I agree. The older ones were better. The changes reflect a general dumbing-down of texts.
Bill Scott >>> <tay...@sandiego.edu> 04/22/09 7:24 PM >>> Am I the only who liked the old Stanovich how to think straight edition about 10 years back better? I don't like the later somewhat reorganized editions that started around 10 years ago :( I tend to advise my students to go back to the 5th edition (1998 pub date in my copy). 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 18:37:51 -0400 >From: "Helweg-Larsen, Marie" <helw...@dickinson.edu> >Subject: RE: [tips] Relevance of science to psych work? >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> > >I also love Stanovich and we require the book to be read by all our majors (as >part of the research methods class). It is really an excellent introduction to >what psychology is really all about and nicely addresses each of the >misperceptions that our students have about psychology as a field. >Marie > >**************************************************** >Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D. >Department Chair and Associate Professor of Psychology >Kaufman 168, Dickinson College >Carlisle, PA 17013 >Office: (717) 245-1562, Fax: (717) 245-1971 >http://www.dickinson.edu/departments/psych/helwegm/ >**************************************************** > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Joan Warmbold [mailto:jwarm...@oakton.edu] >Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 5:53 PM >To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) >Subject: Re: [tips] Relevance of science to psych work? > >Just BTW, a book that I would highly recommend on this general topic is >"Thinking Straight About Psychology" by Stanovich. I'm using it in my >honors Social Research Methods class that has a number of college >graduates who are moving on to clinical programs. They have spontaneously >admitted during class discussions how surprised they are at their >unexpected appreciation of how their understanding of science will be so >crucial relative to their future effectiveness as a therapist. I have >suggested that they need to be prepared for students as well as professors >who will be surprised, skeptical and possibly hostile to their new found >belief in the importance of the scientific, evidence-based perspective >within the field of clinical psychology. > >Joan >jwarm...@oakton.edu > >> Michael Smith wrote: >>> >>> 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? :) >>> >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> By way of an analogy, I'm not really concerned whether medical >> researchers have a great deal of empathy or social interaction skills. >> These are skills I do value in my doctor. Nonetheless, I very much want >> my physician/surgeon to be grounded in the science of medicine. I would >> similarly hope that medical students also care about science. >> >> Clinical work is more than social interaction and empathy. If that was >> all that was required, we would just need a few good friends. Clinical >> work should be grounded in empirically valid and culturally appropriate >> practice. This represents many challenges, in part, as we are still >> learning so much particularly in relation to biological and >> multicultural influences. Nonetheless, the APA Ethics Code 2.04 Bases >> for Scientific and Professional Judgments is quite >> clear--"Psychologists' work is based upon established scientific and >> professional knowledge of the discipline." For students to not care >> about the science of psychology suggests that they do not understand >> psychology or the skills/knowledge needed related to clinical practice. >> >> In terms of science-related psychology positions, there are many >> positions within business, government, law, industry, NASA, etc. The >> /Monitor/ has had several articles highlighting science careers outside >> of academia (e.g., see http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/04/careers.html >> and http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb01/careerpath.html ). The APA Science >> Directorate has an interesting page illustrating several career options >> - http://www.apa.org/science/nonacad_careers.html . >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Linda >> -- >> Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D. >> Professor, Psychology and International Human Rights >> Past-President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence >> (Div. 48, APA) <http://www.peacepsych.org> >> Webster University >> 470 East Lockwood >> St. Louis, MO 63119 >> >> Main Webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/ >> <http://www.webster.edu/%7Ewoolflm/> >> wool...@webster.edu >> >> "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's (and woman's) best friend. . . . >> Inside a dog, it's too dark to read." >> - Groucho Marx >> >> Kiva - loans that change lives <http://www.kiva.org> >> >> >> --- >> 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) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
