I had another thought about this issue. Perhaps a reason why many
students are skeptical of psychology's scientific status is that, as
scientists, we don't try directly to answer the fundamental question
most humans are interested in. This question can be put in several ways,
but it typically has one of the following forms: What am I here for?
What is the purpose of my life? We might call this class of related
existential questions the "Fundamental Question" (FQ).
Although we give students "fun facts" that many find interesting, this
knowledge often can be brushed aside as superficial with regard to their
existential concerns. When we do get to topics that are deeply relevant
to the FQ--topics such as the neural basis of mental events and
behaviors, determinism, and evolution--motivational biases seem to
arise. The scientific lessons we wish to teach here may get rejected
because of their implications for the FQ. Thus, a student may get
through four years of undergraduate training as a psychology major and
still insist that science can not explain (in principle, not simply in
fact) all human behaviors and mental events. Furthermore, if their view
of psychology is that it ultimately SHOULD answer the FQ, then they may
reject the scientific status of psychology--they may believe that
psychology is, and should be, an "art," not a science. There is no
shortage of popular examples to support this belief
All of this may help to explain why students have such a hard time
getting sufficiently motivated when we talk about topics that we think
should be of very deep interest to them: these topics either do not
answer for them the FQ or, if they do have relevance for it, the
interpretations they make may be too threatening.
Jeff Ricker
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale AZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
