Hey- I'm going to be late, but just a quick note... I feel not so much like I have to defend my profession, but I wanted to reply to Bob's (it is Bob, right?) comment about the professor of Psychology. I can't find the original post right this moment I wanted to point out that I didn't think he was necessarily a professor of clinical psychology - and I believe that when you speak of people who are "attracted to" the profession, you are referring to therapists and their ilk. Many academic psychologists are researchers in a wide variety of areas, and are interested in all manner of topics related to human beings - how our brains work, how we learn language, how we think, how we are socialized in the environmental contexts around us, etc.
I can accept that a valid argument against the professor is that he is not a scholar of history or journalism. But to then say that his arguments may be dismissable because he is a psychologist is simply ignorant. And *even* if he were "disturbed" as you put it, there are many many ways to be mentally ill, the vast majority of which do not merit suspicion around one's opinions! I realize you meant it that comment lightly, and not in a technical clinical sense, but it might just be easier to say you don't like his perspective - no need to tarnish psychologists or the mentally ill in the same sweep! Not meaning to offend, so I hope I don't... Yael Bobsart48 wrote: >2. I noted that he is neither a professor of history nor of journalism. >Rather, an assistant professor of Psychology at Penn. This is not a terribly >persuasive title for me, since I have little respect for that profession, >generally (and certainly none for the American Psychological Association, >with which I have no reason to believe the professor is affiliated). Yes, I >have some friends who are psychologists. > >3. My personal, anecdotal theory is that the subject matter attracts those >who are psychologically disturbed - his writings (ravings) reinforce my >impressions. Those who have passed logic 101 know that this does not mean >that I think all psychologists are in this category, or even most. Simply >that I suspect from my observations that there is a disproportionate bias >(probably caused by the recognition, conscious or subconscious, that they >have a problem) in that area. For example, if 10 % of the population at large >is disturbed, but 25% of psychologists are disturbed, that would be >consistent with my observations without implying that most psychologists are >disturbed. Note that disturbed is not intended as a clinical term.
