I have recently obtained most-'reputable' textbooks in General Psychology, Personality Psychology, Developmental Psychology and Cognitive Science and I have seen:
The ONLY theories represented among those in the "major theories" chapters ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THEORIES AS I SAW IN TEXTS ON THE SAME Subjects and TOPICS IN 1971.
This basically means that NO theory developed in the second half of the history of Psychology is seen as "MAJOR". Is this modesty? I say "no, not modesty", but rather fear of putting forth what they cannot have true confidence in AS A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO Psychology -- at least 'they' have that much good sense. To put it in a meaner way: they cannot be reasonably confident that any new theory is either "general" and/or that it may not clearly contain "crap". By the way, for a theory to be "general" does not mean that it has to explain everything, but just that the associated findings APPLY TO much or most everything (as a main aspect(s) ("parts") of behaviors) OR, in other words, are a major part of all that can be considered the science of psychology. THUS NOTE: I don't want you to think there is an easy answer to this extreme mess. (Of course, no theory covers everything, though some may be seen as describing major parts of most everything: I personally do believe in "containing" theories -- where they have aspects applying to most all major behavioral patterns, providing a sort of "outline" of most major behavior patterns and behavior patterning overall -- and it's kind of good to have this outlook if you want a science.)
This situation (of now new Major theories) should most certainly be noted and its meaning and repercussions/ramifications and effects evaluated (I have done detailed evaluations for you in my writings -- thus, that is one place where you can look for the assessment).
Let me put forth Ethogram Theory as a significant (major) and significantly new theory -- a nominee for the Major Theories chapters. See:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory
Probably for the same reason Newtonian Mechanics is still prominent in Introductory Physics textbooks and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is still prominent in Introductory Biology. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Psychology have all advanced beyond the original formulations of their theories, but it’s quite important to understand the key concepts from these theories if you would like to engage in moving our present-day sciences forward.
I note your strong opinions about the science at the fuzzy boundary between Biology and Psychology (especially Developmental Psychology). We still talk about Developmental Information Processing theory that emerged in the 50’s and 60's, where computers are an analogy. By the 70’s and 80’s, Information Processing refined Connectionism to provide analogies with the brain’s neurons & synapses to model a wide range of phenomena like problem solving & language development (e.g., John Anderson’s ACT-R; Jay McClelland’s PDP). Today this theoretical perspective has become a foundation for our modern advances in Big Data and Artificial Intelligence. That’s only one of several theories in Developmental Psychology at the fuzzy boundary with Biology. We have Comparative Psychology (e.g., the fascinating Socio-Cultural perspective of Michael Tomasello), connections of motor processes with thought & action (e.g., Karen Adolph), examinations of what we might be born with (e.g., Nativism; Evolutionary Psychology) and the ever-advancing Neuropsychology. That’s just one level of explanation within Developmental Psychology. There’s the rest of Developmental Psychology and the many other branches of Psychology! Students learning these contributions from their introductory classes is a step in our progress toward a fuller understanding of mental processes and behavior.
Dear Kevin Grobman
I do partially see the point you are trying to make in your first paragraph, though a glaring exception is Einstein and no doubt there are other exceptions in other natural sciences (another possible example: the results of understanding genes much better in biology). (Can you even see Psychology AS a "natural science? -- if not, that is a huge sign of extreme problems.)
Regarding your second paragraph: All the theories you mention are notably flawed; Anderson's theory, which I provide a total critique of, is among the lesser or least flawed -- yet it is, in essential ways, fatally flawed (for ANY complete explanation)(an inherent limitation of continuing to try to simply "reason by-analogy"). I know the old version ACT* very well, that being the version I provide a full critique of -- in a larger paper, here on RG.
Newer perspectives, the socio-cultural and neuropsychology perspectives, are much flawed in their core and basic 'methods' of "interpretation". Notably: both areas fall routinely (nearly always) into using wrong and an artificial units of analysis -- in supposedly providing "understanding" of/for psychology from the other field (or sub-field) . Comparative psychology spends most of its time critiquing itself.
You are completely mistaken when it comes to the statement regarding, "foundation for our modern advances in Big Data and Artificial Intelligence ". Most in artificial intelligence see that field as having progressed VERY little in its history (and what progress there is comes largely from the capacity for Big Data) -- "read up" a little in that field to see. If we are not to use a double standard, I think the almost total lack of progress in general artificial intelligence illustrates how VERY, VERY little help psychology has been and how progress has been gravely lacking THERE.
50 years of lack of significant progress is quite a lot for a new "science", Psychology, in particular. That is half its entire history.
Finally, to me, your final statement that " Students learning these contributions from their introductory classes is a step in our progress toward a fuller understanding of mental processes and behavior" is largely not true. After such "learning" they are as much egg-heads and knot-heads as they almost ever were, coming closer to rightly understanding little more -- and not enough to make any clear progress, anyway.
Science people make notable progress with new-understanding SYSTEMS (aka theories), with notable progress not occurring just in "steps". "Steps", "complexity", and "we cannot do that [(whatever)] yet" all have become non-plausible reasons for Psychology's failures and VERY slow (at best) progress (and, it is more than conceivable that some "multi-discipline" and "multi-level" views/"approaches" actually confuse things and impede progress).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence