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 "biologist"wasn'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 "behavior"would 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 > psychology"is 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 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.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=38031 >>> or send a blank email to >>> leave-38031-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu >> >> --- >> You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. >> To unsubscribe click here: >> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=38042 >> or send a blank email to >> leave-38042-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=38044 > or send a blank email to > leave-38044-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=38047 or send a blank email to leave-38047-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu