>
This is from another group:
> From Bob Sternberg:
>
> Attached please find a letter I have written in my capacity as
> APA President to the Editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education in
> response
> to a column by Carol Tavris in The Chronicle ("Mind Games: Psychological
> Warfare between Therapists and Scientists", February 28, 2003, pp. B7-B9).
>
> Tavris's article is available on line to those who wish to read
> it. It was my opinion and that of many others at APA that the article was
> so
> full of false and inflammatory statements that a response was called for.
> The response goes over the COHE's suggested word limit, so they may cut
> it, or not print it at all. But I requested, in my accompanying note to
> the
> Editor, that they print it in full, given the nature of Tavris's article.
> Feel free to circulate my response as you wish.
> Thank you.
> Best, Bob
>
>
>
> February 28, 2003
>
> To the Editor:
>
> The article by Carol Tavris in the February 28, 2003, issue of The
>
> Chronicle of Higher Education makes the important point that many
> laypeople
> view psychologists as of only one kind (practitioners of psychotherapy),
> whereas in fact there are many different kinds of psychologists. Beyond
> this point, the article so seriously misrepresents almost every aspect of
> the relationship between practicing psychologists and scientists that, as
> President of the American Psychological Association, I feel compelled to
> reply.
>
> The article is largely based on the logical fallacy of false
> dichotomy-assuming that scientists and practitioners in psychology are
> distinct groups. To a large extent, they are not distinct groups. Many
> psychologists properly view themselves as scientist-practitioners or as
> practitioner-scientists.
>
> * It is not true that marketing any approach to psychotherapy is
> acceptable. Chocolate Immersion Therapy, for example, would be both
> unethical and fraudulent. Someone who engages in fraudulent psychological
>
> practice is subject to both APA ethics charges and legal action.
> * The work of psychological scientists who do research and teach at
> colleges and universities is hardly invisible. Psychologists such as
> Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (in his studies of flow), Steven Pinker (in his
> studies of language development, and Martin Seligman (in his studies of
> learned optimism), among others, have all written best-selling books. All
>
> three, incidentally, are APA members, and Seligman is a past-president.
> * It is scarcely surprising that the media would turn to practicing
> psychologists for advice, in that many laypeople are particularly
> interested in practice issues. However, the media also frequently consult
>
> psychologists in universities and other research settings. The two groups
>
> of psychologists are not in competition for media attention. There is
> plenty to go around.
> * It simply is not the case that scientists make one set of claims,
> practitioners another. Rather than there being a dichotomy, the claims
> overlap highly. One of the beauties of science is that it is
> self-correcting. Science informs practice, but practice also informs
> science.
> * There is no war between scientists and practitioners. There are
> certainly disagreements among certain scientists and certain practitioners
>
> about some issues. It may sound exciting to make it out to be war. It
> isn't.
> * The overwhelming majority of practicing psychologists are
> well-trained,
> professionally competent, and equipped to give advice, whether to
> individuals, groups, or the media. Tavris's column calls attention to
> some
> of the worst in psychotherapy. But to damn the field as she does would be
>
> like damning all of business because of abuses at Enron or Worldcom, or to
>
> damn all politicians because of the horrendous governments of Saddam
> Hussein or Joseph Stalin. Certainly, there are irresponsible people in
> all
> professions. It is inflammatory and unjust to cite them as typical.
> * The number of scientifically trained clinicians is growing, not
> shrinking. Accreditation standards require that psychological practice be
>
> based on the science of psychology and that trainees have training in
> empirically supported procedures regardless of training model. Students
> in
> all APA accredited programs receive such training.
> * Competent practicing psychologists keep up on the science of
> psychology
> just as competent practicing medical doctors or practicing lawyers keep up
>
> with their fields. The idea that practitioners generally do not want to
> be
> aware of scientific developments is false.
> * The scientist-therapist gap is not "a done deal." Many thousands
> of
> scientists and practitioners work together in order to advance the field
> of
> psychology. A few extremists, who seem to be the subject of Tavris's
> article, do not. Tavris's article displays what are sometimes called the
> availability and representativeness fallacies: It calls to mind a few
> notorious practitioners who are unrepresentative of the field, and
> presents
> them as though they are representative. They are not. It would be like
> calling to mind a few ugly airplane accidents that made the newspapers and
>
> hence are easily available to one's long-term memory, and then assuming
> that such accidents are typical of what happens during air travel.
> * It is not true that every year "APA does something else to rile
> its
> scientific members" or that "every year, more psychological scientists
> leave the APA for the APS." The first is an invention. The second is
> belied by statistics, which show increasing numbers of scientists in
> APA. For example, the absolute numbers of general science members in APA
> increased from 14,736 in1995 (17.8% of total membership) to 19,103 in1999
> (23.6% of total membership). The numbers continue to increase. Indeed,
> the past-president, current president, and president-elect of the American
>
> Psychological Association are all scientists! Finally, it should be noted
>
> that many people choose to be members of both APA and APS, myself
> included. The organizations are in no way incompatible with or hostile to
>
> each other. Quite the contrary.
> * Finally, Tavris discusses the fallacy of confirmation bias-"the
> tendency
> to notice and remember evidence that confirms our beliefs or decisions,
> and
> to ignore, dismiss, or forget evidence that is discrepant." What research
>
> shows is that everyone, scientists included, is susceptible to
> confirmation
> bias. It is a tendency we all have to fight in ourselves, Tavris
> included.
>
> I have written previously in The Chronicle of Higher Education as to how
> wisdom is to be found in the search for a common good ("It's not what you
> know, but how you use it: Teaching for wisdom," 2002, 48[42],
> B20). Artificially pitting one group against another-in this case,
> scientists against practitioners-cannot possibly help psychologists or
> anyone else attain a common good. Today's world has more than its share
> of
> useless, senseless wars. There is no need to manufacture or otherwise
> foment another one.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Robert J. Sternberg
> IBM Professor of Psychology and Education, Yale University
> President, American Psychological Association
>
>
>
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
