(1) Now that the dust has settled . . .

[KuriousKatKommittee]

. . . which of these niggas was less wrong?

[ModernMaskil]

You'd think a year of HS psychology & sociology might allow me some opinion. But alas, I've no clue. I remember writing down gestalt in my notebook though.

[Westbrook]

Are you implying they're all wrong?

[PrettyFarFromOkay]

Any psychology that ignores metaphysics will be impoverished.

[RenaRyuguu]

When will humans learn that war is stupid and that it only leads to death and repossession in another country.

[KuriousKatKommittee]

Are you implying they're all wrong?

Maybe. ;)

[Westbrook]

Meeting of the minds here

Any psychology that ignores metaphysics will be impoverished.

Maybe.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

Well let's see:

Behaviorism - limited in the fact that behavior does not directly show the reasoning behind. Factors such as internalized beliefs, societal pressure and others cannot be directly analyzed via this method.

Wertheimer - limited due to generalization. Individuals are not that much one unitary concept (apart from the few with a very strong ethical system) but a sum of a few smaller ones.

Chomsky has been contested every since he spoke an academic word and still is to this day being proved wrong.

Heidegger has been one of the few to bring in the concept of a higher self into discussion and to discuss authenticity and people should insist more on him. Unfortunately I had to read tons of nihilistic/existentialist or post-Marxist bullshit instead of something that actually deals with the metaphysical concept of man.