Joanna, I find myself in strong agreement with the sentiments expressed by you below. I would add to "the intelligence, sensitivity, integrity, and compassion of the researcher" one, less central aspect that often marks good research - an educated researcher, widely read and aware of socially important concepts - but even if absent "intelligence, sensitivity, integrity, and compassion" more then compensates.
Greg
--- Message Received --- From: Joanna Bujes <joanna.bujes at ebay.sun.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:36:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Re: TV & violence & studies
Miles wrote
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.
_________
I've spend a lot of time reading psychology; and I found the same is true of it as of the humanities in general. Some scholarship is astoundingly good: Winnicott and Bowlby come immediately to mind. But most of it is worthless. Moreover, I would say that the difference between the two kinds has nothing to do with "scientific method" per se but more with the intelligence, sensitivity, integrity, and compassion of the researcher.
Joanna
___________ 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 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________