NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/bit/listserv/psycgrad/5061

Text File | 1992-12-15 | 5.8 KB | 112 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!UOTTAWA.BITNET!054340
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:17:38 EST
Sender:       Psychology Graduate Students Discussion Group List
              <[e-mail]>
From:         Matthew Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: Common-Sense Knowledge In Ps
In-Reply-To:  Message of Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:04:00 EST from <22817MGR@MSU>
Lines: 99

On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:04:00 EST Todd.Nelson said:
>I was quite surprised by your postings today, I was erroneously under the
>impression that Eric, Tor, and myself were making headway in persuading you of
>the 'error of your ways.' :)

Lesson number 1: Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Lesson number 2: As I have been trying to explain to you, enlightening
                 people is an incredibly difficult undertaking and
                 requires substantial allocation of resource.

>It seems that your position on the debate one of curious advocacy of ignorance
>of the issue at hand. You are essentially saying "It is not a problem. If we
>don't focus on it, it is not a problem." How scientific is that?

An assertion is never scientific until the implied actions are employed
such that the data can be analyzed.  However, you paraphrasing of my stance
is in error when you say I propose ignorance of the issue at hand.  Also,
you have not yet defined what could be accepted as a specific instance of the
"issue at hand."  It's as if your proposing the sky is falling.  I look up,
and the sky is still there.  Could you please show me EXACTLY where the
sky is falling?

>I guess I'm a bit puzzled that ANYONE would advocate a 'do-nothing' policy
>when it comes to advancing our field as a science in the public's (and
>student's, and other faculty's) eyes. If we all buried our head in the sand as
>you seem to be advocating, ignorance and misconceptions about the SCIENCE of
>psychology would continue as it always has.

Here you have made a critical error in your argument.
First you propose that we all need to DO MORE by 1) adding more methodology to
the intro classes, and 2) correcting the unenlightened beliefs of others
whenever we encounter them.  Then I say we are already DOING ENOUGH by 1)
instructing intro-level students on methodology, but not flooding them with
it, and 2) communicating with scientifically-minded individuals, and not
insisting on changing the beliefs of those who are not being scientifically-
minded.  And now you have misinterpreted my stance as proposing that we
DO NOTHING.  Just because I propose that we are DOING ENOUGH and need not
DO MORE, this does not mean I advocate DOING NOTHING.

(Hoop up side-jya head!)

>In answer to the above, you say that all our field needs is for all of us who
>are concerned about having others perceive us as a legitimate science, to
>begin to ACT like scientists. By your argument, if we just all go about doing
>our business of science in psychology, then others will naturally see our work
>and say "Gee, they ACT like scientists, so psychology must be a legitimate
>science."

self-efficacy
self-fulfilling prophesy
creating reality
utility

>Reality is against you on this one Matthew.
It is?  Oh.... Well, I guess I'll just tuck my tail between my legs and
run and hide now.  I didn't realize you had reality on your side.

>I think many of us will agree that we should NOT take the
>hide-your-head-in-the-sand-and-voila!--no problem!-stance that Matthew seems
>to be taking on this issue.

I think most of us will agree that the sky-is-falling approach that Todd
seems to be promoting is NOT the way to go.  I also think that most of us,
if we were to go and re-read the archives of the past few days discussions,
would agree that I never proposed hiding our heads in the sand.  In fact,
the metaphor is only applicable IF there is a danger.  We have all been
waiting for the danger to be defined.  No one has yet done this!

The proposal has and always will be to talk about specific examples of
this so-called problem.  Notice how there is supposed to be some uniform
agreed-upon vague consensus about what "the problem" is, yet no one can
provide a single unit of data supporting its existence?  It is as if
someone got hit in the head with an acorn, and therefore, we all should
know that the sky is falling.  I'm really beginning to value myth and
folklore.  The similarities in this instance are amazing!

>Matthew says that we should start acting like
>scientists, and others will treat us like scientists. I say that part of being
>a scientist is working to advance your discipline AS A SCIENCE in the public's
>view. This is especially true for psychology. We all need to wear two hats as
>both psychological scientist (and practitioner) AND a worker for the 'public
>relations' between psychology as a science/practice, mediating between our
>discipline and the public perceptions of our discipline,...working to
>eliminate the discrepancies between the latter two.

Todd, this is where you and I agree.  But don't you know that we already
do this very much?  What I am proposing is, given that there is a need to
do MORE, focus the attention on doing things that are MORE useful.  Utility
is the key to catching the public eyes, over and above what we are currently
doing.

Have fun!

O======================================================================O
 | _  l  _  * Matthew Simpson          * BITNET:                      |
 |  \_l_/   * School of Psychology     * [e-mail]        |
 |    l     * 145 Jean Jacques Lussier * INTERNET:                    |
 |    l     * Ottawa, Ontario K1N 8P5  * [e-mail]    |
O======================================================================O