Hi I think we are being too modest in our appreciation of science (and its intimate ally, reason), for at least 2 reasons.
1. Is there some form of sound thinking about human behavior (or any aspect of the natural world for that fact) that is NOT based on science and reason? If so, I have not heard about it. Certainly psychological research should lead us to be rather negative about any alternatives, as suggested by books with such titles as "why people believe weird things," "why smart people do stupid things," and on and on. 2. Is there some way other than scientific methods to understand human behavior and experience in ways that provide clinicians with accurate theoretical models from which to work? The idea of empirically validated treatments is a very modest view of the role of science in practice. To my knowledge, engineers do not generally base their constructions on trial and error evaluations of the kinds of stress that beams of certain size can bear. They have accurate models that allow them to plug values into formula and generate well founded solutions. Clinicians should work from similar well founded models of human behavior and experience. To illustrate, the claims about empathy and like clinical skills mentioned early in this thread presume a certain model about the impact of such behaviors on clients. What is that model and on what is it based? Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >>> "Gerald Peterson" <peter...@svsu.edu> 22-Apr-09 7:27:51 PM >>> And I also used this to develop a true/false misconception test that I use as a pre-post measure in our Scientific Foundations class. In the Stanovich book he argues that psychologists should offer the public two guarantees: First that claims are based on established scientific findings in psychology, and second, that applications/treatments have been developed and tested/evaluated scientifically. I have long argued (ok, may a little tongue-in-cheek) that clinical workers without such guarantees, do not differ from my sincere friends who are psychic readers, healers, and self-taught spiritual counselors. The experience, intuitive insights, and training from seminars, etc., unless tested systematically and based on established scientific consensus, offer no better judgment, diagnostic acumen, or therapy effectiveness than psychic healers, readers, counselors. Alas, that's why I feel psychology students oriented toward human service, do need to be critical thinkers and scientifically literate. Gary Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. Professor, Psychology Saginaw Valley State University University Center, MI 48710 989-964-4491 peter...@svsu.edu >>> "Helweg-Larsen, Marie" <helw...@dickinson.edu> 4/22/2009 6:37 pm >>> 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)
