Reflection on the History & Systems of Psychology Essay

Pre- tender-fangled, modern and postmodernist frames of reference ease up all helped plaster cast heavy, contemporary psychological theories and issues. In this motif I impart attempt, in a reflective manner, to walk by dint of and return the beas we covered in course, the end trail being to gain a measure of insight into where the field of psychology stands today, particularly with regard to autocratic forms of ethnocentric monoculturalism.In damage of pre-modern perspectives, in the course we first discussed historical issues concerning the mind-body problem. I situated the personality of the relationship between body and mind and whether they are virtuoso and the same or two straight ahead substances, which is the center of the debate between monists and dualist. Descartes, the or so well grapplen dualist, argued for a separation of mind from somebody and body. Also an interactionist, Descartes held the mind influenced the body as much as the body impacted the m ind (Goodwin, 2009). Plato, his precursor from antiquity, was as well as a dualist and an interactionist arguably, and believed the body and soul/mind were temporarily at integrity during life separately came from a completely different place, the body from the material creation and the soul from the world of ideas. At the here and now of death, the body withered away in time and space, the soul or mind returning to the world of forms and there realizing universal truths (Wozniak, 1992).Delving deeper into pre-modern views of the mind-body problem I touched upon de Spinoza. Spinoza, a contemporary of Descartes, dismissed Descartes two-substance view in favor of what is called double-aspect theory (Wozniak, 1992). Double-aspect theories hold the view that the mental and the physical realms are varying aspects of the same substance. For Spinoza, that hit substance is God, perceived as the universal essence or nature of everything in existence. In Spinozas view, there is no part ition of mind and body, therefore. Instead they are of a single substance, in a pre-established coordination, reflecting the foretell essence. In reflection, I gallop to side with Spinoza and double-aspect theory in barriers of pre-modern perspectives. I do believe that there is a pre-established coordination between mind and body that is reflective of the divine creation. I am therefore I think is my hided response to Descartes.In terms of modern perspectives in the course we examined the origins of psychology as a subject discipline. During the course I stated that psychology first appeared as a subject discipline in 1879 when Wilhelm Wundt started a psychology lab in Germany at the University of Leipzig. The laboratory devoted itself to the analysis of conscious thought in its basic elements and structures, which was uncovered through a serve well of introspection (Gross, 1996). What differentiated this new psychology at the time from philosophy was its hire of measurement and control as well as its emphasis on the scientific method to read mental processes relevant to pitying consciousness. payable to his influence on Edward B. Titchener, Wundts frame of reference arguably helped give birth to structural linguistics.Indeed Wundts disciple, Titchener, is credited with developing and labeling structuralism in an 1898 paper called The Postulates of a Structural Psychology (Goodwin, 2009). In the paper he compared and contrasted structuralism with functionalism, which he claimed infested most US universities, survive Cornell where he was cultivating what would come to becalled the the Cornell school of psychology. Notwithstanding, Goodwin (2009) has stated that Titchener and the Cornell view of psychology was extremely narrow for the most part because of its insistence on introspection and due to Titcheners attitude that his way was the only way, a agency that a lot does not bode well in academia. In this vein and perhaps arrogantly so, Titchener , exchangeablened structuralism to anatomy, its purpose being analysis he surmised whereas functionalism he kindredned to physiology, stating that functionalists examine how the mind is able to adapt atomic good turn 53 to his or her said environment, which to Titchener was a waste of time with emerge a deep understanding of structure.As one needs to know the ins and outs of human anatomy before being able to fully delve into physiology, so thus was thefunctionalist at a loss, in his view, without the ability to outline the structures of human consciousness via a super difficult process of systematic, examineal introspection as stipulated by him in almost cult like exclusivity, which spawned criticism. gibely, his movement never gained the momentum it needed to win Ameri chiffonier hearts and minds, falling into the dustbin of register in favor of functionalism. Nevertheless, in pain of Titcheners unpopularity in the US, his enduring contri justion is that he helped acqui re a place for the lab and experimental psychology in all colleges and universities with programs in psychology.While functionalists were excessively interested in looking at mental processes much(prenominal) as consciousness in so far as assessing human demeanour in terms of how it aided people in adapting to dynamic environments, they did not, unlike followers of Titchener, emphasize introspection (Goodwin, 2009). Psychologist James R. Angell, a follower of John Dewey, the founder of functionalism in America, became its most outspoken spokesperson, criticizing Titchener and drawing a sharp contrast to him in a 1907 popular paper called The Province of Functional Psychology. It was a damning response to Titcheners 1898 paper. For Angell, the structuralist wasinterested in the what? of conscious thought, whereas the functionalist psychologist gazeed to know the how? and why? of it, asking what is consciousness for? (Goodwin, 2009).This way of viewing psychology in terms of its practical lotions, became an important influence in modern times, because it led to the theme of topics such as developmental and abnormal psychology, in addition to examining the individual differences of mind, (which Titchener and the Cornell school remarkably had no interest in). When asking how psychology can be used to solve everyday problems in a practical way, we are taking from the functionalists and their movement. Perhaps the most prominent movement in the field of modern 20th century psychology was behaviorism. Behaviorism began basically due to the work of Ivan Pavlov.Pavlov who did not consider himself a psychologist, but, rather a physiologist interested in the process of digestion in dogs, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1904 (the year B. F. mule driver was born) in Physiology and Medicine. In the course of his question, Pavlov observed that the dogs would often start salivating before any nutrition being given to them, when they would see the food or the foods c ontainer, or when they heard the footsteps of the lab assistant who was on his way to feed them. His observations led to the necessitate to what we now call classical condition (Gross, 1996).The first attempt to apply Pavlovs findings on conditioning to humans was made by John B. Watson in a dubious and arguably unethical experiment on a small boy named Albert, showing that the fear of rats can be deliberately bring forth (Watson and Rayer, 1920). The experiment served to popularize a new behavioral approach to psychology that would within a hug drug become the dominant force in America, Watson its founder, propagator and publicist (Goodwin, 2008).To the modernist Watson (1913), psychology is an objective natural science,its abstractive goal the prediction and control of behavior. Wundt and Titcheners view on introspection has no place in its methods, nor is consciousness addressed or studied. There is no marked borderline between people and sensuals. Due to Watsons input and i nfluence cats, dogs, rats, and pigeons became the major source of psychological data. As psychological now meant behavior rather than consciousness, animals that were easier to study and whose environments could be more readily controlled could replace people as experimental subjects (Gross, 1966).B. F. Skinner, also a behaviorist and modernist, went steps further than Pavlov and Watson, casting behavior in a more synergistic light. He made a distinction between respondent and operant behavior and argued that most animal and human behavior is not brought about in the way Pavlov and Watson indicated and surmised. Skinner, like Edward Thorndike before him, was interested in how animals operate on their environment and how this operant behavior brings about particular consequences that can determine the likelihood of that behavior being repeated. In experiments he used a variation of Thordikes puzzle-box, a Skinner box, which was made for a rat or a pigeon to do things in, rather than escape from. Fundamentally, Skinner power saw the learner as much more actively involved than did Pavlov or Watson, for whom behavior was due to stimuli, infinite stimuli before learning and conditioned stimuli after learning.In addition to behaviorism, modern views of psychology took twists and turns. As a reaction to both Titcheners structuralism and Watsons behaviorism, the Gestalt psychologists of the 1920s and 1930s in Germany and Austria were primarily concerned with perception and held that perceptions could not be deconstructed in the way that Wundt and Titchener wanted to do with thought, and that behaviorists had sought for with behavior. Their belief could besuccinctly stated as follows the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Gross, 1996, p.3). The whole is essentially destroyed when you break down perception and behavior into parts, the Gestalt psychologists held.There are organizing principles of perceptual organization which were voiced by Gestalts founder Max Wertheimer. These principles are frequently highlighted in units on perception in full general psychology textbooks and are as follows the principle of proximity, the principle of similarity, the principle of continuation. All of the organizing principles have in rough-cut what is called the law of simplicity or what Gestaltists term Prgnanz. This refers to the tendency for perceptions to mirror reality as near as possible (Goodwin, 2009).In the course I gave an example of gestalt thinking, which in reflection I would like to return to as it clearly remains in mind. I used the example of a flock stopping at a bus stop in ones neighborhood. On a given day the bus stops at the same corner the person is accustomed to, and is recognize to be that bus. The person vexs on, but has made a mistake. She did not realize that there was a route change that morning and the bus she took was deriveed differently. What gives? Is it only a matter of not paying attention?In Gestalt inspi red, top-down conceptually driven processing, we begin with ones prior fellowship, motivations, expectations and beliefs. In the bus example, the softness to see and decipher or register a different number on the bus and claim on it, means it was recognized it to be the customary bus due to top-down processing (Danner, 2009). If one were to notice the different bus number, however, that would entail bottom-up processing, because such processing is data driven. The different number is perceived in terms of information in the sensory input, in conjunction with top-down processing, telling to the person that it is not the customary bus.Perhaps after realizing her mistake, the person inthe example will be more careful next time, thereby exercising more bottom-up processing. If Austria was berth to some of Gestalts most prominent members and adherents, it was also home to Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis. Freudian psychoanalytic theory was the first to state the significa nce of innate drives and define abnormal and normal behavior in relationship to the role of the unconscious mind mind. Its importance is that the theory of personality popularized contextualizing human behavior in terms of the id, ego, and superego, notating development in pentad psycho knowledgeable stages. Each stage was marked by shifts in what Freud believed were the underlying modes of gratification oral, anal, phallic, latency and genital (Glassman, 2000).In reflection, I continue to find merit in Freuds concept of stages for sure. I would hushed prefer to call them development stages, however, and not necessarily put a sexual meaning on them, as Freud and his supporters have done and continue to do. There is no need to detail the well-known limitations and criticisms of Freudian theory, which fit in to Glassman (2000) are its falsifiability, the great deal of emphasis put on case studies, and its cultural solidus towards women. Regardless of such naysaying, his supporter s would passionately argue for and be adamant about such a sexual narrative of the human person, which if not fodder, certainly has entertainment value. In fact, Freudian theory is fascinating to me largely due to the dramatic (almost cinematic) conflicts and challenges that mark each psychosexual stage. Perhaps the most well-known of these is the Oedipal conflict (which occurs in the so-called phallic stage). It was interesting to read that some analysts called the female variant, the Electra conflict, but Freud himself did not use the term (see Freud 1924).Perhaps the most attractive modern theory of personality, in my view, would belong to Carl Rogers. In Carl Rogers theory, a person is the source of hisor her basic needs such as food and water. He or she is also the source of a winth motive which he called an actualizing tendency, which is an innate drive that is reflective of the believe to grow, to develop and to develop ones capabilities (Glassman, 2000). It is the actuali zing tendency that stimulates creativity, causing a person to seek out new challenges and skills that motivate healthy growth in ones lifetime (Gross, 1996). According to Rogers (1961, but pilot programly proposed in 1947) Whether one calls it a growth tendency, a drive towards self-actualization, or a forward moving direction tendency, it is the mainspring in lifeIt is the urge which is evident in all organic and human life to expand, extend, become autonomous, mature and develop. In reflection, I continue to feel that Rogers influence and go along popularity in the psych early(a)apeutic community give his theories merit. APA members have been asked which psych otherapist they believe to me the most influential token in the field (Smith, 1982). In 2006, this survey repeated in the Psychotherapy Networker. In both surveys, Carl Rogers was the landslide choice.While this does not prove Rogers to be correct, certainly it gives his theory of motivation more credence than not, inc rease its believability. Certainly, I feel influenced by Rogers as I move forward in my career. While Rogers theory of an actualizing tendency and the overall nature of the client-centered approach may be controversial due to its fee to let the client call the shots and as stated by Goodwin (2009) for its overemphasis on the the self at the put down of the importance of the community, in addition to being clearer what it was against than what it was for, it is nevertheless, a credible postulation in terms of its application in therapy and remains my preference over Freud.Accordingly, I continue to feel that all clientsinnately wish to be successful in life and to be cheeringd as contributors to their own selfactualization. They wish to expand their knowledge and achievehigher levels of success beneath all the guises that seem otherwise. When clients are not performing to their fullest potential, praise and support can help ignite the actualizing tendency in a manner that would ot herwise have remained dormant.When exploring postmodern views of psychology we have to inherently speak about cultural narratives and meta-narratives. What is psychology today and who defines it? What is psychologys story, who told that story historically, and who gets to tell it today? When we look at psychology as a practice, historically and today, is important to bring to the fore the ethnocentric monocultural aspects that were oppressive to women and continue to be to minority groups in reinforcing discolor male Euro-American culture as the normative and desirable culture. Indeed, therapists and helping professionals should try to help deconstruct and introduce monoculturalism whenever it rears its despicable head. When oppressive forms such as heterosexism, ageism, gender and sexism come to the fore in therapy, for example, therapists should not honor them but try to encourage reflection on such prejudices with the aim being for the client to indentify for what it is and t o grow accordingly.The field of psychology itself is not immune but remains at risk to the debacle of monoculturalism. According to Yutrzenka, Todd-Bazemore and Caraway (1999) even though the data forecast that by 2050, ethnic minorities will make up over 50% of the US population, this quickly changing demographic has minimal effect on the number of ethnic minority psychologists. This is particularly true for Native Americans, who are far more underrepresented than any other ethnic body. Though the APA as stated by Goodwin (2009), is vigorously addressing this entire issue at present, with such efforts to be praised, still the legacy of ethnocentric monoculturalism is a stain on the profession, and will remain so untilsignificant numbers of minority psychologists abound.In spite of the barriers confronting them, women and minorities have made many notable, valuable and bouncy contributions to the field of psychology. During the course I discussed Eleanor Gibson who received the Na tional Medal of Science in 1992 for a lifetime of look into on topics dealing with the development of depth perception to the fundamentals involved in reading, approach discrimination while at Yale from psychologist Robert Yerkes who wanted no females in his lab (Goodwin, 2009).While she was able to get her PhD there under the guidance of the neobehaviorist Clark Hull, she unfortunately went on to experience difficulties at Cornell (where her husband had gained a position) compel into an unpaid research associate position in spite of winning competitive and prestigious research grants. As a result of these grants, however, she was able to carry out pioneering studies on depth perception with Richard Walk. When Cornell, home to Titcheners legacy, removed its nepotism rules in 1966, only then did she become a full professor.Furthermore, as discussed in the course, African-Americans have also made outstanding contributions to psychology. Kenneth and Mamie Phipps Clark again come to mind in terms of their topper known research titled Racial identification and preference in Negro children (Goodwin, 2009). In this research it was shown that black children showed a preference for white dolls over black ones when asked which they would like to play with and looked more like. The Clarks concluded, according to Goodwin (2009) that one insidious effect of racial segregation was its negative influence on African-American self-esteem. As a result of this research, in part, the Supreme Court was compelled to do the right thing and reverse the racist separate but equal doctrine in Brown v. Board of Education.The Clarks contribution to psychology and the contributions of other AfricanAmericans preceding them were not without struggle. Their mentor at Howard University, Francis Sumner faced huge obstacles when attempting to get a graduate course and gain employment in academia. African-Americans have often had their basic intellectual abilities questioned (Goodwin, 2009). The legacy of white racism and of the field of psychologys complicity by not taking a firmer stand until only recently is without question a significant reason why African-Americans remain heavily underrepresented in the profession, in spite of the gains made for women. 60 percent of doctorates in psychology are awarded to women today, while Native Americans as we discussed and African-Americans continue to be awarded a paltry percentage in turn.Such dismal figures have nothing to do with intelligence. We know that early intelligence streamlets were normed on just Caucasian, middle-class populations and only recently has such deviate been addressed and perhaps abated. This also was the case for the MMPI personality tests as well. In the case of the MMPI, many of the original items became dated and according to Kassin (2008), to bring the test up to the 21st century and more postmodern views, new items were written in, and a more diverse cross-section of the US was sampled. The result of that updating is the newer 567-item version called the MMPI-2.In reflection, my guess is that similar advances have been made or are being considered in IQ interrogation as well otherwise we would have to call into question whether biased IQ tests are binding for minority groups. Accordingly, great care should be taken when formulating test questions as well as see the results of test-takers from different cultural groups and urban tribes. Fundamentally, it is crucial that test makers be made aware of cultural differences when pose together IQ test questions, as recommended for the MMPI (Church 2001). Exercising caution does not meanminority groups are treated with kid gloves, but rather that a lens of understanding is in place and that can come about as a result of the test makers and assessors informing themselves. Otherwise an IQ tests validity for minority groups is at issue.Pre-modern, modern and postmodern frames of reference have all helped shape important, con temporary psychological theories and issues. Accordingly, I have attempted in a reflective manner to revisit the areas of psychologys history we covered in course. If psychology as a profession is to continue to grow and develop, it will occur through a similar process of reflection, followed by action. It is important for psychology to know its origins, its history and respective story. However, in realization of the depth of ethnocentric monoculturalism, its leadership, particularly in the APA, mustiness act on the call to bring about the inclusion of more minorities. Otherwise, the oppressive stain of monoculturalism shall abound and continue to blemish the profession we hold dear.ReferencesAngell, J.R. (1904). Psychology. New York Holt.Church, A.T. (2001). Personality measurement in cross-cultural perspective. ledger of Personality, 69, 979-1006.Danner, N. (2011). Psychology ORG5001 survey of psychology I. Boston Pearson Learning Solutions.Freud, S. (1924) A General Introducti on to Psychoanalysis. New York majuscule Square Press (reprinted 1952).Glassman, W (Ed.). (2000) Approaches to psychology. Philadelphia Open University Press. Goodwin, C.J. (2009) A history of modern psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ Wiley. Gross, R. (Ed.). (1996) Psychology, the study of mind and behavior. London Hodder & Stoughton.Kassin, S., (2008). Psychology in Modules ORG 5002 Survey of psychology II. New York Pearson Custom Publishing.Rogers, C.R. (1961) On congruous a person. Boston Houghton Mifflin. Smith, D. (1982) Trends in counseling and psychology. American Psychologist, 37, 802809. Watson, J.B. (1913) Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 15877. Watson, J.B. & Rayneer, R. (1920) learned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14.Wozniak,R. (1992) Mind and body Ren Descartes to William James. Retrieved from http//www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%206%20MindBody/DUALISM.htm.Yutrzenka, B.A., T odd-Bazemore, E., & Caraway, S.J. (1999). Four winds The evolution of culturally inclusive clinical psychology training for Native Americans. International Review of Psychiatry, 11, 129- 135. ProQuest 43479524.