Unlike other fields, psychology has traditionally required an undergrad (and, occasionally a grad) course on the history of psychology, usually called History and Systems of Psychology; "systems" reflected the existence of different ways of theorizing about the field (e.g., psychoanalysis, the behaviorisms, existential, etc.). I taught and wrote a text for such classes my whole career (A Critical History of Psychology, 9e T & F). Thus, psychologists were usually more aware of earlier versions of contemporary ideas (e.g., connectionism was a development in the empiricist - associationist school of thought). Alas, the old guard is dying out (I got my PhD in Cognitive Psychology at the height of the supposed Revolution (that wasn't), lived through GOFAI and connectionism and am here for ChatGPT etc. H & S classes are being dropped or turning into classes about current issues with a bit of journalistic backstory.

Interestingly, T. S. Kuhn, a chemist, got his theses about paradigms and scientific revolutions from being asked by Harvard to work up a course on history of science for the undergrad curriculum. His mind was opened by what he found in his self-directed reading, and fundamental to his notion of paradigm was his observation that scientific training was remarkably narrow both laterally (across disciplines) and horizontally (history of the field). And, there's Stephen Brush's (another chemist) famous (I hope), (1974) Should the history of science

be rated “X”? Science, 183, 1164– 1172, about how most working scientists think scientist in training should be actively kept away from history.