I completely agree with Rick. Anyone who is a clinician has all the MORE reason to be extremely cognizant of the science of psychology; to wit all the crap therapy approaches that do more harm than good, in which I define more harm than good to include those therapies that do no harm but while they are being pursued keep a person from pursuing evidence-based therapies.
Finally, we should all be thinking like scientists in our daily lives; this morning on the news a recent survey of US citizens shows that global warming is last on their list of priorities relative to preservation of the planet. Sigh. People in general do not know how to interpret scientific findings or to know simple things like: one million testimonials are less evidence than one single good, clean experiment. Double Sigh. And as Rick said, the empiricists don't need good people skills but it helps a lot when it comes to disseminating information and as we can see by the sad state of dissemination of good findings, perhaps this is an area we need to develop. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 tay...@sandiego.edu ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:42:42 -0500 >From: Rick Froman <rfro...@jbu.edu> >Subject: RE: [tips] Relevance of science to psych work? >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> > > 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) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
