Hi All - I'm starting to work on a manuscript (along with some colleagues) that
helps to address most of Marc's excellent questions below, and will be happy to
send to relevant TIPSters when it's ready for prime time.
One problem that is not often appreciated, I think (perhaps because it is
perceived as politically incorrect to raise), is a self-selection for certain
personality traits, attitudes, and aptitudes. We know from the work of Peter
Zachar and others that by the time students get to graduate school,
practitioner interests tend to be negatively correlated with interests in
science (interestingly, this correlation is positive among undergraduates).
Moreover, we know that high scores on Holland's "social" type (interested in
helping others) tend to do poorly in math and science (Phil Ackerman's work),
probably resulting in a propensity toward at least some math and science
phobia. Luckily, the negative correlations here are nowhere near r= -1.00, so
we can find plenty of practice-oriented folks who like science and are good at
it. But we should not be surprised that an aggregate level, if we select for
students who say only that "I want to help people," we will often end up with
students who are not especially enthusiastic about science. And to be frank,
I have little or no idea how to select for "scientific attitudes" in
prospective graduate students. This would be a most worthwhile research
project, in my view. I'm not sure I've done much better than flipping pennies
over the years.
Can we persuade individuals who enter graduate school with an indifference
or even antipathy toward science to care about science - or at least care about
finding ways of minimizing their propensity toward errors - with proper
training? I don't know, although that's the focus of our manuscript. I
believe (?) I've had a few scattered successes over the years in my graduate
teaching and mentoring, but there's no question that it's hard work.
I have long given up on APA in this regard; it's one reason I resigned a
number of years ago and have never looked back. They are simply too deeply
invested in keeping their members happy, and their leadership has consistently
shown a marked absence of the courage needed to make the needed reforms. Not
surprisingly, their public reaction to the recent McFall et al. PSPI manuscript
was one of smug defensiveness rather than an open admission that "Yes, they're
right...we can do a lot better." But don't get me started on this one.
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Professor
Editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice
Department of Psychology, Room 473 Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences
(PAIS)
Emory University
36 Eagle Row
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
[email protected]
(404) 727-1125
Psychology Today Blog:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist
50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X.html
Scientific American Mind: Facts and Fictions in Mental Health Column:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/
The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and
his play,
his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his
recreation,
his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which.
He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does,
leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing.
To him - he is always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist text
(slightly modified)
From: Marc Carter [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 12:09 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] *Nature* on APA and clinical psychology
Hi, All --
I don't disagree with Don at all, but I want to turn Michael's question on its
head: why are we (or is APA) not serious about training practitioners so that
they can read and evaluate research? Why is this sort of training not a part
of the continuing education that clinicians and counselors are required to get?
How can we in conscience send practioners out into the world who are incurious,
unsophisticated and gullible? Isn't it our (or at least APA's) responsibility
to certify programs that turn out people who know how to read research and
evaluate it? I give you as an example _The Courage to Heal_ and the great
damage that caused simply because of gullibility and a pervasive sense that an
effective therapy can be judged because, "well, this sounds right."
I certainly don't want my doctor choosing a medicine on the basis of anything
other than what's been shown to work. Why should we expect less of therapists?
It frightens me.
m
--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--
________________________________
________________________________
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
