Oo my favorite topic! Great writing and the right themes are there, but I think they’re missing a lot by not taking a more historically-holistic view. Aka wondering what all the people who’ve been criticizing psychology think, from Chomsky to Piaget to Lacan to Freud to Husserl to Hegel to Kant to Locke to Scotus to Ibin-Sinna all the way back to the OG, Aristotle.
Obviously some were more empirical than others so you can’t believe them all, but without engaging with their works — even in a negative way - you’re forced to reinvent the wheel, like the bitcoin people did with banking regulations.
For example, this quote makes me feel the author thinks psychology is more special/unusual than it is:
We’re in good company here, because this is how other fields got their start. Galileo spent a lot of time trying to overturn folk physics: “I know it seems like the Earth is standing still, but it’s actually moving.”
In what way has any natural science been anything other than overturning folk theories? What else could you possibly do with systematic thought other than contradict unsystematic thought?
In this case, this whole article is written from the assumption that true, proper, scientific psychology is exclusively the domain of the Behaviorists. This is a popular view among people who run empirical studies all day for obvious reasons (it’s way cheaper and easier to study behavior reliably), but those aren’t the only psychologists. Clinical psychology (therapy) is usually based in cognitive frameworks or psychoanalytical, pedagogy is largely indebted to the structuralism of Piaget, and sociology/anthropology have their own set of postmodern, Marxist, and other oddball influences.
All of those academies are definitely part of psychology IMO, and their achievements are undeniable!
For anyone who finds this interesting and wants to dunk on behaviorists with me, just google “Chomsky behaviorism” and select your fave content medium — he’s been beating this drum for over half a century, lol.
Obviously some were more empirical than others so you can’t believe them all, but without engaging with their works — even in a negative way - you’re forced to reinvent the wheel, like the bitcoin people did with banking regulations.
For example, this quote makes me feel the author thinks psychology is more special/unusual than it is:
In what way has any natural science been anything other than overturning folk theories? What else could you possibly do with systematic thought other than contradict unsystematic thought?In this case, this whole article is written from the assumption that true, proper, scientific psychology is exclusively the domain of the Behaviorists. This is a popular view among people who run empirical studies all day for obvious reasons (it’s way cheaper and easier to study behavior reliably), but those aren’t the only psychologists. Clinical psychology (therapy) is usually based in cognitive frameworks or psychoanalytical, pedagogy is largely indebted to the structuralism of Piaget, and sociology/anthropology have their own set of postmodern, Marxist, and other oddball influences.
All of those academies are definitely part of psychology IMO, and their achievements are undeniable!
For anyone who finds this interesting and wants to dunk on behaviorists with me, just google “Chomsky behaviorism” and select your fave content medium — he’s been beating this drum for over half a century, lol.