Reading Activity Week #2 (Due Monday)

1) What did you find interesting? Why?
Historiography was interesting to read about. Historiography is the process of doing research in history and writing historical narratives. There are different ways in which a person can receive historical data some of which are primary and secondary sources which can be found in the archive section of a library. What I really found interesting was when I read about data selection problems and how data might go missing. When I read that John Watson burned all of his remaining notes, I was a little shocked. I did not understand why a person would want to throw away the research they had committed their life to doing. But I guess “When you’re dead, you’re all dead,” research included, because it becomes a part of yourself when you are dedicated.

2) What did you find interesting? Why?
Interpretation Problems was another area of interest to me. I know first-hand that everybody can read the same thing, but get so many different things out of it. People to this day still debate and preach what the Bible is trying to teach every single day and fight to prove that their belief is the right one. I think it is good thing to interpret things differently, this way you receive many different viewpoints, but can still decide what you believe is right in your eyes. All of this has to deal with history and it makes me excited to see what is in store for our class and what information we will need to decipher to understand the history within psychology.

3) What did you find interesting? Why?
Old versus new, presentism versus historicism, internal versus external, personalistic versus naturalistic, I cannot wait to dive in and see what everyone else thinks about this topic. Presentism believes the reason for studying history is to better understand what is happening in the present. I understand that as a view point, but I do not agree. I would agree interpreting historical events is to understand the knowledge and values from that time and place, like historicist would. I believe I would also find internal history more interesting than external. Internal history is the history of ideas and theories which I find more intriguing than economic and political disciplines. I also find persons and their roles more interesting when it comes to shaping historical events than the environmental and situational forces. I want to jump in and learn about what people did to change history and make us who we are today.

4) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? Why?
I did not find the section “Why Study History?” to be very interesting. I already know that if one knows mistakes that were made in the past then the hope is to avoid them in the future, or deal with them in a different way. However I feel that even if you do learn from past mistakes you learn through your own experience in past mistakes, not just reading about them and trying to avoid them in life. There would be too many things to try and avoid. I do understand it’s importance. I just did not find this information very helpful or interesting.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I believe the most useful information was that under the “Why Study Psychology’s History?” Psychology is a young science, and most of which is still relevant and useful today. Many theories and concepts are still used or help us find a better understanding of today’s issues. I like how it said “the course provides further understanding of human behavior.” This shows that this course is extremely useful for not only understanding history, but also studying human behavior across time.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
It does not, since this is the first chapter.

7) What topic would you like to learn more about? Why?
I would like to learn more about peoples different interpretations of all kinds of research. I know that most found Freud to be a quack, but we all give him credit for starting the foundation and research in psychology. I want to know what others thought and the different theories they had, like John B Watson in behaviorism and Pavlov when he stumbled across conditional learning. I want to learn about people and their interpretations that changed history.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I thought a lot about how the Bible has many interpretation problems, or more discussions. For example, how many people on campus gather and shout at one another about Jesus and his love, but are not really changing one another’s viewpoints, or even listening to them. They try to change others, but they do not want to listen to what the other party is saying. They just want everyone to be like them, but why can’t we all be different and still get along. I wonder if fights could have been stopped and lives would not have been lost if we would just let people believe/have their own opinion about different things? I’m not really sure if it would have made a difference, or if they would have found something else to fight about. That is what I thought about while reading this chapter.

Terminology: Historiography, Primary Source, Secondary Source, Archve, Presentism, Historicism/Historicist,

1) I found the idea of presentism versus historicism very interesting and intriguing. I found it interesting because I think many individuals look at history through the presentism view rather than the historicism view. The danger of presentism thinking misleads us into thinking that individuals in the past should have known better and that they ought to have foreseen what was coming. By this approach we tend to judge historical events and figures more harshly because we wonder what they were thinking in a sense. Historicism looks at an approach where try to understand historical events through values and knowledge in the past. This approach answers our questions on why this person may have did what they did in a certain situation.

2) I have always been interested in why individuals study history. Knowing history helps us understand the present and knowing history can help us place current events better into perspective. Without knowing the history of something we cannot fully understand its current context in the world. The best answer I enjoy for why we study history is that everyone wants to go back to a time in the “good old days” and individuals think that problem only gets worse. Individuals needs to realize that each age has its own set of problems that we need to deal with and not one period is solely the best period in time. Knowing history might help us avoid mistakes in the future but understanding the present is of the most importance.

3) I also found interesting the topic of a personalistic approach compared to a naturalistic approach in studying the history of something. I found it interesting that individuals believe that one individuals or event caused a chain reaction that completely changed our way of life. I personally believe it was more than just one person but a group of people living during the time. I believe that a naturalistic approach is a healthier approach as it characterizes the moods and spirits of the time as the prime moving force in history. Also I like the idea that people are “ahead of their time” when making a contribution to an area in history.

4) One thing I found uninteresting to learn about was primary and secondary sources. I believe they are vital when learning about the history of something to back up the evidence you are putting forth but is not the most interesting subject. I never liked documenting sources in high school and in college so learning about it again just didn’t seem necessary. I do believe that sources are relevant to learning and exploring history but not the most interesting to study. I also thought that places to find this data to be uninteresting such as universities or libraries because this should be common knowledge to researchers that may be doing a paper or writing a book for instance.

5) I believe that understanding why we study the history of psychology to be the most useful when studying the history of psychology. We wouldn’t study something that we aren’t interested in just for the heck of it. We must have some sense of what we want to get out of this class and our textbook. This goal we work towards can be answered by why we need to understand the history of psychology. The best answer is so that we can understand the present and what has led us as individuals to this point in our career goals and why we are taking this class on a broader view.

6) This chapter provides a great introductory into the book and how a typical individual may view history from different approaches. This chapter builds on why we study psychology’s history, key issues in psychology’s history, and different approaches to understanding history. This chapter explains why a historicist, external, and naturalistic view is a healthier way to view the history of psychology. This chapter also builds on the writing of history through historiography in which historians do research and write historical narratives. This chapter was a good way to introduce associations in the psychology field and how their work has made psychology a major field to study.

7) I would like to learn more about the individuals and groups that contributed to the growth of psychology in the past. I look forward to learning more about the APA and other approaches that psychologists have taken in order to understand the way we perceive the world as it is now. I also want to see more topics on experiments that were taken place in recent years and pictures that show current and past studies that are being done to understand behavior. I would like to learn more history of psychology in general as I feel that no other course has touched on major key events in psychology history so I would like to see what this class will present.

8) While reading they mentioned Pavlov and I began spacing off into his experiment with the salivating dog and how the dog salivated when hearing the ringing of a bell. Also the little Albert experiment came to mind when they mentioned altering someone’s behavior in the text. I did think about past history books as someone else noted and who are these people that are using the “old” method of studying the history of psychology.

9) historicism, presentism, naturalistic, personalistic, primary sources, secondary sources, external history, historiography

1a) What did you find interesting?
I found David McCullough’s reason for studying history interesting
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I had never really thought of that as a valid reason why, until it was mentioned. The present cannot be understood without knowing the past. It really does make sense. Just thinking about one’s own life there are all these past experiences that helps get you to where you are now, and without those you may be in a completely different place. The past does help to determine where you are at the present time.

2a) What did you find interesting?
I enjoyed leaning about the difference between presentism and historicism.
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
It also does seem to relate to what David McCullough said. Historicism is understanding the problems of that time period and looking into the past to better understand the event that occurred. It’s important to be aware of what is going on in that time period and the values and beliefs of the people. Whereas presentism is only thinking in the modern thoughts of life and not looking from a different view point. It is interesting because I believe as people in the helping fields we should always try and look at situations from different view points, so I would hope that most people look at this history from a historicism way instead of a more narrow presentism way.

3a) What did you find interesting?
I thought learning about all the problems that could happen with collecting data was pretty interesting.
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I liked how the author used examples from his own research and that intrigued me. I think there are lots of ups and downs that could happen with collecting data, so I liked it because it wasn’t necessarily guaranteed. It’s not a straight path, there’s a lot of work and it could take many years to collect adequate data. It is interesting to also find out that some people burnt or deleted their own data on purpose and for various reasons. I feel like I would never just get rid of data I had worked so hard to collect, but some of these scientists and psychologists did those things.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
I didn’t find the writing of history very interesting.
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
It wasn’t interesting to me because I felt like I knew a lot of the information they were discussing. Sometimes it’s great to just have a refresher, but I didn’t think I needed it. I know the different sources: Primary and secondary and I know what archives are as well, so it’s just not something I needed or wanted to read about.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think the topic of historicism and the influence of internal and external history will be the most important. I think it’s good to know that we must look at the event in the context of the time period that it happened. It’s something that helps us better understand the event. I also think it’s good to know that internal and external history influence and work together. They are not two completely separate things, instead they go together. External is more broad and includes influences other than psychcology, such as societal, economic, and institutional influences. Whereas internal is the ideas of psychology.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
Well this is the first chapter, so it has yet to build on any previous chapters since we have none. But I felt like it was a good introduction to the topic and having this basic knowledge will help when reading future chapters.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
The cognitive revolution and that falling of behaviorism
7b) Why?
I really lie behaviorism and I think that it is very beneficial. My favorite therapy is cognitive behavioral therapy. I think it works and I’ve always found it interesting. In the book they talked about how behaviorism started to lose popularity do to trying to explain the development of language and how then cognitive therapy started to gain popularity from this. I guess I just want to learn why and how this happened.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
Well I thought about history and how after this class I may like it a lot more and I already can see how useful it is. It’s important to know history. If I become a Social Worker I will most likely be given a portfolio of my client, or I will ask them questions about their past. We do this because we believe it is important to know a client’s history, although the client’s history does not determine who they are it can help to have some background knowledge about them. History is around us everywhere, maybe not history that is found in a textbook, but it’s always being used and being talked about.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Presentism, Historicism, Internal History, External History, Archives, Secondary Source, Primary Source

J.M.

1a. One piece of information that I found interesting while reading chapter one would have to be the statement that was made on page 6. The statement talks about how being aware of the past situations and how the people in the past dealt with these problems can give us some guidance in how we can cope with roughly the same situations.

1b. I found this interesting because looking back we are not the only ones who have dealt with wars or poverty stricken areas. We have a past that we can look on and see that there are others who have overcome the poverty and who have gained from either winning wars or losing them. As humans we can look back and see what they might have done and take our own steps while using some of their techniques to get through the hard times. We can learn a lot from what people in the past have done to gain from things.

2a. Looking at chapter one we see that there are different ways of looking at the history of psychology. We learned on page 11 that there are such things as an internal history and an external history. I find this interesting because I have never heard about these two approaches and never knew what they meant till now.

2b. I found these interesting because it shows us that we can find history from all over the place within psychology or from outside influences as the book states. These two are similar but yet different at the same time; they both gather information about psychology but the approach to finding information from outside sources is the external history approach. I find this to be the better way to get your information because you have a better chance of finding great information because you are not just isolated to one area; you can take one piece of information from one area and take another piece and put them together. If you were a person who took the internal history approach you are more close minded.

3a. The entire chapter was quite interesting to me.

3b. I thought the whole chapter was interesting because it gave me a good overview of what we might be learning about in the rest of the book and it does a great job introducing the subject of psychology’s history, it looks very interesting.

4a. What I found least interesting in this chapter was the section about problems with the writing of history.

4b. I have learned all of this information in my research methods class last semester and that entire class was somewhat boring to me; so rereading it makes me tired and bored. Reading about missing data is really a boring subject; every now and then something is going to go wrong and you are going to lose some of the most important pieces of data that you have collected.

5. From reading this chapter I think the section on why we study the psychology’s history would be the most useful to us in understanding the history because it gives us some background information on why we need to study it. With the field of psychology still growing we have a lot to learn from it and it can help us become better thinkers in the field.

6. Well this chapter does not really build on any of the previous chapters because this is the first chapter in the book and is the first thing we have read in this class so it is hard to say that it builds on any other chapters. I am sure it will help us understand what we are going to learn more about during the semester and it will allow us to have an open mind about the subject.

7a/7b. I would like to learn more about the key issues in psychology’s history because I like to hear about different issues and what someone might be doing wrong in their study or what they are doing right. Learning about this could easily help new psychologists build from the issues that were raised in the past. Also I want to learn about the different issues in the history of psychology is because I want to know the differences between one topic to the next, for example internal versus external history. What makes this such a big deal?

8. I honestly thought about my other classes that I have taken in the psychology department. I am not a psychology major but having it as a minor does make you think a little more. I kept referring back to my research methods class and even my introduction to psychology class, hearing kind of the same terms made me reminisce on the other classes that I have taken.

9. Internal history, external history, psychology

1a) What did you find interesting? Why was it interesting to you?
One thing that I found interesting from chapter 1 is that in the 1960’s the history of psychology became a huge interest of psychologists. I found this interesting because I had no idea when psychologists started to become fascinated by the history of psychology. I read that several psychology professionals began to gather organizations to learn more and gain a better research prospective on psychology.

2a) What did you find interesting?
Why was it interesting to you?
One thing I found interesting from chapter 1 was that Robert Watson had such a huge impact on the history of psychology. I found this interesting because I didn’t know Robert Watson had wrote “The History of Psychology: A Neglected Area.” I didn’t realized he made a division of the APA and also became the 1st president of that division in 1965.

3a) What did you find interesting?
Why was it interesting to you?
Another thing that I found interesting in chapter 1 was how much this chapter discussed why we actually study history. This chapter gave several quotes from past historians regarding why we as humans should study history. I thought this was interesting because it gave me a different perspective as to why we should study history. Several of the historians I read about talked about how we should study history to better understand our present.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? Why wasn't it interesting to you?
One thing that I found the least interesting while reading chapter 1 was when it talks about internal and external history. I found this the least interesting because although I understand what both of them mean I don’t find it relevant. I understand that both internal and external are seen in cognitive psychology but I just found this the least excited and interesting.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
One thing that I read in the chapter that I think will be most useful to understanding the history or psychology is the section where it talks about why we should study history. I think that the most useful information that I read was regarding to how studying history helps us better understand our present, therefore, understanding our past better and seeing how our present came to be what it is.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about? 
7b) Why?
I would like to learn more about behavioralism and the history of how behavioralism came to be. I would like to learn more about behavioralism because I took behavior modification and became extremely interested in the subject.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
While reading I thought about how interesting this course might be. I keep thinking about how the chapter was interesting because its all about psychology, and psychology keeps me interested. Its easy for me to not learn when I am not interested, therefore, because psychology is what I am interested in I like learning about the history to better understand what psychology is doing today.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.

Terms: APA, Robert, Watson, “The History of Psychology: A Neglected Area”, behavioralism, internal history, external history, and psychology

Courtney Wiese
Chapter 1 Questions

1a) What did you find interesting? I found the different reasons one studies history to be interesting.
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found this section interesting because the most common reason to study history is to not repeat past mistakes. However, the text states that one studies history to understand the present. I believe this is a very important reason to study history, as we cannot understand what is happening in current events unless we understand what happened before, which is something we discussed in class. The text also discussed the importance of studying history so one can not only understand what is going on in the world, but to have a better perspective on the world as well. Many people complain about today’s culture and wish for the “good ole days” without realizing what life was truly like. I find this very interesting, because I have heard people talk about how they wish it was the 1950s again, because those days were so great. I always think, historically, those days were not as amazing as many think. The United States was divided by segregation, dealing with the Korean War, the mounting Cold War, and women were still treated as second class citizens.

2a) What did you find interesting? Presentism versus Historicism
2b) Why was it interesting to you? I found presentism versus historicism interesting because coming from a history background I have seen these two different approaches to history used. History used to be written in presentism but more recent history, generally from the 1970s on, is written in historicism. People often find it easy to approach history from a modern point of view. I find this interesting because it can be hard to view what happened in the past without hindsight, which is what new historians must do. One should not judge people from the past, when they did not know the outcome of their actions. I found the story about Bob Dylan and Newport Folk Festival a great example of how easy it is to use hindsight when examining history.

3a) What did you find interesting? Personalistic versus Naturalistic
3b) Why was it interesting to you? I found this interesting because I had never heard of these terms in my history studies before, but I can definitely see how historians have, and some still use, personalistic history. Although I can see the importance and the interest in study of the people behind important events, I believe the naturalistic approach is the most important. One event that I always think of is World War II, and how some people believe that if Hitler died, or was never born, the Holocaust would not have happened. I believe in the naturalistic approach, that due to the outside forces, such as the growing anti-Semitic feelings during this era, that someone else would have become “Hitler”. I also liked the books example of Darwin, and how although he is noted for developing the theory of evolution, many other people were also discovering during that same era. Evolution was “in the air” during the 19th century and would have been discovered with or without Darwin.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? Historiography
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you? I found this the least interesting because I have already taken a course on historiography, and so learning about primary and secondary sources, as well as the process of analyzing data was not very exciting for me.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology? I believe the most useful part of this chapter was the discussion of new versus old, or traditional, history of psychology. Learning about how psychologists used to approach history, such as presentist, internal, and personalistic, compared to the recent approach to history which is more historicist, external and naturalistic. It is important to understand how to approach history the most accurate way possible.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters? As this is the first chapter, I will discuss how this chapter related to the first week of class. In class we discussed why we learn history, and the first chapter discussed just that. In particular we discussed how history is important to understand what is happening in the current world.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about? Internal and external history
7b) Why? Although it’s the traditional form of history, I am looking forward to understanding more about the internal history as I do not know as much about the actual theories and research about psychology as I would like. I am also interested in learning more about the external history of psychology because I find learning about the historical context of why different theories were developed when they were interesting. I believe learning both of these approaches to history will be beneficial as a possible teacher of psychology.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter? I thought a lot about different things I learned in my history classes, as a lot of what was in this first chapter related to how historians in general write. One idea that I especially thought a lot about was presentism. While writing in history, I find it difficult to remember to not use hindsight while writing, as it is so easy to judge what people did in the past as we know the outcome.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post. Personalistic, Naturalistic, Presentism, Historicism, historiography, external, internal, primary sources, secondary sources

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I enjoyed how the author shows the differences between presentism and historicism. I love studying history, especially between the 18th and 19th centuries. From this study, I often find conventional wisdom to be greatly flawed because we often do not understand the context of the matter at hand which is understandable since we are talking about events that occurred 200-300 years ago. Thus, by defining and describing this relationship, the book helped me to better articulate and understand this.

2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found the information regarding Goddard and IQ testing with immigrants fascinating. Presentism may cause us to look upon the situation with disgust. However, at that time, this was considered the best means of measuring intelligence and seemed quite logical in that context. One could very well see the prospective of using the most modern means to bring in the brightest immigrants into the country and discouraging those who did not meet standards. It isn't a very humanistic approach, but what would have been the effects had we let everyone in? This could be a very interesting base for a what-if? scenario.

3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
The contrast between personalistic and naturalistic history appealed to me because of the well-known quote "History is written by the victors." Those who win a war may focus on a couple heroes who saved the day for the good guys. Yes, some individuals can make key decisions that can shape history, but often those individuals are led to that point as explained in the naturalistic approach. That being said, a single individual can be shaped or molded into history by a defining moment as a hero,villain, or a no one depending on who you ask. It is very fascinating to explore the differences between differing sides of conflict, as well as the different viewpoints as to what happened and why it happened.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I found all of the concepts very interesting in this chapter, however I sometimes felt overwhelmed in certain spots by the sudden cluster of different names, concepts, or run-on sentences that occasionally occur in the text. Sometimes I had to reread a sentence 5-10 times and I still couldn't figure out the idea the book was trying to present.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
The matter in which the chapter delicately presents the complexity of the study and writing history and accuracy thereof was very well done. It really made me think about how little we truly know, and how much of what we think we know continues to be evolved based on new experiences, new information, biases etc. Opening up the mind to the fact that everyone sees certain events and people in different ways helps to approach the topic with greater learning potential rather than relying on our narrow, preconceived bias.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
This is the first chapter, so that cannot be done. On the reverse side, there were many instances where the author states certain topics will come up later in the book in more detail.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
As I stated in question two, I think the immigration restrictions via IQ test would be very interesting to learn more about. We are a nation of immigrants, yet this country has at many times greatly restricted immigration. This seems very counter-intuitive, but more research into the matter would shed more light into why such laws were implemented.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I love studying history, so many of the mentioned historical time periods and events sparked memories of earlier research I have done as well as memories regarding such research. I particularly enjoy studying the American Civil War, so the mention of Antietam (or Sharpsburg) caught my attention. My dad and I went to Gettysburg this summer for the 150th Anniversary reenactment (We were in the Confederate infantry). I have spent dozens and dozens of hours researching the battle before and after we went. The biggest thing I have taken out of it is that when you go out onto the actual battlefield, many of the criticisms historians have made of both sides don't always hold water when you actually walk the ground and see it for yourself. This chapter reminded me of how easily history can be analyzed poorly when we rely too much on what we think we know rather than what the historical context really was.

1a) What did you find interesting?
- I found Leo Tolstoy's belief in the determinist approach of naturalistic history particularly interesting. This theory states that people who have made large contributions o history, both good and bad, were doings not of their own volition, but in accordance with nature.


1b) Why was it interesting to you?
- The idea that people do not make their own decisions on how to act is an interesting concept. Applying this to your daily life can really make you think about the decisions you make within a day. Did you chose to eat the apple because of natures influence in your life, or because you really wanted the apple? How many choices do we make in our daily lives that are influenced by our own free will? Does nature even play a role in our decision making process? How do we even measure this in an experimental form to find out if nature really does have an influence in our choices?

2a) What did you find interesting?
- The zeitgeist concept was also interesting; although I'm not sure I fully understand it.


2b) Why was it interesting to you?
- Is this concept saying that all theories known in this world would have been produced by someone else within the same time span if not produced by the one who published it? So, if Edison had not invented the light bulb would someone else have found a way to create the same thing? The idea that the zeitgeist concept plays off the determinist approach to naturalistic history also hold interest for me. It's fascinating to see how these two ideas can relate to each other so harmoniously.

3a) What did you find interesting?
- E.G. Boring's quote "The past is not a crystal ball. It has more whence than whither to it. The seats on the train of progress all face backwards you can see the past but only guess about the future.


3b) Why was it interesting to you?
- This resinates with me because people always assume that a strong foundation in the past will provide them with an accurate assumption as to how the future will play out. The future does not repeat itself, there will never be a repeat of WWII, only possible situation similar but not the same. Knowing the past is a good idea so that you can avoid mistakes made in past research, and correct them. "Yet it is also true that knowing the truth provides only a rough guide for history need really repeats itself because all events are tied to the unique historical context in which they occur." (Pg4)

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
- The last few pages referring to archives was rather boring for me.


4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
- Everyone should know what is in an archive, and have an idea that they are trying to become technologically friendly. Personally I could care less about the authors search for journal articles.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
- "Historians don't just blindly report history, they have to take a stance on issues past and present." When looking into history I always thought being objective was a must, because what would your opinion really matter in subjects that were history. Its interesting to know that taking a stance on historical issues is not only acceptable but suggested.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
- Because this is the first chapter there is nothing to build on, but this chapter does provide a good base for the rest of the book. It also provides specific examples and references that relate to the rest of the book, and future chapters.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
- The topic of zeitgeist.


7b) Why?
- Because I did not fully grasp the concept, and learning more about it seems like a must. This topic seems rather influential on the rest of the book, and overall interesting.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
- Keith Jenkins quote "The past is gone and history is what historians make of it when they go to work." I thought this quote summed up the idea of history, and historical documents. This will be a good concept to keep in mind while I continue my education on the history of psychology. Taking the words of one historian to heart without looking into the matter, or proof is not a very scientific approach to history.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
- zeitgeist, determinist approach, naturalistic history, historians,

1a) What did you find interesting?
Internal versus external history of psychology
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found this interesting because there seems to be pros and cons for both internal and external history. The book states a balance is needed between the two. Internal history focuses more on ideas and theories that exists within psychology. External history focuses more on historical context (economics, social, and etc.) and how it influences history. Internal history ignores outside influences but has a better understanding of the ideas and key figures. While external history focuses more on outside influences and has less understanding of ideas and key figures.

2a) What did you find interesting?
Close-up section about Edwin G. Boring
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found this interesting because I haven’t been introduced to Boring in my previous classes. It was interesting to learn how Boring started off as an engineering student at Cornell University who later became one of psychology’s most famous historians. Also how Boring found interest in psychology by taking an elective class. I look forward to learn and discuss more about Boring.

3a) What did you find interesting?
Personalistic versus Naturalistic History
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found it interesting to learn the difference between the two because even though I have been introduced to these terms I knew little about them. Personalistic history implies that the important events in history come from the actions of individuals. When historical periods are labeled from individuals they are called eponyms. Without those individuals history would be different. Naturalistic history implies that history comes from the logical and cultural climate from a particular historical era. An example the book gave was the mood or spirit of a particular time.

4a) What one thing did you find the least interesting?
Sources of Historical Data
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I wasn’t interested in this section because I felt like this section was dragged out which made it boring. In this section the discussed secondary and primary sources. Secondary sources are documents that have been published and have an analysis (books, journals, etc). Primary sources are unpublished documents that were created at or around an historical event (archives-letters, diaries, and etc).

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think the section discussing why to study psychology’s history will be most useful to understand the history of psychology. These sections allowed me to have a better understanding of the present and what issues many still be a concern and are important. Also the beginning of this section discussed how we shouldn’t think “mistakes” occurred in the past.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
This chapter doesn’t relate or build on a previous chapter since this is the first chapter we have read. However this chapter did mention certain topics we are going to discuss later in chapters. I think this chapter allowed me to have a general understanding on how to look at the history of psychology.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about Edwin G. Boring and the differences between personalistic and historical history.
7b) Why?
After reading the close-up section about Boring I am just interested in learning more about him.. Also I found the section about personalistic and historical history to be the most interesting. However I still don’t think I have a full understanding of each term and would like to learn more about them.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
While reading this chapter I was thinking about the key issues in psychology’s history and all the terms that were being used. I think it is important to have a general understanding of all the terms.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.

Interval history, external history, Personalistic history, Naturalistic History, eponyms, secondary sources, primary sources, and archives

B.H.

1a) What did you find interesting? I never really understood why history was so important besides avoiding mistakes of the past to predict the future. History helps show us the progression we have made in different achievements or wrongdoings in the world.

1b) Why was it interesting to you? Now that I know why history in general was important. I asked myself why the history of psychology was so important so that increased my curiosity even more. The majority of psychological theories are being constantly used and modified in research to achieve their historical basis. Furthermore, specializations currently offered in the field are an offshoot of the early scientific approaches.
2a) What did you find interesting? I also found interest in knowing that studying history benefits us in the long run because it forces an attitude adjustment, keeping us humble. We sometimes get overly confident towards other because we think we know a lot.
2b) Why was it interesting to you? Because multiple times I have gotten the impression from people that they seem to “know it all,” to know everything you have to have a good understanding of the past and what it all entails. In the learning process, a student in whatever class or subject needs to learn to not be so arrogant or they will not learn anything to benefit them in the long run.
3a) What did you find interesting? I also find it interesting that chemistry doesn’t have a history course. They simply have a history course for all sciences courses combined. Many scientists don’t see the importance or value of teaching history.

3b) Why was it interesting to you? Because in science or any other subject, history helps round out their education and teach them something about how scientific thinking has evolved. Typically these students have to settle for a history class in another department, instead of by a professor of science so they don’t learn all the necessities and find the subject very boring. Professors often claim that the past is just junk filling a student’s mind with “old” ideas.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? I didn’t find the presentist thinking element to the reading was fair to some historians who came up with good ideas even though they made mistakes or get the general saying from the public as “they should have known better.”

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you? Our society as a whole tends to judge historical individuals cruely sometimes. People make mistakes, some countries I am sure wish they would have never gone to war, but at that time it was their best decision maybe. If you don’t know the history of something don’t presume to make assumptions to ask “what in the world were they thinking.” No matter what choices are made in life, I am sure it has some beneficial aspect to our future.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology? I thought that the discussion of historical relativism between different historians is relevant and important to understanding the history of psychology. Different claims for truth from historians might make things difficult in finding a reasonable way to decide what’s false and what’s true.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters? It doesn’t since this is the first chapter of the book. But this chapter helped educate me on the importance of history, the importance of history of psychology, and some problems that history causes.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about? I would like to find more out about the technology advances in psychology and what machines are used today for clinical psychology compared to what was used a long time ago.

7b) Why? I am always interested in “what it looked like then” and “what it looks like now” examples. When it comes to mechanical, technological, and scientifical advancements from the past, it always seems to interest me.

JL

1a) What did you find interesting?
The Personalistic vs Naturalistic histories
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I actually enjoyed all of the spectrums of historical interpretations, but personalistic history versus the zeigeist idea was easily my favorite. Personalistic history describes past events as a cause of great men and women. Without the great influences of these people history would not be the same. Now this is true but naturalistic history is more encompassing. It includes the culture, society, and prior history that would influence an event. The book describes Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace discovering evolution around the same time independently. This can be explained by naturalistic history.
2a) What did you find interesting? The argument about chemistry students not taking History of Chemistry classes
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
The book poses the question ‘why don’t chemistry students have to take a chemistry history class?’ I wondered why psychology students have to learn about dead and ineffective practices too. However, because of psychology’s newness and the difficulty that is measuring the human experience we are faced with many of the same problems as previous psychologists. We are still finding new evidence about some of the earliest psychological interests, and seeing how the past managed it either effectively or ineffectively will influence how we study it presently.
3a) What did you find interesting?
Interpretation problems in history
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
History has always been facts, dates, and names but reading about how E.G Boring’s view on history may have been influenced by previous teachers and colleagues was eye-opening. It will make objectifying any historical document or even this book easier.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? The long winded examples
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I understand this the first chapter of a history book, but some of the examples are too long and in depth for some of the concepts the author is trying to convey
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology? Understanding the personalistic history and the naturalistic history. History is names and dates, but it is equally if not more important to understand what influenced people to do great, or not so great, actions
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters? It is a little difficult answering this question. It will be interesting to see how other historical events pushed psychology into studying certain things i.e. PTSD of veterans after wars.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about? Any studies that were done that had lower ethical considerations
7b) Why? To see what they learned and if there are any ways we could ethically duplicate their study.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I know a lot of historical names, but I never much thought as to what in their environments influenced them. Like Alexander the Great, I just thought he was just trying to conquer the world, but there had to be other issues driving his campaigns.

Terms Used: Personalistic History, Naturalistic History,

1a) What did you find interesting?
Interest in the history of psychology has grown steadily since the mid-1960s, primarily because of its diverse subfields, constant expansion of ideas and theories; this attracts many to learn more as well as to join in on the field. The chapter also discussed why we actually study history. There were many quotes from past historians regarding why we should study history. Many have become curious about why people do certain things and why they act the way they do, a natural progression from that is to wonder where this idea or theory came from.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
Knowing history might help us avoid mistakes made in the past. Knowing history also helps us understand current events. Since psychology is a relatively young science, much of its history is recent and highly relevant to understanding psychological concepts and theories of today.

2a) What did you find interesting?
There was a quote by David McCullough that I found pretty funny, it gave an interesting perspective. What you would think of a man who says he is in love with a woman but has no desire to know or learn any of her history?

2b) Why was it interesting to you?
This basically sums up why we should know our history. Not just psychology’s history but history in general.

3a) What did you find interesting?
I found the fact that they brought the issues of phycology’s history to light interesting. The approach to the history of psychology was to introduce present day ideas and perspectives into it, it is internal, and introduced personal opinion. Now the complete opposite is true.

3b) Why was it interesting to you?
The presentist evaluates the past in terms of present knowledge and values, and passes judgment. An internal history of psychology is a history of the ideas, research, and theories that have existed within the discipline of psychology. Adding personal opinion and emphasizing the major historical characters argues that history moves through the action of those individuals. To me this is not history, it is someone writing an off version of and letting everyone know what they think, this would be a major issue is this was still the way people presented and portrayed history.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
Historiography is what I found the least interesting about the 1st chapter.

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
Historiography is the process of doing research in history and writing historical narratives. Historians rely on both primary and secondary sources of information. A secondary source is a document that has been published and includes analysis. Primary source materials constitute the raw data for historians and include documents created at or near the time of the historical event in question. This information is definitely important, but also the most uninteresting piece of info I’ve read.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
Psychology is a constantly evolving science, to capture it and its history correctly it must be presented and intrprested correctly. So I believe the most useful part of this chapter was the discussion of the new and old way of presenting history. For example previous history was recorded with presentist, internal, and personalistic, approach compared to the recent approach which is the presents it with better accuracy.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
Only the 1st chapter of the book

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
Historians are faced with two major problems: selection of information for their historical narratives and interpretation of the information at hand. These decisions can reflect bias on the part of the historian, and they can reflect the historical context within which the historian is writing.

7b) Why?
I wanted to learn more about this really just to see how they approach this problem, and how best to keep things unbiased.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
When I ran across the new vs. old way of presenting history that stuck in my mind. It is hard to believe this was accepted, and must have been immensely confusing.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
David McCollough, Psychology, History, Presentist, Historiography, Primary source, secondary source

Blake Wedeking

1)I found the idea of presentism versus historicism very interesting and intriguing. I found it interesting because I think many individuals look at history through the presentism view rather than the historicism view. The danger of presentism thinking misleads us into thinking that individuals in the past should have known better and that they ought to have foreseen what was coming. By this approach we tend to judge historical events and figures more harshly because we wonder what they were thinking in a sense. Historicism looks at an approach where try to understand historical events through values and knowledge in the past. This approach answers our questions on why this person may have did what they did in a certain situation.

2) I have always been interested in why individuals study history. Knowing history helps us understand the present and knowing history can help us place current events better into perspective. Without knowing the history of something we cannot fully understand its current context in the world. The best answer I enjoy for why we study history is that everyone wants to go back to a time in the “good old days” and individuals think that problem only gets worse. Individuals needs to realize that each age has its own set of problems that we need to deal with and not one period is solely the best period in time. Knowing history might help us avoid mistakes in the future but understanding the present is of the most importance.

3)I also found interesting the topic of a personalistic approach compared to a naturalistic approach in studying the history of something. I found it interesting that individuals believe that one individuals or event caused a chain reaction that completely changed our way of life. I personally believe it was more than just one person but a group of people living during the time. I believe that a naturalistic approach is a healthier approach as it characterizes the moods and spirits of the time as the prime moving force in history. Also I like the idea that people are “ahead of their time” when making a contribution to an area in history.

4) One thing I found uninteresting to learn about was primary and secondary sources. I believe they are vital when learning about the history of something to back up the evidence you are putting forth but is not the most interesting subject. I never liked documenting sources in high school and in college so learning about it again just didn’t seem necessary. I do believe that sources are relevant to learning and exploring history but not the most interesting to study. I also thought that places to find this data to be uninteresting such as universities or libraries because this should be common knowledge to researchers that may be doing a paper or writing a book for instance.

5) I believe that understanding why we study the history of psychology to be the most useful when studying the history of psychology. We wouldn’t study something that we aren’t interested in just for the heck of it. We must have some sense of what we want to get out of this class and our textbook. This goal we work towards can be answered by why we need to understand the history of psychology. The best answer is so that we can understand the present and what has led us as individuals to this point in our career goals and why we are taking this class on a broader view.

6)This chapter provides a great introductory into the book and how a typical individual may view history from different approaches. This chapter builds on why we study psychology’s history, key issues in psychology’s history, and different approaches to understanding history. This chapter explains why a historicist, external, and naturalistic view is a healthier way to view the history of psychology. This chapter also builds on the writing of history through historiography in which historians do research and write historical narratives. This chapter was a good way to introduce associations in the psychology field and how their work has made psychology a major field to study.

7)I would like to learn more about the individuals and groups that contributed to the growth of psychology in the past. I look forward to learning more about the APA and other approaches that psychologists have taken in order to understand the way we perceive the world as it is now. I also want to see more topics on experiments that were taken place in recent years and pictures that show current and past studies that are being done to understand behavior. I would like to learn more history of psychology in general as I feel that no other course has touched on major key events in psychology history so I would like to see what this class will present.

8)While reading they mentioned Pavlov and I began spacing off into his experiment with the salivating dog and how the dog salivated when hearing the ringing of a bell. Also the little Albert experiment came to mind when they mentioned altering someone’s behavior in the text. I did think about past history books as someone else noted and who are these people that are using the “old” method of studying the history of psychology.

9) historicism, presentism, naturalistic, personalistic, primary sources, secondary sources, external history, historiography

Next you will be asked what three things from the chapter that you found interesting?

1a) What did you find interesting?
I found the section that talked about how people often say it’s important to know about history in order to not make mistakes in the future. In reality knowing about history is very beneficial to the present as well. Understanding history helps us put current events in a better perspective. Also it’s helpful to know some background, that way it’s easier to understand the topic
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found it interesting because I remember that we briefly touched base on this during class, and discussed how we are somewhat trained to say that when we are asked why history is so important.
2a) What did you find interesting?
The reasons given to study psychology’s history was interesting as well. The book talked about how psychology is still a fairly new science and it’s not more than 130 years old. Another reason given was the fact that the field of psychology was still holding on to some of the topics that were researched about a century ago. There is always more research that can be done. The history of psychology also helps the new and diverse fields of psychology unite and come together. There are so many different specializations in psychology today, but one thing that they will always have in common is their history. Studying the history of psychology is beneficial because it leads a person to wonder, which in return allows them to become a more critical thinker. The last reason given in our book is the most obvious one, which is to educate us. Although this is a history course, it’s also a psychology course. It’s still intended to educate us about human behavior, and to help us all have a better understanding of how psychology all started.
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
This was interesting to me because I wondered what benefits would I gain from taking this course and why it would be required. Overall, I’m not a history person. So to actually see that the book talked about reasons that this particular area of psychology was extremely important caught my attention. I agree with all of the reasons that were listed, and throughout this course I’m sure I will leave with far more reasons that this course will be beneficial for someone.
3a) What did you find interesting?
I found some of the key issues in Psychology’s History quite interesting. The book talked about how the more traditional approach had been presentist, internal, and presonalistic. Also, historians have been more historicist, external, and naturalistic.
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
It was interesting to me because it seemed as if some of the issues listed were only issues based on opinion and one had the right to view it as an issue only if they wanted to. Internal history is when what is written occurs entirely within the discipline of psychology. External history considers those outside influences. Both approaches are helpful depending on the kind of research that is being performed at the time. I’m fascinated by how it is up to the individual to determine if one or the other is an issue when being used.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
I found the beginning of the chapter to be the least interesting to me when discussing the APA Division
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I believe I wasn’t too interested only because I don’t know much it’s history. So maybe if I knew a little bit about it before reading this chapter I would have been more interested in it.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think knowing about the different approaches to history of psychology will be most useful. The different approaches such as historicism and contextual could probably be considered as a base for understanding the history of psychology.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about how this area of psychology has grown throughout the years.
7b) Why?
I think it would be interesting to see the actual numbers, and it would probably be more encouraging for students interested in this History of Psychology to see that there are actual groups for this area.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
While reading this chapter I started to think about what was to come ahead in the next chapters, so I started to skim the Brief Contents page. I saw that there was a chapter called Psychological Science in the Postwar Era. I assumed there would be some changes that took place within psychology after a war. I think it’s interesting to see how things going on in the world can have an effect on a field of study.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Internal History, External History, Presentist, Internal, Personalistic, Historicist, External, Naturalistic

1a-What did you find interesting?
I really liked the quote from G.W.F Hegel that said the only lesson we can learn from history is that people don’t learn from history.
1b-Why?
I found this quote interesting mostly because of the context it was given. Like the book says, the main reason we are given for studying history is so that we can learn from the mistakes and triumphs of past generations. However, in general, we don’t seem to be learning very well. The very frank and honest outlook in the first few paragraphs made me very interested to see how the rest of the book would be laid out.

2a-What did you find interesting?
I also really like the comparison between knowing history and knowing someone we love be David McCullogh.
21b-Why was this interesting?
This stood out to me because once again, it made me excited to read the rest of the chapter. This example made perfect sense and changed learning about history from something that I “have” to do, to something that I “want” to do.

3a-What did you find interesting?
I found the statement that studying history forces us to have an attitude adjustment very interesting.
3b-Why did you find it interesting?
I found the whole approach to why we should study history very interesting. The book comes at it from a very relevant point and makes studying history seem like the smart thing to do.

4a-Something I didn’t find interesting.
I didn’t really find the section about key issues in psychology's history very dull.
4b-Why didn’t I find this interesting?
This was the first time that the textbook really read like a history book. It was hard to focus on the information and find a way to apply it.

5-What do I think will be most helpful?
I think what I will fall back on the most is how the book set up the the subject of history as something that is very interesting and applicable to our lives. Most history books are very boring and mundane, but this author writes in a way that makes the material engaging for the most part.

6-How does this chapter relate to the previous chapters?
This chapter does an excellent job of setting up a stable foundation for the other chapters to build on.

7a-What do you look forward to learning more about? Why?
There wasn’t one certain thing that jumped out at me from this chapter. I am very excited overall to see how the book and the class discussion go. I feel that this class will be very different from any history class I have had before.

8-What ideas did I have while reading the chapter?
I was continually impressed by the author’s writing style and how interesting he made everything seem. It was very different from other history textbooks I have read and made me really want to learn more.

1a) What did you find interesting?
I found the statement about most people thinking that if they know the history of something then they are able to stop the same mistakes from happening.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I thought this was interesting because that statement doesn't hold true according to the book and my fellow students and professors. I truly believe that in some cases knowing the history of some things will help semi prevent it from happening again, but I don't think it pertains completely to the history of psychology. knowing the history of psychology to me, means knowing how people are and why they do the things they do, not how to stop it from happening again per say. I love that it states that knowing the past helps prepare us for what to come. I also love that it states that we as people often ignore the past anyways, which is so true!
2a) What did you find interesting?
I found the idea of internal and external history very interesting.

2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found these two topics interesting because they hold true for humans in so many ways. I think that they are both equally important because it is important to factor both internal and external issues related to psychology and events in general. I think that external influences have a large effect on how and why a person acts the way they do. I think that external might be more important than internal in some aspects. Yes, mental illness is an internal issue and that can cause a lot of reasons on a person's actions, but I also think that the way people were brought up has more effect. Poverty, religion, violence, ect is something that can have a huge impact on a person and can mend them into people who do wrong in the world.
3a) What did you find interesting?
"Historians usually collect more information than will make its way into a historical narrative, hence why they must make judgments about what is important and what should be discarded."

3b) Why was it interesting to you?
This was interesting to me because it seems illogical. I would think that every fact or static found in a data set should be useful and put it. I would think that everything is important in determining accurate data. I don't understand why something's aren't termed as important. Who decides what's important and what isn't? To me, sometimes the small things are the most important so by discarding things, I feel like it could be jeopardizing the data set. By not putting everything in the data, someone later down the road looking at the data, might miss something that could solve a problem per say.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
I thought that the idea of the personalistic history was the least interesting.

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
It was the least interesting to me because I'm not too sure if I believe in it one hundred percent. I'm not sure if I think that without Newton, Freud, or Darwin, that we wouldn't know what we know today about psychology and history of science. Yes, I think that they helped guide us to what we know today, but I think that people would still be able to figure out how people work and how the world works without their insights. I feel like they were definitely beneficial, but I also don't agree with all of their findings as psychologists or even scientists. Everyone has their own thoughts about certain things and they didn't need to know those three guys thoughts to create their own feelings. They were smart people and they brought up valuable information, but they weren't the sole reason in my own opinion. I also don't think that we need heroes in order for our society to thrive because in all honestly I cant name any hero that I consider in my own life. Which therefore proves to me that I don't need a hero for history to take place.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think that having the mindset that learning the history of psychology is ultimately a history course, it is just as much as a psychology course. Knowing that it is both is important to me because I feel like it gives me a better understanding that I will be learning about both aspects of psychology and that it is needed information that I will use in the future. I personally don't like history so just hearing that this course was the history of psychology, it shut me down right away, but know that I know that knowing the history of psychology is just as important as a different psych class, it makes me want to learn more and more so than before. It's important to know that learning the history isn't going to stop it from happening but it informs me of why it happens and ways to prevent it seems to be a main focus point that is important as well.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
Given that this was the first chapter, I feel like it did a great job with presenting basic information and the idea of what the history of psychology is. I feel like what was presented will be presented throughout the chapters because of the important facts that were stated. The first chapter did a great job explaining in a simple and easy understanding way.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about the zeitgeist concept called "multiple."

7b) Why?
The "multiple" concept caught my attention because I had no idea that they was a such thing as two people discovering the same thing at the same time. I want to know and learn about more examples of this happening. How do they decide which one is right or who will be acknowledged for their findings? This concept seems like there are loops holes and unfairness, but I'm interested to know how many times that this has actually happened throughout the years. If it happened to Darwin and Wallace, then I'm sure it has happened many more times since then.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
When reading about data selection, I had the same thoughts as I did above. In one of my classes we had to write abstracts about data and we had to decide what was important and what wasn't. I had a hard time doing this because I thought everything was just as important because that's what was found when gathering the data. I wasn't sure how I was supposed to decide was the most important because I felt like I could leave out the most important things just because of a personal opinion.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
External history, internal history, history of psychology, history, psychology, Freud, Darwin, Newton, personalistic history, multiple concept, Zeitgeist concepts, Wallace, and data selection.

AS

1a) I found the part about presentism vs. historicism interesting. It discusses that we assess the past by understanding it with present information. George Stocking used an approach called historicism. The presentist interprets historical events with to date knowledge and values rather than where the historicist understands the event in the time that it happened.
1b) This was interesting because I didn’t know there were specific terms for the way you interpret historical information.
2a) I found the part about interpretation problems interesting.
2b) I found this interesting because historians tend to be influenced by the individual characteristics of the historian and the historical context that they are written in.
3a) I didn’t find anything else interesting.
3b) I didn’t find anything else interesting.
4a) I found the part about sources of historical data least interesting. However the entire chapter was extremely boring and there wasn’t really anything that interested me because there wasn’t a lot of content in this chapter.
4b) I found this least interesting because history isn’t interesting to me anyways and it went into to much depth about sources of historical data.
5) I think that the part about interpretation problems will help the most in this class because we are learning a lot about history hence the course name and so with this section it talked a lot about how we interpret things wrong or how historians interpret information.
6) We haven’t talked about another chapter yet but I believe that each chapter builds on one another.
7a) I wouldn’t mind learning more about a personalistic theory.
7b) I would like to learn about this because it sounds interesting and I haven’t heard of it before.
8) When reading this I was thinking about how I interpret history.
9) Historical data, interpretation, historians, presentism vs. historicism, George Stocking.

1a) What did you find interesting?
While reading this chapter, the first thing that I thought was interesting was the topic about Old Vs. New History of psychology.
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I thought this was interesting because when the book described old history of psych emphasizing the accomplishments of the great philosophers and psychologists and concentrates on the classic studies and breakthrough discoveries. New history is more historicist, external, and naturalistic.
2a) What did you find interesting?
Another topic that I thought was interesting was the discussion over internal vs. external history.
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I thought this was interesting because internal history is what is written occurs entirely within the discipline of psychology. This may explain the evolution of theory and research, but ignores those influences outside of psych; this would be external history. External histories examine societal, economic, institutional, and extradisciplinary influences.
3a) What did you find interesting?
I thought that the "close-up" about Edwin G. Boring was also interesting.
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
E.G. Boring can be considered one of the founding fathers of psychology in my eyes, because he was so passionate about the subject, he did everything he could to make psychology, its own department. It is really interesting to think of someone, in 1905, being so intrigued with the subject of psychology. He research nerve regeneration, visceral sensitivity, and human maze learning. Thanks to him, psychology is its own department.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
I thought that seeing the book's point of view was the least interesting part.
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I just didn't understand why the authors in the book would show their biases. That right there tells me that what I will be learning throughout the course, may be exaggerated compared to what I may have learned in a different textbook. I just didn't find it necessary.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think that learning about Historiography would be the most useful to understanding the history of psych. Historiography, which is just writing history, made me think different about history. Although, history that is written is in the past, it is always a continual process.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
This chapter is the first chapter, so it is giving us insight on things we are going to learn in the latter chapters of the book.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about E.G. Boring.
7b) Why?
Learning about someone who has his hand prints all over the reason why I am in this class would be interesting. Just to see what environmental aspects affected his life.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I thought about all of the history in the world and how we don't ever 100% know the real truth about anything in the past, but only what some historian has written down and how that information has been transcribed.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Internal and external history, E.G. boring, hitoriography

A.V.

Logan Ahnquist (L.A)

1a) The first thing I found interesting was Presentism and Historicism.

1b) This was interesting to me because, this happens in everyday life. When you look back at history, for me it was the Romans when they had the Colosseum. I look back at them and say "why would they kill people on purpose and cheer about it? Why didn't they know thats messed up?" I am falling victim to presentist thinking. I didn't live back then so I can't understand the reasoning behind that mindset and why they did it, I just know that now, in this time period, if anyone tried to start that up they would go to jail for sure. Then in the historicism thinking, this is the best way to view history. This involves trying to put yourself in that time period and understanding why they did what they did. If I would go back and try to think how the Roman emperors and citizens were thinking and the reasoning behind it, I might be able to see why they did these acts, and why it was such an iconic event in the time period.

2a)I also found Personalistic history and Naturalistic history interesting.

2b) I found it interesting because you can see personalistic thinking of history in every single text book about history. It looks at the individual more than the time period. It puts the person up on a pedestal instead of the time period with all of the changes. When this happens it causes a consequence called eponyms, which are periods identified with the person, from this comes Freudian psychology or Darwinian biology. Showing that the time period is associated with the person instead of the other way around. In contrast there is naturalistic history, which is the complete opposite of personalistic. This is about how the time period they are in helped shape their thinking and make bounds and leaps in their respective field. This is not as widely used as personalistic history, I have very rarely seen this type of thinking in a text book or in a TV show. Which in my view I think that naturalistic history is the better one to use. When looking at all of the events in history I would say that the times change which is causing the people to change their views. Yes, the people in the time period help change it, but they are just the passengers in a larger force. I think in our culture we look at certain people and say "wow they just changed how the world is going to think an act." In reality they are just seeing how the times are changing and start to act accordingly.

3a) The last thing I thought was interesting was the thinking of knowing the past can help prevent it from happening in the future again.

3b) I do not completely agree with this statement, history can repeat itself, and it happens more than you would think. There is still mass genocides all around the world, there is still even slavery. Both of these are two of the worst things that have happened in the history of mankind, we know about it, but people still repeat these horrible acts. I think that knowing what happened in the past doesn't help prevent it in the future, I just think it helps us know how to deal with it and stop it when it is starting again. This just prepares us for when people forget about history and want to do what they did.

4a) I didn't find the section on Historiography that interesting.

4b) I didn't find it interesting because, I love history, it is one of my, if not my number one favorite subject in school. I love everything about it, except I do not like knowing how it is written. I love reading about what people did and how they made an impact on the human race from whatever they did, good or bad, but knowing how it is written is not one thing I am worried about. When the book was talking about secondary source, primary sources, and archives, I was not interested. I can see why it is relevant, but it just wasn't too interesting to me.

5) I think the most useful subject would be the different ways to view history. There are 6 different ways: Personal-Naturalistic, Presentistic-historic, and Internal-External. I think they are all important in their own way, they each give their own insight on how historians view history and how it can be completely different in just how you look at it.

6)This is the first chapter of the book and I think it is a good thing this is at the beginning. It really lays the ground work for this class to just keep building. After every single chapter you will be able to look back at this one and relate it to something found in here.

7a) I would like to learn more about E. G. Boring.

7b) I have never heard much about him before this class and before i read this chapter. He seemed like a very influential historian, and the close-up on him was interesting. I think he gets looked over a lot and I would definitely like to learn more about him.

8) I was thinking a lot about all the past historical events, some in psych and some in the roman empire, hence me mentioning them in the first question. I think with history and psychology, you really can associate it with anything and most of the time you can associate them together.

9) E. G. Boring, Personalistic, Naturalistic, Presentism, Historicism, Histiography, eponyms

1)What did you find interesting? Why was it interesting to you?
Personalistic history vs. naturalistic. This was interesting because I’d never thought about how history could be divided into these two categories. I always saw history as one overall thing with certain events and people contributing to the whole. This will also help me with another class I am taking about women in US history. I’m sure we will touch on this as a class as well.

2)What did you find interesting? Why was it interesting to you?
How young the study of psychology really is. I guess this was something I always knew in the back of my mind, but it never occurred to me until I read it in this chapter. The fact that psychology didn’t really start picking up until the 1960’s makes it even younger than I thought. It is amazing to think that an entire science has mainly been around for the past 50 years. That is unbelievable.

3) What did you find interesting? Why was it interesting to you?
The problems in interpreting the history of psychology. I love the quote they included from Winston Churchhill on page 21 that said history would be kind to him because he was the person writing it. I never realized until I read this section how difficult it would be to interpret history because you have to take whatever was said in the past with a grain of salt because of particular circumstances like that. You also have to compare those past findings to everything that happened after that in order to come to an accurate conclusion. That’s a lot of work!

4) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? Why wasn't it interesting to you?
As a Social Studies Teaching major, the least interesting section was the section, “Why Study History”. Because I’ve chosen this major, I see the value in studying history and could probably write an essay on that in itself. Therefore, I was already aware of every argument this author made. It would probably be a great section for those without much experience or passion for history, but for me I’ve heard this several times already.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
How the author is attempting to depict this history. I had no idea there were several ways to depict it, but knowing that the author is trying to depict it in a certain way is very helpful. I probably would’ve been confused if I had read further chapters and questioned why this might not be the same exact interpretation I’d heard in other classes, but knowing this will help prepare me for that to happen.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
Because this is the first chapter, there is not much to be built off of. However, I’m sure that this lays the foundation for all future chapters. In order to fully understand the rest of the content in this course, it is important to understand way we study history, and the history of psychology more specifically. It is also relevant to know the point of view the author is coming from when he is portraying this history to us, such as his attempt to present this from a historicist rather than presentist standpoint.

7) What topic would you like to learn more about? Why?
The history of psychology in general. I’d like to read further chapters and see how these situations could be presented given different approaches. For instance, I’d like to see the historicist standpoint on the craze of lobotomys versus the presentist. Or the internal history of Freudism versus the external.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
Honestly, it was hard for me to understand why anyone would teach the history of psychology as a presentist. It makes sense that an amateur might describe it this way, but it would seem unprofessional for an expert to portray history this way. Therefore, historicist seems to be the obvious approach for any professional teaching the history of psychology. Because this seems so obvious to me, I’m surprised to see that it might not be obvious to others. I’m also a bit confused with the internal vs. external history approaches. I believe I understand the internal history concept, but I would need to see a couple more examples of the external history in order to fully understand this concept.

Presentism, historicism, external history, internal history, personalistic history, naturalistic history

DeAndra Mahrt

1a) When talking about why we study history, the supporting details were quite interesting.
1b) “If knowing history is no guarantee that mistakes won’t be repeated, and if history is an imperfect (at best) means of forecasting the future, then what is left? The present. Following this sentence was, “Yet a knowledge of history, although it can never be complete and fails miserably to foretell the future, has a huge capacity for adding significance to the understanding of the present.” (p.4) Even though we criticize history constantly, especially as college students, there is a huge significance behind studying history. I find myself, at times, not believing in the relevance of history in my life, yet with these short sentences, I find myself coming to a sense of understanding of the importance of our past events. Of course we are unable to predict the events of our future, we can however come to some conclusions on what shouldn’t happen knowing we can prevent the events that occurred in the past from reoccurring again because of our knowledge of these specific events.

2a) I find it interesting how psychology and its history spread through textbooks over the years.
2b) According to Furumoto (1989), the old history of psychology refers to an approach emphasizing the accomplishments of “great” psychologists and concentrates on celebrating “classic studies” and “breakthrough discoveries.” By retelling these specific events psychology became a respectable science. We refer quite a bit on these secondary sources. Specific accomplishments by Pavlov, Skinner, Watson, etc., have and still are consistently found within psychology textbooks today. With these specific milestones in history we continue to research and study using these mens’ findings. We hold true to their discoveries and form more theories and conclusions using ideas from men in the past. Without these findings, we wouldn’t have ideas to base our research off of. I believe it would be more complicated for us to start research studies from scratch.

3a) Personalistic history and naturalistic history are ways to describe historic events that have occurred.
3b) Personalistic history “The Great Man theory” bases history from the heroic (or evil) actions of individuals and without those individuals, history would be vastly different. These people provided actions, which were “turning points” in history. Personalistic history creates eponyms; meaning historical periods are identified with reference to the individuals whose actions are believed to be critical in shaping events. On the contrary naturalistic history emphasizes the forces of history that act on individuals. Edwin G. Boring is a supporter of naturalistic history. I find it difficult to pin point one specific way history has become history. Individuals themselves do not make events in history. However, they are well known because of specific individuals during that time period. Individuals intend on making history, no doubt, but determining exactly when or where that may occur is never predictable.
4a) Internal versus external history didn’t strike me as interesting.
4b) Internal history is done by individuals who have no expertise in history. They focus on ideas from within. However, external focuses on societal, economic, and institutional influences; also known as outside influences. Internal history is narrow and loses the richness of historical events, but external history can fail to convey adequate understanding of the ideas and contributions of a discipline. There needs to be a balance between the two instead of overpowering the other.

5) Understanding history is necessary to further understand the future and present. An ignorance of the past can lead us to arrogance. The book states, “the present is the culmination of centuries of progress and that modern-day accomplishments and thinking are more sophisticated.” However, knowing history forces us to understand the past a different way. Each period of time is its own mark in history on its own. Each stepping stone leads us too today, and today is a stepping-stone for tomorrow.

6) Chapter one foresees what the future chapters will speak of in terms of history of psychology and how it is necessary to learn and understand in order to continue forward.

7a) I would like to learn more about Edwin G. Boring.
7b) Throughout the chapter he was mentioned frequently. Before reading this chapter; however, I had not heard of him. He was the author of “A History of Experimental Psychology.” He is known as one of psychology’s eminent historian.

8) Throughout reading the chapter I kept in my one of the first few sentences I read in mind; why is it other majors, for example chemistry, no have a history class required and especially not one taught by the specific department. I should take this into consideration throughout the course knowing I am privileged.

Foretell, history, reoccurring, secondary sources, old history, personalistic history, naturalistic history, eponyms

1a) What did you find interesting?

While reading the book, within the first couple of pages of the chapter, the author explains a reasoning to study history that has not been said before, at least in my life, to me.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?

Reading this new reasoning as to why to study history and the importance interested me because of the new twist to such an old “truth.” The twist being, not to see the future to predict mistakes, but to understand the present we are living in currently. The author on page 4 quotes E.G. Boring by writing, “The seats on the train of progress all face backwards: you can see the past but only guess about the future (p.4).” The author also goes on to quote a commencement speech given by David McCullough in which he gives an analogy, the man and his love for a woman, as to why we should study history and its importance.

2a) What did you find interesting?

I found the different types of how to examine history that the author listed to be interesting. These included presentism vs historicism points of views, along with other struggles such as, external vs internal, and personalistic vs naturalistic.

2b) Why was it interesting to you?

This was interesting to me because whenever I had previously studied history it was just a study of, not an identified method of the study of. The author goes to mention an example around Bob Dylan where he was booed at a festival and people in the present were shocked. This is the reaction almost anybody would have, but, the author explains as to why the booing is not shocking and how the contexts around the actions are just as important as the actions themselves. The Bob Dylan example in the book was an example of the presentism views on history and the flaws that can be around them. He gives many more, but this is just one reason as to how the types of the history were interesting to me.

3a) What did you find interesting?

The third thing I found interesting was the sources used and the amount of them. The author does a good job in all aspects of the chapters bringing sources to make his points and really drive a validity home to them.

3b) Why was it interesting to you?

This interested me because it made the chapter easier to read. It is still a text book and gives the information one would expect to find in a text book, but the sources used, the relevancy of the sources, and the amount just made this easier for me to grasp and really get behind what the author was saying.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?

The thing I found least interesting, was more a thing I found annoying, and it was the seemingly redundancy of the points the author was making. The author would make a point, drive it home with a source, and then I felt that I was constantly being told the same point from not just one different angle, but multiple, to the point where the points were frustrating to read.

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?

This was bothersome to me, because I enjoy a good debate, and once a point has been made with validity and consistency, I am one to accept it and I will want to move on. However the author kept driving some points home, and it got to the point where a page prior I was on board with the point, and I was still being told as to why I should understand the point.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?

I think the part of the chapter that will be most useful to understanding the history of psychology will be understand the different views of history and how one has to look more in depth and all encompassing, and not just accept what has been accepted. The author does a good job of showing the different views and how its generally, accept fact A and have no understanding as to why its fact A or even why its accepted. This critical thinking will help in all aspects of psychology and understanding it.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?

The chapter does not build on any previous chapters, instead it shows examples from future chapters and where to find them and shows the text book is all encompassing and all works as one solid unit as opposed to many little units under one big thing.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about the idea of the personalistic versus the naturalistic history and the zeitgeist.

7b) Why?
Understanding history has always been something that interested me, but I never thought to understand what I know about the understandings of history and this idea of history stood out to me the most within the three competing views.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I just related the reasoning within the competing views of history to all my previous classes and how the class accepts things, or rejects things by jumping to conclusions, without understanding the situation to a fuller extent.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
E.G. Boring, David McCullough, Zeitgeist, Personalistic History, Naturalistic History, Internal History, External History, Presentism, Historicism.

C.S.

1a. I found the differences in PRESENTISM vs. HISTORICISM to be interesting.
1b. I found it interesting because I was always taught growing up that history is something we learn so we can try not to make the same mistakes as people of the past. The book makes the point that not only is it important to view history as to tool to learn from going forward but it is also very valid to use it as a tool to look at our present circumstances in the here and now. But, looking at history in terms of only the here now creates a problem the book calls PRESENTISM wherein we interpret historical events only with reference to modern knowledge and values. On the other side of the coin there HISTORICISM wherein we try to understand events in terms of the context of the times. It is important to distinguish between these two ways of interpreting history because there are pitfalls to both. If we only look at history in the eyes of the presentist point of view we may erroneously believe that, "Oh, they should have known better and done things another way!" when in fact we need to take into account the context of the historical situation.
2a. The next thing I found to be interesting are the parallels between internal history and external history.
2b. I found this interesting because as a psychology student many times I view things just within my realm of study without giving thought to what outside influences may have effected my area of study, in other words I am often guilty of an INTERNAL view. EXTERNAL HISTORY looks at the outside influences. The book makes a great point that too much of either view point has it faults. Too much in the way of internal history makes the information narrow and close minded. Also, too much in the way of external history we lose the fine details and do not see the understanding behind specific ideas and details.
3a. Another interesting section in this chapter deals with the distinction between personalistic VS. naturalistic history.
3b. The book makes another great point by distinguishing these two concepts. A personalistic viewpoint of history looks at specific people in a certain time period. Focusing from this viewpoint, for example focusing just on the works of Darwin, can appear to be a biography, which in the book they call an eponym. Focusing from this viewpoint has its problems, including losing the importance of others who helped his ideas come together and the cultural climate of the era. If Darwin did not discover what he did would his ideas on evolution still surfaced from someone else? Most likely. On the other hand the other approach to viewing history is from the naturalist perspective. This includes viewing history as whole, the overall intellectual and cultural climate of the particular era, which is referred to as the zeitgeist in the book. The author makes it a point to stress that when writing about history it is important to keep in mind both of these perspectives. While it is important to study the key characters that were involved in pioneering new ideas it is also important to understand that the climate of the era contributed to these people creating and coming up with these ideas.
4a.I found the section on sources for historical data to be the least interesting
4b. I found it to be the least interesting because in many other classes in my academic career have covered what a primary source, a secondary source, etc., are. I already knew what an archive was and what can be found in them. I understand that a lot of material in chapter one is just refresher and overview material but I just found this section to be the least interesting of all he sections.
5. The most important thing to know in this chapter going forward is that we need to take what we read in this book with a grain of salt. We need to critically evaluate the material and what point of view it is taking. The author makes the point that an old history book can be revised many time because we are constantly finding new things that change old ideas about what happened in the past. So everything we read in this book, or in any book, we should never hold as concrete but take it as more of a malleable knowledge that is subject to change if something is uncovered at a later date.
6. This is the first chapter so it is the foundation for which all the subsequent chapters will build on.
7a. I would like to know more about E.G. Boring.
7b. I find his name to ironic because in his short little descriptive section in the book it says that he used to go to extremes to test some of his theories (some being pretty gruesome). He seems a lot more interesting than his name suggests and I have also never heard of him before this class.
8. I thought about all my past history classes and what I learned in the past while reading this chapter. It made me question who wrote the text books and point of views they focused on. It made me wonder if the things I was taught about the past were biased and fair. It also made me realize that I probably did not get the "big picture" in a lot of history classes in high school.
9.Internal history, external history, presentism, historicism, personalistic history, naturalistic history, zeitgeist, eponym, primary source, secondary source, E.G. Boring.
J.F.

1.
a. In the opening of the book, as well as again on page 4, the quote “The seats on the train of progress all face backwards: you can see the past, but only guess about the future.”
b. When I read this quote before the introductory chapter I stopped and thought about it for a few seconds, until I realized what it meant, then when it was reiterated more in depth on page 4, I stopped and thought about how truly true that was and just thought it was a really interesting quote.
2.
a. The next thing I found extremely interesting was part of the commencement address given by historian David McCullough talking about the man who professes his unending love for a woman but knows absolutely nothing of her past, then connected that to the knowledge of history.
b. The reason I found this so interesting was because it made me really think about and realize the importance of learning the history of almost everything especially the things we are passionate about, which also made me get a little more excited for this course.
3.
a. The third and actually most appealing thing I read in this chapter was about the battle of Antietam.
b. I found this this part of the chapter the most interesting for multiple reasons. The first being that David McCullough was astonished that his friend did not ever hear about this battle, when in reality I think that there are way more people that don’t know about it, than do. The second reason being that considering it was such a historical day (casualty wise) it’s such an unknown occurrence.
4.
a. Something I found the least interesting in this chapter was being bombarded with so many names of important people.
b. The reason I didn’t like this was because unlike most other people I like to be able to retain the names of important figures within the field I am most passionate about. Although I know it’s only an introduction, I felt a little overwhelmed with the amount of people who I’ve never heard about and their significant contributions to society.
5.
a. I think that the most useful thing I read pertaining to understanding the History of Psychology would be almost everything under the category of Why Study Psychology? The reason I say this section is because it gives more incentive and value to actually reading the text and taking the class seriously. It also states very logical reasons as to why learning about psychology’s history is not unimportant.
6. It does not build on any previous chapters considering it is the introduction chapter (Chapter 1) but I can definitely see how this chapter sets the foundation for the rest of the course text.
7. What I would like to learn more about in this course are the important figures within the history of psychology of that have been kept in the shadows. Not that I don’t want to learn more about Sigmund Freud, B.F. Skinner, John B. Watson, etc, because although they are very important figures within psychology, I know there are plenty more also contributed greatly to what we know today.
8. While reading this chapter I began to think about the importance of not only the history of psychology, but basically the history of everything. As I previously stated, the quote given by historian David McCullough, stresses the importance of history knowledge, then that made me kind’ve regret not taking my history and humanities classes more seriously.
9. I did not use any terminology in this post.

B.D.M

MDS

1a) What did you find interesting?
-Why Study History section
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
-A quote from this section really stuck out to me “I believe the single most important reason to study history is that the present cannot be understood without knowing something about the past---how the present came to be.” I think that this quote is very true, and I think that it is important to study the past, so we can better understand what is going on in the present. I think a lot of times we focus to much on the future, and what we learn from history and what it will mean in the future. When I think we should be focusing more on the present.

2a) What did you find interesting?
-Presentism
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
-I find this concept to be interesting because I never knew about this way of looking and studying history. Presentism is looking at history from the vantage point of present day, and the point that was brought up in this chapter was that when you using presentist thinking you can be misled into thinking that during that time they should have known better and seen what was happening. I think that we are quick to judge the past because of what we know now, but that wasn’t known in the past.

3a) What did you find interesting?
- Historicism
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
Historicism is studying history through the vantage point of that time. Before reading about this I didn’t really stop and think about how to look and study the past. The example in the book used to explain this concept was about Bob Dylan getting booed off stage. You have to understand the present time of that event to understand why he was booed off stage at festival. I think that it is important to take a look at and understand what was going on during that time to fully understand the event.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
-Data Selection Problems
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
-I think that this important to learn when collecting data. But I found this information to be more dry and not really attention grabbing.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
-I think the most important information I learned would be the different vantage points to use when learning about history. It is important to use I think both the Historicism and Presentism view when understanding history.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
-This chapter doesn’t build on other chapters since it’s the first one but I think that it hints and gives a good introduction on about whats to come.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
-I think in general it would be more helpful to learn how to better evaluate history, and how history does relate to the present. I think I would also like to learn more about the Zeitgeist Concept and the multiple by Robert Merton .

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
-I was thinking how I could use the Historicism view in my other classes. With my major being social science I can use this concept a lot in my other classes to better understand what I am learning and how to evaluate history.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
- Presentism, Historicism, multiple, Zeitgeist Concept

1a) This is the first time I have heard of Edwin G. Boring, but he seems interesting. He helped pioneer psychological history,and yet some people criticize him and his work. His view our history is smart. Bring understands that we, as a society, need to understand and know our history so that we can make progress and learn from our mistakes.

2a)I found the differences between presentism and historicism interesting as well. Presentism seems as if it would not be a great way at looking at the past. Since presentism looks at the past events, but does not take in the values and the knowledge of the people at that time, we do not get the full picture. We can not assume that society in the 1800's would react to an event the same way that society today would react.

3a) Lastly, I found personalistic and naturalistic history to be interesting. I do like the idea of personalistic history, because it states that one person or 'hero' can change history forever. I like to think that anyone can change the course of history. On the other hand, naturalistic history would say that the course of history simply uses people t change things. This way of thinking gives the power to the forces of history, not the individual.

4a) I found the very beginning of the chapter to be boring. Honestly, I had to skip over most of the preview and chapter objectives. Other than that, there were a lot of names and dates that were put out there in a short amount of time.

5) I feel that the different views on history are going to be important to understand throughout this course. There are many different ways of looking at the past, and I thin that will be a big part of this course.

6) Since this is the first chapter of the book, it has nothing to build of off, but I assume this chapter will help us to understand the upcoming chapters.

7a) I think I would like to learn more about personalistic and naturalistic history because they are two completely different views on history. I would like to fully understand both so that I could form a better opinion on them.

8) While reading this chapter I thought of how important it is to know and understand history so that we can learn more. We need to understand our pas before we can make progress into the future or else history will just keep repeating itself.

9)Terms: Edwin G Boring, presentism, historicism, persnalistic, naturalistic,

A.M.L

1) What did you find interesting? Why was it interesting to you?
In most of the history classes I’ve taken, the books didn’t explain why I should be studying history past the point of “We study history because it’s important to know what has happened so we do not make the same mistakes.” I liked how this book explained the reasoning behind studying history and went even further by elaborating on the importance of studying psychology’s history. I liked this because it gave me a better handle on what the class will be like, and what I can expect from the text.

2) What did you find interesting? Why was it interesting to you?
I like how the end of the chapter points out how history tends to be written about the people that were important at the time rather than the many others that experienced the past from a different standpoint. It is important to keep an open mind because there is always more than one story.

3) What did you find interesting? Why was it interesting to you?
I liked reading the historicism section about Henry Goddard and his use of IQ tests on immigrants. If someone were to do this sort of thing today, they would definitely be looked down upon, but back around the time of World War I, this was very modern and seen as efficient. This example shows how time really does tell.

4) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I was not a fan of reading about the sources of historical data. I already know what primary and secondary sources are, so this small section was review for me. Although I did learn what the correct definition of an archive is (an unpublished document), I do not think I really benefited from reading over this section.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think that the whole chapter is useful because it covers the basics, but something that I thought the book explained really well was distinguishing one type of history from another and the issues studying each one entails.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
It was a well written introduction that, I’m sure, will relate to the upcoming chapters in many different ways.

7) What topic would you like to learn more about? Why?
I enjoyed reading about naturalistic history and would like to learn more about it. Before reading this chapter, I had never heard of it before. The idea that history shapes itself is pretty cool. When I think about history, I automatically think of the people that shaped it instead of the other way around.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
When I was reading through the naturalistic history section, I began to think about major events that I assumed were completely controlled by the people taking part in them. Something specific I had in my mind was the Holocaust. Most people assume that if Hitler was never alive, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. Now I know that that is not necessarily true.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Naturalistic history, archive, Henry Goddard

JRW

1a) What did you find interesting?
That the creation of the American Psychological Association was founded in 1892, and that the celebrated their 100th anniversary in 1992. I thought it was cool that they added historical articles and they even had a ball in period costumes and a birthday cake. I think it’s cool that they would celebrate by doing something so different. I also liked that they talked about psychology from a historical view, and published books about the history of the American Psychological Association.
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
This initially caught my eye for a couple of different reasons. First, I was born in 1992, so I think it’s pretty cool that I was born during the 100th Anniversary of the APA. Second, I am kind of into history and recently went to the Renaissance Faire, and am really interested in period clothes. I also really enjoy the historical aspects and the foundational research that we’ve learned about in psychology classes so far. Plus, I love cake, specifically birthday cake, and I think it’s awesome that they would do that at the annual APA convention.
2a) What did you find interesting?
I thought that the idea of personalistic history was very interesting. Personalistic History is described as the Great Man theory, or that important events in history are resulting from individuals doing things, and without those individuals, history would be very different.
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
This was interesting to me, because I had never thought of history in that way before. They go on to talk about Darwin, Freud, and Newton, and how they drastically changed and shaped science and history by being themselves, and I always just kind of thought of them as ‘important people’ who had a role in how we view things, and I never thought about what life would be like without those people. It was just a very intriguing thought that I had never had before. Would I even be sitting here typing this without Freud? Would evolution even be a thing taught without Darwin? I never really thought about history, and how it happens. Just that it was a thing you learn, regurgitate, and move on from.

3a) What did you find interesting?
I thought that the idea of historiography was interesting as well. Historiography refers to writing history.
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I didn’t know how much actually goes into writing history and recording things, tracing back sources and articles to what someone was doing on a certain day, trying to get the facts right. I find that very interesting, and sort of similar to a criminal investigation, as I am a criminology minor. Instead of going back to the scene, and retracing the days events of the victim, the historiographer traces back articles to journal entries, to archives, other people of the time, and so on. I think it’s interesting that the former truths of history that I have lived with could very well not be the entire truth, but just an educated guess that is now widely accepted as fact.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
I thought that some of the key issues of psychology’s history was kind of dull.
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I guess I just didn’t think that it was super relevant to know about the differences between internal history and external history-not that it’s not important, but that it wasn’t very relevant. I don’t need to know that the internal historians focus on the ideas, research, and theories within psychology, and that the external historians focus on economics, societies, politics, and institutions of the time. It’s all psychology to me, and that’s what’s important. I did think that it was interesting that they feel that they need to distinguish these historians from others though.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
Why study psychology’s history was probably the most useful. It will be easy to think back to this chapter and about psychology being a young science and how it is important to look ahead as well as behind and to learn from previous mistakes and previous things so that it doesn’t repeat itself, and that we can use it to tie together loose ends of our current research, or why someone may act a certain way. I also think that it will help for outside of this class, because I think that it will help me to understand future studies and evaluate them more critically.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
We haven’t read anything else yet. But I think it definitely helped me to understand why we focus on previous studies and our founding fathers and mothers in most of my other psychology classes.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I’d like to learn more about how a historian chooses the best fit for the study and the ‘truths’ or history.
7b) Why?
I just find it very compelling that it is very possible that the things that I thought I knew may have occurred very differently than the way it is now taught to us. I also think that it’s interesting how historians really need to be very transparent in the work that they do so that they can be as accurate as possible and get as much help from others as they can. I didn’t realize that the field would require that, since it’s the study of things that have already occurred

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I was thinking a lot about the Native Americans when I was reading this chapter about history, because I feel that unless you really spend the time to research it yourself, you get this fairly warm fuzzy feeling about the Native Americans and what we did to them. The average American knows that the Indians were at the first Thanksgiving, but they don’t know that we gave them blankets that gave them small pox, or that we killed them by the thousands and have essentially permanently lost many of the tribes culture, and that we did not try in any way to preserve their way of life or to record what we did to them in any real way, or how they lived. We just kind of shoved them out of the way and that was it. I was wondering about how much worse it really must have been for them, since we only have what we think happened at the time. I was also briefly thinking about the Renaissance period, and what if the great painters and artists that we think of when we think of those times were really just mediocre, but those are the works that lasted, so we hold them in such high regard.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Internal, External, Personalistic, Historiography, American Psychological Association

LAJ

JAL
I find Goodwin’s argument for studying history in general fascinating. He quickly dispels the cliché “don’t repeat mistakes” argument. Instead he supplements a much more hopeful, and I believe, more passionate reasoning, knowing what it is to be human. He references famous battles and struggles of history, many of which most people can find relatable. He even mentions a conflict within our own beloved psychology. The struggle between the APA and the APS is a classic case of conflict in the human condition.
The issues that arise from presentism and historicism thinking are interesting. They are both extremes on the same continuum. The text suggests we suspend these extremes in our study of history. This will be tough. I already felt their influence when reading the examples given regarding Dylan, Goddard, and Newton. This brings me to wonder on events and figures in history that I have praised or disregarded, previously. After reading this section I will have to revisit some places in history, this time with a more educated and less biased eye.
I thought the way the text covered historiography was interesting. Originally I would have considered “to write history” a boring aspect of academia. The way Goodwin emphasized the distinction between secondary and primary sources was something I had not considered. Masses of unpublished documents are the foundation of secondary sources, which is all we seem to read as undergraduates. It boggles my mind that I have not been exposed to such work.
I do not find internal history interesting at all. This concept of thinking views ideas in a way that ignores outside variables and contexts. No theory is so simple that it is only influenced by itself and the people who construct it. This simplistic view is barbaric and dangerous for any branch of study.
I think the most important aspect in this chapter is the emphasis on moderation. It is necessary to find a reasonable median in the often extreme ways of thinking that cloud psychology. Many of these continuums are useful and exist for a reason. Yet, it is important to acknowledge where one is on, on a given spectrum. This is necessary to avoid radical and bias conclusions. An emphasis on moderation proves useful when studying any topic and I predict will only be repeated in future chapters.
I would like to learn more the zeitgeist and naturalist forms of history. I find myself draw to the zeitgeist. The idea that epic heroes and villains have waged battle for science and humanity excites me. While the picture I hold in my mind is romantic at best, I acknowledge the danger of thinking purely in the zeitgeist. I want to know the other side, naturalistic. By evolving, I would better find the truth, or I may give in to my zeitgeist urges and explore heroically.
Keywords: APA, APS, Presentism, historicism (contextual), internal history, historiography, secondary source, primary source, zeitgeist, naturalistic

1a) The first thing that I found interesting was the ideas surrounding why it is important to know and understand history. Sometimes an ignorance of the past can lead us to a kind of arrogance; we believe that the present is the culmination of centuries of progress and that modern-day accomplishments and thinking are more sophisticated and far surpass those of a crude and uninformed past. (p.6)

1b) I think that it is an interesting way to look at things because it does seem to fall true. Such as the example of a man who falls in love with someone but knows nothing of their past. It is the past that helps to prepare people for their future so without the prior knowledge you become ignorant to the problems that may arise and have no knowledge on how to avoid them. This is interesting because it happens far too often and history may not repeat itself exactly but similar problems arise. Without knowing how these problems were handled/prevented before you become ignorant to the fact that you are just repeating issues rather than making progress.
2a)The idea that you have to overcome the knowledge of the outcome as it was described by Bernard Bailyn (p.11)

2b) Just thinking about that statement really, knowing that you have the results to solving a problem one way but problem still exists without an answer. Being able to look past the road block that was created and be persistent enough to overcome that problem and build on it but not be held back by a past failure. Just the thought that people have to have the drive and be persistent in life when there are not the results that they want, but you take it for what it is, build on it and make it a stepping stone to finding the right answer.

3a) The ending when it goes into how history should be absorbed.

3b) I like how it talks about there have been so many things in history and were talked about and through the word of mouth something that was really insignificant became huge and blown out of proportion. While something that should have been important has been pushed down and deemed something that can be ignored. It is actually learning from history that should help guide us with decision and help us to learn from our mistakes. At the same time though everything should be examined a little closer for evidence because there are times where people get carried away and you never know what will be the true result of something that was just an idea. The fact that there are so many times even in recent day that we see miniscule things turn into something of great importance when so that people look past the important things and focus on what is interesting.

2b) Just thinking about that statement really, knowing that you have the results to solving a problem one way but problem still exists without an answer. Being able to look past the road block that was created and be persistent enough to overcome that problem and build on it but not be held back by a past failure. Just the thought that people have to have the drive and be persistent in life when there are not the results that they want, but you take it for what it is, build on it and make it a stepping stone to finding the right answer.

3a) The ending when it goes into how history should be absorbed.

3b) I like how it talks about there have been so many things in history and were talked about and through the word of mouth something that was really insignificant became huge and blown out of proportion. While something that should have been important has been pushed down and deemed something that can be ignored. It is actually learning from history that should help guide us with decision and help us to learn from our mistakes. At the same time though everything should be examined a little closer for evidence because there are times where people get carried away and you never know what will be the true result of something that was just an idea. The fact that there are so many times even in recent day that we see miniscule things turn into something of great importance when so that people look past the important things and focus on what is interesting.

4a) The part about sources of historical data

4b) It just seems so drawn out the process as well as dry. There wasn’t a whole lot of knowledge that was absorbed about the part since a lot of it was mentioned before when other forms of history were discussed.

5) This chapter is pretty in depth about why it is important to know the history of psychology, starting with the fact that originally History of Psychology wasn’t even taught by a psychology department. Over time that changed to finally the Psychology department took over the history of Psychology and moving into becoming an actual Psychology credit, some departments are still struggling with this. Then there is the fact of many studies in Psychology build upon themselves, knowing what was studied, what the results were and what the Psychologist was actually intending to do can be beneficial to the new studies. Many studies in Psychology are closely related and even more important is the fact that the results can be very close, knowing the results of another study and your study can help to get a better understanding of what is actually happening. Finally for example, there is the Lobotomy, a high-tech procedure at the time that was appearing to help people to become calmer and actually cure some of their problems. After a further research on the Lobotomy it was found that scrambling someones brain was not only inhumane but was causing worse issues than the person originally had. Knowing now that just by hurting the frontal lobe it may cause a calming effect but there are much better ways to calm them through medication and treatment that have less side-effect.

There is also the part where they talk about eponyms that was involved in the Personalistic part of history, something that was used to create the different eras in psychology as there is today. Know why they were created and what they come from, what was happening during that time is something that always will be important in knowing the history of Psychology.

6) First chapter

7a) I really liked the section that talked about the IQ test I found it interesting and wonder how it really came about when it was in use and why it died off.

7b) It is interesting that people used the IQ test in order to immigrate to the United States, especially how they used it to screen people out that were not deemed smart enough. It was the part about intelligence being a form of natural selection though that really caught me. Basically it was saying that some people are just born to be dumb and some were born to be dumb. Then to go on and use an IQ test in order to let people immigrate to this country, it was kind of cruel when most people were not given an opportunity to go to school in other countries and were coming to America in order to get an education. It seems like something that would really harm the idea of coming to America in order to have opportunity and the ability to start a I would like to know more about what the process was and how many people were truly effected by this.

8) The main things that came to mind were just that there are so many different levels of history, how it’s created, what is relevant and want is something that is just a learning opportunity. Knowing your history helps to prepare you for the future. Many people have been able to save lives and solve major issues just by learning about what people did in history.

9) Bernard Bailyn, Psychologists, eponyms and personalistic

C.K.M.

1a) What did you find interesting?
-Psychology is only about 18 years old as a discipline
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
-I thought this was interesting because that is not very old at all. Psychology is still maturing and learning. It's confidence and experience has been growing from it's victories and mistakes. "Studying history is also about looking forward", this is one saying that stuck out to me as I read about how studying history isn't only about remembering.
2a) What did you find interesting?
-The four types of knowledge in psychology
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
-All four types, scientific, popular, ideological, and legal are deeply interconnected in the history of psychology. I find it interesting that in history value-based religion beliefs can have a huge impact on popular, scientific, and legal knowledge. Knowledge through research, everyday assumptions, set beliefs and rules remain inseparable parts of the environment.
3a) What did you find interesting?
- Ethnocentrism
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
-I found this interesting because it's the tendency to view psychological knowledge from specific national or ethnic positions. Most international conferences overseas would recommend English as the official language. I find this language barrier interesting due to the rapid development of psychology in the United States during that time.
4a) What one thing did you find least interesting?
-Resources
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
-This topic wasn't as interesting to me because it is common sense. It mainly talked about how if you had available resources such as money, laboratories, equipment, and education facilities you were more advanced in your research.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be mot useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
-I found the whole chapter to be very useful because it covers the basics. I think that whole concept of Psychological knowledge will be them most useful because it's so broad.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate to the previous chapters?
-Considering this is the first chapter in the book I don't know. Yet this introduction to the history of psychology will be a good one to come back to.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
-The interaction of the four types of knowledge
7b) Why?
-I would love to learn more about the four types of knowledge and not only dig deeper into each topic but to see how they all interconnect. The book did well at showing that impact one another and remain inseparable. I would like to know more examples to grasp a better understanding.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
- I thought about how history is so important. It's important not only for our past yet for our future so history doesn't keep repeating.
9)Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
-Psychology Knowledge. Scientific. Popular. Ideological. Legal.Resources. Ethnocentrism.

The first topic that was interesting to read about in this chapter was the debate of presentism versus historicism. I had not heard of this debate before and so reading it intrigued me. I originally thought that the current way for understanding history today would be presentism just by the word itself but I was surprised that historicism is more prominent. The reason why presentism is not a very popular approach to thinking about history today is that we tend to think of those individuals in the past as should have known better and to have foreseen what was coming. The reason why historicism is a much more appropriate approach is that it examines past events in respect to the knowledge and values that existed during that time period.

The second topic that I found to be interesting was another debate that was between personalistic versus naturalistic history. Personalistic history focuses mainly on important events in history due to the actions of individuals and without those individuals and their actions history would be very different. Naturalistic history focuses more on the entire cultural and intellectual climate of a particular period in time. The most famous proponent of naturalistic history was Leo Tolstoy believed that history was shaped by forces beyond our control instead of by individuals.

The third and last topic I thought was very interesting in this chapter was the section about the sources of historical data. I did not really know how data was stored and how it was used. I was surprised that a lot of books and studies relied a lot on secondary sources which essentially are books written by someone else. It is the primary sources that I found very interesting because they are kept in archives which is unpublished information. I learned that one of the largest places to find primary source material is at the Archives of the History of American Psychology at the University of Akron and the Library of Congress holds a lot of primary sources as well. I think it would be really fascinating to go to the AHAP and find notes, documents, and letters from some of the most famous psychologists in the world written themselves.

The least interesting topic in this chapter was actually hard to find. I thought that this opening chapter to the textbook was very well put together and held my interest the entire time because it explained why studying history is important. It gave me a perspective that I have never looked at it like before and then why studying psychology’s history was necessary to understand the present. I liked the varies debates of studying history and the complications that came along with collecting the data and interpreting it because it was in the past and gone, so much of it is interpretation.

The most useful part of this chapter to help understand the history of psychology would be the section that discussed why studying history in general is important and why the study of psychology’s history is important. By understanding why we study the history of psychology which is mainly to understand psychology in the present and how we got there rather than foreseeing the future. To understand the history of psychology I think it is crucial to understand why we study the history of psychology in the first place.

This chapter does not build upon previous chapters because this is the opening chapter. However, it did give many references to future chapters and the topics and individuals that will be discussed in those future chapters.

I would like to learn a lot more about the major contributors to the development of psychology. I know each of the following psychologists that will be discussed have merit on the development of psychology but I want to know which few had the most impactful contributions or changed the path of psychology the most.

While reading this chapter a few thoughts came to mind in regards to why we study history. I had always thought it was a way to see where we have come from and to not repeat mistakes but really it was about understanding how things are in the present and in order to do that you have to understand the past and how it got to our current state.

Key Terms: Primary Sources, Secondary Sources, Historicism, Presentism, Personalistic History, Naturalistic History, AHAP, Leo Tolstoy.

1) I found the section where presentism and historicism was interesting; more the example of Henry Goddard’s Ellis Island work. This segment was interesting to me because I was able to connect and relate to both ideals. Goddard was asked to go to New York to test the immigrants coming to Ellis Island. Goddard decided he was going to use this new technology that was created in France, an IQ test. Goddard gave immigrants an IQ test to determine which immigrants were “feebleminded.” After administering the tests, those who were considered “feebleminded” were sent back to their original country. This led to many immigrants being sent back. From the presentism perspective, one would think about how silly it is to use an IQ test to determine who can enter our country or not. IQ tests have limitations and aren’t always accurate at describing a personal intelligence. From the historicism perspective, one would try to understand why an IQ was being used. You would understand that the IQ test was the new thing on the market. It was just created and considered accurate for the times, so you would see how one would rely on this technology. I can understand both perspectives thinking, and it was interesting to me that I don’t fall into one category.
2) I found Edwin G. Boring most interesting because I can relate to him. Just like Boring went to Cornell University to study engineering, I went to Iowa State originally to study to be a Vet. Just like Boring took a psychology elective, I too took one psychology elective. We both found psychology to be absolutely fascinating and found that we could connect far more to psychology than our original study. However, I switched my major the second semester of my freshman year, unlike Boring. I like how Boring wasn’t stuck to one section of psychology. He was so diverse and had such a vast knowledge of the field. I respect him for that. For me, I respect the person knows a bit about everything than to know a lot about one thing. Boring was so accomplished and passionate. This is the type of person I look up to.
3) I think the overall message this chapter was trying to portray was that there is a hidden reason why we study history and the history of psychology. There is more depth to history than one thinks about. At first, you think that history is about learning from the past and trying not to make the same mistakes. That is not true! We should look at history as a way to help benefit the present. Psychology’s history is not just about tracing what happened in the past, but learning to apply it to the future. This was very interesting to me because I find regular history to be boring. But after reading this chapter I now have a new perspective on history. I can see history from more than one perspective. It opened my eyes and made me more positive about it.
4) The most useful information was learning about the differences between presentism and historicism, internal and external history, and personalistic and naturalistic history. This helped me determine how I understand history and how to view it from the other perspective.
5) This chapter takes familiar people I have learned about and helped me understand not just their contributions to psychology, but how they did their work from a historical perspective. For example I have learned about the works of Newton, Darwin, and Freud prior to this class. After reading this chapter I now can use a personalistic perspective to think deeply about what those famous individual did and think about how differently this world would be without their work.
6) I would like to learn more about the problems with writing history. I like how this book was honest and noted the flaws of writing in history. I now know that it’s not all always reliable. I would like to know in more detail now unreliable some writings may be. I am curious if you can look somewhere and find out what writings (and how much) are not 100% accurate.
7)Questions I had while reading:
What type of archives does UNI have? Are there archives from professors I have had? Do the personal biases of researchers limit my learning? Do I like their personal biases and make it my own perspective because that is how they wrote the archive? Would my perspective be changed if the researcher had a different personal bias? How many mistakes, unused data, inaccurate data, etc. are out there in the readings I have read? How much is inaccurate in the writings?
8) presentism, historicism, “feebleminded,” Henry Goddard, Edwin G. Boring, internal history, external history, personalistic history, naturalistic history, archives

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?

2a) What person did you find interesting?
2b) Why were they interesting to you?

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?

5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
6b) Why?

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?

8) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.

1a) I found the debate among the different types of history to be very interesting.
1b) I personally had no idea that there were so many different types of history and that in order to get the best understanding of history, you need a balance of all of them. I found the personalistic versus naturalistic history views to be particularly interesting. The idea that the actions of specific individuals are what shape our history, versus the idea that forces of history influence those individuals to perform those actions is what I found to be most interesting. The balance between these ideas and others such as internal and external history, and presentism and historicism is what allows us to have the best understanding of history.

2a) I found Henry Goddard to be most interesting.
2b) By today’s standards, Goddard’s reasoning for the deportation of immigrants trying to enter the United States would most likely would not be accepted by most people. His use of the IQ test to identify “feeble mindedness” sparked new ideas for immigration laws that are still being used and revised today. It’s fascinating to me that someone who called large percentages of immigrants “morons” is responsible for actually leading congress to pass very serious laws that are big issues still today.

3a) I think the overall message of this chapter is that there is a reason why we study history and the history of psychology. It’s to make sure that we are not only educated solely on what has shaped the field of psychology, but to help us become informed citizens who are able to have a well-rounded education about the society they live in. This chapter also emphasizes the idea our history is important. Weather we’ve learned from our mistakes in the past or not,our history has shaped our society and needs to be learned and understood.
3b) Yes this chapter and overall message was interesting to me. I was surprised to really understand why the history of psychology is critical to know and understand. I also found it interesting that history involves some degree of individual interpretation. It makes sense to me that not everyone would interpret an event in history the same way, but what I did find interesting was the question of why do these people interpret an event the way that they do?

4) The thing that I read in this chapter that would be most useful in understanding the history of psychology is that the field of psychology is relatively new still. Psychology is very much based on issues and related research. So being educated about this issues and research that has already been done gives a person an excellent advantage to make significant contributions to the field of psychology. Having a good understanding of the history of psychology will allow for a student to be better educated, become a more critical thinker, and only increase our understanding of the main idea of psychology, which is to figure out why people behave the way that they do.

5) This chapter builds upon material that I have learned about in other classes by giving the importance of psychological ideas or theories that I have already learned about. Goddards immigration screening for example, he very much performed IQ testing based on Darwinian ideas. Even though in today’s society, we would not solely rely on IQ testing to allow immigrants into the U.S. or not. His actions led to improvements in the way our country handled immigration. This chapter also built upon my knowledge of primary and secondary sources, and the importance of archives is research.

6a) I would like to learn more about Triplett’s study of cyclist.
6b) I just want to better understand the study and the importance of it since some consider it the origin point of social experimental psychology. This study in general also just sounds very interesting to me.

7) Why was Triplett’s study considered the origin point of social experimental psychology? Had no one ever done a study like that before or because it demonstrated social facilitation? Do those interested in the history of psychology have many career options? Is history of psychology involve everything related to psychology or just certain parts?

8) Personalistic history, naturalistic history, internal and external history, presentism and historicism, feeblemindedness, Henry Goddard, Historiography, primary and secondary source, archives, social experimental psychology.

1a) One topic I found interesting was how Goodwin goes into some detail about the problems with history writing and the ways that there are multiple problems with history writing such as data selection and interpretive problems.

1b) I found this interesting because I think often times people don't realize that history can be "changed" or stated in a completely different way depending on who is telling the history. I thought the part about Winston Churchill saying history would remember him well because he was the one writing the history really put this into perspective. Often times people from one part of the world may have a different view from history than another part, such as two countries being in a war. The winner most likely sees it in a completely different light than the loser which I think also goes along with presentism and historicism; often times we can view the past with all our knowledge today so we may not be able to understand why people did the things they did. However, as the book says, if you view it "like a historicist" you can see things as they may have in the past. I am definitely guilty of seeing things from history and wondering how they could have possibly done some of those things but I now see that I'm viewing it from a modern day perspective rather than looking at it from how they would have seen it.

2a) I found Edwin Boring to be the most interesting person from this first chapter.
2b) I thought Boring was interesting because he was such an early historian for psychology. I also thought the way he tried to get psychology to be it's own department and the way he really did interact with his experiments/lab work was also interesting too. I also thought it was amazing how much time he truly spent working on everything he did with psychology. I also thought it was interesting how I had previously heard of some of the topics he studied before such as nerve regeneration, eyewitness accuracy, and maze learning. I think this is very interesting because we still learn about those topics today and it would be interesting to know what he knew back then compared to what we know now in those areas.

3a) I thought the overall message was good and different from other textbooks. Like I said for the first question, there was an entire section devoted to problems with history writing. I thought this was a very good section to include and helps readers understand more about history rather than just starting out with a chapter that goes right into the material completely and does not give any background information. I felt that this chapter was a good lead in because it was able to combine background information with some people as well and information about them. I thought the overall message was a good one about history and how to read it and think about it better.

3b) I thought this chapter was fairly interesting. I liked how it seemed to be a less boring approach and felt more like a conversation rather than simply reading from a text book. As we talked about in class, normally history books tend to be boring and just focus on names and dates. However, it seemed like when names were mentioned the information given was actually very interesting and gave a more interesting background into some of the pioneers of psychology.

4) I thought learning about internal and external history is important for this book because I did not really differentiate the two or think about how there would be different ones before reading this. The example explaining this also helped a lot and it seems like this book does really well at giving examples. The internal and external history examples of cognitive psychology helped me see how there can be a completely psychology based part to something but then externally there is something that can be completely different and they both work together.

5) I had learned about some of the people stated in previous classes as well as the different perspectives that were discussed in some of the sections (cognitive, behaviorism, etc.) Even so, however, I think that in other classes there would be a less historical perspective or perhaps less accurate and in depth version of the historical events and history surrounding the topics and people so I think this class would build upon that more rather than just having a few facts about each perspective and not much else.

6a-b) I would like to learn more about Edwin Boring because I had heard his name previously, but none of my psychology classes I've had in the past focused much on him. I'm not sure about all of his contributions to psychology but based on this chapter it does seem like there were a lot of them so I think he would be interesting to know more about. As I stated earlier, also, some of the topics mentioned were things I had learned about previously but not in combination with his name so I would like to learn more about what he contributed to those things.

7) My main question was just more about Edwin Boring since I found him interesting as well as how psychology may be different if written in different countries or if in every country psychology is the same. I also wonder about what issues we still have in psychology that have not been resolved. I know that the ethics were not good a long time ago, so I wondered compared to today just how different things are.

8) Edwin Boring, internal history, external history, presentism, historicism

1.a)The topic that I found most interesting in the first chapter was learning about historiography or doing and writing history.
1.b) I liked this subject because it was very interesting to learn the researcher's process. In order to write about psychology they need to understand history and learn about the work of former psychologists. They also face a lot of problems when it comes to obtaining history of other psychologists. Some didn't keep notes of their work, and some didn't want others to see their work like John Watson.
2.a) The person I found most interesting in this chapter is Edwin G. Boring.
2.b) First of all I thought it was funny that his name is "Boring", and a lot of people associate that word with history a lot. But, he was interesting to me because he had done a lot of work throughout his life to contribute to the psychology field. He wrote "A History of Experimental Psychology", which was one of the first writing dealing with the history of psychology. He also did a lot of experimental research which I found interesting, like swallowing a stomach tube in order to note the sensory effects.
3.a) The overall message of this chapter is that history is very important. It helps us understand our present. We need to understand history in order to make progress.
3.b) Some parts of this chapter were boring to read to to keep attention, but I thought it was interesting when other famous people were mentioned like Darwin. By doing this it helped me understand that the history of psychology is not only dealing with people of that area, but history in itself is most important. By mentioning Darwin and his ideas of evolution I could relate his work to other psychologist's work.
4.) The things I read in this chapter that will help me get a better understanding of the history of psychology were about the old history and new history of psychology and what they entailed. The old history consists of the presentist, internal, and personalistic approaches. The new history consists of historicist, external, and naturalistic approaches.
5.)I had already known a lot about psychologists and how they have contributed to the field of psychology from taking past courses. After reading this chapter I had an easier way to relate what I had already known to some of the information given in the chapter. I did not know much about Edwin Boring before reading. Although he made different contributions than the other psychologist I have learned about, they are still related because they are all trying to help psychology in general.
6.a)I would like to learn a lot more about "old" history and "new history."
6.b) I think it is interesting that some people base their research off of one and not the other. In my mind both approaches seem like would do good. But, why is one better than another? And, is there research that one is better than the other? Both old and new history entail other components such as presentism, historicism, etc. I think it would be fun and interesting to learn more about these histories and what they entail into greater detail.
7.)Is old history versus new history and what they entail really better than one or the other? Or is it just a preference for researchers of psychology in order to do their work to their best ability? Because they both seem like both approaches would do a lot of good.
8.) Historiography,Edwin Boring, Old History, New History, Presentism,Historicism, Internal and External History, Personalistic and Naturalistic History.

1a) What topic did you find interesting? 1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found most interesting the different approaches to studying history and how many there actually are: Internal, external, presentism, historicism, personalistic and naturalistic. This was interesting to me because each type of history is so unique and shows us different aspects and how different people think.

2a) What person did you find interesting? 2b) Why were they interesting to you?
I found Marion White McPherson and John Popplestone to be the most interesting in this chapter. They were clinical psychologists that together started the Archives of the History of American Psychology. I find this to be interesting because it got a lot of other psychologists to be interested in the history of psych. Also through their hard work the archives can be used by many for years to come.

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter? 3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
I think the most important message that chapter 1 is trying to get across is the reasons why studying the history of psychology or any other field is necessary. Without knowing and somewhat understanding the past, we would have serious issues understanding the present. Like with the APA and APS, looking at them from an outsiders perspective one might think that only one of the two would be a necessary association. It wasn't all that interesting but it does give make it easier to want to study the history of psych now that I know why it is important. Makes me look at it in a way that I hadn't previously.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
Something from this chapter that was to my understanding of the history of psych is knowing that psychology is still relatively new. Because of this fact new things are still coming up and ideas from the past that were thought to be true is not always the case. It is an evolving field and new ideas come up all the time.

5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?
This chapter relates to almost everything I have learned in previous psych classes. Learning about theories from various psychologists we don't always get to know the history of them so understanding their reasoning behind doing certain things can be difficult. But if we learn the history to understand the present it makes it a lot easier to grasp.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about? 6b) Why?
I would like to learn more about the selection of material to be included in history books. I want to know what makes this more important than that.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
While reading about presentism and historicism approaches to history that really made me think about the past and what I know about america's history, specifically slavery. Now, I am in absolutely in no way saying that i agree with slavery but there has to be some reason way back then that made people think it was.

Terms: APA, APS, historicism, presentism, Marion White McPherson, John Popplestone

1a)
Internal and External history were topics that I found very interesting. Internal psychology especially because they are topics that have been exclusively produced inside the field of psychology.
1b)
I found these topics interesting because it helps me to understand the kind of history that we will be looking at, and how the history of psychology is both internal and external at the same time.
2a)
Henry Goddard
2b)
Henry Goddard was interesting to me because his name was new to me. I am familiar with the IQ testing that was done at Ellis Island but it was interesting to me to hear that he believed back then that intelligence was something that was inherited.
3a)
I believe the over all message of this chapter was simple. It is important to study the history of psychology, and that in order to best understand the course there will be both needed for success.
3b)
This chapter was very interesting to me. I felt that I have a better understanding already of why history is important to us and why it is worth studying. I found it very interesting specifically in the "This Book's Point of View" section Goodwin talks about how this course will aid our knowledge of psychology and how it will also make us more enriched thinkers. He talks about how it is important to understand not only Pavlov's Dog experiment but also the time period and what was going on in that region. I believe this course will be very interesting.
4)
In the Text Goodwin points out with much support that history may not be able to prevent mistakes in the future, but It can help us understand and appreciate the present. I love the example that I used in the text about how people believe that right "now" we have it as bad as its ever been. There is to much violence to many dishonest unhappy people, but when we look at history it can revel to us that we may in fact be wrong in our way of thinking. The Daniel Boorstin a historian quoted in the text gives a great example of how bad things used to be in terms of health and medicine and how wrong we seem to be in saying that times are bad now. After reading this I found it to be most useful to understanding why we need to study the history of psychology and why even if we can't prevent mistakes in the future it can tell us about what we know about psychology now.
5)
It relates to the theories that have been taught in all of my psychology classes so far. It is actually really interesting because in the readings Pavlov's study is brought up along with social facilitation. These are two of the fundamental studies that make up what we think of when we hear psychology so to understand the history of these and why it is important to understand the things that make up what we study. This chapter made me very excited to dig more into this class and I almost wish it was a class I could have taken earlier in my college career.
6a)
I would love to learn more about Goddard and the bias's that were present when he performed IQ testing to immigrants.
6b)
Henry Goddard was a name that I had never heard but many of the things in his studies such as the researchers biases seem that they would be interesting to know more about.
7)
I had a few questions in relation to Personalistic history. Though there were good examples given in the text I am still a little unsure of what it is and would love to learn another instance or example to how it relates to the history of psychology. Another Idea that was interesting to me was the one of multiple concept, where two or more people have the same idea and simultaneously. This got me thinking about other discoveries in psychology and have me curious which studies fall under the category of the multiple concept. As we talked about in class (Darwin was the example) that ideas don't just happen all of the sudden they are formed over time this made me think of that and makes me curious if there are other instances of this concept.
8)
Internal history, external history, bias, multiple concept, social facilitation.

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
I found the discussion of personalistic versus naturalistic history rather intriguing.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found this interesting as I think both are very extreme ways to interpret history. On one hand, a personalistic view of history seemingly asserts that without those who made great discoveries in the history of psychology (i.e. Darwin, Freud, etc.), the world of psychology today would be much different. If we were to simply look at history through this lens, it would assume that the contributions made by these individuals were unique and could not have been developed by any other scientists in time. We know from the case of Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace that this is not necessarily true. Two theories like natural selection can be discovered simultaneously, also called a multiple as coined by Edwin Boring. This is not to discredit the contributions of important figures in history, but to recognize that these were not necessarily isolated ideas and that other factors may have contributed to the course psychology took through history. Thus, this leads to a second sort of extreme: naturalistic history. In this case, historiography seeks to explain history by the events and outside forces acting on individuals of the time. This method explains the path of history as one not attributed to any particular individual but the atmosphere in which their discoveries were made. This zeitgeist thinking considers that under such conditions someone would have come up with these ideas, the individuals we attribute to such discoveries just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Ultimately, I think we must view history through a combination of both personalistic and naturalistic methods. It was the climate in which these individuals existed that contributed to the development and acceptance of their ideas, but without the individuals themselves these forces impact on the scientific world may not be known as it is today.

2a) What person did you find interesting?
I found John Popplestone and Marion White McPherson interesting in this section of reading. I had to include both as their contribution was the result of collaboration.

2b) Why were they interesting to you?
I found Popplestone and McPherson interesting simply by the pure fact that they took their interest in the history of psychology and made it into a resource for generations of researchers and historians to use in the form of an archive. The AHAP is one of the prime resources and allows for research to be completed such that students like me can learn about the history of psychology. Many were becoming interested in psychology’s history at the time, but they put their passion into action and found a way to share it with others which I find very admirable. What a great contribution to future generations!

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
I think that the overall message of this chapter was to inform the reader of the different ways that history can be interpreted, so that one is aware of this when they read a history on any subject. In addition, it is important to note that the chapter explains how these histories are developed (where the research comes from) and that it is a more complicated process than many think.

3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
Although this is probably not the most interesting topic I will encounter in my reading this semester, I found it very important and worth my time. It is important to know why we study history and recognize how histories come to be. It was also interesting think that histories including that of psychology are continuously revisited in the hopes of getting closer to the truth. As we go forward, I believe that this is critical information to keep in mind.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I thought that the section regarding why we need history and more specifically the history of psychology will be important as the semester progresses. We realize that history is a vital tool for interpreting psychology in the present day. It gives us perspective as to how the field of psychology has changed to become what we today have to work with. It allows us to see how problems we faced in the past and continue to face today have been addressed and encourages us to develop new ideas from the old. Thus, as we learn about the history of psychology this section teaches us to apply it to the present.

5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?
Quite honestly, I have not had too many psychology courses, so it is not surprising that I do not know a whole lot about the history of psychology or how this history is developed. That being said, I did recognize some familiar names and ideas such as Freud, Pavlov, and cognitive psychology. However, the majority of this information was brand new to me, so it does not build much off of previous classes I have taken. I hope that I am better able to answer this question as I learn more about the history of psychology!

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about Henry Goddard and more specifically the process of testing incoming immigrants’ IQ at Ellis Island.

6b) Why?
I think that this is interesting to me simply because I did not know that they limited immigration through Ellis Island by IQ. I would like to learn more about what was classified as a “moron” or what constituted a “feebleminded” immigrant and the rationale behind turning those people away instead of trying to better them in the “Land of Opportunity.” How many immigrants were turned away for this reason versus other reasons (i.e. illness)? Was the IQ test used anywhere else to determine whether someone could enter the country?
Also, I find it interesting because we today are still dealing with policy regarding immigrants both here in the United States and more recently in Europe. Thus, it would be interesting to compare how immigrants were handled at Ellis Island versus how they are handled today.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
Much of the information in this chapter was new to me, so I found much of it very intriguing. I found myself considering the different histories I had read and wondering whether they followed the old or new history model. Also, going through history in high school I had not questioned what I was reading. I guess I didn’t consider that a human had researched and compiled the history and it was therefore subject to bias, so that was a whole new thought for me. Finally, I found it satisfying to finally put a meaning behind the study of history. No, not all the reasons for studying history could be covered, but having read this chapter I see much more purpose in this class. I had never been told in any class, let alone history, why I was there, so this was a nice surprise for me and encourages me to learn even more.

8) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Personalistic history, naturalistic history, multiple, Edwn Boring, historiography, zeitgeist, archive, AHAP, John Popplestone & Marion White McPherson, Henry Goddard, old & new history

1. I personally thought the most interesting thing in this chapter was the section about personalistic versus naturalistic history. I found this particularly interesting because it seemed to focus more so on the combination of historical studies in general along with how a person’s personal history comes into play together. It explains more about how Newton, Darwin, and Freud, for example, come into play with this topic and made it a little easier to understand.
2. The person I found most interesting in this chapter was Edwin Boring. I found his name to be rather ironic and liked that the book realizes that many people find psychology as boring. This is what initially got me interested. Then, as I read on, I thought it was pretty intriguing that he first graduated with an Engineering degree then went back for his PhD. It was cool that he fell in love while in school. I think he was ahead of his time in the fact that he made videos of him teaching. I know that this wasn’t a typical time of television for most people. He seems like he was a rather inventive guy and made big steps for psychology as a whole.
3. I think that this chapter was trying to introduce history to us a little bit. It was trying to give us a basic background for us to grow from. We need to know the basics in order to grow more. I typically hate history. I think that it’s just something that is forced upon us and not always necessary to remember. This chapter was sort of interesting though. It covered many different things in history that are still applicable today and allow for us to understand how some people behave the way they do.
4. I think that the most valuable thing to help understand history of psychology would be internal versus external history. I think this is particularly applicable because it creates the boundaries within psychological history and goes into further detail of that. It helps to show what gets taken into consideration and how it makes a difference.
5. Personally, I’ve taken only one general psychology class. I took intro to psych. I learned some history information at that time, but it was so long ago that I don’t really remember a whole lot. I do remember hearing about Newton and Freud so seeing their names throughout this chapter made it a little easier to understand part of it. It will be interesting to get more into this topic as we move along and see what else sparks in my memory.
6. I would like to learn more about Presentism and historicism. It seems as though many people think one way or another when it comes to these terms. I think that trying to understand that can allow us to understand some people better. It seems like a very touchy topic and could change depending on the situation. I feel like I got a decent understanding from the text, but I would definitely like to make sure I fully understand it.
7. Are these terms that we need to know throughout the semester to fully understand the material as we move forward? Is there more of a link between each of the topics mentioned in this chapter than what I can see first-hand?
8.
• Personalistic History
• Naturalistic history
• Newton, Darwin, Freud
• Edwin Boring
• Internal history
• External history
• Presentism
• historicism

1a). I think the most interesting part of this chapter was in the first section why study history about the two main reasons to study it.
1b). I think these two reasons are so interesting to me because they make very good points. I hate studying history but the reasons they gave for studying it were very good points and have me rethinking the way I feel about studying history. The first point they made about thinking that we know a lot about things that we don’t actually have any clue about, to me was eye opening because when you learn about the cultures and the things that people had to do and the things they went through you can never really know what it was like because you weren’t there. I agree when the books says that we think we know a lot of things that we really don’t. I also think the second point is about how we become arrogant because we know the past. Just because we are doing extremely great things today doesn’t mean we should learn and remember the amazing findings from the past because we wouldn’t be where we are today without having that information.

2a). Edwin G. Boring was an interesting person in this chapter.
2b). I enjoyed the quotes they had from him in the text. I thought it was interesting that he started as an engineering student and switched to psychology then went on to become the most famous historian. I thought it was cool that he started to teach the class that made him interested in psychology.

3a). I thought the overall message of the chapter was good, it was easy to read the information was good it didn’t go into a lot of unnecessary details about the less important topics which I really enjoyed. The books message about why we should study was a very good introduction message to give the reader a reason to read.
3b). It was interesting to me to read the why first then move on to the information that we need to read about this helped me a lot before starting this course. I think this book would be a lot less interesting with out the very convincing opening statements about why we should study history. I like the way it explained the context and it didn’t use hard terminology which made the text a more enjoyable.

4). I think reading the why we should and do study history will help me the most because I hate studying history and have a good reason to study it and help me keep my perspective open on studying history will be the most useful tool to me throughout this course. Having read this section on why will be the most useful to me because I will actually have more of a desire to read the information and put in effort for this class.

5). Well since it is the first chapter of the text it doesn’t really build much on any of the knowledge that I already had it was more just the start of the history and just telling you a few of the basics that they are going to build on in later chapters. I don’t really have much knowledge of the history of psychology to begin with so I don’t have much previous knowledge to build off of.

6a). I think learning about the issues that happened in psychology’s history is going to be interesting. There are many issues in the history of psychology and I think that it would be interesting to learn more about them.
6b). Learning some of the things that they struggled with back then will be interesting to see if some of the same problems still exist today. The internals and externals of psych history had me wanting to know more about theories and research within and outside psychology.

7). This question might not be the best but, doesn’t matter if you use a primary or secondary source? Which is better? Because the primary source is the original source but the secondary source is summarized so its cut down to the most important information that the primary source has..

8). Internal history , external history, primary source, secondary source.

1A. I found the internal vs external history interesting.
B. I found this interesting because I never really thought about the influences that occur outside of psychology to necessarily make a difference in it at all. Usually if it makes an influence in the discipline, it would be considered part of the discipline.
2A. Like many others, I would agree that Edwin Boring was the most interesting person in this chapter.
B. For how involved with psychology he was, it's shocking to find out that he wasn't even as indulged in psychology right away after taking his first couple courses. Especially, when all it took for me to fall in love with the subject was my simple high school psychology course. I also really enjoyed the part where it says that he believed that a students first encounter with the subject should be from a master because it is completely true.
3A. I feel like the overall message of this chapter is to help students understand why it is important to learn the history and background of their major.
B. Yes. I'm not a big fan of American history, but I always love to learn more about subjects that I'm interested in, like psychology. It's also fun to learn about how other psychologists were introduced to the subject, whether they just stumbled upon it, hated it to begin with, etc.
4. The thing I read about that I feel will be most useful are the different arguments. I have learned much about some of the other arguments, but these will help open up my eyes even more. Like the personalistic vs naturalistic history and the presentism vs historicism views.
5. This chapter honestly just added to my knowledge. I have taken general psychology courses, so seeing Freud's name was familiar. Other than that, most of this was relatively new information to me.
6A/B. Honestly, I would love to learn more about it all. As I have mentioned, I absolutely love learning the different aspects of psychology. I'm not usually one who's excited to begin classes ever, but it's easy to get excited when you enjoy the class.
7. None that I can think of.
8. Edwin Boring, Internal History, External History

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
The topic that I found interesting was why study Psychology's History.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
The reason that this was interesting to me, was because I have kind of been wondering this question myself. Why do I have to take a history class if I am not a history major? But, after reading through this section of chapter 1 I quickly realized why this is a required class for a psychology major. What I specifically found interesting was the fourth reason to study psychology history, and that is because it makes you a more critical thinker. That is true to me, and something I have noticed happens to me frequently since I have started taking this class and other psychology classes. My mind begins to think about things more in depth, and see things for how they really are.
2a) What person did you find interesting?
The person that I found interesting was Daniel Boorstin.

2b) Why were they interesting to you?
The reason that I found Boorstin interesting was because of his passage in the book that was from his essay titled, "The Prison of the Present." Boorstin brought up some really good points in this passage that I agreed with, and found interesting. He essentially said that we often wish we lived in the past when times were easy, and didn't have so many problems, but we never stop to think that times were not at all easy back then. In fact they were much worse with diseases killing many people, unsanitary water, and waste in the streets. He also implied without the knowledge of this history, we would continue to think that the good times were in the past, and not realize that the present is the best times yet.
3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
I thought that the overall message of the chapter was a good one, especially for the first chapter of the book. I would say that the message of this chapter, in a sentence, was to understand that history is most definitely necessary for students to develop into future psychologists.
3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
Yes and no. I thought the information was kind of dry. There was a few interesting parts, like what Boorstin said, and learning how relatively new psychology is, but this was a starter chapter I felt like, and the more interesting stuff is still to come.
4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
The thing I read in this chapter that I think will be most useful in helping me understand the history of Psychology is the key issues in psychology's history like presentists vs. historicists, internal vs. external, and personalistic vs. narturalistic. These sections of chapter one showed the different angles to look at the history of psychology, with kind of a past and present viewpoint for each category. Knowing these will help me to know how to view certain events accurately, and not ignorantly, that happened in the past.
5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?
One new thing that I learned after reading this chapter is that psychology is a relatively new science. It hasn't been around for extremely long, and therefore a lot of psychology's history is still closely related to each other. This idea was thought of by Sir Francis Galton, saying that many things in psychology can be linked. So, this just builds on the fact that having a knowledge of psychology's history is very necessary.
6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
The topic that I would like to learn more about is historiography.
6b) Why?
The main reason I would want to learn more about this is because I began to ponder how accurate history really is when I read about history being subject to numerous errors. I am certainly not questioning all history, but sometimes eyewitnesses memory can be clouded, and can potentially be a little inaccurate, so I would just like to learn where all historiographers get their information and how accurate it really is, or if some of it is just an educated guess.
7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
One of my questions, like stated in 6b, is how accurate some of the history we learn about is. Like I said before I believe the events that I read about happened, but like the book said there is potential errors, so I'm just wondering how often the errors occur.
8) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Terms: Daniel Boorstin, presentists, historicists, internal, external, and personalistic, narturalistic, Sir Francis Galton, historiography, eyewitness memory.

Chapter 1

1a) What topic did you find interesting? 1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found the distinction of personalistic history and naturalistic history to be relatively interesting. I had not previously thought of history in terms of how history is viewed: one where a handful of individuals influence history, the other where history (events) actually influences individuals. This broad concept had not even crossed my mind until I read the definitions in the book.

2a) What person did you find interesting? 2b) Why were they interesting to you?
I actually found two people who were interesting but had the same goal in mind: Marion White McPherson and John Popplestone. I admire individuals who go above and beyond their call when they are passionate about their field. In a way it is a confirmation that an individual is in a field that suits them. I thought it was interesting that these two individuals came together to form an archive of psychological history. Even though psychology is a relatively new field when compared to the medical field it is still a legitimate field in which future scholars of psychology need to review experiments of the past for inspiration or for knowledge. It is important to know what others in the field have done—whether it be a great success or an awful failure.

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter? 3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
The overall message of this chapter was to define historical terms that may not be common knowledge. The purpose of the chapter was also to give an overview of why this information is relevant, key issues in psychological history, and the process of carrying out research in psychology. Honestly, while I was reading this book, my eyes were glazing over and I was yawning every other page. I am hoping that this chapter is like every other horrendously boring and dry introduction and the rest of the text is more interesting. I still have hope that future chapters will not put me asleep. I am more interested in texts that discuss applications of knowledge rather than what has occurred in the past.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
The author has a viewpoint that past history should not be seen as “inferior” or useless when discussed in terms of present application (presentism viewpoint). One issue brought up in the chapter is that history is often not viewed in the lens of that time period. In order to understand a specific point in history, an individual must think in terms of the thought processes that were used in the past at that same point in history (historicism viewpoint).

5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?
This chapter mentioned Freudian psychology and Pavlovian psychology. In many of my previous courses I have learned about landmark studies by these psychologists. Even though Freud has little credibility and his practices have all but been shunned, when someone says psychology, the first instinct is to think “psychology and Freud” go together. When people have little exposure to psychology they only recognize the ‘father of psychology’ because his form of assisting patients was so popular. Pavlov is also a big name in psychology. Pavlov and his dogs are crucial to the understanding of classical conditioning. These men defined eras of psychology even though there were a multitude of other researchers at that point in time. Their contributions trumped all others or were considered the most important.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about? 6b) Why?
I would like to learn about psychologists other than the ones previously mentioned. I would like to learn about more landmark studies in multiple domains of psychology. I am also interested in how the mentally ill were treated in the past and how or when medicine and psychology began to overlap (MD vs. Psychiatrist). I would also like to know how certain psychological approached were developed and how the time period may have influenced the approach. I would also like to know how the approach became popular and how they became officially recognized as a discipline of psychology. I feel that if I have background knowledge it will help when I am treating clients in the future. I can think of which approach would be most applicable based on the specific situation/object/environment my clients are currently going through.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
I thought the author made a good point when describing that those involved in the field of psychology (and related fields) should be “literate student[s] of psychology, [which] requires knowing some history.” While I was reading the chapter I was glad that the author explained why I should be enrolled in this course. I enjoy history but in small doses. I was not sure why a psychology major needed to take an entire course about history. After reading this portion I now realize that past research might be able to assist understanding of current research. I also realize that every era has issues that appear and that psychological approaches emerged from these issues. The approaches acted as strategies to reduce or eliminate these issues.

Terms: Personalistic History, Presentism, Historicism, Pavlov, Freud, Marion White McPherson, John Popplestone

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
The topic that I found most interesting was the Archives of the History of American Psychology (AHAP).
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found this interesting because of all that you are able to find in an archive, such as correspondence between psychologists that let you know what topics they may have discussed long ago. Some other interesting things that you might find include unpublished documents or photos. I also found some humor in reading about how cocaine was discovered in an archive of Carl Koller, even though at the time his experiments were conducted as serious studies.

2a) What person did you find interesting?
The person I found interesting in this chapter was E.G. Boring.
2b) Why were they interesting to you?
I found him interesting because of how involved he was in his work. He used himself as a test subject by severing a nerve in his own arm and swallowing things to study their effects. I also found it interesting that he played a major part in establishing psychology as its own department at Harvard.

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
I think the overall message of the chapter was that while it is important to study history, it is also important to realize that no study of history will be complete.
3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
I found this somewhat interesting because it made me think that a lot of the history I remember is personalistic because I know the names of important figures but not always the context in which they were important. I also found some of it to be common sense, such as how someone who is compiling history may misinterpret information or exclude information. I do realize why it is important to be reminded of this, though.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think that it will be useful to understand that, because psychology is a relatively new scientific field, the different schools of thought that exist today will have similar roots that began in the early days of psychology.

5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?
So far this chapter has not built on anything specific I have learned in other classes, although it was a good introduction to why there is a history of psychology course.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about AHAP.
6b) Why?
I think it would be interesting to find out what some specific items in the archive would be.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
One thing that I wondered was how hard and time consuming it must have been to do historical research in the pre-Internet/digital days.

8) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Terms: AHAP, Carl Koller, E.G. Boring, personalistic history,

1a) What topic did you find interesting?

I found the difference between presentists and historicist pretty interesting.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?

I found it interesting because I never thought about history this way and I think that it is very important to look at the context and time that these experiments were happening in otherwise we cannot fully grasp why these researchers did what they did and why we know what we do today. Presentists think of historical happenings in present day context which is an inaccurate way to think about history because back then and now are two completely different times.

2a) What person did you find interesting?

I am interested in Sir Francis Galton.

2b) Why were they interesting to you?

I am very interested in the nature vs. nurture argument. However, I have no idea how early the argument started or why it was started and he is the person who started the argument and I want to learn more about it.

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?

I would agree that with the message that studying the history of psychology is important and I think the strongest reason was we should study it because we can get a better grasp on the present by understanding the past.

3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?

This chapter was not very interesting to me because it was an introductory chapter and I usually am never interested in those. I’m not very interested in the basics and terms about how we look at psychology. I’m excited to start learning about the intelligence tests and how psychology got its start.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?

I think the most important thing was about knowing how we are going to be looking at the history of psychology. Some examples would be realizing that most of the history is internal history, and a presentists viewpoint makes psychology history look brutal and unfair.

5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?

This chapter gave me more and clearer reasons why we need to study the history of psychology rather than just my own thoughts about why we study it. I thought it was so we could avoid making mistakes but it is for using the past as a guide for the present and future also.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?

I would like to learn more about intelligence testing.

6b) Why?

Sadly, I had never heard about the intelligence testing that happened on the immigrants back in the day and I know that intelligence testing (in a way different manner of course) still happens today in standardized tests and I would like to learn more about that.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
When historians have to pick and choose information out of archives I think that no matter how they put the information together, there will be some sort of bias in it. How do you avoid bias information if it is in a text book? How can you tell if its biased when you know nothing about the topic?

8) Terms: Presentists, historicist, Sir Francis Galton, internal history, nature vs. nurture, historians.

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?

I found the topic of why history is important for everyone to understand to be interesting because I have never enjoyed learning about history. I was interested in why someone might support what I find to be dull.

2a) What person did you find interesting?
2b) Why were they interesting to you?

I found Edwin G. Boring to be interesting because the book used him as in an example how history can be far from the truth. This is because history is written or told be humans and humans make mistakes, are biased, and vary truth both consciously and subconsciously.

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?

I think the overall message of the chapter was history is important to study, but it must also be analyzed to determine how close to the truth a particular account of history is told. I find this to be very interesting because when thinking in this sense, history is just a collection of stories over time. These stories may be altered, making all the "facts" I had to memorize over the many years of history classes, which I despised, potentially false.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?

When studying history, human interaction cannot be ignored. History must involve humans in some way, which involves psychology, how people interacted with each other, why people did things they did, and why historians retold histories as they did.

5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?

This is a challenging question, as I have taken only a few psychology courses. I believe the best way I can relate it is to Introduction to Psychology. In this course we discussed a lot of well-known psychologists and researchers, which is actually part of history. These researchers' findings were assumed to be important by some historian and retold as truth.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
6b) Why?

I would like to learn more about personalistic versus naturalistic history and zeitgeist because I did not fulling understand this section of the chapter.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?

As stated in my previous answer, I did not understand the term zeitgeist. What is it? How does it relate to naturalistic history?

8) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.

zeitgeist, naturalistic, personalistic, Edwin G Boring

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
The topic I found interesting is what is discussed right off the bat and that is why study history? I have never really thought about why we study the history of it or why we study psychology's history. I don't think many people do think about why we study history we just do it.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I find this interesting because I wonder why do we study the history of things? What is the point of studying something that happened many, many years ago. Knowing our history can mean knowing how things came about and why things are the way they are today. The book's answer of why we study history is that "knowing the history helps us avoid the mistakes of the past and provides a guide to the future." I love that simple answer, and it makes so much sense when you think about it. Being aware of the history of things just makes us that much more prepared, and educated. It gets us to think about things in a way that we usually might not.

2a) What person did you find interesting?
The person that I found interesting, and that stood out to me the most was E.G. Boring.

2b) Why were they interesting to you?
I feel that E.G. Boring was such a prominent person in psychology's history, and he brought a lot to the table. I don't think certain milestones in our history could have been reached without him. This man put in a lot of work, and hours that he himself did physically as apposed to having others do it for him. For example he severed his own nerve, and also swallowing a stomach tube. He was a very smart and educated person, and I think it would be hard to imagine would psychology would be like if there was not a E.G. Boring.

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
I think the overall message of this chapter was just to introduce the reasons why we study history and more specially why we study psychology's history. What is so important about it that we should take the time to learn.

3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
It was interesting to me, because I never really thought much about the history of psychology. I have always been interested in psychology classes and learning about the way people work and why they do the things they do, but I never thought about analyzing psychology itself.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I would just all the different aspects of psychology's history that the books mentions such as presentism vs historicism, internal history vs external history, personalistic vs naturalistic history, etc. All those little details make up the whole big picture of psychology. Everything goes hand in hand, and being aware of all the different aspects will help me understand the overall history

5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?
This class will be interesting and sort of a new eye opener for me, because I feel like I have not learned much about the history of psychology. I have taken psychology course and we have talked about general ideas and went over main topics that we needed to know, but I don't think I have gone in depth in trying to understand the history and how things came about.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
The topic I would like to learn more about is the zeitgeist.

6b) Why?
I don't think it went too much into detail about it, and it may just be a simple topic that doesn't need much more explanation. I would just like to know how that term came about, and what it was primarily used for? What does it mean in psychology's history when that term is used?

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
I believe the only question would be just a more detailed explanation of what a zeitgeist is and what it main purpose is. I liked that this chapter mentions the writing of psychology, because I can only imagine how difficult that must be especially since a lot of things have happened in history and you have to write a accurate timeline and also that it is proved.

8) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
E.G. Boring, internal and external history, presents vs historicism, personalistic vs naturalistic, zeitgeist.

1a) I found the topic of presentism versus Historicism to be really interesting.
1b) It’s interesting because I had no idea that people looked at history in two different ways. I also didn’t think that one would be unfavored more than the other. Presentism isn’t as good as historicism point of view, it’s misleading to think in this way. Historicism is to look at history and try to imagine what it was like during that time in order to explain why people did what they did, rather than think they should have known better.
2a) I found Edwin G. Boring to be interesting. 
2b) He is interesting because he was an engineer before he thought about going into psychology, even though he had a strong interest in it. He spent much of his life in the psychology field and he also fought for it to become its own department separate from philosophy.
3a) This chapter was really informational. It had a lot of important information that can be taken from it. It was a very good introduction for this book. 
3b) It was interesting to me because I didn’t realize how important it was to be familiar with the history of psychology.
4) I think the most useful information from this chapter are the concepts of presentism, historicism, personalistic, and naturalistic history.
5) I think its just more emphasized how important history is in general and to know the history of psychology.
6a) I think I would like to learn more about Boring.
6b) He was a really important aspect of psychology.
7) Some of the questions I had related to presentism and how it works with learning why people did the things they did.
8) TERMS:
presentism
historicism
personalistic
naturalistic
Edwin G. Boring
philosophy
psychology

1a) I found the topic of presentism versus Historicism to be really interesting.
1b) It’s interesting because I had no idea that people looked at history in two different ways. I also didn’t think that one would be unfavored more than the other. Presentism isn’t as good as historicism point of view, it’s misleading to think in this way. Historicism is to look at history and try to imagine what it was like during that time in order to explain why people did what they did, rather than think they should have known better.
2a) I found Edwin G. Boring to be interesting. 
2b) He is interesting because he was an engineer before he thought about going into psychology, even though he had a strong interest in it. He spent much of his life in the psychology field and he also fought for it to become its own department separate from philosophy.
3a) This chapter was really informational. It had a lot of important information that can be taken from it. It was a very good introduction for this book. 
3b) It was interesting to me because I didn’t realize how important it was to be familiar with the history of psychology.
4) I think the most useful information from this chapter are the concepts of presentism, historicism, personalistic, and naturalistic history.
5) I think its just more emphasized how important history is in general and to know the history of psychology.
6a) I think I would like to learn more about Boring.
6b) He was a really important aspect of psychology.
7) Some of the questions I had related to presentism and how it works with learning why people did the things they did.
8) TERMS:
presentism
historicism
personalistic