Psychology, Robert S. Woodworth [android based ebook reader .txt] 📗

dreaming or waking from sleep.

Now it is not true as a matter of history that either of these types of objective observation was introduced into psychology by those who call themselves behaviorists. Not at all; experiments of both sorts have been common in psychology since it began to be an experimental science. The first type, the success-measuring experiment, has been much more used than introspection all along. What the behaviorists have accomplished is the definitive overthrow of the doctrine, once strongly insisted on by the "consciousness psychologists", that introspection is the only real method of observation in psychology; and this is no mean achievement. But we should be going too far if we followed the behaviorists to the extent of seeking to exclude introspection altogether, and on principle. There is no sense in such negative principles. Let us accumulate psychological facts by any method that will give the facts.

{14}

General Laws of Psychological Investigation.

Either introspective or objective observation can be employed in the experimental attack on a problem, which consists, as just illustrated in the case of memory, in controlling the conditions under which a mental performance occurs, varying the conditions systematically, and noting the resulting change in the subject's mental process or its outcome. Psychologists are inclined to regard this as the best line of attack, whenever the mental activity to be studied can be effectively subjected to control. Unfortunately, emotion and reasoning are not easily brought under control, and for this reason psychology has made slower progress in understanding them than it has made in the fields of sensation and memory, where good experimental procedure has been developed.

Another general line of attack worthy to be mentioned alongside of the experimental is the comparative method. You compare the actions of individuals, classes or species, noting likenesses and differences. You see what behavior is typical and what exceptional. You establish norms and averages, and notice how closely people cluster about the norm and how far individuals differ from it. You introduce tests of various sorts, by which to get a more precise measure of the individual's performance. Further, by the use of what may be called double comparison, or "correlation", you work out the relationships of various mental (and physical) traits. For example, when many different species of animals are compared in intelligence and also in brain weight, the two are found to correspond fairly well, the more intelligent species having on the whole the heavier brains; from which we fairly conclude that the size of the brain has something to do with intelligence. But when we correlate brain weight and intelligence in human individuals. {15} we find so many exceptions to the rule (stupid men with large brains and gifted men with brains of only moderate size) that we are forced to recognize the importance of other factors, such as the perfection of the microscopic structure of the brain.

Tests and correlations have become so prominent in recent psychological investigation that this form of the comparative method ranks on a par with the strict experimental method. A test is an experiment, in a way, and at least is often based upon an experiment; but the difference between the two lines of attack is that an experiment typically takes a few subjects into the laboratory and observes how their mental performances change with planfully changed conditions; whereas a test goes out and examines a large number of persons under one fixed set of conditions. An experiment belongs under what we called "general psychology", and a test under "differential psychology", since the first outcome of a test is to show how the individual differs from others in a certain respect. The results may, however, be utilized in various ways, either for such practical purposes as guiding the individual's choice of an occupation, or for primarily scientific purposes, such as examining whether intelligence goes with brain size, whether twins resemble each other as much mentally as they do physically, whether intellectual ability and moral goodness tend on the whole to go together, or not.

The genetic method is another of the general lines of attack on psychological problems. The object here is to trace the mental development of the individual, or of the race. It may be to trace the development either of mentality in general, or of some particular mental performance. It may be to trace the child's progress in learning to speak, or to follow the development of language in the human species, from the most primitive tongues up to those of the great {16} civilized peoples of to-day. It may be to trace the improvement of a performance with continued practice.

The value of the genetic method is easily seen. Usually the beginnings of a function or performance are comparatively simple and easy to observe and analyze. Also, the process of mental growth is an important matter to study on its own account.

The pathological method is akin to the genetic, but traces the decay or demoralization of mental life instead of its growth. It traces the gradual decline of mental power with advancing age, the losses due to brain disease, and the maladaptations that appear in insanity and other disturbances. Here psychology makes close contact with psychiatry which is the branch of medicine concerned with the insane, etc., and which in fact has contributed most of the psychological information derived from the pathological method.

The object of the pathological method is, on the one side, to understand abnormal forms of mental life, with the practical object of preventing or curing them, and on the other side, to understand normal mental life the better. Just as the development of a performance throws light on the perfected act, so the decay or disturbance of a function often reveals its inner workings; for we all know that it is when a machine gets out of order that one begins to see how it ought to work. Failure sheds light on the conditions of success, maladaptation throws into relief the mental work that has to be done by the normal individual in order to secure and maintain his good adaptation. According to the psychiatrists, mental disturbance is primarily an affair of emotion and desire rather than of intellect; and consequently they believe that the pathological method is of special importance in the study of the emotional life.

{17}

Summary and Attempt at a Definition

Having now made a rapid preliminary survey of the field of psychology, and of the aims and methods of the workers in this field, we ought to be in a position to give some sort of a definition.

We conclude, then: psychology is a part of the scientific study of life, being the science of mental life. Life consisting in process or action, psychology is the scientific study of mental processes or activities. A mental activity is typically, though not universally, conscious; and we can roughly designate as mental those activities of a living creature that are either conscious themselves or closely akin to those that are conscious. Further, any mental activity can also be regarded as a physiological activity, in which case it is analyzed into the action of bodily organs, whereas as "mental" it simply comes from the organism or individual as a whole. Psychology, in a word, is the science of the conscious and near-conscious activities of living individuals.

Psychology is not interested either in dead bodies or in disembodied spirits, but in living and acting individuals.

One word more, on the psychological point of view. In everyday life we study our acquaintances and their actions from a personal standpoint. That is, we evaluate their behavior according as it affects ourselves, or, perhaps, according as it squares or not with our standards of right and wrong. We always find something to praise or blame. Now, the psychologist has no concern with praise and blame, but is a seeker after the facts. He would know and understand human actions, rather than pass judgment on them. When, for example, he is introduced into the school or children's court, for the purpose of examining children that are "problems", his attitude differs considerably from that of the {18} teacher or officer of the law; for while they almost inevitably pass judgment on the child in the way of praise or blame, the psychologist simply tries to understand the child. The young delinquent brought into the laboratory of the court psychologist quickly senses the unwonted atmosphere, where he is neither scolded nor exhorted, but asked to lend his coöperation in an effort to discover the cause why his conduct is as it is. Now, this psychological attitude is not necessarily "better" than the other, but it is distinctly valuable in its place, as seen from the fact that the young delinquent often does coöperate. He feels that if the psychologist can find out what is the trouble with him, this may help. Nothing, indeed, is more probable; it is when we have the facts and trace out cause and effect that we are in a fair way to do good. Nothing is more humane than psychology, in the long run, even though the psychologist may seem unfeeling in the course of his investigation.

To the psychologist, conduct is a matter of cause and effect, of natural law. His business is to know the laws of that part of nature which we call human nature, and to use these laws, as fast as discovered, for solving the problems presented by the human individual or group. For him, even the most capricious conduct has its causes, even the most inexplicable has its explanation--if only the cause can be unearthed, which he does not pretend he can always actually accomplish, since causes in the mental realm are often very complex. No one can be a psychologist all of the time; no one can or should always maintain this matter-of-fact attitude towards self and neighbor. But some experience with the psychological attitude is of practical value to any one, in giving clearer insight, more toleration, better control, and even saner standards of living.

{19}

EXERCISES

1. Outline the chapter. A sample outline of the briefer sort is here given:

A. Subject-matter of psychology: mental activities.

(1) A sub-class under vital activities.
(2) Activities of individuals, as distinguished from

(a) Activities of social groups (sociology).
(b) Activities of single organs (physiology).

(3) Either conscious, or closely related to conscious activities.
(4) May be activities of human or animal, adult or child, normal or abnormal individuals.

B. Problems of psychology:

(1) How individuals differ in their mental activities.
(2) How individuals are alike in their mental activities.
(3) Practical applications of either (1) or (2).

C. Methods of psychology:

(1) Methods of observing mental activities.

(a) Introspective, the observing by an individual of his own actions.
(b) Objective, the observation of the behavior of other individuals.

(2) General lines of attack upon psychological problems.

(a) Experimental: vary the conditions and see how the mental activity changes.
(b) Comparative: test different individuals or classes and see how mental activity differs, etc.
(c) Genetic: trace mental development.
(d) Pathological: examine mental decay or disturbance.

2. Formulate a psychological question regarding each of the following: hours of work, genius, crime, baseball.

3. Distinguish introspection from theorizing.

4. What different sorts of objective fact can be observed in psychology?

5. What is the difference between the physiology of hearing and the psychology of hearing?

6. State two reasons why it would be undesirable to limit psychology to the introspective study of consciousness.

{20}

7. What is the difference between an experiment and a test, (a) in purpose, (b) in method?

8. Compare the time it takes you to add twenty one-place numbers, arranged in a vertical column, and arranged in a horizontal line, (a) Is this introspective or objective observation? Why so? (b) Is it a test or an experiment? Why?

9. Write a psychological sketch of some one you know well, taking care to avoid praise and blame, and to stick to the psychological point of view.

REFERENCES

Some of the good books on the different branches of psychology are the following:
On