On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> And I might suspect that you're really into hard data because you want to
> separate the kind of psychology you do from all that squishy unscientific
> stuff the Freudians do. That wouldn't invalidate your position, but it would
> add some perspective to how to interpret it.
>
> Doug
This illustrates my point! If you're trying to understand me, make imputations about my motives. (I disagree with your imputation, but that's beside the point.) If you want to assess the validity of my position, you need to focus on different questions: is the claim valid? Is it logically consistent? Is it useful? Is it supported by evidence?
For instance, if we discovered that motive-talk led to effective communication and conflict resolution, my claim should be rejected. However, there is a veritable mountain of research in social psychology that demonstrates that the emphasis on imputing motives undermines the quality of marital, family, and professional interactions. (One example: couples that impute stable motives for marital disagreements are much more likely to report marital dissatisfaction and break up.)
I know it may seem weird for a psychologist to downplay the imputation of motives, but it's really a logical consequence of studying psychology in some detail.
Miles