عقلية (علم النفس) (Arabic Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "عقلية (علم النفس)" in Arabic language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Arabic rank
2nd place
5th place
5th place
4th place
6th place
3rd place
4th place
6th place
1st place
1st place
441st place
1,334th place

archive.org

  • Smith، Terry L. (1994). Behavior and its causes: philosophical foundations of operant psychology. Studies in cognitive systems. Dordrecht; Boston: شبرينغر. ج. 16. DOI:10.1007/978-94-015-8102-8. ISBN:0792328159. OCLC:30158598.
  • Dehaene، Stanislas (2014). Consciousness and the brain: deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts. New York: Viking. ص. 43. ISBN:9780670025435. OCLC:849719164. In that sense, the behaviorists were right: as a method, introspection provides a shaky ground for a science of psychology, because no amount of introspection will tell us how the mind works. However, as a measure, introspection still constitutes the perfect, indeed the only, platform on which to build a science of consciousness, because it supplies a crucial half of the equation—namely, how subjects feel about some experience (however wrong they are about the ground truth). To attain a scientific understanding of consciousness, we cognitive neuroscientists "just" have to determine the other half of the equation: Which objective neurobiological events systematically underlie a person's subjective experience?

doi.org

  • Smith، Terry L. (1994). Behavior and its causes: philosophical foundations of operant psychology. Studies in cognitive systems. Dordrecht; Boston: شبرينغر. ج. 16. DOI:10.1007/978-94-015-8102-8. ISBN:0792328159. OCLC:30158598.
  • Carr، Edward G. (Spring 1993). "Behavior analysis is not ultimately about behavior". The Behavior Analyst. ج. 16 ع. 1: 47–49. DOI:10.1007/bf03392608. PMC:2733570. PMID:22478131. The stimulus-response (S-R) psychology of Watson (1913) is ultimately about behavior and is definitely mechanistic. The behavior-analytic approach of Skinner (1938, 1953) is not ultimately about behavior, and it is definitely not mechanistic. As operant psychologists, we are not concerned with identifying stimuli and responses that bear some fixed relationship to one another and that can be used as building blocks to explain complex behavior patterns. As operant psychologists, we are concerned, first and foremost, with the functions of behavior or, in lay terms, with purpose (Lee, 1988; Morris, 1993; Skinner, 1974), even though we do not analyze and use the term purpose as a lay person would. [...] Functionalism would have been a better term for what we are about but, unfortunately, that term has already been used to describe a school of psychology quite different from ours.
  • Paivio، Allan (1975). "Neomentalism". Canadian Journal of Psychology. ج. 29 ع. 4: 263–291. DOI:10.1037/h0082031.
  • Watson، John B. (1913). "Psychology as the behaviorist views it". Psychological Review. ج. 20 ع. 2: 158–177. DOI:10.1037/h0074428. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2022-01-25.
  • Leahey، Thomas H. (فبراير 1992). "The mythical revolutions of American psychology". عالم نفس أمريكي (جريدة). ج. 47 ع. 2: 308–318. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.47.2.308.

hathitrust.org

babel.hathitrust.org

nih.gov

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

  • Carr، Edward G. (Spring 1993). "Behavior analysis is not ultimately about behavior". The Behavior Analyst. ج. 16 ع. 1: 47–49. DOI:10.1007/bf03392608. PMC:2733570. PMID:22478131. The stimulus-response (S-R) psychology of Watson (1913) is ultimately about behavior and is definitely mechanistic. The behavior-analytic approach of Skinner (1938, 1953) is not ultimately about behavior, and it is definitely not mechanistic. As operant psychologists, we are not concerned with identifying stimuli and responses that bear some fixed relationship to one another and that can be used as building blocks to explain complex behavior patterns. As operant psychologists, we are concerned, first and foremost, with the functions of behavior or, in lay terms, with purpose (Lee, 1988; Morris, 1993; Skinner, 1974), even though we do not analyze and use the term purpose as a lay person would. [...] Functionalism would have been a better term for what we are about but, unfortunately, that term has already been used to describe a school of psychology quite different from ours.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

  • Carr، Edward G. (Spring 1993). "Behavior analysis is not ultimately about behavior". The Behavior Analyst. ج. 16 ع. 1: 47–49. DOI:10.1007/bf03392608. PMC:2733570. PMID:22478131. The stimulus-response (S-R) psychology of Watson (1913) is ultimately about behavior and is definitely mechanistic. The behavior-analytic approach of Skinner (1938, 1953) is not ultimately about behavior, and it is definitely not mechanistic. As operant psychologists, we are not concerned with identifying stimuli and responses that bear some fixed relationship to one another and that can be used as building blocks to explain complex behavior patterns. As operant psychologists, we are concerned, first and foremost, with the functions of behavior or, in lay terms, with purpose (Lee, 1988; Morris, 1993; Skinner, 1974), even though we do not analyze and use the term purpose as a lay person would. [...] Functionalism would have been a better term for what we are about but, unfortunately, that term has already been used to describe a school of psychology quite different from ours.

web.archive.org

worldcat.org

  • Smith، Terry L. (1994). Behavior and its causes: philosophical foundations of operant psychology. Studies in cognitive systems. Dordrecht; Boston: شبرينغر. ج. 16. DOI:10.1007/978-94-015-8102-8. ISBN:0792328159. OCLC:30158598.
  • O'Donohue، William T.؛ Ferguson، Kyle E. (2001). The psychology of B.F. Skinner. Thousand Oaks, CA: سيج للنشر. ISBN:0761917586. OCLC:45188938.
  • Dehaene، Stanislas (2014). Consciousness and the brain: deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts. New York: Viking. ص. 43. ISBN:9780670025435. OCLC:849719164. In that sense, the behaviorists were right: as a method, introspection provides a shaky ground for a science of psychology, because no amount of introspection will tell us how the mind works. However, as a measure, introspection still constitutes the perfect, indeed the only, platform on which to build a science of consciousness, because it supplies a crucial half of the equation—namely, how subjects feel about some experience (however wrong they are about the ground truth). To attain a scientific understanding of consciousness, we cognitive neuroscientists "just" have to determine the other half of the equation: Which objective neurobiological events systematically underlie a person's subjective experience?