In what might be considered the direct opposition to Émile Durkheim’s exclusive sociology, interdisciplinarist Maximilian Weber sought out parallels between the social sciences and other fields of study to engender explanations and interpretations that form the cultural significance of social phenomena. (Kivisto 68) His eponymous text characterizes such an endeavour by a reshaping of objectivity in scientific evaluation, (Kivisto 68) and while this work has been principally lauded in academic circles, we nevertheless shoulder the responsibility of weighing the obstacles his theory faces in a postmodern context with his germane observations so that we may facilitate a deeper exploration of the multidimensional society.
Ever since perception was thought to be regulated by animal spirits, neuroscientists and philosophers have come a long way when discovering cognition. However, there has been a great deal of debate over who should continue the search for answers. Many of the current methods used to explain this phenomenon have been grounded in folk psychology (FP)—which is, briefly, the set of common sense concepts that we use to predict and explain behavior and which many believe fails to offer the reliable explanations that are required for this largely unknown mind to brain relationship. This work identifies the challenges to neuroscientific attempts to understand the mind, including the opinions from Churchland, Slors, Anderson, and Hamilton, each offering their own views on current methods and how research should be continued by neuroscience. As well, we will discuss what challenges may arise and how neuroscientists must work to overcome them.
The history of psychology is a long and arduous one that is filled with constant shifts in ideology, approach, and importance. The field of psychology today incorporates various aspects of the history of psychology into its wide array of subfields, however, the importance of this history can sometimes be “lost in translation” so to speak. Even so, this blog article will be a short review of the history of psychology and its major milestones (and when I say short, I mean comparatively since the history of psychology is much too large to include all of it in a blog).
This is a guide to a system of thinking that will help prevent you from poor judgement, impairment from unconscious biases, and unknown ignorance.
When most people think of psychology, they think of psychotherapy. They picture themselves sitting on the couch, talking to a therapist about their problems, their childhood memories and experiences, their dreams, etc. This view, or approach, is but one of many in the broader field of psychology. This approach is often called the psychodynamic approach to psychology.
What is a belief? A belief is that which we consider to be the truth. That which we consider true constitutes a belief in something. That which we do not believe, we consider to be false. We hence believe that the proposition “the grass is purple” to be true, because the world of our experience, where the grass is always green, tells us otherwise. Connected to the belief that the ‘grass is green’ are three words, ‘is’ which roughly translates as ‘to be’, ‘green which corresponds to a colour in the world of human sensory input identifiable by association with the third word ‘grass’, which indicates a common species of plant life present on our planet. The same may be said of propositions such as: “the sky is blue,” we say that it is true, because we all assent to it; and if our language is different, we translate and infer; we may ask: “well, what colour is the sky (in your language)?” They may reply: “It is x.” Then we say: “well that is your word for blue.” Meaning always implies an equation. If one thing means something, this process is equivalent to something being equal to something else. I was once told, somewhat disingenuously I think, that we determine what a thing is in relation to those things that it isn’t; this isn’t at all how we do it. What we do is we equate the thing in itself simultaneously to our visual impression of it, and also to a sound that we make with our mouths. Hence we can recognise an image of an apple, and associate with a real apple, because it looks the same as one (or at least similar to it), and we associate this with a sound, because we’ve heard other people do the same thing, we then use this sound (or the written word) to indicate that we mean an ‘apple’ when talking about one.
My sister-in-law called me the other day. “I had this crazy dream.”
Published about a year ago
Abstract: This is an attempt to apply a metamemetic approach to ideas. This paper attempts to approaches ideas about evil, utilizing a stable approach that works simultaneously in the personal memeplexes and in external memeplexes. It is a response to the aim of making critical thinking more efficient and training the mind to better recognize the memetic viruses proposed by Richard Dawkins in his book, The Selfish Gene.
Nothing like being on a tight schedule. Two weeks ago, my husband, my friend and I had an agenda. Drive from Roswell to Arabella to drop off some music equipment, then on to Ruidoso by 1 PM to make sure we were in cell range for an important phone call. No problem. It’s 11:30 AM. Only an hour and a half to Ruidoso with just enough wiggle room for the detour to Arabella. Having made the trip countless times, we were confident that there wouldn’t be any problem.
Do you ever wonder what would have happened if you had given a different answer in a conversation, or if you had made a different choice in a certain situation? Was the course of events predestined, or was it really up to you? Many philosophers and psychologists have tried to address this issue, along with the question “who is the decision-maker?” if you go on cruise-control. For example, when you went home from work and realized that you had no memory of making your way there. Turns out that, more than the real answer to those questions, it’s our opinion about it that determines the way we act and judge other people.
The definition of what is abnormal varies from person to person. Personally, an abnormality is anything that varies from my personal bubble of normal. Anything that varies from my day-to-day, I’d consider abnormal. If a woman wearing nothing but black clothing were to walk into my uniformed school, that’d be abnormal to me. If we had an exchange student arrive, that'd also be abnormal. They’re different from what is normally seen around my little bubble. So I decided to delve into my perceptions of abnormalities and see how they differ from the psychological term of abnormal and my own thoughts of what is abnormal. In order to preserve the identities I shall call those who I observed my "subjects".
Our brain has pre-loaded rules which help us to navigate the world in order to survive and transfer our genes to our next generations. We often consider these pre-loaded rules as our biases.