Here is my take/opinion on this (of course, I am committing the act that I am just about to rip into). One problem is that we can't "prove" things in psychology. Because of the complexity of behavior we can't state that in all cases this will be true - it just is impossible. So, as we discuss issues, there are always going to be cases that students have in their mind of "well, my aunt, mother, best friend's boyfriend, etc. went through this and a different outcome occurred, so since this situation doesn't hold here, then it doesn't hold in other places." So, then it seems more like opinion than fact (yes, I get the irony that this is my opinion). In the sciences, such as chemistry. math, and physics, there are certain laws and those laws are pretty consistent (2+2=4). Not so in psych. Students want nice, clean-cut answers (preferable 1) rather than messy shades of gray (well, in this situation it is this, but in this other it is something else). I also think that students have been studying behavior informally all of their life - not so much with physics, chemistry, math. I think the attitude there is more "Let me just memorize this stuff since I don't understand it."
Lilienfeld, Scott O wrote: >I think that Annette's question, and John's follow-up, are extremely interesting and important. I've struggled with the same issue myself, without much success. In a recent chapter written in honor of the late Albert Ellis, a few of us took a crack at this issue by conducting an informal "eyeball factor analysis" of psychological misconceptions. We came up with a few broad, cross-cutting higher-order misconceptions (e.g., the myth of unrealized intellectual potential, the myth of fragility, the myth of the primary of early experience, the myth of self-esteem) that may subsume many of the lower-order misconceptions to which Annette refers. But I don't think we were especially successful, in part because many other psychological myths don't fall neatly or cleanly into any of our categories. Of course, it's possible that the higher-order domains that cut across psychological myths are more methodological (e.g., confusing correlation with causation, post hoc ergo propter hoc errors, illusory correlation) than substantive. > Is anyone aware of published factor analyses of extant psychological myth/misconception scales? Such factor analyses might at least hint at underlying dimensions that in turn point to deeper conceptual misunderstandings. Of course, it's also possible that the factors that emerge could merely correspond to surface domains (e.g., myths about memory, myths about the brain, myths about psychopathology), but I'd be curious to know if anyone is aware of such data - as I've never seen any. > >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: Jonathan Mueller [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:13 AM >To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) >Subject: Re: [tips] fundamental psych concepts (was assessment) > > > > >Annette, > >That's an interesting thought. How are misconceptions different in psychology than in other sciences? In general, I think you are right about there being more core misconceptions in something like physics. But some of those are more readily apparent because they deal more with the physical world. I suspect if we give it more thought, and I'm sure others have that I just don't know of, we could identify some core misconceptions that affect psychological understanding as well. It would be interesting to try to identify some of those. > >For example, people have a great deal of trouble with the concept of randomness. That leads to all kinds of specific errors. But underlying those specific errors is a more fundamental misunderstanding of the probabilistic nature of the way the world works. > >Another one might be that people generally understand that "seeing is believing." But many of us commit errors in judgment because we have difficulty understanding "believing is seeing" as well. > >Other core concepts in psychology? > >Jon > >=============== >Jon Mueller >Professor of Psychology >North Central College >30 N. Brainard St. >Naperville, IL 60540 >voice: (630)-637-5329 >fax: (630)-637-5121 >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu > > >>>> <[email protected]> 3/2/2010 5:01 PM >>> >This is a good discussion for us to have on tips--the whole idea of teaching for conceptual coherence. > >I've been working on changing misconceptions and have read the education literature on conceptual development and more importantly on conceptual change extensively. > >What I have come to conclude is that there is a serious disconnect between the sciences like physics, chemistry and biology, and psychology. And here is where my problem arose and why I say this: > >Conceptual change when examined from a "science" perspective generally is discussed in terms of students getting a more global, or holistic gist of a conceptual premise. For example, when students have misconceptions about physics they are generally just not undestanding an underlying "concept" such as force, gravity, or mass; or in chemistry, concepts such as the mole. > >But I don't think we have these global overarching concepts in understanding the fundamental principles of psychology. For example, if students have misconceptions in psychology they tend to be things like believing that Sugar Causes Hyperactivity in Children; Or Listening to Mozart Will Make you Smarter; or Subliminal advertising can get you to buy things you would not have otherwise purchased. > >These are more disjointed factoids that come from places like folk knowledge, rather than from some conceptual misunderstanding of a critical psychological construct that udnerlie a paradigm. These are not large paradigmatic concepts that underlie student's misunderstanding of how things work in the mind, per se. > >Let me quote from the wiki page referred to below: >>As a result the most important role for concept inventories >>is to provide instructors with clues as to the ideas, >>scientific misconceptions, didaskalogenic, i.e. instruction >>induced confusions, and/or conceptual lacunae, with which >>students are working, and which may be actively interfering >>with learning. > >So I'm not sure a concept inventory would help us much. There are no demonstrable "conceptual lacunae" that are interfering with learning. > >Rather there are frequently encountered bits of misinformation based on faulty evidence or faulty interpretation of evidence that become part of the cultural knowledge about behavior. It's not like when you finally come to understand force or motion or gravity or moles, that things will fall into place with other misconceptions. > >That is why I believe psychology has been notably excluded from these conversations. See the wiki as an example of where there is nothing from psychology. > >I think we are in a different domain and have to come up with a different set criteria for the discipline. And there are good people struggling with this; but it is not coming across in the same way as it would in other disciplines; it cannot be assessed in the same way. > >So one thought I had was that a type of critical evaluation of evidence is a unifying construct of what leads people to have many of the misconceptions they have in psychology. But it's hard to make a case for "conceptual change" in that sense. > >Other than that, psychology is really about learning tons and tons of facts and factoids. The large overarching constructs are few and far between. Maybe that is part of what makes psychology so hard? > >Anyway, I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this idea of overarching conceptual themes in psychology and how misconceptions could be construed in terms of those conceptual themes. > >Annette > > >Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. >Professor of Psychology >University of San Diego >5998 Alcala Park >San Diego, CA 92110 >619-260-4006 >[email protected] > > > >--- > >You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. > >To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9b2f&n=T&l=tips&o=1033 > >(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > >or send a blank email to leave-1033-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu< mailto:leave-1033-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu> > >________________________________ >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). > >--- >You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. >To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13162.50de294b9d4987a3c89b4a5cc4bdea62&n=T&l=tips&o=1034 >or send a blank email to leave-1034-13162.50de294b9d4987a3c89b4a5cc4bde...@fsulist.frostburg.edu ---------------------------------- Deb Dr. Deborah S. Briihl Dept. of Psychology and Counseling Valdosta State University 229-333-5994 [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1037 or send a blank email to leave-1037-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
