Overall, I think that we should be skeptical about the theories. We should be testing the theories and checking to best help other individuals.

I think there is some truth behind this statement. There may be some set backs in the study that need some work, but I think there are some good foundations set. Even with all the set back psychology it is still a topic that is discussed and has some good points.

I agree that the use of the IQ test does not mean the individual is not qualified for the job. I think that we should be more focused on what the individual can accomplish and not what the tests state.

I feel like in order to study something we have to start somewhere. The past scientists had to begin the process for the individuals in the future. If the information is wrong in the past I do not know if it will be wrong in the future or present. I think it can lead to some wrong theories not all.

Infants are one topic that the different sides agree on. I think it is difficult to study infants with the lack of communication and memory of infancy after growing out of it.

The author is skeptic about the formula to gain the results for behaviorism. The author states that formula is too simple and that with the formula psychology is only for the theories.

I feel like using psychology is a good use in schools, if done correctly. With the shift away from the physical punishments there is a shift to more limit setting and boundaries.

Psychology can be coined as a soft science due to having weaker evidence. This can make more skepticism to the study. However it can be said that finding a way to measure these signs.

As time goes on each generation changes. With the current few generations, I feel are more fact based. The current generations have access to so much more information that it can become overwhelming. I feel that it is why they have less interest in the past and more interest in the present and the future.

Psychology is a 'soft' science meaning that the amount of evidence to prove the theories are limited. In psychology it is the study of the mind, thoughts, soul. It is difficult to produce undisputed evidence behind some of these theories. With these uncertainties it can lead others to become skeptical about whether or not psychology was formed correctly.

Overall, there are major discrepancies in the work of psychology. It starts in the frame work and spreads. However, with the skepticism psychology still holds strong. There are still some truth behind the study, but there needs to be a lot of work done to fully understand and get clear concise evidence.

The ground work of psychology is wrong that can lead to the entire subject as a failure. We would have to start from scratch to rebuild the study.

The author is saying that psychology is one big story. There are no outlines for it just participants.

The focus was on the intelligence of an individual and not on the ability to get there or the test in which is being taken to determine an individuals intelligence.

Sciences are fact checked by one another. Here the different scientists are ignoring what one another has hypothesized. This leads to muddy science. N;o one is looking to disprove the other in a scientific manner.

By ignoring the other parts of the study they are able to model the response/ answer that they want.

The behaviorist's theory is based upon two loosely evident terms; stimulus and response. The author is bringing to light that these pieced of evidence are not proven. That the habits and environment are not taken into consideration when forming this theory.

The author is saying that for some of the different forms of psychology are formed to be in response to a disliked theory. It does not hold evidence and seems to be

The evidence that is currently believed is based upon popular opinions and is filled with false truths. This sort of evidence can be damaging to the studies.

We know that biology is a "proven" science and when psychology first began to gain interests the scientists did not or took little head in the sciences that were already showing evidence. Instead they took a new route and that route may have been wrong. So what he is getting at is with this one misstep psychology could be pushed back by years of misinformed knowledge.

There is skepticism on what is being measured and said to be science in psychology. In another science most things in the study are measured to reveal the answer. However, in psychology not everything is measurable so the amount being measured is not always accurate. Thus creating a different answer than what could have been.

He avoid the bait of the belief that applied sciences allow for the academic community to take hold.

The recent generations have focused on knowing the basics in the past that lead up to the current generation. There seems to be a large amount of science has been the focus. Is there enough evidence to prove the methods behind psychology?

The author is criticizing whether or not the advancements in psychology. Looking at the past theories and work has psychology made a genuine impact in psychology.