The principles of psychology
by William James · first published 1890
44% recommend56% neutral
Why HN recommends it
Dense but readable foundational psychology text covering physiology, the senses, attention and willpower. Its ideas are profound and its insight into how the mind works is practical.
Summarised by Claude from recommending comments
The Principles of Psychology is a monumental text in the history of psychology, written by William James and published in 1890. There were four methods in James' psychology: analysis (i.e. the logical criticism of precursor and contemporary views of the mind), introspection (i.e. the psychologist's study of his own states of mind), experiment (e.g. in hypnosis or neurology), and comparison (the use of statistical means to distinguish norms from anomalies).
Affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The best practical advice on willpower that I've read is from an old classic, William James's Principles of Psychology. It's a long and dense chapter and resuming it here doesn't do it any justice. But I will try anyway: 1. Holding your attention fixed on an action eventually causes you to do that action. E.g. try relaxing…
on “Willpower: It’s in Your Head (2011)” ↗Wundt's name pops up constantly in William James' extremely readable Principles of Psychology (1890). Most of it's what we'd think of as physiology - how our minds and bodies work together; reflexes, the senses etc. Stuff that can be measured and tested. A couple of quotes from it: Consciousness,…
on “You have a set amount of “weirdness points” – spend them wisely (2014)” ↗The list seems very pop-psychology heavy to me. I would put William James, Principles of Psychology in the top spot. In general William James writing seems full of profound ideas.
on “Must-read psychology books” ↗William James - Principles of Psychology
on “What does the cerebellum do?” ↗…it takes to read for someone interested in how we got to where we are today in regards to psychology (which wasn't even a science 130 years ago when the pragmaticist philosopher William James cooked up Principles of Psychology). One of my favorite books is Julian Jane's Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the BiCameral Mind. It's a fun read and not particularly academic. One of my favorite ideas and one that stuck…
on “Zombies Must Be Dualists” ↗In Principles of Psychology, William James speculated that any kind of non-corporeal afterlife would necessarily be non-emotional, since our emotions are felt in our bodies rather than our brains.
on “Can the Bacteria in Your Gut Explain Your Mood?” ↗…theoretical foundations of artificial neurons in the 40s, and around that time Hebb was doing some pioneering work on activation potentials, but traces of the idea can be found as far back as James's Principles of Psychology.
on “Neural Network on a Commodore 64 (1987)” ↗…produced by its experiences. That is an utterly inadmissible doctrine -- a doctrine which makes the presence of a brain meaningless -- a doctrine which makes idiocy unaccountable." - William James, The Principles of Psychology, 1890 (though he is quoting Herbert Spencer here) I wonder if anyone has improved on this view in the century-plus since it was published?
on “How Surprises Help Infants Learn” ↗…then, in all education, is to make our nervous system our ally instead of our enemy. It is to fund and capitalize our acquisitions, and live at ease upon the interest of the fund.” — William James, The Principles of Psychology (1890)
on “Effortless personal productivity (or how I learned to love my monkey mind)” ↗…aware of) the reasons why it's included in the DSM and the ISD and why it's been acknowledged (if grudgingly) since the very beginnings of the discipline and before - including a long section in James "Principles of Psychology" - if he's going to make such a claim. He seems patently unaware of the long list of psychological principles that no one contests that align with the diagnosis - from the existence of discrete states…
on ““Multiple personality disorder” probably doesn't exist” ↗