History of Theories in Psychology (PSYC 493)

In many ways humanistic psychology appeals to me, but none more so than the interest shown by Maslow for “the other half.” I just find that whole idea so brilliant and even though I may never have thought of it, it is very much so in line with the way I feel. I’m a sucker for success stories, I yearn to be a success story. Even if people fail, watching people valiantly rail against seemingly insurmountable odds will get me every single time. I can’t help it. Thus, finding out everything we can about those who are healthy, stable people and examples to the world around them is an appealing idea to me in every way.

I also think it is interesting that we have such a propensity to focus on the negative. Perhaps it is out of fear. I remember reading Girl, Interrupted by Susanna Kaysen and one of the most vivid parts of the book to me is when postulates that the first thing people think about in response to a person having psychological issues is the likelihood of something similar happen to them. Perhaps that is a satisfactory explanation, we gawk at those who have messed up to make us feel like we could never end up that way. Maybe we’d all be more likely to be success stories if we spent that energy watching those who did it right.

Third-force psychology reresents to me an interesting mix of useful change and hypocrisy.  It’s usefulness comes in it’s challenge to the other schools of psychology in focusing in on the patient more (for example, psychiatry is trending towords more medication management and spends less and less time with patients).  Third-force psychology brings a more humane focus to psychology, which is good.  Yet, where it excels, it also fails.  Because, I then feel that it goes to far in how much it focuses on humans, and alienates the other fields of psychology.  Without using emprical data or any terms of labeling third-force psychology leaves itself in a rut.  And because it rejects a lot of the testing other fields of psychology use, they pass up many chances for collaboration  or cooperation.

And again, third-force psychology runs into a problem.  It rejects labeling, yet it tells us that there is something wrong in the way we think that must be rejected or changed.  Third-force criticizes other branches of psychology for “diagnosing” problems, yet it does the very same thing.  I know that realistically, a lot of third force psychologists probably don’t hold this extreme view, yet it seems too big a flaw to overlook.

 I also think third-force psychology fails in it’s inability to explain more than a small section of psychological problems.    It definitely has is uses however.  I really like Maslowe’s hiearchy of needs, which I believe has a lot of uses outside of psychology (mission work, business, rebuilding in disaster zones ect).  And I enjoy the more holistic approach that third force psychology offers to mental health couselors.

I believe third force psychology has a lot to offer, but at the same time I find that a lot of what it does offer is too subjective and unscientific.  Third-force psychology really is a product of the “post-modern” age.  It embodies a lot of the humanistic philosophies (which I disagree with to an extent).  Perhaps it’s a matter of opinion.  But I believe that like Gestalt Psychology, third-force will eventually fade to the background as post-modernism begins to pass.

I’m noticing a trend as the semester goes on, and it’s probably not just limited to Humanism and Behaviorism.  Ever since the Empiricism (experience) versus Rationalism (reason) debate was brought up, it seems like it continues to show up in some form another throughout history. Even before Behaviorism was Mechanism, a precursor of sorts that assumed man was like a machine (something Behaviorism might agree with in how man is capable of “being programmed” through conditioning), both of which falling on the side of experience. When you breakdown the common Behaviorist’s position, it seems to suggest that man is kind of blank slate that is either operates or is operated on the environment. Nothing about this seems to imply there is anything to man prior to these “operations,” and seems to argue that whatever substance mankind has behind it is a result of consequences or the events that occurred through an individuals life, shaping them to behave the way in which they do.

The counter to this seems to be Humanism for the moment (though Pscyhoanalysis fits as well). The line that caught my attention the most was Abraham Maslow’s comment that “anyone who had a baby couldn’t be a behaviorist,” a comment that would stand in direct opposition to the Behaviorist/Empiricist position. It instead insists that people aren’t born with a blank slate just waiting to be filled with experience or be conditioned, that we are instead born with something already instilled within us. Psychoanalysis most certainly would be in line with this sort of thinking in its emphasis on the unconscious, a force that nigh constantly demands instant gratification (that doesn’t appear to be learned, but latent). Overall, the schools of thought, unlike Behaviorism, stress an emphasis on a sort of consciousness or reasoning to supersedes experience alone.

It would probably be less interesting if the theories were as ancient as the ideas they represent, but it provides only further evidence that the Experience/Rational debate is far from over, and continues to thrive even to this day. I can’t say if there will ever be an obvious answer to this question, but with all the technology and progress that has been made, I would expect to be closer to some sort of resolution. The fact that this argument continues to exists only makes me all the more skeptical.

For this last post I knew I wanted to talk more about the whole “ego vs id” idea. So, of course I decided to be really scientific and youtube it. After searching through some ridiculous results, lucky for you, I found this jewel of a video. This vintage video (it’s the link at the bottom of the post) from who knows how long ago is not only hilarious, but I think actually does a great job in describing Freud’s basic beliefs. According to Freud’s model, the ego is the organized, realistic part of us, the id is more of the primal pleasure part that tells us what we want and when we want it (usually NOW), and the super ego is the reasonable voice in our head telling us what not to do.

I think this model is really interesting, and describes what I have always grown up with calling my “conscience” or Jiminy Cricket. Instead of one voice telling you what is right, there are two battling voices trying and pulling you two different ways. I have really only known this as my conscience and the Devil trying to tempt me. Freud instead calls it the id and superego.

But clearly this is not what Freud believes. You can thank this video for giving such a creepy picture of this model and the two different voices that can be heard from them- one reason driven and one soley pleasure driven.

Click on the link below, leave your favorite quotes in the comment section, and enjoy. For example, get excited to hear this-“David, what are you doing with your sister in the basement?”

Id, Ego, & Superego Video

Festinger's social comparison theory popped into my head the other day while watching college football. I was watching my favorite team the Texas Longhorns get beat by the Baylor Bears, who have been a perennial doormat in the big 12 when I started to apply Festinger's theory to the Longhorns current predicament. As a recognized football powerhouse the Longhorns expect to be one of the best teams in the nation year in and year out. Through the past decade they have finished in the top 25 every year, and more often than not also in the top 10. The Longhorns have learned to compare themselves to their peers as a measuring stick. Instead of using local peers such as Baylor who is a fellow Texas team, the Longhorns compare themselves to fellow powerhouses such as Ohio State, Oklahoma, Alabama, and so on. We get so used to this standard of excellence that we have forgotten the taste of defeat. If rather we compared ourselves to our in state brethren Baylor, we would be more apt to accept our fate this year. But perhaps this measuring yourself to your peers is how it truly works. Maybe adding socioeconomic classes to the social comparison theory would make this theory more realistic. Maybe adding race, religion, and education to the mix would give this theory a sharper edge. Or maybe all of these factors are inherently implied when Festinger said “people compare themselves to others because for many
domains and attributes there is no objective yardstick to evaluate
ourselves against, and other people are therefore highly informative." Whatever the case is I believe the social comparison theory rings true for all parts of life.

The media and their use of behaviorism is, in my opinion, spectacular. It exploits basic human processes in simplest way in order to achieve the best results. It is actually a win win situation for both the consumer and the company. The company wins obviously by way of selling their product, but the consumer wins by gaining a sense of desire, or fulfillment, or whatever else might be warranted from the attainment of that product. By pairing the product with safety, happiness, sexual attractiveness, or healthiness in the commercials, the consumers begin to associate the product with the paired attribute. This then compels a sense of desire for the merchandise being marketed, but only if the consumer wants the paired attribute. In this sense, behavioral conditioning in marketing acts as a form of placebo effect that placates those who desire whatever their product offers; of course being a discerning consumer is a necessary safeguard for those companies who unscrupulously advertise. This marketing technique does however provide satisfaction to many of those who they market to, and even though it may seem that they are satisfying a need they themselves created through their advertising, I would argue that this is not true on the basis that they did not create a need for their product, but rather coupled their product with a need that the consumer already held. In this way companies are satisfying a previously unmet need.

One theory that has really caught my eye lately is Festinger’s social comparison theory. In his theory  he states that “people compare themselves to others because for many domains and attributes there is no objective yardstick to evaluate ourselves against, and other people are therefore highly informative”

Yardstick, clearly made me think of Boomstick, which made me want to talk about the Rangers. And with everything going on right now, how could I not?

I have a been a Texas Rangers fan for as long as I remember. I love learning about the players, researching stats, and going to games. One interesting thing is the idea of sports and how it reminded me of the social comparison theory. Every time you read stats, anytime you talk about players, they are always being compared to others. Sports is all about performance. If you follow sports you constantly hear something like the following: Lets look at Josh Hamilton’s batting average compared to Derek Jeters. (Lets be for real, Hamilton is infinitely better, but that is besides the point)

I wonder if this idea of performance that we see on the TV leaks into our everyday life, starting as kids. I remember as a kid hearing my dad yelling at the TV if a player failed, or saying that one player was much better than the other. What if this encourages us to look at those around us and compare? Maybe we are influenced by others more than we think.

I recently made a comment on some one’s post which was about behaviorism and how influential it is in media and commercials. I wanted to follow up on that comment and bring up the idea of how many commercials now a days actually do not use behaviorism to make a catchy punch line or a song that, when one hears it, automatically thinks of that company in the media message. What are some ideas as to what companies are, dare I say, dumb enough to not use a catchy tune or a borderline inappropriate innuendo to get the audiences attention?

I believe that it is very interesting that many of the Schools of Psychology, when they first emerge, claim that they are attempting to shape Psychology as a science, and look at those schools before them as inadequately unscientific.  Behaviorism stands out though, among the schools of psychology in the zeal it showed in proclaiming itself as a “pure” science.  Watson especially was considered excessive in reducing everything to behavior.  I remember how in the book, it tells that when Watson attempted to explain thought and speech as a behavior, he met with criticism from all sides.  And that, though Watson could not explain either thought or speech in terms of behavior  satisfactorily, he remained adamant in keeping behavior as the only way to explain humans psychologically.

I question as to whether or not behaviorism will continue to be a major school of psychology in the future.  Or, if like  gestalt psychology, it will simply become a supporting wing of psychology to the increasingly popular biological model.  Neurology/psychiatry and neuropsychology are becoming increasingly intertwined, and despite Watson’s prediction, are becoming increasingly more able to explain psychology in terms of biological processes.  However, even the biological model cannot explain everything.  As far, behaviorism has its niche and can explain many but not all psychological aspects of humans, and as it cannot explain the mind, has become more and more connected with cognitive psychology

So, I wonder in the future whether psychology, like physics, will search for a unifying theory.  Or will it remain a fractured science, in which collaboration between the branches in the only way to explain human beings?

I think that it is okay to test fears in children. The experiment with little Albert is a good model for how fears come about in any situation and we wouldn't necessarily criticize the other circumstances that are the same. Fears are all learned anyways and you can overcome a fear. I was able to overcome a lot of my fears as I got older because I realized that a lot of them were unreasonable. I was afraid of bugs, but I didn't have a reason to be afraid of them. I was afraid because I heard someone else scream when they saw a bug. I assumed that they were fearful for a reason, so I became scared. When other people scream it is like making a loud noise behind a child. We then learn to be afraid of the situation because of the things we learn to associate with it. I was always more fearful if I heard others scream then when I am alone.