Green (2015), in his article on 'why psychology is not unified, and probably never will be', stated that psychology is “ a fairly heterogeneous psychology group, ontologically and epistemologically” which is the main reason why the field is not unified. This is in line with what Koch said about the discipline of psychology when he stated that "psychology was not and could not be a single coherent discipline" based on his experience of psychology's past and present. Historically and in line with the writings of Green (2015), psychologists have sought a unified discipline since Wilhelm Wundt's founding of a psychology department in Leipzig, Germany, in order to unite the different views of psychology through a procedure experimental. plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original EssayIn his article, Green (2015) highlighted the historical antecedents of psychology with references to the works of Wilhelm Wundt in establishing a scientific psychology that emphasizes “consciousness” investigated through introspection in Germany, the functionalism of William James who emphasizes the study of the full range of mental variations and the internal and external forces that influence mental variations and adaptation in the United States of America, while behaviorism emphasizes the study of observables behavior through empiricism rather than by emphasizing processes mental, unobservable consciousness and unconsciousness. Obviously, the foundations of psychology, what it studies and how it studies it have never been agreed upon, unlike what is obtainable in the physical sciences based on the Khunian paradigm. To put the problem in the right perspective, it is necessary to recognize that the problem of the unification of psychology by different schools of thought arises from the conceptualization of the object of psychological investigation. Unlike the physical sciences which have their methods developed following initial leads of knowledge, scientific psychology has not been a planned effort built on well-defined problems and research by groups of people who share similar views about the profession and what to study . That is, much of scientific psychology was not built on rich knowledge because “at the time of its inception, psychology was unique insofar as its institutionalization preceded its content and its method preceded its problems.” Green (2015) agrees with this when he highlights the problems of seeking a unified psychology by providing valid references to the object of inquiry and approach in psychology. Unlike the physical sciences, where certainty is based on mathematical laws, research topics and psychological hypotheses are as diverse as humans and are based on statistical probabilities rather than mathematical accuracy. The difficulty in unifying the discipline of psychology may not be unrelated to the fact that while the physical sciences rely on rigorous mathematical procedures that aid in prediction across situations, cultures, etc. For example, the law of Earth's gravitational attraction is a universal law applicable in all environments, as long as the conditions established in the premises are met. In psychology, for example in personality studies, and with emphasis on personality trait theory, it is expected that some traits are correlated with some qualities, but this is not always true for some obvious reasons such as cognitive processes. Even among trait theorists, there is no agreement on the number of traits into which personality should be broken down: some accept the modelfive factors, some accept the seven-factor model while others insist on the six-factor model. Psychologists have established several divisions, committees, and associations that seek 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 denunciation of the futility of pursuing a unification of the discipline. In fact, Koch gave up the search 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? This is a good question that Green (2015) answers when he states that “various proposals for unification come from a wide range of epistemological and ontological perspectives” and that these proponents have sought unification from their epistemological and ontological views without taking into account opposing opinions taken into account. For these proponents, their vision – humanism, behaviorism, structuralism, psychoanalysis, and so on – is sufficient to explain what psychology is about. This approach involves psychologists either adapting to those schools of thought or fading away 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 views in no way unify the discipline of psychology, then what is unification and how can it be achieved? A unified discipline is one that has an established paradigm for defining, evaluating, studying, and reporting its concepts. A unified field 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 with respect to influential relationship rather than causality or predictability as applicable in the physical sciences. For every observation in the physical sciences there is a generally accepted explanation, unlike psychology where the explanations of the observed phenomena are based on the theoretical orientations of the psychologists who explain the phenomena. How do we explain the object of investigation in psychology? The structuralists postulated the subject as consciousness and the method was introspection, the functionalists postulated that the object of psychological investigation was the mental life of humans, animals, among others through introspection, mental tests, questionnaires and physiological measures while behaviorism asserted that the object of inquiry in psychology is neither consciousness, unconscious process or mental life, but observable behavior and this can be achieved by empirical means. Each historical school of thought in psychology has the objective of unifying the discipline, even if it has ended up further dividing it based on theoretical postulates and methods of investigation. Although behaviorism was welcomed, it soon had its fair share of criticism due to its insistence on experimentation and empirical approach to the study of concepts and non-acceptance of constructs that are not behavioral such as mental processes, consciousness among others, as subjects of scientific investigation. Fundamentally, the history of psychology has shown multiple divisions in an attempt to unify the discipline. These divisions are not the result of the conscious effort of the theorists, but the effects of the time and events during which the various theoretical postulations were formulated. Trying to unify these diversities will not be an easy task because while some topics of psychological inquiry require qualitative approaches, others require a quantitative approach and some require a combination of qualitative and.