buylotrogold

In response to my recent posting, Matthew had a few criticisms. I will try to address them below. 1. He cautions against falling into the old 'we are too a bona-fide science'    lament, and that such pursuits are fruitless. I agree. However I must say    he missed the point if he thought that is what I was doing.I know that WE    psychologists are comfortable (and justifiably so) with the idea that    psychology is indeed a 'legitimate' science, but the problem arises when    how our science is portrayed undermines this claim. WE know it is so, but    I believe there is merit to the claim that today's psychology 101 students    are reading 'sound-byte' type of sensationalistic conclusions about our    research in their textbooks (I'm a teaching assistant for psy. 101, and    believe me, it's true. Go look at any intro. book and tell me I'm lying!),    and that perpetuates viewing psychology as a 'pseudo-science' because they    are not exposed to the research methods, and theory behind the research. I    believe that (unlike Matthew) today's textbooks do NOT give students the    credit they deserve and instead try to enhance interest via giving them    research findings in forms that provoke in the student the old 'hindsight    bias.' ('I could've told them that') Therefore, I am arguing less    sensationalism in intro textbooks. Describe the theory and methods behind    the research, so the student can actually SEE how the results follow from    the theory! Don't spoon-feed students 'cute' and meaningless phrases and    pass it off as psychological research findings. 2. Matthew says that he thinks that psychological research findings are    'being adequately dispersed' through such mediums as intro psy. textbooks    (NO, see above point), the news (I heartily disagree) and magazines such as    'Psychology Today.' While I agree that Psychology Today serves a nice    function in getting the current research in the hands of the public, I have    to disagree with the form of presentation. I think that PT is as culpable    as psy. 101 authors in committing the crime of 'fluffization' of our    research. 3. Matthew asks WHY we should be concerned with making the population more    aware of the diversity of psychology (ie, cognitive, clinical, social, etc.)    Well, I think the answer is obvious. Most of us will agree that the    perception among students and the public of psychologists as psychoanalysts    is of course wrong, and is something that is, not only extremely annoying,    but detrimental to advancing our field as science in the public's and    student's eyes. Again, this can be accomplished via subtle and meaningful    ways of dispersing this sort of information via the media and textbooks,(and    not through 'commercials on tv,'