Michael Smith wrote several things of interest to me, anyway.
First he said:
>What I usually find uncomfortable is that people use "research" to
>support their personal views.
As a person who started my study of Psychology in 1964 and "practicing" as a
teacher since 1970 and practitioner since 1976, I find that I certainly use
"research" to inform my personal decisions about what approaches truth and my
personal views about those things that research has offered a significant body
of knowledge.
Second, in regard to homosexuality, he said:
>For example, Michal Britt finds that he's ok with the research that
>finds homosexuality is not a mental illness.
>This is clearly not what research shows since it can show nothing of the kind.
I would need a bit more clarification as to what Michael means with his comment
about homosexuality. As a clinical psychologist, I was of the opinion through
research, the decision of the very conservative editors of the DSM, and
personal experience with the LGBT population that there was considerable
support to believe that homosexuality is not a mental illness. I can
understand that his personal belief might be different, which is reflected in
the third statement that he makes, but that his position is supported by things
other than research.
>
Third, and most confusing to me was his statement:
>Another is the implication that we should be teaching students to heavily
>consider research before making up their minds on an issue.
>This is a monsterous implication and presumption.
>Far more important is what their parents and friends think about it,
>what religion says about it,
>what literature and the arts say about it, and what their own feelings
>and beliefs say about it.
I can just say that the reason we have a Tea Party today is that too many
people have based their beliefs (i.e., made up their minds) about too many
things based on what their parents, friends, religion, literature, and the
arts, and their own feelings and beliefs say about it where there may be
considerable research that strongly suggests that what they believe on an issue
is most likely wrong.
Finally, Mike said:
>
>Lastly I'll mention the lip service paid to the "scientific attitude".
>Exemplified in treating research results as if they actually were conclusive.
I can agree that if a professor of psychology treats research results as if
they actually were "CONCLUSIVE" that would be an error and I would suggest that
any professor of psychology states that research can prove anything (including
gravity, which probably comes as close to "truth" as anything we know) either
didn't do well in their research methods courses or had a terrible instructor
in those courses.
.
Robert W. Wildblood, PhD
Adjunct Psychology Faculty
Germanna Community College
drb...@rcn.com
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6798
or send a blank email to
leave-6798-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
