Green (2015), in his article on “Why Psychology Is Not Unified, and Probably Never Will Be,” asserts that psychology is “a fairly heterogeneous system”. group, ontologically and epistemologically,” which is the main reason why the field is not unified. This is consistent with what Koch said about the discipline of psychology when he asserted that "psychology was not and could not be a single coherent discipline" based on his past and present experience. of psychology. Historically and consistent with the writings of Green (2015), psychologists have sought a unified discipline, beginning with Wilhelm Wundt's establishment of a psychology department in Leipzig, Germany, to unite the diverse viewpoints in psychology through an experimental procedure. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get the original essay In his article, Green (2015) highlighted the historical background of psychology by referencing the work of Wilhelm Wundt for establish a scientific psychology which emphasized "consciousness" studied by introspection in Germany, the functionalism of William James which emphasized the study of all mental variations and internal forces and external factors that affect mental variations and adaptation in the United States of America, while behaviorism emphasizes the study of observable phenomena. behavior through empiricism rather than emphasizing unobservable mental processes, consciousness and unconsciousness. Obviously, the foundations of psychology, what it studies and how it studies it have never been agreed upon, unlike what can be achieved in the physical sciences based on the Khunian paradigm. To put the problem into perspective, it is necessary to recognize that the problem of unifying psychology by various schools of thought arises from the conceptualization of the subject of psychological inquiry. Unlike the physical sciences whose methods are developed along initial lines of knowledge, scientific psychology was not a planned enterprise based on well-defined problems and research carried out by groups of people sharing a similar vision of the profession and the topics to study. In other words, much of scientific psychology was not built on rich knowledge, because “at the time of its creation, psychology was unique in that its institutionalization preceded its content and its method preceded its problems.” Green (2015) shares this view when he points out the problems with the quest for a unified psychology by giving valid references to the subject of inquiry and approach to psychology. Unlike the physical sciences where certainty is based on mathematical laws, the subjects of psychological inquiry and postulations are as diverse as humans and are based on statistical probabilities rather than mathematical accuracy. The difficulty in unifying the discipline of psychology is perhaps not unrelated to the fact that while the physical sciences are based on rigorous mathematical procedures that facilitate prediction across situations, cultures, etc. For example, the law of gravitational attraction of the Earth is a universal law applicable in all environments, provided that the conditions set forth in the premises are respected. In psychology, for example in personality studies, and with emphasis on personality trait theory, certain traits are thought to be correlatedto certain qualities, but this is not always true for obvious reasons such as cognitive processes. Even among trait theorists, there is no agreement on the number of traits in which personality should be considered, with some accepting the five-factor model, some accepting the seven-factor model while others others emphasize the six-factor model. In its quest for a unified discipline, psychologists have created different divisions, committees and associations pursuing the unification of the discipline (Green, 2015). However, rather than unifying the field, the various groups, committees, and associations have led to further divisions and the revelation of the futility of pursuing a unification of the discipline. In fact, Koch abandoned the quest for a unified psychology by stating that psychology should be renamed "psychological studies" rather than psychology because it cannot be unified. Why can't psychology be unified? Green (2015) answers this good question when he asserts that "different proposals for unification have come from a wide range of epistemological and ontological perspectives" and that these proponents have sought unification from their epistemological and ontological views. ontological without taking into account unification. take into account opposing points of view. For these supporters, their point of view – humanism, behaviorism, structuralism, psychoanalysis, etc. – is enough to explain what psychology is. This approach involves psychologists either fitting in or out of these schools of thought by seeking out those with whom they share similar views. Does this unify the discipline of psychology? Apparently the answer is no. If the different viewpoints do not in any way unify the discipline of psychology, then what is unification and how can we achieve it? A unified discipline is one that has an established paradigm for defining, evaluating, studying, and reporting its concepts. A unified domain has a formal language agreed upon based on evidence. While the physical sciences have formal languages ​​that explain observations and concepts, psychology does not. Psychology explains phenomena in relation to the relationship of influence rather than causality or predictability as is the case in the physical sciences. For every observation in physical sciences, there is a generally accepted explanation unlike psychology where explanations of observed phenomena are based on the theoretical orientations of psychologists explaining the phenomena. How to explain the subject of investigation in psychology? The structuralists postulated that the subject was consciousness and the method was introspection, the functionalists postulated that the subjects of psychological investigation were the mental life of humans, animals, among others through introspection, mental tests, questionnaires and physiological measurements while behaviorism asserted that the subject of consciousness was introspection. Research in psychology is not about consciousness, nor about unconscious process, nor about mental life, but about observable behavior and this can be achieved by empirical means. Each historical school of thought in psychology has aimed to unify the discipline, even if it has ended up further dividing the discipline based on its theoretical postulations and mode of inquiry. Although behaviorism was greeted with joy, it quickly received its fair share of criticism due to its emphasis on experimentation and its empirical approach to the study of concepts and non-acceptance of constructs that are not behavioral such as mental processes,..