Well I just noticed this thread, but I see I've already been mentioned
I think it's a fair question given the common perception of what psychologists do. For a variety of reasons, people seem to have an incredibly skewed view of what exactly psychology is and what most psychologists do. This is evident even in this thread. I'll outline two examples below and offer some reasons why I think this is. I'll also offer some of my personal thoughts on the matter.
First, the OP brings up psychoanalysis and wonders, given the status of psychoanalysis, whether psychology has much useful to say about human behavior. Of course, it's a bit like wondering if the theory of vitalism discredits biology, or if phlogiston theory discredits chemistry. These are archaic and, in retrospect at least, frankly ridiculous theories. I've never met a psychoanalyst--I've heard that there still are some, somewhere, but as far as I'm concerned they are mythical creatures. One would be right to question the utility of these theories, but fewer people think to ask if that's really what the fields they ostensibly represent actually do. In case I haven't made it clear yet, psychoanalysis has no relation to anything modern psychologists do.
Second, most people in this thread have asked about the status of clinical psychology in general. Again, those are fair questions, but what's striking to me is that, to most people, that's just what psychology is. However, in reality, slightly more than half of us have no interest whatsoever in clinically abnormal populations. Psychology is the study of how human behavior and cognition work, and accordingly, most of us study normal people. I won't ever have a "patient" and I'm quite sure that any potential patient who knew a thing about me wouldn't want me as their clinician. (And if they doubt that, I'm sure that some of you could warn them properly.) I don't intend to denigrate clinical psychology--what they do is undoubtedly important--I only mean to point out that, while they essentially comprise the public image of what psychologists do, they in fact represent a subset of the field. More accurately, psychologists just seek to understand the why and how of human action.
So, putting aside those issues, we are left with the original question: is psychology really a science? It seems to me that, on any reasonable definition of what "science" is, the answer must be yes. As psychologists we attempt to systematize empirical observation of human behavior and cognition and then to synthesize those observations into general theories of human behavior and cognition. What more would you ask of the enterprise of science? As far as I can discern, most people seem to identify "science" with fields and studies that are what I would call "sciencey"--that is, if you wear white lab coats and fiddle around with colorful beakers of strange, caustic liquids and write out intimidating mathematical equations that are long enough to fill a chalkboard, well then by golly, you must be doing real science(tm)! It's a pretty naive view of what science really is.
Perhaps a more interesting question then is: how good is psychology doing as a science? Here I would probably agree with the majority of posters that the best answer is: not as well as we would like for it to be. Psychology, as it turns out, is really hard to do. Human behavior and cognition are--surprise!--really, really, really complicated. Predicting the amount of money that someone will choose to place on a risky gamble (I study decision making so this broadly represents the type of questions that I tend to ask) tends not be be quite as easy as predicting how how long a textbook will take to hit the ground if I drop it from a second-story window. But what can you do? You try to account for the myriad of influences that go into such a decision as best you can. If you have suggestions for how we can do that better, we're all ears.
|
|
Bookmarks