I don't respond much on TIPS but read most of the stuff. My Ph.D. was in computational neuroscience (eye movement control) through psychology. My only point was to be a counterpoint to the assurance academics often have regarding science and fact (which is often tentative and subject to revision--especially with psychology, clinical or not). I agree clinical is softer than say computational neuroscience, but the subjects are softer too. To condemn areas, beliefs, etc., with such strongly worded opposition doesn't seem to me to bespeak of an open mind--of inquiry. There is much unknown about the human condition. Spirituality, for example, is a FACT in people's lives. Often poetry, literature and art do have 'healing' properties for the human 'soul'. Although we 'know' objectivity is more a myth than real (which goes for the hard sciences too--and how much more then for the soft ones like psychology) we often don't behave like we know. And often derogatory language is used to condemn such things and we expect people who are invested in such things to take it calmly and look at the 'facts'. Would academics take it calmly if they were so criticized and are invested in their area? If I said, for example, that all that sociology crap is useless, explains nothing and is such a waste of time. They even celebrate with an effect size of .3 for goodness sake! I think the academic would be upset, but dismissive since obviously such crass people just don't understand. I guess clinicians are on the front lines and have to deal with the emotions of people who are hurting for whatever reason. Computational neuroscience, fMRI, personality theory (wow, let's not get started on that one--talk about lack of science!), won't help, but, perhaps a poem will! It is exactly that empirical evidence is open to interpretation and re-interpretation (ESPECIALLY in psychology, sociology, etc). 'Historical lessons' are just personal experiences written down and open to interpretation, not verifiable or 'scientific'). And of course, Immanuel Kant had something to say about the limits of reason. It all sounds so objective, sure, factual, etc. But my point is that these things are not what they seem. If someone is invested in the use of say Runes to divinate their future, gain acceptance, meaning, and even courage from their use and the comradery of other likeminded people, is it up to 'scientific psychology' to disabuse them of their 'delusions' (as many are wont to do)? We don't have the 'truth' any more than any other group. I am not suggesting that we shouldn't be engaged in science. Just that our education of others should be more holistic and caring since we don't know it all and never will. We don't really even know where our students are 'coming from'. If education is producing individuals who are intolerant of other viewpoints and worldviews because they have 'science' and 'reason' on their side (which of course is also self-delusional) then we are doing a disservice to the community. The scientific worldview is not the only one, and indeed it is not even a very useful one for living. Remember that even the great rational thinker Sherlock Holmes essentially dismissed the knowledge that the sun revolves around the earth as useless trivia (much to the astonisment of his scientific and enlightened friend Watson) which, of course, it is. :-) I have gone on far too long! --Mike
--- On Thu, 7/17/08, Shearon, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Shearon, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [tips] psychic kids now understood To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 11:49 PM Michael- I don't recognize your name. Am I delinquent in welcoming you to tips? :) Where do you teach? What's your training? Etc. (I'm on sabbatical so perhaps you've answered all that before. If so I apologize. I'm only asking out of curiosity). I think Gary was not off base in referring to "ignorance, superstitions, and delusions" in reference to clinical populations. Could you explain why that is at all untoward or presumptive given that these are often the reasons folks wind up in or seek out clinical help. Clinical psychology claims to be a scientifically based discipline based on principles of the Boulder Model of the scientific practitioner. I'm not sure I'm following what is bothering you about Gary's statement. But I'll try to give an answer to your question. The "lofty tower of objectivity such educators stand" on is science and scientific methodology with appropriate skepticism. Tim _______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology The College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker -----Original Message----- From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 7/17/2008 9:01 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] psychic kids now understood I find it amazing that so many class "discussions" are conclusively decided before they are begun. But, how what else could result if the discussion leader believes the discussion topic to be full of "ignorance, superstitions, and delusions". I wonder upon which lofty tower of objectivity such educators stand? --Mike --- On Thu, 7/17/08, Gerald Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Gerald Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [tips] psychic kids now understood To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 11:31 AM Can clinical workers (therapists of all kinds), in their efforts to "understand and sympathize", avoid the traps of promoting the ignorance, superstitions, and delusions of those they wish to help? Isn't the approach taken by Dr. Lisa Miller the same road traveled by those who promoted repressed memories? Anyway, this is a possible class discussion question I had in mind in bringing up the Psychic Kids program. Gary Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. Professor, Psychology Saginaw Valley State University University Center, MI 48710 989-964-4491 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
