评估behaviouralism的Watson和Lil Albert,提到的心理学发展史的evaluation

Most courses in psychology's history are not called “History of Psychology.” Rather, they are more likely to appear in course listings as “History and Systems of Psychology” or “Systems and Theories of Psychology.” The reason is that, tr

oring's famous history of 1929, and to the early 1930s, when two famous books appeared that were organized around the schools concept. These books were Robert Woodworth's (Chapter 7) Contemporary Schools of Psychology (Woodworth, 1931), and Edna Heidbreder's Seven Psychologies (Heidbreder, 1933). Both books recognized that psychology, still young, was struggling to find a single voice. Lacking that single voice, both books argued, it was important to provide accurate descriptions of the various and divergent voices then evident.

also clear that much of psychology's history occurred outside of a schools framework. Woodworth recognized this, writing in his 1931 book that “only a minority of psychologists have become active adherents of any of the schools.

digital history： 写的好的一段儿：

“able to capture and track communities of researchers who were not committed to one particular “school” or another. These communities include, first, psychologists engaged in philosophical discussion of the nature of conscious experience and other mental phenomena that were not readily subjected to experimental analysis, at least not in their full richness. Philosophy is an approach to the topic that, because of its antiquity, is often downplayed in conventional histories of the discipline that emphasize the “scientific” innovations of the era. A second community that is retained by the cluster analytic approach is that of the many perception researchers who continued on through the battles among the schools, but who were more or less peripheral to them. Third, the method picks up strongly the enormous growth in mental testing which, although it may have originated with Cattell as a part of the Functionalist school, rapidly outgrew that category and continued on unabated even as Behaviorism began pushing Functionalism and Structuralism out of the discipline” （Green, Feinerer, & Burnham, 2014, p. 276)

“Watsonian behaviorism” and little else about the roots and early development of behaviorist thinking. My hope is that after reading this chapter, and perhaps after hearing about the issue some more from your instructor, you will emerge from this chapter (and others) with an appreciation for the complexity of history and an understanding that historical context is inevitably intertwined with biography. Yes, Pavlov was a crucial figure, but the support of his work by the Soviets, hoping to reshape human behavior to their Communist ideal, made some of his work possible. Yes, Pavlov was initially skeptical of the Soviets, but his ultimate accommodation (and hence the continuance of his work) requires knowing about how Russians historically distrusted and feared Germans. Yes, Watson was a charismatic figure, but he also came along at a time when the with introspection were evident to an increasing number of psychologists, and his ideas found a receptive audience in a country where on pragmatism (“What good is this?”) was a value taken for granted and where the idea that the environment was an important force (anyone could become president) was part of the national psyche.

、“Biography is important to history, but history transcends biography.”

-a history of modern psyc