Talk:Principles of 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. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

[edit] Tough reading

I found this really very hard to read. The combination of jargonesque language (innatism?) and the writing style itself are IMHO too dense for such a context as this. Would it be possible to expand and simplify please? Also, how does James' book measure up to Freud? It seems to me that they are in different classes, like comparing Planck with Einstein (or Mrs Einstein if you prefer! http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm)
LookingGlass 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

James is much more in tune with contemporary scientific psychology than Freud. He is an excellent writer, though his style is certainly dated. Freud's notions include many that are very counter-intuitive, some of which are basically false. James explains a great deal without straining credulity.

This book covers a vast range, which makes it difficult to write a good article that provides perspective. Even doing a decent summary is difficult, given the length. DCDuring 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)