WUNDT: INTROSPECTION MODEL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY
Psychology 312: History and Systems Psychology
Wilhelm Wundt proposed theory on introspection could be considered flawed, but he might as well been a genius because Wundt’s theory of introspection is subjective rather than objective in nature. Further is owing to the subjects not exhibiting observable behavior but making conclusions from mental processes, and exposure to all manner of stimuli that is not constant. Despite the aforementioned the human mind is indeed a complex organ with much about its mysteries remaining unsolved. This is regardless of whether there are sophistication in methods of modern day medicine or technology. Since, there are some very simple ways of self- diagnosing that can fast track the healing of the mind which can be achieved through a face to face session with a therapist.
Of course this is besides an over reliance on pharmaceuticals or Neuro imaging that also have a significant part in the healing of mental disorders. Where, even technology in itself tips the hat on this fact, but then it still goes on to claw it back by saying it is superior to psychotherapy owing to the changes in methods. According to this proposal, neuroscience is currently more tenable because under the reductionist approaches, psychiatric components are impractical approaches, and structuralism is dying. Be that as it may, Neuro Science is still an extension of Psychotherapy because Psychotherapy begun at an experiment long before observation was even conceived as a model.
Psychotherapy vs Neuro Imaging
Most people have high misplaced expectations on the applicability of Neuro imaging while explaining the brain functions, which can be used in solving the psyche disorders, when it is clearly an extension of psychotherapy. Where, it is proposed by those who favor the use of Neuro science that owing to an ongoing growth in sophistication in methods concerning Neuro science there is no more growth room left for the traditional applications of psychiatric treatment. Psychiatric Treatment has therefore become unsustainable because it concerns itself with the individual and not the brain. Meanwhile, all the brain processes can be mapped using Neuro imaging. That, the Neuro Imaging method used in Neuro science studies can trace what is left after an episode in anger, frustration, joy, and sadness and among others having already occurred (Fuchs, 2004).
Neuro Science alleges that it dominates over Psychiatric treatment owing to such sophistications in its methods that are used in identifying brain process which manifest themselves in observable actions within it as compared to the implicit nature of subject undergoing psychotherapy. In this regard, reductionist theorists claim they have churned out all the unnecessary components of Psychotherapy and are left behind with mere psychological states of the brain. Where, to Neuro Imaging, mental disorders are merely chemical imbalances and psychiatrists have nothing to treat, other than the individuals who are further from being one with the brain. Interestingly, the fact that Human beings thrives better in environments where others dwell and they cannot be detached from their true character, the sentiments earlier mentioned are rather absurd to take in. This is owing to the brain belonging to an individual that is one with it, being successfully diagnosed using psychotherapy and dealt with by it and rehabilitated to recover (Fuchs, 2004).
Growth and further development is a consequent of the brain interacting with Psychotherapy during socialization and not with machines or a scientific lab. Where, since the brain interacts with the environment and any change that is considered endearing behavior. It then registers a cognitive as well as an emotional response, which lies within the field of psychotherapy or psychological processes pertaining to it. This is given that many at times there are those unconscious decisions people make without them knowing, but are owing to motivations of emotional nature and genetic dispositions during early development. But, there are also those who make decisions that require little to no reasoning or social cues to act or react in a certain manner because they are automatic. Such actions can only be activated during certain situations arising or even early experiences re-enacted which cannot be explained by test scores of an image of the neuron without getting to the main causes. Example is the early child experiences in infants. It is believed that the said child’s behavior will be determinable upon being transferred to another environment (Fuchs, 2004).
However, implicit decision making or states is also different from the psyche of a repressive memory, a defense mechanism or even anxiety which psychoanalysis that a therapist can identify. This is because human beings are intertwined in between psychology and the body. During this time Psychotherapy can also classify repressive amnesia into what it is. Amnesia cannot be classified by a child’s loss of early developmental memories. Same goes for a child’s attachment to their mother which by Mammalian nature also passes by certain genetic dispositions. Where, according to Bowlby’s theory, there is a growing concern that the development of the mammalian brain is caused by the off springs defining their inner selves while they grew to maturity and relied on themselves. Scientifically it is because the nervous systems have fully developed, and because they require external stimuli or some sort of regulation to fine tune their further growth, they become more developed. In mammals this is achieved by interacting with other mammals. Where there is absence of such stimuli leaves the subject in question starting to exhibit abnormal behaviors. As such, are feelings of empathy being present among different individuals while not in others (Fuchs, 2004).
Wilhelm Wundt Theory of Introspection
It is likely that much about the interpretation of Wundt’s works is misconceived because psychology begun as an experimental science and observation came afterwards (Rieber, 1980). During his time, Wundt’s introspection theory was considered a self-observing test which only required contemplation by the subject. It was left for decades without being challenged. The fundamentals included measure of verbal and non-verbal cues within a rigidly controlled setting to describe what the subject was feeling. This could either be pleasant, depression, sad or even happy depending on the individual. It was during this time of contemplation that one truly looked inside themselves for the answers they seek. The conditions in the experiment were never constant and as such the organism had to adjust to stimuli of various proportions at a time. On a different note, Wundt did not think that the mind is independent of the body, instead and going by what the texts has to say about it is that there was no one else but the one administering the experiment and the psyche processes. Notably stimuli also involved during the sensatory period, which is when information is being transmitted through neurons to the brain, demonstrating whatever feelings one had (Danziger, 1980).
While, the introspective approach of the unconscious proposed by Wundt was used by Britain, Germans took to a more research based approach to psychology of introspection. Germans believed that the contemplation previously aforementioned was afterwards too obvious and basic a tool to be used in gaining insights on the nature and development of the mind. But, at the time many were of the opinion that the nature of the mind cannot be correlated with the consciousness alone. Since, introspection of the unconsciousness on its own cannot be decided to be a method of unwavering reliability and importance. Immanuel Kant adds that introspectiveness is not limited to knowledge of self because it is unavailable to the subject. Perhaps it is because Kant believed that introspectively is made worthless as whole because the science is not considered serious in nature by many. Kant is not alone on this such that the German school of thought, the Hegelians did not also think much about self-evaluation provided by a subject that was self-observing. At the time, even the most plausible explanation which seems rational, provided the subject is introspective was not worth much (Danziger, 1980).
It then became imperative that because qualitative evidence was not enough to sustain the theory of introspectiveness, a quantitative or mathematical introspection was born from the once philosophical school, but each time there was a back and forth appeal of one another. The quantitative approach was constantly challenging the one relied on by the British because the Germans prepositioned many. Take for instance the fact that there was one which prepositioned a research orient material manifestation, physiology, linguistic properties and speech. It then became imperative that infants were observed alongside animals, statistics and intricacies of human behavior understanding. Not long afterwards Sir William Hamilton and John Stuart Mills turned the ideology to the way it once was, which is in relation to knowledge of unconscious mental activity. Subsequently and throughout that time there was a push and pull approach between the newly founded objectives basing in introspectiveness and the old school prepositioned by Wundt. Introspective theory became divided. Whereas, the British sought to develop the old model, the Germans turned to a research based approach in psychology (Danziger, 1980).
However, Wundt himself has since proposed that the theory was to be reformulated for it to become less incompatible with the British view. This is upon Wundt revealing that for the experiment to even exist there needed to be a new format of the concept of introspection. The English at that time were lost. Although many thought that the proposal he made them seemed to make little sense. Since, Wundt then understood the need for a scientific approach in addition to his old theory of intro perception and introspectiveness. Then again there was a dilemma that Wundt noticed, the object and subject could not all exist at the same time. That is because modern day science prides itself on observation and reporting as the events occur, and not relying on memories which at times can be distorted by present experiences. More so is because if the subject came to be aware of themselves or were aware of their attention, it then became an observation which invites criticism by critiques to assess their theory, as Wundt later found out. Consequently, others like Titchener diverged on Wundt’s works, by deciding to follow up on the likes of James Mill because Titchener sought to have an understanding of when introspection had a majority (Danziger, 1980).
In summation of this topic, clearly there is confusion within the model prepositioned by Wundt. However, it would not matter taking into consideration that some like Titchener took a direct approach on what he and others chose to evaluate themselves with. Now that it has been learnt that there are basically three types of theories, each with their originator at the core believing in what they think is right because they can back it up it is a wonder how introspection has survived the history books. Nevertheless, as it has been seen, observing and experimental psychologies do not belong together. That is given the nature of the subject and the object as has already been shown above. This is merely saying that in the event one becomes conscious rather than unconscious their observations as from then on are open to being critiqued or challenged given the individual has certain biases on a particular subject. Yet, it can happen in both accounts.
As a result of which, nothing about this paper has spoken beyond what it hoped to attain by revealing the intricacies that lie at the back of the human mind. As such is that memories can be distorted and sometimes observation in as much as is believable as it demonstrates it is truth or it is data proof, also comes with it several challenges because when the need arises, individuals will have to defend what they believe in. In this regard, the paper concedes that certain aspects of introspection require further development, and the same applies to debate concerning the aforementioned Neuro imaging alongside Psychotherapy. Where, they both have a role to play, in that one is experimental or structuralism in nature, the other is behavioral and research orient but neither of them at the end of the day is correct wholly. Since, the assumption that one is greater than the other may be irrational and which may lead to the dwindling of the subject. This is merely because the analyst was too biased to see there was a margin for error and that their school of thought was not perfect.
Danziger, K. (1980). The History of Introspection reconsidered. Journal of the History and Behavioral Science, pp.241-262.
Fuchs, T. (2004). Neurobiology and Psychotherapy: an emerging dialogue. History and Philosophy, pp.479-485.
Rieber, R. (1980). Wilhelm Wundt and the making of a scientific psychology. New York: Plenum.