1. Each founder of psychology focused on a different aspect of behavior and mental processes. Did they choose important questions? If you had been one of the founders, on which topic do you think you would have focused?
Each founder of psychology did choose important questions according to the assumptions underlying their theory of the mind and human experiences. Wilhelm Wundt (structuralism) and William James (functionalism) are usually thought of as the fathers of psychology, as well as the founders of psychology's first two great "schools"- structuralism and functionalism. Each school of thought posed different questions http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/wundtjames.html
A. Structuralism (Wundt and others)
The first paradigm of psychology was 'functionalism'. Wundt defined psychology as the study of the structure of conscious experience. The goal was to find the 'atoms' of conscious experience, and from there to build a knowledge of how the atoms combine to create our experience. Wundt hoped to thus emulate the success of the natural sciences. http://www.psych.utah.edu/gordon/Classes/Psy4905Docs/PsychHistory/Cards/Wundt.html
According to Wundt, mental processes are an activity of the brain, and not material. Wundt accepted Spinoza's metaphysics of parallelism and spent a great deal of effort refuting reductionism. He believed that consciousness and its activities simply did not fit the paradigms of physical science -- even though psychology emerges from biology, chemistry, and physics. With that emergence, consciousness has gained a certain capacity for creative synthesis -- another of Wundt's key concepts. Although consciousness operates "in" and "through" the physical brain, its activities cannot be described in terms of chemistry or physics. http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/wundtjames.html
Some questions posed by Wundt and other structuralists were:
a. What is the structure of conscious experience?
b. What are the "atoms' of conscious experience?
c. How do the 'atoms' combine to create our experience?
d. The color blue, the sound of an E minor chord, the taste of smoked salmon, the meaning of a sentence.... are all eminently psychological or subjective events, with no simple physical explanations. When does that wavelength, retinal activity, neural firing, and so forth become "blue?" http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/wundtjames.html
As psychology was defined as the study of experience, and as an outside observer cannot gather information on subjective experience, Wundt turned to introspection as the tool for gathering data. Researchers were trained with specific criteria for becoming skilled introspectors. Structuralism was an attempt to study the mental world with introspection, the tool that Descartes thought most appropriate for the mental realm. It attempted to use that data to fit into the mechanical realm of science. This early attempt to cut across Cartesian dualism was not successful. Introspectors could not agree on the data, and thus the scientific necessity of confirming results in other laboratories could not be met. Structuralism basically ended with the death of Wundt's most devoted pupil, E.B. Titchener, in 1927. http://www.psych.utah.edu/gordon/Classes/Psy4905Docs/PsychHistory/Cards/Wundt.html

B. Functionalism (William James and others)
The second paradigm of psychology was 'functionalism'. As its name implies, the primary interest in this approach is in the function of mental processes, including consciousness. While not the creation of any single scholar, William James was clearly its most famous advocate. Psychology is the study of mental activity (e.g. perception, memory, imagination, feeling, judgment). Mental activity is to be evaluated in terms of how it serves the organism in adapting to its environment.
Mental acts can be studied through introspection, the use of instruments to record and measure; and objective manifestations of mind, through the study of its creations and products, and through the study of anatomy and physiology. The functionalists tended to use the term 'function' rather loosely. The term is used in at least two different ways. It can refer to the study of how a mental process operates. This is a major departure from the study of the structure of a mental process, the difference between stopping a train to tear it apart to study its parts (structuralism), and looking at how the systems interact while it is running (functionalism). The term 'function' can also refer to how the mental process functions in the evolution of the species, what adaptive property it provides that would cause it to be selected through evolution.
They posed questions such as:
a. What are the functions of mental processes, including consciousness?
b. How do mental processes operate?
c. How do mental processes (perception, memory, imagination, feeling and judgment) serve the organism in adapting to its environment?
Functionalism never really died, it became part of the mainstream of psychology. The importance of looking at process rather than structure is a common attribute of modern psychology. As an individual approach it lacked a clear formulation and inherited the problems of the structuralism reliance on introspection. http://www.psych.utah.edu/gordon/Classes/Psy4905Docs/PsychHistory/Cards/James.html

1b. If you had been one of the founders, on which topic do you think you would have focused?
Would you have focused on other topics, other than those listed above? It seems that functionalism is of more relevance to human experience (pragmatism), so I would probably have been focused on how the mental process functioned and how they impacted human behavior.
What topics do you think you would have focused on?

2. During a brainstorming session, a coworker disagrees with every idea you suggest. Depending on the attribution process you use, what are some of the ways you could explain this episode of disagreement?
Briefly, attribution theory is about how people make causal explanations; about how they answer questions beginning with "why?" The theory deals with the information they use in making causal inferences, and with what they do with this information to answer causal questions. The theory developed within social psychology as a means of dealing with questions of social perception. For instance, if a person is aggressively competitive in his/her behavior, is s/he this kind of person, or is s/he reacting to situational pressures. If a person fails a test, does s/he have low ability, or is the test difficult? In both examples, the questions concern the causes of observed behavior and the answers of interest are those given by the man on the street. This is why Heider refers to attribution theory as "naïve" psychology. Attribution theory describes the processes of explaining events and the behavioral and emotional consequences of those explanations. http://hsc.usf.edu/~kmbrown/Attribution_Theory_Overview.htm

Why did your coworker disagree with you, would be the question that you are trying to answer in order to explain this episode of disagreement.
Is this the kind of person your co-worker is (i.e. dispositional causation)? Or, was she reacting to the situational pressures (i.e. situational causation)? Depending on which of these two attrition processes you use, you would come up with very different causes. For example:
A. Dispositional: S/he is a difficult person to get along with; s/he is just a disagreeable person by nature, s/he was just looking for negative attention, etc.
B. Situational: S/he was probably just having a bad day; s/he has been working long hours and might have been tired; etc.

Can you think of other dispositional or situational attributing factors that you might give for why your co-workers was so disagreeable?

FINAL REMARK I HOPE THIS HELPS AND TAKE CARE.