Jastrow presents a critique to the emergence of scientific/experimental psychology which in his view is the death of psychology. It is interesting to look into this work, first for its critical observation of experimental psychology and secondly (perhaps more important) how Jastow weaves historicism into his accounts of development of psychology. His style of writing is not only impeccable, but humorous, and in some paragraphs, he embodies a sarcastic tone towards the understanding of applied psychology. In this regard, it may be safe to consider Jastrow a rationalist based on his angle in this article

Kant's view of the unity of psychology under many lenses is applicable here. . "Like mind and body, they operate independent of each other, but in agreement. By implication, parallelism legitimizes the separate study of mental (psychological) and physical (biological) events, thus providing a philosophical basis for “the eventual emergence of psychology as a separate science as distinct from physiology as a separate science” (Klein, 1970, p. 353). all other units are separate, but should work in harmony.

Here,we see that schools are saturated with so many forms of psychology, some being phsysiological in nature, some philosophica;, some technical etc. with the piling of scientifi works that have no bearing, no framwork and disjointed, the masses risk being duped and tossed around. this is important in the history of pyschology because we begin to see the need to unify the practice into one understandable practicuum.

this article shows just how strong this science is promising and that without a specific outline, the issues of dividing psychology into different schools such as biology, evolution, and theoretical models in psychology wont materialize except though joining them as one

Freud’s psychoanalytic theories were a blend of empirical evidence and subjective interpretation based on the humanistic philosophy of human freedom, The presence of subjective interpretations in Freud’s psychoanalysis could possibly lead to false interpretation of empirical result, especially because even contemporary measures based on psychodynamic constructs are questioned in terms of validity and reliability

Jastrow explains how behaviorists took Pavlov’s discovery conditioning and over-emphasized its importance to psychology. Most of Watson’s and work relied on investigating the role of external stimuli in learning, so the reward and punishment system disregarded the role of unconscious mental processes in human learning, Therefore, the criticism of behaviorism as an incomplete part of psychology is valid.

i think he means that the application, or over exertion on maths. laws and formulas was the curse of pyschology

here, Jastrow offfers that experimental pyschology does not represent real life scenarios and as such is not an indicator of efficacy. he goes on to mention that having measurable outcomes does not necessarily make it significant. this reminds me of Kant's position about science and psychology, that science is not needed to study mental states,and neither could it be measured by mathematics.

the comment follows that psychology should be a natural attempt to understand the mind. anu other agreement was thus considered a misdirection.

This is interesting. the author agrees to the notion that experiments are taking the place of human understanding by replacing that with imperfect substitutes of equations, numbers and correlations. all of which can be misrepresented or yield trivial, pretentious errors.

That scientic validation of assumptions distorts the pyschological relationship under study!?

well put. so what then is the purpose of taking measurements in the psychology? what historical evidences does he use to come to this conclusion?

what does he mean, and how does this explain about the history of psychology? I think this is a critique, that scientific applications on psychology are merely self-made assumptions that uses science to prove their assumptions. much like bowling; there is a target, and the bowler (empirisists) play along to meet just the targets

the practice of psychology in the labs-to mean scientific examinations-was not well received.

this sentence confirms that the science of pyschology was just getting started. notice, "science of psychology" here means the application of experiments, tests and observations in understanding conscious and unconscious drivers of behavior.

At this point, I am aware that the author is criticallu evaluating the evolution of psychology as a science. He calls this a "new career", and even though it sounds satirical, it makes it obvious of how the science of pyschology was received in the 1930s. Is the science of pyschology a downgrade of pyschology? Jastrow’s remarks presents a case in which psychologist of that time wanted more than just statistics to explain the mind. It also shows the decline of traditional psychology, and the emergence of new tenets of psychology. The different views presented by empirical psychologists earlier such as Stuart Mills, John Locke, George Barkley, David Hume among others had done a great deal of work in developing the concept. That said, Jastrow’s remarks carry a tinge of presentism, judging the development of experimental psychology through modern lenses.

it is amazing that this 19th century observation still applies to the 21st century "present generation". to a large extent, we are not interested in understanding the histories of things we learn. it is thus important to unravel the history of pyschology so as to better apply it.

what is this word? peccavi? perhaps it means "Perception"

My first impression is a jaw-dropping "WHAT?" the statement definitely draws my attention as to why W.J would come to this conclusion. considering the timing of this article (1935), i am even more curious that probably psychology at this time was beginning to accept its science, as much as its ratinalism.

such open criticisms were necessary in the history of psychology because, as I gather, psychology was quickly evolving from being a rational practice to a more empirical one, hence the backlash. These criticisms were expected considering the works of E.B Titchener of Cornell and William Wundt on experimental psychology that had been propagated (rather in distortion) by E.G. Boring

unguided and unproven psychology is taking the name of psychology in vain. from this phrase, Jastrow has come to the conclusion that the death of psychology is unproven facts and a complicated scientific explanation. this is important in understanding its history by showing how the society transited between the different awakenings in the field of psychology

i fail to understand the author here. he seems to be adressing the weaknesses of behaviorism and Freudinism which he considers as equal to earthquakes and air raids in the field of pyschologists. yet , he began the writing in a somewhat opposition to experimental science of pyschology. here, the author insinuates that Freudian psychologists were in it for the money,not for the practice.

This part presents the original concepts of psychology. more like the foundation of psychology; evoluton and the nervous system. these two have since grown into many forms that bother the author, who in turn insists that the only way to unify the fragmented practice of psychology is to come back to these basics..

i smell confusion here. Perhaps Jastrow is as confused in he role of applied psychology- a new angle- in the understanding of naturalistic psychological reasonings.

a fine historical understanding of how other psychologists understood Freudian psychology. here, Freudian psychology was considered irrational, misrepresentative,illogical and ignorant of naturalistic psychology

think this is an important part to note in psychology's history because it makes it obvious that even then some people questioned the system of study for behavioralism because of its inconsistency. Watson is seen as the guide of pychology, from a naturalistic unproven psychological relationships to an emprical one backed by data and measurements.