Cole and All:

Have you come across the wonderful and famous quote from Wittgenstein on psychology at the end of his Philosophical Investigations?  Here it is.  It is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it:

“The confusion and barrenness of psychology is not to be explained by calling it a “young science”; its state is not comparable with that of physics, for instance, in its beginnings... For in psychology there are experimental methods and conceptual confusion... The existence of the experimental method makes us think we have the means of solving the problems which trouble us; though problem and method pass one another by” (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 1968, II xiv, 232e).

In my view, this quote is so deeply correct. I remember that once, in a department meeting, when the various members were talking about the problem of how to teach psychology when everyone in the department worked from a different theoretical perspective. One person in the department said something like, ‘“Yeah — but we are united by our methodology.” 

I remember thinking that that was such a revealing statement, about both his beliefs and about the status of scientific psychology.  Please hear me out: In my view, many psychologists trend to take a kind of naive realist view of the world.  I like to call this “verbal realism”.  We have a word — emotion, cognition, road rage — and we assume that the word refers to some thing in the world.  And if this is true, then I can find out about the thing by looking at it very carefully.  And if this is true, then methods become very important. I need very good (objective) methods in order to look at things in the world very carefully.  So the methods determine what I know.

But in our field, this is deeply wrong.  That is because “emotion”, “cognition” and “road rage” are not bounded entities in the world that I can see just by looking.  They are a priori concepts that define the thing that I am looking for and thus looking at.  So, I start with the concept, get an “operational definition” of the concept — which is structured entirely by the concept itself — and then measure the thing in the world in terms of that conceptually structured operational definition.  I then get my data and say: Look what I’ve found out about “emotion”, “cognition” or “road rage”.

The problem here is that the concepts that we typically use to structure our fancy experimental and statistical analyses are not well thought out beforehand.  We assume that we don’t have to think them through because thinking them through is not an empirical process!  As empiricists, we think we get our concepts by looking, not thinking!   This is what Wittgenstein means when he says, “The existence of the experimental method makes us think we have the means of solving the problems which trouble us”.  But that’s wrong.  As I’ve said above, in our field, the concepts structure what we look for — and unless we reflect on the a priori meanings of those concepts — in a thorough and philosophical way — as Wittgenstein says, although we have "experimental methods”, those methods will are based on "conceptual confusion”.  As a result, "problem and method pass one another by”.

This is the problem, in my view, of defining psychology or an area of psychology in terms of methodology.  The worst moment in psychology was when “scientific psychology”  severed itself from philosophy.  That’s what gave rise to the idea that we could learn something about psychological processes if only we looked closely enough — that is, if we had the right methods.  But, as the saying goes, “garbage in, garbage out.” 

If you’ve gotten this far, thanks for reading.

My Best,

Mike

Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.
Academic Director, Compass Program
Professor, Department of Psychology
Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845
978.837.3503 (office)
978.979.8745 (cell)

Political Conversations Study: www.CreatingCommonGround.org
Coaching and Author Website: www.michaelmascolo.com

"Things move, persons act." -- Kenneth Burke
"If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well." -- Donald Hebb

On Jul 21, 2020, at 4:32 PM, Cole Butler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Mike,

I would say that, more broadly, subdisciplines of psychology were discussed, but this was the general impression that I got from my work volunteering in research labs and through coursework. To answer your question, yes, all other psychologies were thought to be nested under the two broader domains of experimental and clinical. For example, the psychology program at the University I attended has its programs differentiated under these domains, see here. The idea: choose clinical or experimental, then choose your research area, then choose your mentor. Boom, now you're a psychologist. Of course, this is an oversimplification as well, but, again, these were the impressions that I derived from the graduate students and faculty members that I was talking to and learning from.

I think that it is difficult to parse these things apart, because the industry-specified gold standard of therapy (again, based on my experiences in undergraduate) has been defined as the Clinical Psychology PhD program; an all encompassing program that teaches the aspiring trainee the rigor of scientific methodology to ingrain a mentality of approaching mental illness through a lens of strong methodological evaluation and problem-solving. Therefore, those that wish to join these programs should choose a research topic that they can use to experientially acquire these skills. Some self-loathing individuals may choose to throw out most of the clinical components and dive full-on into the research as a clinical psychology professor. What's leftover is the much less competitive experimental psychology, for those with a strange penchant for research into human behavior, with no interest whatsoever in clinical skills or techniques.

Those in the clinical camp are mainly concerned with clinical research that feeds into their chosen field, paying little or no attention to other literatures, even if those are other literatures also share the title of "psychology research". Further, anything that doesn't fall under the term "research" at all surely holds no value, because it cannot be subject to the rigmarole of the scientific method. 

This is getting off-topic from the original thread, I realize, but just wanted to share these thoughts.

I like the titling of Scientific Psychology as a distinguisher of psychology that uses systematic inquiry. I think that the clinical designation is needed in some sense to signify clinical training. Though, I do also wish that psychology could be considered seriously by the Western world without being a strict "Scientific Psychology, Clinical designation" per se.

If anybody would like to tear apart these ideas, please do, it would be useful to me, hah!

Best,

Cole Butler
Research Coordinator
Project Coordinator: Treating Parents with ADHD and their Children (TPAC)
SUCCEEDS Coach
University of Maryland
2103W, Cole Field House | College Park, MD 20742
tel 301.405.6163


On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:58 PM Michael Mascolo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
HI Cole:

Thanks for your thoughts here, and for sharing your intellectual pain! 

Goodness!  Was this how it was described to you?  Experimental versus Clinical? And then, what: Are all of the other psychologies nested within either Experimental or Clinical? Goodness!

What should we call it? Well, I ask you: Why should experimental psychology exist?  This is not to say that experiments shouldn’t exist. But a psychology based on methodology is, in my view, a silly idea. 

What is the alternative to Clinical Psychology?  Well, there should be no “alternative” — no strong bifurcation.  If we need a name to call non-Clinical psychology, I suggest Scientific Psychology — where “Science” is defined very broadly to refer to refer to any form of systematic inquiry. 

Your thoughts?

M.





Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.
Academic Director, Compass Program
Professor, Department of Psychology
Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845
978.837.3503 (office)
978.979.8745 (cell)

Political Conversations Study: www.CreatingCommonGround.org
Coaching and Author Website: www.michaelmascolo.com

"Things move, persons act." -- Kenneth Burke
"If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well." -- Donald Hebb

On Jul 21, 2020, at 3:51 PM, Cole Butler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Mike, I agree with this point, but I wonder how we define what we generally think of as "experimental psychology" if we don't refer to it that way.

The way I learned it in undergrad is that you choose your camp: clinical psychology or experimental psychology. If you want to be a therapist, go clinical. If you want to do strange left-field experiments that seem to have no particular relevance to therapy, like quantifying and analyzing toddler verbalizations across development, choose "experimental psychology". 

This is not my view, but rather the way it was presented to me as an undergraduate. Of course, in this thread and in the context of Gregg's work, this is a radically over simplified and unnecessarily exclusive view. But, how is it that we think about these different "camps", when we fail to have a unifying definition? What of the people who want to do psychological research, but aren't concerned with clinical work? How are they defined? Are we causing more problems than we're solving by even issuing the label?

Best,

Cole Butler
Research Coordinator
Project Coordinator: Treating Parents with ADHD and their Children (TPAC)
SUCCEEDS Coach
University of Maryland
2103W, Cole Field House | College Park, MD 20742
tel 301.405.6163


On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:45 PM Michael Mascolo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
HI All:

How funny.  It is really interesting — the little adjectives that we put before the various divisions of Psychology.  They mark off our turf, and in so doing, they shut us off from ideas and perspectives that we need to hear about.

My favorite unfavorite little adjective + noun = “Experimental Psychology”.  Can you imagine!  Psychology defined by a method!  This is psychology that we organize around experiments!   Should we have Correlational Psychology?  Structural Equation Modeling Psychology?  At least Qualitative Psychology suggests a way of thinking about psychology — but here too, it is much the same.

My turf is better than your turf!

M.



Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.
Academic Director, Compass Program
Professor, Department of Psychology
Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845
978.837.3503 (office)
978.979.8745 (cell)

Political Conversations Study: www.CreatingCommonGround.org
Coaching and Author Website: www.michaelmascolo.com

"Things move, persons act." -- Kenneth Burke
"If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well." -- Donald Hebb

On Jul 21, 2020, at 3:28 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Blaine and Mike,
  The primary issue between us is not so much about Black Psychology as it was laid out in the blog, but in the way in which I wish psychology was conceptualized. Consider, for example, that I wish psychology was divided into the three branches of basic, human, and health service professional. This is defining the institution based on the metaphysical/metatheoretical structure of the unified framework. If we did that, the field’s divisions would look very different and the whole institution would be re-organized and the grammar of the way we use the word would shift. Black Human Psychology sounds weird, as does Industrial/Organizational Human Psychology.
 
Anyway, let me say that given the way the institution is currently structured, I support it.
 
Best,
Gregg
 
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Fowers, Blaine J
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Black Psychology?...and who has higher self-esteem in US? Blacks or Whites?
 
I should know to be careful of what I ask for. I joke with my students after giving long answers their questions that they got a professor's answer, are they glad they asked? They laugh and indulge me by saying they are glad.
 
Let me put some of my thoughts out there and see where the conversation goes. 
 
First, thanks for the trust, my friend.
 
Next, I'll say that I really like Prof Cokley's blog. It is very straightforward in making a case for his viewpoint in a relatively noncontentious way despite the contentiousness of the question.
 
I see the question of Black Psychology more similarly to Mike than to the position you outline, Gregg. The way I might put it is that the molecules don't care about the skin color, gender, etc. of the physicist, and the physicist's science is not terribly dependent on their position in society. (Physicists do treat one another differently based on skin color or gender though.)  In contrast, psychological research and practice are very dependent on the social position of the researcher or practitioner, both from the perspective of the professional and from the perspective of the research participant or client. As I see it, this is what the white chairpersons did not understand and what is central from Prof. Cokley's perspective.
 
Another way I am thinking about it is that Black Psychology is important because it is a psychology of humans who are part of a minority group that has been traumatized and discriminated against because of their membership in that group. My guess is that any group in that situation would find similar ways to live as well as they can, given how they are seen and treated. I think there would be parallels with many similar groups who have been systematically mistreated by a majority or by those in power. We might find interesting parallels with Uyghurs or Tibetans in China or Kurds in Turkey or Morrocans in France. I think that Black Psychology in the Western world can tell us about oppression and resilience in ways that studying white folks probably cannot.
 
So I don't see Black Psychology as something different from psychology as a whole. I'm thinking of it as a worthwhile specialization, but it is still examining an important part of the human experience in a particular context. I think all the other possible psychologies would also be special cases of the human experience. And I'm thinking that Black Psychology would look entirely different in an affluent society in which Black folks were in the majority and holding a good share of the power.
 
These are my thoughts of the moment. I'm interested in learning from others as well. I reserve the right to amend what I've said when I learn more.
 
All the best,
Blaine
 
Blaine J. Fowers, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Educational and
Psychological Studies
Merrick 312
5202 University Dr.
Coral Gables, FL 33146
305-284-5261 (o)
305-284-3003 (f)
 
 
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Mascolo, Michael <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Black Psychology?...and who has higher self-esteem in US? Blacks or Whites?
 
Hi Greg and all. Who this is a tough one. Actually not so tough. On the question of this is like black physics. No. A fundamental problem with psychology has been its difficult relation to culture. Psychology has often seen itself as trying to understand the mechanisms of the Mind on the one hand and then culture on the other. In this way of thinking culture becomes a variable. It is something to manipulate to see what its effect is on the individual person for the individual mind. The individual mind is one thing it's Universal Etc and culture is another thing if maybe variable and maybe differences between cultures or not.
 
This is a problem. Culture is not a mere variable. Culture is part and parcel of what it means to be human. There is not the mind and then also culture. Mind and culture make each other up. If that is so studying culture is not some adjunct to psychology it is for most it is part of the very process of psychology. And if that is true it becomes very important to talk about and study the different ways in which different cultures create different forms of minding if you will different mentalities. This makes it quite coherent to talk about black psychology or Asian psychology or Etc.
 
There are indeed social constructionist views that embrace the idea of indigenous psychologies. Three of these psychologists make sense. Speak of Indian psychology as in India. Indian psychology has an entire way of parsing the psychological world that is similar in some ways but also very different from the Western ways of doing. We can learn a lot from them and they can learn a lot from us perhaps. But there is not psychology on the one hand say Western psychology on the other end and then also Indian psychology or Indian indigenous psychology that would be to marginalize the Indian way of thinking. We need these indigenous psychology's it seems to me that we need to have a conversation amongst them and between them in order to make up the whole of psychology.
 
And this way it seems to me that a black psychology would not be an alternative psychology it would just be either the cultural the culture of of the Black Culture if you will how it creates individuals or it would be the psychic Lisa caught one of many different forms of indigenous psychology's that are in dialogue with each other.
 
My best,
 
Mike
 
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 1:05 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Blaine,
 
  I certainly do trust you, and absolutely did not worry about this being a “gotcha” question. So far, the TOK has been a place of good faith dialogue and mutual respect and I expect that to continue until I see evidence of the contrary.
 
Lots to unpack here, which I why I simply left it open ended 😊. But, since you asked, let me offer some reflections.
 
  The first issue has to do with one’s philosophy of psychology and the kind and identity of the institution of Psychology. If we adopt a broad, social constructionist view of the field of what psychology is, and we embrace the idea that as an institution, Psychology (with a capital P) should let a 1000 flowers bloom (to use a term by the historian Ludy Benjamin), then I am all for the idea and division of Black Psychology. It represents an important voice in the tapestry of voices. Of course, a problem with this is that we can now basically have a psychology of anything, but that is a separate issue than I want to tackle.
 
  But if we adopt a more modern, natural, empirical science version of what psychology is, then the idea of Black psychology would be akin to Black physics, Black chemistry or Black biology. This is what I think the Department Heads that were referenced in the blog were potentially getting at in a perhaps insensitive way. Now, we can explore the lives of black physicists (I recommend this podcast with Coleman Hughes and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, where Tyson discusses a meeting of Black physicists), but I hope that the idea of a Black science of physics would rub us all the wrong way for obvious reasons.  So, that is the analogy I would draw here, and from it we can see where there might be problems. That is, clearly we want psychologists studying the unique experiences, cultures and lives of Black Americans (or whatever ethic group, as I did in for my masters thesis), and we want associations for folks to co-mingle who feel marginalized. Things get fuzzy/complicated/problematic if we differentiate Black psychology from White psychology, where the former is a different kind of science or body of knowledge or epistemology or whatever the defining features of the discipline are taken to be.
 From a unified metapsychology view, the basic science of psychology should be defined as the science of mental behavior, or Mind, defined as the third dimension of behavioral complexity (or plane of existence). Human psychology is a basic scientific discipline that resides at the base of the social sciences. Basic and human psychology are no more “white” sciences than physics is a Black science in this conception.
 
 The bottom line is that the word psychology has an almost infinite set of meanings attached to it. One of the reasons I offer and advocate for the ToK System is that it provides a conceptual language system that allows for a coherent science of psychology to emerge. This is argued to be a transcendent Cultural view; i.e., unlike claims of the more strident postmodern constructionist epistemologies, it argues that such a position on the human condition can be taken and one can do so analytically in away that steps out of the stream of socio-cultural justification. From this vantage point, the idea of Black Psychology or, for that matter, Police Psychology, is an artefact of a time when psychology was pre-paradigmatic. Now that we can obtain a full transparadigmatic view, such identities will fade and the proper foundational conception of psychology/Psychology will find is root and grow in the (metamodern) Garden of ideas 😊.
 
  Hope this clarifies, as these are the main issues as I see them. Let me know if questions or concerns emerge.
 
Best,
Gregg
 
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Fowers, Blaine J
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 12:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Black Psychology?...and who has higher self-esteem in US? Blacks or Whites?
 
I should clarify the question I asked Gregg a moment ago. Gregg knows me, and I think trusts me, but most people on the list do not know me and might be wondering if I'm trying to do some kind of "gotcha" thing. Just to be clear, I'm not about "gotcha" at all. 
 
The question is just part of my process of learning much more about Black psychology as a white, cisgender, 63 year old male. This blog just seems like a great opportunity to learn for many of us.
 
All the best,
Blaine
 
Blaine J. Fowers, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Educational and
Psychological Studies
Merrick 312
5202 University Dr.
Coral Gables, FL 33146
305-284-5261 (o)
305-284-3003 (f)
 
 
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Black Psychology?...and who has higher self-esteem in US? Blacks or Whites?
 

Here is an interesting blog that I confess to having mixed reactions to:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/black-psychology-matters/202007/why-black-psychology-matters

 

It really gets deeply at the question of “What is Psychology? What Should it Be?”

 

Although a bit of an aside, the blog reminds me of an interesting fact that I think should probably be better known than it is, as I learned about it during conducting research for my masters thesis. It is the fact that of all the various ethnic groups routinely studied in the US, Blacks tend to score the highest on self-esteem. Here is a 1990s publication from my work on my masters thesis, which found this to be the case, although I was not looking for it. Here is a more recent 2010s replication.

 

I would be curious to hear if folks have ideas about why this might be the case. I have some notions, but have not seen a systematic analysis that seems to make sense of all the threads.


Best,
Gregg  

___________________________________________

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)


Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.

Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge

 

Check out my webpage at:

www.gregghenriques.com

 

 

 

############################ 

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################ 

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################ 

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################ 

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################ 

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1


############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1


############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1


############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1