jenelsan

I can also recommend Kuhn. I really enjoyed Structure. It helped me view things from a more helpful perspective than I was doing previously. Have you read The Road Since Structure? It's sitting in my bookcase but I haven't got round to it yet. I think you can't go wrong with the classics - Neisser, Skinner, Piaget. It could just be the biases of my undergrad discipline (and now the influence of reading Kuhn), but I hadn't noticed the vulnerability of scientific disciplines to rely on textbooks and in doing so the original sources of various movements can get neglected. So I have a lot of catch-up to do! I also find the prose of older texts generally more pleasant to read than in modern texts. I'm currently reading Thomaz Szasz 'The Myth of Mental Illness.' Enjoying it quite a bit. However, I think to get the best out of it, it should be read with some flexibility/forgiveness when it comes to interpretation. But I do believe there are some very valid and relevant points that remain true for psychiatry today. I'd also like to recommend Consciousness and the Social Brain by M. Graziano. I find the Attention Schema Theory an attractive concept.

Thank you for this very honest reply! Lots of things going on there - I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. Sorry to hear that not all of your interactions have been positive. I really hope that you are able to get to where you want to go and to make the contribution you are passionate about making :-) Good luck and best wishes!

Hey psych face, Thanks for replying! I did ask a lot of questions! Just casting a net to see if anyone was up for discussing related thoughts. Hope you don't mind if I ask you some follow up questions on your reply. Could you give me an example of one of these major theories and the basic principles of evolution that they violate? I think I can relate to this. For me, it's maybe been more of an issue of lack of suitable precedent that's been daunting. The practicalities of pursuing a PhD seem quite centred on having detailed timelines of investigation and quick turn around of results, both of which are more easily predicted if there already exists similar research work done. This is a fine productive model for a mature science, but psychology is not at a definitive stage. Perhaps it's more of a UK-PhD application problem, because these proposed details need to be worked out before you've submitted your application. The US system seems more appropriate in that applicants find a good match with supervisors/departments at interest-level as a primary concern. I'm now very curious as to what your particular research interests are and what you feel the assumptions of their common paradigm(s) are? (That you take issue with.)

Hi folks, This is probably more of a 'waiting it out' post, but it's psychology specific so I thought here would be the most appropriate forum. For me, the hardest aspect of applying to grad school/seeking out a PhD has been knowing under which heading I might find appropriate supervisors. This year I made applications to very few places (2) based upon papers and specific research I'd come across that I was particularly inspired by. I'm an international applicant so I'm not feeling entirely confident that it will all work out for me. But since I've been introduced to this site and on seeing so many people pursuing grad-school-level psychology in one place, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic: As new recruits, how cohesive do you feel psychology is as a field? Do you feel study of the 'mind' is the crux of your inquiry? If so what does mind mean to you? Do you care about the constraints of the mechanisms of biology? Can a scientific community reach stability when its vocabulary includes ambiguous terms such as 'mind,' 'executive' and 'control'? Or perhaps you don't see your area of interest as 'scientific' per se? Are you looking for a complete model of 'how things work' or any approximation that will answer a specific question you are interested in? Or are you more interested in aiding behavioural strategies/creating pharmacological solutions that result in a better quality of life? My undergraduate background is in artificial intelligence, but I recently completed a masters which was a catalyst in prompting consideration of metaphysical assumptions with regard to research pursuit. I'm interested in computational modelling of certain behavior acquisition through developmental processes - but I didn't know I had to include all these terms when I started out! I think this has been half the battle. Has anyone else experienced any similar taxonomical/categorisation difficulties?