Talk:Biological psychology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page. |
Contents |
[edit] About the History Section
The History section has a very idiosyncratic tone, suggesting that Bowlby founded biological psychology as some unitary, global event. I presume this was written by someone under the thrall of Bowlby and attachment theory. The thrall is appropriate, but not the assertion that Bowlby started a field much larger than attachment. I have never heard anyone suggest that Bowlby founded the field, certainly not in 1951. Karl Lashley had been looking for the "engram" for decades before, as had Shepard Ivory Franz before that. And how could Bowlby have founded biological psychology in 1951, two years after Donald Hebb's The Organization of Behavior describing "Hebbian" synapses? For that matter, William James' nineteenth century book is chock full of biological explanations for psychological phenomena. I am reluctant to completely remove this section of History but it seems clear to me that it should be removed entirely. Better to offer no history than an oversimplified one that latches onto one particular person when dozens had been involved before he came on the scene. So maybe the next brave editor will agree with me and feel confident enough to strike this section (and better yet replace it with a more balanced view). --Dr. Ken Carter 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Spelling?? Aritcle contains the term intracebrally several times... but dictionary.com say this word doesn't exist... is it suppose to be intracerebrally??
[edit] Changes i made
You may notice, i made number of changes to the article and heres why:
The introduction used to say that biopsychology is hybrid of psychology and neuroscience, theres was rationalle given as to why that is the case. My explanation of the relationship between neuroscience and psychology, i would say, gives the reader a clearer understanding.
I removed the large number of links, because there are hundreds of related fields, there is no reason to list 5 randoms ones. Also te link to yahoo psychology site is hardly useful, i think.
Cheers,
Ivan 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Ivan. I had a look at your changes and they seem correct to me. If you think my changes are wrong, please adjust according to your knowledge. Pacificsun 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Could I just point out that it says "Biological psychology is the study of ham also known..." and, not being all psychologically savvy, I think of ham you get from a pig and stick in your sandwiches. If this is a mistake, I would suggest someone change it, or if it's an abbreviation, or a term, then there needs to be a link to something or some kinda of explanation, perhaps?
[edit] Rewrite of 1/18/2007
I hope I did not offend the writers of this article and appreciate their hard work. My rationale for rewriting it was that the article I found:
- Tended to highlight neuroscience, as opposed to biological psychology, particularly in the Criticisms section (e.g., I would disagree that biological psychologists "reduce human behavior to neurotransmitters and genes"). I'm not sure that neuroscientists do either, although the criticisms are really more aimed at that field.
- That the methods given special attention (fMRI, MEG, EEG) are not really the classic methods of biological psychology, but are rather recently developed methods of cognitive neuroscience or neuropsychology. The classic (and still most heavily used) manipulations are invasive electrophysiology, functional neuroanatomy, lesions, psychopharmacology, and genetic manipulations.
- There didn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to some of the specific examples highlighted - electroconvulsive shock therapy, genetics of phobias, and the development of antidepressants. This may be good information for individual articles on those topics, but for a general article on the field it didn't seem appropriate. At least I would not cite any one of those as seminal or even as archetypal examples of what biological psychology is. I took the approach to avoid individual citations, and just list basic methods and topic areas.
I also want to make one comment about my list of Nobel laureates. I am familiar with the work of many others whose work is related to biological psychology: Cajal, Dale, Yallow, Levi-Montalcini, Hodgkin & Huxley, Tingbergen, Loewi, and more. All of these made seminal contributions to neuroscience and provide foundational background for biological psychology. But I concluded they weren't doing biological psychology per se, as for example, Hess and Sperry clearly were. I recognize there's some subjectivity here, though.
SJS1971 02:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unnecessary Distinctions
I removed the following text because it is not a standard distinction and is misleading. Biological psychology, behavioral neuroscience, and psychobiology are synonyms (see Physiology of Behavior by Carlson, Biological Psychology by Rozensweig, and Biopsychology by Pinel). The APA journal "behavioral neuroscience" does not make this distinction either. The use of these terms is a matter of preference, but they are all terms that have a history of being by psychologists who are interested in the biological bases of behavior and thought. I have since revised the wording and added a reference to support the changes made.mezzaninelounge 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"Some authors equate biological psychology with behavioral neuroscience, though the latter might more accurately be defined as the branch of neuroscience that seeks to understand the behavioral functions of particular neural systems. The primary focus of biological psychology would be understanding of mental processes and behavior. Despite this theoretical subtle difference, the two fields share a great deal of similarity, and individual experiments often yield information pertinent to both fields."
[edit] History of the field
I'm a little concerned about the history section. Biological psychology can trace its roots not to psychoanalysis and John Bowlby, but rather to old-timers like Claude Bernard (physiology), Hermann von Helmholtz (physics), Paul Broca (neuropsychology), William James (psychology), and Ramon y Cajal (anatomy), to name just a few who predate Bowlby by 50-200 years. Does anyone have a different understanding of the history of this field, before I make changes? SJS1971 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've updated this section. In doing so, I removed the content on Bowlby. This is just too recent to be a historical root of a field that is 100 years old. It's good stuff though and perhaps belongs in an article on Freud, or psychoanalysis, or Bowlby. SJS1971 14:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal to Remove Unnecessary Notice
Under the heading, "Disabling or decreasing neural function", there is a notice that the section "seems" to contain "embedded lists." I followed the link and found that this entry in the Manual of Style refers to lists that simply contain links and not prose. The lists in this article, however, contain not only links, but also explanatory prose. These lists are excellent for use by students, and I therefore recommend that they be left in place. Accordingly, I plan to return in a few days and remove the notice because it does not apply -- unless someone objects. Thanks. Skeppy (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
