There is no accounting for interest and I am sure those interested in clinical and counseling work will not be as excited about research as those who are interested in learning about people and why they act the way they do. However, interested or not, understanding of the science of psychology is an important prerequisite to being a psychological clinician. As to Mike's equivalency: Research psychologists do not need training in human empathy and social interaction to do their jobs. Clinical and counseling psychologists need to use empirical research to inform their practice or they are no more than entrepreneurs selling snake oil. If your practice is not based on empirically-based methods, I think you shouldn't call yourself a psychologist. There are a number of names you can use for yourself that would not imply that there is an empirical basis to favor your techniques over anyone else's.
Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Box 3055 x7295 rfro...@jbu.edu http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman Proverbs 14:15 "A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps." From: Michael Smith [mailto:tipsl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:31 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Relevance of science to psych work? I personally have no problem with psych students who want to be clinicians not being interested in the "science of psychology". I always find it funny that the science types are sooo concerned that everyone should take science very seriously. Are the authors EQUALLY concerned about the state and training of the empirical psychologists' human empathy and social interaction skills? I bet not. And if what the authors are saying is true, how come there arnt oodles of positions available for empirical psychologists? :) --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
