However, there is a few points I would defend myself on at least to a samll degree.
Gould's "Mismeasurement of Man" was about 19th century anthropology, not psychology as such, but the error in method which Gould so wonderfully describes in this case is pretty widespread and very pronounced where-ever so-called experimental "science" meets with social objects of study. That was my point, the subtle arrangement of experiements to unconsciously express the experimenter's assumptions.
Psychology, has a number of inherent problems in its self-definition at one side it laps into philosophy (or should but does not), at another in various biological disciplines, and a third into the broad fields of history (anthropology, sociology, etc). Of course there is one other particularily nasty side of psychology its tendency to be directly drafted into doing the will of capital and supplying some extra tricks for it to employ (the nastier aspects are all too plain especially when project funding is looked at). All of this separately or together makes not a great deal of difference these days, but the absense of a general theory of Psychology means all we have is schools of disciplinary approaches and some self-definitions based on announced prinicpals.
Other then its subject matter (the individualated person) Psychology does not differ from many other disciplines, but the subject matter itself is in this case the problem, the assumption that the individualated person is a fit subject of study is the source of irresolvable problems and one of the reasons the nastier side of Psychology is so pronounced and why it takes refuge so often in statistics and quasi-scientific pretensions.
In the previous post I mentioned Freud. Whether his theories are correct or not, his view stemmed from a general theory which itself was capable of being examined in detail, his observations added to and gave depth to the theory and theory itself fed into and expanded his observations, and the whole deal was done in the open.
Not so with psychology which as very few proponants able to develop a distinct theory related to other forms of knowledge but rather begin and end in a methodological pronouncement. This is also true of many other subjects, but only in this one is individuated subjects human beings themselves (ie not beings in history, or biological or even economic beings). It is a subject matter which begs for clarity and care but is treated in reality with cavalier disregard.
I have a beef with Psychology which promises much and delivers little, my problem is that in this subject area special regard has to be paid to the individual social and historical relationship, the conclusions pre-confined and narrowed down, by theory and that the tests and observations aim to be illustrative rather than seeking to be in themselves conclusive. What is instead found is a profound lack of defendable theory, a childish reliance on tests to prove conclusively, and a neanderthal social conclusions implied or announced.
Sorry Miles, I know of all soughts of interesting things thrown up by Psychology but these are far outwieghed by the damaging crap they produce which unlike any other field tends to be very quickly applied to human lives. My conclusion is that it is a far safer practice to disparage Psychological conclusions and treat them with distain. If there is something more substantial in what they have to say they can provide a plain English version bereft of statistics and argue it on its merits, and not go around pretending that the statistics mean very much in themselves.
Over the years I have seen one after another of these Psychology experts, along with their evil twin (sociologists) stand for a minute in the public stage and demand some major change based on their "study", bolstered by figures and hence beyond rational dispute. What gets truly obnoxious is the tendency to blame the study for the conclusions (its not me its the figures) and use the defense that the only argument against their "findings" is another "study". There are exceptions to this naturally enough, and some rare gems, but psychology as a profession has appeared to me for years as slightly less honest and relaible then phrenology in its methods and claims.
On the other hand if you know of some truly insightful works I would be only to pleased to get references, but I hope you would be of accord that the bulk of the practice in this field is dog's piss and not even particularly good variety of it.
In the case of TV influencing violent behaviour none of us need stats or correlations, but an understanable causal relationship open to questioning and clearly defined parameters of what indeed is the actual question. Less then that is unacceptable mystification.
Greg
--- Message Received --- From: Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:37:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: TV & violence & studies
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Greg Schofield wrote:
> There was a recent study which I did find interesting (I cannot remember
> if it was mentioned on this list), a simple one that did not require
> much in the way of statistics. Starting with Freud's (I think this
> right) assertion that homophobia stemed from latent homosexuality, a
> number of homophobic men (based on responses to a questioniare) and
> non-homophobic self-described hetrosexual males had an a pressure gauge
> attached to them.
[snippage, the data supports Freud, etc]
>
> Psychology does not normally work this way, rather than a clear and
> theoretical hypothesis, it begins with prejudices and "common sense"
> assertions which examined by themselves have little or no validity, and
> then constructs elaborate "quasi-sciencitific" testing environments
> which like Gould's rightly famous "Mismeasurement of Man" suffer one or
> a number of gaping methodological holes, covered over by massive
> statistical proofs.
It appears you haven't studied psychological research very closely. The study you cite above is in fact typical of the research that psychologists do. Drawing on previous findings, theoretical hunches, and even sometimes common sense, psychologists find reasonable and ethical ways of testing falsifiable hypotheses about human behavior and thought. In bringing up Gould, you seem to be confusing physical anthropology in the mid-1800s with the discipline of psychology, which emerged later.
It's obvious to me you haven't spent as much time studying psychology as you have studying Hegel. That's neither good nor bad in my book, but there's way more to the field of psychology than your caricature suggests. Spend a few years reading psychology research journals, and you'll find that your facile "psychology is just gussied up common sense" claim cannot be accurately applied to the entire discipline.
Miles
_______________
Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Modular And Integrated Design - programing power for all
Lestec's MAID and LTMailer http://www.lestec.com.au also available at Amazon.com ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________