As we have talked a good deal in class about school psychology, my reflection and link for this week focus on the industrial-organizational aspect of psychology. Our readings for the week in the blue book mentioned the Hawthorne studies, conducted in the Hawthorne Works factory outside of Chicago. I decided to focus on one of the experiments, conducted by Mayo, that took place on an assembly line. Mayo was interested in how fatigue and job monotony affected productivity and how to control them through variables such as rest breaks, work hours, temperature and humidity. "In the process," says one of the links listed below, "he stumbled upon a principle of human motivation that would help to revolutionize the theory and practice of management." Interestingly, it appears Mayo used women for his study, removing them from their position working on the assembly line of a factory and isolating them, frequently changing their work environments. I couldn't find any information as to why Mayo decided to use women, but I would guess he had some sort of motivation to do so.. ?
The first link below gives good description of Mayo's method, including having the team of 6 women be observed by a friendly coworker instead of a domineering supervisor. Be sure to check out the conclusion, such that after series of changes that had positive and negative effects, the team was most productive at the very end of the experiment when placed back in their original working conditions! The key concept here is all about how one feels about their work environment - their level of control and freedom in the situation, their willingness to participate, etc. It's really interesting! Check it out: http://accel-team.com/motivation/hawthorne_02.html
I found the best explanation of the Hawthorne studies as a whole, including diagrams for another of the experiments, here: http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/handouts/bank_wiring.htm
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Here's the Link!
Here's the link to the NASP newsletter that I talked about in my reflection. The artcile is found on pages 1, 26-27 and is entitled "The 1968 National Invitational Conference of School Psychologists: Is This the 41st Anniversary of NASP?" Enjoy!
http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/wscott/nasp.pdf
http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/wscott/nasp.pdf
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
History of a Psychiatric Hospital and Whatever happened to Little Albert
On his pages, "The Psych Files", Michael Britt has an interview you can listen to about the history of the Hudson River Psychiatric Hospital which is quite informative.
He also has an audio presentation regarding what really happened to Little Albert with good references on the page.
Week of 3/24 Reflection
This week we read about different applied fields in psychology. The field that I am interested in and will be pursuing a future in is School Psychology. The blue book discussed the many people that can be accredited for developing the field. The first school psychologist, Arnold L. Gesell impressed me so much! I feel like he should get more credit and attention than he does. He developed a set of normative tables on children that not only school psychologists use, but also parents, medical professions, and other educational professionals! Can you imagine where we would be in so many child focused fields if Gesell hadn't put this table together?
Also I wanted to add a little bit more about why the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) was founded. The book briefly mentioned the tiff between the APA and school psychologists. Their Divsion (16) was present, but school psychologist wanted more from the association. I will post the NASP newsletter, Communique, which includes an article that goes into more detail about why and how NASP was created. Some of the reasons are as follows: identity, represent specific interests, strongly support non-doctoral professionals, and understand the complexities of working in public schools.
Also I wanted to add a little bit more about why the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) was founded. The book briefly mentioned the tiff between the APA and school psychologists. Their Divsion (16) was present, but school psychologist wanted more from the association. I will post the NASP newsletter, Communique, which includes an article that goes into more detail about why and how NASP was created. Some of the reasons are as follows: identity, represent specific interests, strongly support non-doctoral professionals, and understand the complexities of working in public schools.
Link and Reflection
Here is a link to a website that nicely details the differences between a Ph.D. and a Psy.D. At one point in my college career I seriously considered going for a Psy.D. after Beloit and becoming a clinical psychologist, but after careful thought I chose my law school path. However, I still believe that the Psy.D. degree is very valuable and a great degree to have in psychology.
http://www.internationalgraduate.net/psyd.htm
After our assigned readings, I began to wonder what would have happened in psychology if WWI and WWII had not occurred. WWII is frequently cited as helping the U.S. pull out of the Great Depression, but I think that psychology also benefited from U.S. involvement. The field of clinical psychology was somewhat established pre-war, but there were still many steps to take and questions to be answered. During and after both wars, the government and VA hospitals gave enormous amounts of money to psychologists for testing and treatment of soldiers. This gave the field of psychology resources and test subjects that otherwise would have been impossible to amount. Psychologists took advantage of this and developed various mental and intelligence tests, therapies, and theories of psychopathology. As a result, the Boulder Conference, along with other smaller ones, were required to unify the quickly growing field.
I believe that if it wasn't for either war, the field of psychology would not have developed nearly as quickly. There would have been no demand for a large-scale conference in 1949. In high school history I learned about numerous effects and influences that WWII had on many parts of our country, but there was never any mention about psychology. I think that should change because WWII had a direct role in the expansion of our discipline, and we would be years behind without that influence.
http://www.internationalgraduate.net/psyd.htm
After our assigned readings, I began to wonder what would have happened in psychology if WWI and WWII had not occurred. WWII is frequently cited as helping the U.S. pull out of the Great Depression, but I think that psychology also benefited from U.S. involvement. The field of clinical psychology was somewhat established pre-war, but there were still many steps to take and questions to be answered. During and after both wars, the government and VA hospitals gave enormous amounts of money to psychologists for testing and treatment of soldiers. This gave the field of psychology resources and test subjects that otherwise would have been impossible to amount. Psychologists took advantage of this and developed various mental and intelligence tests, therapies, and theories of psychopathology. As a result, the Boulder Conference, along with other smaller ones, were required to unify the quickly growing field.
I believe that if it wasn't for either war, the field of psychology would not have developed nearly as quickly. There would have been no demand for a large-scale conference in 1949. In high school history I learned about numerous effects and influences that WWII had on many parts of our country, but there was never any mention about psychology. I think that should change because WWII had a direct role in the expansion of our discipline, and we would be years behind without that influence.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Blog and Link for 3/24
http://www.apa.org/divisions/div12/homepage.html
This is a link to the clinical psychology division of the APA. I thought it would be interesting to look at since it took so long for the APA to accept clincial psychology into the organization.
I wanted to comment on how the VA and the government really had to push the APA and the AAAP to come together to help the war veterans after WWII. Benjamin, in the blue book, discussed how it wasn't until the war ended that the need for clinical psychologists was pushed to the forefront. Benjamin also commented on how many of the clinical psychologists of the time, although practicing had not ever really had the appropriate training, and there was a substantial lack of research confirming or denying the effectiveness of certain clinical techniques and methods. What really suprised me was that because the demand for psychologists was so high after the war that unqualified, or should I say MORE unqualified, psychologists were treating war veterans suffering from a multitude of maladies, most common being PTSD. So this all made me wonder, what sort of mistakes doing you think psychologists made? Do you think there were misdiagnoses, any that were harmful?
This is a link to the clinical psychology division of the APA. I thought it would be interesting to look at since it took so long for the APA to accept clincial psychology into the organization.
I wanted to comment on how the VA and the government really had to push the APA and the AAAP to come together to help the war veterans after WWII. Benjamin, in the blue book, discussed how it wasn't until the war ended that the need for clinical psychologists was pushed to the forefront. Benjamin also commented on how many of the clinical psychologists of the time, although practicing had not ever really had the appropriate training, and there was a substantial lack of research confirming or denying the effectiveness of certain clinical techniques and methods. What really suprised me was that because the demand for psychologists was so high after the war that unqualified, or should I say MORE unqualified, psychologists were treating war veterans suffering from a multitude of maladies, most common being PTSD. So this all made me wonder, what sort of mistakes doing you think psychologists made? Do you think there were misdiagnoses, any that were harmful?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
CBT - link and response for last week
While talking about behaviorism, I was thinking about how it applies directly to our lives as psychology students. Beyond knowing about classical and operant conditioning (which helps us shape our professors to stand in corners), how can it directly help us if we decide to go into careers in psychology?
Cognitive-behavioral therapy is a type of therapy that we've all heard about. It is a combination of studying behavior (what we do) and studying the cognition that causes our behavior (what we think). It's an interesting way that we can take Watson's idea of the "prediction and control" of behavior and apply it to a theraputic, clinical practice. I think it even helps to combine the psychology of the late 19th century (before behaviorism), the study of consciousness and its processes, with behaviorism.
Going beyond that, I was thinking about a discussion question I would have liked to ask in class last week. Do you agree or disagree with the "prediction" aspect of Watson's goal of psychology? How about the "control" aspect? I think it's interesting that he lumped the two together. In earlier psychology, we were interested in reaction time, for example, which would help us to predict aspects of human consciousness. However, when did control come into the picture? When did it become desirable to control humans through the study of their mind/consciousness/behavior? This is something that I think applied psychology really influenced. Without applied psychology, we never would have thought to control aspects of people, especially not their behavior. Yet with the research produced in the subfield of behaviorism, we learned that people can be predicted, controlled, and manipulated. This is such a far cry from any ideas that the earliest psychologists had, but they are some of the most pervasive ideas to this day.
Cognitive-behavioral therapy is a type of therapy that we've all heard about. It is a combination of studying behavior (what we do) and studying the cognition that causes our behavior (what we think). It's an interesting way that we can take Watson's idea of the "prediction and control" of behavior and apply it to a theraputic, clinical practice. I think it even helps to combine the psychology of the late 19th century (before behaviorism), the study of consciousness and its processes, with behaviorism.
Going beyond that, I was thinking about a discussion question I would have liked to ask in class last week. Do you agree or disagree with the "prediction" aspect of Watson's goal of psychology? How about the "control" aspect? I think it's interesting that he lumped the two together. In earlier psychology, we were interested in reaction time, for example, which would help us to predict aspects of human consciousness. However, when did control come into the picture? When did it become desirable to control humans through the study of their mind/consciousness/behavior? This is something that I think applied psychology really influenced. Without applied psychology, we never would have thought to control aspects of people, especially not their behavior. Yet with the research produced in the subfield of behaviorism, we learned that people can be predicted, controlled, and manipulated. This is such a far cry from any ideas that the earliest psychologists had, but they are some of the most pervasive ideas to this day.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Women in Psychiatry
Picture of young Elizabeth BlackwellMany people chose to answer the question regarding women in psychology in its early history. Here is an excerpt from the National Library of Medicine at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/diseases/debates.html about
Women in 19th-Century American Psychiatry
Women were not welcomed into the medical profession during the first half of the 19th century: medical schools did not admit them. Elizabeth Blackwell was the first American woman to gain admission to a medical school and graduated from Geneva (N.Y.) Medical College in 1847. She spearheaded the push for women to enter medicine. With the support of women and some men, 17 medical schools for women were established but after some 50 years all but The Women's Medical College in Philadelphia closed, as all-male medical schools in Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, and elsewhere began opening their doors to a small number of women towards the end of the century.
Many arguments against women becoming physicians were physiological and neurological: would the education and training required make a woman unfit for her "primary duty," childbirth? And was rest (physical and mental) necessary during menstruation? In 1876, noted physician Mary Putnam Jacobi undertook a study of women's physiology, and specifically blood pressure, during menstruation, proving that menstruation posed no physical constraints on women. She entered her paper on the subject for the Boylston Prize at Harvard University anonymously and won it, much to the chagrin of many opponents to women's medical education. (See: M. P. Jacobi, The Question of Rest for Women During Menstruation, New York, 1877).
Psychiatry in the 19th century was based in the mental hospitals. The asylum superintendents voiced divided opinions about employing women doctors. Dr. John Gray of Utica, Dr. Thomas Kirkbride in Philadelphia, and Dr. John Chapin of Willard (N.Y.) wrote letters to their governors opposing the employment of women physicians, but legislatures especially in New York and Pennsylvania mandated they do so. Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, in his 1894 address at The Association meeting, had urged that women take care of women patients. But discrimination prevailed. Women doctors in many institutions received less pay than their male counterparts performing the same work. They were denied promotions and received little recognition, and as a result many did not remain long at the hospitals.
The earliest record of employment of a woman physician in an asylum was in 1869, when Worcester (Mass.) State Hospital hired Dr. Mary Stinson. Iowa followed in 1873, as did Michigan and hospitals elsewhere. Dr. Alice Bennett, M.D., (also the first woman to receive a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania), remained at Norristown, Pennsylvania for 12 years in charge of the women's division, from 1880 to 1892. Gradually, as more women entered medicine, they were employed at state hospitals. Not until after WWII did the numbers of women physicians increase significantly, however. Eventually, psychiatry became a specialty of choice for many women, and a large number of them entered private practice.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Week 8: Reflection & Link
Of the topics we've covered recently, one that I'm most interested in is the concept of eugenics, and how this has played out in our society historically. I'd heard about eugenics through other disciplines before, namely history classes covering WWII and Nazi Germany and a Race Theory course in which I'm currently enrolled, though I wasn't very knowledgeable on the relationship between psychology and eugenics. I think it's safe to say we'd agree our country has progressed to a place in which outright acts of discrimination are unacceptable, and that we pride ourselves on being a so-called equal society. Our past has clearly not always embraced these ideals, however, which we can see through examples of mental (and anthropometric) testing, attempting to dictate hierarchical relations between the races, and the instance of providing tests to determine one's aptitude for a certain vocation or skill. Do you guys think we're sincerely moved to a post-eugenics society? How does the correlation between race and class that characterizes our country support or refute the idea of eugenics? I believe in terms of social psychology, such that we tend to foster relationships with those that live in close proximity to us or tend to favor things with which we are more exposed, that traces of eugenics can still be seen. The class discrepancy plays out in the ways that our cities and neighborhoods are constructed, which dictates how much contact members of different races will have. And, if the majority of resources are allocated to those high up on the social ladder, who will likely be mating with those of similar race and class backgrounds, doesn't that further segregate us? I certainly don't mean to say that we fully support the idea of eugenics (consciously, that is), but I believe it's an important consideration, especially in light of our tendencies to congratulate ourselves on being active members of such an equal and progressive society.
The first link is a short video explaining eugenics, and the second is a professor discussing the relationship between the Nazi doctors, American eugenics, & psychiatry (it's the first of a 3 part series if you're interested).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GcSpV1jioA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKAvtwVhnUk
The first link is a short video explaining eugenics, and the second is a professor discussing the relationship between the Nazi doctors, American eugenics, & psychiatry (it's the first of a 3 part series if you're interested).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GcSpV1jioA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKAvtwVhnUk
More on that little boy named Albert....
Notes Regarding Little Albert’s "Phobia"
When Albert was conditioned again to the rat, 10 days after the initial trials, Albert…
..fell over to the left side, got up on all fours and started to crawl away. On this occasion there was no crying but strange to say, as he started away he began to gurgle and coo, even while leaning far over to the left side to avoid the rat…
- in addition, on this same day he was again conditioned to fear the rabbit, albert’s response was reported as,
…fear reaction slight. Turned to the left and kept face away from the animal but the reaction was never pronounced.
31 days after being shown the rat, Watson reports that when in the same room as the rat "He allowed the rat to crawl towards him without withdrawing"
On the final day of testing when albert was exposed to the rabbit to which he had been conditioned to fear, he did not avoid the rabbit at all. Watson (1920) reports:
..after about a minute he [Albert] reached out tentatively and …touched the rabbit’s ear with his right hand…
Objects Albert was supposedly afraid of, but for which there is no evidence:
Cats
Fur muffs
White furry gloves
Albert’s aunt (who wore fur)
Albert’s mother’s fur coat
A teddy bear
Most overlooked facts:
The study is not an experiment (an experiment requires at least two levels of an independent variable). It is a pilot study at best.
The study had only one subject.
The study has never been replicated.
I thought this was interesting and found it at ....
http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2008/02/19/episode-47-the-little-albert-study-what-you-know-ismostly-wrong/
When Albert was conditioned again to the rat, 10 days after the initial trials, Albert…
..fell over to the left side, got up on all fours and started to crawl away. On this occasion there was no crying but strange to say, as he started away he began to gurgle and coo, even while leaning far over to the left side to avoid the rat…
- in addition, on this same day he was again conditioned to fear the rabbit, albert’s response was reported as,
…fear reaction slight. Turned to the left and kept face away from the animal but the reaction was never pronounced.
31 days after being shown the rat, Watson reports that when in the same room as the rat "He allowed the rat to crawl towards him without withdrawing"
On the final day of testing when albert was exposed to the rabbit to which he had been conditioned to fear, he did not avoid the rabbit at all. Watson (1920) reports:
..after about a minute he [Albert] reached out tentatively and …touched the rabbit’s ear with his right hand…
Objects Albert was supposedly afraid of, but for which there is no evidence:
Cats
Fur muffs
White furry gloves
Albert’s aunt (who wore fur)
Albert’s mother’s fur coat
A teddy bear
Most overlooked facts:
The study is not an experiment (an experiment requires at least two levels of an independent variable). It is a pilot study at best.
The study had only one subject.
The study has never been replicated.
I thought this was interesting and found it at ....
http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2008/02/19/episode-47-the-little-albert-study-what-you-know-ismostly-wrong/
Whatever happened to Little Albert???
Here is an interesting article from Vassar College regarding Watson's study a little more in depth.
However, one thing to note* it appears there is much misrespresentation regarding little Albert and in the study itself. Basically, it seems as if many of the details have been fabricated and glossed over throughout the years.
If you'd like to learn more about this popular study... check it out here....
http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000198/01/BHARRIS.HTM
However, one thing to note* it appears there is much misrespresentation regarding little Albert and in the study itself. Basically, it seems as if many of the details have been fabricated and glossed over throughout the years.
If you'd like to learn more about this popular study... check it out here....
http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000198/01/BHARRIS.HTM
Bizarre science
We discussed the ethics of J.B. Watson's work with "Little Albert" in class. Here is a list of 10 bizarre studies, most of which are psychological (and the two that are not make for interesting speculation regarding the psychology of the researcher).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626281.600-top-10-bizarre-experiments.html?full=true
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Walden II today
Here's a link to the Twin Oaks Community (http://www.twinoaks.org/) that is the continuing communal program that was originally based on Skinner's vision in Walden II.
st pattys day reflection and link
http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/pub/eres/EDSPC715_MCINTYRE/cartoon12.JPG
This link is to a cartoon that I thought was pretty hilarious, dealing with Freud and Pavlov. If you google behaviorism cartoons and go to images there are some pretty hilarious cartoons, a few of which seem to be illustrating a fight between Freud and Pavlov.
I want to reflect on the reading about Behaviorism and its lack of acceptance in the psychological community. I thought it was really interesting that at the beginning of the emergence of psychology there was a shift towards science and proving that psychology was rooted in science and not philosophy, yet once behaviorism came into the picture, rooted in experiments (not many, but some), psychologists were unwilling to give introspection for science.
I was not satisfied with the reasons given for why behaviorism didn't seem to catch on for a few years. I didn't understand the lack of evidence. It must be very hard to push a new point of view onto people when you only have one experiment to rely on. Even then, the one experiment, now, would be considered completely unethical. One of the reasons given for why it was not accepted right away was because it was so practical. To me that doesn't make sense, if something is practical aren't you more likely to believe it...and what does that say about introspection, is it so impractical that it's believable? I don't know I'm just confused I guess.
This link is to a cartoon that I thought was pretty hilarious, dealing with Freud and Pavlov. If you google behaviorism cartoons and go to images there are some pretty hilarious cartoons, a few of which seem to be illustrating a fight between Freud and Pavlov.
I want to reflect on the reading about Behaviorism and its lack of acceptance in the psychological community. I thought it was really interesting that at the beginning of the emergence of psychology there was a shift towards science and proving that psychology was rooted in science and not philosophy, yet once behaviorism came into the picture, rooted in experiments (not many, but some), psychologists were unwilling to give introspection for science.
I was not satisfied with the reasons given for why behaviorism didn't seem to catch on for a few years. I didn't understand the lack of evidence. It must be very hard to push a new point of view onto people when you only have one experiment to rely on. Even then, the one experiment, now, would be considered completely unethical. One of the reasons given for why it was not accepted right away was because it was so practical. To me that doesn't make sense, if something is practical aren't you more likely to believe it...and what does that say about introspection, is it so impractical that it's believable? I don't know I'm just confused I guess.
Monday, March 16, 2009
What to know for the exam on Thursday
People you should be acquainted with for the test on Thursday:
| Ludy Benjamin, Jr. Anna O. (Bertha Pappenheim) Martha Bernays E. Bleuler E.G. Boring F. Brentano J. Breuer M.W. Calkins J.McK. Cattll J-M Charcot C.R. Darwin J. Dewey H. Ebbinghaus G. Fechner P. Flourens | James R. Angell. C.G. Jung O. Kulpe F.J. Gall F. Galton H. Goddard G.S. Hall HY. Helmholtz H.L. Hollingworth L.S. Hollingworth K. Horney W. James J. Jastrow F.A. Mesmer J.S. Mill K. Pearson C. Stumpf | Alfred Adler W. Reich J.P. Rushton W.D. Scott E.B. Titchener M.F. Washburn E. Weber P. Broca C. Wissler R.S. Woodworth H.T. Woolley W. Wundt T. Young L. Witmer H. Munsterberg G.E. Muller |
Concepts you should be acquainted with for the test on Thursday
| Absolute threshold Difference threshold Act psychology Hall on adolescence Early history of APA Analytical psychology Animal magnetism Orgone Applied vs. basic research Brass instrument testing Apperception Young-Helmholtz theory Coca-Cola trial Correlation coefficient First psychological clinic Introspection by analogy Repression Seduction hypothesis Women in psychology | Theory of evolution Cortical localization Theories of consciousness Dream analysis Dynamic psychology Psychophysics Weber and Fechner’s law Free association Forgetting and memory Functionalism Structuralism Genetic psychology Hypnosis Imageless thought Interference theory Introspection Tabula rasa Transference Unconscious | Libido Memory drum Tachistoscope Reaction time Mind-body problem Moral therapy Oedipal Complex Paired-associate learning Penis envy Phrenology Pragmatism Psychoanalysis Reaction time Recapitulation theory Eugenics Resistance Self psychology Serial order effect |
some history on Karen Horney
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/horney.html check out this link for some history on Karen Horney. Thought it was interesting that at a young age she was in love with her brother, but he rejected her... What????
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Psychoanalysis Post and Reflection
Previous to the readings this past week, particularly Hornstein's "The Return of the Repressed: Psychology's Problematic Relations with Psychoanalysis, 1909-1960", I had no idea that psychoanalysis and the larger psychology community in the United States were at odds with each other. Having always learned about psycholanalysis in the context of a psychology class, I was unaware that they had previously tried to establish separate spheres for themselves, and that psychoanalysis was competing with the new psychology in America for scientific authority and establishment. As Horstein's article states, at first psychology was just amused by psychoanalysis and thought it was a passing craze. To some extent it was. Some people tried to capitalize on psychoanalysis by offering fake services. One such person was Alphonse Animus in Chicago. Follow this link to read his story: http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue153/psychoanalysis.html. It seems to me a shame that the two sides had to fight so bitterly to defend themselves. Even though I mostly agree with psychoanalysis's critics, I think new and different ideas are at least worth being explored. If creativity in psychology is suppressed, the field will stagnate. However, I agree with Hornstein that this battle turned out to be a positive experience for psychology: "The psychology that emerged from these wrenching experiences was stronger and more resilient, able to tolerate a greater degree of diversity among its members that would once have been unthinkable." Psychology needed to challenge an opponent and more definately define itself in defense to shake up the field enough for it to be able to move forward
Monday, March 9, 2009
reflection on freud
So, after all of the Freud info. we received this week... I was kind of shocked to realize that after all my years of college, I never even realized that Freud was married. Not only that, but he had 6 kids in his first 9 years of marriage. I guess this shocked me since many times Freud is shown throughout history as someone whose ideas are so far off base, they seem unbelievable. And yet he was a family man too.
I wonder how his wife felt about his ideas on "penis envy" and the oedipal complex. I always assumed he was a single man, possibly against women and their place in society---so imagine my surprise to learn he was a family man.
Also, I found it interesting that it seems like America took a greater interest to Freud than the medical profession in England did. How is Freud perceived in history books in Austria, Paris, and England compared to ours in America? Is there such an emphasis on him in those areas of the world?
After taking this class so far, I'm finding that my opinions on who the most influential person in psychology was is now shifting. When the semester first started, the only person I could think of was Freud, but now I wonder just how influential he really was compared to some of the rest....
I wonder how his wife felt about his ideas on "penis envy" and the oedipal complex. I always assumed he was a single man, possibly against women and their place in society---so imagine my surprise to learn he was a family man.
Also, I found it interesting that it seems like America took a greater interest to Freud than the medical profession in England did. How is Freud perceived in history books in Austria, Paris, and England compared to ours in America? Is there such an emphasis on him in those areas of the world?
After taking this class so far, I'm finding that my opinions on who the most influential person in psychology was is now shifting. When the semester first started, the only person I could think of was Freud, but now I wonder just how influential he really was compared to some of the rest....
Friday, March 6, 2009
post and reflection 3/5
Here is a good link I found with information about Neo Freudians.
http://allpsych.com/personalitysynopsis/psychodynamic.html
I am always very interested in the work of Freud. I always wonder why his studies lead him to the beliefs and principals he developed. I think it is very interesting that every time I read about a new view or idea (such as Freud's psychoanalytic theory0 I find myself trying to fit it to my own life. Sometimes it is easy to find examples abd other times I have to stretch a few things to make it fit. Whenever you introduce some new explanation for the way people behave it is only natural for people to search for the evidence in their own lives. This could be why people have such strong feelings one way or another, either they can identify these ideas in their own life or, in Freud's case, are so disgusted by the ideas that they refuse to accept them. I believe that we can use Freud's ideas to explain some of our behavior and development, but we can alo use many other theories out there. Every person is different and it is impossible to develope one theory that encompasses everything about everyone.
I really liked the work of Karen Horney. It really seemed like she jsut took a lot of Freud's ideas and through them back in his face. I like how she flipped the idea of women being jeaslous of men for having a penis into men being jealous of women for having a womb. I am not sure if she truely believed all of these ideas or if she merely used them to state how rediculous some of Freud's ideas were. I also liked how she stood up and said that men intentially maintained sexual barriers in society because they were threatened by women. She really tried to use her knowledge and field to stand up for women's rights and point out a lot of issues that were not fair for women at the time.
http://allpsych.com/personalitysynopsis/psychodynamic.html
I am always very interested in the work of Freud. I always wonder why his studies lead him to the beliefs and principals he developed. I think it is very interesting that every time I read about a new view or idea (such as Freud's psychoanalytic theory0 I find myself trying to fit it to my own life. Sometimes it is easy to find examples abd other times I have to stretch a few things to make it fit. Whenever you introduce some new explanation for the way people behave it is only natural for people to search for the evidence in their own lives. This could be why people have such strong feelings one way or another, either they can identify these ideas in their own life or, in Freud's case, are so disgusted by the ideas that they refuse to accept them. I believe that we can use Freud's ideas to explain some of our behavior and development, but we can alo use many other theories out there. Every person is different and it is impossible to develope one theory that encompasses everything about everyone.
I really liked the work of Karen Horney. It really seemed like she jsut took a lot of Freud's ideas and through them back in his face. I like how she flipped the idea of women being jeaslous of men for having a penis into men being jealous of women for having a womb. I am not sure if she truely believed all of these ideas or if she merely used them to state how rediculous some of Freud's ideas were. I also liked how she stood up and said that men intentially maintained sexual barriers in society because they were threatened by women. She really tried to use her knowledge and field to stand up for women's rights and point out a lot of issues that were not fair for women at the time.
Week 7: Link and Reflection
I decided, in light of the many posts about Freud this week, to focus my reflection on the conference at Clark University in 1909. As we learned in the video, this was Freud's one and only visit to the states, at the request of G. Stanley Hall. Apparently Freud was appalled at the 20th celebration of Clark University, as the university in Leipzig was over 500 years old at the time. I am really interested as to how receptive the audiences were, seeing as how Freud delivered his three lectures in German. Bill, do you have any additional information on this? It seems fitting that Freud would decide to do such a thing, what with his opinion of the US and all.
I would be really curious to read first hand accounts of the conference at Clark, as it brought together not only Freud, but also Carl Jung - outside of Europe, nonetheless. I decided to do a little investigative work about Clark and the historic conference that took place there in 1909. It's interesting to reflect on the idea that, while probably any student of psychology would known Freud and Jung's names automatically, their fame wasn't widely prevalent in the states before their visit. Clark, however, had gained international attention for housing the second graduate program to open in the country as well as general promotion of quality scholarship. Hall's focus of the conference was "Challenge Convention, Change our World," a motto which Clark University still embraces.
Clark will be celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the conference this year, emphasizing the role of psychology in a world that is undergoing rapid change. Presenters will reflect upon how the conference aided in developing the role of science to help sever national and cultural boundaries, as well as how Hall's "user-oriented" vision centered on the "unity of inquiry, learning, and teaching." Beyond this, the centennial conference will strive to understand how psychology has to change in the face of globalization (yet increasing localization), and how these large issues can be tied back to local communities, social justice and social progress. Field trip?
You can read about the Centenntial Conference to be held this year at Clark University here: http://www.clarku.edu/~psydept/centennial/index.cfm
I would be really curious to read first hand accounts of the conference at Clark, as it brought together not only Freud, but also Carl Jung - outside of Europe, nonetheless. I decided to do a little investigative work about Clark and the historic conference that took place there in 1909. It's interesting to reflect on the idea that, while probably any student of psychology would known Freud and Jung's names automatically, their fame wasn't widely prevalent in the states before their visit. Clark, however, had gained international attention for housing the second graduate program to open in the country as well as general promotion of quality scholarship. Hall's focus of the conference was "Challenge Convention, Change our World," a motto which Clark University still embraces.
Clark will be celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the conference this year, emphasizing the role of psychology in a world that is undergoing rapid change. Presenters will reflect upon how the conference aided in developing the role of science to help sever national and cultural boundaries, as well as how Hall's "user-oriented" vision centered on the "unity of inquiry, learning, and teaching." Beyond this, the centennial conference will strive to understand how psychology has to change in the face of globalization (yet increasing localization), and how these large issues can be tied back to local communities, social justice and social progress. Field trip?
You can read about the Centenntial Conference to be held this year at Clark University here: http://www.clarku.edu/~psydept/centennial/index.cfm
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Freud Link and Reflection
This is a link to a site that has all kinds of information about dream theory and how we sleep. There's a good overview of Freud's theory as well.
http://www.dreammoods.com/dreaminformation/dreamtheory/freud.htm
What interests me most about Freud are his dream theories. Freud believed that our dreams reflected our unconscious urges and impulses (the id). In everyday we life we have to suppress the id, but when we sleep it is free to express itself. However, our mind still protects us when we sleep from scary thoughts and impulses by coding frightening dreams into confusing symbols or stories. Personally, I've had many dreams where I've woken up thinking "what did that mean?" So, based on my experiences it would seem like Freud's theory is perfectly logical and must be true.
I wish it were this easy, but it's not. In Physiological Psychology we learned that many scientists believe that dreams are merely random images and ideas streaming through our cortex while we sleep. Everyday we have new information that goes to our brain, and activity does not stop while we sleep. This also makes sense to me.
This leaves me, like many people, completely confused about what dreams are and what do they mean. I could counter Freud's theory by pointing out that dogs have dreams, so do they have a suppressed id like humans? I don't think dreaming is exclusive to humans, so this point may support the scientists theory. But, in response to the scientists I could ask if my dreams are just random thought processes in my cortex, then why do they have ongoing plots sometimes that make perfect sense like a film?? This point seems to support Freud's theory. So I'm back to where I began- confused about dreams and really wanting to actually know the mechanism and meaning. Hopefully in our generation it will be figured out, but I highly doubt it. Have a good break!
http://www.dreammoods.com/dreaminformation/dreamtheory/freud.htm
What interests me most about Freud are his dream theories. Freud believed that our dreams reflected our unconscious urges and impulses (the id). In everyday we life we have to suppress the id, but when we sleep it is free to express itself. However, our mind still protects us when we sleep from scary thoughts and impulses by coding frightening dreams into confusing symbols or stories. Personally, I've had many dreams where I've woken up thinking "what did that mean?" So, based on my experiences it would seem like Freud's theory is perfectly logical and must be true.
I wish it were this easy, but it's not. In Physiological Psychology we learned that many scientists believe that dreams are merely random images and ideas streaming through our cortex while we sleep. Everyday we have new information that goes to our brain, and activity does not stop while we sleep. This also makes sense to me.
This leaves me, like many people, completely confused about what dreams are and what do they mean. I could counter Freud's theory by pointing out that dogs have dreams, so do they have a suppressed id like humans? I don't think dreaming is exclusive to humans, so this point may support the scientists theory. But, in response to the scientists I could ask if my dreams are just random thought processes in my cortex, then why do they have ongoing plots sometimes that make perfect sense like a film?? This point seems to support Freud's theory. So I'm back to where I began- confused about dreams and really wanting to actually know the mechanism and meaning. Hopefully in our generation it will be figured out, but I highly doubt it. Have a good break!
Reflection & Link for 1st week of March
There is just so much to talk about this week! I want to stray a little from Freud in my reflection, however, because I feel like I've had a bit too much 'Siggy'. I will focus on his ideas, but not him as a person...
In preparing to facilitate class I came up with a question with Sam that I would like to take the time to reflect on now. "Why do you think that Garrigues Boring (self-acknowledged dean of experimental psychology) wanted to believe in psychoanalysis so badly?"
In my opinion, Boring was a desperate and depressed man that was yearning for some treatment to work. Although his background was strictly scientific, he never knocked on psychoanalysis. At that point in his life he was looking for a last resort, and psychoanalysis had yet to be disproved. I think it was disheartening that he had to seek treatment in private and tell colleagues he was investigating psychoanalysis instead of receiving treatment. Who knows, we might now some people like this too. Anyone you know seeking treatment in the closet? Why do they feel they have too? Is it because of the stigma of therapy in general or are they seeking some form of "alternative" treatment like poor Mr. Boring?
Just for fun I have included this link that talks about Freud's alleged affair with his wife's sister. You should at least click on it to check out the awkward photo. A lot of current professors in universities across the U.S. give their take on things. Enjoy!
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/24/europe/web.1224freud.php
In preparing to facilitate class I came up with a question with Sam that I would like to take the time to reflect on now. "Why do you think that Garrigues Boring (self-acknowledged dean of experimental psychology) wanted to believe in psychoanalysis so badly?"
In my opinion, Boring was a desperate and depressed man that was yearning for some treatment to work. Although his background was strictly scientific, he never knocked on psychoanalysis. At that point in his life he was looking for a last resort, and psychoanalysis had yet to be disproved. I think it was disheartening that he had to seek treatment in private and tell colleagues he was investigating psychoanalysis instead of receiving treatment. Who knows, we might now some people like this too. Anyone you know seeking treatment in the closet? Why do they feel they have too? Is it because of the stigma of therapy in general or are they seeking some form of "alternative" treatment like poor Mr. Boring?
Just for fun I have included this link that talks about Freud's alleged affair with his wife's sister. You should at least click on it to check out the awkward photo. A lot of current professors in universities across the U.S. give their take on things. Enjoy!
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/24/europe/web.1224freud.php
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
week of 3/2 link and reflection
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/freud.html
Since this was mentioned a few times in the reading I thought it would be interesting to look up the Freud covers of TIME Magazine. The article mentions some interesting points. For instance, it factors in religion as the cause of Jung and Freud's split, Jung and his commitment to religion and Freud as an atheist.
There were a few things that struck me while reading and so I will just comment on them briefly here. Freud talked about doctors distaste for people diagnosed with hysteria instead of a brain injury, yet for some reason Breuer, being a neurologist, took up Anna O. as a patient. This puzzled me. Why did Breuer begin and continue to see Anna O, when other doctors would have shunned her as a patient? On the same note, I found the movie a little cryptic in terms of Breuer's relationship with Anna O. Does noone really know what actually happened? Because honestly, I demand an explanation!! Why did Freud not bring up the "hysterical pregnancy" and such up in his writings? It seems to me that the relationship between Anna O. and Breuer would be an excellent example of transferene and counter-transference.
I found it amusing that it took American psychologists so long to realize that they could just test Freud's theories and try to refute them rather then constantly bashing him in academic journals and the popular press. There was such a distrust and a dislike for Freud and psychoanalysis at first in America it begs the question why wasn't there such a distrust for such theories in Europe. It seems from the readings that Freud and his theories, though causing some controversy, became quite popular, quite fast. As much as I think Freud suffered from his own sexual repressions which manifested themselves in his penis envy, Oedipal complex theory, etc, some of his theories and ideas really do strike a chord with me. For one, although our dreams aren't necessarily our unconscious and repressed feelings coming out, I have begun to believe, based on my own dreams, that, at least my dreams, are almost like manifestations of fears or worries that I have. They serve as a reminder for me to always be wary.
Since this was mentioned a few times in the reading I thought it would be interesting to look up the Freud covers of TIME Magazine. The article mentions some interesting points. For instance, it factors in religion as the cause of Jung and Freud's split, Jung and his commitment to religion and Freud as an atheist.
There were a few things that struck me while reading and so I will just comment on them briefly here. Freud talked about doctors distaste for people diagnosed with hysteria instead of a brain injury, yet for some reason Breuer, being a neurologist, took up Anna O. as a patient. This puzzled me. Why did Breuer begin and continue to see Anna O, when other doctors would have shunned her as a patient? On the same note, I found the movie a little cryptic in terms of Breuer's relationship with Anna O. Does noone really know what actually happened? Because honestly, I demand an explanation!! Why did Freud not bring up the "hysterical pregnancy" and such up in his writings? It seems to me that the relationship between Anna O. and Breuer would be an excellent example of transferene and counter-transference.
I found it amusing that it took American psychologists so long to realize that they could just test Freud's theories and try to refute them rather then constantly bashing him in academic journals and the popular press. There was such a distrust and a dislike for Freud and psychoanalysis at first in America it begs the question why wasn't there such a distrust for such theories in Europe. It seems from the readings that Freud and his theories, though causing some controversy, became quite popular, quite fast. As much as I think Freud suffered from his own sexual repressions which manifested themselves in his penis envy, Oedipal complex theory, etc, some of his theories and ideas really do strike a chord with me. For one, although our dreams aren't necessarily our unconscious and repressed feelings coming out, I have begun to believe, based on my own dreams, that, at least my dreams, are almost like manifestations of fears or worries that I have. They serve as a reminder for me to always be wary.
Conflicts of interest
I received the following today from Mike Palij at NYU. I think it is appropriate.
----------------------------
An article in today's NY Times reports that U.S. feds will be
cracking down on physicians and surgeons for taking illegal
kickbacks from drug and medical device companies. One
example of this has been Eli Lilly's illegal marketing of Zyprexa
for which Lilly has agreed to pay a $1.4 billion fine. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/health/policy/04doctors.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=gardiner%20harris&st=cse
or
http://tinyurl.com/bxbkf9
There are new regulations coming into place that would require
drug and device makers to make public (e.g., posted on a website)
what sorts of payments and gifts have given to physicians.
Minnesota has such a program already in place but complaints
about it have already started. Consider the following quote from
the NYT article:
|Dr. Richard Grimm, a Minnesota researcher, twice served on
|government-sponsored hypertension panels that create guidelines
|about when to prescribe blood pressure pills. But when state records
|revealed that he had earned more than $798,000 from drug companies
|from 1997 to 2005, invitations to serve on such panels dried up, he said.
|
|"There's this automatic assumption that if you make money from a drug
|company, you must be corrupt," Dr. Grimm said.
However, elsewhere in the article, the following view is presented:
|A common problem in illegal drug and device marketing cases is
|doctors' willingness to delude themselves into thinking that cash,
|lucrative trips and other kickbacks do not affect them, said Mr. Morris,
|the chief counsel.
|
|"Somehow physicians think they're different from the rest of us," Mr. Morris
|said. "But money works on them just like everybody else."
Freud - link & response for this week
I am fascinated by Freud. In our readings for this week (and the movie we watched on Tuesday), we get the impression that Freud and his ideas were very controversial and disliked. In his time, he was sort of a rebel. He was bringing up ideas that seemed so bogus and unscientific. He attributed everything (it seems like) to sexuality. But he really did contribute a lot to the field and I think it's telling that pretty much anyone in the world would associate his name with the field of psychology.
What is it that made Freud's ideas so controversial? Was it that they were so different than the themes studied by his contemporaries? Or do we still consider them bogus? Do we still consider him a quack? We've discussed this before, but what ideas do we have right now in the field of psychology that in 50-100 years will seem absolutely ridiculous? Or what ideas do we have right now that will last for 50-100 years and only at that time will seem valuable to the field? It's interesting that Freud was sensationalized for his very controversial work in sexuality and psychoanalysis, but the man also studied a lot of other things that we still consider valuable to this day: free association, defense mechanisms, and the subconscious.
I found a link to the Sigmund Freud museum in Vienna, Austria, which is housed in his old apartment. I've visited this museum and found Freud to be a very interesting man with interesting ideas (most of the work housed at this museum is uncontroversial and it details more a history of his life in general and of his clinical practice). I tried to post pictures from my visit but apparently I am technologically illiterate.
What is it that made Freud's ideas so controversial? Was it that they were so different than the themes studied by his contemporaries? Or do we still consider them bogus? Do we still consider him a quack? We've discussed this before, but what ideas do we have right now in the field of psychology that in 50-100 years will seem absolutely ridiculous? Or what ideas do we have right now that will last for 50-100 years and only at that time will seem valuable to the field? It's interesting that Freud was sensationalized for his very controversial work in sexuality and psychoanalysis, but the man also studied a lot of other things that we still consider valuable to this day: free association, defense mechanisms, and the subconscious.
I found a link to the Sigmund Freud museum in Vienna, Austria, which is housed in his old apartment. I've visited this museum and found Freud to be a very interesting man with interesting ideas (most of the work housed at this museum is uncontroversial and it details more a history of his life in general and of his clinical practice). I tried to post pictures from my visit but apparently I am technologically illiterate.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
2/26 post and review
First, I thought for those of you have not taken psychological disorders, it may be interesting to know what different IQ scores mean and how 'intelligent' the majority of individuals are relative to others. Although this gives a brief account of how the IQ test came to be, a better history is outlined at this cite, which is also useful if you are looking to improve your cognition with any of their fine products for sale at an internet near you! Besides buying into the amazing Audiblox, there are several links along the side of the page and if you click on "Intelligence and IQ", there are several articles on IQ and genetics, IQ and learning disabilities, and how IQ is interpreted.
Now lets talk about what we learned this last week in History and Systems of Psychology, shall we? To remind you, we talked about applied psychology vs. pure basic research. There are many jobs that fall under the applied umbrella including clinical, sports, forensic, industrial, marketing, and testing psychology. Lightner Witmer, founder of the first psychology clinic (and thus, clinical psychology), was a leading proponent of applied psychology whereas Edward Titchener, the founder of structuralism, believed in pure science without regard to utility.
Obviously, there are beneficial components to both applied psychology and pure research for if there were no research, we would not know what to apply, and if there were no application, there would be no point in doing research. I am personally much more interested in the research component of psychology, but I have intentions to use the findings in a way such that everyone can reap the benefits of my discovery.
Despite my love of “knowledge for knowledge’s sake”, I see the application of psychology all around me. Why, for instance, did I choose to buy this particular cell phone? Obviously, it probably works well, has neat technological features, but why must it be black, sleek, and shiny? A psychologist trained in marketing may tell you that it is because many people have black cell phones and I wish to conform, or that I derive a sense of sophistication and class from having a new phone. But did they just guess all this? No! Studies have been done that show how others respond to people differently based on their perceptions of a person’s status and class.
In short, I personally believe research and application go hand in hand regardless of how heavily our psychological predecessors debated such things. I think that one would be silly without the other, and I would like to believe that there is less of a divide today between those who practice and those who research. We are all striving for the same thing: to explain psychological forces in the world and determine how they can be altered for optimal gratification. Do you agree?
Monday, March 2, 2009
Another applied psychology link
Just in case you're not tired of applied psychology yet, I thought I would provide you with a link that is near and dear to my heart: the website to the American Dance Therapy Association. With any luck, I will be attending graduate school to get my master's in dance/movement therapy in the fall, and I thought I would take this opportunity to give you guys a little taste of what this subset of clinical psychology is all about.
Week 5: Applied Psychology in Advertising - Link and reflection
The first thing I think about when people start talking about the psychology (or the "tricks") of advertising is this video:
[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg
Give it a watch; it's less than 7 minutes, and pretty amazing stuff.
So basically, this bloke Derren Brown is a mentalist. That is, he has such an acute understanding of how people's minds work that he can manipulate them without them noticing anything is out of the ordinary. He's done a lot of different things (and I encourage you all to check out his other videos as well, they are quite extraordinary) but this particular example is most applicable to our readings right now. What he does is manipulate two advertising people into creating an advert that matches almost exactly his intended design, though they thought they were working on their own creativity, simply by giving them subliminal imagery on their trip over. It's an example of how gullible we are as a species, but more importantly it shows the awesome power of applied psychology. Granted, this man is exceptional and most people cannot match his results, but he is living proof that the field of psychology has enormous potential for understanding how people's minds work and how it can be applied to our everyday lives.
[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg
Give it a watch; it's less than 7 minutes, and pretty amazing stuff.
So basically, this bloke Derren Brown is a mentalist. That is, he has such an acute understanding of how people's minds work that he can manipulate them without them noticing anything is out of the ordinary. He's done a lot of different things (and I encourage you all to check out his other videos as well, they are quite extraordinary) but this particular example is most applicable to our readings right now. What he does is manipulate two advertising people into creating an advert that matches almost exactly his intended design, though they thought they were working on their own creativity, simply by giving them subliminal imagery on their trip over. It's an example of how gullible we are as a species, but more importantly it shows the awesome power of applied psychology. Granted, this man is exceptional and most people cannot match his results, but he is living proof that the field of psychology has enormous potential for understanding how people's minds work and how it can be applied to our everyday lives.
Assigned readings for week of 3/2
Hey guys Emily and I are leading class discussion this week, so we would like you to read the blue book for Tuesday and the other book for Thursday. THANKS!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
reflection and link for 2/27
Here is a link I found that provides some information on psychology in advertising.
http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermarc/p324ads.shtml
This weeks reading were probably my favorite so far. I really liked reading about how psychology began to be put to use in everyday life. I have always been interested in the psychology of advertising and the various strategies used to attract consumers. It is interesting to read about how so many varieties of psychology began to develop at their own pace, with clinical psychology, school psychology, business psychology, and the psychology of law it would have been an interesting and exciting time to be a psychology student. I also really enjoyed reading about Hollingworth's study on caffine for Coke. I kinda felt bad for the guy when the book was talking about his financial situation but one study for Coke will fix that. It was alos interesting to read about Leta Hollingworth and her suggestions for certification of practicing psychologiest. I had a very hard time in class trying to define what seprates a psychologist from just a person giving advice, I was very impressed with Leta's suggestions since they were the first to try and define and legitimize psychologists.
http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermarc/p324ads.shtml
This weeks reading were probably my favorite so far. I really liked reading about how psychology began to be put to use in everyday life. I have always been interested in the psychology of advertising and the various strategies used to attract consumers. It is interesting to read about how so many varieties of psychology began to develop at their own pace, with clinical psychology, school psychology, business psychology, and the psychology of law it would have been an interesting and exciting time to be a psychology student. I also really enjoyed reading about Hollingworth's study on caffine for Coke. I kinda felt bad for the guy when the book was talking about his financial situation but one study for Coke will fix that. It was alos interesting to read about Leta Hollingworth and her suggestions for certification of practicing psychologiest. I had a very hard time in class trying to define what seprates a psychologist from just a person giving advice, I was very impressed with Leta's suggestions since they were the first to try and define and legitimize psychologists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)