From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: What is psychology? (was Re: Fetish for amputees..why?)
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:24:14 GMT

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:
>
>I think we're saying the same thing:  "what can we agree counts as
>psychology?"  I certainly was not asking "what does Waldenbooks think
>psychology is?"  Did you read my response to the original post?  One
>of the main reasons I chose to respond was that I wanted to challenge
>the idea that sexual interest in an amputee was due to "leering
>prurient interest" or psychpathology.  As a professional, I feel an 
>obligation to make clear what psychology is and is not; I didn't want 
>a post like that going unanswered.  My response was apparently so far 
>removed from the sensationalistic attitude we're speaking of that the 
>original poster seemed upset and seemed to feel I hadn't even answered
>his question. 
>
>Anyone can post to this newsgroup; I don't know of a way to restrict 
>it to APS members, for example (although that cerainly would not be my 
>preference in any case).  

Neither would it be mine. The "sci." prefix, however, indicates that
the discussion should be of matters of a relatively serious academic 
interest.  Others can form "alt." groups and say what they want.

>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."  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.

>[...]
>Still, I would hope that (1) there
>is some way for scientific psychologists to get their needs met; (2)
>there is some way for practitioners to get their needs met; and (3)
>these mechanisms can somehow interact constructively rather than
>competetively or destructively. 
>
>One constructive thing we can do is to make a distinction between 
>*political* issues of disenfranchisement and alienation and the 
>*academic* question of what is appropriate for this forum, which is
>how this all got started.  
  
Having made the distinction, it is not at all clear that they can be
practically disentangled from each other.  My experience is that the
two agendae are often so disparate, that more is accomplished in both
fields by letting us go our spearate ways.



-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1