On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:04:07 -0800, Michael Britt wrote: >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"?
To tell you the truth, I have no idea what you're talking about. What exactly do mean by the term "objective"? Consistent with the facts? Neutral with respect to "framing"? Before people start trying to reply to Britt's request, wouldn't it be a good idea to understand what he is saying? >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"? First, demonstrate that what journalists do, that is, produce news stories, have acceptable reliability and validity. To what extent do independent observers of an event agree on what happened and to what extent do the observations made correspond to the actual event (one can start with sports and whether referees make correct calls or not and why instant replay is critical in some situations). At best, what journalists do is naturalistic observation -- I assume that one doesn't have to review their research methods texts to remember the problems associated with the sort of research? Second, journalists do not conduct empirical tests or experiments about their beliefs or what they report -- they probably could but few have the skills to do so (moreover, they often are concerned with specific events that occurred under specific conditions; they are not interested in making a generalization from a sample to a population, rather they are usually just concerned with the sample). The issues of "objectivity" in context, is seems to me, to be limited to (a) is their story factually correct and (b) framing (which means that the presentation is positive, negative, or neutral in tone). Third, for scientists the issue is not "objectivity", however that is defined, but (a) can one make reliable and valid observations, (b) conduct appropriate analysis of the observations to determine whether variables are associated or not, and (c) coming up with a theory that explains why such variables are related. Since theory building goes beyond the data at hand and may depend on certain social, cultural, historical, and other factors (which post-modernism are/were fond of dwelling on) one can ask whether a theory is truly "objective" in the sense that it is consistent with the facts. For example, reliable and valid observation may be made, relationships detected, and then explained, say, by the action of demons or supernatural forces. An appropriate demon theory might be developed that is consistent with observations and sociocultural beliefs but would not make sense in other sociocultural conditions (and though pandemonium pattern recognition programs may make use of "demons", it would be proper to ask one what one means by the word "demon" and a metaphorical sense is preferable to a literal one; see for example: http://books.google.com/books?id=E17lR8OcnqgC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=pandemonium+perceptrons+demons&source=bl&ots=3bKzC16MVb&sig=6UVaFHzfcaZZjpDRR1WrQyz9sSg&hl=en&ei=g1rtTKKjDYaLswbP8rSdDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pandemonium%20perceptrons%20demons&f=false or http://tinyurl.com/pandemoniumdemons ) Are your talking about framing effects or factualness or the culture laden basis of theories or something else? To summarize, what you talking about, Willis? (For illumination on this last point, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%27rent_Strokes ) -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- 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=6726 or send a blank email to leave-6726-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
