1) What were your initial reactions to the Lovett article ("The new history of psychology: A review and critique") and the first chapter of the textbook? Should psychologists write histories of psychology? What are the advantages and disadvantages of scholars within the discipline writing the discipline's history?
2) Where would you place Danziger, in terms of whether his approach reflects "old" or "new" history? Why (support your conclusion)? What surprised or interested you from reading the interview with Danziger?