Compare and contrast Wundt and Galton.
Undoubtedly the father of psychology, Wundt brought psychology out as a science, distinguishing it from philosophy and biology. Wundt, who institutionalized psychology, is prominently associated with structuralism and voluntarism. His approach to understanding the human mind was quite different from that of Galton because, in Wundt’s views, all human brains were the same, and had to be studied using the same metrics (Malone, 2009). As such, Wundt split the understanding of human brain and behavior into two – subjective and objective aspects. Wundt was undoubtedly the psychologist who explained the essence of the primary and secondary qualities as they could be applied in the study of human behaviors and responses to different situations.
On the other hand, Galton concerned himself with the differential psychology and eugenics. The primary difference between Wundt and Galton lie in the fact that the former sought to explain the nature of human behavior as a whole. On the contrary, Galton believed in studying behavior as a variable – something that changed from one individual to another. Additionally, the second difference is that Wundt only concentrated on the study of the human mind and behavior, ignoring the physiological aspects of the same. Perhaps another notable difference is in the ultimate goals of the two psychologists. While Wundt aimed at understanding the primary and secondary qualities of virtually everything he knew Galton sought to explain how to use the desirable traits of individuals to come up with an exceptional race (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014). He advocated from the use of artificial selection to come up with people with perfect traits – in a robust study referred to as Eugenics.
What is the connection between Galton’s beliefs about intelligence and (a) eugenics, and (b) mental testing?
Galton had unique beliefs about human intelligence, eugenics and mental testing. According to Galton, human intelligence was innate – it was more a matter of nature than nurture. Essentially therefore, he did not believe that the environment had any effects on the intelligence of a person. He therefore believed that a person was born either intelligent, or unintelligent. These beliefs were however challenged by other psychologists who believed that the understanding of mathematics differed among people. While some could effortlessly understand mathematics, others could not easily do it (Malone, 2009). In some cases, it was even established that others could not learn at all. The connection between of Galton’s beliefs about intelligent and mental testing is seen in psychometrics and anthropometry – concepts that sought to measure human characteristics and intelligence.
Galton’s beliefs about the measurability of human intelligence and characteristics formed the basis for eugenics. Using different physical attributes – such as weight, height and color – Galton explained that through eugenics, human beings could undergo modification in such a manner that the resultant beings could be perfect. The ultimate connection between all the beliefs of Galton is seen in the actuality that he believed human characteristics could be selected and combined through biological methods to give rise to a race with excellent intrinsic features – both mental and physical. Essentially, the connection among all the beliefs revolves around anthropometry and the quantification of human behavior.
Describe the essential principles of phrenology and explain why it eventually failed as a science. Be sure to consider the research of Flourens in your answer.
Phrenology is the concept whose proponents described as the “only true science.” The concept sought to establish a connection between the morphology f the skull and the character of an individual. The concept is considerably ancient, and is based on the theories of the idiosyncratic Viennese physician known as Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828). The concept was based on six tenets, which explained the connection between the mind and the shape of the head. The primary principle of the concept stated that the brain is the physical organ of the mind. The second principle stated that the mind has a number of distinct, inborn or innate faculties. The third principle is based on the second one, and states that because the faculties are distinct, they are located on different organs in the brain.
The forth principle is related to the third one, and states that the size of the organ is directly related with the power of the organ – meaning that some faculties were undoubtedly more powerful than others. Fifthly, the concept was based on the principle that the shape of the brain was affected by the development of different faculties (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014). Finally, the concept depended on the tenet that the skull surface could be a reliable index of evaluating and measuring the aptitude of a human being. The school of thought came to fail as a science because newer research established that all the faculties proposed by the proponents of phrenology did not actually exist. On the contrary, they just imaginary, except for the faculty of verbal memory explained by Gall. Additionally, Pierre Flourens established that the mind is nothing different from a normally functioning brain of a human being.
Flourens came up with a robust and rigorous technique of analyzing the brain of a human being. In his experiments, he eliminated different parts of the brain without damaging any blood vessels. The elimination of a portion of the brain caused disorders such as the loss of balance. Flourens dismissed the presumption of localization on the mind by successfully demonstrating that the extent of the disorder depended on the quantity of the portion extracted rather than the place of extraction (Malone, 2009). As such, he explained that the purported faculties where distributed all through the brain – a conclusion that destroyed the primary tenets of phrenology.
Show how the two varieties of the clinical method for studying the brain are illustrated by (a) Phineas Gage and (b) Tan.
For a long time, the clinical methods of investigating the human brain have been considered potent. Phineas Gage is a clinical method based on the accident that Gage was involved in when working at the railway station. In the accident, Gage received a metallic bar in his forehead. Apparently, the man survived, but there was notable change in behavior. The changes in behavior prompted research aimed at understanding the how various parts of the brain affected human behavior (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014). The autopsy of gage revealed that the metal bar had destroyed a significant part of the front lobes. The studies associated with the accident focused on the connection between the front lobes and the social behavior of individuals. Essentially, therefore, this method focuses on the connection between the various parts of the brain and their functionality, and the conduct of an individual.
Pierre Paul Broca carried out experiments that involved studying the brains of many aphasic patients. One among the patients gained fame, and was nicknamed “Tan”. The man was nicknamed so because he managed to pronounce the word Tan only. Broca demonstrated that Tan’s brain had been partially damaged by a certain form of neuro-syphillis. Broca established that the disease had actually affected the anterior part of the cortex. Much like the Phineas Gage approach, the Tan method, as explained by Broca, established that when lesioned, the brain experiences significant deficits in language. The two methods are in favor of the localization of functions of the brain. In the Tan method, further experiments revealed that a slight electric current on a specific part of the brain caused twitching of the neck muscles in the animals used.
Wundt rather than Fechner is considered to be the founder of modern experimental psychology. Why?
While many would argue that Fechner is the father of psychology, Wundt is more formally recognized as the father of psychology. Critics have argued that Wundt’s ideas were rooted in the raw thoughts of Fechner; it passes for a fact that he was the individual that made psychology a science. There are various reasons why Wundt is considered the father of psychology. Foremost, Wundt managed to make psychology a new school of thought – something that Fechner had devastatingly failed to do. Wundt is the man that converted psychology from being an interdisciplinary concept juggling between biology and philosophy, into being an independent science, which focused on many aspects beyond the understanding of the brain. Secondly, Wundt was the one that established or rather built the world’s first laboratory concerned with experimental psychology. This marked the official imitation of psychology.
Worth noting also is that many of Wundt’s students grew to become influential psychologists, renowned in the field of social sciences. Perhaps one among the most prominent and influential students taught by Wundt is Edward B. Titchener – the psychologist who explained the concept of structuralism, a concept based on the primary and secondary qualities. Another name worth mentioning is James McKean Cattell, the first person to be recognized as a professor in psychology in the United States (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014). Wundt also taught Stanley Hall who established the first experimental psychology laboratory in the America. Typically, people associate the developments of the students to Wundt’s efforts at making psychology a noteworthy science. For this reasons, he, rather than Fechner, is the father of psychology. Even so, the efforts of Fechner are recognized. The primary reason why he is not as noteworthy as Wudnt is that he failed to make psychology a science.
Darwin had his theory worked out in the early 1840’s. Why did he delay publication and why did he eventually publish in 1859?
Many explanations have been made regarding Darwin’s delay to publish the findings and premises of his theory. Apparently, Darwin had completed a thesis in 1938. However, it took him twenty years to make a decision to publish his theory. While this difference is unreasonably long, many historians and researchers have set out to answer the question: why? The most potent explanation for the delay is that Darwin adopted the hypothetical deductive method, one in which he created an hypothesis, then sought to conduct adequate research into finding information that would help him defend the hypothesis (Malone, 2009). Essentially therefore, Darwin took close to twenty years conducting the research. Secondly, Darwin wanted to receive the services of Thomas Huxley and other associates. As such, it took him too long to consult with Thomas Hooker, Thomas Huxley and Charles Lyell.
The second explanation for the delay is that Darwin basically wanted to back up his studies with further reviews of interdisciplinary studies. He took two decades reviewing materials in zoology and archeology (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014). The reviews beefed up the presumptions that upheld his theory. Perhaps one the remedial works that Darwin spent time on was the Barnacle Project. Some historians believe that the delay by Darwin was as a result of fear of disapproval. Apparently, Robert Chambers had published his studies The Natural Hisory of Creatiom, in 1844. The work of Chambers was highly discredited, especially after devastatingly being reviewed by Thomas Huxley. Darwin was afraid that social scientists would discredit his theory.
Describe Webster’s Law and the concept of a jnd.
Webster’s law states that the ratio of the increment threshold to the background intensity is constant (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014). According to the law, when a person is in a noisy place, it is likely that they will shout so as to be heard. On the contrary, a person in a serene room will only need to whisper to be heard. Essentially, when the increment threshold is measured in various intensities, it is clear that the change in the threshold will always increase in direct proportion with the background intensity. Therefore, the extent to which a person may need to shout to be heard depends on the extent to which the noise in the room changes. This law is based on the just noticeable difference. When a person lifts a 2 kg load, an additional 0.005 may not cause change in effort applied. But if the weight is gradually increased and at 2.2kg the person notices the change by feeling a change in effort, the extra 0.2kg is the just noticeable difference. It is the incremental threshold that is felt or noticeable. Essentially, the jnd is the incremental threshold required to detect a difference (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014). This difference is the essence of Webster’s law.
Distinguish between primary and secondary qualities of matter and compare the views of Locke and Berkeley’s with regard to these qualities.
Primary qualities are the properties or the characteristics of objects that are not dependent on the observer’s state of the mind. For instance, the solidity of an object will remain as such, irrespective of the observers’ subjective judgments. Similarly, the motion of an object cannot be challenged by the state of mind of the person perceiving the same. The primary qualities are factual and do not change in response to any factor. According to Hergenhahn & Henley (2014) primary qualities are intrinsic because, they are more a matter of nature than nurture. They are not affected by the changes in the environment. They are innate – in the case of living things. Primary qualities can be determined with certainty.
Secondary qualities are those that produce sensation in the observer. For instance, the color of an object is likely to be associated with different emotions and perceptions by different observers. According to John Locke, the secondary qualities vary greatly in accordance to the subjective views of the individual. On the contrary, the secondary ones do not vary. Locke concluded that there is nothing in the secondary qualities that resembles anything in the object. In opposition Berkeley thought that both the primary and the secondary are matters of perception, hence are not in any way resembling the objects intrinsically.
References
Hergenhahn, B. R., & Henley, T. B. (2014). An introduction to the history of psychology. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning
Malone, J. C. (2009). Psychology: Pythagoras to present. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
