Thanks for that observation, Hugo. You are, of course, correct in this. Textbook writers cannot be expected to be totally up-to-date on every aspect of the field, and being so is not really necessary in a textbook in any case. However, the reassessment of Wundt's work isn't very "new" anymore. It has been about 30 years. And it is isn't controversial, nor does it even really partake of the celabratory-critical dichotomy to which you allude.
It is just very old, poor scholarship being recycled because some (many?) current textbook writers can't be bothered to do research much beyond the textbooks they themselves used as student decades ago, especially when they come to writing about areas in which they do not have expertise themselves. Chris --- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== On 2012-06-17, at 5:50 PM, Hugo Klappenbach wrote: > > > > Dear colleagues: > > I apologize if my writing English is not so good, but I would like to share a > few words on this debate, considering it is related to my own field of > research, the history of psychology. > > May be the point in the discussion about consider Wundt a structuralist or > not, is related to the different approaches and sources used by historians of > psychology and by the authors of Introductory Textbooks. > > I remember and interesting paper published in Teaching of Psychology by David > Zehr. Zehr precisely examined why introductory textbooks misunderstood the > differences between Wundt and Titchener. Zehr stated: "some authors of > current introductory psychology texts misrepresents the relation between the > psychologies of Wundt and Titchener. Titchener's system is usually and > appriopriately labeled as strcuturalism, but depictions of Wundtian > psychology are frequently incorrect. Specifically, some authors continue to > mislabel Wundt as a structuralist" (Zehr, 2000, p. 124). > > The problem is that up-to-date research on history of Psychology is not > included in most introductory textbooks, even in very good introductory > textbooks. Following Paul Forman and Kurt Danziger is possible to argue that > such characteristic is because history of psychology mainly play a > celebratory and pedagogical functions within psychologist's socialization. > > "New" history of Psychology, as Chris introduced, is not well-known among > psychologists and students in undergraduate or even graduate programs. I > guess it is neccesary to reduce the gap between historians of psychology and > psychologists or historians or authors of introductory textbooks. But, as > Zehr explained, it is not easy. > > Sincerely yours > Hugo > > -------------------------------- > Dr. Hugo Klappenbach > Universidad Nacional de San Luis (UNSL), Argentina > Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientÃficas y Técnicas (CONICET) > Avenida Ejercito de los Andes 950, IV Bloque, Oficina 71 > D5700HHW San Luis, Argentina > TE: 54 - 266 - 443 5512, Interno 121 > FAX: 54 - 266 - 443 0224 > E-mail: [email protected] > [email protected] > > 2012/6/17 mjchael sylvester <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Whereas Chris may be correct in pointing to Titchener as the quintessential > structuralist,most textbooks and the GRE during my college days list Wundt as > belonging to the structuralism paradigmfew.I think that Dave Myers list him > under structuralism,but do not quote me on this.Granting that Wundt did not > buy the introspection method,the idea of digging into the nature of mind and > its impact on behavior has been a dominant theme in the European schools of > psychology.As a matter of fact schools of psychology emanating from Europe > have been on a mind trip: structuralism,gestalt,psychoanalysis,exixtentialism, > phenomenology,traits (Eysenck,Cattell),intelligence testing > (Binet),Piagetism,logotherapy, Aldous Huxley-to mention > just a few. And not even psychophysics was an aberration from this mental > trend with conepts > like absolute threshold,relative threshold and Jnd with dependcy on > subjective verbal reports. > > When I was an undergraduate at Gannon University,my experimental text was by > Zimny > which was really a text of psychophysical methods > depedent on subjective responses. > Just because experiments are done in a lab at Leipzig or anywhere else > do not exclude a subjective evaluative response > component. > > Wundt had an interest in cross-cultural psychology.But I am unable to > elaborate > since I do not read German.Wundt might have been > the first cross-cultural dude. > > Michael 'omnicentric' Sylvester,PhD > Daytona Beach,Florida > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=18463 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-18463-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=18465 or send a blank email to leave-18465-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
