Verified by 
Psychology
An Introduction to Psychology
The essence of psychology is a way of thinking.
Posted February 10, 2021
At the heart of every academic discipline, there is a focal subject. In psychology, that focal subject is human beings and behavior. Now, surely I’m biased, but I can’t imagine many subjects more intriguing than human beings and behavior. The subject literally is us!
There are many ways individuals seek to understand human beings and behavior. Different religious and spiritual traditions, academic disciplines, and cultural perspectives approach human beings and behavior in particular ways.
So, another aspect of psychology that makes it unique is its method of inquiry. Psychology is a science, based on Western scientific principles. Science is the “lens” through which psychologists think about human beings and behavior. As I said, science isn't the only lens to view human beings and behavior, but it is the one used in psychology.
But, why rely on science?
***
You’ve probably heard the adage, "Money doesn’t buy happiness.” Is this true? Is this false? Is this partially true? How would you know?
Asking one person their opinion about a truth claim may not help us understand human beings and behavior very well. Asking a lot of people their opinions doesn’t improve the situation much either because then you just have more contradictory opinions! Scientists are generally skeptical of relying on people’s opinions about truth claims because well-meaning people often disagree about vitally important topics ranging from climate change to racism to vaccinations.
So, how do we know what we know?
Scientists recognize the world is filled with various claims about what’s true. It’s important to realize, however, that these are just claims. To understand what’s most likely to be true, it’s vital to probe deeper about the evidence people have, and then you can decide whether a claim is justified or not. This is the essence of critical thinking.
***
Ask enough people how they reached an idea about what they believe to be true, and what you’ll probably find is that almost everyone says their ultimate sources of knowing are either:
- Personal experience
- Personal observation of others’ experiences
- Authority
For instance, I imagine if you think to yourself about why you believe whatever you do about the relationship between money and happiness, your ultimate source of information would come down to one of these “ways of knowing.”
But, how reliable are beliefs when they’re based on personal experience, personal observation, and authority?
Personal experience and personal observation of others’ experiences are, by definition, personal. This means they only concern what happened with a very restricted number of people, such as ourselves, our family members, our close friends, or individuals we’ve observed in the media. Because psychology is interested in human beings and behavior, in general, this is a big problem because these sources of knowledge may not allow us to know very much about what’s true about people as a whole. This is because the experiences we’re basing our beliefs on may not represent everyone’s experiences. In addition, experiences and observations must be interpreted, and interpretations tend to favor what we’ve previously believed or wish to be true. Although this may be difficult to recognize in ourselves, if we really want to know what is true, it’s essential to recognize how we’re all biased.
Reliance on authority is another common “way of knowing.” People rely on authority when they accept something as true because they trust some outside source, without attention to the evidence for a claim. This often occurs when people accept what they hear from the media, trusted family members or friends, and other authorities without critically thinking.
In this day and age, it’s essential to recognize how some authorities understand things better than others. As Albert Einstein once remarked, “unthinking reliance on authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Perhaps the key word in this quotation is “unthinking.” Wouldn’t you agree it makes very little sense to rely on an authority who isn’t an expert in a particular knowledge area?
How do you know when to trust an authority? Going back to what I was saying before, I’d suggest looking for an authority’s use of reliable evidence. If speaking with a health professional, for instance, consider whether the individual can cite the evidence for their treatment recommendations. If they can’t do this in detail, or if the evidence they cite doesn’t seem to fit, it’s probably best to look elsewhere.
***
So, if personal experience, personal observation of others’ experiences, and authority are generally weak forms of knowing, what’s the alternative?
Psychologists rely on science because science gets around some of the problems associated with personal experience, personal observation, and authority. Science uses samples of greater numbers, which allows for better generalization to people, in general. Science includes methods that decrease bias. As a result, psychologists believe science is the best way of knowing, to the extent phenomena of interest can be reliably measured.
***
Even with the best science, though, limitations still remain.
For example, most scholars would agree science is the best way of knowing what’s true to the extent phenomena of interest can be reliably measured. And, psychologists believe—and have evidence to support—that how humans think, feel, and act can be reliably measured. Sometimes, however, reliable measurement becomes a problem. Consider, for instance, questions about the meaning of life, what constitutes beauty, and whether Divine Forces or a Great Spirit exist and care for us. These are all essential human questions, but they are beyond the scope of reliable measurement. Science cannot provide answers to such questions, and other fallible ways of knowing—such as reason, intuition, or experience—must be used to address them.
Another limitation of science is that it’s impossible to prove anything without any possibility of error. If you hear someone ever say that “science proves…,” you know they’re probably more a salesperson than a scientist. The reason is science doesn’t “prove;” all science is a matter of evidence and probability.
***
What about psychology?
Ironically, many of the problems in psychology come from its failures to apply many of the scientific principles I’ve highlighted above.
Critically, psychological research and the majority of psychology’s most influential thinkers generally do not represent the global population. For instance, most of the participants in psychological research to date come from places that are Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic, thereby failing to represent about 85% of the global population. Adding to this, a lot of psychological research relies on participants who are students at 4-year colleges and universities, leaving out many key groups who don’t attend these kinds of schools as often. Finally, most of the historically dominant thinkers in psychology are white men.
These are serious problems for a discipline seeking to understand human beings and behavior. Why? Because people differ and culture is one of the main influences on behavior. With limited samples and limited perspectives, psychology will possess limited knowledge.
***
In a world where it's increasingly obvious what's true matters, being able to think through how we know what we know becomes more and more important. As a discipline, psychology continues to evolve. With time, our understanding of human beings and behavior will improve. The future of psychology will surely differ from the history of psychology in important ways.
In reality, human beings and behavior are so complex we will never have a complete understanding of them. There is just so much mystery.
And, yet, part of the adventure of life may be engaging in this process, striving to understand human beings and behavior better than before. The quest to understand is core to being human, and psychology is a vital part of that human quest.
