Philosophy 496, Psychology 475
Past Assignments
1, 3 September.
Reading!
Read Descartes's Meditations 6. (If you've not read
the Meditations, try to take the time to read them all,
in order.) The edition we put in the bookstore is good and
cheap, but otherwise translations on the web can be found at
http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/meditations/ and
http://www.wright.edu/cola/descartes/mede.html and
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/meditations.html.
9, 11 September.
Read William James's "Does Consciousness Exist?". In Angel you
can find a collection of James's essays, of which this is one.
We're not going to focus on this paper but instead focus on the
emotion paper, but looking over this paper will give you a sense
of James's relation to philosophy and psychology.
Another way to get a copy is to use JSTOR:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2011942
If that link does not work for you, you'll have to log in to JStor
from here
and find the paper by its name or by its proper reference (The
Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods,
Vol. 1, No. 18 (Sep. 1, 1904), pp. 477-491).
13 September
Read William James's paper (available on JSTOR)
"What is an Emotion?" (Mind, Vol. 9, No. 34 -- April
1884 -- pages 188-205). . Please read it closely.
It's really very straightfoward, I'm pleased to say. While
reading, consider the following questions:
- What is an emotion, according to James?
- What arguments does he offer for his view? (E.g., on pages 193-194)
- What is James's method? How does it differ from the method of Descartes?
(This is an especially important question to us.)
- What role do his theories about the brain play in his theory of
emotion?
If you happen to print the article, please bring it to class.
15, 17 September
Please again bring your copy of "What is an Emotion?"
to class.
Note: the science journal Nature has a weekly
podcast. Last week, along with their usual episode, they
had a special issue with an interview with a biographer of
William James. It's only a few minutes long, and worth a
listen for a different view on his biography. I disagree
with the biographer's assessment of William James's
scientific value as a psychologist (she underestimates it,
I feel), but there were things here I didn't know at all
about his life that were interesting.
It is here
at
http://nature.edgeboss.net/download/nature/nature/podcast/extras/james-2010-08-26.mp3?ewk13=1
and also available via iTunes if you search for Nature
Podcast and then find the special episode on William James.
20 September
Read Freud's Civilization and It's Discontents
chapters 1 and 2. Bring your book to class.
22 September
read Freud's Civilization and It's
Discontents chapters 3 and 4. Bring your book to class.
24 September
Read Freud's Civilization and It's
Discontents chapters 5 and 6. Bring your book to class.
27 September
Read Freud's Civilization and It's Discontents
chapters 7 and 8. Bring your book to class.
29 September
Discussion of Freud and his place in psychology.
1 October
Test on Descartes, James, Freud. Recognizing,
explaining, and placing-in-context of passages from our readings.
4 October
Introduction to Behaviorism.
6 October
Read Walden Two pages 1-67.
8 October
Read Walden Two pages 68-118.
11 October
Read Walden Two pages 119-190.
Kind of fun are some videos about and with Skinner that are
on YouTube:
Training pigeons, with discussion of training
schedules -- and gambling! And free will!
A too simplistically journalistic but fun discussion of
Skinner
Rat in a (skinner) box!
13 October
Read Walden Two pages 191-235.
15 October
Finish Walden Two (pages 236-301; you might
also find Skinner's introduction valuable).
Here's a video of an unscientific recreation of
Walsh's marshmellow experiment. It's fun to watch!
Here's a video of unknown provenience showing
some kids who appear to be taking the test. Also
fun but we don't know the details so it's dubious....
25 October
Assignment due.
Write a 4-5 page paper comparing the
methods of two of: Descartes, James, Freud, Skinner. What is
the method of each of the two scholars?; what are the
benefits and disadvantages or costs (if any) of the method?;
what if anything of that method remains in contemporary
scientific psychology, and why?; and which of the methods do
you believe is superior, and why? Cite primary texts to
establish each of your claims that you make about the
relevant scholar -- that is, if you claim Freud believes X,
give us a place where Freud says that X is true. Be clear
but concise; you are explaining to an intelligent person the
differences and similarities (if any) between two great
thinkers. You should also consider developing your paper
around a single hypothesis (see
here some ideas about structuring your paper). Don't use
Wikipedia, or otherwise plagiarize. You may find it best to
keep your paper very tight, and focus upon just a single
general difference and then uses your exampls of differences
in method and theory as evidence or illustration of your
case. Remember the purpose of this course: to take a broad
perspective on psychology as a field, to assess its
fundamental nature and challenges, and synthesize what you've
learned about psychology over the last 3+ years, and develop
and demonstrate a deeper understanding of the field. Print
your assignment and bring it to class -- though Professor
Darvil also appreciates it if you email it to him also.
25,27 October
Read/review
Piaget's Stage Theory.
Things in the Angel account that you should look at include
a Piaget bio,
and a
little video.
29 October
Read/review
Piaget's Stage Theory and read
"Vygotsky and the Dialetical Method." We're starting Vygotsky
and these will be good introductions to context and Vygotsky.
Come prepared to dazzle us with your reading insights. (Remember
to check into Angel for extra resources, also.)
3 November
Read Alcock's The Triumph of Sociobiology introduction
and chapter 1. Also read "Against
'Sociobiology'" (this is the infamous letter of which
Alcock writes). It would be helpful to print the letter
and bring it to class. We want to discuss its criticisms
and worries.
5 November:
Read Alcock's The Triumph of Sociobiology chapter 2.
8 November:
Read Alcock's The Triumph of Sociobiology chapters 3
and 4.
10 November
Read Alcock's The Triumph of Sociobiology chapter 6
(skip 5).
12 November
Read Alcock's The Triumph of Sociobiology chapters 7
and 8. (You should now have read 1-4, 5-8.)
15 November
Read Alcock's The Triumph of Sociobiology chapters 9
and 10.
15 November:
Homework assignment due. This is a quick assignment, to get you
thinking about sociobiology -- and especially to think about
sociobiological explanations.
The sociobiologist looks to describe some of human behavior by
offering theories about why such behavior might be produced by
an evolved and inherited trait. Apparent altruism (which we
understand here as actions which seem to reduce the individual's
fitness in order to benefit the fitness of another) poses a
special problem to such explanation (especially if the apparent
altruism appears to be the product of an inheritable trait).
After all, individuals that refrain from such altruistic
behaviors would seem to be more likely to be more fit, and so
more likely to pass on their (less altruistic) traits.
Your task is to do two things. (1) Using your own knowledge of
common human behaviors, find the best example you can of
apparent altruism. Your example can be something you've
observed, read about in a reliable news source, or otherwise is
reliably a common kind of behavior (and not a once-occuring
thing). (2) Briefly, assess what the prospects are, as far as
you can see, of the sociobiologists coming up with a theory of
how that apparent altruism might actually be a fitness-enhancing
trait.
(Let me note that helping your actual blood kin is not a good
example of apparent altruism. Recall Hamilton's explanation of
kin selection.)
You should be able to do this in two pages. Bring it to class
Friday and we'll collect them and discuss them. They'll be
graded generously for effort and insight.
19 November:
Due (1) via email is your team composition and (2) via
email is your time for presentation preference and (3) in
class on a printed page your talk topics.
(1) Teams can be between 1 and 3 people. Unless they're 4.
(2) Give us also your time preferences for doing the talk.
We'll probably end up just assigning them randomly, but
maybe someone will bravely ask for an early time.
Potential times for talks include November 30, December 1,
3, 6, 8, 10.
(3) You will hand in a brief of your talk topics. This
should be a 1-2 page brief (a description of primary
question(s) you hope to answer and outline -- in complete
sentences -- of how you expect to approach the topic).
The brief will be given a generous grade for being on time
and done with care. We will look at drafts before the due
date if you like. The grading will be based upon:
- clarity (can we understand what you are saying you
aim to do?);
- specificity (are you proposing a topic that goes
beyond "I want to talk about James" and picks out a specific
issue);
- profundity and relevance (is your topic interesting,
is it relevant to the history and problems of psychology?);
- Timeliness (did you get it to us on time? -- this
one is easy!).
Your goal in your talk will be to present on an issue in
the philosophy and history of psychology that we have
discussed -- and perhaps additional materials that you want
to bring to bear -- and then lead with us a discussion. We
hope to devote a class period to each discussion, so if you
talk for about 30 minutes, we can discuss your topic for
the remainder of the time.
For examples of topics: someone might want to look into the
literature on IQ, and see if Alcock's discussion of genes and IQ
of pages 50-51 bears up under scrutiny. Or, someone might want to
discuss Skinner's account of language acquisition and whether
Chomsky's criticism of behaviorism succeeds. Or, someone might
want to suggest how you could develop an experiment to test one of
Freud's more daring hypotheses (like dreams are always wish
fulfillment, or homosexuality arises from narcissism, and so on);
or what remains, and what has been revised, in Piaget's
developmental theories; Skinner's claim that gambling disorders
are caused by conditioning that led one to want to gamble too
frequently; and so on. We'd be eager to brainstorm ideas with
you.
Things to avoid: anything including any reference to the
mysterious mysteries of quantum physics; god in the brain;
"spirituality"; near death experiences....
If you're nervous about filling the time, consider some ways to
expand upon your talk. These include bringing projects or tasks
for the class. For example, if you were writing on IQ as in our
example above, you could find a copy of an IQ test, or even just
some typical questions, and bring copies (we will gladly make
copies for anyone needing them), and show us what such a test is
like. We could try a few questions together.
Please consider us a resource. You can email us and talk with us
about topics, and refine them or get from us ideas on how you
could narrow down your interest to a scholarly topic. You can do
this after the 21st regarding your talks also. We'd like to help
you with them.
You will be asked to also write a final paper, due on December
15th. This paper should be about 6-8 pages long, and should follow
ideally a hypothesis defense form. Most students write on the
topic that they presented upon, but this is not required. If you
do write on the same topic that you presented upon, you must write
your paper on your own, even though you are permitted to do all
your work on the presentation in a team.
We will look at drafts of the final paper any time up to December
8th. We strongly recommend that you run a draft past us, since
it will very likely help you write a better paper. Dr. DeLancey
requests hard copy; check with Dr. Darvill on how he prefers your
draft.
19, 23 November
Discussion of presentation method and workshop on avoiding
plagiarism.
29 November
This will be our working session class, which means at least
three things. (1) A peer paper review session, in which you
can exchange paper drafts and get advice from peers. We know
it's tight -- many of you won't have much done by this date.
But if you bring at least a paragraph or two (your
hypothesis, your first ideas for the paper structure),
perhaps with an outline, someone could look at it and offer
you advice. (2) Professorial advice: both of us (Dr Darvill,
Dr DeLancey) can work with folks on their paper ideas or
their presentation ideas. (3) Finally, this is a chance to
talk/work with your team; if you have no team and you're done
getting advice from peers, get presentation advice from us.