Dear Tipsters, I agree with Chris that this issue matters for, ahem, "low level" teaching and disagree with Michael S. that the thread is worn.
In an introductory level course, it is appropriate to teach good scholarship whenever the opportunity arises. The iceberg case provides such an opportunity. In fact, because we use David Myers's text, I will be able to say next year that he is quite careful: He states that the iceberg diagram in his text is "adapted from Freud, 1933, p. 111)". Sincerely, Stuart ______________________________________________ Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Bishop's University, 2600 College Street, Sherbrooke (Lennoxville), Québec J1M 0C8, Canada. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (819)822-9600, Extension 2402 Fax: (819)822-9660 Bishop's Psychology Department Web Page: http/:www.ubishops.ca/ccc/dev/soc/psy __________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:26 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: [tips] Re: Hunting the iceberg (contd) > > Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote: > > > Does it matter if we present the quote and/or the lovely images > > summarized on the blog link, knowing that a few years from now they > > will only remember the gist--that Freud talked about the mind as > > largely submerged and out of conscious awareness? > > It is mildly important to be able to correctly say "Freud charactierized > the mind thus and such" versus "Freud's view of the mind has been > characterized by others thus and such." It may not be WILDLY important > for low-level teaching, but for one's own intellectual integrity (not to > mention one's higher-level teaching and one's own research) it is > certainly worth knowing the difference. Other things being equal, > wouldn't you rather get it right? > > I tried to pull vol. 2 of Fechner's Psychophysik from the U. Toronto > library, but it is currently being "searched" (read: it has been > lost/stolen). Note Stephen, there are two editions of the Psychophysik > (1860 and 1889, I think). Check to make sure you get the one > corresponding to your p. 521 citiation. > > Whatever the result, it is unlikely to really resolve this dispute > because Fechner's "iceberg" is almost certainly going to be about the > difference between mere sensory stimulations (or changes in sensory > stimulation) that do (or not) rise to the level of consciousness, not > about the putatively motivational aspects of unconsious beliefs and > desires, in the way Freud meant. It may well turn out that Freud or > someone close to him borrowed this metaphor and adapted it to their own > purposes. That hardly rises to the level "plagiarism" (unless one is > ideologically committed showing that Freud was a low-down scoundrel on > all counts). The idea of an iceberg would seem to be common enough > currency. It may have been hit upon more or less independently by any > number of the many 19th-century thinkers who had used one or another > version of the idea of unconscious mentality (recall that Helmholtz and > Wundt had a dispute about which of them came up with the idea of > "unconsious inference" first, decades before Freud was on the scene). > Asuming for the moment that Freud actually used the iceberg analogy, > even if he got the idea from Fechner, he might well have wondered > whether it was really original to Fechner. Would you bother to cite > "quiet as a mouse"? > > Regards, > -- > Christopher D. Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > Canada > > 416-736-5115 ex. 66164 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.yorku.ca/christo > ============================= > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription go to: > http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
