The Principle of Inversion: Why the Quantitative-Empirical Paradigm Cannot Serve as a Unifying Basis for Psychology as an Academic Discipline

Mayrhofer, Roland; Hutmacher, Fabian

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.596425

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To conclude, our outline points out three aspects of a new post-modern methodology in psychology: liberal, pluralistic, and more tolerant: liberal because it rejects rules that are too strict in favor of more freedom in the choice of method, pluralistic because it conveys an "almost anything goes" attitude toward methods, and more tolerant because mutual tolerance among researchers is vital for a pluralism of methods. Psychological phenomena are complex and can best be understood by using different methods (Mayrhofer and Hutmacher, 2020). However, to get things working, tolerance must actively be lived.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Regarding an “Almost Anything Goes” Attitude Toward Methods in Psychology

Zitzmann

Loreth

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Regarding an “Almost Anything Goes” Attitude Toward Methods in Psychology

Zitzmann

Loreth

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this context, it has recently been argued that psychology should put more effort into understanding cross-temporal variation ( Muthukrishna et al, 2020 ). This would include analyzing historical data, most likely using a wide range of different methods, which capture the full range of the involved mental, behavioral, and social processes (e.g., Mayrhofer and Hutmacher, 2020 ). Providing a detailed analysis of historical data to see how other times and cultures have dealt with situations in which “things were getting too much and out of balance” is highly desirable, but far beyond the scope of the present paper.…”

Section: Discussion: the Importance Of Putting Stress Into Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting Stress in Historical Context: Why It Is Important That Being Stressed Out Was Not a Way to Be a Person 2,000 Years Ago

Hutmacher

2021

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that scientists and Western societies began to label the combination of physiological and psychological responses that people display when things are getting too much and out of balance as “stress.” However, stress is commonly understood as a universal mechanism that exists across times and cultures. In a certain sense, this universality claim is correct: the physiological and endocrinological mechanisms underlying the stress response are not a modern invention of our body. In another sense, the universality claim is potentially problematic: stress has become, but has not always been, a way to be a person. That is, the social practices, in which the physiological and endocrinological stress mechanisms are embedded, are not the same across times and cultures. Crucially, these social practices are not a negligible by-product, but form an essential part of the way stress is commonly understood and experienced. Against this background, one may still decide to use the word “stress” when speaking about other times and cultures. Nevertheless, one should at least be cautious when doing so for three reasons. First, using the word “stress” when referring to societies different from our own may create the impression of a similarity between then and now, which does not actually exist. Second, it may blind us to the nature of the differences between times and cultures. Third, it naturalizes a contemporary scientific concept, which is more adequately viewed as the result of complex social, historical, and societal processes. Putting the stress concept in historical context and acknowledging that its use emerged in a specific historical environment enables us to take a step back and to think about the ways that stress shapes our lives. In other words, viewing stress as a culture-bound concept can give us the possibility to reflect upon our modern societies, in which the concept emerged.

show abstract

“…4 However, one could also argue that embracing methodological pluralism should be seen as a strength rather than a weakness (cf. Mayrhofer & Hutmacher, 2020). In this sense, the problem with Jüttemann's version of historical psychology would not so much be the lack of methodological consensus but the lack of elaborating the different methods and applying them to specific settings.…”

Section: Conceptual and Theoretical Reasonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As I have argued, it would be too simplistic to portray Jüttemann as a victim of the zeitgeist, which prefers a natural-science perspective on the human psyche to the perspective that the humanities may have to offer. While Jüttemann has eloquently pointed out some weaknesses of mainstream psychology (such as the principle of inversion; see also Mayrhofer & Hutmacher, 2020), his version of historical psychology is confronted with several problems that may have kept other researchers from following in his footsteps. Jüttemann's idea that historical psychology can provide a pure and value-free observation of reality and his fundamental theory have been criticized on theoretical and epistemological grounds.…”

Section: Conclusion: the Future Of Historical Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Gerd Jüttemann’s “historical psychology”: Why it should have succeeded, why it was ignored, and what that means for the future

Hutmacher

2022

Theory & Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over recent years, several publications have drawn attention to the fact that mainstream psychology has neglected cross-temporal variability and the historicity of the human psyche. One of the early proponents of a historical perspective on psychological matters is German psychologist Gerd Jüttemann. Despite his pioneer work and his continued publication efforts from the 1980s until today, his ideas have largely been ignored by the academic discourse, both inside and outside Germany. The question is: Why? Based on a brief overview of his writings, this article argues that it was not (only) a result of Jüttemann being at odds with the zeitgeist, but was also caused by conceptual problems as well as practical obstacles. Understanding why historical psychology remained at the brink of the academic discipline can help contemporary scholars to develop a perspective on the historicity of the human psyche that has a better chance to be heard.

show abstract

The Principle of Inversion: Why the Quantitative-Empirical Paradigm Cannot Serve as a Unifying Basis for Psychology as an Academic Discipline

Cited by 13 publications

References 30 publications

Regarding an “Almost Anything Goes” Attitude Toward Methods in Psychology

Regarding an “Almost Anything Goes” Attitude Toward Methods in Psychology

Putting Stress in Historical Context: Why It Is Important That Being Stressed Out Was Not a Way to Be a Person 2,000 Years Ago

Gerd Jüttemann’s “historical psychology”: Why it should have succeeded, why it was ignored, and what that means for the future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About