# data[].attributes.body
Wundt: better organized, more structured, covering all of psychology, more general, more experimental

James: no real structure, collection of theories, more detail-oriented, more theoretical

# data[].attributes.body
James' book seems to be more accessible for people with little to no knowledge in the field. Wundt uses complicated language and sophisticated words, whilst James gives more examples and wrote it in more simple (layman's) terms.

Wundt's textbook has a more logical structure, whereas it seems that James just wrote about what he was working on/thinking about in that specific moment and then combined it all into a  textbook.

# data[].attributes.body
Wundt seems like he wanted to cover up the whole path of psychology and sturctured his book loogically. Wundt's textbook is reconstructable. Therefore Wund wrote his introduction clearly with what he wanted to achieve and defines "his vision" of psychology. Naturally the laws are at the end etc. With James book everything is mixed and spread over the book.

They similarly wanted to describe everything of the psychology. They didn't just focus on one specific part/topic.

# data[].attributes.headline
similarities and differences of James and Wundt

# data[].attributes.subject
similarities and differences of James and Wundt

# data[].attributes.body
Both refer to the natural sciences, but have different opinions about the relation between natural sciences and psychology. Wundt rather points out that psychology differs from the natural sciences, while James sees a connection between them as psychology emerged from the natural sciences.

Generally, Wundt adopts much more often opposing positions (at least in the introduction) and states his own opinion than James, who seems much more doubtful.

# data[].attributes.body
wundts wasnt as structured as James

# data[].attributes.body
it seams that James book is more based on his research field and data, leaving the interpretation on the reader, whilst Wundt has a more theoretical approach and his chapters are more filled with theories and explanations.

# data[].attributes.headline
it seems like Wundt focused more on the introspection of consciousness, while James focused on behavior in relation to the environment

# data[].attributes.subject
it seems like Wundt focused more on the introspection of consciousness, while James focused on behavior in relation to the environment

# data[].attributes.headline
The textbook of Wundt is more/ better structured, contains also a chapter about children; he makes the difference btw physical and psychical components; writes about emotions. We could see the concepts introspection and empiricism introduced in both textbooks (btw more by James).

# data[].attributes.subject
The textbook of Wundt is more/ better structured, contains also a chapter about children; he makes the difference btw physical and psychical components; writes about emotions. We could see the concepts introspection and empiricism introduced in both textbooks (btw more by James).

# data[].attributes.body
Wundt´s introduction seems to be well organised and he states where he and his thoughts on psychology are coming from. For example, that every natural phenomena can be an object of psychology, but not necessarily the other way around. The idea that psychology only focuses on the „inner sense“ is therefore not true.
James has a point of view which anchors rather in natural sciences. He states that if psychology goes further, it would „ascend“ to metaphysics.

# data[].attributes.body
To me it seems like Wundt had a strict way of teaching and organizing his thoughts and lectures. Whereas James leaves it to the reader to decide what he wants to read and where he wants to start, which let him construct the chapters in a self-contained way, Wundt seems to expect that the reader should start at the beginning of the book and read through it page by page, not skipping any of the chapters. This difference can, in my opinion, also be observed in their approach of the subject. Wundt takes great care to lay out the philosophical background and illustrates its connection to reality whereas James seems to prefer a more direct approach that places more importance on the practical side.

# data[].attributes.body
Wundt's book is structured by subsections and chapters in these subsections, while James, bluntly speaking, just lists topics in chapters without an apparent red thread. It also becomes apparent that Wundt comes from an experimental background, while James takes a more theoretical approach.

# data[].attributes.body
both state that psychology needs to be free from all metaphysical theories

# data[].attributes.body
Wundt had a more philosophical approach; James had more of a experimental approach.
Also Wundt was focused more on the mind and consciousness itself and James was more interested to explain it in a scientifical way.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wundt has a structure in his book, whereas James textbook is more of a collection of his theories and understandings about Psychology.

# data[].attributes.subject
Wundt has a structure in his book, whereas James textbook is more of a collection of his theories and understandings about Psychology.

# data[].attributes.body
Wundt has a more organized approach in general and more profound presentation about the subject of psychology. But comparing for example their theories and realizations about time (i.e. “the perception of time” and “temporal ideas”) it seems that they both followed philosophical approaches as well as experimental approaches.

# data[].attributes.body
Both James and Wundt state that psychology needs to make use of empiricism and can only be studied by building empirical correlations. While James doesn't elaborate on different empirical methods, Wundt claims that there are two research methods: (1) the experimental method, which is only useful for some aspects (simpler psychological processes) and (2) experimental observation, which can be used to investigate “higher psychical processes and developments”.

Both see a clear link between psychology and natural science. James states that he kept his whole book "close to the point of view of natural science". Wundt further distinguishes that psychology is defined as the study of experience in its relations to the subject, whereas natural science is defined as study of experience in abstraction from the subject. However, natural science seems to only play a role with regard to its scientific methods/approaches. Concerning the explanation of phenomena etc. biological principles/mechanisms don't seem to be relevant.

Both clearly distinguish psychology from metaphysical theories.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wundt's work seems to be better organized, very methodological, descriptive and systematic , with a clear "physical approach"- as if to prove that psychology should be considered a discipline of science. He applies "experimental methods" and "observations of mental products" as scientific methods to describe the principles of psychology as one of the natural science disciplines. It seems to be of great importance to him. James has a relatively less organized approach ;), and clearly more philosophical one. He focuses on the description of different forms of perception, reality, and "stream of thought"- like J.J's "stream of consciousness" in "Ulysses".  Both books focus on the cognition and the cognitive conditions of human brain and nature. What is missing- is any form of clinical approach- they have a purely descriptive character with no aim to diagnose any form of disorders/disfunctions their reasons or search for  therapies.

# data[].attributes.subject
Wundt's work seems to be better organized, very methodological, descriptive and systematic , with a clear "physical approach"- as if to prove that psychology should be considered a discipline of science. He applies "experimental methods" and "observations of mental products" as scientific methods to describe the principles of psychology as one of the natural science disciplines. It seems to be of great importance to him. James has a relatively less organized approach ;), and clearly more philosophical one. He focuses on the description of different forms of perception, reality, and "stream of thought"- like J.J's "stream of consciousness" in "Ulysses".  Both books focus on the cognition and the cognitive conditions of human brain and nature. What is missing- is any form of clinical approach- they have a purely descriptive character with no aim to diagnose any form of disorders/disfunctions their reasons or search for  therapies.

# data[].attributes.body
James was more interested in the operation of the whole mind rather than of its individual parts, which was a larger focus in Wundt's textbook.
James also believed that introspection could serve as a way to study mental activities but he relied on measures that were more objective (various recording devices, outcomes of concrete products of mental activities, physiology.)

# data[].attributes.body
both emphasize that only research concerning correlation is possible. Causality is only part of metaphysics in Philosophy  

# data[].attributes.body
esearching method for psychology must be empirical

# data[].attributes.headline
Wundt did a lot of research in the area of introspection. Means how people react if something falls on the ground, or how they feel if they see a red circle. That with the idea to reveal some functions of the brain. Wundts approach was critized for being unreliable and too subjective.

# data[].attributes.subject
Wundt did a lot of research in the area of introspection. Means how people react if something falls on the ground, or how they feel if they see a red circle. That with the idea to reveal some functions of the brain. Wundts approach was critized for being unreliable and too subjective.

# data[].attributes.body
However William tried to explain the function of the brain, rather than the stucture. He leaned upon the ideas of Darwin.

Althought Wundt and William didn't share their way on how to approach scientific psychology, they still laid the foundation for modern psychology together.

# data[].attributes.body
James makes it clear in his preface that he is aware that his book is lacking a "closed system" and furnished with an unsystematic bibliography, which implies that he knows he does not have the final word on how psychology will develop. Wundt, on the other hand, has clearly structured his book and does not appear nearly as self-aware as James. His textbook is presented as a sort of exhaustive roadmap to psychology rather than a stepping stone into the field.

# data[].attributes.headline
both Wundt and James dissociate themselves from metaphysical approaches which  seem to have become a burden to the psychological field trying to move away from philosophical tendencies. 

# data[].attributes.subject
both Wundt and James dissociate themselves from metaphysical approaches which  seem to have become a burden to the psychological field trying to move away from philosophical tendencies. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Wundt agrees and questions some of James ideas.

# data[].attributes.subject
Wundt agrees and questions some of James ideas.

# data[].attributes.headline
James and Wundt seemed to focus on biological aspects of psychology, rather than other areas that are essential today, such as social psychology or clinical psychology.

# data[].attributes.subject
James and Wundt seemed to focus on biological aspects of psychology, rather than other areas that are essential today, such as social psychology or clinical psychology.

# data[].attributes.body
James' work explicitly states that his textbook represents the science of psychology in an unfinished and unordered state. Wundt on the other hand applies little or no meta-perspective to his textbook. His work is also structured more like a stereotypical textbook and thus portrays psychology in a relatively closed form; giving the appearance of exhaustive understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Both James' and Wundt's works place significant emphasis on the separations between metaphysics and psychology. While James only provides a very short argument for why psychology can only focus on empirical science, Wundt explains in detail as to why both metaphysical and rationalist approaches to the mind are inadequate in the context of psychology.

# data[].attributes.body
the structure of Wundt's book seems  very organized while James book is very unsystematic and the order of chapters seems random. the concepts introspection and empirialism are getting introduced. the differenciation between psychology and metaphysics seem very important to James.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wundt's textbook seems more structured...as one would expect it to be...considered the fact that he was German :-)

# data[].attributes.subject
Wundt's textbook seems more structured...as one would expect it to be...considered the fact that he was German :-)

# data[].attributes.headline
Wundt mentions psychological laws of relation and development whereas James never mentions them 

# data[].attributes.subject
Wundt mentions psychological laws of relation and development whereas James never mentions them 

# data[].attributes.headline
the structure of Wundt's book seems  very organized while James book is very unsystematic and the order of chapters seems random. the concepts introspection and empirialism are getting introduced. the differenciation between psychology and metaphysics seem very important to James.

# data[].attributes.subject
the structure of Wundt's book seems  very organized while James book is very unsystematic and the order of chapters seems random. the concepts introspection and empirialism are getting introduced. the differenciation between psychology and metaphysics seem very important to James.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wundt and James agree, that the researching method for psychology must be empirical. But as I understood it, for James, data of empirical research, gained within the boundaries of the „definit conditions of the brain“ can be disgussed only in the field of metaphysics. Wundt on the other hand sees the discussion of empirical data of psychological research within (or rather as) the field of psychology, because one can only fully understand the data as a product of both, object and subject.

# data[].attributes.subject
Wundt and James agree, that the researching method for psychology must be empirical. But as I understood it, for James, data of empirical research, gained within the boundaries of the „definit conditions of the brain“ can be disgussed only in the field of metaphysics. Wundt on the other hand sees the discussion of empirical data of psychological research within (or rather as) the field of psychology, because one can only fully understand the data as a product of both, object and subject.

# data[].attributes.body
James method is based more on empirical method in comparison to wundts introperspective method

# data[].attributes.body
Wundt‘s textbook looks more general than the the one from James (more detailed theories for example)

# data[].attributes.body
Wundt also takes a look at different physical developments (child/ animals)

# data[].attributes.headline
both emphasize that only research concerning correlation is possible. Causality is only part of metaphysics in Philosophy  

# data[].attributes.subject
both emphasize that only research concerning correlation is possible. Causality is only part of metaphysics in Philosophy  

# data[].attributes.headline
James method is based more on empirical method in comparison to wundts introperspective method

# data[].attributes.subject
James method is based more on empirical method in comparison to wundts introperspective method

# data[].attributes.headline
wundt constructs mind concepts from single elements through voluntarism

# data[].attributes.subject
wundt constructs mind concepts from single elements through voluntarism

# data[].attributes.headline
brain anatomy is not important to wundt as to James. 

# data[].attributes.subject
brain anatomy is not important to wundt as to James. 