They would argue, and I don't think they are completely wrong, that 'subjective well being' is not significantly more clearly defined than happiness. But, the argument that he uses that everyone has a different meaning for happiness (or for subjective well being, for that matter) means it cannot be scientifically studied is, in my opinion, weak and fails to recognize similar problems in the physical sciences. Ask physicists about 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' and I think you get into some similar territory of ill-defined terms. But, 'real scientists' do work on it. To act like we can't continue to work as scientists to increasingly clarify our terminology is to simply give up on studying human behavior (which seems counter to the ethic of scientific inquiry) or like saying 'some things just can't be studied' and that's dangerously close to a religious/dogmatic pronouncement, IMO.
However, to raise the issue that in psychology we have real problems with terminology is valid. I open a paper I wrote some years back (Bernhardt, 1997) on aggression with a short discourse on the various definitions of aggression. That's what he's talking about and he's right. That shouldn't be such a common problem in psychology. We should know what the hell we are talking about without having to explain it so much even when talking amongst each other. I shouldn't have to open my paper by first discussing the many definitions. What I like to say the difference between the social sciences and the physical sciences is this: The physical sciences work with simpler systems for which they can isolate antecedents more easily. Also, because the systems are simpler, they can account for more of the variance in the effects they study. The social sciences are dealing with systems which are much more difficult to completely isolate antecedents and we have so many influences that we account for much less of the variance (so far). To continue: Newton's laws of motion work very very well, account for nearly all the variance. But, they are a little off whenever relativistic velocities are encountered. Therefore, to get a more accurate analysis you must take relativistic effects into account. Indeed, the fact of the matter is that at any speed taking relativistic effects into account will provide a more accurate answer. But, unless you are at high speed, the difference is so minute that it is not worth the trouble. That is, Newtonian Mechanics accounts for nearly all the variance. Finally, we are right to guard against being 'cargo-cult' scientists (I thank my now long departed father for first exposing me to the important lessons of studying cargo-cults, about 30 years ago). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo-cult and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science Bernhardt, P. C. (1997). Influences of serotonin and testosterone in aggression and dominance: Convergence with social psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6, 44-48. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep11512620 Paul On Aug 6, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Helweg-Larsen, Marie wrote: Yes perhaps. Or perhaps not. The author of this piece clearly does not know anything about psychology or happiness research. He could quickly have found information that shows that (much) research on subjective well-being fit these criteria (the author’s list: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.) Marie Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D. Associate Professor l Department of Psychology Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College Phone 717.245.1562 l Fax 717.245.1971 http://users.dickinson.edu/~helwegm/index.html From: Michael Britt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 8:28 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Another "Psychology Isn't a Science" article Seems like psychology has become quite the easy target these days. Sad. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713,0,1641705.story Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a4468797f&n=T&l=tips&o=19508 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-19508-13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a44687...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-19508-13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a44687...@fsulist.frostburg.edu> --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=19512 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-19512-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-19512-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu> --- 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=19513 or send a blank email to leave-19513-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
