I'll agree with the need for some historical overview, especially because I feel a need to critique for the students some of the points of view that I fear they will come across in other venues. So I do cover Erikson and Maslow, for example, I just did those two guys the last 2 weeks (not in the same week) and talked quite a bit about the lack of evidence and then, rather than give them moral dilemmas to solve, give them critical thinking discussion on what makes a view point useful. Just because there is no hard core research evidence doesn't mean we need to toss a theory; OTOH, without solid evidence how good is any position, c.f., ESP, Mars/Venus, sugar & hyperactivity...there is a similarity here.
So I do cover most of the historical topics, if for no other reason than to challenge the students to think them through sometimes. And, of course, I often make the point that when you are the first big name in your field, i.e., Freud, Piaget, then of course you are bound to have some errors and others will come along and point them out :-) Annette ps I like to draw the shuttlebox :-) Students have a great laugh over my lack of perspective in 3-d. Beth Benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Nancy brings up an interesting point, for which yet another tangential > thought is whether we should teach things in psychology based on their > usefulness to our students or the fact that they have a historical place in > psychology. > > 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] > -- Annette Taylor, Ph. D. Associate Professor of Psychology University of San Diego [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
