[ExI] Physics versus psychology

[Dan]

The lack of a major figure, to me too, doesn't matter. The lack of a major, 
binding theory, though, seems to halt progress somewhat. (Then again, maybe 
chaos is a good thing here. I don't know. Have to wait to see what happens.)

Regards,

Dan

----- Original Message ----
From: Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, October 25, 2010 12:54:22 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

Having watched the field for almost 15 years now, I think the
evolutionary psychology will become the underpinning for psychology.
The lack of a major figure isn't fatal.  Plate tectonic doesn't have a
Newton or Darwin figure associated with it.

There is quite a list of major figures in the field.

Keith

> 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