On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 06:04:03 -0800, Christopher D. Green wrote: >Something to consider... (or maybe not). > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-heffernan-/greatest-living-psychologist_b_1098817.html >
Having met and spoke with Kahneman (when I was active in the psychology division of the New York Academy of Sciences back in the 1990s, we organized a tribute to Amos Tversky after his death and Kahneman and David Krantz spoke about their research with Tversky and their relationship to him), I don't think Kahneman is. After meeting and speaking with Herb Simon (he came to NYU after he received the Nobel prize and was entertained at Marty Braine's place afterwards; I spoke to Simon for a while and was amazed to find out that he was aware of my dissertation research and many, many other things), I think that at that time, he was. But I think it is a bad practice to focus too much on the individual scientist instead of the actual contribution that that person has made. Psychology has a number of people it holds in high regard but, in terms of actual scientist achievement, one wonders why they are held in high esteem. Presumably psychology values empirical research, rigorous analysis, excellent scholarship, and the production of research findings that advance the field. The Nobel prize rightly, I think, focuses on the specific scientific contribution that a person has made (in contrast to, say, the Macarthur "Genius" award which vaguely recognizes achievement and potential for future achievement). In Kahneman's case we can identify what that contribution was as well as what other Nobel laureates have done. But stop and consider: why is William James, Stanley Hall, and other early psychologists held in high esteem? Is it because of their empirical research contributions? I'm not aware of any research that William James did that is noteworthy (I admit ignorance of his psychical research, so maybe there is something there that is not widely known). He didn't write the first textbook in psychology and I have not seen a convincing argument that his textbook was so much better than other textbooks of his time or earlier. Or do we "recognize" James for essentially nonscientific contributions? Perhaps it's easier for most people to think of outstanding psychologists in popular terms such as "the World's Sexiest Man", thus "the World's Greatest Living Psychologist" -- wouldn't it be better to ask "Which Living Psychologist Has Conducted Research That Has Advanced The Field The Most"? I think that people are more comfortable with popularity contests, such as "the 100 most influential/best known psychologists in the past 100 years" and have more difficulty with a list such as "the 100 most important empirical research results in the past 100 years". One needs to know much more in the latter case, particularly about the specific result and the larger scientific context in which it fits. Just my two cents. -Mike Palij New York University [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=14276 or send a blank email to leave-14276-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
