Reading Activity Week #3 (Due Monday)

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I thought it was interesting that Henry Goddard believed that he could identify defective immigrants by looking at them at Ellis Island. I was not aware that, in addition to the other tests (vision and health, to name a few) immigrants had to pass in order to enter our country, they were subjected to an IQ test. In addition, the textbook states that Goddard invented the term “moron” to describe these people. I would be curious to know how many people were deported due to this testing. I think this is somewhat unfathomable to us now, knowing what we currently know about IQ testing. However, when you consider the historical background, using an historicism perspective, you can see why this is something that happened prior to WWI. People were concerned with the large incoming immigration population and were focused on Darwinian thinking, which led people to believe that intelligence was directly inherited.
2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
Before reading this chapter, I was somewhat aware that psychology research used to focus on animal research, but did not know why the focus had switched from animal research to research on humans. Yerkes, a comparative psychologist, was actually encouraged to stop doing (good) animal research because it was unpopular, and told to focus on human research in order to compete with Clark University.
3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I also thought the zeitgeist is interesting—the belief that inventions come about due to the overall social and intellectual climate of a society. This belief contracts the personalistic view, which states that specific people cause societal and intellectual climates to change. I think it is interesting because I can see both perspectives—on one hand, many different people are working on the same thing at the same time and are close to discovery around the same time frame. These are called multiples. This would support the zeitgeist, or naturalistic history theory. On the other hand, if these people were not working on certain discoveries within that time frame, or did not eventually make those discoveries, would we still consider that social context to be as relevant? I think maybe a combination of those views would be the best fit.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I did not think historiography was especially interesting. I already was familiar with primary and secondary sources as well as archives, so the information was not new to me. I also think that doing historical research sounds uninteresting, and so reading about it is not something that I am interested in knowing.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think understanding the presentism vs historicism theories will be most useful. Although it will be hard to disassociate my own knowledge and life experiences from historical perspectives, this is important in order to understand what was really happening in that time frame. While the presentist viewpoint cannot be entirely avoided, in order to understand the discoveries we are talking about in class, I will have to try to understand the historical context.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
It does not, since this is the first chapter.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
I would be interested in learning more about Henry Goddard, the American intelligence tester who worked at Ellis Island. I had never heard of him before, and intelligence testing is an area of interest to me—why did he believe that he could pick out defective immigrants just by looking at them? How many people were deported due to this testing? What did IQ tests look like at this time? These are all topics of interest to me.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I was relating some of the chapter to things I already knew. For instance, the book mentions Mendelian genetics, which my biology class just talked about. I also remembered doing research in my college composition class and using primary and secondary sources to find information. I also recalled that the zeitgeist is not just a theory in psychological history, but also in other subjects. Many topics ask you to remember the societal context in which a discovery was made in order to fully understand it.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Zeitgeist, presentism, historiscism, multiples, personalistic.
NRS

JL

1a) What did you find interesting?
I found John Locke and his transformation of epistemology from a rationalist science to an empirical science
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
Psychology students been exposed to empirical studies since their first Intro class, but it was not until reading about the history of empiricism that I truly understood what ‘empirical’ means. Rene Descartes’ breakthrough in rational thinking was an important predecessor to empiricism. Both seek truth but use different means to arrive there. Descartes did not trust the senses so his pursuit of the truth stems from logic and breaking down large problems into smaller ones, and carefully checking his conclusions to ensure that the logic properly revealed the truth. This is very solid and philosophical way of seeking the truth, but empiricists used experience to explain the world. They needed to be able to observe what truth it is they are seeking. John Locke took what empiricists were doing in other sciences and applied it to epistemology. John Locke believed humans learned from sensory perception and experiences; he stated that we learn simple ideas like color, temperature, size, shape, sound, etc and construct them into larger ideas like a yellow, odd-shaped guitar producing music. This idea that we learn from our senses and experiences is exactly why we set up psychological studies to measure observable phenomenon rather than using inductive logic.
2a) What did you find interesting?
David Hume and his philosophical furthering of British empiricism
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found this interesting because he is taking the vague ball of clay that is empiricism and beginning to give it shape to what we now know as experimental and scientific methods. Hume combined Locke’s and Descartes’ approach to human learning by using “careful and systematic observation of human thinking and behavior…accompanied by a logical analysis of the process to uncover basic laws of the mind”. Here he is using Locke’s observation tool and Descartes’ logic, not to say Locke was not logical. Hume had three laws of association: resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. These laws are how Hume determined humans associate one object, event, or ideas with an impression. The impression could be basically anything the brain thinks of once stimulated by the idea. The most important of the three laws of association would have to be cause and effect. This is not the ‘cause and effect’ we know as a scientific technique; Hume was using it as an association process or how people learn from experiences. The last two paragraphs of this section in the book are in my ill-informed opinion the most important. Hume believed that humans are never able to come to true cause and effect relationships, but rather gain enough experience to make the best possible predictions. Some sciences are able to make cause and effect statements, but often psychology is not one of those sciences. We use inferential deductions about the data we collect. The book puts it best when it states “multiple factors contribute to all behaviors; the best one can hope for is to identify the factors that predict behaviors with probabilities greater than chance”.
3a) What did you find interesting?
It was very interesting how accurate the great minds of this era were when it came to predicting human behavior.
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
Throughout the entire chapter, on multiple accounts, these significant figures were explaining human behavior without the use of modern day scientific methods. We would call them crazy for making some of their claims without data to support it, but they did not have the means to measure human behavior the way we do now nor was it important to explain human behavior empirically. Descartes discovery of reflexes and how he used them to explain his understanding of the separation of mind and body is eerily accurate. Replace ‘animal spirits’ with the electrochemical process and ‘tubes’ with tightly wound nerve fibers. A non-physiological example is John Locke’s advice letter about raising children. He said, for a brutally brief summary, keep the child physically healthy, start young, minimized punishment, especially physical, and award behavior. When I was reading this I felt like a genius because I was saying to myself ‘this sounds just like behaviorism dashed with some Piaget’, but the following paragraph said what I thought so I no longer would look genius stating this in class.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
Leibniz and rationalist responses to empiricism
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
It probably stems from my disdain for calculus in high school and knowing Leibniz role in creating it, and probably being jaded and drained at the end of reading this chapter. I do like his “block of veined marble” analogy over Jocke’s “white paper”.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
The development of empiricism is the most important. I know that John Locke used empiricism to explain how humans behaved and how interaction with our environment, but I think it is more important to understand how this impacted how we now do science.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
The book made it very easy to see both the personalistic and naturalistic histories of these time periods. Obvious we got a lot of prominent names from this time, but the book also explains what else was going on during at these times. Copernicus’ and Galileo’s astronomical discoveries were examples of non-psychological scientific advances to show us how the times were revolutionizing, and the turmoil going on during John Locke’s life may explain how he was influenced.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
Descartes’ idea of the separation of mind and body
7b) Why?
It was briefly explained but very interesting. The book’s attempt to explain how Descartes’ logic behind it was more like an archaic neurology lesson. I want to know what drove Descartes to making this discovery and what made him so interested in it.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
What if rationalism was how we managed science today versus empiricism. Our studies would look different. We would not be determining if the results were significant, but rather if the results portray what is logical. Or would we be determining what makes these results logical?
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
John Locke, Epistemology, rationalism, empiricism, David Hume, Rene Descartes, Laws of association, resemblance, contiguity, cause and effect, reflexes, personalistic history, naturalistic history

Courtney Wiese
Week 3 Reading Assignment
1a) What did you find interesting? John Locke
1b) Why was it interesting to you? I found the information on John Locke interesting because of his empiricist thinking on how humans understand the world. Locke believed that people made sense of the world around them through the experiences they had. He wanted to change epistemology into a subject that was not just thought about, but one that conducted experiments. He rejected Descartes theory of innate ideas, and I enjoyed his argument against Descartes about universal ideas, that the idea of God is not innate for all people, but perhaps that as all people worry about afterlife that the idea of a supreme deity is a result of this thought. I also agreed with his theory that children learn from experiences, rather than innate ideas. Children don’t know that lemons are sour, but learn after they have their first lemon that they are sour.
2a) What did you find interesting? John Stuart Mills
2b) Why was it interesting to you? First, I found Mills childhood very interesting. The fact that he did not attend school with other children, he learned Greek at three years old! I also found his relationship with his future wife and her husband to be strange. In the psychology field, he believed in the empiricist theory that people gain knowledge from experience, by filling up their “white paper”. As that is what he experience in his own life. Basically, he believed that all people have the ability to be extremely intellectual if they have the experiences, such as a smart father to educate them. I also found his ideas on meritocracy interesting; that only people who reached a certain level of education should be allowed to vote. As the text states, Mills wanted “a society that endeavored to fill everyone’s blank slates to the maximum”. I find this interesting because it seems like he based a lot of his theories off of his own life. As he was personally very smart, and he believed, as his father believed, that he was born with a “blank slate” like everyone else, that everyone could be as smart as he was.
3a) What did you find interesting? Leibniz
3b) Why was it interesting to you? I found Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to be interesting as he disagreed with the “white paper” metaphor. He believed, rather, that the mind was more similar to a veined marble. I liked this metaphor, as instead of everyone being exactly equal, like white paper, the mind can only be sculpted in certain ways. As I understand it, Leibniz takes parts of both the empiricist theory and the innate idea theory. There are “necessary truths” that cannot be discovered through experiences, such as Leibniz’s example of “intellect itself”. I also found it interesting that Leibniz’s concept of psychophysical parallelism to answer the mind-body question, and that the mind and body worked independently from one another, but that they worked in harmony to one another. I also liked how this helped legitimize the separate study of psychology from physiology. I also found his concept of consciousness and unconsciousness interesting, and that his ideas lent to Freud’s ideas in psychology. He believed there were three different levels of awareness. Apperception is when one is putting their 100% attention on the information, perception is one still paying attention but not giving in their 100% attention, and petites perceptions, which is said to be below the level of awareness, but very important to understanding, as the example of drops of water in a waterfall.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? George Berkeley
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you? Although I found the part about Berkeley hanging himself to learn about the sensations involved, I found the part about Berkeley’s work on vision not interesting. I don’t really know why it was so boring to me, maybe it was the physiology that I didn’t like, such as the part about convergence and accommodation. However, once it got into the more philosophical issues, such as Berkeley’s theory of subjective idealism, it became more 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 learning where psychology emerged from while be important in understanding psychology throughout the years. Psychology developed from philosophy, as well as the study of physiology. It’s also important to learn older theories, because some newer theories were based on the older ones, such as Freud theories based on Leibniz.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters? The way I can see that this chapter built off of the first chapter was how one can interpret history. In parts of the second chapter the authors stated that these philosophical psychologists should not be viewed negatively for not pushing farther in the field, as in we should not use hindsight or presentism.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about? John Stuart Mills
7b) Why? I found Mills the most interesting psychologist in the chapter. His early life was very interesting, and he was very involved many different things throughout his life, such as politics. There was also a section on his work on women’s rights that I would be interested in exploring more.
8) What ideas related to what you were another reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter? I thought about the heavy interplay between philosophy and physiology and psychology; how in the beginning of psychology there really wasn’t any separation between the three; and that psychology was so deeply rooted in philosophy. A question I came up with while reading was: How would psychology be different if Hume’s first book would have been popular? Why wasn’t Hume’s book popular? Would psychologist taken Hume’s ideas, such as his ideas on association, and developed new ones off of Hume’s? Why was Hume’s book unpopular? I know the Church did not like his book, as he implied that the God’s existence could be questioned, did they encourage others to not like his book?
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post: empiricist, epistemology, white paper, innate, apperception, petites perceptions, convergence, accommodation, subjective idealism, John Stuart Mills, George Berekely, David Hume, Gottfried Leibniz

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found Decartes to be interesting because he was around during a unique time in history. Decartes was a very rational person, and I find this interesting because he believed that to achieve true knowledge you should be organized and use reasoning abilities well. This is neat because I can relate to this type of thinking, and I do it on a daily basis. I think things happen in an organized manor and that there is a reason for everything that happens in that order. His work on the body and mind was interesting as well because although they are two separate things, they can still influence one another. The animal spirit concept about how people make assumptions about human bodies and how we react to different situations was interesting. Decartes thought the animal spirits were particles moving constantly that could be found in the muscles, nerves and brain. He believed that these particles were related to certain reflexes and movements that the body did. He also believed that once these animal spirits were initiated, it would activate certain nerves controlling muscles and cause movements; however he also believed that muscles could move automatically in reaction to certain circumstances.
2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
David Hume was interesting to me because he took empiricist beliefs and formed them into experimental and scientific methods that we know of today. He developed his system using “the basic premise that all of our understanding is rooted in experience.” He later came to the conclusion that the elements of the mind and analogues of physicist’s atoms are connected; ideas and impressions. His work about impressions was interesting because he combined Locke’s observation and Decartes’s logical thinking. He used his three laws of association (resemblance, contiguity and cause and effect) to determine that we associate certain objects, colors and ideas with a specific impression. When an object reminds you of another object, that is considered to be the resemblance law. The contiguity law means relating things such as eating corn in Iowa. The cause and effect law basically means something happened and another followed and that there was an association between them. An example is if you eat too much candy, it causes you to feel sick, but now whenever we see candy there is a reminder of the stomach why it happened.
3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
John Locke was interesting because of his work dealing with children. I find children to be very interesting and I do believe education is an essential part of life. Education teaches knowledge, understanding and how to handle certain situations. It preps individuals for success and gives them the basic tools they will need to function in the world. He believed that children should start learning early because they are more malleable. He also believed that children should develop good habits earlier otherwise they will develop bad habits. He did not believe in using punishment as children aged because they will start to hate learning and too much punishment could lead to bad behavior rather than good behavior. I feel that children should be able to learn in a fun and understanding environment and not be worried about punishments. An example is if a child does poorly on an exam. I do not believe they should be punished, but instead they should be encouraged to do better on the next one.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I was uninterested in a majority of this chapter because even though I find people of history and their work interesting, the way the author wrote the chapter was very bland and dry. The information in each section was informative, but it was hard to follow at times. I am a huge reader, but this chapter seemed too much like a textbook. I like when authors can make it an interesting read and make the student feel like they are not reading a textbook.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
Although this chapter was hard to keep reading, the information in each concept was very informative. After breaking down each concept, I now have a better understanding of some new concepts and some people of history. I think knowing these people and their studies will be useful later in class discussions and in future chapters.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
Since this is the second chapter, it is hard to relate it to previous chapters, but compared to chapter one this one contained more information about certain people. It builds on from chapter one because in chapter one it briefly talked about people and their findings and this chapter went into more depth and elaborated more on their studies and findings.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
I would like to learn more about John Locke and David Hume because I found both of their studies interesting. I think John Locke was a very intelligent man and I agreed with his studies and beliefs about education and children. David Hume’s laws of association were interesting as well because to put it simply, they made sense. When you think of a certain item it could be from resemblance, contiguity or cause and effect. Having this understanding makes you wonder how often we do this in a day. Such as how often do we associate objects with other objects and which law are we using when we do.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
While I was reading the section about the laws of association, it made me think about how often we use each law in a day. There are so many situations we come in contact with daily and so many people. I was also wondering if we use any of these laws when we try to remember peoples’ names or birthdays. For example, you go to class every day for a whole semester and sit next to the same person all semester long. A year later you run into them at the mall and you associate them with being in a certain class; therefore, it helps you remember their name or where they sat.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Resemblance, contiguity, cause and effect, animal spirits, Decartes, John Locke, David Hume, laws of association.

J.P.

J A

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
One of the first things that I found to be interesting is in the section about John Locke when he had the theories about the white paper and the simple ideas and the complex ideas. Even though I found the white paper idea to be interesting, I have to take the same side as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and say I do not agree with it. I believe in genetics, so technically I do not think that we are born with a white sheet of paper that we basically create our own future, we have certain genes that are passed down to us and that we are stuck with no matter how hard we try to change that. I do somewhat agree that we start off to the world as blank paper, but when our genes start forming us into what we were born with then the idea of the blank paper goes away. The idea of the simple and complex ideas is a unique way to look at things. One can have a simple idea of a color, but have a complex idea like taking a drink of water on a hot day due to thirst can separate into many different simple ideas. I can see where he was going with this and I do agree that many complex ideas can separate into simple ideas.

2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
Another thing that I found to be interesting is in the section about John Stuart Mill and when he was talking about the method of agreement, method of difference and the joint method. Basically they are summarized as the method of agreement means that if x happens then it is possible y will happen, the method of difference means that if x does not happen then it is possible that y will not happen and the joint method means if x happens then y will happen and if x does not happen y will not happen. I think that this is an interesting thought due to the idea of cause and effect. Everyone knows about cause and effect and I think that sometimes we feel that if it has happened once if the cause happens again then the effect will for sure happen also. With history it shows us that it is possible, but it does not always happen like that and there are different effects at times. So, the logic behind the method of agreement and the method of difference made cause and effect make more sense because it states that there is a possibility not that it is going to happen.
3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
Another thing that I found to be interesting was the section of Locke on Education. Being a secondary education major, anything to do with anyone’s view points on education brings interest to me because I would like to know just about everything when it comes to how to be a better teacher and understanding education. I agree that in order to have a sound mind you also need a sound body, the definition of sound body for me would be making sure you are healthy and feeding your body and exercising enough to get blood pumping to the brain. The training must begin early section also made sense to me, this is because I tend to remember things that I learned at a young age a lot more rather than things that I learned in high school. Anything as simple as learning a language was easier when I was young. The next two sections I found to be interesting because I did not know that they were how he would have viewed education. I would find making concrete awards when someone has done good and punishing someone when they have done something bad would be a normal act in getting them to learn what it is that they are supposed to know. Now that I have read through the section I can see where he was coming from, but I stick to my beliefs that punishment and rewards are fine within reason.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I found the section from Rene Descartes about the pineal gland to be the least interesting. It was the least interesting to me because I googled pineal gland as soon as the word came up in my reading so I could get an understanding of where it was in the brain. It came up with the center of the brain and it causes sleepiness and helps with the pigment in the skin, which is different from the definition that he had. I then lost interest in the section because I was confused on which is the real definition and if it was a false statement why it was in the text book. I then kept reading to find out that he was wrong about physiology and the pineal gland secretes the hormone melatonin (helps with skin pigment), which was the definition that google had for it. I did like that there was a section that reassured me and let me know what the right definition was, but I found it to be not interesting due to the confusion that it caused.
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 most important thing that came out of the chapter that is the most useful in understanding the history of psychology is actually two things. The first one is that not all psychologists were famous for being a psychologists when they were alive, this is useful because it shows that even though they did not get the fame that they deserved in their lifetime, they still made a huge contribution to the studies and are the reason why we know that much more about why we do the things we do. Another important contribution was the talks of cause and effect. It is important because in history for everything that has happened there is a cause, but not all of the events have just one cause, they have multiple leading up to one effect. In order to understand the history of anything the knowing of each cause is needed and they will all fit the effect in a puzzle format, not just because of this event this is what happened.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
The last chapter was based off of why study history and why study history of psychology, so it built off of the last chapter by introducing some of the famous psychologist of history and help understand why they were important. This also tied in with naturalistic history, I say that because there was not just one famous psychologist that had all the ideas and knew everything, or not one hero. There were a lot of events that built off of each other, psychologists disagreed with the theories of other psychologists and that is what the theories that we know about today become.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
A topic that I would like to know more about would be the dualist idea that Descartes had. That is because I view sound mind and sound body to intertwine and form into one. Because you cannot have one without the other the way I see it. To fully work your body you need to engage your mind and have your mind push you and this is vice versa with sound mind. I would like the explanation into more depth of why he thought that there was a clear separation between these two.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
An idea that I had when I was reading through the chapter was how were these guys not seen as psychologist and/or philosophers when they were making these theories and thought processes? I understand that most of them were not represented as being an important contribution to the study of psychology, but I do not see how everyone saw their thought process and did not think of them being psychologists or people that would help with the science.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
White paper, simple idea, complex idea, method of agreement, method of difference, joint method, pineal gland, duelist, John Locke, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, John Staurt Mill and Rene Descartes

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found the section on John Locke interesting. For one, his name stood out to me since I have learned about him a bit in the past but I couldn’t quite remember what all he had done. Specifically, I found that he described a social contract between the government and the people to be so relevant as it related directly to what Thomas Jefferson modeled the Declaration of Independence on. I really like that the book made this direct connection for the reader as I did not know how much of an impact John Locke had made not only in Britain but directly to the United States.
2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I also found Locke’s view on education intriguing. I think that his four main ideas that stressed the importance of physical health, training must begin early, arguing against the use of punishment, and to concentrate on rewards should be avoided are all still being discussed to this day. America is unfortunately one of the most obese countries in the world and as my job of a fitness instructor I am always trying to think of ways to keep not only myself motivated but others as well. So many products such as various exercise programs, diet plans and pills have come out and depending on who you ask, may or may not be good for you. As for learning early, most children start school at least from my experience, between the ages of 3-5. My mom threw me into dance lessons at the age of 3 and by 4 years old I began pre-school and was on my way to learning the ABCs. Also, I found it surprising that even as early as Locke’s period of time, punishment was not promoted. I suppose my surprise came from my limited knowledge of what my parents and grandparents have told me about back in the day of how teachers used to hit them with a paddle if they misbehaved. Lastly, that concentration on rewards should be avoided. I found this interesting because over the summer I was a nanny and in my duration I was helping train the dog to not go potty in the house. I was told to give the dog a treat every time he went potty outside so he would know that it was a good thing to go potty in his proper place. However, I noticed after weeks of doing this, he would just look at me and try to see where I was hiding the treat or even after he went, he was anticipating his treat.
3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
A third thing I found to be interesting was the section on David Hume. The idea he had about the premise of our understanding is rooted in experience particularly stood out to me. It made me think of how that is relatable to everything from schoolwork to going to a new country and experiencing a culture that is different from your own. A lot of what I go off of is my experiences in life and it is hard to stray away from my past. Then the book goes to separate experiences into impressions and ideas; impressions being the basic sensations and ideas are the faint copies of impressions. Also those ideas can be broken down into impressions and gives us the example that even if we have never found a four-leaf clover, we can picture it on a basic level of impressions. I thought of that kind of like how when learning something in class, especially about topics that are historical, I have to have a good imagination of everything was put together and although never experiencing it, I can use visuals and descriptions to envision the event.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? 
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
A topic I found myself zoning out on was the section on Descartes and the Rationalist Argument. I think a lot of what made this uninteresting to me was that it was a lot about mathematics and sciences, and to me I could not really relate or visualize.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
Honestly, there was a lot of information included in this chapter and I noticed that there would be a pattern of talking about one idea or person and then it would tie right into the next section. This question always puzzles me because the author thought that there a reason to include all of this information in the book so what wouldn’t be useful in understanding the history of psychology?
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
Well the first chapter discusses a lot about why we should study history, then more specifically why we should study the history of psychology, it brought up ideas about presentism vs. historicism and at the end of the chapter, Goodwin again mentions the danger of presentism and that we should realize that these people included in the text were among the brightest of their day and to take their perspective and time in special consideration
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about? 
7b) Why?
I would like to learn more about John Locke because while reading the section about him specifically with his ideas on education; I found ideas that he had very applicable to present day and his ideas of education really got me thinking and questioning how things are today.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
Did Locke’s views on education affect other places and more specifically the United States?, Why did I not remember learning that John Locke’s social contract was a model for Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence? Hey, there are other familiar names in here I see, why have I never been able to have information stick in my head?
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
John Locke, Social Contract, Locke on Education, David Hume, Impressions, Ideas, Descartes and the Rationalist Argument, Historicism vs. Presentism.

1a) What did you find interesting?
Nicolas Copernicus and the heliocentric theory.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I thought that reading about Copernicus and his great discovery opened up a new door to many ideas. He challenged the idea of geocentric theory that the Earth was not the center of the universe and in fact the sun was the center of the universe while Earth along with other planets moved around the sun. This was the idea of the heliocentric theory. Copernicus pushed the envelope of what was always told. His curiosity lead him into a new world with many ideas that come from the Heliocentric Theory. At the time this theory was invented it was the time that the church had pure authority. This was slowly changing.
2a) What did you find interesting?
John Locke’s thoughts on Education.

2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I am an education major so anything that has to do with education and how it evolved always spark a light to me. I especially liked the ideas that he argued that if you punish a child they start to soon act out against it. At the time punishing a child in school with violence was okay. If the child did not do as they were told, they were punished and with the punishment they soon became to dislike what they were learning. The punishment on a child only hindered the child’s learning and only put the child downhill instead of up. I also thought that his idea of rewards was very true. A child soon learns that if they behave they will receive a reward. They soon learned this and put up a front to receive a gift. The students were not learning and were more focused on getting a reward.
3a) What did you find interesting?
John Stuart Mill and his step-daughter Helen Taylor’s essay on feminism.

3b) Why was it interesting to you?
As a women, I could never imagine a life that some women had to live before me. They had no voice and could not do what they wanted to do. This essay that Mill and Taylor wrote was a great stepping stool for the new world women were immerging in. They were able to now able to own and inherit the land that should have been theirs, and all of this happened because of this essay. This opened the world for women. Now we are able to vote, work, take charge, and not be discriminated against. This was interesting to see the works for women to grow.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I thought there was so much history that it was not going anywhere. There were some things that were interesting, but this chapter was very hard in grabbing my attention. I would have liked to see more examples of psychology instead of history.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
This chapter gave a sense of how history developed the ideas of psychology. The chapter tried explaining that all of the theories of history can be found in a lot of the theories of psychology.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
This chapter helped build on chapter 1. The second chapter had more names and dates the then first one. This chapter seems to be a stepping stone for many chapters to come.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
How psychology and philosophy are related.
7b) Why?
I thought it was interesting that the book stated that many of the concerns or ideas of psychologists of today also were noted by philosophers. I have never taken a philosophy class before and to see how it can be seen in psychology would give me a new outlook on psychology.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
My main question throughout was how do all of these historians fill into psychology? A lot of them did not create theories for psychology but more for the world itself.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post. Nicolas Copernicus
Heliocentric Theory
Geocentric theory
John Locke
John Stuart Mill
Helen Taylor
Feminism
Philosophy

I.B.

1a) What did you find interesting?

I enjoyed reading about the conflicting views on religion.
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I was interested because of how significant it was to everyone, yet how so many people had to work around it. Copernicus delayed his publication so that he wouldn’t be attacked for heresy. The church condemned Galileo and Descartes also delayed a publication. Locke went out of his way to say that God is not an innate idea, but could very well result from everyone’s uncertainty about an afterlife. Berkeley, on the other hand, relied all of his thought on God. He said that you couldn’t trust your perceptions, so the only way to be sure that reality exists is to put your faith in God, as he always perceives everything. These trains of thought lead me to wonder what these people would think if the Church hadn’t been such a dominant superpower.
2a) What did you find interesting?

I was actually very interested in reading about Descartes and the philosophical background of psychology.
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
This interested me for many reasons actually. It was interesting to see how the philosophy contributed to the psychology of today. It was cool looking at how they answered, or tried to answer their queries without the resources of today. It was interesting to see how they made the jump from philosophy to “New Psychology”, and all that really changed was the way they integrated scientific methods.
3a) What did you find interesting?

I thought Descartes four basic rules for arriving at a truth were fascinating.
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
Its odd to think that someone had to think of the fact that you should double check your work and break down tasks, but in that day that would have been groundbreaking. I enjoy reading about people finding new ways of thinking.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? 

I didn’t like all the labels they placed on people.
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
It seemed like all the author was doing was trying to work in terms that define schools of thought, which certain philosophers may have dabbled in. I think it’s a little weird to define someone in terms of ‘dualist’, ‘mechanist’, ‘interactionist’, and so on. It gives some insight into the way they thought, but then it seems to me it also overgeneralizes 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 the thing that will help me most in my psych studies is simply looking back at the philosophy aspect. In recent classes I’ve been focusing on the problems of getting into grad school, or some specialized fields, or how to properly conduct research. I find it refreshing to look back at the great minds of their time and see what puzzled these men. It reminds me of some of the bigger questions and gives some nice perspective.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
The last chapter looked at the history of psychology as a new science. This chapter just jumped back before this. It was out of chronological order, but makes sense to the format of the book.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about philosophy in general.

7b) Why?
Philosophy is super interesting to me. It seems like it just teaches the ability to question things, but that’s exactly what I love about it. Philosophy is prevalent everywhere, and everyone has shared some of the thoughts of philosophers before. Is there a purpose to life? Why are we here? What distinguishes us from animals, and animals from lesser life forms like bacteria? It’s fascinating and I think it can help one get in a mindset to think a little more independently.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I actually thought about what I thought about last chapter, the distinction between presentism and historicism. I tried to think about Descartes, Galileo, John Locke and John Mill in terms of their own time and the dominant thought forces of their day. I thought most about the church and it’s holding back of the progress of science and of people. I also thought about that John Lennon song and I tried to imagine what it would have been like without the religion. The other things brought up in that song present as many problems as religion, they just aren’t applicable to this.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Presentism, Historicism, dualist, mechanist, interactionist,

1a) What did you find interesting?
Descartes
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found it very interesting because this way I was able to connect previous people I had learned about and relate them to my field of study. Descartes was a philosopher that I had learned about in Humanities II. For Descartes he grew up in a time with lots of changes. I think it’s amazing how much these people question the world around them and the authority and rulers of this world. I think it’s amazing that he did leave his schooling and felt that philosophy was where he would excel. It was important to know the things that happened in the time period surrounding Descartes and how that impacted him and also how those things make him stand out. So historicism I believe is a very big part of understanding these people. The fact that he decided not to continue with his schooling I think is a pretty big deal. He also had some very interesting views on things. Dualism I believe is an interesting topic. I guess sometimes I think the mind and body can be separate, but then sometimes they just move so well together that I don’t think that anymore. For example I currently am jamming out to some music, but it’s not just my mind that’s going crazy currently, my legs and overall movement are crazy too! I also did not know that he tutored the Queen of Sweden. This fact popped out to me when reading it because I am about half Swedish, so any mention of Sweden makes me really excited. He was overall a very knowledgeable person and was knowledgeable on a variety of subjects.
2a) What did you find interesting?
John Locke
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I also found the information on John Locke interesting. We learned about him in Humanities II as well. It is very interesting to learn how these people contribute to psychology. His focus was finding out how knowledge is acquired and how empiricist thinking can apply to education. And empiricist believes that knowledge of the world is constructed from our experiences in it. Locke was a strong believer in empiricist thinking. He also believed in simple and complex ideas, and believed that you can reduce things to a simple more basic form, atomism. I also liked his beliefs on education. He had some very good ideas that did not conform to the normal beliefs of his society. Such as being against the use of punishment, even my parents and grandparents were punished in school and received even more punishment at home. I completely agree that we need to take away the negative in schools and instead push encouragement and verbal rewards. It’s exactly like behaviorism, so he basically created that before anyone knew what it really was. We talk about B.F. Skinner when we should talk about John Locke.
3a) What did you find interesting?
Overall I found the empiricist belief interesting
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found the empiricist belief interesting because in a lot of ways it’s almost like the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate, even though we know that they are both equally important and both influence the person. Since empiricists believe that environments create a person’s knowledge it’s similar to saying that environment or how you grew up influences who you are as a person. It’s very similar to behaviorism as well.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
I didn’t really find one thing the least interesting, if I had to say it would be Leibiniz.
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
It wasn’t really him it was more that I got tired of reading and just got a little bored. It also was a lot of famous people to talk about and it became difficult to differentiate between the different people. It was hard to figure out what was different about each person and find out exactly how they contributed to psychology.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think understanding empiricism will be important. I think it is almost the start of the nature nurture debate, we just didn’t even know at that time. It started those thoughts of environmental influence and Locke did seem to start behaviorism. In this reading I felt lie I realized how modern some people are in their thinking.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
I think this chapter builds on the previous chapter from the historicism point. We really begin to realize the influence of the time period and the impact that has on what people are contributing to the field.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about Kant’s influence on psychology.
7b) Why?
I have previously studied him, but I’m not sure how his thoughts would fit into psychology. It’d be interesting to see though what exactly he contributed to the field. He wanted to learn how the process of knowledge occurs, but I didn’t know what else he did for the field, so I’d like to learn more.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
For a lot of this reading I asked questions about the Queen of Sweden. How did she discover Descartes? Did she have feelings for Descartes? What was her schooling like? How much influence did religion have on these philosophers? How did religion hold them back from making more controversial discoveries?
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Empiricism, historicism, dualism, simple ideas, complex ideas, atomism, John Locke, Descartes, Immanuel Kant

B.H.

1a) What did you find interesting? I found that when Ebbinghaus said that psychology had a long past but a short history and I wanted to find out what he meant exactly.

1b) Why was it interesting to you? Psychology has been around for a long period of time so how is the history so short? Basic human nature and the causes of human behavior are not new. Ebbinghaus describes how a lot of psychologist’s ideas have already been discovered by philosophers. But he goes on to explain that even though they are the same ideas sometimes psychology and philosophy are not the same. Instead of attempting to study behavior and mental processes through scientific methods rather than philosophical analysis, logical reasoning, and speculation by working in a lab rather than in the armchair. Thus the idea of new psychology emerged.
2a) What did you find interesting? The idea of geocentric and heliocentric theory interested me being catholic and all. Being catholic we were taught to not believe in evolution.

2b) Why was it interesting to you? I sought geocentric and heliocentric theory to be interesting because since no one ever taught us about it in regards to evolution I had no idea what it meant. The geocentric view of the universe placed earth at the center of the universe. Heliocentric theory placed the sun at the center of the universe and the sun moved around it just like any other planet. Obviously it brings up concern in religion with earth possibly not being the center of the cosmos.
3a) What did you find interesting? I also found that Lockes ideas interesting in regards to describing how our ideas originate.

3b) Why was it interesting to you? Lockes rejection on the idea of innate ideas interested me. I didn’t really think about it but every idea I have come up with seems to have some sort of string attached or reason it has popped up into my head. It just doesn’t randomly fall into my brain (innate idea). He stated that ideas come from other sources requiring only the use of our basic mental abilities. In the absence of certain experiences, we would not arrive at a conclusion because it would not even occur to us to think about it. For example, kids can learn language because they are profiting from experience. This was one of many ways Locke described the way our minds develop ideas.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? Humes idea regarding absolute certainly being unattainable, and making him a skeptic didn’t interest me.

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you? His ideas are credible but everytime someone discovers an important idea, it always brings on conflict with the church. Because overall, Humes basically implied that the existence of God could be questioned. The church always has their beliefs but when it comes down to it, the church judges us on everything we do, even when it boils down to that the church is a business and all they want is money and to tell us how to believe in God.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology? The statement that Ebbinghaus made regarding that psychology has a long past but a short history. I am sure we will go over how psychology and philosophy are different and how they are similar later on.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters? The chapter builds on chapter one by introducing the Ebbinghaus statement I stated in the previous paragraph. A lot of issues and ideas that concern psychologists have already been addressed by serious thinkers and philosophers long ago.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about? I would like to expand on the geocentric and heliocentric model of the universe in regards to evolution.

7b) Why? Being from a catholic school and being catholic I have no idea what evolution is and what it means.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter? An idea that struck me was in relation to Humes three laws, we experienced contiguity when the world trade center was hit. We experience two things together because we got the world trade center being hit which came to bring on the cause (world trade got hit) and the effect of war in afganistan. In terms of Syria, they have to start an event or we have to start an event to bring in the 2nd event regarding contiguity.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post. Contiguity, heliocentric, geocentric, ideas, cause and effect, innate idea

1)What did you find interesting and why?

I enjoyed learning about Descartes’ early contributions to philosophy and how that translated (at a later time) to psychology. Descartes was optimistic and believed that things about the body and mind could be discovered, possibly in his lifetime, whereas the traditional belief was that everything was a mystery. His distinction between innate and derived ideas foreshadow the topic of nature vs. nurture, which is still heavily debated to this day. I thought it was fascinating that someone who lived in the 17th century, so long ago, could have been on the verge of discovering things that we still do not fully understand. He brought to the surface many different topics, like dualism, machinist thinking, and interactionism.

2)What did you find interesting and why?

The different views on what a reflex is and how the nervous system works is really interesting, and kind of comical (pardon my presentist mindset). Descartes believed that nerves were a hollow tube, through which animal spirits traveled to cause muscle movements he called reflexes. Later, Hartley stated that nerves were not hollow tubes, and they communicated by vibrations. It is exciting to learn that we have come such a long way in our understanding of how the human body functions, yet there is still so much that is unknown.

3)What did you find interesting and why?

The topic of the mind-body debate has been of interest to me ever since I took a philosophy course my freshman year. It is interesting that there are so many different views. Do we have a soul? If so, it doesn’t take up space and it can’t be seen, so where is it? How do we know it exists if we can’t see it? Are the mind and body two different entities, or are the inseparable? I liked being able to read about it in the text. Without a mind, would we really just be machines? Are animals just machines? Are animals capable of logic and reasoning? All these questions are so interesting, and still completely relevant today.

4)What did you find least interesting and why?

I started to get bored while reading about the two German philosophers because it was getting toward the end of the chapter and I was ready to be done reading. I also felt like it was a repeat of what I had read and learned earlier, it was just relating those two to the terms presented earlier.

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

I think it is very important that psychology students realize that our field branched off from philosophy. I find it odd that some psych students hate philosophy. To me, this does not make sense because, in a way, we are studying philosophy. Instead of asking the “why” questions, however, we now ask “how” questions. Knowing how philosophy has evolved will help us understand how psychology started.

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

The first chapter laid the foundation for why we should study psychology and why knowing our past is important. This chapter built on that by diving into the origins of psychology, and going back far enough in the past to include the philosophical questions on which psychology is formed.

7)What topic would you like to learn more about and why?

I would really like to learn more about J.S. Mills. He seems like a pretty fascinating man, and I would love to learn more about his upbringing and how that shaped his adulthood. I also think it’s interesting that, instead of adopting his father’s approach to holism, he developed his own thoughts and made it more related to chemicals. I also thought Berkeley was pretty interesting, so I wouldn’t mind learning more about him as well.

8)What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?

I did not realize it before taking this course, but philosophy and psychology are so closely related. After reading the chapter I can now clearly see that. While reading, I was wondering how much adversity each of the men highlighted in the text faced, when proposing new ways of thinking. A big stumbling block for a lot of them was the Catholic Church, and they waited to publish their works until after their death so as to not have to face being persecuted. I also wondered why, if they faced so much adversity from the Church, how they were still able to cling to their Christian beliefs and faith in God.

9)Innate vs. derived ideas, dualism, machinist thinking, interactionism, reflex, “animal spirits”, vibrations, holism

1a) What did you find interesting?
I found the section discussing Descartes on the Reflex and mind-body interaction to be interesting.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
Descartes thought that the spirits of animals were found in the brain, nerves and muscles and that what caused muscles to move were these animal spirits. The thing that decided which muscle was to move was the mind, it could pick which spirit to initiate and that would cause the muscle movement to occur. Another thing is that some muscles can move in result to sensory stimulus. I found this to be incredibly interesting because I find anatomy and physiology to be very fascinating, to me learning what makes the body work in the ways that it does is exciting. This view on the brain and the nervous system is vastly different from the one that we have today so it is just fascinating to see how far science has come. Animal spirits is also a very imaginative and interesting way to look at the human body.
I thought this section was particularly interesting because of the discussion of animal spirits.
2a) What did you find interesting?

I think that Immanuel Kant and his ideas were incredibly interesting.
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
In the text it said that Kant believed that we required knowledge prior to the experience and that knowledge helps shape the experiences that we have. This struck me because I think that this idea has some validity within it. There have been many times I have gone into an experience with a negative attitude towards it and that attitude shaped the experience that I had. Going in with this view that things are going to be awful makes it so that you are not as willing to let the experience be a good one.
3a) What did you find interesting?

David Hartley
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found Hartley interesting because of his idea of psychophysical parallelism. This means that he saw psychological and physical events to be separate. But they act parallel to each other. This idea interested me because I did not even think to view it in that light. I have always just viewed the body and mind to be interconnected so it is hard for me to think of it that way.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
Empiricism applied to vision

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I found this section to be incredibly dry and uninteresting, I commonly found myself skimming through the section and not fully reading into what the textbook was saying. I also found the section to be very choppy with information and it was hard for me to follow along.
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 thing that I learned that is most useful is that some of the concepts in theory will not make sense to us now. So I have to read the text subjectively in order to understand what the theory or idea was.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
The last chapter we read about was telling us why we should study history, this chapter is giving us some of the key players in the history of psychology. So the way that it builds on is just by telling us why we should study it, and then giving us some brief history on psychology.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about? Animal spirits

7b) Why?
All in all I found this section the most interesting to read and learn about. I didn’t find myself thinking of other things while reading it. I also think that it was the most far fetched idea and it is interesting to think about what made Descartes stumble upon that conclusion
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter? I honestly did not have much to apply the reading to. I continuously found myself in awe that at one point in time these ideas were held to be scientific and true.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post. Animal spirits, Descartes, Kant, David hartely, psychophysical parallelism, Empiricism

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
In this Chapter, the book references several times where psychology, astronomy, etc. were challenging the traditional beliefs of the times, especially in reference to the Catholic Church. Several times it goes out of its way to mention that the Church struck down the theories without explaining why. With Galileo, for example, the Church didn't simply reject his theories or try to throw them under the rug like the book seems to imply. Rather, they rejected Galileo because he insisted his heliocentric universe was factual, but could not prove this through scientific means. I will have to go back and take another look back into what I had researched on the subject before to give more information about it, but it seems the author doesn't give a fair representation of the Church, which actually helped the research of science by not simply accepting theories, but challenging the scientists to prove them. It was interesting to see how in our presentist minds, we forget the details of why institutions such as the Church did not accept such new discoveries.

2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found the discussion between innate ideas and learning from our own experiences to be very fascinating. Much like nature vs nurture, neither one is complete without the other. A newborn baby (emphasis on newborn) does not learn to cry or grab objects or put things in their mouth. Yet they learn that crying helps them get the attention they need from their mother, so they continue to cry whenever they are hungry, have a full diaper, or are simply upset. Thus, it seems we do have some actions or impulses automatically built into our being, but we learn very much from our environment and experiences. The ability to learn and speak a language fluently, for example, from work with a couple children who were isolated from much human contact, has been discovered to be a learned cultural tool rather than a natural, innate ability. There were a couple studies on this from a previous Psychology course that I found very fascinating.

3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I rationalist mentality caught my eye because as humans, we have a natural tendency to react irrationally based upon emotions, previous experiences, or biases. It is quite a challenge at times in relationships to disregard emotions as reasons to act one way or another. Thinking rationally, we can come up with solutions based on logically solving problems rather than reacting to our previous experiences and biases. This pursuit focuses on discovering truth based on the logical pursuit of it.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I didn't find some of the drawn out descriptions of Descartes' theories on how reflexes, animal spirits, and the pineal glands work very appealing. At first I found it interesting, but then it went too far in depth in the details, just to say that they weren't correct later anyway. I have a general curiosity about such matters, but I think my lack of understanding and familiarity of human anatomy keeps me from enjoying the fine details.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
Though a little overwhelming, I think the introduction to many different theories about how and why humans think, act, and react the way we do will help greatly to understand how ideas and theories have started, developed, and been improved upon through history. For a young study, there are so many different aspects and areas of psychology that are only beginning to be explored. Since many of these theories compare and contrast, it helps us to understand that psychology is an ongoing learning process that won't necessarily ever reach a general conclusion or "correct" standard because of how complex the human mind and body are.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
This chapter takes us from why we study psychology in the previous chapter to how psychology has been developed over the centuries and how it has continuously been associated with other areas of science such as anatomy, physiology, astronomy, etc.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
I would like to look more into why the Catholic Church rejected many of the scientific ideas centuries ago. As previously stated, it seems that the Church is blamed for preventing progress, when one can easily say that the Church actually helped to advance science and psychology by challenging these thinkers to effectively argue and support their position without insisting truth when their own methods cannot prove said truth.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter? I thought about how confusing it must have been centuries ago with all these new theories conflicting and comparing each other against or in cohesion with traditional thinking. It is confusing enough now with all the advances in science, because we still cannot explain nearly as much as we'd like to.

Descartes, innate idea, heliocentric, Galileo, rationalist, pineal gland, animal spirits, reflex

1a) What did you find interesting? Locke’s advice on education
1b) Why was it interesting to you? All of his ideas were very much useful in my mind. The first being physical health, he advised that a sound mind requires a sound body. Something as simple as a firm bed instead of a soft one was something he mentioned. Knowing this we can acquire the information that he truly believed in being the best you. The next piece of advice was to train the children discipline. I am also a firm believer in this. Children are so easily moldable and just like he mentions it needs to be continually practiced. Without repetition the act will not be remembered. Another thing that I plan to use when I have children is something he talked about next: not using punishment. The use of punishment is often not taken properly, such as a child getting punished for not doing studies will soon learn to hate them. And last mentioned in the book is the negative use of rewards, and how they will continue to be expected for good behavior. There is a fine line between good and bad punishment and good and bad reward.
2a) What did you find interesting? Hume’s cause and effect belief
2b) Why was it interesting to you? This reminded me a lot of correlations. He mentions using clues to predict regularity, and this evokes thinking in our self. We ask does A only happen when B is present, or does A act before or after B. He was a firm believer that nothing is certain, which I believe as well. Things like this can get a person in trouble however. He for instance was judged because of his skepticism, implying that even God’s existence would never be certain and could continue to be questioned.
3a) What did you find interesting? James Mills experience raising his son
3b) Why was it interesting to you? I think his story is incredible because not only of his mental capacity but also his humility. At a young, young age he was taught different languages, algebra, geometry, everything and had no contact with other children in their schools. His father personally tutored him and impressed on him the value of learning by himself. Every day he would have to summarize something he had read the day before to his father, which of course was a great aid to learning. He also had education in logic and politics. While many would consider him a prodigy, he didn’t know any better than to learn a great deal. That being said he was very humble in his intelligence. He didn’t credit himself any innate ability or gift but rather he was just grateful that he had a father who was so involved and had the desire to teach him. I just think this is a beautiful story, not only incredible but also humbling.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? Descartes animal spirit theory
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you? When something seems really farfetched to me it’s hard for me to keep my interest. So this theory that these spirits are found in our brain, nerves and muscles and are able to determine movement didn’t really come as much of an interest because it’s something I cannot bring myself to believe.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology? All of these people that I read about in this chapter had theories and ideas. I think that is the most important part of it. They all had so many opinions and some were able to base theirs on fact while others still only thought of them as hypothesis. That is something to always keep in mind; that all of these people may think differently but also that they were real to them.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters? In the first chapter we talked about how philosophers were a big part in the history of psychology and now we are learning about quite a few on an individual basis. Many of their theories were bases for many psychological theories we learn and know about today, this simply proves that history does in fact teach us about what is happening in our present.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about? James Mills life
7b) Why? I think the way his father raised him was truly fascinating and I would love to read more about his life in order to know how he acquired so much knowledge along with learning about why his father took the initiative to teach him this way.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter? What makes people like Descartes believe in animal spirits leading our thoughts and actions? Why do some people not agree with Locke’s theories knowing the outcome of children being reared improperly?
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post. Innate idea, animal spirits, cause and effect, ideas

1a) What did you find interesting?
- Descartes' four basic rules:
1: Accept nothing as true unless there's no reason to doubt it.
2: Break problems into sub-problems
3:Work from simple sub-problems to more complex ones
4: Review conclusions to make sure nothing's omitted

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
- Because these rules are still a part of our scientific model today. This is how people conduct research (with a few modern changes of course), but I think it is absolutely astounding that Descartes theory of science is still relevant in today's scientific society. I also find it exceptional that Descartes was willing to refute authority while making these rules. While living in a society highly regulated by church, and state governments; it was a bold leap.

2a) What did you find interesting?
- Empiricist: Someone who believes that our knowledge of the world is constructed from our experiences in it; school of thought associated with such British philosophers as Locke, Berkley, and Mill

2b) Why was it interesting to you?
- This is particularly interesting because how are we to know which behaviors, are innate, and learned? The idea that language is innate has been proposed, and to refute that we have no knowledge when we are born is something that the scientific method cannot explain. This question is based in philosophy.

3a) What did you find interesting?
- Sir Francis Bacon's scientific model

3b) Why was it interesting to you?
- Much like Descartes this scientific method is similar to the one that we use today. The idea that Bacon created the early form of the Inductive Approach, is amazing. In a time period when people only used the Deductive Approach this was probably one of the most scientifically significant

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
- Convergence: Visual phenomenon described by Berkeley; the tendency of the eye muscles to make the eye move in the direction of "crossing" as objects move closer to the person.

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
- Basic explanations of eye function that don't really have any relation to the brain or psychology seem like trivial knowledge to me. What does it matter if we know something, but not why it happens?

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
- Knowing that psychology was originally a field of philosophy. Seeing how people were asking questions about human behavior, and it brought out the field of psychology.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
- This chapter builds on the previous because we are still covering the early sciences. We have traveled to the beginning foundations of psychology.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
- Contiguity

7b) Why?
- Because this topic is a little unfamiliar to me, and its confusing.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
- Honestly, I kept thinking about my Humanities II class, many of the people featured in this chapter; are large names in the philosophy field. These people were doing things during their time periods that were big improvements to the scientific community. Not only did a majority of these people contribute to science, they also bettered religion.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
- Contiguity; Convergence, Empiricist,

1a) What did you find interesting?

I found interesting to learn more about where the phrase, “I think, therefore I am”, came from.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?

The simple meaning is that doubting one’s existence, in and of itself, proves that an "I" exists to do the doubting. This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception or mistake, the very act of doubting one's own existence arguably serves as proof of the reality of one's own existence, or at least of one's thought.
I also liked how he came to the conclusion. First he would accept nothing as true unless it was absolutely clear in his mind and there was no doubt. Second, he would take the problem, or question, and break it down into sub-problems, to see if there was any part of the problem that could be disproved. Third he would work on the easiest problem and work his way up to the more difficult ones. And finally based on all of this we would draw his conclusions. I found this interesting because there is nothing special or complicated about it, I believe this is the way most break down and solve problems. Coming to a logical conclusion like this can be described as an innate idea.

2a) What did you find interesting?

Another subject I found interesting was John Locke’s argument against innate ideas.

2b) Why was it interesting to you?

I found this to be interesting because it conflicts or goes against what I just read and understood from Descartes, I am interested in the other side of the argument.
After considering the existence of innate ideas, Locke completely rejected them. Locke believed that we do have innate “faculties”, the example give was the ability to think, but ideas derived from reason are not to be considered innate ideas. Locke argued that there is no need to propose innate ideas because ideas originate from other sources, like our experience, it required only our mental abilities, which he referred to as “faculties”.
Locke’s main argument against innate ideas was based on the experiences every person gains throughout their lives. He argues that the existence of God is not an innate idea but a natural consequence from a line of thought stemming from the worry of death, a universal experience. Locke even argued that innate ideas appearing early in life cannot be innate because as children, even before the acquisition of language, benefit from experience, for example, learning the difference between bitter and sweet.

3a) What did you find interesting?

Rationalist responses to empiricism.

3b) Why was it interesting to you?

I found these responses interesting because it ties all of the previous arguments together.
Gottfried Leibniz challenged Locke’s white paper analogy; the mind at birth is a blank sheet of paper. Gottfried said the mind was more like veined marble, meaning our experiences in life can shape our minds in so many ways. He also argued Descarte’s interactionsism, stating that the mind and physical body work parallel to each other, believing that the mind and body worked separate from each other but in agreement. Immanuel Kant also argued that experiences itself was not possible it there was no prior knowledge to provide the framework. This argument was geared towards our understanding of the world.
These arguments were a response to empiricism, but they also help us to see the path, to thinking and gaining knowledge, that was taken.

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

I found the setup of the chapter overall uninteresting

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

It focused too much on too many different people. All of the information related well, and I found it entertaining of how the next person discussed would disagree with the ideas of the person discussed before. I’m not completely sure what the focus of the chapter was, besides the people discussed in it.

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

This chapter lays out how information processing has changed in that short period of time discussed. If the chapter discussed where we are now compared to back then, it would be a tremendous difference. In that difference we would see a thread of commonality, and be able to trace back the origins of a certain way of thinking.

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

The first chapter mainly explained why we should study history, or the history of psychology, the second chapter demonstrates what can we accomplished and how we can build upon our history. All new arguments or ways of thinking were built or created using previous ways of thought.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn about in what ways Locke, Descartes, Gottfried, and so on changed our ways of thinking.

7b) Why?

It would be interesting to see how things have really changed since then. It is easy to collect all of this knowledge and say this is what this philosopher meant and this is why we think this way. I want to know how specifically things have changed and how one person’s idea affected another’s and theirs affected the person proceeding them and so on.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?

While reading the chapter I was amazed at the amount of influence one person’s way of thinking influenced the next person. The following person would take the same idea spin it on its head or improve on it.

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

Innate idea, white paper,interactionism

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found the idea that the British tradition was known as being strongly empiricist. I thought this was interesting because I find this to be true as well. I strongly believe that our own knowledge of the world, shapes the experiences we have. I think that there are other factors as well, but knowing about our world gives us a better understanding on how to live in that particular world. For example, living in today's world, I know that our society revolves around technology. Knowing this about my current world, I know that it is important to be technologically savvy in order to be shaped into a person who can survive and succeed in it. I also believe that being taught about the world also helps shape the experiences we will have in it. The British tradition still seems to hold true for me at least, but I do believe in a lot of other theories as well.
2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
The idea that Locke had about training children early and often is the best way for the child to develop in the proper way. This is because when we are younger our brains are the most malleable and it is easier to learn and obtain things when we are younger then when we are older. I find this to be extremely interesting because logically it doesn't make too much sense to me. I would personally think that we could learn more once our brains are completely developed and once we can learn more age appropriate things. But then again one must learn how to learn in order to learn so it does make sense. I think it's so interesting that the brain is the one thing that can determine if you develop or not. It's also crazy to think that if we are taught to be good at the start, then we will be good. Conditioning is a spectacular thing. I don't find it hard to believe that children who were babied as children, will have a higher chance of having bad habits later in life because they were never taught the right way from the start. More the reason to make sure you teach children the right way, right away.
3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
"Kant argued that psychology could never become a science like the physical sciences." I find this statement to be very interesting because I disagree with him completely. I think that psychology is most definitely considered to be a science just like a physical science. In psychology, theories, data, and ideas are all important in proving something about something. Just like a physical science. I personally consider psychology as a type of science because people have to study and figure out certain things in order to fully understand them. Science to me is about experiments and so is psychology. In psychology there are experiments taking place all the time that's how they figure issues out. It's how they make sense of our world and issues that are taking place in our world today and always. I feel like it might be classified as a different type of science, but it is definitely a science in my personal opinion and it blows my mind that someone disputes that notion.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I didn't find the section about Berkeley in regards to accommodation and convergence to be the least interesting in this chapter. This is because I have learned all about this before in my development classes and even then I didn't find it to be interesting. It seems to be common knowledge and not that important to me personally. I was informed though that Berkeley was the one that came up with these concepts and I didn't know that before. I just feel like these two terms seem minor compared to the other information and it was just a refresher 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 feel like learning about the different theories and psychologists will help me better understand the history of psychology because they are some of the people who helped shape the history of it in the first place.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
Chapter two relates to the first chapter because it still talks about the history of psychology just in a different way then the first chapter. In chapter two it talks about the history of the psychologists that involve the history of psychology. The different people who have come up with theories that apply topics and issues of psychology. It still talked about different concepts that pertain to the history and makings of psychology. I think the author did a great job with transitioning to the next chapter and with still integrating the original topics as well.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
I would like to learn more about why they switched from animal research to human research. I feel like both could still be beneficial to this day, which in some cases it is still taking place but I would like to learn more about why it was unpopular even though it was considered to be good research. I feel like animals and humans are both good ways to research on.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
The idea of "white paper" was something that I could relate to as an Elementary Education major because we learned ALL about this concept in two of my previous classes. I believe in this concept because I think that at birth, every child is born with a blank slate, or empty paper. Every child has the ability to learn, even if it is at a different rate or different ability. Even children with special needs have the ability to learn something. By one's experience and external influences are children able to learn and write their own sheet of papers. I remember learning all about this and I think it will always be true and important in understanding how to help children develop which is important to me since I'm wanting to be a teacher. I think that Locke was dead on when it came to this concept.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Empiricist, British Tradition, White Paper, Locke, History of Psychology, Theories, Psychologists, Kant, Science, Animal Research, Berkeley, Accommodation, Convergence, and Human Research.

AS

1a) The part about Descartes arguing for a separation between mind and body which is known as dualist.
1b) To me this was interesting because he stated that bodies take up space and move through it and the mind doesn’t possess extension or movement. He also wanted to make a clear difference between animals and humans. His difference is that animals are a simple machine because they can’t reason or use language like humans can which they are a more complex machine.
2a) Next the part on animal spirits was interesting.
2b) This was interesting because it sounds like total nonsense. Descartes believed that muscle movement was from the action of animal spirits deriving from the brain. These spirits can activate nerves in the brain to control certain muscle movements.
3a) John Locke was pretty interesting.
3b) A theory of his was that all of our knowledge about the world derives from experience. He referred to our mind at birth being a blank slate ready for experience. He also felt strongly about sensation and reflection. For example he believed that we develop a concept about green because we have a lot of experiences with the color green.
4a) I couldn’t find anything that was the least interesting because I like learning about the different ideas each person has.
4b)
5) All of this chapter will be useful because we learned a lot of information about psychology’s history and everyone’s ideas.
6) The part about personalistc and naturalistic history could relate to this information because we could look at the information and see if it is personalistc or naturalistic.
7a) I would like to learn more about John Locke and his idea of all of our knowledge about the world comes from experience.
7b) I would like to learn more about it because I would like to know why he believed that.
8) When reading this chapter I thought about our mind being like a blank slate when we are born and how we develop all of our knowledge as we grow.
9) John Locke, personalistic, naturalistic, Descartes, animal spirits, dualist, sensation, reflection,

1a) Rationalist/Rationalism

1b) I found this interesting because of what Descartes said about only accepting truth that could not be doubted. So he doesn’t accept the knowledge of the senses, because the senses can be deceived. When the book talked about how to arrive at the truth there were four steps, it really grabbed my attention. It had to be so clear to him that there was no reason to even doubt it at all, I didn’t agree with that thinking totally. When I doubt something it makes me want to search for the correct answer and see if it is true, if you never accept something as truth just because you doubt it, there will be very few things you believe to be true. I do, however, like the next three steps of finding something to be true from Descartes, breaking each problem down to sub-problems then working through them to the more complex and difficult problems, then check his work. I really like the last part of it, because every good scientist will not accept the answer they get on the first try as the correct one, they will do it over to see if the results are the same.

2a) Descartes take on Reflexes

2b) This really caught my attention right when I started reading the section, Descartes was a very forward thinker in his time, he wanted to solve the question of the mind-body interaction. I loved how when he started his studies he got his first lead due to William Harvey’s mechanical heart discovery, he knew that the muscles were controlled by the nerves, was controlled by the brain and that causes movement. The most interesting part about the whole section in my opinion was about the animal spirits in the body. Thinking about that time period when they believed that everything was controlled by a different spirit is so interesting. Just how Descartes wrote that there all of the different animal spirits in the brain and muscles that they control the movements of each muscle based on function. I just thought how everything about that culture and the thinking behind all the movements and how much of a revelation it was when he wrote his book astounds me.

3a) John Stewart Mill

3b) I thought the close up on John Stewart Mill was very interesting, just how his life was modeled for him to be a genius. His dad didn’t let him play with other children; instead he had to study for his whole childhood. His dad would take him on walks and basically quiz him and John would have to recite it back to him in his own words. I just really thought it was interesting that he was molded to make a difference with his mind from when he was born. It is very intriguing as to how someone from birth can be fed all of this information and retain it, then make a big impact on society like he did. I liked how he said that he has a natural ability to be this smart, but he doesn’t give that all the credit, he put a lot of hard work into being this smart.

4a) Immanuel Kant

4b) I didn’t find this interesting, just because it felt like the book really gave a brief overview of his life and who he was. I felt like he wasn’t very appreciated in this chapter, I’m sure he had a very interesting life but we didn’t get to hear about it. If there was a bigger section on what he did I feel it would have captured my attention more.

5) I think that knowing about Descartes is the most important thing to take away from this chapter. The forward thinking he had about Rationalism, Nativism, and Mechanistic Interaction. He really changed the way people thought about how people come to the answers and how to question everything to just be positive.

6) This builds on the previous chapter because in the first one we were learning about how the history is written and how it comes to be. In this chapter we learned about people who influenced history and made a lasting mark to change how we study the sciences.

7a) I would like to learn more about Descartes

7b) I want to learn more about his mind-body connection theory. I just found how he came to the animal spirits controlling our movements was such an interesting thought. I would love to know more about what his views on life would be.

8) I was thinking about how much the times have changed with all of the different thinking each person had and how it all helped us arrive to where we are now. Without each and every one of these scholars we could potentially be at a completely different spot in our thinking.

9) Rationalist, Nativism, Mechanistic Interaction, John Stewart Mill, Immanuel Kant, Descartes

1a&b) One thing I found interesting within the chapter was Descartes’ ideas on reflex and mind-body interaction. I was drawn to this section because of the strangeness of the bolded words ‘animal spirits’ that seemed very out of place in a chapter dedicated to philosophers and scientists of the past. Delving further into the section proved that this term was one that originated from the ancient Greeks and referenced what were believed to be the forces behind movement. Descartes theorized that reflexes were filaments within the body which led to the brain, which upon stimulation would release these ‘animal spirits’ from pores in the brain and cause the body to react to stimuli. I also found the various illustrations from Descartes of reflex and the action of the pineal gland directing animal spirits to be fascinating and a great addition to the text.
2a&b) Recognizing John Locke from having read his work in high school, I was interested by how this chapter chose to highlight his thoughts on education. Since I am interested in possibly becoming an educator one day this was relevant in terms of some basic principles and history that I could build on in order to have a better understanding of teaching. I also found it remarkable that Locke’s ideas from over 300 years ago, such as the benefits of early education and practice, are still very applicable in the classroom today.
3a&b) Finally, I was drawn to the history and views of John Stuart Mill mentioned near the end of the chapter. After reading the close-up I was fascinated by Mill’s upbringing and prodigy and wanted to learn more about him and how he related to the history of psychology. His thoughts on psychology, while briefly mentioned in the text, showed that Mill was a firm believer in the power of experience as opposed to innate ideas. I also found it empowering that Mill suffered from depression early in life but was able to overcome this obstacle and persevere. I was also impressed by his activism in feminism and his impact in Parliament regarding women’s rights to own property.
4a&b) One of the parts of the text I wasn’t interested in was the introduction to the chapter. Just like the intro to the first chapter, I found it out of place and loosely related to what the chapter covered. While this one had a little bit more pertinent information, like the paragraphs about New Psychology and the outline of the chapter, the Ebbinghaus quote and background seemed like it was just thrown in for filler.
5) It is difficult to pinpoint just one thing from this chapter that would help in understanding the history of psychology, seeing as all of these philosophical viewpoints build from or improve on one another. If I had to choose just one school of thought highlighted in the chapter I would have to say that the contributions of the British empiricists were extremely influential. The empiricist basis for the ideas of the great minds of the time shows dedication to the scientific aspect of the discipline. Through striving to be able to explain action through experience as opposed to accepting innate ideas as the source of behavior these philosophers paved the way for following psychologist-scientists.
6) This chapter built on the historical framework set down by the first chapter and allowed me to understand what I was reading from the perspective of a historian as well as an aspiring psychologist. The historical lenses of presentism and historicism presented in the first chapter challenge the reader to view the writing within the text through different contexts. Chapter two built on this by explaining the philosophical basis for psychology through history and added the first building block to the framework of the historical context.
7a&b) I wished that some of the more ancient history of psychology would have been expounded upon a little more. While it is briefly mentioned in the introduction, the history from the middle ages to the renaissance is never really mentioned in this chapter. I would like to learn more about if there were any philosophers from this era which attempted to ‘shine a light’, as it were, into the ignorance of the dark ages. This time is also of interest to me personally because I am interested in disorders which could cause symptoms often purportedly attributed to demonic possession, and since this was a time where demons were the main explanation for abnormal behavior I am attracted to it historically.
8) The whole while I was reading this chapter I was thinking about how understated the importance of philosophy is within the discipline of psychology. While it may seem obvious that an appreciation of basic philosophical concepts is needed to accurately understand psychology, it seems like the more scientific side of the community is trying to alienate the disciplines from one another in an attempt to substantiate the scientific nature of psychology. The idea that the two are unrelated is nonsensical; however I found it interesting that I have rarely heard of the relationship of the two before in any of my classes before.
9) Descartes, animal spirits, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Empiricism, presentism, historicism, philosophy

KAB

1a) What did you find interesting?
Although this chapter seemed a bit hard to get in to, I did find a few things interesting. First off I found Nicolas Copernicus’ heliocentric theory to be quite interesting. The heliocentric theory states the sun is at the center of the universe instead of the previous theory- the geocentric theory which places the sun in the middle.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I always find ideas that question authority interesting. This theory questioned what everybody already thought was right and stirred things up. I hate the idea that we are supposed to just go along with things we’ve learned and not question or think for ourselves. After coming up with this theory, the church made his book off limits and went against everything he said. I think this is an important point to see how the church will go against truth to keep people from questioning what its taught us about God.

2a) What did you find interesting?
Another thing I found interesting was John Locke, and his idea on social contract. Locke felt it was the people who should be able to lead their lives how they wanted- in a sense of government and spirituality. He came up with the idea of social contract- which states the government is to protect the common good of the people and maintain a safe environment. People who go against the government will be punished. Also the government will be held accountable as well. If a government is taking advantage of the people or not doing its job it should be held responsible as well.

2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found this piece interesting because that’s exactly how I feel things should go. Jefferson felt this way as well, and that’s why he modeled the Declaration of Independence on it. I think this idea is the most logical way to go about a government, because it is in the best interest of the people. I think this is so interesting that this idea came about so long ago and is still not how everybody thinks. It seems so simple and obvious that its crazy to me that it is still not implemented everywhere.
3a) What did you find interesting?
Another topic I found interesting was impact the church had on education and what was considered okay to learn and what wasn’t. I see that this came up a lot and people were second guessing their work due to being in trouble with the church.

3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I just like seeing how religion impacts things such as this. I think it’s sad people weren’t/aren’t encouraged to think for themselves or question things they’ve learned due to fear. This interests me because it isn’t a thing of the past but still goes on today, hundreds of years later. Even if it doesn’t seem as obvious, it still does impact what we do and learn.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
I felt this chapter wasn’t even allowed in a psychology textbook. It was extremely hard for me to read because philosophy is not a interest of mine. That being said, I would say the least interesting thing in this chapter would be intense information on Descartes. The continuous categories he was put into, (rationalist, dualist, nativist) seemed like a bit much.
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
This wasn’t interesting to me because I am just not interested in philosophy. I understand this is a history class and I know there is some connection between this information and the beginning of psychology, but I feel it just goes a bit too deep for me to even understand. It’s things I will read and never remember or think deeply about again. I felt all the information about Descartes was too in depth and not needed to understand psychology. Or maybe I am just not interested in how psychology came to be in the first place, or at least that far back, more so things that have happened more currently.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I guess I would have to say that I didn’t think of psychology in the same sense before reading this chapter. After reading this, I feel more of a basic sense of psychology of how the mind works, instead of just problems associated with it. When I think of psychology I think about how things work, or explanations of why people act the way they do. This chapter makes me see how basic questions of how things work in the brain and where thoughts form are the beginning, or the history. This gives me a more insightful look into how these thoughts even came about. From a time where people we not even able to think for themselves if it was outside what they were taught- to a time where we are able to study behavior and the brain in so much detail.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
The first chapter seemed a bit more of an introductory chapter to me. Summing up things about history and psychology. This chapter seemed a bit more like the beginning to me. Showing that psychology can be traced back deep into the past.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about the religious aspects. About what books were considered off limits and not allowed. I’d like to know the people who were exiled from the church and what exactly their ‘findings’ or theories were and why they were so bad. Religious aspects interest me when it comes to how it influences peoples thoughts and behaviors.

7b) Why?
I just like to see how religious impacts people’s lives. Not only does is impact their values and morals, or their behaviors, but all the way down to their education and what they can and cannot believe. I think its outrageous people get controlled by religion and choose religion over free thinking and learning things for themselves. It interests me because it isn’t something of the past but continues on today as well. There are still people there who would rather go along with what they are taught in Sunday school than question it and think for themselves.

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 glad I am that I didn’t take a philosophy class. How I read about these people in my art appreciation class and was bored to death. I also thought about the Amish. How I’ve watch documentaries on how the kids aren’t allowed to think if it doesn’t go along with what they were taught. I couldn’t imagine living in a world where I wasn’t encouraged to think on my own. I was not brought up religious, and was raised to question authority and make sense of things myself in my own way. Reading this chapter makes me more grateful I was brought up how I was and not in a strict religious environment where I wouldn’t be able to challenge questions and things I didn’t believe in.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Geocentric, heliocentric, social contract, rationalist, dualist, nativist,

1a) What did you find interesting?
I found the relation to philosophy to be interesting.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
This was interesting to me because I am a double major with philosophy as my second major. Reading all the philosophers names, such as, Thomas Aquinas, John Stuart Mill, Descartes, and many others in the chapter, made this reading easier and I was able to understand much more since I had previously touched on it in my philosophy courses.

2a) What did you find interesting?
On page 36 of the chapter it mentions that Rene Descartes was a tutor to Queen Christina of Sweden.

2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I knew Descartes was a brilliant mind, but I never knew he was a tutor to royalty. This fact just stood out to me and was interesting to read.

3a) What did you find interesting?
The last thing that interested me was that Locke rejects the idea of innate ideas.

3b) Why was it interesting to you?
As I previously mentioned, I have done a lot of philosophy coursework so some of the older ideas that were presented I had already touched upon. Innate ideas have been taught and discussed many times and each time it’s always interesting to me. However I had never known that Locke was against the idea of innate ideas, instead arguing that knowledge comes from ideas.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
Not necessarily least interesting, but the passages on John Stuart Mill.

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
Mill has always been difficult for me to read, especially the title “On Liberty.” Every quote from him or his passages are just difficult and mind numbing for me to get through which causes me to just not look forward to it.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
Understanding the connections between philosophy and psychology will probably be the most useful to understanding the history. They work hand in hand and philosophy has always been an intriguing science that has developed many different areas of study, psychology included.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
It builds on chapter one by giving a history of psychology and philosophy after giving us different examples of how to view history in a more objective sense.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about Descartes.

7b) Why?
So far in my philosophy classes he is one of the philosophers that I have not had much exposure to.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I related a lot of the names to prior classes I’ve taken in philosophy such as, in Medieval Philosophy, we did a lot of readings on Thomas Aquinas. In Philosophy: The art of thinking, we read “On Liberty,” which is done by John Stuart Mill. So many names I have had exposure to in the past.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Rene Descartes, Queen Christina of Sweden, Thomas Aquinas, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Innate Ideas.

DeAndra Mahrt

1a) Descartes and the rationalist argument based on his learning in the scholastic tradition.
1b) The scholastic tradition combined the learning from the Church authority along with the careful use of reason. The learning relied heavily on the rational argument established by Aristotle, which in turn supported the decisions and rights of the Church. Descartes studied this particular type of study at the College de la Fleche. Excelling quite early on allowed him to receive special treatment and rewards not given to others. However, in 1614 he became unconvinced this was the only way to become educated. He questioned the tradition knowing and observing no much had been further established since he started studying it. It didn’t seem to be able to give him clear answers to the questions he began to have about life. Descartes began to abandon the tradition and start finding answers for himself. In 1619, it is said Descartes experienced a conversion experience, which is a series of dreams that effectively told him to get serious about making a meaningful contribution to knowledge. During Descartes’s time, an era of revolutionary developments in science, many significant people were establishing meaningful contributions to the world of science, knowledge, and mathematics. Through Descartes era he was able to thrive. During this time in the world it was okay to stray away from tradition and produce something of your own, based on your own ideas without any authority guiding you.

2a) John Locke and Empiricism.
2b) John Locke is said to be a reasonable man who lived in an unreasonable time. Not only did he witness the English Civil War, the execution of a king with the overthrow of another, changes to the religion, a fire which destroyed almost all of London, and a political alliance which caused him to flee to Holland, Locke was still able to benefit from these experiences. He was able to develop a liberal political philosophy based on tolerance of dissent and the right of the people to determine how they would lead both their worldly and their more spiritual lives, especially how they were governed. By establishing this view, Locke essentially formed the social contract. This allowed the citizens to agree or disagree with the government’s decisions, which in turn could alter what the final decision was. If either part decided to go against their commitments they could be executed or overthrown. The interesting thing about Locke is that he mirrored Descartes in some ways. Both were individuals who rejected the scholasticism. Locke was known for his epistemology, or the study of human knowledge and its acquisition. In his well known publication An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke spoke freely of innate ideas. He had specific arguments, which supported his essay. He argued that there is no need to propose innate ideas, some ideas were universal, and some ideas seem to appear so early in life that they must be innate. Locke was able to find a separate way to look at the way humans understand throughout their lives. The idea of innate ideas and everything being learned from experience is interesting. On one hand I understand Locke’s point knowing quite a bit of my behavior and knowledge came from experiences through my childhood and adult years. However, not all that I know today is merely based on experience. When it comes to education, a strict program based on empiricism should in turn produce the ideal citizen. But not everyone follows the rules, not everyone finds a deeper meaning within things, so therefore, an experience may be taken in one way by someone and interpreted in a whole new way by the next person. Locke broadened the way we come to conclusions.

3a) British Associationism
3b) Berkley and Locke both briefly spoke about the meaning and importance of associations. But through more investigations by others, Associationism would become of great importance to Britain and its British philosophers. David Hume was well known for his contributions to Associationism. Hume built his system on the basic premise that all of our understanding is rooted in experience. He believed it consisted of impressions and ideas. Impressions were basic sensations, and ideas are faint copies of impressions. Similarly, Locke expressed there are two methods sensation and reflection. Hume noted that it is possible to reduce all of our ideas to impression, even complex ideas that have never been experienced directly. The book used the example of finding a four-leaf clover, even though we may never have found one we have the complex idea of it by combining simple ideas such as the four, clover, and green. Hume had three laws of association: resemblance, contiguity, and cause-effect. All we can know is that events occur together with some predictable regularity. He was labeled as a skeptic, which caused conflict with the authority of the Church. Later, David Hartley took on association. Hartley took on the belief that psychological and physical events were separate, but operated in parallel. For Hartley, the main law of association is continuity, also known as the events experienced together. Furthermore, this is important because of its consistency. Each man came up with a common sense of experience, but twisted it in some way to make sense.

4a) Animal spirits by Descartes
4b) I didn’t find this interesting for a couple different reasons. From my understanding today, there isn’t any driving force from the heat of the blood, which is behind movement. He believed there were tiny particles found in the brain and muscles that were in constant motion. He believed that the brain could activate these particles to move muscles. I have no true belief in such a thing. It makes sense to talk about reflexes and sensation in such ways, but when he throws in the notion of animal spirits it becomes far fetched.

5) The book started off with the question of whether or not psychology is just another name for philosophy. However, following that question was the explanation that by studying human behavior and mental processes through the application of scientific methods rather than philosophical analysis, logical reasoning, and speculation, it because psychology. It was put to the test instead of just theories without much research or experiments supporting them.

6) By understanding the philosophy of psychology allows us to continue on our journey though its origins and how we have come to a point where it is a separate department and a separate field of study all together. Understanding the way well known philosophers and historians studied human development and learning through experience will help us find some sort of understanding how the history is important. Without the philosophies explained in such great detail we may not understand the current events.

7a) Gottfired WIlheml Leibniz and his findings.
7b) I haven’t heard much about this man until I read chapter 2. I find his thinking interesting and would like to look further into his thoughts of monads. Also, deciphering his apperception, perception and petites perception explanations and his thinking for these ideas sounds interesting. I feel as if I could gain a better understanding for how philosophy is important to study based on its influences in psychology.

8) I kept in mind that psychology did not start as merely psychology. From the previous chapter I found that philosophy and psychology were intertwined for years and years until it was known they were not all that similar. However, by understanding the philosophy aspect can allow me to better understanding where exactly psychology stemmed from and how it is important to decipher the difference between the two fields of study.

Philosophy, Descartes, David Hume, David Hartley, associationism, contiguity, resemblance, sensation, reflection, innate, social contract

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
One of the things I found interesting was the heliocentric theory versus the geocentric theory. Heliocentric is where the sun was at the center and the earth moved around it just like the other planets. The geocentric view placed the earth at the center of the earth. This was interesting to me because it brought up a lot of controversy. It’s interesting to see everyone’s ideas and point of views and to know why they thought something was a certain way.
2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found it interesting that Descartes seemed to be recognized as a rationalist, a nativist, and a dualist. He had different opinions about a lot of different things. He had a lot of philosophies and was obviously taught very well to be precise and logic with his thinking. With his dualism I found it interesting that he separated that idea when it came to animals and humans, known as Cartesian dichotomy. He thought of animals as machines, hence why he use to cut open live cats because he thought they were only pretending to be in pain. Descartes is just a very interesting person.
3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
Another thing that I found interesting was the animal spirits that were referred by Descartes. He thought that there were spirits that were tiny particles in constant motion and were of animal spirits deriving from the brain, the nerves and the muscles. This is interesting because it was something way different that I would ever believe and it is a concept that I would never consider myself, but it is kind of fun to read about because it is so different!
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
A lot of this chapter was pretty interesting, so I guess the least interesting thing was the British association and the rules and other information that came along with it. It just didn’t attract my attention. It wasn’t a new and interesting concept that I hadn’t heard of before like the other sections I read were, so that is why I would choose it to be the least interesting.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think everything contributes to learning about the history because it is all a part of the history, so knowing where the history started out from helps us understand why it goes to the places it goes to.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
this chapter could be compared to it by giving different examples of those types, or examples of how we would have some of the views that were mentioned in the first chapter. For example, I have read some things and thought to myself, what were they thinking? That is because I didn’t think about the knowledge they had back then compared to the knowledge I have now. This is an example of presentism vs historicism.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
One topic that would be cool to learn more about is psychophysical parallelism because I didn’t quite grasp the concept of it and it didn’t go into too much depth on explaining what it was and it seems like an interesting topic.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
When it mention that Descartes thought of animals as machines I remembered learning about that in another class and they said that he would perform open surgery on cats and that they only pretended to be in pain because they were mechanically engineered to do that.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Geocentric, heliocentric, rationalist, nativist, dualism, animal spirits

1a) What did you find interesting?
-Rene Descartes
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
-I found his life to be very interesting. I also found the part in the book about him leaving college in 1614 because he wasn’t satisfied with his education to be relatable. Descrates was receiving an education in the scholastic tradition. From my experience, sometimes I don’t think some of the classes I have taken have been very satisfying and sometimes I have been very disappointed. Descartes decided that he wanted to find things out for himself and not through authority.

2a) What did you find interesting?
-The Passions of the Soul
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
-I found this interesting because of how his theories of the body were explained. Like how Descrates explained reflexes by proposing the existence of thin, wirelike ‘filaments’ that existed within the nerves and extended to the brain. And when these ‘filaments move, they cause ‘pores in the brain to open up. I find this stuff to be interesting because it’s neat to find out these theories and how the information has changed over time.

3a) What did you find interesting?
Immanuel Kant
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
-I think his idea about experiences is very true and I agree with parts of it. Kant said that it is important to gain experiences for understanding the world. He also argued that experience itself was not possible without some prior knowledge. And I think that is true, I think prior knowledge and gaining experience go hand in hand. I also found his belief that science is on a high statues than psychology to be very interesting. His reason for this was that it cannot be viewed and observed objectively.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
-geocentric and heliocentric
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
-I didn’t find anything to be overly dry in this chapter. But these concepts I don’t find to be that interesting because I don’t find many of scientific concepts to be that interesting. Science isn’t a subject I enjoy very much. I did though find it interesting of heliocentric model was controversial with religion.

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 it was useful to look at the different theories and how they have changed. I think it’s interesting and useful to look at how each of these people have challenged one another and always improving their ideas. I don’t think one is always right and we always have to be thinking and evaluating.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
-The first chapter talked a lot about looking at the past through a historic view and I think that is important during this chapter. When looking at geocentric view of the world, they viewed the world this way because of the importance of religion and it was immoral to question religion a lot of the time.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
- Rene Descartes and The Passions of the Soul
7b) Why?
- I think that there is so much more out there and I would like to learn more on how he developed his theories and also how his theories have changed overtime.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
-I related a lot to what Rene Descartes said about education. I think that it is important to experience things for ourselves and not just through others. I think it is important to go out there and teach yourself things and to do things on your own and not rely on others to tell you.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
- scholastic, geocentric, heliocentric

1a) what did you find interesting?
I found Leibniz’s idea of awareness was very interesting. He uses three levels of awareness, Apperception, Perception, and petites perception. Apperception is the highest level of awareness, where one focuses their attention on information and apprehend it, and make it meaningful. Petites perception is below awareness, but essential for other levels of awareness to occur. Perception is awareness of something, but not as sharp as apperception.
1b) why was it interesting to you?
I thought this was really interesting because I didn’t really know that there were any other kinds of theories about awareness or perception before Freud’s theories about the subconscious. I guess me just kind of thought he pulled it from thin air. I think that by answering questions like this, maybe we are attempting to reach apperception of the material that we are reading, which is an interesting thought. I think Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was pretty interesting in himself, but I decided to focus on this, as it stuck out to me. I thought the idea of thresholds and being mentioned in with levels of awareness was also very interesting.

2a) What did you find interesting?
David Hume’s Rules of Association I also thought was pretty interesting, and he touches on Impressions as well as Ideas, and breaks the laws of association into three parts: resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. Impressions are basic sensations and raw experience, while ideas are copies of these impressions. Resemblance is when an object reminds us of something else because it is similar, contiguity is experiencing things together, and cause and effect is when something happens that causes something else.
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I thought this was really interesting, because I thought about how I associate things with other things. For example, I dated a guy in high school who always smoked Camel 99s, and now whenever I smell that particular scent, it reminds me of him. I didn’t realize at the time that I associated that smell with him, but the impression it left on me gave me the contiguity to think about him when I smell it now. I think that it is pretty cool how that works. There are a lot of things that bring to mind past memories (Zucchini bread always makes me think of my grandma), and I never really thought about how that worked before.
3a) What did you find interesting?
I thought that the concepts of Materialism and determinism were interesting, because materialism wants to only focus on the physical aspect of things, and only concreteness, including mental events, and that everything can be measured. Determinism is the belief that all events have prior causes.
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I thought this was interesting because the idea of determinism leaves us not in control of our actions, and thus, can our actions truly be punishable? And if there was no proof as to why we did something, as the materialism concepts push for, than did we even do it? I find these kinds of ideas really interesting, because it is hard sometimes, knowing what we know now, to look at the past at these theories and seriously believe that people thought this way. If someone committed murder, and determinism was still the major school of thought, they should not be held accountable for that murder, because something previously triggered them into committing that murder, and something triggered that event, and back until the dawn of time. This is kind of a disturbing idea and I’d like to think that I have free will.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
Honestly, I thought all the information on John Locke was probably the least interesting, although it is a major part of the chapter.
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I learned about John Locke extensively when I took Humanities II, and so for me, this was all review, and I guess it was just kind of boring to re-read about him, although it was good refresher. We talked extensively about the idea of social contract in that class, and how it paved the way for police officers and the like to begin to exist, and how the government should be for the people, and in turn the people would support the government, which is why we have the system in place that we do now. Some of his other ideas were pretty interesting, and the ideas of primary and secondary qualities was new to me, but in general, I already knew quite a bit about him.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
Probably John Locke’s ideas on human interaction and education, as his ideas and theories really paved the way for future research. But I also think that the ideas of Association will really help as well, since it says that this was a central idea to Freud’s theories, and he is considered the father of psychology. I also think that Descartes is definitely a fundamental aspect of understanding psychology’s history, and really any of the sciences dealing with humans.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
I thought that this built upon what we learned in chapter one because it was more about the theories of pre-psychology and what people during these time periods thought. Chapter one talked more about why we study history, and this chapter shows us that before psychology was even born, we were thinking about these same things long before we turned it into its own field.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I think I’d like to learn more about determinism.
7b) Why?
I just find the concept extremely interesting and have been thinking about what kinds of ramifications we would have if this was still our train of thought, and if this was a major movement and thought process, or not. I don’t feel like the chapter touched enough on this concept, and so I’d like to learn more about it.

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 determinism, and how in the Bible it says that we have our own free will, but that many people believed that God had a hand in what happened, and I was curious as to how, if at all, the Bible tied into this theory, and how we as a society would deal with this if we truly believed that way. I thought that I needed to definitely try to look into this more, because I find the concept of free will vs. pre-determined destiny interesting. It is fascinating how when something happens, for example, an unexpected baby, people tend to look at it in one of two ways. Either, they should have used birth control, and they knew the risks and yet still decided to engage in sexual intercourse; or that it was destiny that they have a baby right now. Sometimes, it’s easier I feel to think that there was nothing we could do, that it was pre-determined, and we were helpless to stop it, especially when the incident in question is a bad one (i.e. child cancer). But when it is something that impacts others, we tend to look for someone to blame and say that they made a decision to do that, and that it was their fault (i.e. drunk driving).

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Apperception, Perception, Petites Perception, resemblance, contiguity, cause-effect, ideas, impressions, materialism, determinism, Locke, Social contract

LAJ

1a) What did you find interesting?

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

1b) Why was it interesting to you?

It was mainly his thoughts about perceptions, thresholds, and apperception that sparked my interest. Seeing the distinctions being made between different levels of focus is new, and its also something that I was aware of but have never truly gave conscious thought - kind of like the petite perceptions! I would like to learn more on how to achieve the level of apperception consistently and any pre-existing studies on it.

2a) What did you find interesting?

David Hume's Rules of Association

2b) Why was it interesting to you?

The thought of simply "dissecting the human experience" is something that has always been intriguing to me, as I feel that learning how to become the best version of yourself is one of the most important things that you can do in a lifetime, and that examining and re-examining your efforts and actions in life is the best way to achieve that goal.

I enjoyed Hume's breakdown on the acquisition of knowledge, starting with impressions, ideas, contiguity, and then causes and effects. Hume's perspectives seem to go together sequentially, becoming more complex with each successive idea, but at the same time creating clarity about the journey of knowledge.

3a) What did you find interesting?

David Hartley's Physiological Associationism

3b) Why was it interesting to you?

It was particularly Hartley's views on parallelism, his hypothesis that physical and mental/psychological processes and events had occurred separately yet in relation to each other. While the book goes off to clarify his idea in terms of spatial and temporal contiguities, it seems his attempts from building from Hume's past contributions to the science have created a deeper understanding of knowledge acquisition through the means of association.

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

Learning about John Stuart Mill

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

While I can see the importance of Mill's work, it seemed very basic relative to modern time. I definitely did not enjoy learning about his life, his wife, and their troubles and contributions to women's right -- not a misogynist but these are very fine details that I could have lived without ever knowing and cant see how they are important to the history and systems of psychology.

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

Personally, the distinctions between the different intensities of focus, such as apperception and petite perception will come in handy for me the most, and I hope to learn more about them. As I read through these long(?) chapters, I know it is inevitable to run through long paragraphs about boring facts and stories about peoples' live - because I am more interested in learning about their contributions to psychology - and I hope that I can learn a way to achieve apperception consistently in order for me to maintain alertness while reading.

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

The previous chapter discussed the importance of learning history. It touched base on the arguments and counterarguments of history as an academic topic, and then gave an overview of how history is learned, taught, and digested. This chapter is the first real look at the very beginning of Psychology as a social science. While it doesn't address any specific psychological advancements, it gives an outline on the philosophical contributions that were necessary in order for psychology to come into creation. The chapter discusses the importance and connection between philosophy and psychology and gives insight into the acquisition of knowledge.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?

Apperception

7b) Why?

I have stated a little about it already, but I want to know more about apperception with the sole means to apply it into my schoolwork and afterwards, my life. I feel like having a majority of my "focusing" time being petite perceptions is a waste, and while I understand the usefulness and necessity of that petite perceptions, I am sure that I can achieve more by being able to achieve apperception consistently.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?

While reading through the chapter, I came across a few names that I was familiar with, but had not had any knowledge as to what their contributions to psychology were - or any contributions to be frank. I thought about how much time I had been wasting "attempting" to read the chapter at low levels of focus when I came across the Leibniz section and became curious as to why there is little research on the pineal gland and whether or not it had any importance.

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

Leibniz, Hume, Mill, Hartley, associationism, pineal gland, apperception, perception, petite perception, impression, ideas, resemblance, contiguity, cause and effect

Q.N.

http://www.psychologicalscience.com

1a) What did you find interesting?

Descartes’ diagram for the human nervous system (or rather simply reflex action), one that is, while very inaccurate, is relatively close to how our nervous system works. That being how a signal goes from the interaction point, to the brain, and back to the point. It is interesting how he distinguished humans and animals from one another, being that he said that animals are like ‘pure machines’ and humans, while also machines, have a rational mind/soul to help them with their actions.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?

It’s an interesting find because it’s cool to see that Descartes had an idea of the nervous system, before it was actually called the nervous system, and applied not just only a spiritual explanation, but combined a scientific—being that the ‘animal spirits’ were alluding to some sort of chemical reaction in the brain and between the reaction point.

2a) What did you find interesting?

How John Locke’s beliefs of the brain’s workings would lead him to a parenting style based on praising a child, while young, and having an active role in their education rather than utilizing punishment as a circumstance.

2b) Why was it interesting to you?

I find this interesting because this seems to be a pre-operant behavior training due to Locke’s proposal of reinforcing good behavior so as to continue the good behavior.

3a) What did you find interesting?

The idea that philosophy and psychology is very closely linked

3b) Why was it interesting to you?

It’s interesting because everyone seems to have a different philosophy to live by, and when introduced to a new one, people may interpret it differently—thus different behavior patterns. The question is why they would act differently from one person to another, or more specifically, how one interpretation could heavily affect one’s moral system as opposed to another’s. An example of this would be how Religion can have a multitude of different responses, from radicalistic ideas to more peaceful and encompassing.

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

The chapter in general. Everyone seems to have been overlapped in some way by a predecessor making them seem unnecessary, or rather stupid for lack of a better word by today’s standards. While it is important to learn where we’ve come from, it still makes for dry reading to already know that most of these concepts are very outdated.

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

I do feel as though learning of the important figures within psychology’s history is very useful, which is probably why so much of it was included in this chapter and every chapter to come next. This will help us understand the history because it gives us a timeline to understand where we’ve come from and how we’ve grown and improved from it.

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

Our previous chapter introduced us into the importance of why learning the history of Psychology is important, which bridges us into some of our true founding fathers, or at least some significant ideas that have stayed with us so as to reflect back on. We can now appreciate their work given that we now we know of the importance to do so.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?

Descartes. His philosophies and proposals on how the body/mind works were interesting. Or rather, Greek philosophy on the topic of psychology in general.

7b) Why?

It’s interesting, and while it is not a concrete science, it is still something that can be applied to psychology and should be acknowledged.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?

I remember learning something in a previous class about Descartes, more specifically how he would operate on animals and have ‘less empathy’ for their feelings because he imagined them as fake, or rather that they were ‘mechanically’ programed to display emotions. A human however could show genuine emotions due to him/her having a soul.

Blog: Reading Activity week #3
Nick Cole
1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found Descartes philosophy vary interesting because mind and soul and body is one of my favorite subjects to learn about and question. I can somewhat agree with his dualist argument. I still question it though, mind cannot function without the body, but sometimes people have questionable perceived experiences where they felt their spirit or the minds interpretation of an out of body spiritual experience. We do not have the technology to make a scientific method to find whether it is ones imagination reacting to such an experience that put them there are they are literally having an out of body experience. I can see why we humans would accept the Cartesian dichotomy but to us other animals are simple just because we do not understand or have the direct ability to communicate with animals. We have no way of understanding an animal’s mind fully, and even if they are simple they can evolve just like us humans have to some degree.

2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found John Locke interesting because based on most of his ideas is what started the civil war to “found” America. His social contract in Two Treatises on Government, I think is what really stated it because before this the king would not let anyone have the ability to let people do anything about not liking his rules and regulations. Locke put it as the government would agree to govern wisely and protect the common good of its citizens and the citizens would agree to support the government and participate in it.

3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found John Stuart Mill interesting because I learned about him in philosophy class for his theory of utilitarianism, which the idea of it makes sense to me where good is our pleasure and bad is our pain and the variations of low and high pleasures. His view on our minds was an empiricist view where our knowledge of the world is made from our experiences. He thought our mind was passively accumulating experiences as the elements combine mechanically to form larger wholes. It is our ability to synthesize experiences and see the big picture of our experiences and compare and contrast which experience is similar to each other.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I didn’t find one topic not interesting. I would say the least interesting one would be geocentric view where the earth is in the center of the universe, which may came from our lack of ability to perceive far places in a different fashion than what we can see or initial perceived gravity from earth. Heliocentric Theory the sun was the center of the universe. I do find it funny that religion in a sense fueled geocentricism with their egocentric mind set.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think innate ideas and derived ideas are most useful because people in the past have innated ideas, like ideas about god and science. Most of our scientist and religious leaders have most of derived ideas from the people in the past that possessed the innate ideas.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
This chapter was related to chapter 1 because in chapter 1 it focused on how to look into the past and find truth of what really happened and why it happened in the past. Chapter 2 was about philosophers that usually start by knowing why we think in these fashions in the first place and most of the time in order to do that accurately you have to be knowledgeable about the past.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
I would like to learn more about Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz views of perceptions. I am learning more about perceptions in my philosophy classes so with Leibniz views of Apperception highest perception and his Petites perceptions below the level of awareness. Thresholds is what I would like to focus mostly one because awareness of our perception fluctuates consistently. I would like to see how one can be more consciously aware of the perceptions.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I would like to learn more about Descartes and his pineal gland experiments. Modern day has learned a lot about the pineal gland. It has the function to produce melatonin which makes us sleepy when the sun is down and lets us have the ability to sleep and produce REM dreams with questionable chemicals like DMTs interaction of serotonin. If these experiments come up true then it gives us the ability to dream and there are a lot of religions that are based upon visions in their dreams, which creates spiritual enlightenment.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Apperception
Petites perceptions
Thresholds
Social contract
Pineal Gland
Geocentric
Heliocentric
Empiricist
Cartesian dichotomy
Innate ideas
Derived ideas

1) What did you find interesting?Why was it interesting to you?
David Hume. I have heard of many philosophers in my history and humanities classes, but I have never heard about him till reading this. Particularly, his theory of ideas vs. impressions. It is kind of a complicated idea, but it does make sense. Impressions would be similar to perceiving and object or sensation and an idea is associating meaning to that impression.
2) What did you find interesting? Why was it interesting to you?
John Stuart Mill’s method of agreement and method of difference. I have learned about John Stuart Mill in a philosophy class before (he is one of my favorite philosophers of all time) but I have never heard of these “methods” before. I’ve reread this several times, but my understanding is that it is a very lengthy, complicated way of explaining that correlation does prove causation. But at the end of the paragraph, the author states that in reality, this is not necessarily so and to remember that correlation does not always prove causation.
3) What did you find interesting? Why was it interesting to you?
Descartes ideas on animal spirits. As most of Descartes ideas are, this is incredibly abstract and far-fetched. But without proper medical science during the time, I can see why he could come up with an idea like this. I guess I have to see this as a historicist rather than a presentist.
4) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? Why wasn't it interesting to you?
Frankly, I disliked the majority of this chapter. It consisted entirely of content I already knew, or content that was incredibly hard to understand just by reading it. If I had to pick one thing, I would probably pick John Locke’s social contract theory. I have heard of this theory time and time again in history classes, so this wasn’t very interesting to read.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
Probably George Berkley’s studies on vision. Many of these philosophers had ideas that would end up eventually being proven false. They formulated ideas about abstract concepts, but Berkley went on to make concrete discoveries about vision. Berkley actually had scientific discovery to back up his ideas, and we still use his findings on convergence and accommodation today.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
As I stated previously, I needed to have the mindset of a historicist and not a presentist, which is discussed in chapter 1.
7) What topic would you like to learn more about? Why?
I would like to learn more about John Stuart Mill. Frankly, because he is my favorite philosopher and I would love to study him more indepth. I think his ideas on utilitarianism and how the government should be run are facisnating. I thought I had learned about all of his ideas until I read even more of his ideas in this chapter.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
As I said before, I disliked most of this chapter. But I guess even though some of these philosophers ideas were proven to be false, like Descartes weird concept of animal spirits, it is important to learn about their ideas to fully understand that time period. I had never associated philosophy and psychology together before I read this chapter. I can somewhat see why there is a relationship between the two because many of these philosophers had ideas about human thought, and this was all that was known about human thought for many years. However, I still wouldn’t categorize them together myself and don’t feel like I learned anything about “psychology” from reading this chapter.

Descartes. Animal spirits. Ideas. Impressions. John stuart mill. David Hume. John Locke. Social Contract.

1) I found the British Empiricists Argument and Associations to be interesting. I find that I share a similar thought process with the British Empiricists. I too believe that the knowledge of the world is constructed from our experiences. I think that we are little explorers of our world and in order to gain knowledge, we must experience our world. To further go into the empiricist argument, I found the ideas of sensation and reflection to be very important as well. I don’t know if I would’ve been able to coin these terms as the “originating” factors of all ideas, but since Locke coined them, I think they make sense.
2) John Locke was interesting to me because he was so diverse in his studies. He wasn’t exactly huge into psychology, but he did have two major contributions: his two books. Locke was not in accordance with Descartes (I am not either for the most part). Instead of thinking we have “innate” abilities, Locke believed that without our experiences we would not arrive at conclusions and have knowledge. I agree with this and find it interesting. Descartes said that we have innate ideas; Locke said we are an empty sheet of white paper. Our ideas result from experience and are composed of the sensation and reflection we get from our environment.
3) I think the overall message of this chapter was that psychology has essentially been around for longer than we think. It just wasn’t called psychology, wasn’t done by psychologists, and wasn’t exactly applied in a psychological way. However, it was done in a philosophical way. Philosophy and its famous philosophers were essentially working with the same type of psychology issues, but not from a perspective of a psychologist. This was because psychology was not yet recognized. Philosophers weren’t thinking, researching, or talking about behavior specifically. They were thinking, researching, and talking about knowledge and truths of the world; some of it just so happened to be truths about the human mind and behaviors, which led to their round-about contributions to psychology. Overall, the thinking about what humans are about has been around for much longer than the psychology field and its established psychologist. It’s just been around in a philosophical way. We must give recognition to those philosophers! This is a bit interesting to me because I never thought of psychology being around for so long, but at the same time I do not enjoy philosophy. It was a little tough finding this interesting because philosophy ideas and perceptions are confusing to me.
4) I found one part of the chapter especially useful when trying to understand the history of psychology and it was a quote from Hermann Ebbinghaus. The quotes was is famous line “long past, short history.” This is especially useful when trying to understand the history of psychology because it reminds readers that even though psychology as its own field is a relatively young study, the questions that psychologists wonder about have been asked for years. They just haven’t been asked in the context or established field of “psychology,” per se.
5) Prior to this class I had taken a class on philosophy. I did this ask part of my freshman search on what I want to do with my life. All in one semester, I took a philosophy class, a sociology class, and a different psychology class. I found that these fields are related and similar in ways. Some of the people discussed had contributed to each field and were recognized in each field. This chapter helped tie together the exact tie of psychology and philosophy. I recognized some of the names and concepts, but I now understand how it fits into psychology and philosophy separately and both as one.
6) I would like to learn more about Immanuel Kant because it said that he did not think psychology could ever become a science like all the other physical sciences. He believed that since you couldn’t measure mental phenomena, you couldn’t make it a science. I am just a bit more interested in his ideals and his thoughts. I’m not sure why exactly he made it in this chapter. I understand that he had the same ideals as other philosophers, but from what I read in this chapter, Immanuel Kant didn’t contribute anything.
7) While reading this chapter, I was questioning Rene Descartes. I didn’t quite understand how he dipped into so many beliefs. I didn’t understand some of his thought processes. For example, I didn’t get his rationalist side. If he were a philosopher, how could be also be a rationalist? Don’t philosophers question everything about life and then question it some more? Descartes explained that he would only accept as truth only what could not be doubted. To me, there isn’t many things that cannot be doubted. I assume Descartes didn’t believe much to be true.
8) Rationalist, Rene Descartes, Hermann Ebbinghaus, Empiricist, John Locke, Sensation, Reflection, White Paper, Innate Ideas, Immanuel Kant

EXTRA CREDIT SUBMISSION.
Chapter 2.
1a) What topic did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
What I found the most interesting in chapter two was the opening quote, “Psychology has a long past, yet its history is short”. At first this confused me and I did not fully understand it’s meaning so I read on. This particular quote was spoke by Hermann Ebbinghaus in 1908. He pointed out that psychology hasn’t always been around but it has deep, deep root into philosophy. It was around way back when Aristotle and Plato were alive and the renaissance. Psychology as we know it has a shorter history than philosophy which started it all.
2a) What person did you find interesting?
2b) Why were they interesting to you?
Rene Descartes proved to be very interesting. He stood firm in many beliefs. He believed in dualism, that there is a clear distinction between body and mind. He believed in Cartesian dichotomy, which divides animals and humans. He believed animals were incapable of language and reason thus making them lower than humans. For the most part, many people would agree with his beliefs. When I read about the animal spirits and the pineal gland, things got real interesting. He believed that animal spirits came from the heat of blood and were the force behind movement.
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 this chapter was to help us recognize where psychology was derived from and how closely it was connected to philosophy for so long. Just like Hermann Ebbinghaus said, “Psychology has a long past, yet its history is short.” I did find this interesting. I did not realize philosophy and psychology were so close together. It’s important to recognize that in the last section of the 19th century, we have studied our human behaviors and processes using the scientific method rather than just philosophical analysis. Philosophy and psychology are not the same!
4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
After reading this chapter, I think understanding how close philosophy and psychology are related is key to understanding the history of psychology. These two field are very similar but still have their differences. Psychology differs in the fact it is scientifically and empirically studied.
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?
In previous classes, we were taught about many of the same people (Rene Descartes, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant). But I was never introduced to how it evolved into psychology as we know it today. It was interesting to learn about the transition of philosophy to psychology.
6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
6b) Why?
Honestly, I find philosophy as a whole very interesting. I took an introduction level philosophy class a couple years ago and it was extremely intriguing. I would love to get the chance to learn more of the philosophical aspects and the important figures that shaped psychology as we know it today.
7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
After reading the section of Immanuel Kant, it said that Kant believed that psychology could not reach the level of being called a true science because psychological events could not be objectively observed. Was this just true in his time? With all the technology, ideas, and scientific methods we have in this day, would he still think psychology could not be observed objectively?
8) Terminology: Hermann Ebbinghaus, philosophy, Rene Descartes, dualism, Cartesian dichotomy, animal spirits, pineal gland, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant.

1a) I found the topic of psychology having a long past but short history to be interesting.
1b) This was interesting because it revisited the topic from Chapter 1 about psychology's development from philosophy. Psychology has a long past within philosophy, but it has a very short history on its own.

2a) I found John Locke to be interesting.
2b) His thinking on education was interesting. Most of his advice I agreed with to today's standard. For example, he states that children must begin learning at a young age. I agree with this, especially in relationship to learning musical instruments.

3a) The overall message of the chapter was an introduction to concepts of importance in the past and present in psychology.
3b) Parts of this chapter were more interesting to me than others. Some of the sections about specific psychologists became long, dull, and uninteresting.

4) I think the most useful concept in this chapter to the history of psychology is, again, the separation of psychology from philosophy and the newness of the psychology field.

5)This chapter related to the content of Chapter 1 in many aspects. I already mentioned the separation of psychology from philosophy. Another relation is the continued support in Chapter 2 of opposing ideas. When different ideas about a concept exist, it is typically two ideas that are nearly opposites, such as geocentric and heliocentric theories.

6a) I would like to learn more about Descartes' theory of mind-body distinction and the reference to the animal spirits.
6b) I mostly want to know more about this because the way it was explained in the book was hard to follow, and I want to have a better understanding of it.

7) How are impressions and ideas different?
What were Descartes' animal spirits?

8) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
animal spirits, impressions, ideas, Rene Descartes, geocentric, heliocentric, John Locke

1a) I found the topic of Epistemology to be interesting.
1b) I found this interesting because I did not realize that this field of research had a name. Figuring out how we acquire knowledge is just something that is very fascinating to me and that’s why I found this topic to be interesting.
2a) I personally found John Locke to be the most interesting person in this chapter.
2b) I found him to be interesting because of his theories and beliefs about education. Many of his beliefs on how we obtain knowledge and how we learn best are still considered to be valid and are used today still. He really emphasized the study of empiricism and how we obtain knowledge.
3a) I thought the overall message of this chapter was that there are many philosophical issues that have been around for a very long time and are still talked about a lot today.
3b) Yes it was interesting to me because it was good to understand how some of these issues came around and that they aren’t just issues that people nowadays are thinking about. They are philosophical issues that people have been debating for a long time.
4) The thing I read about that I think will be the most useful in understanding the history of psychology will be Rene Descartes and when modern philosophy and science began. It’s helpful to know when modern philosophy and science concepts started being used so that we know the circumstances of the time when they started. Because that’s one of the most important things about understanding history.
5) The way that this chapter builds upon material I've learned in other classes is that it gives me a good understanding of the general fields of philosophy, psychology and science. There weren't really specific topics in this chapter that I had learned about before, but it gave me a good base to build upon in the future.
6a) Leibniz and his views on innate properties of the mind, is one topic from this chapter that I would like to learn more about. As well as his “monadology” theory.
6b) I understood his theory behind the innate properties of the mind and I just want a better explanation of how he came to the conclusion that he did. His “monadology” theory on the other, I found to be very interesting I just found it to be very confusing. I tend to understand things better if an actual person is explaining it to me Trying to figure it out by only reading just made it hard for me to completely comprehend.
7) How did Leibniz come up with idea of Monads, and how did he get the name? Why is the difference between method of agreement and method of difference important?
8) Terminology: Descartes, Locke, empiricism , monadology.

1a) I found reflex and mind body interaction interesting to read about
1b) This was interesting to me because I have always enjoyed reflexes and reading why they happen. Having different glands, like the pineal gland, on our body make us do different things and feel different things when certain glands are put into action. Descartes ideas seem to be right on then and most of his ideas still hold true today.

2a) I found Rene Descartes interesting while reading this chapter
2b) I thought he was interesting because his scholastic education helped him come up with many different contributions to psychology. He was into the body and mind and I really liked how he could come up with so many different reasonings to why we do what we do with innate and derived ideas.

3a) I think the overall message of this chapter is to tell us how certain ideas and contributions have helped in the way we see modern psychology.
3b) I did find this interesting. I like how the chapter had a major topic but had many different ideas to back it up. It was not about one main person or idea but many different things that made it up.

4) I think reading about the different people and ideas that were developed during this time is going to help me learn more about the history of psychology. Reading about their hardships and challenges they faced has helped me realize that if psychologists know this information then they can avoid the same challenges other’s had in the past which will make them get to their desired finding faster.

5) This chapter has helped me learn more about Rene Descartes. Descartes has always been an important name when learning about psychology but I never really caught on to what he did. This chapter helped me realize he did a lot of things and contributed a lot of ideas to the world of psychology.

6a) I would like to learn more about David Hartley
6b) I’d like to learn more about him because of his idea of contiguity. I want to know more about how his idea has impacted the world and why it is important enough for people to acknowledge.

7) While reading this chapter I kept asking myself how people come up with ideas to answer their questions. It is really cool to me how people can answer all these questions as one person because they are curious.

8) Terms: Rene Descartes, David Hartley, contiguity, psychology, innate ideas, derived ideas, reflex and mind body interaction, pineal gland, scholastic education, reflexes