about important people that I thought I knew about from other classes, it also helped me truly recognize the importance of history in psychology – which was something I thought was irrelevant before taking this class. To be honest the only reason I took this course was because it was required. However, now that I have taken it I’m glad I did and I actually learned something and most importantly learned to appreciate where psychology came from and until you do that I don’t think you can have a true understanding of psychology. All in all, this course was more than just a history lesson, it was a life lesson.

Terms: Robert Watson, American Psychological Association, Daniel Boorstin, Charles Darwin, functionalism, comparative psychology, intelligence, personality tests, theory of evolution, Desecrates, Industrial Organization, skepticism

The three topics I picked as most important to me from the textbook and course were: the concept and measurement of intelligence, behavior becoming the subject matter of psychology, and the influence of Charles Darwin on the development of the field.

For me the most interesting thing is how psychology helped to create the concept of intelligence and more importantly, developed objective measures of it. I think this is one of the most valuable contributions that psychology has given to the world. True, some tests of intelligence may not be reliable and valid, and true, the concept of intelligence has been abused, but overall the developments in psychology’s study of intelligence are based in science and have been positive.

There has always been in society the idea that some individuals are “smarter” than other individuals. But psychology finally showed how to objectively quantify this difference by developing object tests of mental differences.

Mental testing was developed in the late 1800s and in to the 20th century. Stimulated by Frances Galton’s interest in individual differences, psychologists tried to go beyond the measurement of physical and sensory differences among individuals. There were many ideas and tests, but to me the one that was the most influential was the Binet-Simon Scales. These scales were used as the bases for a lot of testing that was done in the early and mid-1900s and was used to create different tests of mental capability. Alfred Binet was a psychologist from France. He studied his daughters, but found using tests developed by Galton really just measured sensory capacity. Binet believed that intelligence can only be determined by examining the more complex higher mental processes. He and his assistant Theodore Simon created the Binet-Simon, an intelligence test designed for children. The Binet-Simon scales had 58 different tests and could be used on children from age 3 to age 13. Binet developed his tests empirically by identifying two groups of student, one clearly superior to the other in mental abilities. He gave each group many tests and selected those tests that looked as though they indicated the differences in intellectual ability between the two groups. Children were classified by age groups, if a child scored two years below their age level they were classified as debiles. The score was called the mental level. That is, they were at one chronological age and at another mental age.

From Binet’s work other tests were developed in the United States. Today, we use intelligence tests to qualify children for special programs, both gifted and remedial. We use to them to test for brain damage. We use them to see if a person should be held to a lower standard in a court of law. We use them to select people for the military. Intelligence tests, even if they are not called that, are used in hundreds of applied situations. Whole courses are devoted to them in Colleges of Education and in Psychology Departments. This is why I think they are one of the most important developments in the history of psychology.

The next important development to me was the founding of behaviorism. This made behavior the subject matter of psychology. This may seem very different from what I just discussed, intelligence testing. It is. Intelligence testing was interesting in what Binet called individual psychology - how one individual differed from another individual. Behaviorism studied how the behavior of any individual could be described with very basic principles. So behaviorism was about what all people, or organisms, had in common. John Watson is credited with introducing the idea of behavior as the subject matter of psychology in his famous essay. He is credited with really getting the idea going. But two other individuals developed the principles that explained a lot of behavior.

Ivan Pavlov was one of them and he is one of the most important figures in the history of psychology, despite the fact that he didn’t consider himself a psychologist. He was really a physiologist and even won the Noble Prize in Physiology. He is thought of as one of the fathers of behaviorism for his ground breaking work on conditioning. He studied how to develop conditioned or learned reflexes in dogs and how simple behaviors could be built up into complex behaviors by the conditioning process. Pavlovian conditioning helped to explain how emotional behavior could develop. How we could learn phobias, for example. Pavlov’s work was advanced in the United States by John Watson as part of Watson’s program of behaviorism. It was even introduced into advertising by pairing a product with a more basic drive or instinct, like sex, or fear avoidance. The whole field of studying conditioned reflexes in animals owes its origin to Pavlov.

The second person to develop broad principles of behavior was B. F. Skinner. He invented operant conditioning. He showed how rewards influence behavior. How behavior could be shaped. How the schedule that the reward is given on can change the rate of behavior. He developed his principles of behavior by studying rats and pigeons. But he applied his behavior analysis to education, and many other fields. In fact, he wrote Walden Two and tried to show how it could be applied at all aspects of our society. It had something to say about everything that we do. Today, behavior modification, built on the ideas of Skinner and Pavlov is a very important technology in mental health, education, business, and many other areas. All of this was possible because behavior became the subject matter of psychology rather than just consciousness or mental experience. Behaviorism was a significant advance in psychology. Even though the cognitive revolution occurred later, no one, I believe, can deny the influence and contributions that behaviorism has made to our understanding of how to change behavior and help people in many different ways with many different problems.

My final choice is the contributions of Charles Darwin to psychology. He too was not a psychologist, but a naturalist who developed the theory of evolution by natural selection. But his theory and ideas had enormous influence on psychology and resulted in the development of many important contributions to the field. I will describe some of the most valuable ones that came from his theory. All of them were developed by other people, but they started with an idea that Darwin had.

Functionalism was a development in psychology that focused on what consciousness did, what function it performed for the organism, in contrast to the earlier structuralism that looked at the content of conscious. The idea that what mental processes did for the survival of the organism was an influence of Darwin’s thinking. This school of psychology also introduced animals to the psychology laboratory and the use of mazes to the study of animal behavior. Functionalism may never have developed in the way it did without Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Comparative psychology is the study of how mental processes compare and differ across species. Animals of all kinds were brought into the discussion of mental processes, of psychology, because of Darwin’s theory. Mental processes evolved like all other process of the animal according to evolutionary theory. This meant that lower species and their behavior were now important in understanding human behavior. This field continues today. For example, the study of chimp behavior and their ability to learn language. All of this was influenced by Darwin.

Study of Individual differences was developed by Darwin’s cousin Frances Galton. He tried to develop techniques for measuring differences and statistical ways of seeing how the differences were related. That is, which ones were highly correlated with each other. The entire field of mental testing gets started with Galton. Not just intelligence testing, but any kind of way in which one individual can differ from another. Galton wondered how much of the difference was due to environment and how much was due to nature. So he developed the twin study method, still used today, to try and figure nature and nurture out.

Evolutionary psychology was also influenced by Darwin’s theory even though it did not develop until the 1980s. Evolutionary psychology is a theory that tries to explain our behavior by how it was shaped in a past environment thousands of years ago. It says that our mental processes or mental organs are adaptive solutions to problems that our ancestors encountered. One of its strongest theories is our preferences in mate selection. It also tries to explain our sex role behaviors. It has had a great deal of influence in the field of social psychology.

These are the ideas that have influenced me the most in reading about the history of psychology and thinking about things that we have discussed in other courses that I have taken. All of these topics have come up in some form in other courses I have taken. For example, this semester I took statistics and we studied both correlations and analysis of variance. Galton developed the idea of correlation and Pearson developed one of the commonly used formulas for calculating it. Analysis of variance was developed by R. A. Fisher who was influenced by Darwin in his other work on genetics. This course has made me see how psychologists came to study the things that they do and how what they study has in some ways changed over time and in other ways remains the same, but with new methods and new theories. I would say that is the main idea I got from the course.

List of terms, people and concepts used: Darwin, Skinner, Galton, Binet, Fisher, Pavlov, Watson, operant, mental test, correlation, analysis of variance, natural selection, comparative psychology, evolutionary psychology, individual differences, individual psychology, behaviorism, functionalism, adaptive solutions, school of psychology, cognitive revolution, Binet-Simon Scale, intelligence testing, behavior modification.

The three topics I found the most interesting were women in psychology, research on children in psychology, and learning about mental illness and treatment.

The first topic I found the most interesting was learning about women’s role in psychology beginning from education to working in lab to receiving awards. The first mentioning about women in psychology I noted in one of my reading assignments was about how Muller welcomed women into his lab. Women faced a lot of obstacles while trying to get graduate-level training in the United States and Europe, but Muller already knew women were just as capable as men of quality research. In the 19th century, women were expected to grow up, get married, have and raise children and that’s it. A Harvard professor thought education after hitting puberty was mental damaging and a woman couldn’t handle that much mental activity could result in slow development of their reproductive organs. He believed the human species would be affected greatly if women pursued a higher education. Even with the argument against them, women had opportunities for enrolling in university, but not for the education men received. The programs they could apply for were ones “suited” their gender like home economics. Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale didn’t want to enroll women, but they decided to create a school for women that was affiliated with them. Vassar College was the first all women college along with Smith, Wellesley, and Bryn Mawr. Mary Calkins was the first woman psychologist I remember reading about who just so happen attended Smith College and later taught at Wellesley College. Calkins attended Harvard unofficially and eventually completed her thesis and Ph.D. exam but was never granted her degree from there. The last woman I read about was Eleanor Gibson. Gibson attended Smith College and worked with Carr, Boring and Koffka. She become one of the most known psychologists to do research with perception. While later attending Yale, Gibson looked forward to working with Yerkes in his primate lab, but found out he didn’t have women in his lab. Even though she had obstacles all throughout her career, she created the visual cliff and was awarded the National Medal of Science, the highest award given to a scientist by the president. Trying to make a name for yourself in any field can be hard and though women in psychology had their struggles, they persevered and achieved great things and it wasn’t because they were women, it’s because they loved their research and field.

The second topic I found interesting was reading about psychologist’s work with children, especially their own. Alfred Binet observed his two young daughters measuring individual differences. He compared their scores of sensory tests with adults and found their scores weren’t much different. Adults had shown to score higher on tasks that involved mental processing that went beyond sensory capacity, but his daughters scored well on perceptual tasks. Binet’s research was in efforts to challenge Galton’s. Binet’s contributions to identify children’s individual differences lead to the creation of programs for students who weren’t on the same academic level as others their age. I became very familiar with B.F. Skinner again in this class and his creation of the “Skinner box”. The Skinner box was used to create a more comfortable environment for children. Although I still find the whole concept of putting a child in a box rather than a playpen or crib to be crazy, he raised his daughter that way and she turned out just fine. I like how psychologists take advantage of observing their children to further their research because it would be taking place in their life, their home. I agree with John Locke’s statement of how all of our knowledge about the world derives from our own experiences.

The last topic I found really interesting was about mental illness. Phillipe Pinel was responsible for reforming the treatment in mental asylums. When reading about how mental patients were restrained by chains, I was happy to know someone like Pinel was around to change the treatment to more ‘humane’ forms. Pinel refined patient nutrition, hygiene, and overall well-being. I remember reading about the invention of the tranquilizer chair and being freaked out by the idea. The chair was invented by Rush which had straps for both arms and legs along with a boxed device that fit tightly over the patient’s head. This device was a new idea of how to improve treatment in patients through therapy. Although I found the whole thing to be cruel, it must’ve made sense at the time and I’m sure there will be inventions in our generation that will be looked back on and thought of similarly. Tuke also had the same kind of effects as Pinel in efforts to change the treatment in mental asylums. Patients were punished which meant having no contact with other patients and sometimes being tied to their beds which was disturbing to read. I think the use of punishments as well as rewards were good for the patients during that time because it’s similar to how people raise their kids. If kids are good, they are allowed more freedom to go outside or play with other kids and if they are bad, they are sent to their room. Another topic in relation to mental illness was mental disability. I recall reading about how there were three categories for mental disability: idiot, imbeciles, debiles (weak ones). The word retard didn’t exist during that time, but we don’t use those words today as they did back then. We throw the word idiot around in a somewhat slanderous way to call someone ‘stupid’. I’m sure we will coin other terms for peoples’ stupidity and hopefully they will be more correct than words meaning mentally disabled.

I think the material in this class has changed my thoughts on psychology because it was interesting to read how psychologists branched of each others’ work and made new discoveries or found better ways of doing things. I liked reading about how many of them didn’t start of in the psychology field, but something or someone drew them to it and they made a contribution to the field in some way. I liked reading about the beginnings of how psychology came about and how women and minorities came into play and it’s great to see how far we’ve come. I think we have a long way to go in finding more and more about the topics we discussed in class and I can’t wait to read about them and add more to the history. This class referred back to a lot of well-known psychologists like Freud, Piaget, and Skinner that I’ve learned in other psychology classes here at UNI. This class gave more of a background to their stories and how they started and where they ended up in relation to the field. I wish I would’ve taken this class first because once we go into subsections of psychology we learn more about the names we came across, but more in depth of what they did in what area of psychology.

Terms: Muller, Calkins, Gibson, Yerkes, Binet, individual differences, Galton, Skinner, skinner box, mental illness, Pinel, Tuke, mental disability, Rush, Freud, Piaget, visual cliff, tranquilizer chair, Locke,

Despite of what people think history is more than just names and dates. By studying the history of a discipline like psychology a more well rounded understanding of psychology allows you to understand why people, places, studies or whatever it may be are the way they are. As psychology as a discipline has progressed over the years, researchers and scientists have been able to develop new ideas that allow for an understanding of the human race. As a result of this new found knowledge, lives are improved. This semester I have developed a better understanding of the field of psychology through the study of its history. The three topics that I found most interesting this semester are Charles Darwin and The Theory of Evolution, Women and Minorities in Psychology, and The Early Treatment of Mental Illness.

1. At first glance it may not seem like Charles Darwin and the study of evolution has anything to do with psychology, but as one delves deeper into the topic they realize that it does. The theory of evolution derived from the species problem, which basically questions the feasibility of the Bible’s way of developing species. The Bible says that all of the species on the earth have been there since the beginning and as the world was navigated and more species were being discovered scientists began to question this. As questions began to arise, ideas began to develop to answer those questions. These ideas have come to be known as pre-Darwinian theories of evolution. Although Darwin has been credited with the theory of evolution because of his discoveries, he was not even the first person in is family to have a theory. Darwin’s Grandfather Erasmus Darwin too rejected the biblical idea of creationism and thought that life began from one organic filament.

Darwin was not always an individual of great intent. As a child Darwin was considered to be unambitious and his father, Robert Darwin, was very disappointed in Charles. Robert Darwin was a doctor and expected that Charles would make something out of his life, so Robert sent Charles to medical school. Charles quickly discovered that medical school was not for him as the blood made him nauseated. Unable to attend medical school, Charles went to study for the clergy at Cambridge University. He would never become a priest, but while studying at Cambridge he came into contact with his calling. He began to study the sciences at Cambridge and had a particular interest in geology. Then the opportunity came along. A man that was planning a trip to South America wanted a companion who could converse intelligently and one of Darwin’s professors recommended him.

Robert FitzRoy and Darwin along with the deck mates set out to South America, this journey would change Darwin’s life forever. At the beginning of the journey his main interest was with geology and as he examined rocks he examined that there were layers and presumed that the current idea called uniformitarianism was closer to reality than catastrophism. Uniformitarianism is the idea that geographic change takes place slowly over time. Catastrophsim is the theory that major events are the cause of geographic change. This discovery was important to the Theory of Evolution, because it showed that the Earth was old enough for evolution to take place. While on the journey Darwin also look at animals closely and even cataloged 1529 different species of animals, in doing this he began to wonder why there were so many different variations of the same animal. This became particularly evident when the MHS Beagle reached the Galapagos Islands were he found finches that resembled those on the mainland, but had different shaped beaks. When Darwin returned home to England his mind had changed. He no longer wanted to be a priest, but rather he wanted to devote all of his time to science. Due to Darwin’s success on the Beagle, his father gave him a large sum of money that allowed him to continue with his scientific work.

After some time, Darwin married is cousin Emma Wedgwood, who would care for him and their ten children when Charles was ill. Despite his illnesses he was able to publish a book of the journey on the Beagle and began to develop his theory of evolution. For 20 years Darwin continued to write and develop his theory, but was “afraid” to publish it. He thought that people would think he was crazy. He also knew that he wanted a very adequate amount of information to back up the theory. Had it not been for a college of his it may have taken longer to publish the Origin of Species. Alfred Wallace was also a naturalist who had been studying in Malaysia and sent some work for Darwin to read. Much to his surprise the theory that Wallace had written about was very similar to Darwin’s theory. This scared him into publishing. In The Origin of Species Darwin explains how and why species may change over time and coins the term natural selection. This is the concept of those individuals that are the most fit to survive will and they will carry on their characteristics. Inspite of all of this one may wonder what this had to do with psychology. The answer to that is quite simple. Darwin’s theory of evolution lead to a new way of thinking in the study of psychology known as functionalism, which deals with studying human behavior and cognition in terms of how they adapt to the world around them. It was also the beginnings of comparative psychology, which compares the functions of animals to human.

2. The second topic that I would like to talk about is women and minorities in education. As many individuals began to seek higher education, some people were confronted with the frustration and inability to gain access to this education. Women that looked to seek higher education were confronted with the concept of the “women’s sphere”, which was the belief that women should be at home being a wife and mother. Those women who wanted to gain an education and a career were not only discouraged from doing so, but met a battle at each step. Some medical professionals even went as far as saying that if women became educated it would hurt their health. One professor at Harvard even went as far as to say that too much mental activity would harm the female organs of the body. In addition to that women were expected to care for their elderly parents and if they had a job outside of the home, people wondered who would care for the elderly. It was also presumed that women had inferior knowledge to that of their male counterparts. For those women that were able to pursue higher education it was done so at institution that were designated for women, such as Radcliffe College and Vassar College. In addition to that women were encouraged to become educated in topics like home economics. After some time women were able to pursue degrees in education and become teachers as well.

Women were not the only ones who had trouble with the education system, in fact they were even worse circumstances for minorities. Minorities, blacks in particular, were considered to be mentally inferior even though test would say otherwise. In one study of response times, blacks scores with faster response times and it was twisted that whites showed higher human form because they reflected upon their answers longer, while blacks were more primitive because they answered quicker. Some blacks were able to obtain bachelor’s degrees and would then go and teach in the segregated schools, but it was particularly difficult for those individuals who wanted to obtain higher degrees.

One of the early black psychologists was Francis Sumner, who was excepted into Lincoln University (the first black college). He then obtained a second bachelors degree from Clarke College. After, that he went back to Lincoln University to teach Psychology and German and while doing so was also able to complete his master’s degree. One he completed his master’s degree he went back to Clark University and studied race psychology with G. Stanley Hall. He then earned his PhD in psychology from Clarke and was the first African American to do so. Sumner was able to overcome great odds to earn his degrees in addition to the normal struggles related to a higher education.

One of the women in psychology that I would like to talk about is Mary Calkins. Mary was a very intelligent woman that earned her bachelor’s degree from Smith College (a women’s college) and then took a job teaching Greek at Wellesley College. She was given the opportunity to teach psychology, but need more education to do so. As a result she set out to get more education and was disgruntled to find that it was more difficult than she had planned. She was able to enter Harvard with the stipulation that she was too been considered an unofficial guest. She studied there and met all the credentials to earn her PhD, but was never awarded it. Despite her trials and with the backing of other scholars she was not able to convince Harvard to issue the degree. Later, once Radcliffe was formed Harvard offered her a degree from there, but she declined saying that if she couldn’t have a degree from where she earned it than she did not want it at all. Calkins contributed a lot to the field of psychology, but one of the most well known is self psychology, which was concerned with the elements of the self.

3. The final topic that I would like to discuss is the early treatment of mental illness or maybe I should call it the early mistreatment of the mentally ill. In the readings it is defiantly clear that we have come a long way with the housing a treatment of the mentally ill. In the beginning the idea of mentally ill was not even a concept that was know. The majority of people just saw individuals that were different and were often overcome with fear and misunderstanding. This lead to the belief that these individuals were evil and possessed by the devil, as a result they were often tortured. This included being drowned or burned at the stake as witches. At the end of the eighteenth century treatment began to improve for the mentally ill as reformers began to change asylums. One of the first was Phillipe Pinel, who implemented the concept of moral treatment. This improved conditions for individuals in asylums as it increased hygiene, nutrition, and living conditions. In addition to that Pinel began to get patients removed from chains that many had been in for years.

The person that is credited with implementing moral treatment in the U.S is Benjamin Rush. Rush is considred to be the father of modern psychiatry and was trained in medicine. He was a strong advocator of bloodletting, which removed blood from the patient and was believed to cure many ailments. Other ways of helping the mentally ill were with the use of the tranquilizer chair, which locked the patient in a chair and covered their eyes, and the gyrator, which spun the patient around to “redistribute the blood to the head”. Even those these tactics are not exactly humane it is important to not that at least people recognized that mental illness was a problem with the physical body and didn’t mean that they were possessed by the devil. Another important person to mention is Dorthea Dix began a crusade to implement state run institutions for the mentally ill, so they would be treated more fairly. In her crusade to implement these facilities she traveled 60000 miles and as a result was able to have a role in the creation of 47 mental institutions. Even though what Dorthea did was amazing history has a way of changing things sometimes, and as a result for years she was blamed for the immoral treatment of individuals in state-run asylums. Now we can look back and see that he state-run asylums were better than the private ones that were previously in use and she deserves more gratitude that what she has gotten in the past.

Terms: Charles Darwin, theory of evolution, species problem, Erasmus Darwin, Robert Darwin, uniformitarianism, catastrophism, Origin of Species, Alfred Wallace, natural selection, functionalism, comparative psychology, women’s sphere, Francis Sumner, race psychology, G. Stanley Hall, Mary Calkins, self psychology, Phillipe Pinel, moral treatment, Benjamin Rush, psychiatry, bloodletting, psychology, tranquilizer, gyrator, Dorthea Dix

One topic that I found interesting during the semester is Descartes and the rationalist argument. I found this to be interesting because of all of the groundbreaking discoveries being made in Descartes’ time. There was the invention of the telescope (arguably) by Hans Lipperhey, the microscope by Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, and the discovery of the heart as a blood-recirculating pump by William Harvey. Descartes’ scholastic education at the College de la Fléche equipped him with the tools of reason to advance his role as a philosopher and ultimately a scientist by taking on a rationalist approach to logic and reason. He even lays out his four basic guidelines to uncovering truth of some matter in his book, Discourse on Method. These rules for a matter to be considered truth include being clear and concise as to leave no reason for doubt, reducing problems to fundamental elements, working systematically from the simple to the complex, and reviewing conclusions to avoid omission of any details.
Another topic that I found interesting from the semester isn’t exclusive to psychology: the Age of Enlightenment. This is one of my favorite periods in science history. The shift from Renaissance ideas to a bigger focus on scientific methodology was led by great thinkers such as Bacon, Galileo, Harvey, and Descartes. The second half of the seventeenth century gave way to Sir Isaac Newton’s groundbreaking science and reasoning. I thought it was interesting how Enlightenment thinking was applied to politics in America’s Constitution and in Ben Franklin’s passion for science. The peak of Enlightenment influence came at the second half of the eighteenth century and continued to influence innovations into the Industrial Revolution. How does this era apply to psychology? That’s what interested me the most. Psychologists in the nineteenth century tried to uncover the mysteries of the senses and the nervous system and eventually gave way to a scientific approach to psychology.
A third topic I found interesting from semester is phrenology; more specifically, its downfall. Phrenologists often supported their claims and research findings with anecdotal evidence. That was acceptable under the guidelines of the scientific theory. The problem with phrenology was found in their lack of precision, whereas their claims were not capable of disproof. Even after the failure of the phrenology theory, the general public still ate it up like most pseudoscience today, like extrasensory perception (ESP) for example. The fact that phrenology was widely followed by the general public after it was dispelled in the scientific community was interesting to me, but not entirely surprising because of the prevalence of pseudoscience in popular culture today.
The material I have learned in this class changed the way I think about psychology and the world in general. A big lesson I learned came to me during our discussion of early clinical methods and the use of lobotomy to treat mental illness. The lesson is that even the most controversial advances in science can open doors to better ideas. The lobotomy procedure is viewed by many today in horror and disbelief (or some discomfort at best). However, its groundbreaking acceptance and usage urged the creation of something better. People wanted the positive results of the lobotomy without the obvious risk. Thus, chemical treatment became the epicenter of a medicinal revolution. Much like the lobotomy, the first attempts at antidepressants were controversial and relatively short-lived. Opioids came and left in the 1950’s; amphetamines in the 1960’s. Even today our antidepressants come with staggering side effects. It makes me excited to see the future of medicine and other sciences in my lifetime. In summation, I have learned to have a desire to keep asking questions and keep trying to improve current situations. History has shown me that there is always something better waiting to be developed.
The material I have learned in this class complemented what I have learned in other classes at UNI. This is my first semester at UNI, and all of my classes were psychology-related. This class has given me a little deeper background into many of the names I’ve ran across in other textbooks like Descartes, Wundt, Rogers, and more. Rogers and other practitioners are among those who were covered in my clinical psychology class.
Terms: rationalist, fundamentalist, phrenology, pseudoscience, scientific method, lobotomy, mental illness, antidepressants, Descartes, Wundt, Rogers

The first topic that grabbed my interest more so than other topics we learned was Darwin. This guy was so influential on the world that we have a whole week dedicated to him at UNI. He was around during a time when the church held the most authority and was in control of the information that was available to the public. There were many people who questioned the ideas proposed by the church and one of the questions was surrounding the arc that Noah had built. This arc had supposedly held a male and female member of every species on the planet so that when the flood destroyed the earth, they could repopulate the land. This is a good story, but after humans discovered all of the different species of animals was is really possible to fit all of them on the arc? This question was known as the species problem. The species problem begged the question of where all of the species on earth came from. Darwin helped champion the idea of a chain of being which proposed that species develop on a linear scale. It also supposed that species are constantly evolving based on their environment and that these evolutions cause inheritance of acquired characteristics. These acquired characteristics are those that are most beneficial to survival of the species. Darwin wanted to be able to find out the answers to these questions for himself and with help from his social status, he was able to embark on the journey of a lifetime on the Beagle. Darwin was fascinated by many topics including geology and zoology; both of which he was able to study on his voyage. The most widely accepted geological theory of his time was catastrophism which asserted that geological change was abrupt and caused by an act of god. Darwin questioned this theory and believed in a more gradual change proposed by Lyell called uniformitarianism. This theory claimed that uniform laws of nature cause gradual geological change instead of very abrupt change caused by god. He was able to observe evidence of this theory when he landed on the Cape Verde Islands. He saw that layers of compressed seashells and coral had made their way into the land mass walls. They were high enough up that they must have been created very slowly over the course of many years. He was also able to gather evidence to support his theories of acquired characteristics after observing and documenting a number of birds on the Galapagos Islands. He noted many different species of birds on the island and was able to distinguish between them based on coloration, size and beak shape. When reflecting on a theory by Thomas Malthus which suggested that only those best suited to survive in a species will survive, he was able to come up with his theory of natural selection. This theory described evolution as a way for nature to “weed out” species until only those best suited to survive were left. It from this assertion that he realized all of the birds on the island were really from the same species of finch. He determined that each bird had developed traits based on the side of the island that they inhabited. If they existed on a side of the island containing hard shells, only those birds whose beaks were strong enough to break through them were left. He then decided that this was the case for all species and was the basis for evolution. Darwin was hesitant to release all of the data he collected for three main reasons: illness, fear of reception, and his very conservative scientific nature. He wanted to make sure he had data to back up all of his theories and he wanted to make sure that he released his theories at a time when society was ready for it. He was around to see many other controversial theories shot down. After receiving a letter proposing a similar idea to his own he realized that he must release his data and it was then that Origin of Species was unleashed for public consumption. While he contributed majorly to the field of science, his contribution to psychology was not quite as universal. He was partially responsible for the concept of functionalism. Functionalists are concerned with human behavior and mental processes as they relate to adapting an individual to his or her environment. He also led the way for comparative psychology which studies the differences among all species. Comparative psychology then promoted the study of individual differences which were measured in some cases using intelligence testing and personality tests developed by members of the psychological community. Darwin’s influence is obvious in the world today and because his name is still mentioned in day to day conversation he is interesting to me.
The next topic of interest is William James. This dude was a psychological STUD and is regarded as one of the most influential psychologists of all time. He was specifically nominated as number two on a list of most influential psychologists second only to Wilhelm Wundt. William James was also born into privilege and experienced a very interesting, eventful childhood. He was fluent in several languages and traveled across the world on multiple occasions before the age of fifteen. Despite frequent trips across the world and a very open ended education, James was completely clueless as to what he wanted to do with his life upon reaching adulthood. It is for this reason that he is fascinating to me. He loved art, but despite having studied under very talented artists at the time he realized he would not be successful as an artist. His father wanted him to become a scientist and he partially obliged him by attending medical school. He realized as he was finishing medical school that he had no interest in practicing medicine and decided instead to study psychology. He became a professor of psychology; using the first ever psychological lab equipment to demonstrate and wrote a book still regarded as one of the most influential books in the field of psychology titled The Principles of Psychology. In this he claimed that “introspective observation is what we have to rely on first and foremost” when considering psychology. Introspection is referred to as tedious observation of the self by the self during which we examine and reflect on the states of consciousness that compose ones mental life. He was very sure that this method was the best and even went as far as to criticize publicly the lab-based techniques widely accepted at the time coining the term “brass instrument psychology.” He refuted the idea that consciousness can be broken down into individual parts and instead proposed that consciousness is more free-flowing or stream like. He deemed consciousness to be personal, ever-changing, continuous, selective and active. He was intrigued by the idea of a habit and claimed that they have adaptive function as defined by functionalists. He was also fascinated by emotions and helped to develop the James-Lange theory of emotion. This theory asserts that bodily changes that are the emotions occur before any consciously identifiable emotion is experienced. This would mean that each emotion is related to a unique bodily function. James was not a fan of lab work and his theories were not ideas that could be proven using the scientific method. In fact he was quite disturbed by the determinism and materialism that dominated the field of psychology during his lifetime. This man deemed psychology to be merely the hope of a science instead of science and preferred what he called “treadmill work” to the work of the psychologists at the time. Despite his public criticism of widely accepted psychological scientific methods, this guy was still elected president of the APA twice and is considered to be one of the most influential psychologists of all time. He is a true BOSS and inspires me to continue in the field.
The last topic that interested me most was that of Sigmund Freud, the most recognized psychologist by the public. He is the creator of his own legend and if William James can be considered a boss, this guy is a don. Freud was born and raised in Austria to a family containing seven other children. You can imagine the competition for attention and space in the home. Was Freud fazed? Nah. When one of his siblings took an interest in piano and got some more attention from his lovely mother what did Freud do? He told his mom that he couldn’t focus so she ended the piano lessons and BANISHED piano from the household. He advanced very quickly in education and had opportunities to study with some of the greatest minds of the time. This cultivated his love for research and plunged him into the field of psychology. Once involved, Freud developed a method of curing psychological ailments known today as psychoanalysis. This technique was developed in the late 1800s and has its roots in a method known as catharsis. Developed by Joseph Breuer, catharsis is a technique that involves getting a patient to trace symptoms back to the occasion of its first appearance thus causing an emotional release and curing the symptom. This method was highlighted after it was used on a patient named Anna O. It was published as a success but was later deemed to be only temporarily helpful. During this famous case, Freud also determined that Anna O. had started to act towards Breuer as she would her father, a phenomenon Freud called transference. Transference occurs when a patient starts to behave towards the therapist as they would some other figure in their lives. Despite the mild success of the techniques used, the publicity of the case allowed Freud to open up a practice specializing in the treatment of hysteria. He tried everything on his patients from hypnosis to hydrotherapy but eventually developed several techniques widely recognized in the psychological community today including free association and dream analysis. Free association involved encouraging a patient to say whatever comes to mind without holding back. This process was difficult for those patients who had repressed thoughts. This unwillingness to discuss repressed thoughts is what Freud calls Resistance. Dream analysis involves the careful analysis of symbols in one’s dreams in order to find psychological relevance in their waking lives. Freud developed the concept of a tripartite structure of personality known as the id, ego, and superego. The id represents our most primal instincts such as sex and aggression and our superego is composed of our moral judgments. The ego is a balance between the id, superego, and reality and exists at the center of our personality. Freud was very influential during his time and was a professor for some time in his career. One of the most interesting things he did was hold a weekly meeting for students and others to get together to discuss psychological concepts relevant at the time. It would have been fascinating to attend one of these meetings but I don’t think I could have handled the authoritarian manner in which he controlled the discussion and direction of them. His legend was created by him as he carefully selected those authors who would later write about him. The way that he accomplished this was masterful and it is for this reason that he is interesting to me.
This class has certainly deepened my understanding of the concepts that we studied as well as my respect for individuals that developed them. It has really opened my eyes to the amount of bias present in many textbooks and has encouraged me to look at events in the past from a historicist perspective instead of trying to understand them from the presentist perspective of today. It really got me to think about how history is written and how one book can change how the entire world functions. From this point on I will be sure to question the objectivity of articles and textbooks that I read and I will be sure to look upon past events with a more learned eye. This course has instilled a new respect for the history of things that I would not have achieved in another class here at UNI.

Terms: Darwin, William James, Sigmund Freud, Species Problem, chain of being, inheritance of acquired characteristics, Beagle, catastrophism, Lyell, uniformitarianism, natural selection, origin of species, functionalism, comparative psychology, individual psychology, intelligence testing, personality testing, Wilhelm Wundt, principles of psychology, introspection, brass instrument psychology, James-Lange Theory of Emotion, Scientific method, psychoanalysis, catharsis, Joseph Breuer, Anna O., Transference, Free Association, Dream analysis, Resistance, id, ego, superego.

In chapter twelve there was a very small section about a single woman named Dorothea Dix. Ms. Dix was from affluence and began a movement for the better treatment of the mentally ill. She was horrified by what she saw in the almshouses, where the poor mentally ill were housed along with criminals in deplorable conditions. During her time those with affluence and those without had vastly different health care options, the asylums for the wealthy had a healthy staff to patient ratio, while those for the poor like the Worcester asylum, were understaffed and filthy.
Her work in the 1800’s as a single woman was inspiring. I think that we often think that we cannot change the world or make a difference. There are many injustices that seem so large. However, Ms. Dix as a single woman with no real education in mental illness made such a difference around the world. She spoke for those unable to speak for themselves.
She was correct, the mentally ill could be treated and they did feel pain. Although she had no real medical training, her instinct that if there circumstances were better most would improve or be well was correct. I found this ironic compared to the text’s writings about Henry Goddard in chapter eight. In this chapter we read of a man who decided to build on the idea of mental age and group those called “idiots” into strict categories. His work was built upon that of Alfred Binet’s intelligence testing. While testing intelligence is a legitimate study, the work of Goddard was more of a pseudoscience.
He used a study of a family called “the Kallikaks” in which he took the offspring of a man who had children out of wedlock during the war and then married a respectable woman and had a family with her. The great great granddaughter of the illegitimate son was named Deborah. She was considered retarded. Goddard used this family as a basis for the theory that genetics caused feeblemindedness and that these people should not be allowed to reproduce. The reason that this is so erred is because although the illegitimate side of the family did have significantly more problems, he did not seem to take into account that first the child was born out of wedlock and also that this family was impoverished while the legitimate family suffered neither of these issues.
I really feel that this taught me more than simply history; it gave me cause to stop and think. As I continue with the last two years my undergraduate studies and perhaps on to graduate school, it made me realize that although education is very important, it is not everything. One must not get so wrapped up in the facts and science that I forget the people side of psychology. I do believe that as I decide to research I will be conscious of those lives affected and be more careful to treat people with care and respect.
Although I have read and heard a lot about Darwin and his natural selection, theory of evolution the chapter that was devoted to him gave me some other perspectives on his work. I had always thought of his work as something more for students of other sciences, especially Biology. In this chapter it was interesting to think about what his work meant for psychology. Subjects such as comparative psychology and individual differences did have ties to his theories about adaptation and survival. His book , The Descent of Man spoke of how we can understand the primal feelings and emotions based upon looking at the lower conditions of animals. I had also never heard of his discussion on the universalness of human facial expressions. I am taking Psychology of Human Differences in the spring semester; I really think learning about Darwin’s findings will be beneficial as I study in this class.
Kurt Lewin’s work for psychology social and in the workplace was also very interesting. His research group had three types of leadership styles that they compared and analyzed. The authoritarian, the democratic and the laissez-faire style were analyzed. They found that under the democratic leadership people worked together more cohesively and were motivated better. However, if they were switched into a more authoritarian style of leader they quickly succumbed to the behaviors associated with this style. It made me think of what we call battered women syndrome. His social studies did a lot in the work place. I thought his action research in regards to minorities in the workplace was interesting and was ahead of his time. I wondered if those who came behind in the civil rights cause benefitted from his work. Seeing his preliminary work will be useful as I take classes that build upon the psychology of motivation in the workplace.
Finally, I laughed out loud in chapter seven when I read the excerpt from Tithcner’s textbook, on “How to Fail in Laboratory Psychology.” I think no matter the major, everyone has had many classes with the person described in the writing! It did make me more thoughtful about the information I chose to contribute to class on Thursdays. Nobody wants to be the person described in this section. It also goes to the old saying “There is nothing new under the sun…”
I think that learning the history was interesting, it may not keep us from repeating the cycles but we can learn from it. One of the things that I took away was that while many of the things, like Goddard’s mental testing, the lobotomy, phrenology and so on while flawed were built out of the desire to learn. These were the times and most of those involved had a genuine desire to further advance science to make people’s lives and the world better. At least that is a lot of what I got from digging a little deeper into history.
Terms Used: Alfred Binet, Intellegence testing, Henry Goddard, Mental age, The Kallikaks, Sterilization, Mentally unfit, Dorthea Dix, Aslmshouses, Asylums, Mentally ill, Worcester asylum, Charles Darwin, Natural selection, Evolution, Comparative psychology, Individual differences, Kurt Lewin’s, The authoritarian, The democratic, The laissez-faire, Action research, Titchener, Lobotomy, Phrenology