Jump to content

Talk:Wilhelm Wundt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Experimental methodology[edit]

Could someone add some details regarding Wundt's experimental methodology? I know that he relied primarily on analytic introspection, but apparently also measured reaction time. What sorts of specific experimental questions did he examine, and how? Obviously a complete record of his research would be out of place, but presenting a couple examples of actual experiments that he conducted would be a much-needed addition to the article.

Finally, this sentence has me scratching my head: 'His fasting research participants, focusing only on the response they were to make, could respond automatically to the tone because they didn't have to engage in the additional step of interpretation.' By focusing only on the response, how were they engaged in any form of introspection? And what is this about fasting?? Was that a central aspect of Wundt's methodology? (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

facts on Wundt[edit]

I came here for some facts on Wundt and found almost none, and what was here looked as if it had been written by behaviorists. Some investigation into the page history showed how someone erased the large life and works section and replaced it with a defacement. Kingturtle removed the defacement but failed to restore the life and works. I created my account to fix this--I tried to bring back that portion intact without removing subsequent edits; I hope I have succeeded.

Afterwards, I re-wrote the lede to more accurately reflect the current understanding of Wundt's work, as opposed to misrepresentations by Titchener and further misrepresentations by behaviorists seeking more funding for their own approaches. Much of this was from ten-year-old memories of History of Psychology, but I have gone to other pages to ensure accuracy which I will try to find again and reference properly, sorry.

I added a section for his influence and impact on American psychology, refactoring part of the life and works into it, and adding material, discussing why his work fell into eclipse in the US, and adding more of his prominent students.

I added a bibliography section, which is unfinished.

--AllanBz 03:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i saw on this that William James and Titchener are both quoted as creating the first American psychology laboratory, which one is it? --BuddhaBubba 23:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some defacement and replaced the original text in the Life and Works section. --Kloepelm 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- This really does need some work on it, not least because of the paragraph "Professor Wilhelm Wundt, a German psychologist and Marxist at the University of Leipzig, proclaimed that man’s soul – if indeed he had one – was irrelevant, as man could only be understood in terms of physically observable phenomena. A search for the spiritual nature of man, he reasoned, was a waste of time as there was no psyche. Thus psychology became the study of the spirit which denied the spirit. The subject of psychology thereafter became prevalent in universities." No references, and the 'Marxist' comment is certainly anachronistic and makes one suspicious. By a strange coincidence the exactly same passage can be found at http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part01/Chp02/pg0062.html, and so I presume there is an agenda here. Chris McManus, University College London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite in progress[edit]

In the coming weeks I hope to overhaul the article. I can't believe someone as important as Wundt had such a low-quality article! Hopefully I'll be able to put your concerns to rest soon. AdamBiswanger1 17:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Significant rewrite[edit]

Most of the substance of this article was removed without reasonable cause or explanation by an anon IP here. Thereafter, AdamBiswanger and others have slowly rebuilt it, though not with nearly the amount of useful summary information that the article had previously contained. I've replenished the article, for now at least, with some of the material that was removed, hopefully without unduly interfering with useful material that has since been added. I've also placed a couple of templates indicating that references should be provided and improved throughout much of the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wundt was also the author of an important book on Logic, not even mentioned here. Also, an intriguing book on ethical philosophy. Altogether, he was a multi-faceted figure and this entry gives no real sense of that. --Christofurio (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the 10 volumes of Völkerpsychologie 1900-1920 with their very extensive implications for later work in theological, ethnological and philosophical-anthropological studies! Eebahgum (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

still missing...[edit]

This article still leaves out details about his work and what it was trying to do. Kingturtle (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original deletion was mere vandalism[edit]

and the same vandal is still active...
See above:'Removed without reasonable cause or explanation by an anon IP here'. WELL it is perfectly clear also from a list of this anon IP's contributions, here, from 1 December 2006 to the present February 2010, that this IP has been used for nothing but deliberate vandalism. In fact it is the communal web address of the Accomack County Public Schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and has only escaped blocking for vandalism because it is a shared point of access. I cannot see why this was not noticed on 14 Sept 2007, when the Wundt article was vandalized, and why the whole edit was not reverted. The damage to the original article was NOT the work of a credible editor. The whole position concerning the original article needs reviewing. Eebahgum (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is voluntarism?[edit]

In the infobox of the article under known for it lists Voluntarism. in structuralism (psychology) it also notes that voluntarism is one of Wundt's principal beliefs. How is it that there is no information on Wundt's article? How is it that the voluntarism disambig lists no articles, no information?--Kiyarrlls-talk 00:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to add a bit to the article about Wundt's influence on psycholinguistics, particularly in his books Logik and Die Sprache, and his ideas about language's role in the understanding social and cultural behaviour, and his idea that the "mental sentence" should be a unit of speech.--Violarulez (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. sort of... --Violarulez (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC) p.s.[reply]



incomprehensible, please fix[edit]

Though Wundt wrot physics, physiology, psycholinguistics, and of course the universe.[12] In recognition of Wundt's work, the [[research collaboration." [13] (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publications Section reinstated - Vandalism?[edit]

Although inadequate, there was formerly in this article a Section providing a list of publications which was removed about a year ago without comment by an anonymous user. As this was fully referenced material and there is no explanation for its removal, nor otherwise any stated wikipedian objection to its presence in the article, I have restored the material on the assumption that the deletion was vandalism. If in so doing I have reverted a legitimate edit by mistake, I apologise. If there is a good reason to delete it, please, when doing so, leave an explanation on this talk page so that the reasons for and against can be understood by other users. In default of an explanation, a subsequent deletion of the material may be regarded as vandalism. Thanks, Eebahgum (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wilhelm Wundt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to "association theory" goes to the "association theory" page for chemistry[edit]

Before walking away, please check that your link goes to the right page. The article Association theory goes to a page pertaining to what that term means in chemistry, which is interesting but not relevant when the term is used to refer to a theory in psychology.

The problematic passage is at 6.2, within the "General Psychology" subsection in the "Psychology" section of the page. At the start of the first paragraph the first sentence reads:

Apperception theory Wundt rejected the widespread association theory, according to which mental connections (learning) are mainly formed through the frequency and intensity of particular processes.

The grammar itself is poor. Does it mean "In his apperception theory Wundt rejected..."? Was "Apperception theory" supposed to be its own section with the sentence starting with "Wundt rejected"? But the main issue I take with it is that the link is clearly meant for a psychological theory but instead goes to a page about chemistry.

SciGeek2016 (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Normal 2401:4900:6133:2C6C:5F10:5463:7AF4:40D (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wundt quote without reference[edit]

There is a reference to a Wundt excerpt in a section, however there is no citation to where it comes from. See “Central themes in Wundt’s work”, in heading “Definition of psychology”, #1.

There is even a single quote, which suggests that there is a direct quote, however it does not close. The source is also not listed. It is well known that Wundt posited this datum, however, this quote should be referenced.

Does anyone know where this came from? Andrewdegenhardt (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Ludy, Benjamin (1997). "The founding of scientific psychology: Gustav Fechner and wilhelm Wundt". A history of psychology: Original sources and contemporary research. 2: 120–167. Retrieved March 8 2012. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)