Having had my tea, I decided it was time to write a new textbook of psychology. I decided that, to make the task more manageable, I would cut out: all historical introductions; all hypotheses however engaging which were unsupported by relevant confirmatory findings; all individual studies unless they illustrated a general point which had been replicated many times; most individual studies unless they were on substantial and highly representative samples; and all studies where either the hypotheses or the methods or the analysis of results were not clearly specified, and had not been replicated at least three times.
This is what I have got in my draft outline so far:
Chapter One: Psychological Theories which are non-trivial and well supported by results.
Any suggestions as to what I should include?
"all hypotheses however engaging which were unsupported by relevant confirmatory findings": Popper would have preferred a reference to falsifiability. (I understand that Popper has become unfashionable; that's a pity as I always found his point about falsifiability a really useful guide to which experiment to do next.)
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Did not realize that I had to spell it out, but should have done so.
DeleteThe Pygmalion effect, g as statistical artifact, and the brilliant work of Diederik A. Stapel.
ReplyDeleteStapel certainly leads the field in understanding what is required for quick promotion in psychology! A clear case of the Pygmalion effect, in that the tone of voice and the nature of his conclusions were highly desirable and warmly welcomed by so many of his colleagues and members of the public.
DeleteStill, the empirical tradition (or old fashioned guilt) eventually caught up with him.
All I ask is that you not give short shrift to Karen Horney. Her book Neuroses and Human Growth is simply the best at explaining emotional maladjustment.
ReplyDeleteI should have been even more specific. I am talking about testable, falsifiable propositions which are supported by empirical evidence. I did not realize that I needed spell that out in detail. So, for example, if testable, non-trivial propositions can be derived from a psychoanalytic perspective, and then supported by empirical examination they could contribute, otherwise not. Some researchers like Prof Peter Fonagy have attempted to prove psychoanalytic predictions, but I would not accept a general speculative essay as a valid entry with subsequent empirical validation.
DeleteDo you have a focus in mind? E.g. perception, neurobiology, psychometrics. Or are you thinking of an introductory level book? Popular?
ReplyDeleteIf your plan is to collect the most rigorous psychological conclusions so that they can live under the same roof, I suggest a more methodological approach that ought to serve your desires: Write a book about what is required for a rigorously supported psychological theory and explain using many examples and counterexamples. So, maybe one part theory, two parts examples and two parts counterexamples.
Explicating and denouncing bad psychology will make for fun writing. Writing about good psychology will cast light on good research that doesn't get enough attention.
A nice side effect is that if you approach it from this angle, you'll have sound footing to attack the big issues. Pharmaceuticals, g, controversial disorders, etc. (Not a bad way to get cited, either.)
Thank you for your helpful proposals. I had no particular focus in mind, other than the usual chapter headings in introductory text books. Certainly your suggested emphasis on methods is correct. One starting point is to create a repository of replicated studies. Then we need a young author, willing to put in the spadework that will result in a continually updated text book. That may be the hard part.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine that you're targeting freshmen as an audience. Maybe the British textbook industry is different, but over here it rivals the drug trade.
DeleteI did a very quick survey of some Midwest US undergraduate curricula, and it seemed like their emphases on research methods were inconsistent. The University of Michigan, for instance, did not even require any courses beyond introductory statistics before throwing its students into an "independent research" class.