(Making up the mind; 2) Prologue: real scientists don't study the mind

Prologue: real scientists don't study the mind

 

The psychologist's fear of the Party

Just like any other tribe, scientists have a hierarchy. psychologists are Somewhere near the bottom. I discovered this in my first year at university, Where I was studying natural sciences. it was announced that, for the first time, students wocould be able to study psychology in Part 1 of the Natural Sciences Tripos. I went eagerly to my college tutor to ask him if he knew anything about this new possibility. "Yes," he replied. "But I didn't think any of my students wocould be crass enough to want to study psychology. "He was a physicist. Preface: true scientists do not study psychology A gathering that psychologists fear Scientists, like other groups, have the same level of pyramid. Psychology is probably at the bottom of the pyramid. I realized this problem when I was studying natural science in my freshman year. The school stipulated that a student could take psychology in the first part of the natural science degree examination. I hurried to ask my tutor if he knew the new possibility. "Yes," he replied, "but I don't think any student is stupid enough to learn psychology." He is a physicist. Possibly because I was not entirely sure what "crass" meant, I was Undeterred by this remark. I switched from physics to psychology. I have Continued to study psychology ever since, but I have never forgotten about my place in the hierarchy. Inevitably the question will come up at academic parties, "so what do you do ?" And I think twice about replying, "I'm a psychologist ."

 Maybe I didn't understand what he meant by being "stupid", and I was not discouraged by what he said. I switched from physics to psychology.

Since then, I have been engaged in psychology research, but I have never forgotten my position and hierarchy. "What do you do ?"

This question will inevitably appear at academic exchanges. I can learn to think twice and say, "I am a psychologist ."

Of course, much has changed in psychology over the last 30 years.

We have borrowed between skills and concepts from other disciplines. We

Study the brain as well as behavior. We use computers extensively

Analyze our data and to provide metaphors for how the mind works.

My university identity badge doesn't say "psychologist," but "cognitive

Neuroscientist ."

"So what do you do ?" Someone asks. I think she's the new head

Physics. Unfortunately the reply, "I'm a cognitive neuroscientist" to

Question simply delays matters. After I have tried to explain what I

Actually do, she says, "Ah, you're a psychologist !" With that characteristic

Look which I translate to mean, "wouldn't you rather be doing real

Science ?"

  Of course, psychology has changed a lot in the last 30 years. We use many technologies and concepts from other disciplines. It not only studies human behavior but also brain. Extensive use of computer analysis data to study the thinking mechanism. My academic title is "cognitive neural system expert" instead of "psychology expert". Someone asked me, "What is your job? ", She must be the new head of the physics department. "I'm a cognitive neural system expert", unfortunately, I used this simple sentence to get rid of it. after I tried to explain some characteristics of my work, she said, "Oh, you're a psychology expert! "," Can you study real science? "

The parameter sor of English joins the conversation and starts talking About psychoanalysis. One of her new girls is "having difficulty accepting Freud. "I don't want to spoil my drinking time by proposing that Freud Was a story-teller whose speculations about the human mind were largely Irrelevant. An English professor joined the conversation and started to talk about psychological analysis. One of his students is not able to understand freuch. I don't want to destroy my wine and tell him that fread is a storyteller. Many of his inferences about human psychology are inappropriate.

A few years ago the editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry, nodoubt in error, asked me to assess a Freudian paper. I was immediatelystruck by a subtle difference from the papers I usually assess. as in anyscientific paper, there were lots of "references. "" references "refer topapers already published on the same topic. we make these referencespartly to acknowledge the work of our predecessors, But mainly to supportthe claims we make in our own paper. "Don't just take my wordfor it. you will find my methods fully justified in Box & Cox (1964 ). "but no attempt was made to support the evier In the Freudian paper. the references were not about the eviences. they were about the ideas. using these references you cocould trace the development of these ideasthrough the varous followers of Freud Back to the original words of themaster himself. No evisponwas presented as to whether the ideas ofthe Master were right. Coincidentally, a few years ago, the editors of the London Journal of spirituality asked me to comment on the freuch book. I was immediately aware of the nuances of a report on peer evaluation. There are many references in any scientific report. References are published on relevant topics. We reference these documents to express our appreciation for our predecessors, and to support our views in our own reports. "You don't have to rely solely on my words. You can find my proof in Box & Cox (1964 ". However, there is no reference in his book to support his point of view. All are imaginary. Through the followers of freu to the original, we can trace the development of these ideas, there is no evidence to prove the correctness of his ideas.

"Freud may have had a big influence on literary criticism," I say to

Either sor of English, "but he was no scientist. He wasn't interested in

Evidence. I study psychology scientifically ."

"So," she replies, "you use the monster of mechanical reason to kill off

Our humanity ."

From both sides of the cultural divide I get the same response,

"Scientists can't study the mind." So what's the problem?

"Fred may have a great influence in literature," I told the English professor. "But he is not a scientist. He is not interested in evidence, and I study psychology systematically." "So," she replied, "are you using the mechanical theory you know to kill humanity ?" From cultural differences, I get the same feedback: "scientists cannot study psychology." Why?

 

 

1 Prologue

 

Google Docs File address: http://tinyurl.com/mutm002: need to edit permission just contact me!