I refer here to empirical psychologists who lecture and publish, which is how we learn about their work and opinions. Historically, there have been 6 types of psychologists:
1 Inventors. They find a new process.
2 Masters. They combine a number of such processes, and use them as well as or better than the inventors.
3 The Diluters. They came after the first two kinds, and couldn’t do the job quite as well.
4 Researchers without salient qualities, who operate at a time when the research process generally is in good working order, and so add to the body of knowledge, without outstanding achievements.
5 Fancy researchers. They don’t really invent anything, but specialise in research which is on the light side, but is done with a flourish, in a fine, well-written, somewhat fancy but limited way.
6 Starters of crazes. They re-label other research in a temporarily appealing way.
I would like to hear what you think of this characterization. I would be fascinated if you could provide some names of psychologists to place in each of the categories. Candidly, where would you place yourself? Finally, I would commend those of my readers who can tell me from which author and book I cribbed the list, which I have altered and re-labelled somewhat.