Chapter 5 Chapter 1 Psychology is full of vitality (both sides in the science camp)
Stop 100 random people on the street, ask them to name a living or deceased psychologist, and write down their answers.No doubt they were referring to Dr. Pha, Wayne Dyer, and other "media psychologists."If we exclude such media and popular psychologists and consider only those psychologists who have made outstanding contributions to psychology, the results of this informal survey are hardly suspenseful. - Sigmund Sigmund Freud would be at the top of the list, with BF Skinner probably coming in second, but far behind Freud.No other psychologist is famous enough to challenge these two.So it can be said that Freud and those popular psychology who frequently appeared in the media jointly defined psychology in the public mind.
Freud's reputation has spread far and wide, which has greatly influenced the concept of psychology in the minds of the general public, and at the same time created many misunderstandings in understanding.For example, many new psychology students will be surprised to find that if the number of APA (American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association) members who agree with Freudian psychoanalysis is counted, their number does not account for the total number of members. 10% of.In the other major psychological organization APS (Association for Psychological Science, American Psychological Association), the proportion will not be higher than 5%.
Modern psychology is not swayed or defined by the theories of Sigmund Freud the way the media and some of the humanities are.Freud's work accounts for only a very small part of the large number of research topics, data and theories that modern psychologists focus on, and the five recent Nobel Prize winners account for a greater proportion of these studies and theories Laureate for work: David Huber, Daniel Kahneman, Herbert Simon, Roger Sperry, and Torsten Torsten Wiesel and Richard Atkinson, the former head of the National Science Foundation, whose names, however, are relatively unknown to the public.
It is bad enough that Freud's importance to modern psychology is infinitely exaggerated.To make matters worse, Freud's method of investigation is completely inaccurate of how modern psychologists conduct their research (Freud began his famous work more than a hundred years ago).In fact, Freudian research methods completely mislead people's impression of psychological research.For example, Freud did not use controlled experiments, which, as we will see in Chapter 6, are the most powerful weapon in the modern psychologist's arsenal.Freud believed that case studies were sufficient to prove a theory true or false, and in Chapter 4 we will talk about why this idea is wrong.Finally, the biggest problem in Freud's work is the link between theory and research data.As we will see in Chapter 2, for a scientific theory to link theory and research data there must be certain criteria that Freud's theories often fail to meet (Crews, 1996, 1998; Hines, 2003; Macmillan, 1997; Mc Cu Uough, 2001; Watters & Ofshe, 1999).In short, Freud built an elaborate theory based on the data he got (case studies and introspection), which were not sufficient to support it; he focused on building complex theoretical frameworks, but did not There is no assurance that these theories are based on reliable, repeatable cause-and-effect relationships, as many modern psychologists do.In short, people are too familiar with Freudian work, which seriously hinders their proper understanding of modern psychology.
In this chapter, we will take two approaches to solving the "Freudian problem".First, when we show the diversity of modern psychology, it becomes very clear that Freud's work is actually very small (see Haggbloom et al. 2002: Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, 2000).Second, we'll discuss which traits are most prevalent across the broad and varied range of psychological research.An outdated knowledge of Freud's work has blinded the general public to the single, universal trait shared by modern psychology: the scientific approach to understanding behavior.
In fact, modern psychology encompasses a huge variety of content and perspectives.This variety makes psychology as a discipline seem less cohesive.Henry Gleitman, winner of the American Psychological Foundation's Distinguished Teaching Award (1981), described psychology as "a loosely knit academic kingdom straddling the biological and social sciences" ( p.774).
Knowing that psychology has an astounding breadth and variety of methods of inquiry is crucial to understanding the nature of psychology.This can be demonstrated simply by citing some specific indicators: The American Psychological Association (APA) has 53 divisions, each of which represents a specific area of research or application (see Table 1.1).From the table, you can see the richness and diversity of psychology research topics, research backgrounds and research methods.Another large psychological organization, the American Psychological Association (APS), is equally diverse.In fact, Table 1.1's description of the diversity in the field of psychology is relatively conservative, because it gives us the impression that each branch is a specific professional field.In fact, each of the S3 subdivisions is a very broad field of study, with countless smaller subdivisions!In short, it is very difficult to exhaust the diversity of topics in the field of psychology.
1. General Psychology
2. Teaching of Psychology
3. Eerimental Psychology
5. Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics
6. Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology
7. Developmental Psychology
8. Personality and Social Psychology
9. Psychological Study of Social Issues
10. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
12. Clinical Psychology
13. Applied Consulting Psychology
14. Industrial and Organizational Psychology
15. Educational Psychology
16. School Psychology
17. Counseling Psychology
18. Psychologists in Public Service
19. Military Psychology
20. Adult Development and Aging
21. Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology
22. RehabaJitation Psychology
23. Consumer Psychology
24. Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology
25. Behavior Analysis
26. History of Psychology
27. Community Psychology
28. Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse
29. Psychotherapy
30. Psychological Hypnosis (Psydbological Hypnosis)
31. State Psychological Association Affairs
32. Humanistic Psychology
33. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
34. Population and Environmental Psychology
35. Psychology of Women
36. Psychology of Religion.
37. Child, Youth, and Family Services
38. Health Psychology
39. Psychoanalysis
40. Clinical Neuropsychology
41. Psychology and Law
42. Psychologists in Independent Practice
43. Family Psychology
44. Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues
45. Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues
46. Media Psychology
47. Exercise and Sport Psychology
48. Peace Psychology
49. Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy
50. Addiction
51. Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity
52. International Psychology
53. Clinical Child Psychology and Adolescent Psychology
54. Pediatric Psychology
55. Pharmacotherapy
Note: There are no branches 4 and 11.
Many people study psychology hoping to learn a grand set of psychological theories that can summarize and explain all aspects of human behavior and consciousness.But such hopes are always frustrated because psychology is made up not of one grand set of theories but of many different theories, each of which can explain only limited aspects of behavior (Benjamin, 2001; Griggs, Proctor, & Bujak-Johnson, 2002; Zechmeister & Zechmeister, 2002).The diversity of psychology makes theoretical integration extremely difficult.In fact, in the eyes of many psychologists, "integration" itself is "mission impossible".Nonetheless, other psychologists are seeking theoretical integration within the field (Henriques, 2003, 2004; Kenrick, 2001; Kimble, 1999; Sternberg, 2005).For example, the past 10 years have seen increased disciplinary unity in psychology, thanks to the efforts of evolutionary psychologists.These researchers view human mental processes as mechanisms serving important evolutionary functions such as kinship recognition, mate selection, cooperation, social exchange, and offspring rearing (Barrett, Dunbar, & Lycett, 2002; Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002; Buss, 2003; Cosmides & Tooby, 2000; Geary, 2005; Pinker, 2002), and tried to achieve conceptual integration.
Whatever the psychologist's position on the unity of psychological themes, however, they acknowledge that the integration of theories is extremely difficult, if ever possible.The lack of theoretical integration has drawn some criticism of psychology, belittling its progress as a science.This type of criticism stems from the erroneous notion that all true science must have a grand, unified theory.The reason why it is wrong is that it ignores the fact that other sciences also lack a complete and unified conceptual system.Harvard psychologist William Estes (1979) has already emphasized this point:
In fact, psychology is so polarized that you can easily imagine that if a university dropped the psychology department, it would be very easy to send members of the psychology department to other departments.Physiological psychologists can go to the biology department; social psychologists can go to the sociology department; cognitive psychologists can go to the interdisciplinary departments of cognitive science; industrial and organizational psychologists can go to business schools; clinical and counseling psychology Psychologists can go to social work, human resources, and education departments; developmental psychologists can go to education, cognitive science, or human resources departments, and so on.These psychologists find little isolation in their academic exchanges with new colleagues.In fact, many psychologists find their new colleagues easier to work with instead.In terms of content, modern psychology is by no means just a simple unity of multiple subjects, and people must look for factors that integrate this discipline at a higher level.
Once we understand the social and historical factors that determine the structure of a discipline, we can see that it is illogical to demand a high degree of uniformity across all fields.In fact, the term "psychological research" more accurately reflects the diversity of the discipline than the term "psychology."And using "Psychological Research" will stop students from being surprised by the disparate rates of scientific progress in different areas of the same discipline—some areas have made remarkable achievements in explaining and predicting behavior, while others have not achieved much. . The word "psychology" obviously cannot carry and convey this fact of differentiation. On the contrary, the connotation of "unity" it expresses is precisely what this discipline does not possess.
If we are trying to find unity among the subjects of psychological research, then instead of continuing to look for so-called connections between the contents of psychological research, we should focus on the methods psychologists use to acquire new knowledge.This is the only place where we can hope to find commonality among psychologists.But even in the field of methods there are still some deep misconceptions about the discipline.
Simply saying that psychology is the science of human behavior does not distinguish it from other disciplines.Many other professional groups and disciplines—including economists, novelists, law, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and literary studies—are concerned in one way or another with human behaviour, and psychology is not alone in this respect .
Appliedness doesn't justify anything unique to psychology either.For example, many college students choose to major in psychology because they have a noble goal of helping others.But in many fields, such as social work, education, nursing, career counseling, physical therapy, police science, human resources, and speech therapy, "helping others" is an important part of it.Likewise, "helping others by counseling" is an important part of many other fields, including education, social work, policing, nursing, clergy work, career counseling, and more.There is no need for a separate discipline called "psychology" to train applied professionals who help others through counseling.
There are only two points that prove that psychology is a separate discipline.First, the study of psychology uses the scientific method to investigate all human and animal behavior; second, the practical applications derived from this knowledge are scientifically based.If this were not the case, psychology would lose its raison d'être.
What sets psychology apart from other behavioral research fields is that it tries to assure the public of two things: first, that conclusions about behavior in psychology are backed by scientific evidence; tested by the scientific method.Has psychology ever strayed from these two goals?There was, and often was (Lilienfeld, Lynn, ScLohr, 2003; Loftus & Guyer, 2002; Lynn, Loftus, Lilienfeld, & Lock, 2003; Mook, 2001; Watters & Ofshe, 1999).This book is about how to better achieve these two goals.In Chapter 12 I will return to this theme—that some psychologists have self-injured their legitimacy as psychologists by not adhering to proper scientific standards.But, in principle, scientificity is precisely the criterion that warrants psychology as an independent discipline.If psychology no longer pursues these goals—that is, it no longer wants to adhere to scientific standards” then it should shut down and relinquish its focus to those other disciplines mentioned earlier—because it has already done so. has become a completely redundant area of knowledge.
Undoubtedly, the first and crucial step for anyone who wants to understand psychology is to realize that psychology is first and foremost characterized as the data-based scientific study of behaviour.An understanding of this fact and all its implications will be found throughout this book, because it is the most fundamental way we get to know real psychology.Conversely, the reason why people have various deviations in their understanding of psychology is precisely because they fail to realize that it is a scientific study.For example, we often hear people outside of academic circles claim that psychology is not a science.Why is there such a misunderstanding?
Attempts to convince the public that psychology cannot be a science have come about in various contexts.As we will discuss in later chapters, many misconceptions about psychology are deliberately created by agents of pseudo-psychology.In our society, a huge industry is emerging that operates pseudoscientific belief systems that have a vested interest in convincing the public that everything fits under the umbrella of psychology, and that psychology Claims cannot be measured by rational standards.This undoubtedly creates the perfect atmosphere for the marketing of "hypnosis for weight loss," "stimulation of latent psychic energy," "learn French while you sleep," and many others in the multimillion-dollar "psychological self-help" industry.Such approaches are either not based on scientific evidence or (in many cases) conflict with existing evidence.
Another rejection of scientific psychology stems from some people's reluctance to see science enter areas long ruled by unquestioned authority or "common sense."History is full of examples of people rejecting science, preferring to use philosophical musings, theological oracles, or worldly wisdom to explain the real world.Every science goes through a stage of being hindered.Galileo's intellectual contemporaries refused to peer into the sky through his new telescope because "the existence of moons of Jupiter" upended their philosophical and theological beliefs.The development of human anatomy has faltered for centuries because of secular and religious prohibitions on dissecting human cadavers (Christians believe that the interior of the body is "God's domain", see Grice, 2001).Charles Darwin has always been lambasted.Paul Broca's Society of Anthropology was boycotted in France because it was believed that knowledge of humans would subvert the state.
Every step forward in knowledge about man sparks a revolt.However, when people begin to realize that science does not desecrate humanity through investigation and research, but promotes self-realization of human beings by expanding knowledge, the resistance will eventually disappear.Who still thinks that galaxy maps and the complex theory that the universe is made up of countless stars will destroy our yearning for the universe?Who would choose a health care system that bans human dissection and thus rejects modern health care from the community?Positive attitudes to the planet and the human body do not dehumanize.More recently, Darwin's system of evolution laid the groundwork for remarkable advances in genetics and biology.But as we get closer to the essence and origin of humanity, remnants of resistance remain.In the United States, religious advocates continue to exert pressure to introduce "creationism" in public schools; meanwhile, surveys show that a large percentage (in some surveys, majorities) of the public do not accept that "human beings are Evolved by natural selection" is a scientific fact (Lemr, 2005).Evolutionary biology has an innumerable record of brilliant scientific achievements, and is still ostracized by the public today.In this light, is it any wonder that psychology, a new science that aims to subject all inherent beliefs about human beings to scientific scrutiny, is now eliciting denials of its validity? ?
In order to understand what psychology is, we must understand what science is.Perhaps we can start with "what is not science".In this way, we can get rid of most common misconceptions.First, science is not defined by content.Any aspect of the universe is fair game for the development of a scientific discipline, including of course all aspects of human behaviour.We cannot divide everything in the universe into "scientific" and "non-scientific".Although there have been powerful forces throughout history that have tried to exclude humans from the scope of scientific research, they have, as we have seen, failed.The refusal to treat psychology as a scientific discipline may represent a remnant of this historical debate.
Nor can science be defined in terms of the use of specific experimental equipment.Science is not defined by test tubes, computers, electronic devices, or a researcher's white coat (even if these were the yardstick, psychology's scientific status would be unassailable, because all university psychology departments are filled with computers, pharmaceuticals, and electronic devices of all kinds. equipment).These are appendages of science rather than its essential features.Science is a way of thinking about and seeing things in order to gain a deep understanding of how they work.
In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss three interrelated important features of science: (1) applied systematic positivism; (2) generating public knowledge; and (3) validating solvable problems.Although we will examine each feature individually, keep in mind that these three feature together form an interconnected whole. (For a more detailed discussion of general features of science, see Bronowski, Coumaud, Medawar, Popper, Raymo, and Sagan listed in the References section at the end of the book.)
Look up "positivism" in any dictionary and you'll find it means "practice based on observation."Scientists find the laws of the world through verification.This fact may seem obvious to you, and it is the result of the spread of scientific attitudes over the past two centuries.In the past, it wasn't obvious.Recall the person who was reluctant to look at the stars through Galileo's telescope.It has long been believed that the best way to acquire knowledge is through pure thought or appeal to authority.Galileo claimed to have seen moons orbiting Jupiter.Another scholar, Francesco Sm, attempted to refute Galileo, not by observation, but by the following statement:
, and the unknown but irrelevant Mercury.From this, and from countless other similar natural phenomena, such as the seven metals, etc., we may conclude that the planets must be seven... Besides, the Jews and other ancient peoples divided the week into seven days, and Named after the seven planets; if we increase the number of planets now, it will lead to the collapse of the entire system... Furthermore, satellites cannot be seen with the naked eye, so they have no effect on the earth, and since they are useless, they do not exist. (Hokon & Roller, 1958, p.160)
The point is not that the above statement is so stupid and ridiculous, but that it is regarded as a counterargument against real observation!Today we laugh at it because we are all hindsight.For three centuries, the empirical orientation of proven strength has made us stronger than poor Sitch.Had it not been for those years of positivism, many of us would probably be nodding and praising him.Indeed, the empirical orientation is not necessarily obvious, which is why we often have to emphasize it, even in a society where science dominates.
But pure, singular positivism is not enough.Note that the title of this chapter is "Systematic Positivism".Observation is fine and necessary, but mere, unstructured observation of the natural world does not lead to scientific knowledge.If you write down everything you observe throughout the day from the time you wake up to the time you go to bed, you'll have a lot of facts when you do the task, but that alone won't give you a better understanding of the world.Scientific observation is called "systematic" because it is structured, and the observed results reveal something about the underlying nature of the natural world.
Scientific observations are usually theory-driven; they test various explanatory views about the world.They are structured so that, based on observations, decisions can be made about which theories are supported and which are rejected.
In a special sense, scientific knowledge is public.Of course, it doesn't mean that posting scientific findings on community bulletin boards is "public".We refer to the fact that scientific knowledge does not exist alone in the mind of a particular individual.In an important sense, scientific knowledge does not exist until it is submitted to the scientific community, criticized and verified by others."Special" knowledge that is deemed to belong to a particular individual's thought process and is not open to scrutiny and criticism by others can never achieve the status of scientific knowledge.
Science realizes its idea of public testability through reproducibility.For a discovery to be accepted in the scientific community, it must be presented to the scientific community in a way that enables other scientists to try the same experiments and get the same results.When this is all done, we can say that the discovery is reproducible.Scientists use reproducibility to define public knowledge.Reproducibility ensures that a particular finding is not due to error or bias of individual investigators.In short, for a discovery to be accepted by the scientific community, it must be repeatable by someone other than the original investigator.When a discovery is presented in this way, it becomes public.It is no longer privately owned by the original researcher; it can be captured, extended, critiqued, or applied in their own way by others.
The poet John Donne told us that "no man is an island".In science, no researcher is an island.Every researcher is connected to the scientific community and its knowledge base.It is this interconnection that allows science to develop cumulatively.Researchers continue to make new explorations on the basis of original knowledge, and strive to go beyond the known.The premise of this process is that prior knowledge is stated in such a way that any researcher can base his explorations on it.
Public, testable knowledge means that we can submit research findings to the scientific community, where anyone in the community can replicate, criticize, or expand on them.This criterion is most important not only for scientists but also for laymen as consumers who have to evaluate scientific information from the media.As we will see in Chapter 12, one of the main things that separates pseudoscience charlatans from true scientists is that the former often avoid the usual channels of scientific publication, opting instead to publish their work directly through the media. "Find".When the public is confronted with scientific discoveries of dubious authenticity, a time-tested and irrefutable standard is to examine whether these discoveries have been published in recognized scientific journals and whether they have been peer-reviewed?The answer to this question can often distinguish between "Li Gui" and "Li Kui".
Peer review means that every article submitted to a journal has to be reviewed by several scientists, and the criticisms are submitted to the editor (usually an expert with senior research experience in a certain field covered by the journal), and then The editor weighs these comments and decides whether the article can be published immediately, requires further experimental research and statistical analysis, or rejects it because it is flawed or of low value.Most journals include an editorial policy statement with each issue, so it's easy to know if a journal has been peer-reviewed.
Not all information in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is necessarily correct, but at least it has met the standards of peer criticism and oversight.This is a minimum standard, not a strict one, as there are dozens of journals of varying quality in most subject areas.Most scientific ideas can be published formally in some places, provided they meet some basic criteria.It is a mistake to think that only a small fraction of the data and theories get published in the scientific community.When charlatans in psychological aid or therapy try to convince the media and the public, they often imply that a so-called "orthodox science" conspiracy keeps them out of the scientific publishing pipeline.But, if you think about it for a moment, how many such legitimate outlets exist in the field of psychology.The publication Psychological Abstracts lists abstracts of articles from more than 1,000 different journals.Most of these journals are peer-reviewed.Almost all theories and experiments to be tested can find their way in so many publications.
Again, I don't think all opinions in all journals cited in Psychology Abstracts are necessarily correct.On the contrary, as I have emphasized before, publication is only a minimum standard.
The point is, however, that any idea, a theory, a claim, or a therapy that is not properly captured in the peer-reviewed disciplinary literature is clearly a problem.Especially when a claim lacks evidence and is accompanied by a media campaign, the idea, theory or therapy is clearly deceitful.For example, in a well-known 2005 Pennsylvania lawsuit in which someone tried to teach creationism in school biology classes, a witness advocating the idea of intelligent design (a form of creationism) said he had difficulty citing any Peer-reviewed research on intellectual design, even though the movement has been around for more than a decade (Talbot, 2005, p.68).
Peer review mechanisms vary across disciplines, but the underlying idea is the same.Peer review is one way science institutionalizes standards of objectivity and public review (the other being repeated validation).Ideas and experiments are presented to other evaluators through a process of careful consideration.Only ideas that pass this rigorous process meet the criteria for public verification.The peer review process is by no means perfect, but it is the only protection mechanism for us consumers.To ignore or belittle it is to allow ourselves to be at the mercy of a vast pseudoscience industry that is extremely adept at manipulating the media to its own ends (see Chapter 12).In subsequent chapters, we discuss in more detail how costly we pay for ignoring the checks and balances inherent in the practice of these psychological sciences.
Science deals with solvable, identifiable and concrete problems.This means that scientists are working to solve problems of a type that can be answered through existing empirical techniques.If the problem is unsolvable or the theory cannot be verified under the current empirical technical conditions, scientists will not conduct research on it.For example, "Are 3-year-olds who are given structured language stimuli during daycare more ready to receive instruction in reading earlier than those who are not given these additional stimuli?" is a scientific question, because in Under existing empirical methods, this is a solvable problem. "Human nature is inherently good or inherently evil?" is not a verifiable question, so it does not belong to the field of science. "What is the meaning of life?" is likewise not an empirical question, and therefore not part of the realm of science.
Science advances by proposing theories to explain specific phenomena in the world, making predictions based on those theories, testing those hypotheses empirically, and revising the theories based on the results of the tests (usually in the order: theory-prediction-test-revision) .So for scientists, the term "solvable problem" usually means "testable theory".What kind of theory is considered "testable"?The theory must have a specific connection to observable events in the real world, which is what is meant by "empirically testable".The testability criterion is often called the falsification criterion in academic circles, and it is the subject of Chapter 2 of this book.
When we say that scientists solve empirically solvable problems, we do not mean that among different classes of problems, some are inherently solvable while others are doomed to be unsolvable, and that this distinction is fixed.On the contrary, some problems that cannot be solved at present will become solvable when the theory and empirical technology are more advanced.For example, 20 years ago, no historian would have considered the controversial topic of whether Thomas Jefferson fathered one of her children with his slave Sally Hemings to be an empirically solvable question.However, in the 1990s, due to the advancement of genetic technology, this problem has become solvable. An article published in the journal Nature (Foster et al., 1998) pointed out that Jefferson is most likely Eston Heming Jefferson's father.
This is how science develops and new sciences are born.But there is always a huge disagreement about what is currently solvable.Because it involves issues that are in a state of ambiguity, scientists themselves cannot agree on this point.Thus, although all scientists agree on the solvability criterion, they may disagree on its particular application.诺贝尔文学奖得主彼得·密达沃（Peter Medawar）就曾把他的一本书定名为《可解的艺术》（The Art of the Soluble, 1967），并在书中指出，科学的一部分创造力就在于寻找处于人类知识最前沿、并可以用实证技术加以解决的问题。
心理学本身就提供了许多从无解到可解的好例子。有许多问题，诸如“一个孩子如何获得其父母的语言？”，“为什么我们会忘记我们曾经知道的事情？”，“身处一个群体中会如何改变一个人的行为和思想呢？”等，在人们意识到可以以实证的方法来解答之前的几个世纪里，都只能被猜想而已。随着这一认识的慢慢发展，心理学逐渐集合了来自各个领域中关于行为的各种问题。心理学科逐渐脱离哲学，并成为了一门独立的实证科学。
认知心理学家史蒂芬·平克尔（Stephen Pinker，1997）讨论了“未知”可以划分为“问题”或“玄谜”。如果是“问题”，我们知道其答案是能找到的，即使我们目前还没有答案，我们也知道它大概是什么样子。如果是“玄谜”，我们甚至不能想象答案可能会是什么样子。利用这些术语，我们可以看到，科学就是将玄谜变为问题的过程。事实上，平克尔（1997）指出，他之所以要写《头脑如何工作》（How the Mind Works）这本书，正是因为“从心理表象到浪漫的爱情，几十个心理和思维方面的玄谜最近已经升级为问题了”（p.9）。
我们每个人都有一套固有的行为模型，这些模型影响我们的交往以及我们如何看待自己和他人。事实上，一些社会、人格和认知心理学家正在探究这些内隐的心理学理论的本质。我们很少会清晰并有逻辑地表达我们的理论。相反，我们通常只有在特意关注它们或者发现它们受到某种挑战时，才会意识到它们的存在。其实，我们个人的行为模型并不像真正的理论那样具有内部一致性，相反，当我们觉得需要对行为作出解释时，往往搬出一箩筐关于人类行为的普遍真理、说教及谚语。这些关于行为的常识存在一个问题，它们之中有不少是自相矛盾的，因此也是不可证伪的（证伪原则是下一章的主题）。
人们爱用一些民间谙语来解释行为事件，即使之前在解释同一类型的事件时曾用过与之完全矛盾的谤语。例如，我们中的大多数人都听到或说过“三思而后行”——若不是我依稀记得之前有人告诫说“该出手时就出手”，我还会觉得这是个有用的、直接的行为建议呢。“小别胜新婚”明确预测了一种对于事件的情绪反应，但“眼不见，心不烦”不也同样如此吗？如果“欲速则不达”，为什么又说“时不我待”？既然“三个臭皮匠，顶个诸葛亮”，为什么又说“三个和尚没水吃”？如果我认为“行走江湖，安全第一”，为什么也相信“不入虎穴，焉得虎子”？如果“异性相吸”，为什么又“物以类聚”？我劝许多学生“今日事今日毕”，但我希望没跟我刚刚指导过的那个学生说过这番话，因为我刚还跟他说“要顺其自然”。
这类谤语和俗话构成了对行为的固有“解释”，人们爱用它们，就是因为它们难以驳倒。不管发生什么事，都可以拿一条出来解释一番。难怪我们都认为自己是判断他人行为和人格的高手。天底下发生的事我们都能解释。
所以，有时我们固有的心理理论不容反驳。我们将在下一章中看到为什么这种不可反驳性造成了理论的失效。然而，即使我们的世俗观念有一些特定用处，甚至是经验可证的，也会产生问题。问题在于，心理学研究表明，在接受实证检验后，许多关于行为的普遍文化信念都被证明是错误的。举个例子，“工作经验对于高中生是有价值的”是一个普遍信念。大多数美国成年人认为，青少年边打工边上学是一件好事，因为：（1）他们能赚钱，支付自己未来的学费及家庭开销；（2）他们能建立“职业道德”，使得他们在将来能够成为更具责任感的员工；（3）他们会对我们的经济体系产生更大的尊重；（4）由于已经融人了经济体系，他们会成为更有动力的学生。
发展心理学家们就打工对中学生行为、态度及学业成绩的影响进行了广泛研究（Sternberg，Brown, & Dornbusch, 1996）。他们发现，基本上我们所有关于青少年打工的文化信念都是错误的。一个十几岁的孩子打工所赚的钱中，只有极少量用于帮助家庭开支或继续学习。绝大多数收入花在了炫富或满足电视广告制造出的“需求”上。上学打工会对学生的教育及教育体验造成损害。最有趣的是，工作经验使青少年更加玩世不恭，不尊重工作及其在经济体系中的价值。在一项研究中，打工的青少年比不打工的青少年更可能赞同“疯子才会玩命工作”和“天下没有哪家公司会关心员工”等目论（Greenberg & Sternberg, 1986）。最后，在回顾了这方面的研究之后，研究者得出结论：“打工似乎有可能引发而不是阻止了某些形式的不正当行为”（p.6）。看来，我们炮制了大量有关青少年打工价值的文化神话。“塑造品格”、“培养金钱观念”这类说辞都是虚假的。这类陈词滥调其实属于民间传说，是人类学家在欠发达国家从事研究时所感兴趣的——这些传说使我们感觉良好，也使当前文化习俗变得合理，但没有任何事实依据。
性俗观念（或称“常识”）出现谬误的例子俯拾皆是。比如说，有一种说法是，学习好或读书多的孩子都不擅长交际和体育。这个观点虽然错得离谱，但在当今社会上极为流行。有大量证据表明，与“常识”世俗观念相反，爱读书的人和追求学术成就者与不读书者相比，有着更强健的体魄，而且更常参与社交活动（Gage & Berliner, 1984, pp.18-19; Zill & Winglee, 1990）。再比如，学习成绩好的儿童比学习成绩差的更容易被同伴接纳。读书多的人比不读书者更愿意运动、慢跑、露营、远足、维修汽车等。
许多关于行为的世俗观念一经产生便生生不息。例如，20世纪90年代风行于社会和学校的一个世俗观念是，低自尊导致攻击行为。但实证研究显示，攻击行为和低自尊并无关联。相反，攻击行为似乎往往与高自尊相关（Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell, 2000）。同样，上世纪90年代有一个非常流行的假说认为，低自尊导致学习成绩出现问题。事实上，自尊和学习成绩之间的真正关系可能与教育工作者和家长的假设恰相反，是在校成绩（以及生活的其他方面）的优秀导致了高自尊，而非后者引起了前者。（Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003; Stout, 2000）
雷德福（Redford, 1999）讨论了“人类只使用了其大脑的百分之十”这一民间信念。尽管完全缺乏认知神经科学的支持（见Beyerstein, 1999; Higbee & Clay, 1998），这一观点已存在了几十年，且俨然已成为所谓的“心理学公理”。雷德福援引了专栏作家罗伯特·萨缪尔森（Robert Samuelson）对“心理学公理”的定义：“虽然没有确凿的证据支持，却因不断的重复、改变了我们体验生活的方式，而被当成事实的那些信念”（p.S3）。
世俗观念并不总是不受事实的制约。有时，当与之矛盾的事实广为人知时，世俗心理学（“常识”）也会改变。例如，几年前，一个广为流传的有关儿童的俗语是“熟得早，衰得快”（Fancher，1985，p.141）。这条俗语反映了“童年早熟与成年异常存在关联”这一信念，这一信念得到了许多“小时神童，长大害人”的例子的支持。但在这件事上，心理学证据证明上述俗语不准确，这一结论已被大众文化所吸收，所以你以后几乎不大会再听到更多这样的世俗“智慧”了。
最后这个例子是一个警告，提醒我们注意今日的“常识”，因为不难看出，昨日的常识往往变成今天的谬论。毕竟，常识就是“尽人皆知的知识”，对吧？right.那么，妇女不能投票，对吧？非裔美国人不应该接受教育，对吧？残障人士不该在社会里出现而应当被送到收容所去，对吧？事实上，150年前，这些观念都是尽人皆知的常识。当然，我们现在视这些过去的常识为谬论，都是些以完全未经证实的假设为基础的信念。但是，从这些例子中，我们可以看到心理学在常识面前扮演的关键角色。常识总是基于一些假设，而心理学对这些假设的经验基础进行检验。正如我们之前看到的许多例子，有时候假设得不到实证支持。这样的例子还有很多，通过它们，我们可以看到，心理学扮演着一种世俗智慧检验者的角色，常常难免和诸多根深蒂固的文化信念发生冲突。心理学往往是“传递坏消息的信使”，宣告原本为人们所接受的世俗观念再无立足之地。这就不难理解，为什么许多人不仅无视这些消息，还想消灭这些信使。
建立在实证基础上的心理学始终存在反对意见。仅仅100年前，剑桥大学还拒绝建立一个心理物理学实验室，因为这样的一个主题研究，“以把人类的灵魂放在天平上的方式侮辱了宗教信仰”（Hearst，1979, p.7）。心理学致力于证明其问题是实证可解的，这一战斗也是最近才取得胜利。不过随着科学的进步，心理学家将涉足越来越多的主题，这些主题涉及人类某些牢固的信念，而很多都是可以通过实证方法验证的。心理学家现在研究的主题包括道德推理的发展、浪漫之爱、种族偏见的性质以及宗教信仰的心理和社会决定因素等。童年期性行为的研究最近引发了很多争议（Hagan, 2001; Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 2001）。有些人反对对这些领域进行实证调查（Hunt, 1999），但这些领域都取得了科学进展。
莱文和奥唐奈（Levin & O' Donnell，2000）指出，有些人反对某些心理学研究，只因为他们认为这些领域是“不必去知道的”。他们举了一个例子：某学校的董事会给予家长两种选择，一种是让他们的孩子在K-2不同年龄混合班学习，另一种是在按年龄分的常规班中学习。教师提出对这两种方法进行研究的建议，但此建议被校董事会否决，因为他们觉得，如果一旦研究发现某种方法更有效，家长会迫使他们完全改用那种类型的教学。就像莱文和奥唐奈（2000）说的那样，“学校董事会压根儿不想知道！”（p.66）。因此，我们应当意识到，心理学研究往往受到诋毁，不是因为人们认为它不好，而是因为他们希望避免研究结果可能给他们带来的影响。
心理学总是处于这种两难境地。一方面，一些人反对把心理学称为科学，否认心理学家可以建立关于行为的实证理论。另一方面，另一些人则由于惧怕心理学在某些行为领域揭示的真相会威胁到他们的信仰，而反对心理学家在这些领域进行研究。斯金纳学派的心理学家就总是面对这类相互矛盾的指责。例如，有批评者认为行为主义的强化律不适用于人类行为。同时，另一些批评者则担心人们会运用这些规律去对人类进行严酷的、不人道的控制。因此，行为主义者腹背受敌，一些批评者否认行为主义者所发现的行为定律有用，而另一些批评者则害怕这些定律被滥用！
上述现象的产生主要是由于，年轻的心理科学刚刚开始揭示行为方面的一些事实，而在过去，这些问题是游离于研究之外的。它的青涩多多少少也解释了为什么许多人总是对这一学科产生误解。但无论如何，在过去的40年里，心理学已经在我们称之为科学的这个相互关联的知识体系中站稳了脚跟。认识不到这一点，就会对心理学产生各种各样的误解。
心理学是一个主题非常广泛，但又相对松散的学科，它包含一些通常不被归人同一概念的众多研究主题，然而，它们都使用科学方法来理解行为，从而实现了学科的统一。科学方法绝非是指一套生硬的规则，而是指一些非常普遍的原则。最重要的三点是：（1）科学采用系统的实证主义的研究方法；（2）它以可公开验证的知识为研究对象；（3）它研究实证可解的问题，并产生可检验的理论（下一章的主要内容）。构成系统实证主义基础的结构化及可控制的观察是本书随后几个章节的主题。科学通过同行评审等程序和重复验证等机制来保证知识的公共心理学是一门新兴的科学，因而经常会和世俗智慧相冲突。这种冲突是任何新兴学科都会遇到的，了解这种冲突有助于我们理解为什么有人反对将心理学视为一门科学并对心理学持敌意态度。同时，与世俗常识之间的碰撞也令心理学成为一门激动人心的学科。很多人进入这一领域正是因为它提供了一个机会，让人们能够检验那些被毫无争议地接受了数百年的“常识”。
Notes:
Notes: