Rant... Sigh...
I'm starting to sweat the final on one of the courses I am taking and I'm only in my third week of classes. It is a required course in the history of psychology. This translates into an exhausting list of philosophers beginning with the early Greeks. The more I think about it, the more I worry about ruining my beautiful GPA of which I am so proud. I just don't see how I can possibly pull an A out of this final, or at least a grade that will still allow my final grade to be an A. Ugh. The problem is the way I remember things. I remember methods, theories, and applications very well. I completely stink at remembering names of people or names of theories. Ask me how to apply what I've learned and explain my methods and I breeze right through. Ask me what the method is called and who invented it and I'm dumbstruck.
This morning I was talking with Ionel about observation influencing the outcome/behavior of the things being observed. Toward the end of the conversation he asked me what made me think of this topic. Having recently covered this in my course, I told him that I had read a philosopher's thoughts on this but couldn't remember who he was. The more I thought about it the more frustrated I got. "See?" I told him, "this is what happens! I remember what, but almost never who! What am I going to do?!?!"
Ionel suggested mnemonics. What little free time I have I generally like to use to unwind not to torture myself by trying to come up with witty little rhymes or stories. Sigh... So far, I've been lucky at exam time because the vast majority of the questions on my exams have been about method, application, theories, and so on. Little emphasis has been placed on "who" and much emphasis has been placed on "what". I don't see how I can escape the "who" at the end of this course. The textbook is one giant chain of philosophers. I'm doomed.
The first chapter explains why we must know the history of psychology: to avoid wasting time on attempting to research ideas which have already been researched and proved to be fruitless. Sounds reasonable. Until, that is, you start reading about Greek philosophers who thought the heart is where all thoughts take place and the brain is just a cooling system for the body. What the *$%@# are the odds that as I push forward through my studies of neuropsychology, I will ever think to myslef "Here's a thought... What if the brain is a cooling system for the body and not the seat of consciousness? I think I'll research that! See where it takes me."
I think this book should have started with 20th century discoveries, stuff that's closer to current knowledge about the brain and its functions.
Mnemonics. I'll look around the web as Ionel suggested. Maybe someone has already done some work on this featuring philosophers of old.
I can't wait to get past this course. It's interesting, and at times very amusing, but with a final exam looming in the near future, I'm starting to lose my sense of humor. I'm hoping my paper will provide a nice balance to what I expect will not be an A on the final. Ionel says I have a defeatist attitude about this. He's right. Gotta get a grip and change that.
This morning I was talking with Ionel about observation influencing the outcome/behavior of the things being observed. Toward the end of the conversation he asked me what made me think of this topic. Having recently covered this in my course, I told him that I had read a philosopher's thoughts on this but couldn't remember who he was. The more I thought about it the more frustrated I got. "See?" I told him, "this is what happens! I remember what, but almost never who! What am I going to do?!?!"
Ionel suggested mnemonics. What little free time I have I generally like to use to unwind not to torture myself by trying to come up with witty little rhymes or stories. Sigh... So far, I've been lucky at exam time because the vast majority of the questions on my exams have been about method, application, theories, and so on. Little emphasis has been placed on "who" and much emphasis has been placed on "what". I don't see how I can escape the "who" at the end of this course. The textbook is one giant chain of philosophers. I'm doomed.
The first chapter explains why we must know the history of psychology: to avoid wasting time on attempting to research ideas which have already been researched and proved to be fruitless. Sounds reasonable. Until, that is, you start reading about Greek philosophers who thought the heart is where all thoughts take place and the brain is just a cooling system for the body. What the *$%@# are the odds that as I push forward through my studies of neuropsychology, I will ever think to myslef "Here's a thought... What if the brain is a cooling system for the body and not the seat of consciousness? I think I'll research that! See where it takes me."
I think this book should have started with 20th century discoveries, stuff that's closer to current knowledge about the brain and its functions.
Mnemonics. I'll look around the web as Ionel suggested. Maybe someone has already done some work on this featuring philosophers of old.
I can't wait to get past this course. It's interesting, and at times very amusing, but with a final exam looming in the near future, I'm starting to lose my sense of humor. I'm hoping my paper will provide a nice balance to what I expect will not be an A on the final. Ionel says I have a defeatist attitude about this. He's right. Gotta get a grip and change that.