Back in 1979 Jensen's mate Hans Isnek (spelt wrong) arrived at the University of Sydney where I was a student. We held a protest naturally enough over his visit and over the fact that academic critics had been excluded from his lectures. Afterwards many of us were charged by the university, none of this was important, except for this minor fact. Members of the psychology department made up assualt charges against us. Again not a big thing either. But what followed astounded me, the silence of all the psychology staff, many of whom witnessed the absense of any such assualts. Moreover, the that they as a whole called for the expulsion of thge students at the protest.
After we were all found guilty we went around collecting money to pay the fines, it was decided to collect only from academics because of the circumstances. As memory serves, the traditional humanties were very generous (not all that left-wing) but a Latin Professor gave us a very generous amount, English, Languages, Philosophy, Anthropology, Theology, History (a very conservative department then) Medicine, etc all gave support though very few would agree with our politics or even the protest itself. Three areas refused (that is not a single academic would show any tangible support in any form by even a single academic) - psychology, education and social work.
My point in this is nothing very great except perhaps the chronic absene of courage (there was a lot of pressure on academics to back up the administration - many went out of their way to defy this pressure), but not in these two related areas psychology and social work. A third, absent then but all to common now, could be added to these two - management departments.
Why make so much out of an isolated incident? Well basically I got intrigued - what common factor could induce this lack of courage and integrity so absent from elsewhere in the university. It got me to thinking, not over the moral deliquincy of some acdemics who happen to work in related areas, but whether ideologically there some common thread at work.
First let me make the exceptions that Joanna has pointed to, good people are in these areas of research and they produce good work, I take this for granted. Further the general area is intriguing for most people (ie psychology) and it is understandable why people are attracted to it. And lastly there have been some outstanding contributions which have come from this area.
But nevertheless I find my critique of this area explains far more then the exceptions. At the very base of psychology (social work, education and management) stands the individuated individual. I mean by this not just an individual in the sense of person, but a pure Robinson Crusoe.
The begining and end of study is the individuated individual. Whereas economics used Robinson Crusoe as an illustration of other things (incorrectly as Marx pointed out). Psychology (and related fields) take this a step further, we may have types of Crusoes, Crusoes in combination, Crusoes with histories, but it begins with Crusoe not as illustration but as subject and ends with Crusoe (if this makes any sense). To do so, everything else has to be treated as a given. In effect concentrating all other possible relationships and determinations as stationary attributes of the subject matter.
My critique for what it is worth, obviously does not apply to exceptional cases in psychology (ie the good) who by their intelligence, compassion, worldlyness (as Joanna has pointed out) acts in defiance to the norm, but to the field as a whole which embodies this distortion.
So I wipe such areas off as quasi-sciences, yet even a conservative and pedestrian historian I am not so dismissive. The reason being that the norm is defined by a subject matter which is bigger then the limitations of any practioner. But not so in psychology (social work, education, management and the school of economics which has the same basis, please note this is a school within a larger subject matter and not within the same water as the others by that reason).
I find that the general tendency within this Cursoe ridden field to hide behind numbers and simplistic appeals to common sense and the "obvious" is unavoidable given the subject matter. Unavoidable because the subject matter itself is an ideological delusion. It is of course possible to touch on individual "psychology", but unlike psychologists, this is only possible to do in a worthwhile way by bring to bear on any particular question knowledge and sympathy from a more general and generous understanding of the human spirit.
Many times this is achieved by psychologists via their experiements (I well remember the example of the guard and prisoner experiements which in very definite way demonstrated the social nature of people to act according to expectations despite their avowed principles - of course knowing you are in a test heavily distorts such illustrations). Mostly it is not, for in psychology, the ideological nature of the subject itself lends them to also provide answers according to expectations and supply as "science" ideological justifications even when given a "left" gloss.
Miles please don't read any of this as condemening your own interest in general. Nearly everyone is interested in what makes them the person they are and confronts them witrh people who are different, biology, general social conditioning and much else contributes to all this, my criticism is when this is narrowed down to a methodology which stands on ideology sand.
Now let me approach some of the arguments you bring to bear, if you have had the fortitude to read this far through my ramblings.
First I concede your first point, everything I have said in the previous posts could be read as steming from nothing more than an uninformed criticism of pop-psychology. I believe this is not something I can really argue against, I have done wider and deeper reading but that was literally decades ago, I could not substantiate this at this time and I do not ask you to take my word for it - so I will let it stand (I recently did a DipEd in order to teach and some psychology was thown at us and I did discover Zygosty at that time and am grateful for this at least - it was an appalling bad translation though).
"This knee-jerk rejection of statistical analysis puzzles me. Yes, statistics can obscure results and legitimate fantastic claims; but so can philosophy, political rhetoric, theology, and poetry. "
This is a good point, though I don't think I can do justice to all its implications.
Yes I do suffer from a knee-jerk reaction to statitsics (I am fairly mathematically challenged), despite this I love raw data even though I pail at statistical reguritations. My bias in dealing with raw figures is to use fairly simplistic categories (large, small, negligable, significant and most importantly abhorant - ie inexplicable). From there I like to go into the method of gathering the data and from there draw my conclusions. Other then that I prefer to take figures into rounded generailities, taking virtually on faith their general correctness. Both methods suffice but niether has any statistical validity.
I have no-doubt in my mind that statitical methods are sometimes useful as illustrations or as means to gaining clues. But the general approach leaves me personally cold, and could account for my specific dislike of them. But underlying this is also a critique, not of statictical methods as such but how they are deployed in nour society, moreover how often they are used to stop all debate amke important questions the preserve of experts alone.
My point is this, unlike ideology in other fields (philosophy, political rhetoric, theology, and poetry) which however trickly presented still remain in the realms of common language. Statistics represent a barrier of expertise between the real facts (raw data, methods of collection and the other human factors) medited by the expert alone and referencing not the actualities of the data but statistical methods themselves. Who but another expert can exert an opinion on such an announcement?
To giove an example of a fairly common everyday statistic. In Australia the rate of inflation is measured by the CPI (the Consumer Price Index) a basketfull of common goods is measured for price increases over periods. For years our inflation rate has been low, wages have barely moved and at the same time widespread poverty is growing and the purchasing power of wages clearly fallen. Everyone knows this, but still the inflation rate is bearly perceptable and all wage increases are patially linked to it. However the figures are easily manipulated by filling the consumer basket with different goods, using different periods to average out the price changes and thus produce an acceptable figure.
Years ago I had an argument with an an economist on this issue (and lost it) because I knew damn well that the 3% rise I had got as a nurse did not match the increased prices. My arguement then was if everything had gone up by 3% (and my wages) it did not take into account that a bag a flour might have risen by 15% and that I could not buy 12% less flour, I had to buy the bag. He quite reasonably pointed out that this was offset by non-movements in other items and that 3% increase in my total wage would even it out. But it didn't and I had no argument to prove this to be the case (the fact that smokes, which I was addicted to, rose by a modest amount per packet but that the rise alone ,maintaining my addiction, wiped out my entire wage increase did not cut any water - I was advised to smoke less).
I use this to illustrate the general point, that statistics are unlike any other "fact" (even complex scientific ones) in that by their nature they cut the "answer" away from the question. They appear to stand on their own feet as facts when in fact they are no such thing. Statistics are capable of painting pictures, demonstrating an example, even offering clues, but they are not and can never be the repository for any kind of truth or even evidence (this requires assessing the whole process which delivered the numbers and most importantly assessing the question on which it is based).
Hence I agree with you: "Statistics can also be used by competent researchers to clarify the patterns in the data and rule out the possibility that the results occurred by chance."
But when I say "we don't need any more stats" I am not referring to the researcher but to the recipiants of research. No, we do not need any more statistics in public debate we need substantially less of them. Miles I have not made myself all that clear on this issue, I have no worries about people using statitsics in order to clarify what they are doing and what is before them, I only object to statitics being used as proofs. The fault is mine and your reading of my post absolutely reasonable, the distinction was in the assumption of who was talking about what and the fault was mine for not being clear in the first place.
Now you next point I take real issue with: "This research on violent media and behavior is pretty straightforward; the hypothesized causal relationship is right out in the open. In fact, I'd say it's much more precise and testable than any of Freud's concepts: exposure to violence in mass media will tend to increase aggressive behavior in everyday life."
Now I like Dennis Robert Redmond response to this, but would add to this:
"Japan has one of the most violent media cultures around, and it remains a remarkably non-violent, cooperative culture. In the US, contemporary TV is chockful of gore, but murder rates have been falling for some time. Folks who play violent videogames are often peaceable types."
My addition is simple. Violence and agression are mere empty abstractions. There is nothing inherently wrong with them per se, everything has its place in otherwords. I get violently agressive nearly every time I sit down to watch the news, in fact my day would not be complete without it - it doesn't mean I go round hitting people, though I have been known to slam an object down in a fit of picque at some stupidity uttered from the box, I also violently swear at the inanimate object on regular basis - how is this to be classed, as an abhorrant or normal behaviour? And yes after watching some good movie, I exhibit a whole number of passions. After watching Escape from Sobovor, Land and Freedom or anyone one of a number of hard-hitting and inspirational films I stride about the house decrying fascists and oppression and imagine a hundred and one brutalities I wish to bestow on on the perpetrators.
Without such outbursts I think I would often be denied the quiet and contemplative moods which follow. All passions have their place and also have places where they do not belong. Assessing what belongs where does not I think fall into the equally neblous category of anti-social behaviour which all to often gets applied wrongly and with appalling social damage (in the Northern Territory where I lived for a few years - anti-social behaviour was used willy-nilly against aboriginal people, who were picked up enmass and transported against their will, miles away and dumped - I stray from the point).
Sorry Miles all I am really saying is that the very questions we should be addressing get buried under such research. You see it is true, but converted into a truism, worse than this it becomes an excuse to do things that would normally create opposition. I am not against violent films, I am against poorly made ones, how does this point get a look in when the recipe is "violent films = violent behaviour"?
Why am I so worried about films and TV, because even as it is, it is one of create public educators. As bad as it is, and on the whole it is dreadful, it will only be made worse by censorship.
Greg
--- Message Received --- From: Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 15:44:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: TV & violence & studies
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Greg Schofield wrote:
> 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.
>
I can't help but fall into researcher jargon here, sorry: you've got a seriously nonrepresentative sample of psychological research. If you remember a vivid case like Jensen arguing that the racial difference in IQ performance is genetic, or Thornhill and Palmer claiming that rape is the inevitable result of natural selection in human males, you're wildly extrapolating from atypical cases. It's like reading the results of a poll in Cosmo magazine where 68% of the women say they've cheated on their husbands and then claiming that most women are unfaithful.
> 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
This knee-jerk rejection of statistical analysis puzzles me. Yes, statistics can obscure results and legitimate fantastic claims; but so can philosophy, political rhetoric, theology, and poetry. Statistics can also be used by competent researchers to clarify the patterns in the data and rule out the possibility that the results occurred by chance. I am astounded that anyone would claim "we don't need any more stats". Of course we do! We need rigorous data and the appropriate techniques for identifying patterns in the data (i.e., statistics) to see if the data support the research hypothesis. Statistical analysis is a crucial element of almost any scientific research; if you reject stats, you're rejecting the idea of systematically testing scientific hypotheses.
This research on violent media and behavior is pretty straightforward; the hypothesized causal relationship is right out in the open. In fact, I'd say it's much more precise and testable than any of Freud's concepts: exposure to violence in mass media will tend to increase aggressive behavior in everyday life. Researchers have clearly tested this hypothesis in many ways: experiments, surveys, observational studies, case studies, archival research. Numerous researchers over the past 40 years, using a variety of methods, have presented data that supports this hypothesis in peer reviewed scientific journals. If you're skeptical of this line of research, you might as well be skeptical of the research in biology, physics, or chemistry.
I think the real problem with psychology is that people can rely on their everyday understanding to challenge and question psychological research. This is hard to do with quantum physics, so people tend to accept arguments based on physicists' authority. But with psychological research like the effects of porn, or violent media, or whatever, people already have a well-developed everyday understanding, and they can pontificate based upon their own experience, stories they've heard, ideas that fit in with their political and religious beliefs, and so on.
But note the problem here: any everyday understanding of these topics-- "I know a guy who raped some women"--is completely irrelevant to a scientific understanding or test of the psychological hypothesis in question. In everyday life, we are not diligent scientific researchers, and we do not gather or analyze behavior with the rigor that the typical scientific researcher does. To claim that a psychological theory is invalid because it doesn't fit in with my experience or stories I've heard is like saying Galileo must have been wrong about the earth spinning on its axis because it is obvious that I don't feel the earth move beneath me and I can see the sun rising in the morning.
This does not mean psychologists are always correct, or that psychological knowledge is unassailable. But "I know a guy" stories are irrelevant to the scientific assessment of the theories. --So how can we assess psychological hypotheses? Just like any scientific researchers do: conduct rigorous research that clearly tests the hypothesis.
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 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________