Re: vol 98 issue 22
Posted by
Pamela McCorduck on
Aug 22, 2011; 7:01pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/vol-98-issue-22-tp6712446p6712846.html
Peggy, you make an interesting point (so THIS comment got through) about the dissociation between mind and body that informed early psychological studies.
I'd add that one of the signs of an early, or undeveloped, science is the lack of subsuming principles. As the science matures, the details get subsumed in the big principles. Those 56 divisions suggest that psychology hasn't yet reached that point.
Pamela
On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:16 AM, peggy miller wrote:
My questions keep disappearing, but I will try again responding to the discussion on science of psychology being fragmented. I believe, having studied it for a few years, that psychologists are widely separate in their core views because psychology, historically, tried too hard to separate the mind from the body, and from the universe. Developmental psychology comes a bit closer to the "truth" because of its heavy inclusion of the physique. In my opinion, due to this first and primary exclusionary fault, the results of psychological experiments are skewed. Sort of like how early science, which did not include quantum theory, quarks, etc, are missing key data/theorems in determining the rational for results. For example, when studying psychology for a few years in New Hampshire, I happened to respond to comments by a few professors who were saying that experiments showed that religious people have the presence of a different tiny "thing" in the central part of the brain near the hypothalamus (as I recall). They said this was leading to conclusions that there was a flaw in religious people, possibly genetically caused. I asked (a couple times) -- "Could it be that rather than religious people having something extra in their brain causing their religiousity, that non-religious people -- atheists and such -- have something missing from theirs?" (not intending a bias either way, but it irked me that they seemed to be saying that scientists were assuming if you were religious in bent, that meant you had a flaw. It also was of interest to me that many of the psychological scientists being quoted were non-religious.)
The response was --- "Well, good question. The type of question we need to keep asking."
Studying psychology did not enhance my belief in the science. I did find that developmental psychology -- studying neurons, child development, cognitive behavior and such seemed to have more reliable studies and results.
Have a great day!
Peggy Miller
--
Peggy Miller, owner/OEO
Art, Photography, Herbs and Writings
406-541-7577 (home/office/shop)
Shop Hours: Tues/Wed: 12-4
Thurs: 3-7 pm
Fri-Sat: 10 am -2pm
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org