The title for this post comes from a blog entry written by Jeremy Sherman. If you don't read his blog, Ambigamy, you're really missing out - great thinking and great writing. The quote I've taken, "To name it is to tame it," appeared in his blog entry where he reflected on his recent trip to Vegas for the latest Social Psychology convention.
Jeremy was reflecting on one of the key topics in social psychology, that is the role of the unconscious as automatic processes in our lives. I won't rehash the issues here, you can read his blog entry if you're really interested.
What I do want to comment on is how at least some psychologists don't believe we can live outside of these processes. In fact, they argue that even if we're aware of these processes (unconscious, automatic habits of thought and behavior), we're deceiving ourselves if we think we can then change and act differently.
I couldn't disagree more, and I'm not alone in this position, particularly when it comes to procrastination. Take for example, fellow PT Blogger Mark White. In his first blog entry for his "Maybe it's just me, but . . ." blog, this insightful philosopher addressed this issue head on, writing
"I maintain that we have more control over our character, our judgment and strength of will—the essence of who each of us is—than we commonly believe. We have to recognize that we have the potential to improve ourselves. Sure, we have limits, but we won't know what they are until we try to reach them—and we may find out we're not as limited as we were led to believe" (emphasis added).
In fact, he argued,
"Every day people conquer addictions, quit bad habits, and stop engaging in destructive behavior—we can do amazing things, if we try. We marvel to tales of heroism, bravery, and strength of character, and you may think, "I could never do that." Why not? How will you know until you try? Psychologists are brilliant people, but they don't know you."
The knowledge claims of experimental social psychologists in particular are problematic. As Jeremy reflected in his blog entry about the conference,
"The questions motivating the research are often very juicy: . . . The research presented however is very cut and dry, usually a few bar charts showing the relationship between two variables and a brief "discussion" of the findings.
I've long thought that experimental psychology can never do as subtle of job of psychology as is done by good fiction. Fiction can give simultaneous voice to the whole cacophonous chorus of conflicting motives, whereas experimental rigor demands that only a few variables be examined at any time."
I applaud both Jeremy and Mark for helping to identify the limits of psychological knowledge, particularly when these knowledge claims are portending to set boundaries far short of what lived experience has taught us about human capacity. Change may be difficult, but change is possible, even quantum change that leads to remarkable shifts in our life circumstances and fortunes.
Here's to setting goals far beyond the limits implied by the penultimate research publications that would have us believe otherwise!
