首页> 外文期刊>Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy >On the Limited Foundations of Western Skepticism towards Indigenous Psychological Thinking: Pragmatics, Politics, and Philosophy of Indigenous Psychology
【24h】

On the Limited Foundations of Western Skepticism towards Indigenous Psychological Thinking: Pragmatics, Politics, and Philosophy of Indigenous Psychology

机译:论西方怀疑论对本土心理学思维的有限基础:语用学,政治学和本土心理学哲学

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The problem of defining culture has exercised anthropologists but not cross‐cultural psychologists because psychological science is based on quantitative forms of empiricism where the validity of categorical boundaries is determined by their predictive utility. Furthermore, many indigenous psychologies have been allied to nation‐building projects in the developing world that choose to gloss over within state ethnic differences for the purposes of national strength and unity. Finally, Carl Martin Allwood’s target article “On the foundation of the indigenous psychologies” (2011, Social Epistemology 25 (1): 3-14) is grounded in western thinking about science that privileges analytical philosophy, particularly the importance of constructing definitional categories as the basis of its critique of indigenous psychologies. This is a limited basis for thinking about psychological science whose flaws have been exposed by highly visible critiques on analytical versus holistic thinking. From the point of view of Asian social psychologists, there is no analytical solution as to where to draw the boundaries of culture because culture is a social construction that will vary according to the situation and motives at play in different situations. But this is not an intractable problem because all human psychology is intentionally realized with elements of social construction that are part and parcel of experienced reality.View full textDownload full textKeywordsIndigenous Psychologies, Culture, EmpiricismRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2011.552126
机译:界定文化的问题使人类学家而不是跨文化心理学家倍受青睐,因为心理学是基于经验主义的定量形式,其中范畴边界的有效性由其预测效用决定。此外,许多土著人的心理已经与发展中国家的国家建设项目结盟,这些项目出于国家实力和统一的目的而选择掩盖州内的种族差异。最后,卡尔·马丁·奥尔伍德(Carl Martin Allwood)的目标文章“在土著心理学的基础上”(2011年,社会认识论25(1):3-14)扎根于西方对科学的思考,这种分析优先考虑分析哲学,特别是分析哲学。构建定义类别的重要性作为对土著心理学的批判的基础。这是思考心理学的有限​​基础,心理学的缺陷已被分析性和整体性思维的高度可见的批评所暴露。从亚洲社会心理学家的角度来看,对于在何处划定文化界限没有任何分析性解决方案,因为文化是一种社会构造,会根据情况和在不同情况下发挥的动机而变化。但这不是一个棘手的问题,因为所有人类心理学都是通过有经验的现实的组成部分有意识地实现的社会建构元素来实现的。查看全文下载全文关键词,services_compact:“ citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,美味,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,发布号:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2011.552126

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号