From: jnigrin@opie.bgsu.edu
Subject: Re: What is psychology? (was Re: Fetish for amputees..why?)
Organization: Bowling Green State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:26:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.172414.25626@psych.toronto.edu>, christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.101906.1@opie.bgsu.edu> jnigrin@opie.bgsu.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.143855.23126@psych.toronto.edu>, christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>
>>Given that people are going to post 
>>Geraldo-esque questions, I think it is *certainly* appropriate to 
>>provide realistic and professional answers.   *Someone* has to 
>>demonstrate to these people what *real* psychology is.  
> 
> I've of two minds on this. On one hand, I agree with your basic sentiment.
> On the other, responding courteously to foolish questions has the effect
> of legitimizing them. Sometimes what is needed is a loud Gfaw. Think not
> only of the impact on the question-asker, but also on all those who are
> silently absorbing what they read. Do they think, "Gee, I thought that
> was stupid, but this psychologist here seems to take it seriously. Maybe
> I should reconsider."  

I would hope that, reading the response, at least *someone* might pick 
up on what the "real" psychologists have to say.

The problem is, it's partly psychology's fault that people have these 
nutty ideas about what we do.  Freud and his bunch (but esp. Freud 
himself) have to take much blame, but also folks like B. F. Skinner
(hope it's not too soon to criticise him! :), who also made vast and
sometiems unrealistic claims for our field.  And of course, our
contemporaries such as Dr. Joyce Brothers (definitely *not* too soon 
for her!).

I feel we do have some responsibility to correct misperceptions so
that the only public, "popular" voices of psychology won't be
distorted ones. I'm concerned that ignoring or flaming naive posts to
sci.psychology will only hinder communication of what we're really
about and lead to (or exacerbate) a perception of academic
psychologists as having nothing to say about those issues.  Then the
misperceptions would only get worse, with us less heard than ever. 

> In any case, sci.psychology is not the proper
> forum for amatuer (or professional) net-analysis. Often it seems to
> verge on that, and many of us find that offensive.
> 
Can we be clear about what constitutes this sort of amateur analysis, 
and what is perceived as appropriate?  In the interests of
developing this important idea, please be direct, i.e., what was the
offending element in my followup?  Were there others that were also 
offensive, or were not?  What were their characteristics?

An interesting parallel just developed on sci.cognitive.  Someone 
posted an inquiry about mnemonic devices, and many people cheerfully 
replied (including you, Chris).  I found the thread to be a lot of
fun, and somewhat informative.  What made that post less troubling?
Taking into account the naivete and immaturity our society injects
into the issues -- which can only make our role as knowledgable
professionals more important -- was the original "fetish" post here so
different from the mnemonics question? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jon Nigrine                              "A foolish consistency is
jnigrin@opie.bgsu.edu                     the hobgoblin of little
                                          minds."  -- Emerson
Newsgroups: sci.psychology