In 2006, Benjamin J. Lovett published the first critique of the "new history of psychology" in History of Psychology (Lovett, 2006). The first reply to it, from Adrian C. Brock, did not come until a decade later. The present article answers Brock's (2017) comments by asking new (rhetorical) questions. The author claims that both Lovett and Brock misunderstood the ambiguity of the term "new history," which refers simultaneously to critical narratives in general and to a particular rhetoric about the commitments of critical historiography (e.g., externalism, historicism, anti-Whiggism). Although Lovett's article does present shortcomings, it is argued that many of his claims are still valid because his critique focused on the rhetoric of "new history." Brock, for his part, uses the term "new history" in its full ambiguity and attempts to defend critical histories with the rhetoric of "new history." As a result, Brock ends up reproducing many of the problems criticized by Lovett. (PsycINFO Database Record

For a long time, psychology was a discipline devoted to the study of mind. Behaviorism represented a rupture in that tradition, redefining psychology as the study of behavior. The rupture, however, would not have been everlasting. When the cognitive revolution broke out in the 1950s, the study of mental life was renewed in the form of cognitivism. Since then, it is usually told that the cognitive revolution displaced behaviorism, causing the latter's decline or even its death. Nonetheless, at that same time, behaviorism saw the growth of behavior analysis, which remained until today as a living behaviorist field. This article analyzes how behaviorism is depicted in the story of the cognitive revolution, as well as some of the reactions that portrayal generated within behavior analysis. It is argued that the story of the cognitive revolution affirms the importance of cognitivism and consolidates its historical identity but fosters the movement at the expense of behaviorism's depiction. At the same time, behavior analysts’ reactions often contradict the revolution's story and, consequently, offer an alternative but disarticulated version of history. As a result, each side tells a different story, and the case would be illustrative of how such kind of stories can favor one position while distorting some notions.

Over the past decades, some historians have proposed that a "new history of psychology" emerged in symmetrical opposition to the "old." This article presents a critique of this rhetoric. To this purpose, it first evaluates how proponents of the "new history" have misused dichotomies in light of criticisms raised against them. An analysis then follows of the implications thereof for the actual critical historiography and for the history of psychology as a whole. It is argued that this dichotomization presents inconsistencies and produces undesirable implications for both fields. It is also suggested that this rhetoric should be replaced by a more balanced view of dichotomies and an emphasis on critical reflection rather than on simple prescriptions and prohibitions.

RESUMO -Desde os anos 1950, tem se constatado que, em alguma medida, os valores do terapeuta se fazem presentes na psicoterapia, podendo, inclusive, influenciar os valores dos clientes. Embora apresente uma concepção de valores diferente das tradicionais, a terapia analítico-comportamental não é uma exceção. Este trabalho busca esclarecer como os valores do terapeuta podem se manifestar na clínica analítico-comportamental, sejam esses valores pessoais ou compartilhados com alguma cultura (e.g., sociedade em geral, Psicologia, Análise do Comportamento). Para tanto, mostra-se como o conceito de valor tem sido abordado na Análise do Comportamento e o que possibilita a manifestação dos valores do terapeuta na clínica analítico-comportamental. Por fim, discutem-se brevemente algumas implicações do tema para a prática clínica.Palavras-chave: psicologia clínica, análise do comportamento, terapia analítico-comportamental, valores, ética Therapists' Values in Behavior-Analytic TherapyABSTRACT -Since the 1950s, it has been argued that, to some extent, therapists do not remain value-free in psychotherapy and may even influence clients' values. Behavior-analytic therapy is no exception to this rule, even though its concept of values differs from traditional views. This work demonstrates how therapists can reveal their values during behavior-analytic therapy, whether these values are personal or shared with a particular culture (e.g., society as a whole, psychology, behavior analysis). To this purpose, it reviews how values have been conceptualized in behavior analysis and discusses what makes it possible for therapists to disclose their values during behavior-analytic therapy. At the end, some implications of this issue for clinical practice are briefly discussed.