Ulterior Motives

In my opinion, the root of the reason psychology is so often scoffed at isn't that it's easier the the "hard" sciences; it's that it's harder. In psychology, it's not possible to have the tight control over the experimental apparatus and conditions that chemists and physicists need to draw conclusions.

Imagine a chemist trying to extract kinetic data, but without the ability to control temperature or the amounts of one of the reactants. Imagine a physicist trying to discover the top quark, but not knowing the energy of the antiproton beam. Those are crude analogies to what psychologists are forced to do every day.

In any psychology experiment, there are literally countless variables that are outside the control of the researcher. The only thing one can do is the best one can. Unfortunately, that sometimes includes compensating for, estimating, or even ignoring (yes, that does happen) variables that have consequences for the interpretation of the data.

When psychological experiments make the news, the underlying statistical nature of the data are infrequently communicated, and the public at large isn't capable of evaluating the results with perspective. As a result, lay people either expect 100% "accuracy" and become disenfranchised when they realize the futility in doing so, or discount 80% "accuracy" as worthless. The effect is that people distrust the conclusions drawn by psychologists, and assume that the science is somehow flawed.

What most people don't understand is that the kinetic data the chemist uses to make sure the chemical plant doesn't explode, and the particle detector data the physicist uses to push the limits of human knowledge are based on the same statistical fundamentals that the psychologist uses. It's just that the psychologist has a much tougher time controlling the experiment and making inferences from the data that are statistically justifiable. So, like I said, psychology isn't easier - it's tougher.

I'm a freshman in college now, and I'm passionate about psychology and philosophy (I'm a double major in those areas). I scour these blogs on Psychology Today and the internet for good information, and read a lot of books on these subjects. I've found a similar problem in that many people find psychology interesting, but at the same time have very little respect for the field as a whole.

I think this is for a few possible reasons, aside from the one you offered in your piece, which I do like. After my parent's separated in high school, my mom asked me if I wanted to talk to some type of counselor-type about it. I agreed and I saw a social worker. Talking to her, I get a very strong sense that she had no idea how to actually help. That relationship didn't last very long. I then saw a therapist who managed to both say "yes" to everything I said AND hold a condescending attitude towards me at the same time. I saw another therapist after that, who at least communicated with me intelligently. Most people I know have had this same experience of terrible therapy, and these people talk. So on one hand, I think it's unfair to expect the public at large to respect a field where (with therapy as its defining image) there are so many clear and personal examples of failed therapy (not to mention the fact that other sciences have led to things like cars, easily seen and their usefulness easily understood).

If I was pressed, I would say that foremost, psychology has a huge image problem that needs changing. The research that's being done is amazing and astounding, and public at large should see that as the area where the field is making the most headway. That being said, I also think that certification for licensed therapists should be harding to come by, with perhaps more stringent requirements or more apprenticeship or training. There's no better advertising for the field than a close friend or family member whose life was changed for the better through therapy, and these experiences should be the norm, easy to come by, and not the exception that has proved the rule for so many people out there.

I love your posts and their typical focus on research findings and am more than glad that there are people such as yourself out there who care about strengthening and contributing to the health of the field.

I think Jeff L got it in his second post. As a science teacher reading these blogs I am often disappointed at the standard of evidence presented to support the position of the author. In one of the current blogs I take issue with the idea that folding your arms improves perseverence. It may well be true but there is nothing in the blog that substantially supports the assertion. If psychology presents itself to the public as simple ideas supported by little more than anecdotal evidence it will continue to be seen as light weight.

The other factor, is what Jeff called Monday morning quarter-backing. I think there is a little more to it than that. At a basic level we are all practising psychologists. We spend our lives dealing with the content of other peoples' minds. Some people, and cultures, get very good at this. The public therefore recognises that they may get more appropriate asistance from non-professionals. A couple of examples: some aspects of Buddhist practice were a couple of millenia ahead of modern psychology: Alcoholics Anonymous has a succesful formula for dealing with many cases of alcohol addiction.

Do you say that psychology is about experience .. ?
that's not right in my opinion .. because that would vary between psychologists so far .. psychology is just psychology ..
i will agree with you if u determine a way of psychology already .. and i guess you -psychologists- don't have 1 way of psychology except experiments ..
thanks