laura (06/17/82)
Begging to disagree with you but I dont think that it is fair to assume that I have no interest in human beings because I have no faith in today's psychology. Indeed, it is precisely because I care about human beings which makes today's assessment of psychology so frightening. I am very worried when people abdicate their responsibility for their own lives and instead rely on their neighbourhood 'shrink'. Not only are they missing out on a wonderful if difficult experience, but they are also likely to get *inaccurate*, *misleading*, and possibly *dangerous* advice. If, when, psychology becomes a quantitative science it will do untold good for mankind if used properly (though it is sobering to think how our ideas must change to accept the ability to in some way determine the activities of others with more than just a hope of success), now, as it stands, it can not fail to do harm. The comparison with the unified field theory is not apt -- it is better to compare today's psychology with the alchemy which lead to chemistry. It may have been the most scientific thing going at the time, and useful results have come from the results of the ancient alchemists, but some of the potions recommended on the search for the philosopher's stone make today's chemists shudder at the dangerous and useless substances actually produced. If I came up with a unified field theory which ignored or denied known physical laws such as conservation of mass&energy, or which proved that the law of gravity was a figment of our imagination, you would have little trouble proving me wrong. The foundation of physics is the repeatable experiment. Matter and energy are not suggestible, they obey certain laws, and behave in accordance with those laws. Psychology today is very different. Very different theories such as SOCIOBIOLOGY and SKINNERIAN BEHAVIORISM have enough statistical evidence to 'prove' them. Freud and Jung have various theories, and their followers elaborate on them and form semi-freudian and pseudo-jungan theories. Alas, no synthesis is possible because to much of the various beliefs are mutually exclusive. This does not stop people from relying on their 'shrink' who 'must know everything because he is a doctor'. This does not mean that psychology is not a poor field for research, the converse is true. But is does mean that the man who implicitly trusts his 'shrink' runs the same risk as the man who believes my new field of physics which omits the law of gravity -- if he tries to fly out of his apartment building he is in for a rude shock at the very least. Given a large enough sample of people it is possible to draw a (probably) infinite number of contradictory conclusions. Nearly every theory of psychology has had some merrit -- but how much it is currently impossible to judge. Thus while it sounds very attractive to say that 'computers are ruining society because they limit our contact with real human beings' all in all it boils down to a statement of faith. Either you believe it or you dont -- and you will find evidence to support your position if you look hard enough. My question is whether such a field should have been unleashed on an unsuspecting and uncritical public, especially as a 'science', since the average soul has demonstrated that he may not differentiate between Physics and Creation Science. The question now is academic -- the 'shrink' is well-rooted in contempory society -- But now that they have, do we who know better have an obligation to bring this view of psychology to the public eye? If so, 'computer addiction' may be a good place to start. Currently I do nothing, out of respect for my fellow man's ability to do what he pleases as long as it does not harm others. But if a large group get together and try to save me from my computer I think that it will be time for me to save them from their unquestioning belief. Laura Creighton decvax!utzoo!laura
jpj (06/18/82)
Indeed, Psychology, like all other forms of Human Endeavor is prone to error. That, in and of itself, is not damning. What *is* alarming, as Ms Creighton points out, is the unquestioning acceptance (read: Faith) that the public puts in psychology and its practitioners. Leaving aside the damage that can be done in a clinical setting, the June issue of "Science 82" contains several articles describing the growing use of "forensic psychology." Here the public's faith in the absolute judgement of an *extremely* inexact science is taken to its ultimate, tragic consequence. The use of *expert witnesses* to speak on the state of mind of a defendent in a capital case is a very risky business. As the article pointed out, even most psychologists are uncomfortable with the public's (and the court's) view of psychology's role in criminal justice. What is needed, both here and in many other arenas of public life, is a sense of healthy skepticism - founded in an understanding of the limitations involved. Jim Jenal BTL/CB
davidson (06/22/82)
Before settling into graduate school in computer science, I had the opportunity to be part of a modern psychological research laboratory, and based on that experience I can say without qualification that psychology is a science in the strictest sense. Psychology uses some of the most sophisticated models and paradigms of all of the sciences. Where most sciences are still tied to Vary One Thing at a Time, psychologists use powerful multivariate experimental designs. And schematic models of reasoning, which have just been discovered by workers in Artificial Intelligence, were invented by a psychologist a hundred years ago (Bartlett), and have been quite valuable ever since. I believe the authors of some of the recent flames about psychology are confused about two things. First, they think that clinical psychology, as currently practiced, has much to do with the science. As far as I can see, this is simply not the case. Experimental and cognitive psychologists have successfully discovered many of the properties of some of the subsystems of the human information processing system, including parts of the visual processing system, auditory processing system and various components of the memory systems. What they simply do not have, is much understanding of how mental illness works, or whether it is appropriate to describe it as an illness. (Actually, a number of disorders involving organic damage have been well explained by psychologists and neurophysiologists. It is the functional disorders that are mysterious.) To the extent that experimental and cognitive psychologists do have something to offer to clinical practitioners, the latter are often not aware of it. Second, many people have been taken in by the recent (well, up to about ten or fifteen years ago) American obsession with Behaviorism. How this strange theoretical framework came to dominate this continent is of some interest to historians of science, but modern psychologists are simply glad that behaviorist theories have finally been abandoned as unworkable. It seems that the computer metaphor had a lot to do with the abandonment of behaviorism, but this does not explain why Americans got into it in the first place, whereas others did not. (The most recent psychological models show a picture of the human information processing system quite unlike that of the modern computer, but for a period of about five years, the computer was a very important metaphor for psychological theories.) I am happy to say though, that although there is much misunderstanding of psychology in many quarters, this is not the case with the best people in artificial intelligence and neurophysiology, who have cooperated with cognitive psychologists, cognitive anthropologists and several other cognitive disciplines to form the productive new field of cognitive science. So please don't quote Freud, Jung, Skinner, or Psychology Today as an example of why psychology is a "soft science", lest I begin to quote Kepler, Priestley and Science Digest as an example of why physics and chemistry are a combination of magic and alchemy. (I'm sorry, but I can't think of any really awful recent physical scientists, although I'm sure there are plenty. I can think of plenty of non-recent good psychologists, though; for example, Bartlett, James and Piaget.) <flame off> Greg Davidson