Reading Activity Week #4 (Due Monday)

1) I liked hearing about the work of Whytt was a leading psychologist who was famous for his works with reflexes and neurology. He was also famous for his work with medicine being the first to describe tuberculosis. In regards to his works with reflexes he showed that response could develop into a habit and was able to show the differences between voluntary and involuntary acts. He performed most of his works on frogs showing the link between the spinal cord and leg muscles, and then with a severed spinal cord the link did not still interact. He also looked into the link between sensory information and the motor components of the nervous system.

2) I found that Muller and his ideas of vitalism versus materialism interesting. He thought that there were not only physical and chemical parts of the physiological system but also that also a vital force. This life force could not be reduced any further. This idea opposed the idea of materialism, the idea that the only reality was the physical reality. The majority if people did not support Muller in his ideal of vitalism, a lot of the people at the time believed in materialism. This situation made Muller become challenged even though at the time he was the leading physiologist.

3) I found the close up called “The marketing of Phrenology” interesting. It was interesting to read about how Orson Fowler made money off of his classmates in college then he went onto opening a museum with his siblings to make money off of phrenology. Phrenology is the study of the head and I leaned about his in another class on how some people would conclude that someone may be a criminal or a genius off of just the size of the skull and bumps on the skull. This is what Fowler did, he also went on to start a magazine with his brother-in law that was sold to talk about issues and fact in regards to phrenology.

4) I found the beginning of the chapter and the portion on the enlightenment scientists being heroic to be cool but to interesting. I understand that we must have back ground on this to build to where we are today but it seemed not to in touch with the rest of the chapter with the understanding the nervous system.

5) I think that in this chapter the understanding of the neuron theory to helpful to understand when we started to learn about the brain and the “deeper” information about the brain. In another class this is going to help me about due to we are learning about all the different ways that out neurons are connected and how the brain sends and encodes the responses. I think it was interesting and learn about the neuron theory from the perspective of history and how it was to come out leading to where we are today.

6) This chapter built upon chapter two in the vitalism versus materialism perspective. In chapter two we learned about materialism and the surroundings of it now we saw an idea that was proposed and how it was not totally supported by the psychological community.

7) I would like to learn more about the complexity of the brain and how the neuron system works with our senses. I found what I have learned from other classes and the history of the neuron theory to be interesting and want to know more about how we have been able to understand so much about the brain and how such a small vital system works.

8) While reading this chapter and learning about the neuron systems and how we developed understanding of the brain I found myself thinking about a point I talked about in another class. The brain is all electrical, so when we see things in our visual system the brain does not see anything. What we see is simple an image that our brain has developed off of electrical currents.

9) vitalism, materialism reflexes and neurology voluntary and involuntary acts spinal cord nervous system phrenology

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found the section about the nervous system to be very interesting. After Descartes studies on the nervous system, it inspired others to start looking into the nervous system. One of those people was Joseph Guillotine. During the 18th century, Guillotine was a physician at the time of the French Revolution, and he developed a certain instrument used in executions. The device was named after its creator, guillotine, and was thought to be a more humane way of execution. Studies during this time showed that even after decapitation, there may still be some sort of body movement such as movements of the eye or facial quivering. There was an ongoing question on whether or not those being executed could feel pain after the decapitation, so another researcher, Theodore Bischoff investigated the problem. He did tests on the decapitated heads and even talked to them. He later came to the conclusion that consciousness is within the brain and that the person being executed could feel no pain.
2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found the Bell-Magendie Law to be interesting because it also dealt with the anatomy of the body and the nervous system. The law dealt with the functions of the posterior and the anterior roots of the spinal cord. This law is also considered to be a "multiple" which means that two or more people were working on the findings, do are researching independently and at different times. Magendie used a puppy as a test subject and cut his posterior spinal cord root then later observed his reactions. He did not think the puupy would be able to move that limb, but it turned out the limb could move, but did not have sensation. He then tested cutting the anterior spinal cord root on another animal and that animal lost function of that limb.
3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found the work of Broca to be interesting. He had an unusual patient who had been diagnosed with gangrene. His patient had lost his ability to speak articulately and whenever asked a question he would say "tan tan." This is how his patient got that name Tan. After Tan's death, Broca did an autopsy of the brain and discovered that Tan had a cerebral lesion and suffered from motor aphasia.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I honestly found this chapter to be the most interesting because I find the anatomy of the body and brain ffunctions to be fascinating. The only thing that did not spark much interest was the section about the marketing of phrenology. It dealt more with advertising and although it was neat, I was more interested in the different studies throughout the chapter.
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 different studies that were done will be helpful along with the understanding how the brain functions. The brain is one of the main organs of the body, and has many many functions. I think having a better understanding of how it works will help in later chapters if we get into certain disorders or behaviors.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
It relates to previous chapters because it has a similar layout and concept. It talks about important people during an era and talks about their studies and findings. I think this chapter will help prepare us for future chapters because this one was detailed and dealt with one main topic.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
I would like to learn more about brain disorders and brain damage. I think this topic is very interesting and is useful. Many people have brain disorders, but we do not really understand what they are. I think having a better knowledge base or understanding would help us to deal with those with disorders. Especially for psychology majors.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I just thought about all of the people that I come in contact with on a daily basis. What I mean by that is, I volunteer and work with people with disabilities some of which are brain related. I thought about how I would like to learn more about brain activity and disorders, so I can have a better understanding of what is going on in the brain. I think it would be useful and also help me to understand people more who have brain disorders.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
motor aphasia, bell-magendie law, marketing of phrenology,guillotine

J.P.

1a) What did you find interesting?
I found Helmholtz to be very influential with his discoveries, so he was very interesting to me. He also discovered many different things is different areas of neurology so I liked that.
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
Well we learned that he had questioned the beliefs of one of his professors Muller. Muller had believed in Vitalism, meaning that there were vital life forces that could not be reduced any further. Helmholtz believed in materialism meaning that that the physical matter that we touch and see is the only reality. He was interested in that but was also interested in vision and hearing. He created the ophthalmoscope that examines our retinas and he also helped discover that Trichromatic theory, where everything we see is really made up of the three primary colors, red, blue, and yellow. He also discovered what he called binocular vision which affects our depth perception. He was knowledgeable about many different fields of study and that is really neat.
2a) What did you find interesting?
The story and discovery of Phineas Gage and Broca’s Area and Wernicke’s area as well
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I studied Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area in biological psychology and had always found that super interesting. In that class we also discussed the story and case of Phineas Gage. I had a classmate who was in a car accident and before this car accident that injured his frontal lobe he was very smart but very shy and reserved. After the car accident his personality changed. He became very outgoing, although he struggled with his speech and overall intelligence he was still able to function fairly well. Although his damage was not as severe as Phineas’s it still resulted in a change in personality. I think the idea of Broca’s area is so amazing. They can formulate words and make sentences but then it’s like they lost that word that would finish their sentence, it’s always on the tip of their tongue, but their brain can’t find it. As for Wernicke’s they formulate words, but they don’t make sense, to them it makes perfect sense, but to the person listening they really don’t know what’s being said. In my class we discussed which damage would be more difficult to live with. I feel like having damage in Broca’s area would be so frustrating, the word it there but you just can’t think of it, so that would be very difficult to live with.
3a) What did you find interesting?
Golgi Stains
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
In my biological psychology class we also learned about Golgi Stains. He was able to create stains using silver nitrate to see the whole neuron. Although Camillo Golgi falsely believe that the cells are all connected to each other he did discover something that is still used today. The golgi stains are used as a post mortem technique to discover disorders that these people may have had. It is something the biopsychologist and neuropsychologists still use today. So it was neat to look at it from the presentism point of view to see what the golgi stains are used for now, but then to see how they started and what ideas motivated Golgi to use the golgi stains.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
I didn’t find Flourens’s method of ablation very interesting
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I guess I didn’t like the fact that he had to go out there and disprove phrenology, I turned out his story because I felt what he did was kind of mean, so then I wasn’t really interesting in what he was saying or trying to do.
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 Golgi stain topic was very useful for me. I had learned about this technique and know what it is use for in the present day. However I did not learn the background knowledge about Golgi stains until last night when I read this chapter. It was beneficial to learn why Camillo Golgi even started using the golgi staining technique. It may never have happened it there wasn’t a debate as to whether or not neuron cells were connected or separate.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
Well it used some theories that Descartes had talked about previously and then showed how scientists and neuroscientists improved and clarified those theories. It was a smooth transition because it went from philosophers who made discoveries in the science field to the actual science field expanding on those discoveries. I still think the external and internal factors have made a big impact of psychology. Psychology is not just about what psychologists are doing, it’s about what scientists and philosophers are doing as well. It also was important to look at the enlightenment time period and what was going on then. So historicism is still important to this chapter.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about tan, broca’s area, and wernicke’s area.
7b) Why?
I just want to learn why I did not know the story of tan and broca’s area, so it would be interesting to learn more about that patient and other patients that led to the discovery of broca’s area. I’d also like to learn about wernicke’s area and the patients he worked with to discover sensory aphasia.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
Why did we study neurons? How did we move from a philosophy focus to a science focus? What did these scientists think of Descartes ideas? How did Helmholtz study both vision and hearing? What motivated Broca to learn more about the memory of Gage?
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Historicism, external factors, Internal factors, Descartes, Wernicke, Broca, Phineas Gage, Golgi, Golgi Stains, Helmholtz, Flourens, vitalism, materialism. presentism, ablation, phrenology, ophthalmoscope, trichromatic theory, binocular vision, sensory aphasia,

1a) What did you find interesting?
- Phrenology

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
- I think it's so interesting that people thought they could understand a person, by the bumps on their head. The idea that the brain, a soft material, could influence the skull, a hard material. The idea that you could discern a person's characteristics from the bumps on their skull is completely ridiculous. Although I could be taking a presentist view to this blunder.

2a) What did you find interesting?
- Brocca's Aphasia (Motor Aphasia): Inability to express ideas vocally.

2b) Why was it interesting to you?
- This idea is still a relevant topic today, and one that causes a lot of confusion for biopsychologist. Although we do have a better understanding of this topic today, we are still baffled by the effects of Brocca's Aphasia.

3a) What did you find interesting?
- Problem of Perception: Helmholtz's dilemma posed by the fact that human perception is extraordinary, while the mechanics of our ears, and eyes have "design flaws"

3b) Why was it interesting to you?
- I think its interesting that Helmholtz can say that we as humans are flawed, point out the flaws that he has based of a theory, but the theory itself refutes the flaw. Saying that our understanding of the world doesn't make sense with the tools we are provided is absurd. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
- Binocular Vision: Vision involving the use of two eyes, aids in depth perception.

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
- Because this idea is common knowledge today, reading it didn't hold my interest.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
- That philosophical and neurophysiological sciences came together to form the modern day psychology. This idea is particularly interesting, and I think that this chapter does a good job of showcasing specific examples that prove this theory.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
- This chapter is a more modern view of the history of psychology, turning to give it a more solid base in science. We are shown that from the past of only posing question, we took a hands on approach to understanding our brain. Also, like the previous chapters psychologists were not doing the influential work in the field, we as psychologists owe a lot of gratitude to early scientists, and philosophers for helping our field evolve.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
- Aphasia

7b) Why?
- Because this topic is really interesting to me; as previously stated. I think that understanding this phenomena would give anyone a more solid foundation into how our brains truly work.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
- While reading this chapter I had the thought that much of what we know about the human brain has been generalized from the animal brain, or body. A lot of the information we have collected has derived from unpleasant historical situations. French revolution providing nerve information; world war one, providing stress response, and brain damage information, etc.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
-Motor Aphasia, Phrenology, Problem of Perception, Helmholtz, Binocular Vision,

I.B.

1a) What did you find interesting?

I found the history of phrenology to be pretty interesting.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?

It was interesting because I’ve learned some about the localization of functions of the brain in my other classes, primarily bio psych. I found it odd that all of that started as phrenology, which became notorious for being a pseudoscience. It was kind of upsetting to see that they conducted faulty research and that scientists mocked it. It was also interesting how Fritsch and Hitzig revived it and, through testing their theories via electric current, created scientific phrenology.

2a) What did you find interesting?


I found the little piece on Dr. Bartholow pretty interesting.

2b) Why was it interesting to you?

As I go through this book, I see a lot of references to the church and how they halted scientific progress and it makes me really dislike the history of the church, and this was part of the dark history of psychology. A lot of people thought the Milgram experiment went a bit far, but I thought it was good in the name of research. Admittedly, the Zambardo prison experiment did go too far, but Dr. Bartholow seemed to act on curious impulse without factoring in ethics at all. As he was ‘treating’ a patient with electrodes in the brain, he let his curiosity get the better of him and he pushed the limit to see what would happen. The patient died after severe convulsions.

3a) What did you find interesting?

I found the dispute between Golgi and Ramon y Cajal to be kind of funny.


3b) Why was it interesting to you?

It was interesting because of how they disliked each other and had to split the Nobel Prize. I thought it was funny that Cajal refuted Golgi’s nerve network theory while using his staining technique to develop the proper neuron theory.

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


I didn’t really find anything disinteresting, it just takes some time and dedication to read through a chapter from a textbook. I guess I cared a little less about the way Spurzheim looked at the brain compared to Gall.

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

Because I’m not a history buff who is enthralled in the totality of all of this, so the thoughts of people that I haven’t heard of before mean a little less to me, especially since their thoughts are dated and not based on science.

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

The most useful thing to my understanding of psychology will most likely be how phrenology was ridiculed because it was based on inferences and disregarded data. Although the general public loved it, it was garbage. This is what probably the way it is today. The general public like these pseudoscience studies that they read in people magazine or on buzzfeed or wherever people get their facts nowadays.

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

It showed multiple people working on similar things at the same time from different places. It had people use others theories and breakthroughs to perfect their own. This reminded me of the zeitgeist from the first chapter.

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


I would like to learn more about the case of Phineas Gage.

7b) Why?

Because the case is held in such high esteem in Psychology that it is in every intro to psych book and contributed greatly to the localization of function theory. They seemed to base a lot of it off of how he acted before and after. If a person loses a chunk of their brain and gains two holes in their head, it would seem to me that becoming a bit bitterer would be understandable. I’m not saying that the lobe damage isn’t what caused his personality changes; I would just like to learn more about how they deduced all of this.

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 about phrenology, scientific phrenology, histology, and other studies that come about my new technology or ways of thinking, I wondered what the new studies would be. Will we figure out some new law of physics that revolutionizes thinking and starts its own discipline? Will we simply look at something old in a new light for the first time and have a discipline stem from that? I want to know what future science will make ours look as dated as what we read about in history books.

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

Phrenology, scientific phrenology, histology, Phineas Gage, localization of function, zeitgeist, nerve network theory, neuron theory,

Please read chapter 3. After reading the chapter, please respond to the following questions:
Next you will be asked what three things from the chapter that you found interesting?
1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
One thing that I found to be interesting while I was reading the chapter was in the section about Magendie and Bell. In the chapter it was stated that Magendie was given credit for this due to how he published it into the public forum of a journal and he also had research that was more symmetric. The part of this that I found was interesting was the Bell-Magendie Law which stated the discovery of the two different roots, anterior (controls movement) and posterior (controls sensation), that formed the spinal cord. I knew that the spinal cord was the cord had to do with reflexes of the body and also had to do with sensation and the movement of the lower body, but I did not know that there was different cords that had different functions that formed the spinal cord. I think that this brought interest to me because it is showing how our bodies are these complex machines and everything that we do is not just controlled by one main part, that is broken down into smaller parts that all have a different role in making the body run the way it does.
2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
Something that I found interesting was the clinical method and the story of Phineas Gage. Clinical method is studying consequences of a brain injury. What I liked about this was that the man in the story was able to regain some of the traits that he had originally had, even though he did not fully recover. It allowed his doctor, John Harlow, to see that there was more information to be made about the frontal cortex and had some proof to the phrenologist’s localization beliefs. The reason why I liked this was because it showed that sometimes mistakes can lead into something better, in this case it was information that we did not know yet.

3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found the Neuron theory to be interesting. I found this to be interesting because of the debate between Golgi and Cajal and whether the neurons being a separate unit and in contact with others or it being one unit. The part that I liked is how Sir Charles Sherrington came in with synapse (to join together) to end the debate between these two and earning him a noble peace prize. He also came up with the conclusion of reciprocal innervation with the experiment with the spinal dogs which was useful in this dispute. This term has to do with how the muscles work with complex and coordinated action an example being walking. The study of this with the dogs led him to show that the synapses exist, the reaction time was slower which meant that the neurons had to be separate for the sensation to pass to other and them not being connected. I thought that this was interesting because of the measures that he went through, along with finding additional information about the reciprocal innervation, to help out his colleague prove his theory. Some experiments that philosophers and psychologists did to help prove a theory sometimes to me are crazy and leave me wondering how they come up with the idea to do so. This was one of those experiments, which is why I liked it, they did not just settle instead went to all means possible to find the right answer to them.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I found the doctrine of the skull which was stated by Johann Spurzheim. In this statement it was said that the size and shape of the skull is all that is needed to know to know basically an intelligence of one person. I strongly disagreed with this statement which is why I found it to be the least interesting for me to read, because I knew that it would not be teaching me and more proving a mistake done by another philosopher. The shape and size does not determine one’s intelligence level, for example in the chapter it was said that the shape and size of Descartes’s skull suggested that he was not smart. He obviously was smart to come up with theories that he did, even though that some are proven wrong there needs to be an intelligence factor that allows someone to have the thinking capability to try to understand things like Descartes. I also did not agree with the anecdotal evidence that he used, which they basically throw out information so that their theory is right in their studies. This is not good researching due to giving false results and is the reason why the theory can be proven wrong by others.
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 one of the most useful things is when the chapter talks about how philosophers and scientists sometimes give false information, or use anecdotal evidence (explained in question 4), to prove their theory right. I think that this is useful due to showing that no matter what aspect of history you choose to study there is going to be “kinks”. Nothing is going to be accurate due to people just wanting to get their name out and just doing things halfway because they would want just something published whether it is right or not does not matter, they just want the popularity. In a way it shows that looking into history make sure that there is concrete evidence supporting any claim that one has made, basically make sure that all of their work is there and they correctly used the scientific formula to make sure their work is accurate.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
One way that it builds off of last chapter is in the discussion of the anterior roots, posterior roots and the spinal cord. This is built off of chapter two because of the spinal cord being an important function of reflex action, instead of saying we have ‘animal spirits’ like what Descartes stated. This I seem to be more believable because of the evidence and work that was done to show how it effects how our bodies work, also just the topic of animal spirits and the pineal gland being the wrong definition that Descartes had stated made that chapter unbelievable because he was not stating information that was correct.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
The topic that I would like to know more about is the learning of cortex that Lashley had. I found it to be interesting that as the mazes grew harder that the effect of the damaged cortex seemed to do more, but I would like to know more about this. I would like to know how it effects the human daily activities when they severely damage their cortex and what is the difference between them doing a difficult and an easy task and what it takes for the effects of the cortex to take place (ex the difference of the rats doing maze I compared to maze III). I just want to know is if there is much things that they are still able to do like walk, talk ect that they were able to do before their cortex was severely damaged, or does the cortex have a huge impact on a lot of the daily activities.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
Some of things that sparked my interest when reading was one being how it is so interesting that there is so many of the philosophers that were proven wrong by later philosophers, but my question is do philosophers today still find mistakes that philosophers/ psychologists made in history? If so what kind of mistakes, and are they big enough to make a huge impact on the psychological world and information gathered?
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Discartes, pineal gland, posterior roots, reflex action, Bell-Magendie Law, anterior roots, spinal cord, Bell, Magendie, Animal Spirits, Johann Spurzheim, doctrine of the skull, anecdotal evidence, Phineas Gage, clinical method, frontal cortex, John Harlow, Neuron theory, Golgi, Cajal, Sir Charles Sherrington, synapse, reciprocal innervation, Lashley and cortex.

1a) What did you find interesting? People were fascinated when they found out that decapitated human bodies still had movement.

1b) Why was it interesting to you? It was interesting because I have done research on the Guillotin in past classes and I do not remember reading anything about the decapitated body still had movement in their limbs and still had eye movements. It gives me the chills to think about that, but in the end if you think about how the heart is still beating and sending blood to the limbs for the very last few moments after the decapitation it is possible that there could still be some movement throughout the body of those who lost their head.

2a) What did you find interesting? Localization of Function

2b) Why was it interesting to you? This short part was interesting to me because it gets me thinking about my other classes that dealt with the brain and the different parts of the brain that correspond with the different actions that I display. It got me thinking about what part of the brain could stop me from becoming a criminal, and other ideas like that. If a part of the brain could actually be held accountable for such actions like that it would create more of perplex idea.

3a) What did you find interesting? Phineas Gage

3b) Why was it interesting to you? Anything dealing with Phineas Gage is always a good topic to read about and is very interesting to me. I have read so many articles and postings on Google about him and how much he contributed to the study of psychology and how the brain functions after a major accident such as his. This made me reread the section about the clinical method and how we could study the brain after a person has been through a horrific accident or even after death and get a glimpse of what their dysfunction was.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? The Part on Helmholtz

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you? This area was not interesting to me because I had absolutely no connection to it what-so-ever and it came off very bland as I was reading it. A topic without any connections made to my life makes me very bored and I just wanted to start skimming over the section.

The part about the law of conservation of energy just made me rethink about my physics class and how much I hated that class. It was fun to do experiments but I hated the class as a whole; so reading this part of the chapter made me fall asleep.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology? I think the section about the localization of location and how we interpret the brain could be a very useful idea in trying to understand the history of psychology. If we understood what part of the brain held us accountable for such actions like I stated above it would give great answers to those who are studying 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 chapters because it gives us more inside on famous people who had a major influence on the field of psychology just like the first few chapters have done. This chapter also reiterates the idea of the mind-body experiences and the idea behind reflexes were introduced in chapter two but then we found out more information about the reflexes and more about other neurological ideas and how the spinal cord and brain had influenced movement and feeling.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about? The Bell-Magendie Law

7b) Why? I would like to learn more about this law just because it goes so much into detail about the scientific findings of the nervous system and I believe that it would help a lot of the psychologist out there who are doing research on these types of topics. It would also help me understand more about the medical field and what would happen if I did such a thing to myself in an accident. The law just seems very interesting and I could find this topic easy to do more research on if I had the chance.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter? Again while reading this chapter I had various thoughts about previous classes and what connection I could make between the two or three classes that I was thinking about. I also was thinking about Phineas Gage’s accident and how someone could live such a life as he did after the accident.

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

Bell-Magengie Law, Localization of Location, Phineas Gage, The Clinical Method, Guillotin, Helmholtz, Mind-Body, Spinal Cord, Brain, Reflexes, Neurological

1a) The first thing that stood out to me while reading this chapter has to do with the Bell-Magendie law. The fact that it was discovered by several people during the same time frame refers back to what we talked about the first week in class concerning multiples or the same people making similar findings because of the influences of their peers at roughly the same time era.

1b) Learning about how these researchers discovered some of the early ideas behind the sensations and feelings associated with the spinal cord is interesting to me because it has led to many other discoveries having to do with the spine and how it relates to feeling, brain functioning, motor movement etc. The spine plays such a major part in human functioning and the fact that someone was able to distinguish different parts to it, the posterior and anterior roots, as well as distinguish which ones control what movements is amazing to me.

2a) The second thing that stood out to me while reading had to do with specific energies. Bell again, was a leading researcher behind the study. From the text, he was interested in how sensations were experienced differently based on what nerves were excited and how they were stimulated.

2b) This topic is interesting because after taking biopsychology I have a limited understanding of what they were talking about. Also, the fact that much research being done in both the medical as well as psychological field involves nerves and how they work and are influenced within the body. The fact that this subject was introduced about 200 years ago shows how important the subject is and the relevance that it still holds today.

3a) The last thing that really stood out to me in this chapter was the work done by Helmholtz. His work that covered the problem of perception was interesting and his conclusions sparked an even great interest to me as I read the chapter.

3b) The part that stood out to be the most was how he thought the human eye was a faulty product. He believed that there were so many flaws to the human vision and how we perceive physical images. His research seems (at least to me) take on a negative manor as he continued to study this topic. His theory of unconscious inference is based on his ideas that the brain had to compensate for the inability of the eye to produce clear accurate perceptions. The conclusions that he came up with have obviously been changed quite a bit as the advancement of technology has made it clear why our eyes our designed to function in the way that they do. However, his research definitely paved the way for future research and we can credit his work to the progress that we have made concerning vision even in the 21st century.

4a) I didn’t enjoy reading about Flourens and his study of localization.

4b) The reason this section of the chapter was not enjoyable was how he conducted his research. He used a technique called ablation, which is the intentional damage to the brain. I understand why he did it this way, and I understand that he used animals that were relatively expendable. However, the idea of purposely causing damage to any creature is a turn-off to me.

5) The topic that I think will be most useful in understanding history from this chapter are the combined studies of Bell, Magendie, and Helmholtz. The reason I say the combined studies has to do with their contribution to the nervous system, the visual system, and the brain and its functioning. All three of these areas that were talked about within the chapter have present day importance in the medical field as well as the psychological field of study. It is so helpful to have a background on these areas so as to better understanding why research is to the point it is today. As I already mentioned, many of the ideas these men had, have been proven wrong or at least been shown to be drastically different than what they originally thought. However, every good idea starts somewhere and being able to look at how far we’ve come in the studies of these areas makes them stand out as most important from this chapter.

6) This chapter builds on the previous chapters by reinforcing the idea that studying the past is the key to learning from the mistakes that were made in previous research. It also reinforces the idea that we are able to take the good that came about as a result of the studies and build on them. This chapter is also building on previous thoughts in a general progression of time order. They didn’t start at in the 1900’s and then switch to research done in the 1700’s. They are progressing through time in a good manner that is easy to follow.

7a) I personally would like to learn more about the localization of function. This is the study of different areas of the brain and trying to define which areas control which thoughts, emotions, and actions.

7b) I would like to learn more about this topic
because science today is still trying to answer these questions. Yes, we have a much clearer picture of what specific areas of the brain control which functions, but there are still many questions that lie unanswered in this field of study.

8) The main ideas that kept coming up as I read this chapter mostly had to do with how long ago some of these studies on the brain, nerves, and vision had been conducted. I guess with my limited knowledge of previous psychology history, I just assumed that this type of subject had only been studied in recent years. Another idea I had went along the lines of, “where would medical and psychological research in these area be today if it hadn’t been for people like the ones I mentioned earlier?” Just that thought alone is mind blowing.

9) Terms: Bell-Magendie law, multiples, posterior roots, anterior roots, specific energies, stimulated, problem of perception, unconscious inference, ablation, reinforce, time order, localization of function.

1a) What did you find interesting?
I thought the Bell-Magendie law was interesting to read and learn about.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
It is interesting to know that the spinal cord is responsible for sensation and motor responses. I thought that the personal issues between Bell and Magendie were also very interesting. After reading it, I believe that the discovery does belong to Magendie but that might just be because the author of this textbook convinced me of that. Magendie also seemed more confident than Bell that the discovery belonged to him.

2a) What did you find interesting?
I think the idea of ablation is interesting.

2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I think that I found ablation interesting because I found it immoral. Since I had an opinion about it, it was more interesting to read. I don’t know why they had animals as test subjects. I would have rather just not done the research because I thought it was wrong to hurt those animals.

3a) What did you find interesting?
I also found Phineas Gage interesting.

3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found him interesting because his story is incredible. The fact that a rod took out part of his cortex and he lived to tell the story is crazy. I also found it interesting to read about his personality and how it changed. That would suck to be a friend of his and have to watch him go through that and know that there is not much you could do to change the situation.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
The least interesting thing for me was the area on Helmholtz and vision.

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I did not find this interesting because it was hard for me to see how it related to Psychology. I also kept getting confused when it talked about the different colors and how they “mixed” together. Again, I don’t know how that relates to Psychology. I guess overall, I did not find it interesting because right when I started to read about it, I had the idea in my head that it was going to be boring to read.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think the most useful information in this chapter was the content on the nervous system. The main theme of this chapter was the nervous system. Knowing how the brain works can help you better understand the Psychological view people have. In Psychology, you look at how people perceive the world and why they make the decisions that they do. Understanding how the brain and the nervous system works will most likely make you a better Psychologist and better at understand Psychology.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
I think this chapters is related to the other chapters because it gives you more information that is important to the history of Psychology. Honestly, I don’t know how else it relates to previous chapters. The people are not the same and neither are the concepts. I do not remember reading anything that I have read from the previous chapters. However, it is more information that we can build on to our knowledge of the history of Psychology.

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

7b) Why?
I would like to learn more about ablations because I am interesting in why they let that testing happen on animals. Would that testing still be allowed to happen today? I wouldn’t think they would let that testing happen on animals today. If they wouldn’t let that happen today, why did they let it then and when did opinions on ablation change? I would also be interesting in learning how ablation is different today opposed to when it first started being performed.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
Well, obviously, since I have talked about it twice already, one thing I thought about was the ablations performed on animals. I also wondered if this book has some of the author’s opinions. For example, with the Bell-Magendie law, the author of this book made it seem like Magendie had a bigger part in the law than Bell did. Is this the author’s findings or the author’s opinion?

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Bell-Magendie law, Spinal cord, Sensation, Motor responses, Ablation, Phineas Gage, Cortex, Helmholtz, Nervous system, Brain

1 a&b) What was one thing that you really liked that was in the section? Why?
One thing I really liked about this section was the example given for behavioral classes. The concept was slightly confusing at first, but after the text went through the example of John’s disruptive class, I understood it. The illustration used was easy to understand. It also helped me further analyze behavior and the antecedent to the behavior.

2) What was one thing that you disliked (or liked least) that was in the section? Why?
One thing I disliked about this section was how briefness of the paragraph about topographical behaviors. I felt the functional behavioral class was very well described and elaborated. However, with the lack of information on the topographical class, it was very difficult to see the differences between the two classes. After rereading the section several times and discussing the concepts with a classmate, I finally figured out the difference.

3 a,b&c) What are three things you will remember from what you read in the section? Why?
One thing I will remember is topographical behaviors may look similar, but they serve different purposes; while functional behavioral classes look different but perform the same intention. After being confused and working my way through those definitions (and putting them in my own words) I will remember them. The second thing I will remember is the context of a behavior is crucial. This concept has been repeated several times in all the previous sections. This shows me that it is something that is important to know. The last thing from this section is the difference between a behavioral class and a behavior. Remembering this will make it easier to distinguish behaviors when analyzing the ABCs.

4 a&b) What was one thing that you really liked that was in the section? Why?
I liked that the text used the example of a pigeon to depict deprivation and satiation. I felt that it helped me further solidify the concepts. It was also nice to see the picture of the pigeon going through the steps of the experiment. This added to what I had learned in the paragraph before.

5) What was one thing that you disliked (or liked least) that was in the section? Why?
I did not like how the beginning of the section started with a two page review of the ABCs. I felt this was a little overkill because we had just spent the whole first chapter reviewing them. I actually only briefly skimmed this part of the section because I felt I did not need to have the review of it.

6 a,b&c) What are three things you will remember from what you read in the section? Why?
The first thing I will remember is the ABCs. I won’t forget these because they have been repeated so often. The second thing I will remember is the DRO or the differential reinforcement of other. This is when you change a punished behavior to one that you will reinforce. The third thing I will remember is that deprivation can make reinforcement stronger. I felt the hamburgers example was very helpful in further understanding the concepts.

7) How have you been thinking about or using behavioral methods as they relate to your own life?
I have begun to notice subtle hints of reinforcement and punishment in television shows and commercials. I have also been using the terminology and the concepts to manipulate my cat’s behavior. He has been upset since we can no longer let him run around outside. However, due to being stuck inside all day, he has begun to meow constantly. He gradually began to stop. After he had extinguished his behavior, my grandmother started to open the window for him to sit in. This wasn’t a problem until his meowing behavior started again due to the windows being closed. I have tried to explain to her that if she continues to open the windows, he will be shown that his constant meowing is reinforced with her opening the window. Yet, she still doesn’t listen.

8) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Behavioral classes, antecedent, behavior, consequence, topographical behaviors, functional behaviors, reinforcement, deprivation, satiation

NRS
1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
One of the “Up Close” articles in this chapter talked about phrenology, which I found interesting. This “Up Close” focused on Orson Fowler, who used phrenology to make money. Phrenology is the studying of the head (skull) and Orson Fowler used this topic to make money and eventually work on a magazine. I think it is interesting that at the time, people believed that they could tell one's personality from the bumps on their head is interesting—what lead to this belief?
2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I thought Paul Broca's work was interesting. He had a patient who was unable to speak, and upon his death, performed an autopsy and discovered motor aphasia, which was caused by a cerebral lesion. I thought this was interesting because I had heard the name Paul Broca and had heard of the Broca's area of the brain, but did not know the backstory.
3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
Phineas Gage was interesting to me as well. He was in an accident that should have killed him, but instead changed his personality due to brain damage.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I think the theories of neurons were kind of boring. While it is important to know how the brain works in order to understand psychology, the actual theories, such as Neuron Theory, are boring to me. In addition, surgeries kind of gross me out so reading about scientists slicing the brain open also kind of bothered me.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be the most useful in understanding the history of psychology?
I think learning about how other people learned about the brain is important. Because psychologists study the brain, it is important to learn the history of how other scientists learned about the brain. Some of the ways that scientists learned about areas of the brain (such as Broca's area) were unfortunate for the victim of the accident (Tan) but they did advance our knowledge of the body and specifically the brain.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
In chapter two, we discussed reflexes as well as perception, and this chapter continues to build our knowledge. The textbook continues our knowledge as scientist's knowledge of the subjects changed over periods of time.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
I would like to learn more about phrenology—I know the basics, but why was this so popular? What caused it to catch on with the public? Specifically which bumps were supposed to cause which personality traits? Phrenology seems so abusrd to us now, knowing what we know about the human body, but at that period of time it seemed like a plausible theory.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading this chapter?
I related the idea of phrenology to our ways of thinking about things—knowing what we know now, it seems like a ridiculous theory but at the time it made sense. I also was remembering learning about Broca's area in a different class—probably AP Psychology in high school.
9) Terminology: Neuron Theory, Paul Broca, Motor Aphasia, phrenology, Phineas Gage.

1a) What did you find interesting?
The Bell-Magendie Law

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found this interesting because two people made the same discovery around the same historical era. This is describing the definition of a multiple. Bell punished his research a few years before Magendie. Bell could only conclude that the posterior and anterior roots had different functions. When Magendie punished his research he was able to go more in-depth. Magendie concluded the posterior roots of the spinal cord controlled sensation while the anterior roots controlled motor responses. I found it interesting that Bell still got more credit than Magendie. Towards the end of the section Magendie strongly states that this discovery was his. This discovery was huge and allowed further study of the two sides of the reflex.

2a) What did you find interesting?
Sir Charles Sherrington: The Synapse

2b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found this interesting because I remember talking about the synapse in my biopsychology class. I do not remember if we discussed Sir Charles Sherrington. It was interesting to learn more in-depth information about the synapse. Sherrington was a British contemporary who had experiential evidence supporting the existence of gaps between neurons. This is known as the synapse. Sherrington came to this conclusion from a cycle of studies on spinal reflexes. He examined reflex actions in dogs with spinal cords surgically severed from their brains. During his studies, Sherrington also proved that excitatory and inhibitory actions in the nervous system are closely coordinated. This introduced the term reciprocal innervations. Sherrington also concluded the existence of gaps between neurons from his temporal and spatial summation.

3a) What did you find interesting?
Reflex Action: Robert Whytt

3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found this interesting because Robert Whytt used decapitated frogs for his experimental research. During the experiments, Whytt was able to show that the leg muscles would respond in predictable ways to physical stimulation. However when the spinal cord was detached these responses did not occur. Whytt was able to conclude that the spinal cord played a huge role in reflexive behavior. This allowed Whytt to distinguish the difference between voluntary and involuntary actions.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
Flourens and the method of Ablation

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I found myself having to re-read sentences or paragraphs during this section. I thought it was dull and I did not find it interesting at all. The only thing I remember reading from this section was Flourens trying to disprove phrenology. I do not understand what the term Ablation means?

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 discoveries about the nature of the brain and nervous system is very useful in understanding the history of psychology. This gives provides information on how the brain functions and how it influences our body. These concepts have a lot to do with our behavior. These experiments and terms allow us to relate to current situations in psychology today.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
The previous chapter discussed individuals and their experiments based around philosophy. This chapter discussed individuals and their experiments based around physiology. This chapter builds on the previous chapter’s concepts and theories. This chapter even talks about and builds on Descartes and Berkeley’s theories. This allows you to look at both philosophy and physiology and how it influenced psychology today.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
Karl Lashley: Learning and the cortex

7b) Why?
I found this section about brain damage very interesting. Lashley is interested in the effects of brain damage on behavior. He destroyed different amounts of cortex and observed the effects it had on learning. However I want to learn more about equipotentiality and mass action because I do not think I have a full understand of what they mean. I am also interested in learning more about Lashley’s background.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
I thought about the different view points from this chapter to the previous chapter (philosophy vs. physiology). Which was easier to remember? I thought about the animals that were being used for the experiments. Why were the using dogs?

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

The Bell-Magendie Law, Francois Magendie, Sir Charles Bell, multiple, Sir Charles Sherrington, synapse, excitatory actions, inhibitory actions, reciprocal innervations, Robert Whytt, involuntary actions, voluntary actions, Flourens, ablation, Karl Laskley, Berkeley, and Descartes

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
The first topic in this chapter that I found interesting was when the chapter discussed the life of Francois Magendie. Magendie is talked about in the chapter because he was a part of creating the Bell-Magendie law. This law states that the posterior roots of the spinal cord control sensation while the anterior roots control the motor responses. While coming up with this idea is interesting in itself, I found that Francois’ earlier life caught my attention more. I found it shocking that he did not receive much formal education, and rather got through the beginning of his life due to being a daddy’s boy. While this does still happen in our society today, I still find it incredible that we treat people like this just based on who they know or where they come from. The other part of his history that I found shocking was that, again without any formal education, Magendie was allowed to do anatomical dissections. Mind you, he was also just 16 years old! I can’t imagine doing something like that when I was 16. Luckily, despite not having much formal schooling, and being allowed to float through the beginning of his life, Magendie was gifted and gave us lots of information that we still use today in psychology and all of science.

2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
The second topic that I found interesting in Chapter 3 was the talk of localization of function and phrenology. I think that one of the major goals in science today is to dissect the brain to the point where we know what parts control every aspect of our thinking and our feeling. Once this is accomplished, so many more problems relating to cognitive disabilities and motor functioning and illness in general can be solved. There may also be some cons to finding out everything necessary about how the brain functions because, as with every scientific discovery, it could be used for evil. Phrenology was the beginning of trying to map out exactly how the brain functioned and what every section of the brain was capable of doing. This included localization of function, trying to find out the different structures in the brain that correspond to certain actions or feelings. I found this section to be very interesting because I love knowing and learning about how and why people do stuff and I think that knowing exactly where certain thoughts or actions come from would really get to the root of people’s motivations.

3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
The last interesting topic that I read about in chapter 3 was the section on Sir Charles Sherrington and synapses. This section caught my attention because of how the worded the sentence “It was Sherrington who coined the term synapse…for this hypothesized space between neurons.” I thought this was interesting because the word synapse is something that is prevalent in almost all psychology talk. People use it all the time while talking about the brain and how it functions with neurons. I started thinking about how cool it would be to be able to name something like that. I found this section interesting just because it really made me think about the history of psychology and how everything got their names. I also thought about the people that got to pick out the specific names that we still use to this day. To do something like that, in my opinion, is to really put your stamp and influence on society because your word would be in effect for years to come, making someone’s 15 minutes of fame become 15 decades of fame.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
The one section of the book that I did not find interesting, and could hardly stand to read, was the section about Helmholtz on Vision and Audition. This section was not interesting to me because it discussed the mechanics of how we see and hear things. While I do find it interesting to know how this works, I am not good at it. I have never been good at biology and how the body works. This section made sense to me in a very basic way, and after that I was lost. I think that Helmholtz was a very intellectual person especially when it came to functioning of the eyes and ears and physics and for me, that stuff goes right over my head. Therefore, I was not uninterested because the information was uninteresting but more so because it was too complicated and wordy for me to grasp.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
The one sentence that really stuck out to me in this chapter related to the understanding to the history of psychology reads “Carl Stumpf…most responsible for building the ‘bridge between physiology and psychology that thousands or workers today go back and forth upon.’” I found that this sentence really encompassed the point of the chapter and how physiology relates to psychology and how they work and balance with each other. Along with Carl Stumpf, I found that the information about Muller and Helmholtz to be almost as important because all of these researchers made huge strides in creating the history of psychology using the science of physiology to aide them.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
There were a couple interesting points in this chapter that related to previous chapters. The first of these was Descartes and his idea of animal spirits. The animal spirits were based off of philosophical aspects, as we learned in chapter 2, but actually had a physiological aspect to them too. The reasoning of the animal spirits were that they controlled the movement of a person. Now we know that these “animal spirits” are actually physiological and that movement is controlled by the brain and other organs. Another topic that showed up in chapter 2 and now in chapter 3 was materialism. Materialism is the belief that reality is only physical and that everything we do is dependent on something that is measureable. This relates a lot to physiology because physiology is the study of how living things and our parts function. The final relation I found concerning previous chapters dealt with the Bell-Magendie Law and chapter one. Chapter one discussed a multiple and this happens when two scientists separately discover something at the same time, as was the case with the Bell-Magendie Law.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
The one topic in this chapter that really interested me and that I would want to learn more about was ablation. The second I read what this was, I knew it was something that I was curious about. Ablation is creating “brain damage surgically by destroying specific sections of the brain and observing the effects.” This method was used by Pierre Flourens. Flourens used ablation to discontinue the science of phrenology. He would take and destroy certain sections of the brain to see if they would decrease the movement that phrenologists associated with it. Through these experiments, Flourens found that it was difficult to pinpoint certain points on the brain, especially the cerebral cortex, that did exactly what phrenologists had hypothesized. I found this section interesting mainly because I can’t imagine destroying someone’s brain like that, even though it did help further science and psychology.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
While reading this chapter, a few other pieces of information crossed my mind. The first was just general questioning of how do I function differently from other people? What makes my body and how it works different from other people? The second thing I thought about was when the chapter was talking about anecdotal evidence and how much our society uses that now-a-days. I feel like there are many articles and stories about there that use anecdotal evidence, stories, facts and information that specially support a case, rather that weighing all the results. The last thing that I was thinking about was during the talk about motor aphasia and sensory aphasia, I was reminded of my psychology of music class I took last semester. In that class we discussed aphasia a lot and it was interesting to create that connection to this class and be able to relate this chapter to something I have already found interesting.

Terms: Magendie, Bell-Magendie Law, localization of function, phrenology, Sir Charles Sherrington, synapses, neurons, psychology, physiology, Helmholtz, Carl Stumpf, Muller, animal spirits, Materialism, multiple, ablation, anecdotal evidence , motor aphasia , sensory aphasia

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I find the idea of motor aphasia to be interesting. This is because it's crazy to think that a person has the ability to talk and they are intelligent enough to do so, yet they don't have the ability to express that. The brain works in weird ways and I could never imagine having motor aphasia because they have something to say and they are smart in what they want to say, they just physically cant get it out. I feel like this is kind of related to non-verbal children in the aspects of how frustrating it could be not being able to express verbally what they need or want even though mentally they are able. It is also interesting to me that it depends on which side of the brain the damage is in order to determine which aphasia exists.
2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
The topic of phrenology really caught my attention because of how ridiculous it seems to be knowing what I know now about the brain and the human body. I also found is ridiculous because logically this idea of finding out how a person's brain functions, makes little to no sense. It's hard to believe that anyone would think that by studying the bumps on a persons head could tell us how their brain functions. It just seems ludicrous to me. I feel like the evidence found was not accurate because there was no facts to prove the theory. I also find it interesting that Americans feel into this whole idea. It's definitely interesting that Franz Josef Gall thought in this manner about the human brain. He thought of it as a muscle that could get stronger when worked hard. Meaning that people could be successful if they "exercised their brain." He seemed to play a lot of people with this idea especially since so many believed in it. You can tell how the brain functions threw tests and experiments, not by placing a hand on my head. But, in some ways it paved the path for a more efficient and accurate way of understanding how the brain functions.
3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I loved the work of Francois Magendie, not only because it was interesting, but also because it proved for certain things to still hold true today. We don't use puppies usually for experiments because dogs are house animals that are considered to be family now-a-days, but Magendie did in his work. There was a lot of controversy in his work because of the question of if the puppies were in pain and if his work was considered to be cruel. If his work was in today's day, people would FLIP! I love seeing that even back in the day, people cared about animal cruelty and if animals were being treated fairly and humane. Yes, he got research out of his studies, but was it worth hurting puppies for the results? Back then, it could have definitely been more important to get the data and he had to decide that for himself. From his research we learned some valuable information. I think it's interesting because it's a question of how far does one go in order to achieve something, even if that means standing alone in ones research. Bell-Magendie law was founded because of this research and it has helped provide further studies of other important things. I just know I would not be okay with his choice of harming those puppies.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I found the topic of binocular vision and trichromatic theory to be the least interesting because like I stated in my last blog, these two topics seem to be common knowledge for any high school graduate student. We have learned these two terms a long time ago, and yet they are always brought up. I think they are important topics but reading about them over and over again makes me lose interest in them more so than before.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
When I read about how the nervous system and brain work together for the most part to mend a person to be the way they are is how I found this chapter to be most useful to understanding the history of psychology. By knowing how people's brains work can let psychologists know why they act the way they do and in some cases what causes that to happen. Like in Phineas Gages case, his Broca area was damaged from a steel pole threw his head and he still lived. But since it damaged part of the brain it altered his personality and speech permanently. Mental illness and lesions in people's brains are another example on how it can help psychologists figure out how the human brain works, and animal brain's in some cases.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
In chapter three, the author does a great job with building from the last two chapters to this one in a subtle way. It started off by discussing a topic of heroes and psychology and building it further more to the actual internal aspects of psychology and how it has evolved over time. The difference in this chapter would be the fact that the author talks more about the actual biology of psychology, but still incorporates the ideas of people who created the ideas. This chapter was a huge refresher for me because I took Bio Psychology last semester and this chapter had a lot of the same information.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
I would love to learn more about brain disorders even though I learned a lot in my Bio Psychology class, I feel like I could always learn more. To me, disorders that pertain to the brain hit home for me because I am personally epileptic and my grandma had Alzheimer's. How the brain works is remarkable to me even when the brain isn't functioning correctly. So damage to the Broca's area is definitely a place of interest to me along with other brain parts.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
There was a lot of things that I could relate to because I just took Bio Psychology last semester and there was a lot of similar information in chapter three that I learned in that class. The main thing that stuck out was the case of Phineas Gage because I have known that story since high school when I took Psychology 101 and I think it's pretty neat that it is still following me into my psychology career and still being brought up. It just goes to show that it was an important part of psychology history. To this day, every time I hear or watch a video about this story, I'm still shocked that he survived this crazy accident. Yes, his brain function was altered, but he still lived and it's unbelievable to me. I feel like I will always feel the same way every time I hear this story as well.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Phineas Gage, Brian Function, Broca, Binocular Vision, Trichromatic theory, Phrenology, Franz Josef Gall, Motor Aphasia, Francois Magendie, and Bell-Magendie Law.

-AS

1a) What did you find interesting? Bells doctrine of specific energies
1b) Why was it interesting to you? I think it is interesting that he found different sensory nerves to have different qualities. This can aid in all sorts of things involving taste and the mouth and also eyes and problems with things like cataracts. He pointed to a part of the tongue which obviously could help identify taste and touch. At first the response was only the metallic taste and then the feel of the sharpness. This shows that two types stimulate a single nerve and they must be linked. The same goes with the eye and not only was the sharpness felt but a bright flash was seen by the needle pierced the eye.
2a) What did you find interesting? The problem of perception
2b) Why was it interesting to you? I think its interesting that the eye can seem so marvelous and miraculous and then we think about how flawed it is. The cornea can distort light and the fluid in the eye can change the way we see shape, motion, and color. Hence this reminded me of the mind body phenomena in which we are only so aware of the actual world. The reality and the mind can actually differentiate quite a bit.
3a) What did you find interesting? Lashley’s principle of equipotentiality
3b) Why was it interesting to you? This principle means that different parts of the cortex control learning with an equal potential. While mass action the efficiency of a performance can be reduced in the case of brain injury. So this means that while learning doesn’t take place in one specific place if the brain is damaged so will be the learning.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting? Phrenology
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you? Because of the way it is generally portrayed as a bizarre dead end and not really anything more than a pseudoscience
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology? Where the ideas of perception and sensation came from and who were key leaders in such developments.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters? It talked a little bit about Descartes mind body idea, along with some of how Pavlov came to be here.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about? I would like to learn more about the idea of different stimulus in one nerve system. Like the very first interesting thing I talked about.
7b) Why? Because I think it is interesting how much something can spark so many senses in your body along with how everything is linked.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter? I thought about last chapters mind body. But what can cause the brain to think we know the reality of the real world with all the distortions?
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post. Specific energies of nerves, phrenology, equipotential, mass action, perception, sensation

Lauren Kerr

1a) What did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found the period of Enlightenment to be interesting because I didn’t realize there was actually an era where science just took off all at once. Also growing up in my time, I grew up with all of the scientific knowledge that we have today so I don’t know anything different. So it is cool to think about what was going on in people’s heads when they were first learning about all of these new scientific discoveries. Before the discoveries there was very little they knew about the world and that is weird to me because my generation has always been taught about stuff like that.
2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
Another thing I found interesting was the specific energies of nerves. It is cool to think that we all have these different nerves and they each have different functions. It is especially cool to think about how the nerves on our tongues can be either for taste or for touch. You would think that it would be just one nerve that has both functions of touch and taste. It is also interesting that there is conflict with who this phrase should be more associated with, Bell or Muller.
3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
The section over Hemlholtz on Vision and audition was interesting. I is cool that Helmholtz was able to create a tool called the ophthamoscope, that helped with directly examining the retina of the eye. His trichromatic theory was also interesting. It’s cool that the eyes have three different color receptors and just based on those three we can see different colors by them mixing together. Eventually they came up with another theory that was improving the trichromatic theory, and it is the opponent process theory. It has more research with it so it explains how we see colors a little better.
4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
Everything was pretty interesting in this chapter, so I guess the thing that I would choose to be the least interesting is phrenology. I actually still find this interesting but I have read about it and heard about it before so it wasn’t anything new to me, so that’s why I would choose it as the least interesting. We also know that it is not scientifically accurate, so its not like we really have to learn more about it anyway.
5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
The whole chapter was about the history of psychology so it is hard to choose just one area that is the most useful. But if I had to choose then I would say that the areas where they did more research on the brain will help when it comes to the history of psychology, because looking into the brain is where it seemed to all start, since psychology comes from the brain basically.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
The previous chapter was about philosophy and science and it started to ttalk abot great advances in technology, and chapter three builds on to you and goes further with it talking about science and even more technological advances. It is more about physiological things, like the nervous system, and in the previous chapter they also talked about Descartes model of the nervous system. So they go off of each other.
7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why?
I would like to learn more about different processes they used to study the brain, such as ablation. It is interesting to see all the different methods they had to go through before they got to where they are today. They have made huge advances in brain study and they have learned a lot more about the brain. It is cool to see them go through different procedures and fix mistakes here and there to make the procedures better and better all the time.
8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
While reading this chapter I mainly just thought about things that I have learned about already and tried to remember everything I have learned about it before, for example I have learned about phrenology before so I started to think back and try to remember everything I was taught about it. Other thoughts I had were about how long they have came from then to now, and all the advances they have made. I tried to compare to what I know they know now days to what they were just discovering back then.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Enlightenment, specific energies of nerves, ophthamoscope, trichromatic theory, opponent process theory, phrenology, ablation

1a) & 1b)
It was cool to see how this period of Enlightenment even made its way into the political arena. I didn’t really connect our founding fathers with being so passionate about science. The chapter discussed individuals like Benjamin Franklin making such substantial contributions such as the theory of electricity or invention of the lightning rod. He was such a huge figure that we learned a lot about growing up and it is neat to be able to connect him back to what was going on during this time when our field was taking off. My favorite quote taken from the book regarding this was, “the constitution itself borrows from the Newtonian concept of equilibrium when developing the notion of a balance of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial elements of government.”

2a) & 2b)
It is crazy to me that people like Whytt were able to figure out hundreds of years ago without the technology and knowledge we have now that the spinal cord played such a crucial role in reflexive behavior. It seems like they had way more intelligence back then than we even do today. Magendie was even able to study the posterior and anterior roots of the spinal cord but I was shocked that he used a six week old puppy as one of his subjects. The section discussing motor aphasia was really interesting as well, especially with “Tans” case and his inability to articulate ideas verbally even though his intelligence was fine. Its crazy that things like this can happen. It was cool though that because of situations like this we were able to figure out that the ability to produce speech was localized in the left frontal lobe by Broca. We have heard about Broca’s area of the cortex but now we get to understand why and how this came to be.

3a) & 3b)
I couldn’t believe the story about Phineas Gage. The explosion launched a missile below his left and and exited the top left of his forehead, taking out a portion of his left frontal cortex but within two months he had recovered and was able to live independently. I was extremely surprised that this was possible even though he did have his struggles. It is cool that they were able to study things through this though and see how brain damage can cause changes to personality and behavior. Another thing I found interesting and funny was the up-close section of the chapter when it talked about Mark Twain who went to a phrenologist, not revealing who he was and received a report that indicated he was lacking in a sense of humor.

4a) & 4b)
I found a majority of this chapter fairly interesting but if I had to pick, the sections getting more into physiology were the least interesting to me. It has always been my least favorite topic to learn about within psychology. It got too into science for me when it started talking about Helmholtz resonance theory of hearing and discussing things like frequencies and receptors. The problem of perception section as well wasn’t too interesting for me when it discussed the parts of the auditory and visual system. These are things I learned in my sensation and perception class which I disliked. The section on the neuron theory was also too much into science for me when it started to talk about terms such as cells and the synapse.

5)
When discussing Whytt’s studies it related back to Pavlov’s conditioning experiment. We have learned about this so much throughout our psychology classes and its neat to make these connections back in time and see where it all began. Realizing these links and tracing them back is what will become most helpful in understanding the history of psychology in my opinion. Another connection it made was concerning Lashley’s rat maze experiment and how it influenced Edward Tolman who argued rats to have “cognitive maps” another concept we hear countless time throughout our courses. Also just learning about all of the discoveries taking place with exploring the nature of the brain and nervous system will help us understand a lot.

6)
The book got back into discussing the Renaissance once again and the belief that science and human reasoning could lead to an understanding of the natural world, something heavily discussed in the previous chapter. It also brought up individuals once more such as Bacon, Galileo and Descartes and how after them came the period of Enlightenment. It built more off of Descartes nervous system model and the mind-body question, once again discussing how the body operates like a machine. It related back to chapter 1 discussing what a multiple is. When discussing vitalism it once more brought about materialism which was gone over in chapter two. It discussed Gall’s publications being banned by the church, an issue we continue to see throughout the chapters.

7a) & 7b)
I would like to learn more about Helmholtz. A lot of this weeks chapter was dedicated to him and all of he did. It was cool to know that he was the one who confirmed the concept of contralateral function and the notion that each side of the brain controls the opposite side of the body. I thought it was extremely interesting that as a kid he thought he detected a relationship between the shape of ones head and certain behavioral characteristics. Its such a wild idea for just a kid to be thinking about and taking notice too. He even developed the ophthalmoscope and played a role in developing the trichromatic theory! He seemed to be such an extremely intelligent person! He was considered one of the originators of the law of conservation of energy, something we all learn about in high school. He seemed to make so many contributions.

8)
The chapter discussed how Descartes brought about questions of the nervous system and the mind body connection and from there lit up the imaginations of others. From then suddenly we began to create a better understanding of it all. It made me think about how different things would have been if he hadn’t sparked such questions during this time. It also talked about people like Flourens, Hitzig and Fritsch experimenting on dogs. I was shocked by this as it is so inhumane. When discussing Helmholtz and his voyage back from the United States I found it ironic that he suffered a severe concussion and prolonged double vision as he studied optics for so long. He view concerning the role of experience being central to perception was interesting to me and really made me think. He stated that the raw information processed by the sensory system is meaningless by itself but takes on meaning only when a particular combination of sensory events becomes associated with specific consequences and that we make “unconscious inferences” about things like distance based on our past experiences. I had never thought about it in this way before.

9) Terminology:
Enlightenment, Materialism, Vitalism, Conservation of Energy, Ophthalmoscope, Trichromatic Theory, Resonance theory, Problem of Perception, Unconscious Inference, Phrenology, Contralateral Function, Motor Aphasia, Synapse

1a) What did you find interesting?
Joesph Guillotin and Theodor Biscoff
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
Have you ever seen a chicken run around after its head has been cut off? Well, I haven't but I know that it happens. Having to see this would freak me out. I cannot imagine what people thought when they witnessed a beheading and saw the persons eyes, legs, or arms move after their head was separated from the body. I had never really given a thought to the research that would have been done on this. The fact that Biscoff testing the decapitated persons consciousness is interesting. Running test such as using smelling salts and whispering pardon in their ear is weird to think about, but this testing ended up helping Robert Whytt understand the spinal cord.
2a) What did you find interesting?
Phrenology
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
The concept of Gall's theory of phrenology is actually really interesting to read about. How he thought that they structure of your head would help determine certain abilities or personality traits is fun to think about. This reminds me of palm reading and I can just imagine how the public reacted to the idea of phrenology. I can just picture people sitting at home rubbing their heads trying to figure out what kind of person they were. Although Flourens and other individuals within the scientific field disproved Gall's theory, I still found it an interesting way to look at personality.
3a) What did you find interesting?
Broca and Tan
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
I love reading about specific, unique case studies. The study on the patient Tan is no different. It took this poor guy suffering for Broca to understand motor aphasia. It is interesting to know that if one small part of your brain is damaged, you will live with major disabilities. Imagine not being able to properly communicate with the rest of the world.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
The section on neuron theory was not very interesting to me. I understand that it is important, but it was hard to read through that part; it just seemed too boring.

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 what it took for scientists to learn more about of the brain work will be beneficial for me to understand in this class. If you understand the starting points, it will make the progress a bit more understandable.
6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
This chapter started with talking about the Renaissance time period and mentioned many different individuals that were mentioned in previous chapter, and moves into the Enlightenment period. It talks about how scientific findings were rejected by the church.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about which parts of the brain control what, and how damage to those different parts will effect that person.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
While reading this chapter, I was thinking about how from we have come from the Renaissance time to the Enlightenment period, to present day. We know so much more about the body and brain, but it all started back then, and if it was not for these discoveries we would not know as much as we do today.
9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Guilliton,Biscoff, Enlightment, Renaissance, Phrenology,Tan, Broca,Whytt, Gall

1a) What did you find interesting?
The first point I found interesting was the idea that science and reason were the only way to bring insight into past ideas and beliefs.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
This was interesting to me because this period was known as the Enlightenment. I am also studying about this time period in one of my other classes, which discusses the same ideas and ways of thinking. The industrial revolution is also a very interesting subject to me, because the idea that science led to progress still holds true today.

2a) What did you find interesting?

Another interesting topic was the thought that some level of awareness may have been evident in the those who were being decapitated at the time, due to their bodies and heads twitching after being severed.

2b) Why was it interesting to you?
This was interesting to me because it led back to the mind-body question, or the bond between consciousness and the brain, mind and matter. It was also interesting because it led to many ideas for further study on the nervous system and how it worked.

3a) What did you find interesting?
The third thing I found to be interesting was reflex action study by Decartes.

3b) Why was it interesting to you?
This was interesting to me because Decartes attempted to show that the body functions like a machine. After that Robert Whytt did a series of reflex studies in which he decapitated animals to show that pinching of the leg muscles produced twitches, as he had predicted.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
The thing I found least interesting was the Problem of Perception and unconscious inference.

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
Although, I would usually find these both very interesting topics, I found this to be the least interesting because I have learned about this in previous classes and although I found it interesting at the time, having already studied the subject made the section of our reading very repetitive.

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 studies of the nervous system will be most helpful when understanding the history of psychology. At this time more studies were being conducted to further understand our brain and how it develops. I think the foundation, studies, and information set by psychologists of the past will aide in understanding studies or changes of today.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
Chapter three builds on ideas from the previous chapter in means of discussing more in depth perceptions, sensations, and importance of studies on the mind-body experiences. Chapter three discussed specific studies and brain functions that were mainly ideas in chapter two. For example Locke’s white paper theory was more deeply discussed and studied by Helmholtz and the problem of perception.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about reflex action and the studies that were done to improve the understanding of this idea.

7b) Why?
Although it was said to be humane at the time, today this would not be accepted. What did they find in between that made that made the switch to using different methods. Was it just an advance in technology or was it that this method was in fact not accepted as time progressed.

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 many of our theories today still hold true to the findings from the past. I also thought about how the functioning of the nervous system is so widely used and many of the findings were discovered by psychologists.

Enlightenment, industrial revolution, mind-body question, nervous system, reflex action, Decartes, Robert Whytt, Problem of Perception, unconscious inference, nervous system, perceptions, sensations, Locke’s white paper theory, Helmholtz

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

Opponent process theory: I found this topic interesting because if the sun produces light for us, I wonder where or how humans can see other colors. I know that we have cons and rods receptors in our retina but that does not seem to fit how they receive different color variations. I am sure there are other factors that are environmental also as to how we perceive color. I can see where opponent process theory would make sense because the opposite color would stand out more to use than colors that look similar. Trichromatic theory is a way we can have three main colors that the rods receive and the cons can receive mixed colors that seem like a different color.

2a) What did you find interesting?
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
Contralateral Function: I found this topic interesting because although our brain controls different sides of our body, I think psychologist are rethinking the left and right side brain on intelligence or cognitive ability of doing particular things. In reality it can just be what the person was more consciously exposed to during life.

3a) What did you find interesting?
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
Bell-Magendie law: I found this interesting because in intro to neurology we learned that our motor neurons come from our motor cortex and goes through the thalamus and into the medulla then it enters the spinal cord and goes in a portion of the cord. I think this is the portion that leads the motor neurons out of the spinal cord to move our bodies. Before this discover one might think that the sensations we have come from the same portion of the spinal cord with the motor portion.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
I didn’t find motor aphasia and sensory aphasia that interesting because I have already learned a lot about those studying about paralyses in neurology. There is a intereference in between the somatic sensory cortex and the motor cortex, to the thalamus to the medulla to the spinal cord or after the spinal cord but usually it happens in the spinal cord.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
Phrenology: shows me how people initially thought of how the brain works, but in present times we think most of the time that the size of a person’s brain is wrong to judge there intellectual abilities. Without this first attempt to find what parts of the brain did what, we might have not gotten as far into our understanding of the regional areas of the brain today. Because when phrenology first pointed out that there are lesions, we might not of found or have the idea of localization of functions in the brain.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
Both chapter 2 and chapter 3 have talked about materialism. In chapter 2 they talked about materialism and determinism. Materialism is the belief that physical reality including mental events, involves measurable, material objects in motion in physical space, like atoms and molecules interacting with our body to the environment. In chapter 3 it talked about materialism versus vitalism, Muller believed that in addition to physical and chemical properties there also existed a vital force, a life force that cannot be reduced any further.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
7b) Why ?
I would like to learn more about equipotentiality, because I would like to know more places that help you learn more or places that would be damaged make you unable to show that you have gain knowledge or be able to learn more efficiently in different areas. Since we mostly learn from clinical methods to find the particular brain damage in humans we can find certain things like brocas area, some patients have that area damaged and they can still remember how to use language, but they have trouble speaking the language. I would like to learn more about different brain areas that seem to do a specific thing like that.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
Some Ideas I was thinking of were more questions, since nature and nurture are almost as of one of the same or one influences the other and vice versa, what environmental cues change the electrical current to change the process of neurons to influence our receptors or vice versa. I can see were depression can come from certain life events and then that in turn can slow do the electrical current from stop
doing things that would stimulate your body like exercise.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms
and terminology you used in your post.
Materialism
Determinism
Vitalism
Equipotentiality
Clinical methods
Opponent process theory
Trichromatic theory
Bell-Magendie law
Phrenology
Localization of function
Motor phasia
Sensory phasia

1a&b) Bell-Magendie Law & multiples. I was interested in the Bell-Magendie Law because it fell within the concept of multiples, which I found to be particularly interesting. The concept of two scientists discovering the same thing separately during the same time period may not seem like much of a surprise in today’s globalized media, but in the time of Francois Magendie and Charles Bell it was quite a big deal. This was interesting to me in a historical perspective because I feel like this really highlights a difference in the practice of psychology as it used to exist, and how laws were created and developed to shape research.
2a&b)Helmholtz: vitalism and materialism. I thought the issue of vitalism and materialism was remarkable because of how Muller and Helmholtz differed on the subject. Both prominent physiologists during the same historical period, they held the differing beliefs on if ‘vital force’ existed and was prominent in determining the brain’s physiological processes. This distinction between the two schools of thought is interesting to me because it shows the pulling away of relying on the metaphysical (vitalism) and the reliance on scientific method in materialism, which was significant for the time period.
3a&b) Phrenology. I have always been interested by the pseudoscience of phrenology ever since I learned about it. The large section in the book detailing phrenology and its history was fascinating to me and I appreciated the background on Gall because it included a lot on information that was new to me. Most important I think was the section that outlined the problem with phrenology and its popularity related to the marketing ploys of Fowler and Wells. This may seem a strange thing to fixate on but I believe that it shows how sensationalism and commercialism can often work hand in hand to discredit a discipline and that we must remember this and guard against similar in the future.

4a&b) Neuron theory. This honestly just wasn’t as interesting to me historically as some of the other topics in this chapter. A lot of it had to do with the fact I had hear about the others before and the text kind of built on my previous knowledge, so I would say that I wasn’t as interested by this just because I hadn’t really heard of it before and it didn’t spark my curiosity as much.
5) I believe that the most important thing to work into understanding psychology today would have to be tied back to Phrenology and remembering to be wary of pseudoscience. I feel this is important in understanding psychology because so many scientists have worked to separate psychology as a science and that we must remember to rely on scientifically testable data within research to maintain that distinction. Pseudoscience and psychomythology are prevalent in how society views psychology and I feel that we have a record to set straight in some respects. The historical examples in this book were a good reminder that not everything that appears sensational and revolutionary is necessarily so, and we must learn to do our own research before readily accepting the findings of others.
6) Having read about Descartes and his theories about reflex, it was intriguing to read about Robert Whytt’s contribution in distinguishing voluntary and involuntary actions. This chapter as a whole built on the last two in that it used the understanding from the historical and philosophical contexts to incorporate the idea that we need all three as aspiring psychologists to fully understand the whole of psychology today.
7a&b) Wernickie and Broca: aphasia. I would like to learn more about the history of Wernickie and Broca beyond what was mentioned in the book, and specifically aphasia. When I was in second grade my father had a stroke and has since that time been affected with severe aphasia, because of this I have had a lot of personal experience with this and would like to further my knowledge on the subject. I will probably do this for my Wednesday blog assignment. PS* If you see someone driving around Cedar Falls with a license plate that says ‘Aphasia’ that would be my dad.
8) I thought a lot about the emerging ideas in Biopsychology while reading this chapter. I have yet to take the class for Biopsych here at UNI because I really didn’t think it was up my alley, but I have to say after reading this chapter I am more open to learning the concepts and think that Biopsychology would be interesting to take.
9) *terms* Bell-Magendie Law, multiples, Helmholtz, vitalism, materialism, phrenology, neuron theory, Carl Wernickie, Paul Broca, aphasia, biopsychology.

1a) Helmholtz and the problem of perception
1b) I found this topic interesting because on the one hand, he stated it appears that the human sensory systems for seeing and for hearing are remarkably capable. On the other hand, the structures designed to deliver this sensory information seemed to him to be terribly damaged.
2a) Phineas Gage
2b) Phineas Gage caught my attention because in result of his injury hi case indicated that the brain's frontal lobes served the function of rationality, helping to maintain control over the emotions.
3a) motor aphasia and sensory aphasia
3b) I find motor aphasia fascinating because it deals with expressive and it's characterized by an inability to articulate ideas verbally, even though the vocal apparatus is intact and general intelligence is normal. This is so cool to me. Sensory is somewhat dealing with the same thing along the lines of the speech tended to be nonsensical. They also had difficulty comprehending the speech of others.
4a) The Bell-Magendie Law
4b) I didn't find this interesting because nothing stood out to me while reading this section. It seems to me that fighting over priority seems silly. You don't do things to say you've done them, you want to feel accomplished in knowing someone can benefit from whatever it is you've done.
5) I find that the knowledge of knowing about the nervous system in general will benefit in understanding the history of psychology. The research to back it up is a huge part of psychology's history and is very interesting to see how it is in use today.
6) I noticed that this chapter really went back and related to the previous chapters. On page 61 it states, "In Chapter 2, we saw how..." and also on page 63 it states, "As you recall from Chapter 1...". It helps that you can refresh your findings in previous chapters with the help of the book.
7a) I would love to learn more about the Gage case.
7b) I think cases are interesting. I like to know it's happened and understand the findings of what happened.
8) I related the reflex action with Descartes from the previous chapter. I also could relate to a lot of the nervous system vocabulary from other psychology classes.
9) reflex action, Descartes, the Bell-Magendie law, Helmholtz and the problem of perception, Phineas Gage, motor and sensory aphasia, and nervous system.

1a) What did you find interesting?
-Helmhotz on Vision and Audition
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
-Helmholtz invented the tool the ophthalmoscope. This was tool that made him very popular among the eye doctors. It was device used to look at and examine the retina. With this tool he cumulated information on vison which he combined to make into Handbook of Physiological Optics. One of the things he is most famous for is trichromatic theory. This is based on the facts of color matching experiments. To come up with this theory he would mix different colors together and study the colors made. The conclusion he came to was the eye has three different kinds of color receptors. I find this information to be interesting because I feel like colors would have been studied earlier but I think it is also interesting how he looked at how the eye perceives color.

2a) What did you find interesting?
-Phrenology
2b) Why was it interesting to you?
-This began as a legitimate scientific attempt to study the brain. Today this way of studying the brain is explained by looking at the bumps on the head. The study is actually more complex. Franz Gall was a main researcher of this way. Gall came up with the concept of contralateral function. This was the opposite sides of the brain control opposite sides of the body. He also studied why the brain had ridges and bumps and that it had a purpose. I found this section to be interesting because without knowing and questioning the brain you wouldn’t know why the brain is made up the way it is.

3a) What did you find interesting?
-Functioning of the nervous system
3b) Why was it interesting to you?
-I found this section to be interesting because the first studies about reflex were finally being conducted in the 18th century. This contribution was done by Robert Whytt. From his studies he was able to show that leg muscles respond in predictable ways to stimulation. If the spinal cord where this nerve was located was damage this process would not take place. Whytt came to the conclusion that the spinal cord played a critical role in reflexive behavior. This is interesting because we know way more about this now and also we are still doing research on how the spinal cord works.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
- Conservation of energy
4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
--Helmholtz came up with this concept. He used this principle in the fight against vitalism. He said that body heat and muscle force could be explained through chemical energy through digestion. He came to the conclusion that muscle contractions generate measurable amounts of heat. I found this topic to be very boring and it did not keep my interest at all. I found the information to be dry and it lost my attention.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
-This was the first look at how the nervous system looked and how it functioned. These discoveries had led to more discoveries and research which is the basis for psychology. This chapter helps us understand the beginning of how researches thought the nervous system worked and how it is improving.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
Desacrets made a model of how he thought the nervous system worked and included the first reflex model in the previous chapter. In the current chapter Whytt came up with his own study of the nervous system and the reflex system and has built on other ideas.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
- Phrenology
7b) Why?
- I would like to learn about this because I found the topic to be interesting and I would like to learn other ways they studied the brains and experiments in which they used this method of research.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
-When reading this chapter I thought about how research and discoveries have changed overtime. How we are still finding out more and more information on topics and still finding answers to questions. It is a never-ending process that keeps on going.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
- ophthalmoscope, trichromatic theory, Phrenology, contralateral function

1a)Beheading and nerves
1b)I think that this is interesting because of the experiment that was conducted in order to determine if after the brain and body are no longer connected to each other would there still be function, example being after someone was beheaded. People saw the guillotine as a way to issue a death penalty but at the same time keep it humane and quick. The thing that they noticed though that was confusing to many was the fact that after the beheading occurred the body still twitched and the face still made movements, so were the people still able to feel and aware of what happened to them? This question was interesting to Theodor Bischoff who decided that he wanted to find the answer to this phenomenon. So Bischoff conducted 3 experiments after the beheading of the individuals and found that the beheading left the individuals unresponsive to stimuli thus bringing about the discovery of reflexes and the fact that reflexes still occur after the brain and body are disconnected and eventually leading to the discovery that reflexes have more to do with the spinal cord than they do with the brain itself.
2a)Phrenology
2b)This is interesting because so many people believed in it, a now looked at pseudoscience. Just the fact that scientists began to think that because of a bump, indent or mark in someone's head they could tell what that person was about, what they were into or what they would become in the future. All of the different things that they came up with because of the abnormality being in a certain area of the skull and because it was there, there was a meaning behind it that lead to the depths of people's personalities. It interest me the different ideas and theories that arose from this science. Every person is different though and just because something holds true to one person does not always means that it holds true to the next person. Phrenology was a science that started small and made it big, something that changed what people knew about personality and the brain but did not hold true.
3a)Phineas Gage
3b)It was interesting that someone could have a metal rod of that stature come through their skull and not cause more damage than what Gage did. It was more of the results that were observed after the incident though that were intriguing. Gage suffered a major trauma, that of which caused him to lose part of the frontal lobe of his brain, but survived and functioned quite normally. The fact that he changed emotionally though was interesting, it makes you think back to the lobotomy, were there more people that suffered the same change, it was found to calm patients but in Gage's case it seemed to do the opposite and cause him to be more undesirable for people to be around than ever before. Thus his results went against the results of the lobotomy and really makes you wonder how much of your personality, reactions and choices are really determined by the frontal lobes of your brain.
4a)Helmholtz and the Problem of Perception
4b)This section was a little confusing to me about where the actual problem is. I understand that there is a difference in what is coming in the eye and what it can actually be perceived as real or fake. Such as color, texture, size and shape of an object being observed. I also understand the part about how when someone walks toward you they appear to grow larger but in reality the person is now growing as they approach but are becoming more clear and life-like rather than just a distant image. This whole section seemed to be a repeat of things that are always learned in the beginning of a psychology class and didn't seem to make much sense causing me to be slightly lost as to what the section talked about and how it related to the subtitle.
5)The most useful stuff that I found were more of the things relating to the brain itself as well as the effects people found from brain damages. How it all relates to the reactions, perceptions and personalities that an individual with experience and display can show a lot about how important the brain is, let alone the mind itself.
6.) This chapter built on Chapter 2 in the means that Chapter 2 was about the beginning of psychology and people questioning what they were being taught while being in fear of the consequences of asking questions. The founding fathers of science, and using science instead of religion and guessing were born here which lead to the Enlightenment period, a period in which psychology was able to grow. Without the people from Chapter 2 there would be no modern psychology of today, to scientific answers to the problems of today as well as answers and cures that have been found over the years for the individuals who suffer from psychological problems. It was these philosophers that set the foreground for people to learn more about what is real and what is just a answer to get people to quit asking questions.
7)Phrenology
7)Phrenology I think would be interesting to learn about because I would like to know more about how they knew what part of the head, with a defect, would control what? How was the science supposed to hold up to everyone when they already knew at that time that each person was different and so each person would have different makes in different areas so why would the all coincide to mean the same thing for each person. Let alone the amount of people that bought into the idea that because there was a bump in a certain spot that eventually they would act a certain way or would be predisposed to act a certain way.
8)While reading all I could think about was the fact that the brain, neurons and spinal cord are all such complex parts of a human being. Each does something different and is effected different among a change whether it be a beheading, a pipe through the head or just the genetics that you were born with. The brain controls a large part of a person and who they are but it is the spinal cord that allows them to complete the tasks and therefore gain experience and knowledge, but one wrong move and it can change the person in an instant. The brain is a complex and highly used organ of the body, something that will take a lot to understand as well as treat or manipulate.
9)Terms: Enlightenment, Theodor Bischoff, Phrenology, Phineas Gage

1) I found it very interesting that for a time, people didn’t instinctually know that the brain was in charge of voluntary movement and consciousness. This idea is instilled in us now from the moment that we begin to attend school, so the concept must be pretty important. It seems radical to me that we had to come to this discovery through science because it is something that I have always known. And in fact it seems rather instinctual to me. The brain is where all of our thoughts are processed, so obviously it would be in charge of our consciousness as well. However, that had not been discovered yet. During the French Revolution in the 1700s, executions became a popular thing. It was highly impractical for someone to have to take several swings with an axe to remove a man’s head from his body. Because of this a French physician, Joseph Guillotin, created a device to do this much more efficiently. However after a head is removed from the body, there are still a few remaining muscle twitches or spasms. It is because of this that for a time people doubted that the consciousness resided in the brain, and therefore that the person being executed could feel all of the pain of decapitation. This meant that this was not a humane method of execution. After tests such as smelling salts near the decapitated head, things shouted into the ears, or gestures made towards the eyes, it was decided that consciousness must indeed rest within the brain.
2) The Bell-Magendie law was also very interesting to me. The Bell-Magendie law is an example of a multiple, or when two scientists working completely independently of each other come to the same discovery at about the same point in time while being completely unaware of the other’s research. This seems crazy to me because how could two people from opposite sides of the world come to the same decision at the same time? I know it is not the craziest idea but what are the odds that two people decide to study the exact same thing at the same point in time? And not only are two people deciding to study and research the same thing, they came to the same discovery. The Bell-Magendie law was the discovery that the posterior root of the spinal cord was in control of sensation and the anterior root of the spinal cord was in control of motor responses. This was discovered by Magendie but Bell had published something to a select group similar a decade before, but Magendie was completely unaware of this.
3) Another thing I found interesting was the case of Phineas Gage. No matter how many times I hear about it, I am still interested. Phineas Gage was a railroad worker and one average day he suffered a wound that should have been fatal. He somehow ignited gunpowder which turned the metal rod in his hand into a missile which shot up and through his skull. The rod entered his skull under his left eye and exited his top left forehead. He briefly lost consciousness but survived and made a full physical recovery once the rod was removed. Sometime after the accident however, Gage’s wife noticed a complete change in his personality. Before the accident Gage had been a quiet gentle man, and after he became a harsh, incompetent man. This is a perfect example of how the frontal lobe is in control of the personality portion of the brain.
4) The thing that I found least interesting was Lashley’s concepts of equipotentiality and mass action. According to Lashley, equipotentiality was the capacity for an undamaged portion of the brain to fulfill a task. Mass action is that equipotentiality is not a fixed amount; it can be reduced in proportion to the amount of brain tissue damaged. Now this all sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me. I simplified it in this statement as much as I could and it still doesn’t completely make sense to me. My head hurts just trying to understand it all.
5) I think that it is most important to understand the basics of our ideas. How are we to develop on them further if we do not fully understand where they came from? Last chapter talked about Descartes model of the nervous system, and this chapter expanded on the next ideas from that. The concepts in this chapter wouldn’t have existed if it had been for Descartes and the basics.
6) This chapter builds on the previous chapters by talking about the beginning of where we get our ideas and the basis for those ideas. The previous chapter talked about Descartes and how he built the model of the nervous system, well Descartes inspired many other scientists to continue along this work. That’s how people like Bell and Magendie were interested in the way that parts of the spinal cord worked and what they controlled.
7) I would like to learn more about multiple discoveries. This chapter talked about the Bell-Magendie law and I think it would be very interesting to learn more about multiple cases.
8) While reading I wondered about what came next on the timeline of neuroanatomy and biopsychology. I have taken a class on biopsych but it didn’t really talk about the beginning very much.
9) Terms: voluntary movement, consciousness, Bell-Magendie law, multiple, Phineas Gage, frontal lobe, personality, Descartes

1)The first topic that I found interesting was the period of Enlightenment. Currently, I am enrolled in a humanities class, and we have been discussing the period of the Renaissance. I have found the discussion of the different scholars and their take on how humanity is supposed to be, so the topic of Enlightenment was something that struck my interest. The Enlightenment period was all about scientific discoveries and how we, as humans, have to use science to explain how things work in our world.

2)The second topic that I found interesting in this chapter was Johannes Muller’s elaboration of Sir Charles Bell’s doctrine of the specific energies of nerves. Muller elaborated on Bell’s previous idea that if two different types of stimuli affect a single type of nerve, the sensation that is felt is determined by the type of sensory nerve that is stimulated. Muller added that we, as humans, are not directly aware of the world around us. We are only aware of the actions done by our nervous system. This means that our perception of the world around us is determined by how our nervous system reacts to the environment in which we are placed. This topic interests me because I enjoy the topic of sensation and perception. It has always been a topic that has raised a lot of questions for me. I want to know if the way I perceive the world is similar or different than another person. If it is different, which is most likely is, I want to know how it is different, and why that person sees something differently than I do.

3)The third and final topic I chose that interested me was the idea of Unconscious Inference. According to Hermann von Hemholtz, this is when our perceptions of the world around us are effected by our past experiences. This is done outside of our conscious awareness. Hemholtz argues that the “raw information” that is processed is meaningless by itself. What it gives it meaning is the way we perceive the information that we are gathering. This is done using previous experiences in our lives to determine what we already know and how we have processed it in the past. The reason I like this topic is an extension from the previous paragraph. Learning about people’s pasts and how that has changed or affected them is an interesting topic for me. I enjoy hearing others talk about how they dealt with an event that I may have encountered and see how that did it differently.

4)The topic that I found least interesting was the study of phrenology. The history of phrenology was interesting to me, but I have never been much of a “wet” psychologist, meaning I don’t like studying the biology side of psychology.

5)When reading this chapter I thought the most important thing that will help me understand the history of psychology is the gradual movement in perception. The way humans perceive things is a major part of psychology. In order to study human behavior, we have to know why they act the way that they do. And in order to know why they act the way that they do, we need to understand how they perceive the information that lead to the action, as well as the way they perceive the final action themselves. The progression of understanding how humans perceive the world around them is crucial to the study of psychology. So, I believe, this could help explain why the psychologists studied what they studied, and how their perception of the results affected later studies.

6)This chapter is picking up right where chapter two left off. Coming out of the renaissance and into the period of Enlightenment, we are learning more and more about how to use science to make discoveries in our everyday lives.

7)I would love to learn more about Johannes Muller’s expansion on the specific energies of nerves. Although I’m not much of a “wet” psychology person, the idea of difference in perception is fascinating to me. I would like to learn more about his findings.

8)While reading the parts of the chapter dealing with perception, I kept thinking of Sigmund Freud’s work; especially when dealing with the topic of Unconscious Inference. The whole idea that past experiences shape how we see the world sounds exactly like his ideas and theories.

9)Enlightenment, Johannes Muller, Sir Charles Bell, specific energies of nerves, nervous system, sensation, perception, unconscious inference, Hermann von Hemholtz, phrenology

1a) What did you find interesting?
Phrenology

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
It is a subject I've heard a lot about, but never actually learned about. Of course I'd heard the basic things about this science: the bumps on the skull reveal personality traits. What I didn't know was that the same man who coined this, Franz Josef Gall, was also the first to speculate about contralateral function. I didn't realize the lengthy story that went along with this science either. Like how Spurzheim also worked with him on this, and how other men actively sought out to disprove this science. They could make this whole story into a movie because there's that much to it.

2a) What did you find interesting?
The story about Phineas Gage

2b) Why was it interesting to you?
He had a missile go through his head, and lived to tell the tale. I would've thought that that would've killed someone for sure, but not only did he live, the brain damage he suffered was not as drastic as people might have thought. The only noticeable change about him was a change in his personality, which is extremely interesting. Knowing that personality is a major part of the frontal lobe, this makes sense. But at the time I would've been absolutely blown away by this. He did die at a younger age which was most likely attributed to this accident, but it is absolutely amazing he even lived to tell the tale.

3a) What did you find interesting?
The Bell-Magendie Law.

3b) Why was it interesting to you?
Two guys were accredited to discovering this law who had never even met each other in person. That is so interesting to me. And that Magendie did not take this co-title well. But it seems extremely cruel to me that these dissections were done on live dogs and other experiments were done on rabbits. Thank goodness ethics in psychology would come into play later.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
The technical sections about neurons and synapses.

4b) Why wasn't it interesting to you?
As a social studies teaching major, I am not very interested in science. I completely understand that the biology of the brain is a crucial and important part of psychology, but I'll be honest in saying it does take more energy to try to concentrate on because I am not interested in the details and intricacies on neurons. I still read this section because I know it is important to know, but it was the least interesting to me.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
The early scientific discoveries about psychology as a whole. That is a really broad answer, but I believe the underlying themes of scientific discoveries during this time are important to realize. Science was trying to advance during this time, but could not do so without trial and error. Some of these discoveries were right on, such as the Bell-Magendie law, and the opponent process theory. Others used the resources and knowledge they had at that time to try and make sense of it all but were wrong, like phrenology. This trend will continue to happen in history as we study more and more, but my guess is that over time scientist will become more accurate with their discoveries.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
In this chapter, I was surprised by how much sense phrenology made. If I had been a person living during this time, I would have probably been right on board with the science because it made sense. This made me think back to chapter 1 about the historicist vs. presentist approach to looking at history. I love how reading further has made me find examples of these without trying. It also brings in the scientific revolution during the enlightenment which ties directly with chapter 2. Descartes was also brought back in this chapter, this time focusing on his model of reflex action.

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

7b) Why?
I had never heard about him before, and am interested to see if he made any other scientific discoveries besides trying to disprove phrenology through ablation.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
This must have taken a lot of perseverance and courage to make these discoveries. Because they didn’t have much knowledge to build off of, a lot of this had to be done from scratch. If this had been me, I may have been scared of being ridiculed if my theories were not taken well, or mad if I had worked that hard to find concrete evidence and people would still not believe in what I had discovered. This also was probably an exciting time to live in, but also frustrating because you might be disappointed that you wouldn’t be around long enough to see this study unfold in its entirity. I’m glad I live in this time period though, because I get to see all of the following discoveries that took place.

contralateral function. historicist. presentist. neurons. synapses. phrenology. enlightenment. Bell-Magendie law. Opponent process theory. ablation

I found Herman Von Helmholtz interesting. He was the most influential human on psychology for the latter half of the 19th century, and for no small reason. He developed the trichromatic theory, as well as other monumental studies. His spectral sensitivity curves have not been changed much, even with the procession of modern technology. What grabs my attention most is that he was a physicist at heart. He maintained a materialist stance, and practically put an end to vitalism. Today with advances in brain imaging, psychology is moving in a bio-chemical direction, which inherently makes it a physics problem. The vision Helmholtz had two centuries previous is truly inspirational.
I also found the development of neuron theory interesting. Camillo Golgi and Ramon y Cajal both produced research that were invaluable to discovery of neurons. While they did not seem to get along and disagreed on how the neurons interacted, their findings spurred Sir Charles Sherrington’s discovery. He was able to prove the existence of the synapse many, many years before the first synapse was viewed on an electron microscope. The discovery of the neuron made everything we know about the nervous system and brain possible in modern science.
I thought phrenology had an interesting influence on psychology. It began in a productive direction. Phrenology wanted to discover how relevant or even true the theory of localization of function is. There is a lot of truth to this theory. Yet, it is definitely not the only rule in brain function. As Pierre Flourens discovered in his ablation studies, if you destroy enough of the brain every function is effected, not just the faculties associated with the areas damaged. The latter end of phrenology is a cautionary tale. It is a classic example of public fascination (ignorance) allowing improperly tested theories to be used in improperly. Thanks to the integrity of that centuries scientists, doctrine of the skull is no more than an embarrassing footnote in the history of psychology.
I consider Sir Charles Bell deserving of a footnote, barely. He may have been a brilliant scientist, but his utter lack of attention to detail cannot be overlooked. If he would have been rigorous and thorough in his research, perhaps he would have gotten the create he so desperately clawed for. Attention grubbing is of the most despicable of character flaws and I find it disinteresting.
I think the emphasis on physiologists influencing psychology in the 19th century is important, as well as foreshadows the current direction of psychology. Early psychology, as well as some current approaches, was philosophical and theoretical at best. Thanks to the physiologist and physicists of the day, psychology was brought into the realm of measurable science. Now that our technology is reaching a level at which we can practically observe and prove the biological, chemical, and physical workings within psychology, we will see biologists and physicists doing the grunt of discovery in psychology.
This chapter expressed that further use and emphasis on the scientific method. As the empiricists of the previous chapters shifted away from philosophy so did the physiologists of this chapter. I predict that this trend will continue on throughout the textbook.
I would like to learn more about Herman Von Helmholtz. I consider myself a materialist and wish I would have done more in previous years to advance my education into physics. Not only would studying Helmholtz will not only be practical for this class, but hopefully his academic decisions will help me do a little soul searching.
Key terms: Helmholtz, neuron theory, phrenology, Bell-Magendie Law, trichromatic theory, materialism, vitalism, Sir Charles Sherrington, synapse, localization of function, ablation, doctrine of the skull, Pierre Flourens

Conner Hoyt
1a) What did you find interesting?
I found Whytt’s work to be very interesting, basically taking up where Descartes left off to finish the mystery of the nervous system. Eventually Whytt found that the spinal cord was responsible, and eventually proposed that stimulus responses can develop through habit. Thinking of how stimulus responses could develop through habit, I supposed that it’s possible to develop a natural habit to a certain stimuli—something less obvious then reflexing away from a fire. For example, naturally avoiding your eye towards naked people. While this may be natural to some but to others, with effort, one could probably develop a reflex after practice to naturally avoid looking at another. At least that’s what I think of when considering this theory.

2a) What did you find interesting?
I find Phrenology to be a very fascinating study. While there may be some scientific backing missing, it’d be a blatant lie to say that it didn’t act as the bedrock to discovering the actual purposes for different parts of the brain. I also enjoy how, with time, the practice of ‘scientific phrenology’ came to be—a new term that basically covers the same practice, but had to add in ‘scientific’ to further itself from the original practice.

3a) What did you find interesting?
I found Magendie’s experiments interesting, though horrible that he experimented on dogs to accomplish what he did. Through his surgical procedures on the spines of dogs, he found that the posterior root of the spine controlled sensation, the anterior root controlling motor movements. I thought that it had more to do with the inner brain, which it probably does—though of course that’s where the spine is connected—but it’s interesting to know that the spine also has more of a vital function rather than just a receptor that sends out signals.
I also found Muller’s Doctrine interesting: We are directly aware of our nervous system, not the world, and, each basic sensory system has specific nerve fibers designed for a specific sense. The first law was interesting because I never thought of ‘feeling’ in such a way. If it’s cold out, we’re not necessarily feeling how cold it is, rather how our body responds to the cold.

4a) What one (1) thing did you find the least interesting?
I found the lecture about neurons to be boring. I’d rather learn the history of beliefs and theories being challenged rather than learning of how scientific proof came to be. That, to me, is very dry and boring, while on the flip side, learning about how a psychologist’s theories can shock the public’s views on the world and challenge their philosophies is far more interesting.

5) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
It’s obviously very important for the psychological world to know about how different parts of the brain affect this or that. With this kind of information we can record it, and for future cases know what to do for treatment. For example, if one were to develop a certain ocular dysfunction through a mental impairment, one bright psychologist could look through the history book and propose it to be a problem with the occipital lobe.

6) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to the previous chapters?
For starters, the chapter began by introducing Descartes’ theories again which then progressed into Whytt’s work. The chapter also took its time to show that over time scientists can polish and improve on their theories through further scientific discovery. One thing made to remember is that psychology is not just psychology, but rather a science mixed with philosophy.

7a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
This chapter brushed over how if different parts of the brain are affected, this would happen. I would like to touch on certain types of brain damages, specifically learning about the different parts and if damaged what the result would be.

8) What ideas related to what you were reading (what did you think about) did you have while reading the chapter?
While reading about Megendie, it was interesting to see that Megendie was freely experimenting on animals that would never be considered for experimentation today—like dogs for example. While there may be very LIGHT experimentation on dogs today, it would never amount to the experiments Megendie would do—such as the surgical procedures on spinal cords that would most likely result in death.

9) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Phrenology, scientific phrenology, posterior and anterior spinal cord, Muller’s Doctrine

1a) The topic I found most interesting was the functioning of the nervous system, specifically Hermann von Helmholtz' research regarding this topic.

1b) The nervous system is very interesting to me because it is a very complicated thing to study, and so many great scientists like Helmholtz, Bell, and Magendie performed a lot of interesting experiments that made huge contributions to science regarding the nervous system.

2a) The person I found most interesting while reading this chapter was Hermann von Helmholtz.

2b) His experiments dealing with vision and audition were fun to learn about. He came up with the idea that an eye contains three different color receptors and the receptors stimulate at different degrees which causes us to see a certain color. I also found it interesting that he came up the first tool to directly examine the retina. This tool called an ophthalmoscope became popular among eye doctors and made him famous.

3a)The overall message of this chapter is that science is really important in order for us to better understand psychology. We need to know what these scientists have done to not only further science, but also social sciences such as psychology. They have led the way to progress.

3b) I thought this chapter was extremely interesting to me and the chapter I like best so far from what we have read. I am not much into science but by reading about some of the experiments done by scientists in this chapter allowed me to have a better understanding of the brain and why we do what we do in regards to motor and sensory skills.

4) What will be most useful from this chapter for me to better understand the history of psychology is learning about all the experiments scientists have done on the brain to find out how the brain works. If we learn how the brain works we can understand people better and study them in psychology.

5) I have learned minimal information about the brain and how it works in the past and in other classes. After reading this chapter I learned a lot more about the scientists that have contributed to these amazing findings. It helps me relate to what I already know about the history of psychology in taking the information I thought I knew about the brain and nervous system and applying it to the chapter. I added information I knew to the new information I got out of this chapter.

6a)I would like to learn a lot more about the nervous system.

6b) After reading about all the experiments performed by Helmholtz,Bell, and Magendie I found out that their results were sometimes correct and some of them turned out to be false. I want to learn more about even more scientists that have contributed to research of the nervous system and what their findings turned out to be.

7) I just thought that Helmholtz' findings about vision were amazing and very interesting. He proved that the eye contains three different kinds of color receptors and I think his work and research is very important to many today.

8) Hermann von Helmholtz, ophthalmoscope, Bell, Magendie, nervous system.

1a) One topic that I found interesting was the topic of vitalism.
1b) This was an interesting topic for me because Muller was a believer of vitalism, but his students challenged him on it and leaned more towards materialism. As the chapter goes on, it becomes clear that there is more and more reasoning why materialism is correct and vitalism isn't. However I still liked the topic of vitalism because even though it's been shown to be wrong, I like the thought of it, and it was interesting to see how people argued against it, and the experiments that were performed to show how materialism was the correct one.

2a) A person that I found interesting was Sir Charles Bell.
2b) The reason why I found Sir Charles Bell so interesting was because he seemed to have been a very smart guy, but he just didn't do his research and proposals correctly, so his ideas were then rediscovered by other people who then got the credit for these terms and findings instead of Bell. While his work about posterior roots and anterior roots weren't completely correct, Magendie came in a decade later and with better and more sophisticated work and became known for the Bell-Magendie Law, even though it was named after both of them. Then, Johannes Muller came in and "stole" another one of Bell's ideas about the specific energies of nerves from him.

3a) The overall message of the chapter was focusing on the biological and scientific portion of psychology and how they relate to each other and build off one another.
3b) The chapter was somewhat interesting. I absolutely hate science and biology, but it wasn't a bunch of horrible terms about which part of the brain does what, and it wasn't that confusing as I feel it usually is. But still, I didn't enjoy reading it.

4) I think that the information about the brain and it's functions help us to understand how things affect us, like mental conditions or accidents that involve the brain. Because the brain isn't completely about biology and science but about thinking, reasoning, and acting too which crosses over into psychology.

5) I learned a lot about what the brain does and which parts do what in my high school psychology class, so this information wasn't exactly new to me, but it did cover different areas of the topic that I hadn't really thought about so in a way this chapter helped me fill in the gaps of the information I had learned previously.

6a) I wouldn't mind learning more about equipotentiality.
6b) This topic sounds interesting to me because it is amazing how the human brain can function and react in so many different ways, and continues to amaze us. There's so many cool things that you could learn about this topic.

7) I do not like how Magendie did his experiments about posterior and anterior roots on puppies because that sounds horrible and uncalled for! It was definitely animal cruelty!

8) Terms: Vitalism, Materialism, Charles Bell, Francois Magendie, posterior roots, anterior roots, Bell-Magendie Law, Specific Energies of Nerves, Johannes Muller, equipotentiality

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
It was very interesting to learn about the guillotine. Previously, my perception of this method of beheading was strictly to “punish” criminals. According to this book, Joseph Guillotin was a physician who studied the bodies’ and heads’ reactions immediately after the beheadings. This helped him pinpoint that in fact, consciousness ends as soon as someone is beheaded and that consciousness resides in the brain.

2a) What person did you find interesting?
2b) Why were they interesting to you?
It was extremely interesting to read about Phineas Gage. He was in an accident which resulted in a piece of metal entering just below his left eye socket and exiting at the top left side of his forehead. Because of this, his left frontal cortex was permanently damaged. Due to his survival, we were able to study him and begin to understand what toll it would take on a human whose frontal cortex was damaged. It helped us recognize that our frontal cortex was apart in regulating our emotions and behaviors. Because of the damage, his personality completely changed and his behaviors were very different to his prior self. To me, this was extremely interesting, especially since this occurred way back in 1848 before the use of antibiotics and other health technology.

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 how we came to develop the physiological aspects related to psychology. This was interesting to me because it reminded me a lot about my Biopsychology class. I’ve always loved learning about the biological and physiological aspects of psychology.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
It is useful in understanding psychology to realize its roots come from not only philosophy but also physiology and biology. Psychology is a science!

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?
Again, this chapter really reminded me what I had previously learned about in my Biopsychology class. But chapter three has also done a great job on building on what we have previous discussed in chapters one and two. First it related philosophy and psychology. Now it is relating psychology and physiology.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
6b) Why?
Personally, I am very interested in phrenology. Which is the study of shape and size of the brain/cranium as an indication of character and mental ability. I would love to learn more about this because when you think about it, we all have a brain. We use our brain to learn more about our brain. It just blows my mind how much more we still have to learn about what controls us.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
It briefly reviewed in chapter three what a multiple was. It is when two or more people make the same discovery during the same historical era but do so independently of each other. Does this still occur in this day in age? Since we have unlimited resources and contact with books and the internet, it is easier to decipher who gets “the credit”?

8) Terminology: Joseph Guillotin, guillotine, consciousness, Phineas Gage, frontal cortex, emotions, behaviors, physiological, psychology, phrenology, multiple.

1a) I found Vitalism versus Materialism to be very interesting.
1b) I found this interesting because I thought that the only view that physiologists could have was the materialist view. Which states that: “Physical matter was the only reality, and all living organisms could be reduced to physical, mechanical, and chemical processes that eventually would be understood by applying scientific methods.” Whereas the vitalist view states that in addition to physical, mechanical, and chemical processes, there is also a “vital force”. A vital force is defined as a life force that could not be reduced further, which has theological connotations.
2a) Phineas Gage
2b) I just found it amazing that this man could survive a metal rod going through his brain and skull and still live a fairly productive life. It was also fascinating to me that because of this single case, we were able to find out so much more about how the brain functions.
3a) I feel like the overall message of this chapter is that the localization of brain functions has had a huge impact on psychology over the years. Being able to identify abnormalities in the brain allows psychologists to better understand why people act the way that they do.
3b) It was somewhat interesting to me just because obviously the brain is a huge factor in psychology and helps us to understand why we are the way that we are. However, brain anatomy is not one of my favorite subjects so it can get pretty confusing for me to read about.
4) The thing that I read about in this chapter that I feel with be most useful to understand the history of psychology would have to be specific case studies that explain how we came to figure out how the brain functions. Like the case study of Phineas Gage for example.
5) This chapter builds upon material I have learned about in other classes, specifically in the explanations of how Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia became known. I have learned about both of them in other classes but never knew about the cases that caused the two men to discover these aphasias.
6a) I would like to learn more about Flourens method of ablation.
6b) To me, this practice does not seem ethical, but I know it has been used quite a bit to identify brain functions. I would like to learn more about it to have a better understanding of what it is used as much as it is.
7) What ignited the enlightenment period? With all the discoveries being made, was there ALWAYS progress? Or did new findings put us back?
8) Terminology: Broca and Wernicke’s aphasia, Flourens, Method of Ablation, Phineas Gage, Vitalism, Materialism.

1a) I found the topic of the discovery of the brain as the center of consciousness and the controller of voluntary action as one of the most interesting topics of this chapter. b) This topic was interesting to me because it is one of the most fundamental things that led to other huge development in the field. I kind of view it as the beginning of so many more discoveries involving psychology and I loved learning about its development and how it came to become a concert piece of information and not just a theory.
2a) I found Joseph Buillotion and Theodor Bischooff to be the most interesting people within the chapter.
b) They were interesting to you me because they were both innovative thinkers for their time period. Guillotion was an advocate for capital punishment to be as quick, clean, and human as possible. He invented the Guillotine to accomplish just that. However he noted that after a person was decapitated their legs and arms would move for a moment afterword, as well as eye twitches and quivering facial muscles. Bischoof came into play and began studying and testing this. He was the one to conclude that a person’s consciousness the moment of execution and the movement seen was involuntary movement due to muscle spasms. He was able to prove that consciousness resides in the brain, which I view, as I stated above, as the beginning of so many more psychological discoveries.
3a) The overall message of this chapter was the very early begins of humans’ understanding the nervous system. Understanding the nervous system led to a more in depth development of the field of psychology. Understanding that part of the body can be linked to nearly every area of psychology and is important when people are studying antecedents and consequences associated with different behaviors. b) This chapter was very interesting to me because I love learning about how theories came about and how and what inspired people to discover and develop such amazing ideas.
4) I read a quote in the Specific Energies of Nerves section in the chapter that I think will be very useful to in understanding the history of psychology and just people reactions and behaviors in general. The quote from Johannes Muller and it read: “we are not directly aware of the external world, rather we are only aware of the action of our nervous system; which covey’s information of the world to us.” I loved this quote because it made be think about how every single person experiences a situation in a completely different way. It can justify so many things when it comes to people disagreeing about things. This quote explains why some people love history and why some people hate history. It explains why some people have futuristic view on the mater while others have a personalistic view on the matter.
5) I was expecting this chapter to be very dull, but I actually enjoyed it very much. I love learning about how people came around to discovering certain things. I loved this chapter because it really expanded on the beginnings of what we see as today as common knowledge. Learning about the discovery of the functioning of the nervous system gave a different perspective on behaviors that we still study today. This is seen, especially, in the areas of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli and responses.
6a) I would love to learn more about Whytt’s work with discovering that the spinal cord is essential to reflexive behavior. b) Because this is such an essential part of understanding the fragile nature of the nervous system and I think it would very interesting to learn more about how to came about this discovery and the different ways he tested his theories on the matter.
7) At one point in the chapter, it referred to the people of this time period changing their views and “beginning to see science and reason as the only way to shed light on the darkness of ignorance.” My question in this chapter would be what sparked this change in mindset? In my opinion it was a very drastic and distinctive change in the way the people viewed the world around them. Did historical events cause this change or are we not really sure what led to this newfound view during the enlightenment period?
8) Terminology Used: enlightenment period, reflexive behavior, Whytt, nervous system, conditioned and unconditioned stimuli and responses, Johannes Muller, futuristic, personalistic, center of consciousness, controller of voluntary motion, Joseph Buillotion, Theodor Bischooff

1) I really enjoyed reading the section on the functioning of the nervous system. Since I am a biology major, reading about how things in the body work really interest me. I especially thought that the guillotine studies were interesting. I never realized that there were scientists who studied the people who had been victims of the guillotine. I also really enjoyed reading about the Bell-Magendie Law. I thought it was interesting to learn about how they figured out that nerves control and do different things.
2) I thought that Hermann von Helmholtz was very interesting. I especially enjoyed reading about his research on the speed of neural impulses and the research that led up to it. A scientist named Luigi Galvani figured out that neural impulses were electrical by touching an electrically charged scalpel to a nerve in a frog’s leg, which caused it to move. This led to research done by Johannes Muller and Du Bois Reymond to see how similar the electricity in the nerves was to the electricity in the world outside of the body. Some believed that electrical impulses happened instantaneously in the body while others thought it took more time for this to happen, but they couldn’t figure out how to measure it. Helmholtz helped to solve this problem by recording the time between stimulus of a nerve and when the muscle reacted to the stimulation.
3) I thought that the purpose of this chapter was to give us an understanding of the early discoveries about the nervous system and how it works. I thought it was interesting because I have always enjoyed learning about how things in the body work.
4) I think that it is good to understand that anatomy and physiology are a big part of psychology.
5) I have learned many things about the nervous system and how it works before, but I had never learned about the research that led to some of the most important discoveries about the nervous system.
6) I would like to learn more about phrenology. It was something that I didn’t know anything about before reading the chapter, but it seems really interesting.
7) I thought that the people discussed in this chapter must have been very dedicated to their work. I’m sure that they knew what had happened to the scientists that came before them (ideas being rejected, exiled, etc.), but they still did their research and published their findings. This type of research also would have taken a long time to do. Since some of these people were the first ones to really do research on the brain, nerves, and neurons, I’m sure they didn’t have a lot of information to go off of. They had to just figure everything out for themselves.
8) nervous system, guillotine, Bell-Magendie Law, Hermann von Helmholtz, neural impulses, Luigi Galvani, Johannes Muller, Du Bois Reymond, electrical impulses, nerve, phrenology

1) What topic did you find interesting?
-The topic that I found interesting in chapter 3 was about Flourens and the Method of Ablation. I found this interesting since he disproved phrenology that was developed by Gall, and it was promoted by Spurzheim. I think it is interesting since I think the localization of function is important to know and understand. It is good to know to what extent the different structural locations in the brain correspond to different physiological and psychological attributes. I also thought it was interesting, and also wrong that his test subjects were dogs. I do not mind that he tested on different species like pigeons though. I think it is cool that he did not wait for natural experiments to occur, but created brain damage in his subjects to observe the effects.

2) What person did you find interesting?
-I think that Phineas Gage was one of the most interesting people in the chapter. I believe it is interesting due to the fact that he survived an accident that should have been fatal since a metal rod went through his skull. It is fascinating that he could begin working again and his personality changed from dependable, conscientious, and respected worker, into someone who was “no longer Gage.” Harlow was his doctor, and this case helped support phrenologists’ localization beliefs.

3) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
-I think that it was about the Enlightenment period when people relied on science and human reason to get to the truth of the natural world. Enlightenment helped contributed to the idea that psychology could become scientific. This chapter was all about the functioning of the nervous system, the localization of brain function, and the nervous system structure to help explain emotions and physical movements/reflex action.
3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
-It was not the most interesting chapter in my opinion. I do not really find a lot of the subjects of the brain fascinating, but I do know that it is important to understand why we think, feel, and act. If I enjoyed neuropsychology, then I probably would have found this chapter more of an enjoyable read.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
-I think that every topic in the chapter helps explain the history of psychology since it educates the reader of each person and subject that has influenced psychology in a way that can still be studied or applied to today.

5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?
-This whole chapter has helped me understand better about the brain’s function in psychology, and relates to the class I am taking this semester, Drugs in Individual Behavior. It discusses a lot about psychoactive drugs, so obviously it is about how drugs effect the brain and then how we feel, think, and act. I also have heard of some of the people and topics before in other psychology classes like, Phineas Gage, Enlightenment period, phrenology, Broca, and the synapse like temporal summation and spatial summation.

6) What topic would you like to learn more about?
-I want to learn more about the remarkable German scientist Wilhelm Wundt and how he helped contribute to making a brand new science, psychology. I want to learn more about him since he clearly has been an important factor of making psychology the science it is today. Learning more about his will help with knowing more about the history of psychology which is the point of this class.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
-I’m still not certain of exactly how Phineas Gage did not die when a metal three foot rod went into his skull under his eye and through the top part of his forehead. Which method is better to study human brain function, method of ablation or clinical method?

8) Flourens, Method of Ablation, Phrenology, Gall, Spurzheim, Localization of Function, Enlightenment, Reflex Action, Broca, Clinical Method, Temporal Summation, and Spatial Summation.

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
I found the discussion of phrenology rather fascinating.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I thought that this topic was interesting because it helps one realize the importance of viewing the history of psychology from both a historicist and presentist point of view. Looking at the idea of phrenology in the context of time, it is not hard to see how it developed. Psychologists noticed differences in the traits of individuals both in faculty and in the shapes of their skulls. Assuming knowledge resides in the brain, it was not a farfetched idea to attribute these differences in skull shape to different abilities. Thus, the primary principle of phrenology arose: the doctrine of the skull. Although we know that this concept was flawed in many ways, it does not discount the idea. To do so would represent a completely presentist view. However, it is important to consider the outcome of this practice of phrenology when it comes to psychological research today. We learn the dangers of anecdotal evidence which is skewed to support a hypothesis as was the case with phrenology. When scientists experimented on the brain in hopes of correlating one part of the brain with a specific function through the method of ablation, their results failed to support phrenology. Eliminating one area of the brain did not eliminate the function phrenologists had associated with that area. Thus, I thought it interesting how we can see how easily and accurate an idea may seem at the time, and yet the importance of collecting accurate and objective research and questioning the research of others is necessary in getting closer to the truth behind psychology.

2a) What person did you find interesting?
I thought that the work of Hermann von Helmholtz was very interesting.

2b) Why were they interesting to you?
I thought that Helmholtz was interesting because of his contributions not only to the study of neural impulses but also his remarkable work with vision. Even more intriguing is the accuracy of many of his theories. A materialist at heart, he came up with the basic concept of the conservation of energy thus showing that a vital life force, as was a source of energy in vitalism, was not needed. Instead all energy within the body was conserved in various physical and chemical properties. I thought that it was interesting that this was originally developed because of psychology when I have only encountered it in chemistry. That to me indicated the wide application of Helmholtz’s work. In addition, it was interesting to discover how he used the concept of rate=distance/time to show that there was a delay from stimulus to response yet again supporting his materialist viewpoint in that neural impulses were instantaneous. Finally, and probably the most interesting part of Helmholtz’s work was that which he did with vision. I have also been fascinated by the intricate design of the eye and the way in which we are able to see the world around us. Thus, I really enjoyed reading about his development of the trichromatic theory in which he discovered that the eye sees varying degrees of red, yellow, and violet which results in the multitude of colors we perceive. Secondly, his stance on binocular vision or how we perceive depth was unique in that it again took the empirical stance. This made a lot of sense to me as I have family members who do not have the greatest depth perception and yet they are able to drive and play sports (such as baseball) without that sense. They have learned through experience how an image changes with distance, thus they are constantly making unconscious inferences. Overall, I was very interested in Helmholtz’s work as a whole and how much of it we continue to encounter to this day.

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
I thought that the overall message of this chapter was very useful as it showed a rise in the reliance on science and the resulting research in the area of psychology. I think that this is useful in understanding how far psychology has come, the questions that still remain, and that new questions are constantly surfacing.

3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
I thought that this section was very interesting. Much of the discussion was about the brain after all, a most complex and intriguing organ! In explaining how the brain has been studied in the past I learned a lot of new information which is vital not only to the understanding of the history of psychology but also in furthering this field by building on past research. This is not to mention that it is always interesting to me to learn more about the way in which my body functions (i.e. reflexes, vision, hearing). So, this chapter was definitely interesting to me.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I thought that there was a lot of useful information in this chapter. It attempted to show that many of the questions we still encounter have long been of interest to psychologists. For example, determining the function of each brain structure is still very much in the research stage. It also served to show the reader how various theories which we continue to encounter today were developed and how they led to further questions and experimentation. Finally, I think that the chapter sought to show some of the mistakes made in the past so that we realize science is constantly evolving. What seems very true and plausible at one time may very well be disproved in the future. All of this is important to know regarding the history of psychology. We can see how questions were addressed in the past, recognize how the knowledge of the brain and its functions developed, and learn that questioning science is a must as not every theory is going to be correct.

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?
A lot of this information was new to me. I think that is going to be a trend as we progress through the book. However, it did build on the information we have previously learned. Whereas the previous chapter discussed thoughts and explanations for various psychological processes, this chapter dove into how those theories were examined and backed or disproved by scientific evidence. These experiments took place alongside the development of further questions and theories in need of exploration. Thus, the reader is able to place the scientific experiments in the context of philosophical developments. To that end, it is also easy to relate how philosophy and psychology often go hand in hand as discussed in the very first chapter. Slowly, we are making our way through the great story that is the history of psychology.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to further investigate the role that animals play in psychological research.

6b) Why?
I noticed that many of the psychologists had to use animals in order to come to their conclusions. This included several rather invasive and complex procedure. As someone who is interested in animal science, I would like to know how the role of animals in science has changed throughout the course of history. It would also be helpful to realize the similarities and differences between human and animal brains and nervous systems to possibly better understand the choice of animal in one’s research.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
I had many ideas about the reading many of which I expressed above. I was most surprised by the amount of knowledge gained about the brain and nervous system in such a short amount of time and at a time when the advanced technologies of the 21st century were not present. It was also surprising to see how many of these theories hold true today and how each idea produces new questions to be examined in several different ways by several different people which in turn leads to further research and development. Such is the way of science I guess. Still, it was interesting to see how these developments occurred and fit them into the big puzzle we call the history of psychology.

8) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Phrenology, doctrine of the skull, anecdotal evidence, ablation, Hermann von Helmholtz, materialism, conservation of energy, vitalism, neural impulses, trichromatic theory, binocular vision, unconscious inference

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
I found the topic of the function of the nervous system to be the most interesting.
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
It was interesting to me because it showed what they first thought and how they thought it worked. I like to look back on history and see what they first thought and see how that varies from what we know now. It is also cool to see how the ideas evolve and change but they all seem to grow form someone asking the first question.
2a) What person did you find interesting? Theodor Bischoff
2b) Why were they interesting to you?
I found him interesting because he did studies on people’s heads that were beheaded. He was trying to figure out if the guillotine was a humane way of killing people and if they could feel the pain after they had died.
3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
I thought the overall message of the chapter was interesting.
3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
I thought it was interesting. I like physiology and how things work. I thought it was cool that they started to figure that out way back then. I was surprised that they were starting to understand theories such as motor aphasia and sensory aphasia and were able to attribute it to certain parts of the brain. I thought it was cool to learn about phrenology and how they used the doctrine of the skull to see if people were smart or not.
4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
In this chapter you understand where the idea of psychology was starting to come from. You can see that people are interested in how the brain works and what it controls. So you can see that someone will want to know why people do what they do.
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?
It builds on the last chapter and people being interested in how the brain functions and controls different parts of the body.
6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about Theodor Bischoff
6b) Why?
He studied people’s heads that were beheaded to see if they were still conscious. I think that is crazy and would like to know more about why and how he did it.
7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
8) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Motor aphasia, sensory aphasia, phrenology, doctrine of the skull, Theodor Bischoff

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
The specific topic i found to be most interesting was Bell's doctrine of the specific energy of nerves. As long as Mullers "contributions" to it.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I found this interesting because the book stated that "we are only aware of the action of our nervous system, which conveys information of the world to us" and this is something I have never really thought about so it definitely made me think. We can all perceive the world in different ways based on our nervous systems.

2a) What person did you find interesting?
I think Josef Gall was the most interesting person in chapter 3.

2b) Why were they interesting to you?
I found him interesting because of his work in identifying and locating the faculties of the brain. He started his research in phrenology when he was young because of an observation he made at school. I think that is crazy that we was thinking so logically at such a young age. I also find it interesting whenever someone is excommunicated from the catholic church for a reason that at the time was so out there that they were anti-religious.

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
I think the main message of this chapter is the scientific and biological side of psychology and the contributions from that side of it.

3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
I found this chapter interesting because I find biology in general to be an interesting topic especially when it deals with the human body.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think that most of the topics in this chapter are useful to understanding psychology's history. Especially knowing that psychology stems from biology and physiology.

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 my biopsychology class we learned a lot about the brain and its faculties, which we learned about in this chapter.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
6b) Why?
I would like to learn more about how the experiments that lead to finding the specific faculties of the brain. This topic was interesting to me and it is just crazy how the brain works.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
Unfortunately no questions came up while I was reading this chapter. I am still trying to get myself to think in such away that evokes further questioning into what I'm reading.

8) Terms: specific energy of nerves; phrenology; Josef Gall; Johannes Müller; nervous system

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
One topic I found interesting was the guillotine and how it helped develop the scientists theories of the nervous system at this time.
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
It was interesting to me because the guillotine was developed as a humane device opposed to executioners who sometimes needed multiple tries. However, they discovered that after the decapitation, the bodies would still twitch. This led Theodor Bischoff to investigate if the body died directly after the impact or if it was just a reaction.
2a) What person did you find interesting?
I thought that Phineas Gage was interesting.
2b) Why were they interesting to you?
I thought he was interesting because of the major trauma that happened in his life. He was injured before modern medicine and he walked away from his accident. His recovery only lasted a few months, and when he was injured, he only temporarily lost consciousness. It also interests me how he was able to go from a dependable guy before the accident to a undependable guy after the accident.
3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
I thought that the meaning of the chapter was how science related to psychology. I think that it also showed how science developed theories in psychology.
3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
I thought it was interesting, because it showed how integrated the different sciences are and how often different researchers could build upon different areas than they started in.
4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I thought the most useful thing to understand history would be the Bell-Magendie law. I thought that this part of the chapter was interesting and it showed that even when discovering something new, multiple people could discover it at the same time.
5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?
It built on what we learned in other classes by integrating topics that we have already learned about. We learn about the nervous system while we are in biology classes, but learning about the reasons why they studied the nervous system helped us build upon our knowledge.
6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about the brain and it’s functions.
6b) Why?
I would like to learn more about it because it interests me how part of a brain can be damaged, and that person could be brain damaged, or their personality could be altered. Still, in another accident, the brain could be damaged in a slightly different position and the person could recover almost fully.
7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
One thought I had was, what if two different people had discovered the same thing today, how would they share the title? We put Bell and Magendie’s last names together to identify their findings, however this would not work as well today, and my question was what would we do with two identical findings?
8) Once you are done with your post make list of the terms and terminology you used in your post.
Phineas Gage, psychology, Bell-Magendie Law, nervous system.

1a) What topic did you find interesting?

I found the guillotine studies really interesting.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?

I think the guillotine studies are interesting because they lead into research about reflex action and where the nervous system actually is. I also find the question of: how long do people who are decapitated keep consciousness, really interesting.

2a) What person did you find interesting?

I find Broca very interesting.

2b) Why were they interesting to you?

The research on motor aphasia and localization is an interesting topic because that discovery lead to an influx of research that every function and emotion might have a spot in the brain. I also think that the case of Phineas Gage is interesting because brain functioning after brain injuries is really cool. The fact that a person lived through that kind of a brain injury but it changed his personality is amazing and has tie-ins to the nature vs. nurture argument.

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

I think the message of this chapter was that psychology turned very scientific after the guillotine studies and shifted the view from just thought processes to actual brain chemistry and how the nervous system actually communicates to the rest of the body. This was a big leap for the biological psychology area and the fact that we learned that the brain makeup has a lot to do with how we behave.

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

I find this very interesting because I believe that our brain chemistry and our brain structures impact the way we think and respond. I am interested in where consciousness actually comes from and consciousness is connected to the neurons and nervous system. The stories of how this research came about are interesting because you don’t hear about a lot of that stuff happening today.

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

I think learning about Broca and the people that followed in his footsteps is the most useful information because that showed how one person researched a tiny part of the brain, made an important discovery and then the people who followed him took his idea and ran with it. If that hadn’t happened, who knows how long it would have taken us to find out that specific abilities are located in different areas of the brain.

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

This builds on to my knowledge of the history of psychology by reinstating the fact that psychology has come a long way in a short period of time. This chapter also added to the fact that psychological science is a very important field and is still expanding and growing. Recent discoveries are still happening and history is currently being made. It also taught me that a lot of the biological discoveries that where being made in the 19th century and before are still very important to psychology today. We still don’t know a lot of things about the brain but we have come along way in a short amount of time.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about the guillotine studies.

6b) Why?

I find them super intriguing and I want to know if the studies were accurately done since they happened in the 1700’s.

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

How ethical were the guillotine studies? Also, would we still be able to do the kind of studies that Broca did on the patients with aphasias? Also, are there animal protection laws as a result of the experiments done on the dogs that had their spinal chords cut or do we still do that stuff?

8) Terms: guillotine studies, Broca, motor aphasia, Phineas Gage, nature vs. nurture, nervous system, biological psychology.

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
I found the topic of how the nervous system functions to be the most interesting.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I thought it was very interesting to read about how after the head had be detached from the body that there we still muscle and eye movements that occurred. I think the way Theodor Bischoff tested for consciousness after the people had been beheaded. He tested for consciousness by thrusting fingers toward the eyes, placing smelling salts under the nose, or cruelly saying “You’re pardoned” spoken to them to a person immediately after the execution took place. He concluded that the twitching that took place after the guillotine execution was just an involuntary response, which also reassured the fact that consciousness resides in the brain and ends at the exact moment of the execution.

2a) What person did you find interesting?
I found Phineas Gage to be the most interesting person in the chapter.

2b) Why were they interesting to you?
Well for starters, he survived having a 3 foot metal rod go through his skull. I find it even more interesting that he was only unconscious for a brief period of time and was able to walk himself to a place to get medical assistance. I am intrigued by the fact that his personality changed after the injury. I understand that since his frontal lobes we punctured, but I wouldn’t think that it would cause such drastic changes in one’s personality.

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
I think the overall message of this chapter was to help the reader better under the history of the brain and how it functions. It also did a good job of linking how how the history of the brain relates to the history of psychology.

3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
It was very interesting to me, I have always loved learning about how the brain functions. Its interesting to learn about why we do the things we do.

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
I think all the section about the nervous system are the most important. I say this because knowing how the nervous system is setup helps a person to be able to better understand why a person emits the behaviors they do.

5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?
This built on to my biopsychology class I took last semester. I knew a lot about the nervous system, but I did not know the history behind it. I really enjoyed how much it related to my class I took last semester. It made reading it a lot easier because I already knew a lot of the terminology.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about Joseph Guillotin and the guillotine.

6b) Why?
I would like to know why he came up with an invention like the guillotine. I also don’t know anything about Joseph Guillotin, so it would just be interesting to learn more about him and what else he may have contributed to the history of psychology.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
I am still just really confused as to how Phineas Gage lived after his accident. And since he did live why was there such a drastic change in his personality and work ethic?

Terms: Phineas Gage, Joseph Guillotin, guillotine, psychology, nervous system, Theodor Bischoff

1a) What topic did you find interesting? The question, "Could science be objective and value free, and did scientific discoveries always mean "progress?", was interesting to me.
1b) Why was it interesting to you? I found it interesting because it was a question I had never considered before. Throughout school I was always told science was fact, but I was always skeptical of it too. Scientists are always learning more from research, which can be viewed as progress, but it could be argued that scientists will never know when no more research could prove their current theories wrong.

2a) What person did you find interesting? I found Hermann von Helmholtz to be interesting.
2b) Why were they interesting to you? The text called him the person who built the "bridge between physiology and psychology that thousands of workers today go back and forth upon." This was interesting to me because the relationship between philosophy and psychology was discussed in previous chapters. I find it interesting that there are several other areas of study to which psychology relates.

3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter? The overall message of the chapter discussed physically being in relationship to psychology.
3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not? It was fairly boring to me because I was having a difficult time relating what I was reading to any other prior (and interesting or useful) knowledge.

4) 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 Enlightenment period is important to the history of psychology because this period of time was focused on learning from science and questioning "truth." In doing so, more research was done and more was discovered about in the field of psychology from a scientific perspective.

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? Last week we discussed in History of Psychology class whether or not "truth" was real. I think this chapter, in it's discussion of scientific reasoning, proves that we can think we are getting closer to truth but in reality it is a social construct.

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about? I want to learn more about the difference between phrenology and physiognomy.
6b) Why? Both areas seem similar to me and I do not fully understand what either of them are.

7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter? What are the similarities and differences of phrenology and physiology?

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

1a) This whole chapter was really awesome to read about. I think I’ve mentioned before that I have a huge interest in neurology and how it can be integrated into psychology. The topic I found most intriguing is ablation.
1b) It is kind of crazy how much we have learned from research done by people like Flourens have taught us. Because of this research we know that the cerebral cortex operates as a whole, rather than separate parts. Obviously it is unethical to do so on humans subjects for purposing only to see what would happen. However, it has taught us some things and because of it, we now have better, alternative ways of doing some of this research.
2a) I found the most interesting person to be Phineas Gage. 
2b) This person is so interesting because his case was special during this time. He was still alive with a metal rod that had shot through his head. This stunned so many people and the effect it had on his personality was really interesting to science community. He was so lucky he survived this accident. Gage was no longer himself afterwards but still managed to have lived on for another 12 years.
3a) This chapter has so much to offer as far as learning how things have developed. Vision, specific areas of the brain, to hearing, to learning about the synapse, it was pretty dense with information. 
3b) I loved this chapter a lot. It was really interesting to see who had what ideas and at what time periods this all happened. We’ve all learned about the Phineas Gage case and “Tan.” But some of the background information that led to the understanding of how and why it can occur.
4) I think the most useful are ideas like phrenology, that appeared but died quickly. It helps to understand the progression science has made. Yes, it was wrong in many aspects, but we have learned from that and were capable of developing those ideas into more complex ones leading up to what we now know today. Without having gone through those, we wouldn’t have progressed.
5) This chapter has helped my understanding of why some ideas don’t work, because they have been done in the past and proven wrong. It also helps me better understand some aspects of biopsychology. In that class we didn’t discuss how the knowledge came to be exactly, it wasn’t as in depth like this chapter.
6a)  I would like to learn more about sensory aphasia. 
6b) It seems like such an interesting topic. It’s probably not that common today, but I have no idea. The chapter only mentions a couple of cases. Does it happen to a lot of people? Does it occur due to damage like gangrene or is it something else? Is it something that happens congenital?
7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter? I was just amazed by how much was being discovered in such a small time. I feel like I haven’t seen that in today’s society (or I just don’t pay enough attention). Do these many breakthroughs happen in such a short period of time today? If so, which breakthroughs? How did so many geniuses exist so long ago, but don’t today? (Again, I could be just unknowledgeable or dense about current events.)

TERMS:
Phineas Gage
“Tan”
Ablation
Phrenology
Flourens
Synapse
Cerebral Cortex
Sensory Aphasia

1a) What topic did you find interesting?
I for some reason found Bell-Magendie law interesting even though it was cruel in its discovery.
1b) Why was it interesting to you?
I never really knew that there were two parts to the spinal cord before it joins into the spinal cord, the posterior and anterior roots. Though based on amount of research I would just call it the Magendie law. This guy must have inherited some surgical skill from his father since he was able to do his ability to perform these operations, especially in the time he was in. I found this law interesting because I never really thought you could have use of a limb without having feeling in it and the opposite of that where you don’t have use of it but still have feeling. Though I didn’t like the how he went about the experiment with the puppies, it was very interesting to read about.

2a) What person did you find interesting?
Sir Charles Bell

2b) Why were they interesting to you?
Because I don’t understand how he somehow got credit for basically talking about something with his friends. To me he just seemed like a spoiled rich kid that wanted to throw a tantrum when he didn’t get his way because he tried it twice. He used his friends who were high up in power (or whatever) to pull strings. Hell if that’s all it takes to get your name on research like that, I know a friend who should get co credit for liquid stitches.
3a) What do you think of the overall message of the chapter?
I think that at the time this was ground breaking research, it sparked so much in-depth research on the nervous system and disorders in it. It all had to start somewhere and thanks to the people in this chapter we have the knowledge we have today.
3b) Was it interesting to you? Why or why not?
It was in a historical context, but it still seemed a bit cruel in the way they did their research. Yes I understand they did the best with what they had but to me permanently taking away an animals legs and/or feeling in them is extremely cruel,

4) What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology?
How that people suffering head wounds who lived back then became case studies for scientists, it kind of relates today in how we do Quasi Experiments.
5) How, in what ways, does this chapter relate (build on) to what you have already learned about the History of Psychology or to material you have learned in other classes?

6a) What topic would you like to learn more about?
Phineas Gage
6b) Why?
Because though I’ve heard of him, it still seems odd to me how he survived what he did. He was an interesting guy and one of those people who suffered a head wound that lived and became a case study.
7) What ideas or questions related to what you were reading did you have while reading the chapter?
Who comes up with these names for the periods of history, like where did the Enlightenment period first get named that?

8) Terms:
Bell-Magendie law, spinal cord, posterior root, anterior root, Quasi Experiments, Magendie, nervous system, Enlightenment

1a) What topic did you find interesting?

I found it very interesting that enlightenment thinking and Newtonian influence spread so far that it even influenced the United States’ constitution in regards to equilibrium and balance between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches.

1b) Why was it interesting to you?

Not only was it interesting to me because I did not know that, but also because I don’t think we think that way anymore in our current government. I am not incredibly knowledgable on the subject, but I don’t think there are a substantial amount of things based on science anymore in our government.

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

I found Robert Whytt very interesting because of his work with the reflex, which was incredible. He accurately summarized years of research on the role of the spinal cord in mediating reflex action, and his work was the first extensive treatment of reflexes to be based on experimental research. He distinguished between voluntary and involuntary actions, the former under the control of the “will,” with the action originating in and requiring an intact brain, and the latter controlled through the spinal cord.

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

Overall I thought it was a good message to send that science is important in many different aspects of our world and can be useful in everyday life as well as very important matters.

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

It was somewhat interesting, but science and history are not my best subjects.

4) 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 useful information about different subjects I have learned already but did not know the history of, so a lot of the content will be very useful to me overall.

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?

I think that it makes the point that it is important to know and understand history and it really builds on and highlights that in many different topics from this chapter.

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

I found the information on brain injuries interesting and wouldn’t mind learning more about it.

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

I didn’t really have any questions related to the reading this time.

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

enlightenment

Newtonian influence

equilibrium

reflex

voluntary action

involuntary action

brain
spinal cord

1a)
I found a couple of different topics interesting from this chapter, including the spinal dogs and phrenology.
1b)
I thought it was interesting how much could be learned from spinal dogs. The scientists Fritsch and Hitzig were able to infer a lot of things, and prove the existence of a synapse, from observing simple reflexes from a dogs spine simply being detached from the brain. I found phrenology and the doctrine of the skull to be interesting because even though it was made out to be a joke by the scientific community as much as alchemy, in theory it was a decent idea. I also find it interesting that it reminds me a lot of palm readers, mind readers, hypnotists and other characters that bring to mind pictures of gypsies. I'm curious as to why I don't see more scientists trying to actively put down these supernatural money enticers by exposing their anecdotal evidence. A palm reader just opened a shop in the tourist base of my home town; why society still accepts these ploys is still beyond me.

2a)
I found Helmholtz to be an interesting segment of this chapter.
2b)
Hermann Von Helmholtz, whose passion was physics, became a large contributor to many important factors from fields of science ranging from the brain, to eye sight and hearing. Although he didn't didn't get to follow his passion until the end of his career, he attributed a lot of great things to science as a whole along the way. He measured reaction time with shocks administered at different distances with the reaction time noted which helped prove materialism over vitalism. He invinted a device for examining the retina, the opthalmoscope, and later added the trichromatic theory to the field of sight. Helmholtz also added to the field of hearing via his resonance theory which based different frequencies of sound receptors in the basilar membrane.

3a)
I think the overall message was to inform us of the issues encountered trying to understand and make sense of the nervous system.
3b)
I thought the inclusion of the multiple phenomena holds accurate representation of what the author was trying to portray to us: there are certain zeitgeists among different periods like the enlightenment that help facilitate the thinking of the entire public. For this chapter, it showed how intelligent researchers worked with what was the current belief of the nervous system and tried to take the next step toward furthering the understanding as a whole. It was very interesting to watch the development of specific energies of nerves into the understanding of different localizations of the brain.

4)
Probably what I could understand best from the chapter that related to psychology was that the shift from theoretical to experimental science was fully evident. With this shift accompanied a shift in the mindset of scientists and researchers toward a curiosity of why and how the brain uses its information and abilities separate from the previous mechanical curiosities.

5)
It built on to the ideas I had of previous theories in psychology and how they came about. In this chapter they formed from the thoughts of how the body and mind work mechanically combined with a need to recognize human characteristics via systems like phrenology.

6a)
I'd like to learn more about phrenology.
6b)
I am just curious of the actual correlations that could be made to specific character traits of people based on shapes of skulls; chances are some correlations could be made. I would then be interested to see if these findings would match up with techniques psychologists use to determine personality characteristics today, just out of pure curiosity.

7)
I got my ideas and questions out in the previous question.

8)
Phrenology, doctrine of the skull, anecdotal evidence, materialism, vitalism, trichromatic theory, opthalmoscope, multiple, zeitgeist, enlightenment, localization, specific energy of nerves, synapse,