Hello everyone,
I was told to ignore Michael but I just can't (but I will try after
this). This post makes no sense to me at all (much like his last one).
I don't think the first sentence should have been written in past tense
because as the post continues we are in the present again. I would like
to know what he considers the authoritative, rationalistic and feeling
paradigms (to be honest it sounds made up). I am glad that Michael
reports that he finds it interesting to point out flaws as I do. (But I
would lose the word emanate in this instance.) Also lose the "on the
other hand", what does that mean exactly? - actually what does the
whole post mean? It is a little disjointed and nonsenseless.
I also did not appreciate the aspect of race being brought up (in his
last post he referred to me as euro-enthic-is there such a word?)
Michael does not know what race I am and in all honesty what does it
matter? I would hope that by studying Psychology we would try to avoid
this type of stereotyping. Putting someone down racially because they
don't agree with you is in poor taste and not the remarks of an educated
person.
Also does any one know where M. Sylvester got his Phd?
Donette Steele
M.Sylvester wrote:
I never said that Psychology was not a science.I was implying that
most students would probably employ the authoritative,rationalistic
and feeling paradigms but we prefer the scientific approach.On the other
hand,I find it more interesting at times to point out the flaws
that emanate from taking the non-scientific approaches.
On the other hand,they all have aspects of cognitive control
for the individual be it the religious fanatic or the die-hard
scientist.
Michael Sylvester,Ph.D
Daytona Beach,Florida
"if you perceive something as real,it is real
in its consequences."
