RE: [tips] Biological/Physiological Psychology Behavioral Neuroscience
I'm very late to this party (got sick). It seems to me that biological psych is a much broader field than behavioral neuroscience. But perhaps that's just how I've come to teach them … m From: Gerald Peterson [mailto:peter...@svsu.edu] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:04 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Biological/Physiological Psychology Behavioral Neuroscience Carol, I thought the FUN group sounded interesting. I asked a psych colleague here in the college of Health and Human Services if he was familiar with it. Gulphe is Jeffrey Smith, and he wrote back quickly. He is the current president of Fun and attended the summer conference of FUN with one of our biology faculty and also one of our clinical neuropsych faculty. And so it goes G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU On Aug 22, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Carol DeVolder devoldercar...@gmail.commailto:devoldercar...@gmail.com wrote: My take on this is that biological psychology or physiological psychology as a fairly broad term that encompasses most species; behavioral neuroscience (or more simply neuroscience) does this as well, however the term is simply a sexier version. This (or these) discipline(s) study everything from cell bio (e.g., neurotransmitters, glia, neurocytology) with a definite biochemistry underpinning. Neuropsychology, on the other hand, involves the relationship between biological mechanisms and human behaviors (for the most part). Language in primates, affect in human and non-human animals, neural plasticity, recovery of function--all are part of this, but the emphasis is on people. An offshoot of this is the APA division 40, Clinical Neuropsychology. Personally, I think much of it has to do with the attractiveness of saying I am a neuroscientist rather than I am a biopsychologist. Both may mean the same, but one sounds a whole lot jazzier than the other. My department is crafting an advertisement for a new position--coming soon--and we have been wrestling with this type of wording. Some schools have interdisciplinary neuroscience majors that emphasize philosophy as well, with courses like philosophy of the mind, and consciousness. We are a department that deals with people, we don't have space for animal labs, and our students who go to grad school tend to go on to programs either in clinical psychology, physical therapy, or allied health fields. Our position will reflect our emphasis on the psychology part of it. A helpful organization is Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience (FUN), and Annette, you may find some help with your question within that organization http://www.funfaculty.org/drupal/ Happy Friday! Carol (undercover--AKA, Carol) On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Annette Taylor tay...@sandiego.edumailto:tay...@sandiego.edu wrote: Words change...usage changes...but people sometimes have a hard time changing. We currently have a search underway for a biological psychologist. It would seem that the concept of a biological psychologist is outdated and that the proper search might be for a behavioral neuroscientist. But there are people in our department who insist that the perspectives are different and that we really want a biological psychologist--someone trained in a psychology department and not someone trained for example, in a biology department or even an interdisciplinary department. Someone whose focus is primarily on behavior--not necessarily human--but definitely behavior and not something like the molecular level. So a person could study learning and memory at a more global behavioral level or at a finer tuned level in terms of brain structures, or a even finer tuned level yet at the molecular level. I think that the argument among some (I don't have this perspective so I'm trying to be fair to those who do) is that is that once you get down to cellular levels and below you are no longer a biological psychologist. Is there any sense among tipsters as to any real difference in what a traditional biological psychologist might bring to a department as opposed to a behavioral neuroscientist? We are at a crucial growth junction having initiated a program in behavioral neuroscience to complement our program in psychological science. The feeling among some is that the biological psychologist would be better serve the general psychological science program in the sense of preparing students who want to go into areas such as human relations/business or into law school or even into clinical areas with less than a PhD--i.e., areas that need a fundamental understanding of brain/behavior relationships, but not so finely tuned to the cellular levels and below. I'd appreciate some feedback as to where the field is going. (It seems to be that interdisciplinary neuroscience is the direction but I could be wrong on that. I'm not sure how to best research this objectively in some way other than looking
Re: [tips] Biological/Physiological Psychology Behavioral Neuroscience
I am surprised there hasn't been more reactions/discussion here regarding this issue. The issue seems clearly relevant to History Systems type classes, debate about subject matter of psychology, and the place of biological reductionism in psych programs. Here, while most of us value the neuroscience view and encourage our students working/researching in behavioral neuroscience, many also question whether the students are missing a psychological perspective in such work. Is there a distinct psychological view that should be conveyed in a psych curriculum that differs from the neurobiological approach? Are biological/physio psychologists actually doing psychological study? Why? Because they give emphases (sometimes) to behavior? Aren't biologists studying behavior and function as well? So are they then also doing psychology? Does a psychologist look at behavior differently? Do psychological explanations/theory differ from the neurobiological types of ideas? Is it the molar-molecular dimension that is key, or is it that a psychological account of presumed mental and/or experiential processes must be central? Is this an ages-old historical issue regarding what is a defining issue for the field? Or perhaps, Is the very idea of a psych viewpoint bankrupt or simply irrelevant in this age of trending neuroscience? Some might agree with Annette that perhaps the difference between Biological Psychologist and Behavioral Neuroscientist is just a change in word usage. Others might argue neither are psychologists!? G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU On Aug 21, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Annette Taylor tay...@sandiego.edu wrote: Words change...usage changes...but people sometimes have a hard time changing. We currently have a search underway for a biological psychologist. It would seem that the concept of a biological psychologist is outdated and that the proper search might be for a behavioral neuroscientist. But there are people in our department who insist that the perspectives are different and that we really want a biological psychologist--someone trained in a psychology department and not someone trained for example, in a biology department or even an interdisciplinary department. Someone whose focus is primarily on behavior--not necessarily human--but definitely behavior and not something like the molecular level. So a person could study learning and memory at a more global behavioral level or at a finer tuned level in terms of brain structures, or a even finer tuned level yet at the molecular level. I think that the argument among some (I don't have this perspective so I'm trying to be fair to those who do) is that is that once you get down to cellular levels and below you are no longer a biological psychologist. Is there any sense among tipsters as to any real difference in what a traditional biological psychologist might bring to a department as opposed to a behavioral neuroscientist? We are at a crucial growth junction having initiated a program in behavioral neuroscience to complement our program in psychological science. The feeling among some is that the biological psychologist would be better serve the general psychological science program in the sense of preparing students who want to go into areas such as human relations/business or into law school or even into clinical areas with less than a PhD--i.e., areas that need a fundamental understanding of brain/behavior relationships, but not so finely tuned to the cellular levels and below. I'd appreciate some feedback as to where the field is going. (It seems to be that interdisciplinary neuroscience is the direction but I could be wrong on that. I'm not sure how to best research this objectively in some way other than looking at the job postings at APA and APS and counting the numbers of descriptors used. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110-2492 tay...@sandiego.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94bn=Tl=tipso=38031 or send a blank email to leave-38031-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=38042 or send a blank email to leave-38042-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Biological/Physiological Psychology Behavioral Neuroscience
Ooo! Something I know a little about. First off, Gary NO ONE says history and systems anymore. Sure fire way to reveal that you haven't revised your history and systems course in about 25 years. :-) Second, this debate has roots right to the very start of psychology. When Wundt et al. started doing physiological psychology (as he called it) in the 1870s, many physiologists (the term biologistwasn't really used much until later) claimed that the new discipline was really just a part of physiology (which had a certain plausibility, seeing as Wundt had literally taken the instruments from the physiology lab he worked in (Helmholtz's) and started using them to answer questions about the speed of thought). As psychologists began to develop their disciplinary rhetoric (boundary work, as historians of science like to call it), the response that emerged was that, although psychologists used many of the same instruments as physiologists, the object of their study was consciousness itself rather than its physiological underpinnings. Consciousness was not part of the physiologists' domain. Although momentarily sufficient to keep the dogs at bay, the consciousness tactic became increasingly problematic, especially after William James' 1904 article Does Consciousness Exist? If consciousness were so problematic that it could not effectively serve as psychology's defining concept, what was going to keep psychology from slipping (back?) into physiology? The answer to this crisis, as we all know, came about a decade later with John B Watson declared that behaviorwould be psychology's new core concept. This worked reasonably well, except that there were lots of biologists (as they now began to call themselves) who did work on (at least the most basic aspects of) behavior. Especially when the ethologists appeared on the US scene, around World War II, it created a bit of panic among those who thought that only psychologists did (could do?) behavior. It is no accident that, not long after, psychologists started talking a lot about cognition (though this is a complicated story with many diverse sources all converging in the US during the 1950s). To return to the question at hand, my understanding of the term biological psychologyis that it is much broader than behavioral neuroscientist. Biological psychologists look(ed) at (the psychological effects of) physiological mechanisms beyond the boundaries of the neurological; glandular and hormonal, for instance. So the two terms are not co-extensive. (Although there are biological psychologists still around, I'm not sure the extent to which *new* scientists using that particular label are still being produced. An academic career can take 40 years or more, and lots of people are not much interested in the massive retooling required to re-identify with a new group once their careers are well underway.) In any case, it is not really about definitions of the words. It is about the cultures of two groups of people. Behavioral neuroscience has developed its own distinct disciplinary culture (drawn more, I think, from neuroscience than from older forms of psychology) that probably make the two groups different in terms of both the scientific traditions they draw on and the problems they see as being central to their areas. My several-more-than-2-cents, Chris .. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo On Aug 22, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Gerald Peterson peter...@svsu.edu wrote: I am surprised there hasn't been more reactions/discussion here regarding this issue. The issue seems clearly relevant to History Systems type classes, debate about subject matter of psychology, and the place of biological reductionism in psych programs. Here, while most of us value the neuroscience view and encourage our students working/researching in behavioral neuroscience, many also question whether the students are missing a psychological perspective in such work. Is there a distinct psychological view that should be conveyed in a psych curriculum that differs from the neurobiological approach? Are biological/physio psychologists actually doing psychological study? Why? Because they give emphases (sometimes) to behavior? Aren't biologists studying behavior and function as well? So are they then also doing psychology? Does a psychologist look at behavior differently? Do psychological explanations/theory differ from the neurobiological types of ideas? Is it the molar-molecular dimension that is key, or is it that a psychological account of presumed mental and/or experiential processes must be central? Is this an ages-old historical issue regarding what is a defining issue for the field? Or perhaps, Is the very idea of a psych viewpoint bankrupt or simply irrelevant in this age of trending neuroscience? Some might agree with Annette that
RE: [tips] Biological/Physiological Psychology Behavioral Neuroscience
From: Christopher Green chri...@yorku.ca Ooo! Something I know a little about. First off, Gary NO ONE says history and systems anymore. Sure fire way to reveal that you haven't revised your history and systems course in about 25 years. :-) --- I'm glad we changed History Systems to Perspectives of Psychology last year, making us not behind the times. --- Second, this debate has roots right to the very start of psychology. When Wundt et al. started doing physiological psychology (as he called it) in the 1870s, many physiologists (the term biologistwasn't really used much until later) claimed that the new discipline was really just a part of physiology (which had a certain plausibility, seeing as Wundt had literally taken the instruments from the physiology lab he worked in (Helmholtz's) and started using them to answer questions about the speed of thought). --- Wasn't Wundt's Volkerpsychologie an attempt to cover the mind in its non-physiological manifestations? Bill Scott --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=38046 or send a blank email to leave-38046-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Biological/Physiological Psychology Behavioral Neuroscience
Thanks Chris! Really appreciate the historical context. Alas yes, I revealed my age and long-ago teaching load by using the old language. We are in the process of revamping the class and always updating. I agree, it does feel like a clash or accommodation of different cultures! G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU On Aug 22, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Christopher Green chri...@yorku.ca wrote: Ooo! Something I know a little about. First off, Gary NO ONE says history and systems anymore. Sure fire way to reveal that you haven't revised your history and systems course in about 25 years. :-) Second, this debate has roots right to the very start of psychology. When Wundt et al. started doing physiological psychology (as he called it) in the 1870s, many physiologists (the term biologistwasn't really used much until later) claimed that the new discipline was really just a part of physiology (which had a certain plausibility, seeing as Wundt had literally taken the instruments from the physiology lab he worked in (Helmholtz's) and started using them to answer questions about the speed of thought). As psychologists began to develop their disciplinary rhetoric (boundary work, as historians of science like to call it), the response that emerged was that, although psychologists used many of the same instruments as physiologists, the object of their study was consciousness itself rather than its physiological underpinnings. Consciousness was not part of the physiologists' domain. Although momentarily sufficient to keep the dogs at bay, the consciousness tactic became increasingly problematic, especially after William James' 1904 article Does Consciousness Exist? If consciousness were so problematic that it could not effectively serve as psychology's defining concept, what was going to keep psychology from slipping (back?) into physiology? The answer to this crisis, as we all know, came about a decade later with John B Watson declared that behaviorwould be psychology's new core concept. This worked reasonably well, except that there were lots of biologists (as they now began to call themselves) who did work on (at least the most basic aspects of) behavior. Especially when the ethologists appeared on the US scene, around World War II, it created a bit of panic among those who thought that only psychologists did (could do?) behavior. It is no accident that, not long after, psychologists started talking a lot about cognition (though this is a complicated story with many diverse sources all converging in the US during the 1950s). To return to the question at hand, my understanding of the term biological psychologyis that it is much broader than behavioral neuroscientist. Biological psychologists look(ed) at (the psychological effects of) physiological mechanisms beyond the boundaries of the neurological; glandular and hormonal, for instance. So the two terms are not co-extensive. (Although there are biological psychologists still around, I'm not sure the extent to which *new* scientists using that particular label are still being produced. An academic career can take 40 years or more, and lots of people are not much interested in the massive retooling required to re-identify with a new group once their careers are well underway.) In any case, it is not really about definitions of the words. It is about the cultures of two groups of people. Behavioral neuroscience has developed its own distinct disciplinary culture (drawn more, I think, from neuroscience than from older forms of psychology) that probably make the two groups different in terms of both the scientific traditions they draw on and the problems they see as being central to their areas. My several-more-than-2-cents, Chris .. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo On Aug 22, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Gerald Peterson peter...@svsu.edu wrote: I am surprised there hasn't been more reactions/discussion here regarding this issue. The issue seems clearly relevant to History Systems type classes, debate about subject matter of psychology, and the place of biological reductionism in psych programs. Here, while most of us value the neuroscience view and encourage our students working/researching in behavioral neuroscience, many also question whether the students are missing a psychological perspective in such work. Is there a distinct psychological view that should be conveyed in a psych curriculum that differs from the neurobiological approach? Are biological/physio psychologists actually doing psychological study? Why? Because they give emphases (sometimes) to behavior? Aren't biologists studying behavior and function as well? So are they then also doing psychology? Does a psychologist look at behavior differently? Do psychological
Re: [tips] Biological/Physiological Psychology Behavioral Neuroscience
On 2014-08-22, at 11:50 AM, William Scott wrote: From: Christopher Green chri...@yorku.ca Wasn't Wundt's Volkerpsychologie an attempt to cover the mind in its non-physiological manifestations? Yes, well mind in the broadest terms possible. Völkerpsychologie was a study of religion, art, and other cultural forms that Wundt believed could not be effectively submitted to experimental science. It was a discipline that grew out of the attempt, in the late 19th century, by two Jewish-German scholars -- Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal -- to demonstrate that the German culture was not monolithic (think Wagner) but, rather, multifaceted and (most controversially) included within it the country's Jewish citizens (as opposed to Jews being regarded as an alien presence that marred pure German culture). (There was an interesting article by Egbert Klautke about the origins of Völkerpsychologie in the journal Central Europe back in 2010. I think he also has a book out about it now.) Wundt picked up the idea and wrote 10 volumes on it during the last two decades of his life (only one condensed volume has been translated into English). I believe that his emphasis was not on Jews and Germany but, rather, on non-European cultures, so it ends up looking a bit like a kind of armchair anthropology to us. In any case, Völkerpsychologie failed to launch as a discipline (not least because of the anti-semitism that began sweeping German in the wake of the loss of World War I -- stabbed in the back, and all that), and Wundt's massive work in this field was almost forgotten. The question of Wundt's politics is an interesting one as well. He started off as a Liberal Democrat. I believe he even sat a term or two as a representative in a local legislature. (George Mandler's history of psychology textbook is the source for this.) He was strongly nationalist, however, and became increasingly conservative as he aged. A number of his students were killed or wounded during WWI, and he was one of the signatories of the notorious Manifesto of the Ninety-Three. This, probably more than anything else, this political action led to the decline of his reputation among American, English, and French psychologists and philosophers. He was denounced by a number of former students, who had since become professors elsewhere. Because he died soon after the War (and his work was already considered dated in both Germany, the US, and elsewhere), he was never the subject of a rehabilitation and Boring's inaccurate portrayal of him (gleaned mostly from Titchener, who mistakenly saw himself as the One True Disciple of Wundt in America) was what almost all American's learned about Wundt until the re-examination of his work began around the time of the centennial of the Leipzig laboratory in the law 1970s and early 1980s. The results of that second look took another 20 years or so to make it into the history of psychology textbooks (but for a few exceptions). Chris Bill Scott --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92n=Tl=tipso=38046 or send a blank email to leave-38046-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=38048 or send a blank email to leave-38048-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Biological/Physiological Psychology Behavioral Neuroscience
My take on this is that biological psychology or physiological psychology as a fairly broad term that encompasses most species; behavioral neuroscience (or more simply neuroscience) does this as well, however the term is simply a sexier version. This (or these) discipline(s) study everything from cell bio (e.g., neurotransmitters, glia, neurocytology) with a definite biochemistry underpinning. Neuropsychology, on the other hand, involves the relationship between biological mechanisms and human behaviors (for the most part). Language in primates, affect in human and non-human animals, neural plasticity, recovery of function--all are part of this, but the emphasis is on people. An offshoot of this is the APA division 40, Clinical Neuropsychology. Personally, I think much of it has to do with the attractiveness of saying I am a neuroscientist rather than I am a biopsychologist. Both may mean the same, but one sounds a whole lot jazzier than the other. My department is crafting an advertisement for a new position--coming soon--and we have been wrestling with this type of wording. Some schools have interdisciplinary neuroscience majors that emphasize philosophy as well, with courses like philosophy of the mind, and consciousness. We are a department that deals with people, we don't have space for animal labs, and our students who go to grad school tend to go on to programs either in clinical psychology, physical therapy, or allied health fields. Our position will reflect our emphasis on the psychology part of it. A helpful organization is Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience (FUN), and Annette, you may find some help with your question within that organization http://www.funfaculty.org/drupal/ Happy Friday! Carol (undercover--AKA, Carol) On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Annette Taylor tay...@sandiego.edu wrote: Words change...usage changes...but people sometimes have a hard time changing. We currently have a search underway for a biological psychologist. It would seem that the concept of a biological psychologist is outdated and that the proper search might be for a behavioral neuroscientist. But there are people in our department who insist that the perspectives are different and that we really want a biological psychologist--someone trained in a psychology department and not someone trained for example, in a biology department or even an interdisciplinary department. Someone whose focus is primarily on behavior--not necessarily human--but definitely behavior and not something like the molecular level. So a person could study learning and memory at a more global behavioral level or at a finer tuned level in terms of brain structures, or a even finer tuned level yet at the molecular level. I think that the argument among some (I don't have this perspective so I'm trying to be fair to those who do) is that is that once you get down to cellular levels and below you are no longer a biological psychologist. Is there any sense among tipsters as to any real difference in what a traditional biological psychologist might bring to a department as opposed to a behavioral neuroscientist? We are at a crucial growth junction having initiated a program in behavioral neuroscience to complement our program in psychological science. The feeling among some is that the biological psychologist would be better serve the general psychological science program in the sense of preparing students who want to go into areas such as human relations/business or into law school or even into clinical areas with less than a PhD--i.e., areas that need a fundamental understanding of brain/behavior relationships, but not so finely tuned to the cellular levels and below. I'd appreciate some feedback as to where the field is going. (It seems to be that interdisciplinary neuroscience is the direction but I could be wrong on that. I'm not sure how to best research this objectively in some way other than looking at the job postings at APA and APS and counting the numbers of descriptors used. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110-2492 tay...@sandiego.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: devoldercar...@gmail.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=177920.a45340211ac7929163a021623341n=Tl=tipso=38031 or send a blank email to leave-38031-177920.a45340211ac7929163a021623...@fsulist.frostburg.edu -- Carol DeVolder, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology St. Ambrose University 518 West Locust Street Davenport, Iowa 52803 563-333-6482 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=38049 or send a blank email to leave-38049-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Biological/Physiological Psychology Behavioral Neuroscience
Carol, I thought the FUN group sounded interesting. I asked a psych colleague here in the college of Health and Human Services if he was familiar with it. Gulphe is Jeffrey Smith, and he wrote back quickly. He is the current president of Fun and attended the summer conference of FUN with one of our biology faculty and also one of our clinical neuropsych faculty. And so it goes G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU On Aug 22, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Carol DeVolder devoldercar...@gmail.com wrote: My take on this is that biological psychology or physiological psychology as a fairly broad term that encompasses most species; behavioral neuroscience (or more simply neuroscience) does this as well, however the term is simply a sexier version. This (or these) discipline(s) study everything from cell bio (e.g., neurotransmitters, glia, neurocytology) with a definite biochemistry underpinning. Neuropsychology, on the other hand, involves the relationship between biological mechanisms and human behaviors (for the most part). Language in primates, affect in human and non-human animals, neural plasticity, recovery of function--all are part of this, but the emphasis is on people. An offshoot of this is the APA division 40, Clinical Neuropsychology. Personally, I think much of it has to do with the attractiveness of saying I am a neuroscientist rather than I am a biopsychologist. Both may mean the same, but one sounds a whole lot jazzier than the other. My department is crafting an advertisement for a new position--coming soon--and we have been wrestling with this type of wording. Some schools have interdisciplinary neuroscience majors that emphasize philosophy as well, with courses like philosophy of the mind, and consciousness. We are a department that deals with people, we don't have space for animal labs, and our students who go to grad school tend to go on to programs either in clinical psychology, physical therapy, or allied health fields. Our position will reflect our emphasis on the psychology part of it. A helpful organization is Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience (FUN), and Annette, you may find some help with your question within that organization http://www.funfaculty.org/drupal/ Happy Friday! Carol (undercover--AKA, Carol) On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Annette Taylor tay...@sandiego.edu wrote: Words change...usage changes...but people sometimes have a hard time changing. We currently have a search underway for a biological psychologist. It would seem that the concept of a biological psychologist is outdated and that the proper search might be for a behavioral neuroscientist. But there are people in our department who insist that the perspectives are different and that we really want a biological psychologist--someone trained in a psychology department and not someone trained for example, in a biology department or even an interdisciplinary department. Someone whose focus is primarily on behavior--not necessarily human--but definitely behavior and not something like the molecular level. So a person could study learning and memory at a more global behavioral level or at a finer tuned level in terms of brain structures, or a even finer tuned level yet at the molecular level. I think that the argument among some (I don't have this perspective so I'm trying to be fair to those who do) is that is that once you get down to cellular levels and below you are no longer a biological psychologist. Is there any sense among tipsters as to any real difference in what a traditional biological psychologist might bring to a department as opposed to a behavioral neuroscientist? We are at a crucial growth junction having initiated a program in behavioral neuroscience to complement our program in psychological science. The feeling among some is that the biological psychologist would be better serve the general psychological science program in the sense of preparing students who want to go into areas such as human relations/business or into law school or even into clinical areas with less than a PhD--i.e., areas that need a fundamental understanding of brain/behavior relationships, but not so finely tuned to the cellular levels and below. I'd appreciate some feedback as to where the field is going. (It seems to be that interdisciplinary neuroscience is the direction but I could be wrong on that. I'm not sure how to best research this objectively in some way other than looking at the job postings at APA and APS and counting the numbers of descriptors used. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110-2492 tay...@sandiego.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: devoldercar...@gmail.com. To unsubscribe click here:
Re: [tips] Biological/Physiological Psychology Behavioral Neuroscience
A neuroscientist is someone who doesn't want to be associated with psychology. Physiological psychology and biological psychology are not so much old as they are psychology. Cognitive scientists, behavioral biologists, etc. could be other examples of attempts to be less affiliated with a discipline that has a hard time doing science. Not a new thought, but one that seems reasonable. Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Counseling University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR 72035 Phone: 501-450-5418 Fax: 501-450-5424 AVID: UCA dedicates itself to Academic Vitality, Integrity, and Diversity. Annette Taylor tay...@sandiego.edu 8/21/2014 2:22 PM Words change...usage changes...but people sometimes have a hard time changing. We currently have a search underway for a biological psychologist. It would seem that the concept of a biological psychologist is outdated and that the proper search might be for a behavioral neuroscientist. But there are people in our department who insist that the perspectives are different and that we really want a biological psychologist--someone trained in a psychology department and not someone trained for example, in a biology department or even an interdisciplinary department. Someone whose focus is primarily on behavior--not necessarily human--but definitely behavior and not something like the molecular level. So a person could study learning and memory at a more global behavioral level or at a finer tuned level in terms of brain structures, or a even finer tuned level yet at the molecular level. I think that the argument among some (I don't have this perspective so I'm trying to be fair to those who do) is that is that once you get down to cellular levels and below you are no longer a biological psychologist. Is there any sense among tipsters as to any real difference in what a traditional biological psychologist might bring to a department as opposed to a behavioral neuroscientist? We are at a crucial growth junction having initiated a program in behavioral neuroscience to complement our program in psychological science. The feeling among some is that the biological psychologist would be better serve the general psychological science program in the sense of preparing students who want to go into areas such as human relations/business or into law school or even into clinical areas with less than a PhD--i.e., areas that need a fundamental understanding of brain/behavior relationships, but not so finely tuned to the cellular levels and below. I'd appreciate some feedback as to where the field is going. (It seems to be that interdisciplinary neuroscience is the direction but I could be wrong on that. I'm not sure how to best research this objectively in some way other than looking at the job postings at APA and APS and counting the numbers of descriptors used. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110-2492 tay...@sandiego.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: micha...@uca.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa657an=Tl=tipso=38031 or send a blank email to leave-38031-357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa6...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=38032 or send a blank email to leave-38032-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
