I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting books. As I edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that it will be clear to the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding parenting (which are clearly more "Rogerian" than "Skinnerian"). But aren't I supposed to be, as a psychology instructor "objective"?
I've been turning this over in my head for the past few days and I don't know if others find this issue of concern, but today I came across an article in Time magazine by James Poniewozik. He's talking about the supposed objectivity of journalists, but I think what he has to say is relevant to us: "...what journalists and people who talk about them generally call "objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like "neutrality" (often a false and labored one). Objectivity does not mean having no opinion, taking no side or expressing no point of view. [Objectivity] means seeking, acknowledging and interpreting objective evidence, even when it conflicts with your preconceptions or with what you wish to be true. You can have subjective beliefs—because we all do—and yet subordinate them to objective evidence." Your thoughts on whether we should try to be "neutral"? Michael Poniewozik article: http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz16DElMZfp Michael Britt michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.thepsychfiles.com Twitter: mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6718 or send a blank email to leave-6718-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
