Psychology is discipline full of creation myths and opposing points of view. The history of psychology itself, as well the historiographies of the sub-disciplines within the field vary as they are told from multiple perspectives. Origin stories often reflect certain ideologies and dispositions, however; because of this, the truth of the history is often manipulated or misrepresented by the frameworks used to better illustrate certain movements. Psychology was historically understood as the study of the mind, until behaviourism disrupted how psychology was understood. In this article, Wartrin and Darwich (2012) present and analyze the origin story of cognitive revolution as it was told in comparison to behaviourism. In this paper, I am going
…show more content…
Behaviourism is simplified in the telling of this origin story, and it is also generalized and it is this ambiguous construct which is opposed and that misrepresents behaviourism. Behaviourism refers to many systems, and under this broad term lies contradictory and conflicting positions which are often overlooked, but it is important to acknowledge these complexities because the generalizations are based on mistaken beliefs. For example, the idea of behaviourism only relating to observable behaviour and the external environment contradicts Skinner’s inclusion of private events in behaviourism. Since there is little agreement on a clear definition of behaviourism, it is not right to assume homogeneity across the system, and so it becomes difficult to assess whether behaviourism dominated psychology. There is rare evidence to show this dominance, but this allows for the idea of cognitivist dominance to counteract and replace behaviourism. Quantitative analyses do show that although cognitivism did not dominate psychology, there was an increase in its popularity, but they also show that cognitivism did not overtake behaviourism, but the two movements were developing around the same …show more content…
Both cognitivism and behaviourism were compared with each other to understand them, but in doing so, the discrepancies and the issues of these origin stories became apparent. Although Wartrin and Darwich (2012) discussed the consequences of the movements and their historiographies, such as the implications of a broad or general terms, lack of empirical evidence supporting the idea of dominance, there are still issues that were left unaddressed. For example, the history of cognitivism is depicted in comparison to behaviourism, but doing so not only diminishes behaviourism, but it also disregards other movements at the time, such as humanism, gestalt psychology, and developmental psychology. As well, the historiography of cognitivism is presented through a traditional history approach, with the idea that psychology is continually progressing. On the other hand, behaviourism does not exist as a progression but in different systems which often contradict each other, and there are cognitivist ideas in some behaviourists methods, while other behaviourists, such as Skinner do not allow for those ideas, since he sees the inner processes of the mind as behaviour, ergo behaviour cannot cause behaviour. Despite these
Behaviourism is simplified in the telling of this origin story, and it is also generalized and it is this ambiguous construct which is opposed and that misrepresents behaviourism. Behaviourism refers to many systems, and under this broad term lies contradictory and conflicting positions which are often overlooked, but it is important to acknowledge these complexities because the generalizations are based on mistaken beliefs. For example, the idea of behaviourism only relating to observable behaviour and the external environment contradicts Skinner’s inclusion of private events in behaviourism. Since there is little agreement on a clear definition of behaviourism, it is not right to assume homogeneity across the system, and so it becomes difficult to assess whether behaviourism dominated psychology. There is rare evidence to show this dominance, but this allows for the idea of cognitivist dominance to counteract and replace behaviourism. Quantitative analyses do show that although cognitivism did not dominate psychology, there was an increase in its popularity, but they also show that cognitivism did not overtake behaviourism, but the two movements were developing around the same …show more content…
Both cognitivism and behaviourism were compared with each other to understand them, but in doing so, the discrepancies and the issues of these origin stories became apparent. Although Wartrin and Darwich (2012) discussed the consequences of the movements and their historiographies, such as the implications of a broad or general terms, lack of empirical evidence supporting the idea of dominance, there are still issues that were left unaddressed. For example, the history of cognitivism is depicted in comparison to behaviourism, but doing so not only diminishes behaviourism, but it also disregards other movements at the time, such as humanism, gestalt psychology, and developmental psychology. As well, the historiography of cognitivism is presented through a traditional history approach, with the idea that psychology is continually progressing. On the other hand, behaviourism does not exist as a progression but in different systems which often contradict each other, and there are cognitivist ideas in some behaviourists methods, while other behaviourists, such as Skinner do not allow for those ideas, since he sees the inner processes of the mind as behaviour, ergo behaviour cannot cause behaviour. Despite these