Skip to main content

Psychology (just) before James


A few words today about psychology before James, or Freud, or Pavlov.

Before any of them there was Wilhelm Wundt, who may have been the first scholar writing about the human mind to call HIMSELF a "psychologist". 

A few words about the timeline. Herbert Spencer wrote his PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY in two volumes, which appeared a decade apart, in 1870 and 1880. Wundt's most important works in the field were published in 1873-74 and 1881. James published his brilliant two volume Principles in 1890. Freud's breakthrough began with Studies in Hysteria and Three Essays, in the 1890s and after the turn of the century, respectively.  Pavlov published his lectures on the nervous system, which included his famous observations of salivating dogs,  in 1897.  

One gets the impression, then, of Wundt (and perhaps Herbert Spencer in his psychological writings) as constituting the Old Guard in psychology, in the days just before the field was about to explode in a variety of different (and mutually opposed) directions.

One standard label for Wundt in his psychologizing is "structuralist". This allows William James to take up the post of the world's first functionalist in the structure/function dichotomy in psychology. 

Wundt believed that he was experimenting on the human mind (not the brain or nervous system). His experiments seem primitive in retrospect, but that is unsurprising. It has been a long time. 

His experiments were on questions that still have their interest. Consider the measurement of reaction times. Subjects would receive a stimulus such as a flash of light and would be working on an instruction to press a certain button as soon as they saw it. Wundt could record reaction times, the times between flash and press, to thousandths of a second. 

Wundt had certain requirements for laboratory work.  He insisted on the use of trained/practiced observers. Someone just off the street being shown those flashes of light for the first time was considered far less reliable a subject than someone for whom it had become a routine task. Repeatability of results is the hallmark of experimental science, after all, and Wundt's human lab rats gave him this. 

In general, Wundt believed that psychology exists in a real-world terrain between physiology on the one hand and a philosophical concern with a soul on the other. Psychology is the science of direct experience, to which it seeks to give mathematical rigor. Furthermore, psychology is a science of "generally valid forms of direct human experience," a fact that makes it "the foundation of the humanities."

I expect to say something about the ways in which James' psychology was a reaction against Wundt: perhaps as soon as next week if the gods are willing and the creek don't rise. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak