Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:10:07 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Matthew Simpson <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Common-Sense Knowledge In Psychology
              11 Dec 1992 23:04:40 EST from <zorrilla@CATTELL.PSYCH.UPENN.EDU>

On Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:04:40 EST Eric Zorrilla said:
>
>> one cannot do them both at the same time.  If I am wrong, you should be
>> able to provide me with an example of someone who is simultaneously
>> being scientifically-minded and racist, or who is thinking scientifically
>> while simultaniously operating on the basis of popular myth.  That's is
>> the challenge.
>
>> Yes, it is important.  However, what we are currently doing is sufficient
>> to provide over a 100:1 grad.-school-applicant to acceptance-to-grad-school
>> ratio.
>
>The above exemplifies the example of unscientific thinking in an otherwise
>scientifically minded person you asked for.

I did not ask for that.  You did not rpovide that which I requested.  I
requested for an example of someone thinking scientifically while
simultaneously operating on the basis of popular myth (or racism).
Your example of your father was of someone operating on the basis of
popular myth.  He was not being scientifically minded.  And what did you
do?  You held him accountable for it (a simple thing to do; the correct
solution).

Holding someone accountable is the solution for those who wish to engage
in elightenment.  Preaching or lecturing is useless.  If there is no
system of accountability, then either create one, or move on.  Don't
waste time trying to enlighten those who are not accountable for their
decisions.

>What would the ratio be other-
>wise?  Might we have names like Gould, Hawkins, Feynman and Apostol permeating
>our field?

This is a list of people who have become famous in some other field, right?
The message is that these great minds did not go into psychology because
psychology is thought of as a non-real science, or not really a science.
I would like to ridicule this message for a moment, if you please.  1. If
these people were in psychology, they might not have become famous.

2. What precludes you from listing famous psychologists?  Is it that you
privately know that psychology does not generate people of *real* fame?
Perhaps we are our own worse enemy.  Perhaps we always do pick our own
fights.


>Might the monies brought in by this even more qualified pool
>of scientists trickle down to the rest of us and accelerate our understanding
>of the mind, brain and behavior?  (In other words, you have no comparison
>group)

You are assuming that these people are more qualified than the people
currently in the field of psychology on the sole basis that they have
proven their fame in sciences like astro-physics and evolution.

>My point is that existential angst is a quite different animal than feeling
>self-confident.

Self confidence is quite a different animal than political fear.

>> But they did not have a small group of students from engineering who
>> thought that all psychologists were psychoannalysts [referring to a
>> review board with only one Ph.D. psychologist sitting on it].
>
>No, but when we are talking about splitting-hairs on a priority score, or
>competing for a post-doc, or achieving tenure, I don't want to be unfairly
>penalized because of a perpetuated misperception that may even SLIGHTLY
>bias the judgements of the judgers.

The presence of judgers cannot be partialed out from slight biases.
The solution is accountability against LARGE biases, which I think was
the original question.  If there is no system of accountability, create one
or move on.  This is provided the most immediate and effective utility.

> But, I'm not sure why you seem so re-
>sistant to the arguments of those of us who believe that it is a problem.
>Perhaps you could illuminate us?

Aside from the arguements being a bit fanatic in their cry to enlighten
the so-called unelightened, I have no problem until we start to argue
over what is most effective to achieve respect as a science.  I say to
gain respect as a science, continue doing science and creating tools that
are useful.  This is what we are currently doing as best as we can.

Others want to engage in public relations and altered course formats.
This is fine also.  Go ahead and try it out.  Flood the intro course with
methodology as a means of legitimising the science in the public eye.
If you don't like the outcome, make sure that you kept the old format
on file.

O======================================================================O
 | _  l  _  * Matthew Simpson          * BITNET:                      |
 |  \_l_/   * School of Psychology     * 054340@uottawa.bitnet        |
 |    l     * 145 Jean Jacques Lussier * INTERNET:                    |
 |    l     * Ottawa, Ontario K1N 8P5  * 054340@acadvm1.uottawa.ca    |
O======================================================================O
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU