Gregg: Fascinating -- thanks . . . !! I've done a lot of work on the topic of "order" and "disorder" -- cross-culturally in China and the West -- and that does seem to be at the heart of the matter in both civilizations. But which kind of "order" are you going to choose: Athens (Plato) or Jerusalem (Aristotle)? Or, to put this in historic "philosophical" (not "psychological") terms, attempting to use "physics" (i.e. energy/information) as the basis of a chain-of-being points towards Plato and his "mentor" Pythagoras, not in the direction of Genesis (which takes God as its origin.) This approach is indeed "abstract" and requires "theories" and "hypotheses" -- which will appeal to those interested in tackling a "unification" in the social sciences, like the "complexity" types (thus your idiosyncratic use of their language.) But will it appeal to clinical psychologists . . . ?? The what-problem-does-this-solve? issue is indeed a crucial one. We have been living under TELEVISION conditions, which produced a world that is deliberately "disordered." We live with "deconstruction" and "post-structuralism" for a reason. These attitudes were generated by the previous paradigm and most people who were "formed" under those conditions have come to accept it. Your urge for "order" is a reaction against all that -- as was the election of Trump &c (which might be why you keep coming back to him.) But what is needed isn't a "reaction" but rather a completely new approach which is consonant with the *new* DIGITAL paradigm. What *effects* does this technology generate and what psychology is appropriate to the problems caused by this shift? My guess is that this has been the elephant-in-the-room throughout this discussion on your list. Do we "go back" to a physics-type approach -- as was dominant in the early 20th-century RADIO era, for instance -- or do we "go forward" into a more *medieval* approach (as we are doing at the Center)? Plato or Aristotle (take your pick) . . . ?? Mark Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>: > Hi List, > > In case anyone is in the mood for some philosophical psychology > early on a Tuesday morning, here is a 2015 article I came across > yesterday by Hank Stam, who offered a critique of the unified theory > back in 2004. This is a similar viewpoint. He is not a fan of > attempting to unified the field, ToK style, although he does respect > the effort (he was editor of Theory and Psychology and invited me to > do a special issue on it in 2008). > > Here is the article: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_pmc_articles_PMC4595780_&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=PdJxjohah6XRXnFyczNBBETL3UxqncC2R6Rh2wVzK5Q&s=eWqLINyga-h_Sn63fNeXkkJ03kqRJOOJD4FD4GiD7GY&e= > > Here is the most relevant part, at least in relation to a critique > of the UTUA approach. I think it is worth being aware of: > > "But it has meant that from time to time there have been attempts to > "unify" psychology under some banner or other so that, at the very > least, the stories told to the public by both academics and > practitioners would match. The claim is that psychology is not > unified and this hurts both its practitioners and its status as a > science (Staats, 1991; Henriques, 2008)3. A quick and simplistic > comparison is then drawn with the natural sciences wherein physics > is taken to be exemplary but even biology will do as a standard. > This is then contrasted to psychology's squabbles and the lack of a > consensus on the status of just what is scientific and what counts > as pseudo-science and, goes the argument, it is high time to clean > up the mess. Some one or another scheme is then proffered for > replacing many small but recalcitrant theories in the discipline and > this over-riding scheme is usually packaged as superior because of > its ability to unite, provide a foundation, or otherwise cohere the > many strands that make up the contemporary discipline. > > Although not numerous, such schemes usually include a list of > reasons why this is a problem or why psychology is a "disunified > science" in Staats's (1991) words. After some broad generalizations, > lumping all areas of psychology together, a wide variety of > propositions or arguments have been put forth to unify the > discipline. In Staats's (1994) case, this was a "unified positivism" > or a "psychological behaviorism" depending on what phase of Staats's > career one is reading. Ultimately it was an attempt to fuse multiple > areas and features of psychology into a single "unified science." > Others of more recent vintage have attempted to keep these projects > alive, or at least to put their personal stamp on such a project for > every unification project seems to require that its proponent think > through the problem anew. In recent years, Sternberg and Grigorenko > (2001), Goertzen (2008) and Henriques (2008) among many others have > continued to write on these questions, providing variations on the > problem (is there a "crisis" of unification?) and offering numerous > solutions (e.g., the "tree of knowledge,"-Henriques, a "unified > psychology approach"-Sternberg), and so on (see Stam, 2004 for one > critique). > > The problems with these projects are (i) they are not responses to > genuine problems in psychology but an attempt to impose order on > disorder from an abstract vantage point, (ii) their relationship to > empirical research is thin, and (iii) they rarely amount to more > than a singular project or a personal vision of some abstract > structures and/or institutional and political processes that might > solve the so-called "crisis of disunification" (Green, 2015). But > all of these, it is important to note, have also been proposed at a > high level of abstraction without solving any particular, single, > concrete problem in the discipline. Indeed what characterizes such > projects is their considerable remove from the world of minute, > everyday psychological phenomena." > > Best, > Gregg > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: > write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] > or click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1