Comparing Robinson And Danziger

The history of psychology is viewed differently between Robinson and Danziger, these opposing views raise a questions as to which view can be seen as more accurate in their ways of analyzing history. In this paper, I summarize an article by Kurt Danziger, entitled, “Psychology and Its History,” and evaluate its claims regarding the way history of psychology is portrayed and studied (2013). This is an important issue because the way history of psychology is taught can and does have an affect on our understanding. For example, different professors have different biases and may educate their students with these biases in mind, similarly, history is portrayed in different ways which can influence the way in which one processes the information

831). Danziger and Robinson have contrasting views when it comes to the history of psychology; Danzigar points out that there are distinctions between history in psychology and history of psychology (2013). Danziger also states that language plays a vital role in our perspectives, for example, we need to learn the language of psychology if we are in the field of psychology to put our views and findings out to other psychologist in a manner which is deemed as credible and understood (2013). Moreover, Danziger mentions that it is the goal of history of psychology to provide education about the history of what has previously been recognized as a subject. Danziger sees it as problematic to claim that you are educating about the history of a discipline, such as psychology, previous to the discipline being recognized as a subject (2013). In other words, psychology must first be recognized and defined in order for its history to commence. This brings up a concern; are we truly aware what we learn? For example, are we truly studying the subject of psychology or is this another assumption. Danziger goes on to say that the way Robinson conveys the history of psychology has a few

For example, when Danziger claims that studying previous works of authors who use different dialects, creates subjectivity and leaves the text to be open for interpretation of the reader. This happens with articles written in plain English, for instance when a newspaper articles interprets a study wrong and states that chocolate makes an individual smarter. We interpret readings written in English differently, interpreting a reading written a different dialect would lead to more erroneous interpretations. What we get out of readings is based on our own biases, and thinking; therefore, I would also agree that we see history based on the views we hold now, so history changes as we change our views. I think this because change is inevitable for us as humans, we are consistently changing the way we think the more knowledge we acquire about a certain topic; hence, if our thinking changes so does the way we look at the historical information. Moreover, in regards to to what defines psychology, it is true that psychology has various different areas which can be studied and there is no common factor which holds psychology together, I do not think it can be termed as the study of the mind or the study of behaviour, rather it is the study of what psychologist do, to which I agree with