[ExI] Physics versus psychology

[Dan]

I think more of the problem relates back to what someone mentioned earlier: 
there seems to be no key figure in the history of psychology -- no Newton or 
Darwin. I actually think it's not so much this as no broadly agreed upon theory 
of psychology akin to classical mechanics in biology or the plate tectonics. 
Instead, even with progress over specific problems, there's no general theory -- 
or no general theory widely agreed upon.

Of course, I'm merely echoing others on this and my knowledge of the current 
state of the field is probably of no account.

Regards,

Dan


From: Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sat, October 23, 2010 2:51:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology

2010/10/23 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:

snip

> Doing really great work in
> psychology, work that ranks up there with Newton or Darwin or Einstein, is
> so incredibly difficult that nobody has managed to do any yet.

I disagree on it being difficult, having done substantial work in this
area on the common origin of capture-bonding (Stockholm syndrome),
battered wife syndrome, military basic training and hazing.  Also on
the common origin of drug addiction and cult addiction.  On this very
mailing list I analyzed the genetic basis of a model for the origins
of both religions and wars as well as a previous journal article on
the subject.

I would venture to guess that fewer than one in ten of the list
readers have even read the journal articles.

Of course, such work is throughly politically incorrect and thus not
widely accepted, not even here.

Keith
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat