|
Hello Tipsters,
This one goes out to you folks who use the book "Clear Thinking about
Psychology" by Ruscio. I am spending a lot of time these days looking through it
because it is a recommended ancillary for the Kalat Introductory Psych
textbook for which I am updating IRM and PowerPoint slides.
My question is: Did you notice that on page 96-97, Ruscio implies that
unfavorable reviews of a relatively negative study of day care's long term
effects might have been a result of the fact that professional status reviewers
most likely have their children in day care (a speculation at best, and an
example of the genetic fallacy on his part). Yet he opens the preface of his
book with a virulent attack on the Rosenhan study, based in large part on the
work of Spitzer, without noting the fact that Spitzer wrote the first two
versions of the DSM (if memory serves) before be asked to no longer work on the
project). I am not a passionate defender of the Rosenhan study; I believe that
he misinterpreted some of the institutional pressures related to administrative
concerns as labelling issues, but I feel that an author who goes so far out on a
limb at the beginning of his book, especially the author of a critical thinking
book, ought to be a little more cognizant of everyone's potential biases and
should avoid such tenuous speculations about why reviews might have been
unfavorable.
I guess I am a little disappointed that this particular critical thinking
book is being promoted to accompany Kalat's text. Nothing can be done about it
at this point, just wanted to rattle off my reaction to some thoughtful
colleagues.
Have a pleasant Sunday.
Nancy Melucci
Long Beach City College
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
