Return-Path: <zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>
Posted-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 23:04:40 EST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL10]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:04:40 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Eric Zorrilla <zorrilla@CATTELL.PSYCH.UPENN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Common-Sense Knowledge In Psychology

EZ:
> >You are saying that the child who steals from the everpresent cookie jar
> >because he has been taught that stealing from that everpresent cookie
> >jar is rotten to the core...

MS:
> I never said that.  Eric, you must be thinking that I am saying something
> completely different from what I have written.  Maybe two interpretations
> can be applied to the same words.

I am reframing what I think you said into its logical extreme.  Let me try
to clarify myself.  Critical thinking, to a large degree, is a developed
skill.  If an individual is exposed from Day 1 of their existence to
largely perjorative allusions to psychology, they will likely adopt those
views because their science-mindedness is not appropriately honed.
        As we know from decision science and social cognition, people do not
tend to be the constantly self-evaluating, thoughtful, introspective creatures
we might like them to be.  Socialized from an earlier age to view a particular
field (or race, or food, or culture, or lifestyle) a certain way, a person who
ends up as an adult as an otherwise critical thinker may hold some rather
uncritical, unfounded beliefs.  In our own lifetimes, think of the radical
cultural changes we have seen in our society's perception of women.  Surely
the enormouse majority of the society was not comprised by science-
illiterates.
        It would be a simple-minded person who would condemn Lincoln for at
one time owning slaves.  Or to condemn Cicero for being a misogynist (sp?).
To a large degree, people with such ignorant views are more exemplars of their
society and less exemplars of personal deficiencies.  I am making the same
argument for many otherwise intelligent, rational individuals who are working
off the socially-provided heuristic that psychology is mumbo-jumbo.  In other
words, their schema for psychology was likely crystallized before their
critical faculties were fully developed and due to that, they have likely not
been exposed to a potentially disconfirming situation.  Providing such
disconfirming situations, not just now, but at earlier ages, is I think what
this whole discussion is directed towards.

> 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.  What would the ratio be other-
wise?  Might we have names like Gould, Hawkins, Feynman and Apostol permeating
our field?  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 don't differentiate between "self-confidence" and the
> >meaningfulness of one's life?  Perhaps you and Sartre should chat.

> Neither do you differentiate between meaningfulness of life and
> some other off-the-cuff psycho-babble concept.  What is your point?

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

> 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.  This discussion is not really different
from those about educating the public about gays, blacks, Hispanics, women
or other misperceived/discriminated against minorities.  I'm not sure I see
what is so controversial about it.  If you do not feel you have been
penalized or treated unfairly because of the associations carried with the
label of our profession, FANTASTIC!  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?

> >The point of all this (I think) is that we HAVE many of these tools, but no
> >one is recognizing them.

> We have not yet come up with tools that are THAT worthy of recognition.
> If we did, they would be beating down our doors instead of vice versa.
> Could you imagine what would have happened if Louis Pasture would not
> release his information on the cure of rabbies, yet he was the only one
> doing all the curing?

If nobody knew that he had the cure, then absolutely nothing would happen.
I argue that, in some cases, this is more of what is the case in psychology.
Otherwise, why would psychotherapeutic treatments of choice not be applied
over sometimes less effective or more costly pharmacotherapy as is the case
today?

> Sorry, no time to do spellchecking right now.  Please don't jump on my case.

Certainly better things to talk about than spelling!

Eric Zorrilla
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU