Thanks Mike, I don't agree with your view entirely, but my point also was that the authors are forgetting that many psychologists are not scientifically oriented and that the field is divided (after all such dispositions are supposedly stable personality traits). While I feel that clinical and social workers DO need to know and use the findings of psychological science, like you, I do not feel they need to be scientists but might better pursue training as an applied professional outside of the confines of academic or science-based psychology. But then, I am just exploring ideas and thought the authors should have been more innovative in their suggestions. Gary
>>> Michael Smith <tipsl...@gmail.com> 4/22/2009 12:31 PM >>> 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)
