Jim and TIPsters,
It seems that what you teach is a History of Experimental Psychology rather than a History of Psychology. In a real H&S course, it seems that you would be as likely to cover Freud and Piaget as Watson/Skinner and kin. Your approach seems curiously narrow given what psychology has become.
Just a thought,
Well, you do hit the nail on the head..... my course pretty much *is* a history of experimental psychology. There are some exceptions - I do teach Freud, for example - both as a contributor to early clinical theory but more importantly as a representative of the late 19th century Darwinian zeitgeist. That is by design, because for the most part I think the history of experimental psychology *is* the history of psychology in general. I don't see that as being narrow - I see that as a recognition of what the history of psychology in fact was.
Yes - psychology has broadened (some would say splintered or fractionated) in recent years - but that does not diminish that there is a common shared history. I leave the "specialized history" to be taught in the courses dedicated to those subdivisions.
-- Jim
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
