How relevant is Freud in the field of psychology anymore? I haven't seen Harlow in textbooks in years, yet I still like to tell the story of his research because I think it's classic and students are interested. Ditto Seligman's pioneering research for learned helplessness. I had a swell time trying to find a picture of a shuttle box so I could explain how Seligman did his study. (It was either that or subject my students to my pitiful attempt at drawing one.) Finally found a drawing of one online - in pink! (I used it anyhow.)
I vote for a bit of each - usefulness and classics. Ah, the true Greek Ideal. And of course our own aspiration for psychology is that the classics commingle with usefulness.
In anticipation that this might become a new thread, I'm going to tentatively relabel the subject heading on this post.
Beth Benoit
University System of New Hampshire
on 11/21/02 10:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,---
I would like to interject a tangential (though not entirely unrelated) point.
I find Kohlberg, Gilligan etc. to be some of the least useful knowledge we impart in an introductory or developmental psychology class.
I say this because of the evidence (from Kagan and studies of those persons given a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder) that knowing the difference between right and wrong and DOING right are not at all the same thing. Emotions govern moral behavior in most cases. The guys people who ran Enron surely knew the difference between right and what they actually did.
The Heinz dilemma is an absurd false dilemma. There are other possibilities besides "stealing the drug" and "letting the wife die."
Nancy Melucci
Long Beach City College ---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
