Chapter 16 Chapter 12: The Psychology of the Unwelcome
Although the public has a strong interest in the topic of psychology, they express many negative opinions about psychology and its achievements.Psychologists are aware of this "image problem," but feel powerless to do anything about it, so they simply ignore it, which is actually wrong.At a time when the mass media is increasingly influential in determining public perception (for example, fictional TV "documentaries" that become real history to an ill-informed public), the image problem of disregarding psychology is only will make things worse.
Rodney Dangerfield (Rodney Dangerfield) is an American comedian who has been very popular for more than 30 years. His signature catchphrase is: "I get no respect!" In a sense, this is also true. It is the image portrayal of psychology in the minds of the general public.This chapter is to talk about why psychology, like Dangerfield, does not get the respect it deserves.
We discussed the causes of the psychological image problem earlier.For example, the Freudian problems discussed in Chapter 1 undoubtedly contributed to the low evaluation of psychology.If the public were to name one famous psychologist, it would be either Freud or Skinner.Distorted reports of his theories were widely disseminated among the public, causing psychology to be regarded as a very superficial science.What hope is there for a discipline when its most influential scholars are misunderstood as arguing that man has no mind, that man is no different from a mouse?Skinner certainly did not deny that humans can think (Gaynor, 2004). Many of the laws of operant conditioning he discovered from animals have been proven to be applicable to human behavior.The public, however, is less aware of these scientific facts.Likewise, distortions of Freud's theory have lowered psychology's image in the public mind.
Outside of the work of Freud and Skinner, the layman knows next to nothing about the excellence of psychological research.For proof of this, go to your neighborhood bookstore and see what psychology books are available to the general public.Your investigation will find that those psychology books sold in bookstores can usually be divided into three categories.The first category is some early classics of psychology (Freud, Skinner, Jung, Fromm, Erikson, etc.), most of which focus on old-fashioned psychoanalytic views, which are completely unable to represent contemporary psychology. Psychology too.To the dismay of psychologists, the most valuable works in the field are lost in bookstores' science or biology books.For example, psychologist Steven Pinker's masterpiece How the Mind Works is always classified in the science category rather than the psychology category.As a result, the important papers he discusses on cognitive science are forced to associate themselves with biology, neurophysiology, or computer science rather than psychology.
The second type of reading that can be found in most bookstores are those pseudoscience books masquerading as psychology, filled with countless supernatural phenomena, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, telekinesis, telekinesis, reincarnation, biorhythms, protoss Projection, pyramid power, plant communication, psychic surgery, etc. (Lilienfeld, Lohr, & Moirer, 2001).The abundance of this stuff in bookstore psychology books no doubt contributes to—and reflects—the misconception that psychologists are the ones who prove the existence of these paranormal phenomena.This misunderstanding is somewhat ironic in psychology.In fact, the relationship between psychology and those paranormal phenomena is easy to state.These paranormal phenomena are not at all within the purview of modern psychology.The reason for this may surprise many.
The study of paranormal experiences and other paranormal abilities is not considered part of psychology, a notion that may irritate many readers.Multiple surveys have shown that more than 40% of the public believe in the existence of extrasensory phenomena and fanatically believe in their own beliefs (Farha & Steward, 2006; Muse Ua, 2005; Rice, 2003).Historical research and surveys point to reasons for the public's enthusiasm for such beliefs (Alcock, 1987; Humphrey, 1996; Lilienfeld, 2005; Stanovich, 1989, 2004).Like most religions, many so-called paranormal phenomena flaunt claims such as reincarnation.For some people, talk of an afterlife satisfies their need to transcend the limits of their present life.Psychological research' "ignorant" pointing out that supernatural experiences cannot be verified has undoubtedly shattered the eager hopes of these people.Psychology's assertion that ESP is not considered a viable field of study inevitably sparks resentment among its adherents, who charge that psychologists are arbitrary in excluding such subjects from psychological research.If psychologists merely put up a gesture of resignation and ignore these objections, it will do little to advance public understanding.Psychologists, on the contrary, should provide careful and clear explanations of the fallacies of these objections.Such an explanation would emphasize that scientists do not base their research topics on the basis of any statute, and there are no regulations specifying what can and cannot be studied.The rise, continuation, or end of a research field is based on a process of natural selection of theory and method.Fields that produce rich theoretical and empirical discoveries are recognized by a large number of scientists; those that are not theoretically feasible or cannot be replicated are discarded.This natural selection of theories and methods leads science closer to the truth.
For example, extrasensory perception is not considered a viable research topic in contemporary psychology simply because its research has been unable to accumulate any positive results, so it has turned off the interest of most psychologists.I am emphasizing the word "contemporary" here because psychologists did have a great deal of interest in ESP many years ago, and it was only when a lot of negative evidence accumulated that this interest faded away.As history shows, research topics are usually not terminated by some authoritative government agency, they are just naturally eliminated in the environment of competition for survival.
The fact that ESP has never been considered an unstudied subject in the field of psychology is clear and open (Alcock, 1990; Hines, 2003; Humphrey, 1996; Hyman, 1992, 1996; Kelly, 2005; Marks , 2001; Milton & Wiseman, 1999).There are many papers on ESP research published in professional psychology journals.Paranormal psychologists who get a lot of exposure in the media like to give the impression that the field is new and that amazing new discoveries are on the horizon.Actually, the facts are nothing new.
The study of extrasensory perception is as old as contemporary psychology itself, and it is not an entirely new field of study.In the psychological literature, it too has been seriously studied, as are many topics that are now considered viable.However, many of the findings in this field published in formal psychology journals fail to prove the existence of ESP.After more than 90 years of research in the last century, we still have not been able to replicate any ESP phenomena under controlled experimental conditions.Despite a great deal of research on ESPs over the past few decades, none have ever met this simple and basic scientific criterion.This is acknowledged even by paranormal psychologists and their followers (see Alcock, 1990; Hines, 2003; Druckman & Swets, 1988; Krippner, 1977).In short, there are no unproven phenomena that require scientific explanation (see Alcock, 1990; Hines, 2003; Hyman, 1992, 1996; Milton & Wise-man, 1999).For this reason alone, psychology has lost interest in the topic.
Ironically, psychologists play a key role in assessing supernormal abilities.They may be second in importance only to the professional magicians who have debunked countless demonstrations of psychic powers (Randi, 1986, 1987).Moreover, many of the important books on and questioning paranormal abilities have been written by psychologists.
The irony is obvious.Psychology, the discipline most likely to accurately assess extrasensory claims, is closest to pseudoscience in the public mind.This phenomenon of "being implicated" has caused psychology to suffer greatly.As will be discussed in more detail below, psychology often falls into such a situation of "not being human inside and out", and this is just one example.The belief that there are no rules in psychology and that knowledge in this field lacks scientific criteria has led people to associate psychology with pseudosciences like ESP.However, if psychologists succeed in making the public aware of the true nature of these pseudosciences, the connection between psychology and pseudoscience will be regarded as iron proof that "psychology is not a science"!
A third category of psychology books that are commonly found in bookstores are so-called self-help books.Of course, there are many different kinds of such readings (see Fried, 1994, 1998; Fried Schultis, 1995; Paul, 2001; Santrock, Minnett, & Campell, 1994).There are some inspirational books that are designed to increase people's sense of self-worth and confidence.Others are old wine in new bottles, repackaging commonplaces about human behavior.There are only a handful (literally rare) of books written by responsible psychologists for the public.There are also many books that, although written by professionals in psychology, are not considered "responsible" works.In order to flaunt its "uniqueness", it claims that it has invented some new "cures" that can not only correct some specific behavioral problems, but also meet the general needs of ordinary people (making money, losing weight and having a better sex life are the "three "big" topics), these books often sell well.These so-called new treatments are rarely based on controlled experimental studies. If the authors are clinicians, they usually only rely on their personal experience or a few cases to make their own "discoveries".
Many cognitive and behavioral therapies whose effectiveness has been tested through rigorous psychological testing procedures rarely find themselves on bookstore shelves.The situation is even worse in the electronic media, where there is hardly any formal psychology coverage on radio and television, instead they always feature charlatans and pushy media personalities who have nothing to do with real psychology .The main reason why the media does this is that formal psychotherapy never claims immediate results, cures the disease, does not even guarantee success, or exaggerates the scope of its treatment (eg, "You will not only Quit smoking and every aspect of your life will improve!").Likewise, a similar situation is happening on the internet now – the treatments people see online are often scams due to the lack of rigorous peer review.
This kind of self-help books, which account for a considerable proportion of the American book market, has greatly influenced the public's impression of psychology.First, like the Freudian problem, these books confuse the public about where the focus of psychological research is.For example, while there are a fair number of psychologists providing treatment for obesity, relationship, and sexuality, and doing ongoing research, the number is much smaller than what is claimed in self-help books.This misunderstanding also leads the public to think that most psychologists are devoted to the study and treatment of abnormal behavior.In fact, most of psychology is the study of normal human behavior.As Martin Seligman (2002), former president of the American Psychological Association, said, for the public, psychology "has become almost synonymous with the treatment of mental illness, and psychology should return from the wrong track of disease treatment to its history. Its mission is to make the lives of normal people richer and fuller” (p.19).
In addition to causing misunderstandings about what research is about, self-help books can also give people the wrong impression about the methods and purposes of psychology research.As discussed in Chapter 4, psychological science does not assume that a few case studies, testimonial accounts, and personal experiences constitute sufficient empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of a therapy—which is precisely what most self-help classes do. "Therapy" is the foundation of one's life.Self-help books thus mislead the public into thinking that most psychological theories are based on such evidence.In Chapter 8 we have shown that many different types of evidence are needed to substantiate a theory, of which the data provided by case studies are the weakest.It would be a fundamental mistake to regard such evidence as conclusive evidence for a theory or therapy.
In the end, self-help books mislead the public about the goals of psychology and the knowledge that most psychological research seeks.Psychologist Leigh Shaffer believes that such readings give people a strong impression that what psychological researchers are after is the kind of "cookbook" knowledge (Shaffer, 1981).Recipe-style knowledge is knowledge that only tells you how to use something, but doesn't tell you anything about its basic working principles.For example, most people know how to use a telephone, they know how to dial, how to get information, how to make long distance calls and so on.But many people are ignorant of the physics behind the phone's operation.They don't know how the calling function of the phone is implemented, they just know how to use it.This is the recipe knowledge of the phone.In our society, a lot of knowledge about technology products is recipe knowledge.
Of course, this is not entirely a bad thing.In fact, most technology products are designed to be usable by users who have no idea how they work behind the scenes.Indeed, the concept of recipe knowledge provides a way to generalize the distinction between basic and applied research.Basic research workers look for basic principles of nature, without considering whether these principles can be translated into recipe knowledge.Applied researchers work on translating basic principles into products that can be used with only recipe-like knowledge.
Most self-help books provide only recipe-style knowledge about human behavior, which can often be reduced to the form, "Just do X, and you will become more Y", or "Do Z, and a certain A will behave More B's.Of course, if the prescription is correct (and this assumption is often not entirely true), it is not too much to do.Much formal psychotherapy provides a great deal of recipe knowledge.However, problems arise when it is mistakenly believed that the ultimate goal of all psychological research is to provide recipe knowledge: while many psychological researchers do strive to translate basic behavioral theory into practical psychotherapy, health care actions schemes or effective models of industrial organization, but psychology is primarily a fundamental discipline for discovering general facts and theories about behaviour.This is another reason why the study of psychology can seem weird to outsiders: There is a huge difference between the study of basic theory and applied research.
If a person walks into a molecular biology laboratory and asks a researcher whether we should take two or three aspirin when we have a headache, we think the person is stupid.The reason is not that molecular biology has nothing to do with pain relief, in fact research on painkillers may apply knowledge in this area.We say this is a silly question because molecular biologists aren't the kind of people who work at the prescribing level and answer whether you're going to take two or three aspirin.Researchers are concerned with basic data about biological components at the molecular level.These data may provide recipe knowledge for many different fields, but it is unlikely that the people who discovered the basic data and turned these data into recipe knowledge are the same people; method is different.
Because self-help books have led the public to falsely believe that most psychologists develop recipe knowledge, it makes much of the basic research that psychologists do seem rather odd.Hecht once asked the subjects to look at a small red light in a dark room. What does this have to do with our real world?Yes, on the surface, it really doesn't matter at all.Hechter is interested in the fundamentals of how people's visual systems adapt to the dark, which ultimately translates into recipe-based knowledge that can be used to address specific problems, such as night blindness caused by vitamin deficiencies.However, this transformation was not carried out by Hecht himself, and it came several years later.
Thus, self-help books have two undesirable side effects on public perception of psychology.First, the issues addressed in these readings do not represent the focus of contemporary psychology; rather, they often reflect what consumers want to see.Psychology students often do not fully realize that book publishing is a business activity, and market forces determine what kind of books can be placed on the shelves of bookstores.However, the focus of science is not determined by this.In all disciplines, but especially in psychology, scientists believe that there is a big difference between living ideas and those that are packaged to sell.
In the end, self-help books make psychology look like pure recipe knowledge.While this isn't entirely wrong, it doesn't reflect the vast amount of basic research being done in the field of psychology.
Of course, psychology does not have a monopoly on the study of behavior.Many other related disciplines also contribute to our knowledge of behavior using different technical and theoretical perspectives.Many issues involving behavior require a multidisciplinary approach.However, it is a brutal fact that most psychologists must accept that when research on such multidisciplinary problems is published, the contributions of psychologists are often overshadowed by other disciplines.
There are numerous examples of psychologists whose contributions have been ignored, dismissed, or partially relegated to other disciplines.For example, the first study of the effects of television violence on children's behavior, conducted by the US Public Health Service, found a cause-and-effect relationship, leading to a resolution by the American Medical Association to reaffirm it. research results and disseminate them to the public.This is a logical thing, and there is nothing wrong with it, but this move has an unintentional consequence, that is, the media continues to link the research results of TV violence with the American Medical Association, creating such an impression for the public that The studies establishing this finding were conducted by medical professionals.In fact, the vast majority of research on the effects of television violence on children's behavior has been done by psychologists.
Another reason why psychologists' work is often relegated to other disciplines is that the term "psychologist" has become ambiguous over the years.When many psychology researchers identify themselves, they often add their own research expertise before "psychologist", such as self-proclaimed physiological psychologist, cognitive psychologist, industrial psychologist, evolutionary psychologist and neuropsychologist. scientist.Other titles even drop the term “psychologist,” such as neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, sociobiologists, artificial intelligence experts, and behavioral scientists, to name a few.All of these moves, combined with the media's bias that "psychology is not a science," have resulted in psychologists' achievements being relegated to other disciplines: the work of physiological psychologists being relegated to biology, cognitive The work of psychologists is relegated to computer science, the work of industrial psychologists is relegated to engineering and business, and so on.Even though Daniel Kahneman, one of the most eminent psychology researchers of our time, won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002, psychology did not share in any favors!Of course, there is no separate Nobel Prize for psychology (Benjamin, 2004; Kahneman, 2003; MacCoun, 2002).
Psychologist Frederick King, director of the Yerkes Primate Research Center at Emory University, once recounted that one day he spent a long time explaining the impact of animal models on human neurological disorders. After listening to this scholar who has made great achievements in the neurological and behavioral research of epilepsy, a reporter asked: "You are just a psychologist, how do you know so much about epilepsy?" What's up?" (King, 1993).
In the late 1970s, courts adjudicated several lawsuits related to standardized tests.One of those cases, PASE v. Hannon, involved cultural bias in intelligence testing.The judge hearing the case decided that the only way to help him decide was for him to check each test question himself and trust his own instincts.He was so confident in his ability to make the right decision that he wrote down his personal opinion on each question on the test (BersofF, 1981, 1982).The judge determined that in these standardized tests, eight items on one set of tests and one item on another set of tests could be biased.What the judge didn't realize was that questions like these were empirical questions that could be tested scientifically.Not only is personal opinion irrelevant to the truth, it can even be extremely misleading.Determining whether these standardized test items are biased requires complex statistical procedures and the collection of large amounts of data.Psychologists have made and continue to make outstanding contributions to the evaluation and collection of necessary data and the development of corresponding statistical techniques.
Ironically, the research actually found that laymen's intuitions about which topics were culturally biased were often wrong.Many items that were thought to be unbiased actually had multiple biases, and many items that appeared unfair showed no statistically significant bias (Sandoval & Miille, 1980).For example, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale has been criticized in Canada because some items on one of its subscales (the "information" subscale) appear to favor US citizens.For example, one of the items asked the subjects to write the names of the four presidents of the United States after 1950.As a result, some items were "Canadianized" when the test was used in Canada (Violato, 1984, 1986).For example, the title of "Presidents" was changed to "Names of Four Prime Ministers of Canada after 1900".Even such an obvious, "commonsense" change, however, created a small problem: Canadian citizens scored higher on IQ tests in the "president's version" than in the "prime minister's version."
We don't just blame other people for psychology's image problems. Psychologists themselves have a lot to do with it.Regular psychologists who try to introduce real psychology to the public often don't get much in return.However, the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Psychological Society (APS) are working to facilitate communication with the public, and the APA has launched a new journal to this end, Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Public Interest).Psychology needs to work harder on this.Otherwise, if the public continues to misunderstand the discipline in the future, it can only be said that we have to blame.
In a recent address, Ronald Fox, former president of the American Psychological Association, spoke about the problems that psychology has with communication and dissemination, and how we ourselves bring them about:
Finally, anti-scientific attitudes and phenomena exist in certain branches of psychology (Coan, 1997; Watters & Ofshe, 1999).For example, in some psychotherapeutic circles there is a persistent refusal to make scientific evaluations of the treatments they use.Columnist and psychotherapist Charles Krauthammer wrote an article on the serious damage this attitude did to the reputation of psychotherapy (Krauthammer, 1985).First, the refusal to keep the good from the bad has led to a flood of treatments.This proliferation not only undermines consumer rights, but also reinforces misconceptions in the field: "Psychotherapy has entered a state of disarray because . . . Psychotherapy is dying in a mixed bag.” What Kovas-Amer laments here is that the failure to follow the falsification principle has hindered scientific progress in this field.
Kovas-Amer finally pointed out an inherent contradiction in the circle of psychotherapy. On the one hand, they believed that psychotherapy was "more like an art than a science" and therefore opposed scientific methods of evaluation; on the other hand, they still Much attention has been paid to the so-called "800-pound gorilla," that is, government subsidies and private health insurance.Kovas Amer reveals the inherent contradiction between these two attitudes: "As long as the psychotherapy industry refuses to provide scientific evidence for their work, the financial pressure on them will increase. After all, if psychotherapy is really an art, They should be funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, not by Medicare.” Echoing this view, Kopta, Lueger, Saunders, & Howard (1999) in their A review of research on the effectiveness of psychotherapy reads: "The effectiveness of a particular therapy must be tested empirically for its effectiveness to be sufficiently qualified and convincing to apply for subsidies from insurance companies, medical companies, and government agencies" ( p.442).
The views of the famous psychotherapist Dow Peterson (Dmi Peterson) also coincide with Kovas Armer's admonition.He states quite directly that the therapist who believes that "although the empirical evidence does not support it, my experience tells me otherwise and I refuse to change my therapy" (Peterson, 1995, p. 977) "would not Get any sympathy here" (p.977).In short, Peterson argues that psychotherapy practitioners must respond to scientific evidence, or the profession as a whole will be seen by the public as an "irresponsible" profession (p.977) and thus lose support from society .
Some readers of earlier editions of this book have pointed out that I have not emphasized that unprofessional behavior and anti-scientific attitudes within psychologists have largely contributed to the discipline's public image problems, thus accusing me of "relaxing psychologically easily." scientist".Fortunately, Robyn Dawes's book "House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Builton Myth" (House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Builton Myth) published in 1994 was very helpful to me. Having a balanced perspective helps a lot.Anyone who doubts that psychologists themselves are an important cause of this dilemma should read this book.In this courageous book, Dawes unreservedly exposes his family's scandals and argues that a scientific attitude in psychology devoted to the study of human problems has great practical value for society as a whole (although its potential is still great). can be dug).For example, Dawes writes: "There is indeed a real science of psychology, one that has grown out of the work of countless people over the Ignored, belittled, and opposed—these practitioners pay lip service to the existence of a science" (p.vii).
Dawes et al. (Lilienfeld, 1998; Lilienfeld, Lynn & Lohr, 2003; Mook, 2001; Watters & Ofshe, 1999; Wood, Nezworski, Lilienfeld, & Garb, 2003) object that the field of psychology is based on the science of psychology Status issues qualifications, which are then used to protect psychology practitioners from unscientific behavior.For example, a well-trained psychologist should know that we can predict the behavior of the population with certainty, but there is great uncertainty in predicting the behavior of a particular individual (see Chapter 10 and 11), so even the most competent psychologist should not make any personal predictions without emphasizing this point.As Dawes (1994) puts it:
In short, the American Psychological Association has contributed to this unhealthy trend in the field of psychotherapy.The ethos has led to the belief that psychologists can be trained to gain a kind of "gut insight" into individual behavior, but research evidence does not support this idea.The organization weaponizes its scientific credentials when challenged that the licensure system is merely an industry restriction (one American Psychological Association president responded to society's attacks on psychology: "We are science-based. , and this is what sets us apart from social workers, counselors, and gypsy fortune-tellers”; Dawes, 1994, p. 21).But the justification used to defend its scientific status reveals that the notion that licensed psychologists have a unique "clinical insight" is simply false.The APA’s duplicity led to Dawes’s book and, in part, to the founding of the American Psychological Society (APS) in the 1980s.The association is made up of psychologists who are tired of the American Psychological Association's practice of "focusing on Blue Cross compensation and ignoring the science."
Scott Lilienfield, a scholar who received the David Shakow Award for his contributions to clinical psychology early in his career, repeatedly reiterated at the award ceremony The above point, and warns: "In the field of clinical psychology, we seem to have a complete lack of interest in dealing with the problem of pseudoscience, which is very surprising, because the flames of this problem have been burned in our backyard. out" (Lilienfield, 1998, p. 3).He also lists several pseudosciences that flooded the field of clinical psychology in the 1990s, including:
1. Weird, untested remedies for trauma;
2. Some treatments for autism that have been proven to be ineffective, such as assisted communication therapy (see Chapter 6);
3. Continue to use some psychological assessment tools that have not been fully validated, such as various projection tests;
4. Using the subconscious mind to make self-healing tapes;
5. Use of highly suggestive therapeutic techniques to induce memories of childhood abuse.
Lilienfeld quotes prominent clinical researcher Paul Meehl, "If we don't clean up the profession and provide our students with models of scientific thinking, laymen will do it for us" (Meehl, 1993, p.728; see also Mahirer, 2000).Here Mill points to a tendency we discussed in Chapter 11: the tendency of clinicians to want others to believe that they possess some "special" knowledge about General behavioral trends of repeatedly validated scientific knowledge.Mill (1993) argues that clinical psychologists must pay more attention to empirically validated knowledge, and warns that "if you think you have a Ph. It is quite absurd and arrogant that these limited aspects of the human psyche do not make mistakes" (p. 728).
According to the psychologist John Perez, the points advanced by Dawes, Lilienfeld, and Meer can be summarized into an argument that clinical psychologists should target their help to the patient rather than the patient. Not the therapist who administers therapy as he pleases.As Perez (1999) puts it, “We had to decide that we didn’t want to create an environment where therapists could do whatever they wanted when there was no scientific basis for their effectiveness; the interests of patients so that they can receive the most effective treatment” (pp. 205-206).
Yet the field of psychology continues to be trampled by misconduct.For example, "emergency stress interviews" are used in many settings as a standardized procedure for treating patients who have experienced bombings, shootings, war, terrorism, and earthquakes (Groopman, 2004; Mc Nally, Bryant, & Ehlers, 2003 ).The interview process involves having patients "talk about the incident and openly express their emotions, especially in front of colleagues in the company who have also experienced the same incident" (Mc Nally et al., 2003, p.56), with the aim of reducing trauma The occurrence of post-stress disorder (PTSD).Most patients interviewed reported that the experience was helpful.Of course, no one who has read the book will find the evidence convincing (think of the discussion of the "placebo" effect in Chapter 4).Obviously, a control group (some patients who did not receive the emergency stress interview) was needed.Indeed, "many trauma survivors recover from their initial post-traumatic responses without professional help" (Mc Nally et al., 2003, p.45), thus needing to demonstrate that major event stress narratives The use of does lead to a higher recovery rate.Although true controlled experiments have revealed otherwise (Groopman, 2004; Mc Nally et al., 2003), the therapy continues to be used.
艾莫瑞、奥托和奥多诺胡（Emery, Otto, & 0' Donohue, 2005）在搜集大量证据后所做的综述中指出，与儿童监护权相关的临床心理学中充斥着伪科学。例如，研究者描述了一些临床心理学家在儿童监护权官司中惯用的用以评估儿童最大利益的工具。在回顾了此类工具——例如，传说能够测量关系知觉和父母觉知能力的量表——之后，艾莫瑞等人（2005）做出结论：没有一个工具被证明是可靠而有效的。他们写道：“没有一个关于这些测量方法有效性的研究发表在具有同行评审机制的刊物上，而这是科学的一项重要标准”（p.8），同时他们总结道：“我们对于这类测量最保守的评估也是尖刻的，即这些测量的构成不甚明晰，并且表现得如此糟糕，在儿童监护权评估中的运用未经任何科学的检验”（p.7）。
艾莫瑞等人（2005）指出，不仅评估儿童监护权的工具存在缺陷，而且临床心理学家使用的概念也有问题。艾莫瑞等人举了一个所谓“双亲疏远综合症”的例子。这个概念完全基于单独个案的“临床经验”，并且缺乏科学研究结论所需要的聚合效度，但它在监护评估中却被临床心理学家当作真正的科学概念一般随心所欲地使用。
最后，认知心理学家哈尔·阿克斯（Hal Arkes）讲述了他的失落经历，联邦机构拒绝使用他所提供的关于如何使基金评审流程更加完善的方法。但是，反思之后，他不得不承认我们的专业呈现给大众的是一张窘迫的面孔。他回忆起最近收到的一个会议请柬，在这个会议上，某个分会场的专题是“与魂灵和已故祖先的沟通”，参加这一分会场的专业心理学家能够获得继续教育的资助。他承认，当专业组织也为那些可疑的“工作坊”提供资助、（并且）还有很多这类让专业蒙羞的具备职业资质的同行时，联邦机构很难接受心理学家的意见也就丝毫不奇怪了。
不过事情似乎有了一些转机。2002年一本新的杂志诞生了，它就是《心理健康实践的科学述评》（The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice）（Lilienfeld, 2002）。这本杂志致力于区分科学的治疗方法与那些伪科学的治疗方法，它已经得到科学心理健康实践委员会的认可。更令人振奋的是，至少有一些心理学组织已经痛下决心来整顿临床实践，并准备消除在实践过程中那种根深蒂固的“怎么样都行”的态度。利连恩费德和洛哈（Lilienfield & Lohr, 2000）报告了亚利桑那州心理学资格审查委员会吊销一位心理学家执照的事件。这个心理学家试图以一种伪科学的治疗方法来治疗恐惧症，这种方法是按照预定的顺序拍打患者身体的各个部位。不用说，这种方法没有实证效度。亚利桑那州委员会命令该治疗师停止使用这种方法，并且给他“留职察看”的处罚——一个心理学组织对使用伪科学方法的成员进行查处，这样的例子在心理学界还是非常罕见的。
简言之，心理学具有像吉柯（Jekyll）和海德（Hyde）那样的双重人格，极端缜密的科学与伪科学及反科学的态度并存。这个学科的双重人格特性在20世纪90年代早期关于“恢复记忆-虚假记忆”的争论中表现得淋滴尽致（Brainerd & Reyna, 2005; Gardner, 2006; Garry, Frame, & Loftus, 1999; Loftus, 1997; Loftus & Guyer, 2002; Loftus & Ketcham, 1994; Pezdek & Banks, 1996）。许多个案报告说，有患者声称回忆起几十年前当他们还是小孩的时候遭受虐待的经历，而这些记忆曾经一度被遗忘。大部分这类记忆出现在治疗干预的情境中，显然说明这些记忆中的一部分是由治疗本身所引发的（Campbell, 1998; Gardner, 2006; Loftus & Guyer, 2002; Lynn, Loftus, Lilienfeld, & Lock, 2003; Piper, 1998）。有些人坚持认为这类记忆绝对不可信，另外一些人则坚称它是可信的。在这个爆炸性的社会话题所营造出的极具情绪化的氛围下，心理学家们提供了一些较为理性、平衡的意见，更为重要的是，还提供了部分关于恢复性记忆或虚假记忆的客观的实证证据（Alexanderetal., 2005; Brainerd & Reyna, 2005; Bremner, Shobe, & Kihlstrom, 2000; Clancy, Schacter, Mc Nally, & Pitman, 2000; Goodman et al., 2003; Mc Nallly, 2003; Pezdek & Banks, 1996）。从这里我们能充分地看出心理学这种双重人格的特性。由治疗干预所引发的、与事实真相相反的虚假记忆中，有一部分是由某些不称职的、对科学无知的治疗师造成的，而这些治疗师都是心理学专业人士。另一方面，尽管目前对这场争论所做的结论还不够充分和确定，但这一点仍应归功于那些对相关现象实证地开展研究的心理学家的不懈努力。心理学在制造问题，同时又在解决问题！
我喜欢引用丹杰费尔德的口头禅来作为本节的题目，希望这样做能够帮我洗清“为心理学家脱罪”的恶名。心理学家道格拉斯·穆克（Douglas Mook）在他的一本关于研究方法的书中曾提到过我借用丹杰费尔德的笑话，并且评论道：“确实，通常心理学得不到应有的尊敬，但有时，它又受到了不应得的尊敬，或者因为错误的原因而受到尊敬”（Mook, 2001, p.473）。我完全同意这一感受。穆克是对的，心理学的学生应当知道这个学科所面临的窘境。就像本书中所表述的那样，作为一门研究人类行为的科学，心理学通常没有得到太多的尊敬。但是，心理学呈现给公众的印象却是很多临床治疗师宣称自己具有“独特的”洞察人心的能力——但这种洞察力在研究证据方面是站不住脚的，这一形象又使心理学获得了过多的尊敬。心理学的严谨性就在于，采取科学的方法来验证有关人类行为的各种主张；不幸的是，这一学科常由那些不尊重心理学这一严谨性的分支呈现给公众。
我们每个人都有一套关于人类行为的理论。很难想象，如果没有这些理论，我们该怎样活下去。从这一意义上讲，我们人人都是心理学家。尽管如此，区分这种个体心理学和由心理科学所生成的知识体系仍然是十分重要的。我们将看到，这种区分之所以重要，是因为在许多大众读物里，二者的区别经常被故意混淆了。
我们的个人心理学知识与那些对行为进行科学研究所获得的知识相比，有哪些方面的区别呢？我们已经有所讨论。我们的个人心理学知识多数是“菜谱式知识”。我们做某件事，是因为我们认为它会导致其他人做出某些相应的行为，或是因为我们相信这些事能帮助我们实现某些目标。这些都是所谓的菜谱式知识。但是，个人心理学和科学心理学（也包括一些菜谱式知识）的区别并不在于有没有菜谱式知识。最主要的区别在于，科学心理学总是力图通过实证方法检验菜谱式知识的有效性。
科学评估具有系统性和可控性，这些特性是个人评估程序所不可能具备的。事实上，心理学对于决策选择的研究表明，当行为发生的情境与原有的信念相悖时，人们就很难觉察到相关关系（见Baron, 2000）。我们只看到我们想看到的东西。心理学家已经找到出现这种现象的许多原因（Kunda, 1999; Lassiter, Geers, Munhall, Ploutz-Snyder, & Breitenbecher, 2002; Stanovich, 2004），但是它们并非我们这里关注的重点。即使我们想在个人的基础上评估个体的菜谱式知识，那些妨碍我们对行为现象进行充分观察的先入为主的偏见，也会使我们的评估工作变得异常困难。引入科学方法的目的正是要避免个别观察者的偏见。这里的意思很简单，由科学心理学产生的菜谱式知识可能会更精确，因为和个体的菜谱式知识相比，它们经过更加严格的检验程序。
就像本章前面所讨论的那样，个体心理学和科学心理学之间的差别不仅限于对菜谱式知识的验证。科学想从自然界获得的远不止菜谱式知识。科学家们想要寻求那些能够解释药方运作机制的更为普遍的基本原理。许多人的个体心理学和科学心理学一样，也想探究更为基本的心理学规律和理论，然而这些个人理论和科学理论存在着重大的分歧。我们曾经提到过，这些个人化理论是无法证伪的。许多人的个人心理学理论缺乏缜密的建构，只是一些适用于个别情形的陈词滥调的简单堆砌，有时这些话还会自相矛盾。它们向人们保证，存在一个确定的解释，而那些与之完全对立、会彻底动摇人们信念的事件都是不可能发生的。尽管这些理论极具慰藉功能，但正如第2章中所讨论的，除了慰藉之外，以这种方式提出的理论再无别的功能。这些理论都以“事后诸葛亮”的方式解释一切，对未来没有任何的预测。没有预测，也就没有给我们提供任何信息。心理学科的理论必须符合可证伪的标准，这就是心理科学与许多外行人的个人心理学的不同之处。心理学理论是能够被证伪的，因此，心理学理论蕴涵了这样一种确保其发展和进步的机制，而这是个人心理学所不具备的。
基于我们之前讨论过的那些理由，千万不要把个人心理学理论和科学心理学的知识混为一谈。这种混淆有时是蓄意制造出来的，目的是要诋毁心理学在公众心目中的形象。如果“人人都是心理学家”是指每一个人都有自己的心理学理论的话，那么这句话没有错。但是它常常被隐晦地暗示心理学不是一门科学。
第1章中已讨论过，为什么科学心理学的想法会对某些人造成威胁。一门日趋成熟的行为科学，势必会改变各类提供心理信息数据来源的个体、群体和组织。很自然，对那些长期从事人类心理和行为评论的人来说，他们肯定会抵制任何威胁其权威地位的变革。在本书的第1章中曾提到过，科学的进步会不断地剥夺那些原有对自然界做出解读的权威团体的地位。行星的运行、物质的本质、疾病的原因过去曾经是神学家、哲学家和通才作家把持的领域，而如今，天文学、物理学、医学、遗传学和其他学科逐渐夺取了这些主题，并将它们放置在不同的科学专门领域内。
举例来说，许多宗教都已经逐渐不再声称他们对宇宙结构具有专门的知识。除了一些局部性的争议——如特创论——科学与宗教之间的大型战争已经成为历史。科学家们探究自然世界的结构，而许多宗教则对运用这些发现时可能带来的影响做出评论，但宗教已经不再与科学争夺对于这些发现的解释权了，对有关自然界的主张的裁定权，无疑已经掌握在科学家手中。
接下来的问题就是信念评估标准的变革。不会再有新闻报纸刊登有关土星带构成的立场鲜明的社论文章。why?并没有审查机构阻止这类社论的发表。很明显，写这类社论是徒劳的。因为社会大众知道，对这一方面的知识有发言权的是科学家，而不是评论员。仅在100年前，报纸和那些布道坛上的牧师还曾对动物世界的物种起源学说大肆攻击。现在，这类评论大部分都消失了。科学摧毁了让任何理性思考者轻信这些观点的客观条件。心理学还将在另外一个庞大的自然领域中摧毁这类条件。 100年后，标题为“儿童早期成长，是遗传还是环境的影响？”的新闻报道可能听起来会感觉既愚蠢又过时，就像我们现在听到大主教雅舍尔（Archbishop Ussher）宣称世界是在公元前4004年被创造出来时的那种感觉。
有些人发现自己很难接受心理学发生的这类变革。他们顽固地坚持自己有权利对人类行为发表看法，即使这些看法与事实相去甚远。显然，“权利”用在这里并非是一个准确的措词，因为在一个自由社会里，每个人都有发表意见的权利，无论这些意见是否正确。最重要的是要意识到，许多人想要的不仅仅是发表有关人类行为见解的权利，他们真正想要的是，无论他们说什么，人们都应该相信其所说的话。当他们陈述一个关于人类心理学的观点时，他们希望周围的环境有利于人们接受他们的想法，这就是为什么认为心理学是“怎么着都行”的说法会有大量拥护者的原因。所谓“怎么着都行”，就是暗含心理学的主张是不能由实证方法来判别的，它只是一堆观点的集合。科学对于这种“怎么着都行”的观点来说始终是一种威胁，因为它有一系列严格的标准和程序，用以确定哪些说法是可信的。科学不是“怎么着都行”。正是这种去伪存真的能力推动了科学的进步。
简言之，许多对于科学心理学的抵制都可以归因为“利益冲突”。前面几章中已经讨论过，许多伪科学已经发展成为数以百万美元计的产业，它们之所以能蓬勃发展，依靠的正是公众没有意识到关于行为的主张也可以用实证方法来检验这一事实（在美国，占星师的数量是天文学家的20倍；见Gilovich, 1991, p.2）。公众也没有意识到，支撑这类产业的许多主张（如星相预测、潜意识减肥、生物节律、苦杏仁苷的使用及通灵手术），都已经被证明是无效的。美国国会下设的一个委员会曾估计过，人们每年大约花100亿美金在这些医疗骗术上，这让花在正规的医疗研究上的经费相形见绌（Eisenberg et al., 1993; USCongress, 1984）。
我们如何识别伪科学的主张？临床心理学家斯科特·利连恩费德（Lilienfeld, 2005, p.40）给出了一些注意事项，也是对本书内容的一个概括。他认为伪科学的主张有以下一些特征：
·喜欢采用特殊的假定，使得主张免于被证伪。
·强调主张是确证的，是不可辩驳的。
·喜欢将提供证据的任务强加给怀疑者，而非拥护者。
·过度依赖轶闻趣事和各类见证叙述来证实其主张。
·逃避同行评审。
·并非建立在已有的科学知识之上（缺乏学科关联性）。
许多伪科学术士和治疗骗术靠的就是心理学领域这种“怎么着都行”的氛围。这是一种非常容易让公众变得盲信和盲从的环境，因为，如果“怎么着都行”，公众的消费者权益就得不到保障了。正如律师彼特·哈勃所言，“在科学的边缘和科学之外……形形色色的顺势疗法药物、水晶和金字塔神奇疗效的信徒……必须借助对正统科学的诋毁来为他们的异端邪说提供立足之地”（Huber，1990，p.97）。这些兜售伪科学的人从骨子里想去掩盖这样一个事实，那就是有一套科学机制可以用于检验行为理论。迈克尔·吉瑟林（Michael Ghiselin, 1989）警告说，“道理很简单，人们都试图推销特定的观点，而真正能评估观点好坏的人，不是那些在市场上推销这些观点的人”（p.139）在行为理论和治疗这一领域，心理学家就是那些“知道如何来评估产品”的人。这就是为什么伪心理学产业一直极力反对科学心理学在评价行为主张方面的权威性。然而，伪科学的散播者通常不与心理学家正面交锋，他们绕过心理学，带着其主张直奔媒体而去。大众传媒为那些想要绕过科学心理学的狂徒、骗子和伪科学提供了极大的便利。泛滥的电视脱口秀节目并不要求嘉宾出示科学研究的依据。这些嘉宾只要“足够有趣”，就可以在电视上露脸。
世俗智慧通常包含许多一厢情愿的想法：人们更愿意相信世界是他们所期望的样子，而非其真实的样子。为此，科学家们承担着费力不讨好的任务，那就是去告诉公众，这个世界的本质并不是他们所想象的那样（“不，快餐对你的健康没有好处”）。媒体本来可以发挥有益的作用（告诉人们真相，而不是迎合他们的期望），然而，它们却把重心放在“娱乐”而不是提供信息上，从而使情况变得更糟。
科学确实是在把那些不符合最低检验标准的、自称是特殊知识的理论及疗法清除出局。法庭也在摒弃那些有关特殊知识的主张。在一桩著名的道伯特（Dauber）诉梅里尔·道（Merrell Dow）药品公司的公案中，最高法院决定何时才可以在法庭上呈现专家证词——也就是说，什么才可以让专家证词具有专家性！法庭为那些考虑专家证词的法官提供了四个鉴别指标：（1）观点所基于的理论基础是“可检验的”；（2）与某一方法关联的错误率可知；（3）观点所基于的技术或方法是否经过了同行评审；（4）技术或方法是否被相关的科学团体所广泛接受（Emery，Otto, & O' Donohue, 2005）。这四个标准对应了本书的主旨：（1）可证伪性；（2）概率性预测；（3）服从同行评审的公共知识；（4）基于聚合性和共识的科学知识。法庭在排查特殊知识的主张、直觉和见证方面与科学相似。
本书曾经很简略地提及，在科学领域里的充分检验和不充分检验各是什么。内省、个人经验和见证叙述都被认为是关于人类行为主张的不充分检验。在科学心理学诞生之前，这些内容就一直被那些非心理学家的评论者视为支持其观点的宝贵证据，因此，此时会爆发冲突也就毫不奇怪了。
请不要以为我想把科学心理学刻画成一个充满敌意而让人扫兴的角色。恰恰相反，科学心理学的研究发现其实要比那些整天在媒体上反反复复、大呼小叫的伪科学有趣和精彩得多。进而，也不应该认为科学家是反对幻想和想象的，相反，在适当的情境中，科学家从来不反对幻想、想象及浮想联翩。彼得·米德瓦（Medawar, 1990）认为：
如果我们停下来思考一会儿，大多数人都会赞同米德瓦的观点。我们进入歌剧院或电影院时，总想看到奇幻景象，但这种情形却不太可能发生在我们去看病、买保险、到托儿所给孩子注册、坐飞机或者修理汽车的时候。这种情形也不太可能发生在我们进行心理治疗、将自己注意力缺失的孩子交给教育心理学家测试，以及把自己的朋友带到大学心理诊所进行自杀干预的时候。心理学在追求真相的过程中，必须像其他学科一样，把那些毫无依据的胡思乱想、“常识”、商业广告卖点、宗教意见、见证和妄想都清除出去。
让一门科学去告诉社会中的一部分人，他们的想法和意见是有用的，但不是在此地——这是一件相当困难的事情。心理学是科学中最后一个面临这种微妙局面的学科。这与心理学产生的时间有关。大多数学科成熟于精英控制社会结构的年代，那个时候，普通人的意见没有影响力。而心理学则产生于一个民主的传媒时代，忽视公众意见会危及自身。许多心理学家正在努力修复心理学与公众在沟通方面的糟糕记录。当越来越多的心理学家开始在与公众的沟通中发挥作用时，势必会加剧他们与那帮将个人心理学和科学心理学混为一谈人的冲突。
虽然我们每个人都有一套直觉的物理学理论，但不是每个人都是物理学家。但是，如果我们不要求让个人物理学理论取代科学物理学，就为我们每个人获悉真正的科学物理学理论（因为科学是公共性的）铺平了道路。同样道理，并非人人都是心理学家，但人人都能获得心理科学所发现的事实和理论，将之付诸实践，并丰富我们所有人对彼此的理解。
Notes:
Notes: