From: jnigrin@opie.bgsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: What is psychology? (was Re: Fetish for amputees..why?)
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:19:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: opie.1992Nov5.101906.1
Organization: Bowling Green State University

In article <1992Nov4.143855.23126@psych.toronto.edu>, christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
> In article <1992Nov3.194534.1@opie.bgsu.edu> jnigrin@opie.bgsu.edu writes:

>>Regardless of our motivation, what we are really arguing about, it
>>seems to me, is the question, "what counts as psychology?"  My sense 
> 
> No. What we're arguing about is what counts a scentific or academic
> psychology. This is not to exclude serious non-empirical research,
> but rather, the kind of drivel one finds on the shelves of popular
> bookstores under the heading of psychology. The discussion about
> sexual attraction to amputees that led to this debate, especially
> in the context of psychpathology, smacked of the paradoxical combination 
> leering purient interest and moral-outrage-masquerading-as-scientific-concern
> that characterizes much of that work.

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).  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.  If you feel
that I am not doing that, that my posts have constituted the sort of
"drivel" you refer to, it might help us focus our discussion if you
can provide quotes or explain what you mean. 

Your points about APS are well taken.  As a Ph.D. candidate in
clinical psychlogy and a student affiliate of APA, I've only been
watching things for a few years.  I can't argue with your historical
points with any authority.  And I certainly respect the fact that you
and many other research psychologists are angry about having gotten
the short end of the stick in APA.  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.  It seems to me that our conflict has gotten 
in the way of what could be substantial agreement, e.g. about 
bookstore pseudopsychology.

It might also be appropriate to ask others who read sci.psychology to
give their input.  Folks, what do you all think should be included
here?  What should we do if someone posts something that screams
"Geraldo!"  Should we try and get more focused newsgroups formed, like
sci.psychlogy.rsrch and sci.psychology.pract? 

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