text:
An original animated feature film about a boy and his grandfather who get stuck in a vast and imaginative world of paintings. Read more
An original animated feature film about a boy and his grandfather who get stuck in a vast and imaginative world of paintings.
About this project
Animation Fans! Art Fans! Story Fans! ... THANK YOU SO MUCH for helping us fully fund this project. We're a team now... you're in, you signed up, welcome!!! We are going to make a great film, and we're so glad you're a part of it. -- Chuck & Aaron
Please check out The Art Story website at: www.artstoryfilm.com
What is Art Story?
... the start of a very special, unique animated film. Aaron and I saw all the exciting things happening online through crowd funding and thought, we've got a great film that SHOULD BE MADE and we could use some help -- so dang it, let's try Kickstarter
So, what's the story?
It's a story about an 11-year-old, meticulous boy, WALT, and his crazy, loopy GRANDPA -- two complete opposites -- who get stuck in a vast, imaginative WORLD OF PAINTINGS. Inside, they cross paths with a ruthless painted character determined to make it into our world. In order to get home and stop the villain, Walt and Grandpa have to set aside their differences, work together and navigate worlds where the rules can change around every corner.
It's structured like a hilarious, character-driven, buddy picture ("Planes, Trains & Automobiles," "I Love You, Man" etc.), but takes place INSIDE THE WORLD OF SOME OF THE GREAT MASTER PAINTINGS OF ALL TIME ... where the characters change their appearance to match the style of each painting -- and meet lots of wildly entertaining characters. It also explores and was inspired by that special relationship between a grandchild and their grandparent -- not something you see often in films nowadays.
Yeaahhh... paintings? Sounds sort of "high brow"
OH CONTRAIRE mon frere! Our number-one focus is to make an entertaining, compelling story with characters you love and who propel you through the film. This one is for the whole family -- funny, emotional, and thrilling. AND, believe me, we'll stay away from the low hanging fruit of crass gastronomical jokes and sexual innuendo (not our style).
And, BONUS, YES!! the film is set in some of the greatest master paintings of all time! We believe this is an AMAZING WORLD to explore in a story, AND ALSO what a fantastic way to expose young kids (and some adults) to some of the most famous works of art of all time!!! There's a reason these paintings and painters are so celebrated -- they're imaginative, engaging, spiritual, and, well, just astounding images and worlds.
Look, Aaron and I both have kids AND we love art of all sorts. But how do we get our kids interested in this type of art? "It's boring dad." We believe if you FIRST, TELL A GREAT, FUNNY, COMPELLING STORY; and second, set it in this world -- kids will be head over heels for it all. We've all seen the success of fish, toys, bugs, dragons and monsters -- well, how about art? The worlds of paintings are endless -- and the technology is available now to take us all into them and explore them in this unique way.
Who are you guys?
Aaron and I are two passionate, experienced animation filmmakers who created this project and want to see it made. We're both Disney feature animation film veterans, working at Disney for 21 years each on many of the recent classics -- Lion King, Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas. We also produced and co-directed the Academy Award nominated Brother Bear. (See more the in the biography section.)
Above all, Aaron and I want to make films that stick with you. Stories that are wildly entertaining, but also enrich the lives of their audiences -- films that have something to say. We've helped create these kind of films in the past and are ready to do it again.
What will you do with the money?
We'll use the money to create a script, a children's book ready for publication, killer artwork and a video presentation of the whole film. It takes teams of people working 5 or 6 months to ready a film like this for production. Along with a A LOT OF BACKERS (really critical to show there's an audience for a film like this) and these items, we think we'll have a slam-dunk to get the film fully funded.
Will this film get made?
Not without YOU. Seriously, you, the person reading this right now. This is a grassroots approach to making a film. Help us send a message. YOU pledging now means there's another person who wants to see this film. The money we raise here will get us started and is only a fraction of what the whole effort will take. Any studio, any company or individual who wants to fund it will want to know there's an audience for this kind of film. You backing us now, with whatever you can give, means there is someone else who wants to see it. We need lots of backers. It takes many raindrops to fill up a bucket.
Why not wait and just see the movie when it comes out?
Yes, we want you to see the movie when it comes out, take the whole famly. But it may not come out at all without your help. The studios are interested in BIG sequels, films from books or fairy tales that already have a following. It's very hard to get an original film made unless you're already in a studio OR there's a proven, existing audience.
We're 1000% confident this will be a sure-fire hit -- but we need YOU to support it and to show that it can have a big following! With lots of backers and the entire package we'll create with the money, we're sure we'll have the momentum we'll need to get the film made.
OK, looks fun... how can I help?
To become one of our backers, just click on the big green button to the right of our video. Kickstarter will ask you for your pledge, which reward you want, and how you want to sign up. Signing up is easy -- you can even do it on Facebook. And PLEASE pass on the info to your friends -- the more backers, the more we can show the studios films like this can have a following.
Behind the scenes look at our process:
Art Fans of the World Unite!
If you're an art teacher, work at a museum or are just a big fan of paintings or the arts -- this project is for you. We'll treat this world right -- with respect -- honoring and celebrating these paintings. An animated film is a great way to excite the next generation of artists, museum-goers and fans of the arts. We hope you see the potential in the story and will become a backer.
Want More?
Connect with us at: https://www.facebook.com/ArtStoryFilm & https://twitter.com/artstoryfilm
Check out Aaron's awesome range of paintings and work at: http://aaronblaiseart.blogspot.com & http://creatureartteacher.com
More Visual Development Artwork (Concept Art)
We've got a great bunch of guys and gals on the crew, especially our ART DIRECTORS. Let's meet the team...
And O'Keeffe, Monet, Hopper, Wyeth, Vermeer, Renior, Gainsborough, Pollock, and many, many (almost too many) more.
Chuck and Aaron's TEDx Talk about how they develop stories...
-- Huffington Post
"I love this idea from two former Disney animators."
-- Ain't It Cool News
-- The Animation Archive
"Both Aaron and Chuck have the background to guarantee that 'Art Story' will be a quality product."
-- Business 2 Business
-- Magical Mouse School House
-- Vogue
-- Tafter
Click here for OUR FACEBOOK LINK
Risks and challenges
The biggest challenge is getting the film fully funded and distributed. The $350k will give us a great start, but animation is expensive -- in the 10s of millions, especially considering all the location and character design changes in this film.
But we know there's nothing out there quite like it and we think this can be a VERY SPECIAL FILM: a moving, entertaining story set in a world that will fascinate and one which you'll want to expose your kids to.
THE FINE PRINT (Stuff we gotta say)
• Please understand, we are a creative team -- directors, writers, artists, producers -- we are not a production facility. At the appropriate time in the future we will look for 3rd party production partnership to complete the film. At this stage it's too early to pick a partner. However, this a technically challenging, reel-worthy project. We're 100% confident that when fully funded, we can find a great production facility to make this film -- there are a handful of really top-quality houses ready for animation.
• If we can't get the funding for the film, we won't be able to fulfill some of the items. The pitch book, T-shirts, blog site, digital artwork and apprenticeship will all be funded by this campaign and we'll get them to you asap. We'll also create a CHILDREN'S BOOK ready for publication, but we can't guarantee you or your painting can be in the film or that we'll have a private screening if we can't get the film made. This is the same for the DVD. We're confident, but we've got a lot of big wig studio execs to convince -- THAT'S WHY YOUR BACKING IS SO IMPORTANT.
• The APPRENTICESHIP is an unpaid position and is NOT a guarantee of employment on the film. We'll make it a worthwhile, rich experience -- you'll be right at the core of the film. Great for a resume and a unique peak into the pre-production process.
• You must be over 18 or accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to tour the studio or be a voice in the film.
• The usage of a character likeness or a voice in the film will be ultimately determined by the filmmakers. You will be in the final cut, but we'll have to figure out where and how. We know we're asking for a lot of money for it, so we want you to have a good meaningful appearance, but we can't determine it until the storyboarding and editing begin in earnest.
•This fundraising campaign is all subject to applicable Kickstarter rules and regulations, movie guild rules and applicable laws. If any of this conflicts, we will work with you in good faith to give you a substitute reward.
To wrap it up -- filmmaking on this scale is a long and winding journey and we're not sure where all the bumps in the road may come. We know how important your contribution will be to this project and will do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to: 1) make a great film you can enjoy for years, and 2) get you your rewards. Anything you can give, any recommendation you can pass on to your friends and family is very important to us. We want to THANK YOU in advance for all your good wishes and support.
Learn about accountability on KickstarterFAQ
The answer is: YES! One of the cool things about this project is as Walt & Grandpa travel through the painted worlds, the way they look changes too. Some of the changes, like the Lichtenstein paintings, scream out for 2-D/handdrawn and will be amazing. There are still many great 2-D animators out there we hope to wrangle on the production. Other paintings, like Rembrandt's, are much more rendered and will likely require a 3-D approach. The "worlds" won't be limited to one particular painting, but will draw from ALL of a particular artist's paintings in a similar style in order to build out the world. Our visual goal will be to match that style with as much fidelity as possible. This approach will also allow for multiple production houses to work on separate "worlds" if we choose. Right now, we're more focused on first telling a good story and don't have all the answers.
The best answer we can give is YES! Given our plans for the scope of the production, distribution and the current market, BlueRay is a must. However, we're projecting something, when we haven't even made the film yet.
No, not yet. Keep in mind it's still in a development project. Part of our effort after funding will be to look further into the rights. Many/most of the paintings we want to explore are already in the public domain, but some may not be. We'll contact the estates (or artists in a few cases) and see if they want to be a part of this film. If we run into too many road blocks, we'll weep bitterly, then move on. There's thousands of great paintings and many unique, different worlds we want to explore.
Pledge $1 or more
232 backers
Tell us your favorite painting or painted character -- who you think HAS to be in the film. We'll seriously consider it and we want to hear from you! Also... a HUGE THANKS. Every backer counts big time.Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $10 or more
302 backers
PRODUCTION BLOG ACCESS -- a rare look into the workings of an animated film. Updated with photos, video clips, new artwork and blogs from the filmmakers. Come with us on the journey of making an animated film. (Included in all higher rewards)
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $10 or more
66 backers
AMBASSADOR PROGRAM...Great for Teachers, Students and Film School Grads. Producer tastes on a film school budget? Make at least a $10 pledge, recruit a bunch of friends to do the same, have them recruit a bunch of friends to continue, and get Rewards credit for everything you help to contribute!!! The Top 5 Ambassadors will be recognized with a 'special thanks' in our children's book and....Wait for it... will share a Screen Credit as Associate Producers of the film...and if your friends don't believe that's your name on the screen, you can show them the photos of your producer-self walking the Red Carpet with us at the 'Art Story' film premier!!!
....Check out the Art Story Ambassador Program Guidelines on our Facebook page for a complete description of the program (facebook.com/artstoryfilm/notes)
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $25 or more
127 backers
DIGITAL ARTWORK OF YOUR CHOICE – along with the Production Blog, we'll email you a hi-res version of your favorite Visual Development piece (the artwork shown in the video and on this page – Walt and Grandpa in the world of a painting). The digital jpeg will be hi-res print ready.
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $35 or more
85 backers
"HOW TO DRAW" DOWNLOAD -- from a blank file to a finished painting, Aaron will take you through his detailed Photoshop process on one of the key character paintings of our film. Very informative for young, learning artists! Checking our his amazing work at: http://aaronblaiseart.blogspot.com, and http://creatureartteacher.com/how-to-draw-downloads/ (Includes Digital Artwork of Your Choice)
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $40 or more
261 backers
DVD OF THE FILM! -- Upon immediate release of the DVD, we'll send you the movie hot off the presses. Own the film. Cherish it for years. (Includes previous rewards. Note: estimating release, actual date TBD)
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $50 or more
150 backers
FILM PITCH BOOK – a PDF copy emailed to you of our final pitch. Over 30 pages of images and text, outlining the whole story and including lots of new artwork. It's what we'll use to pitch the film in Hollywood and will give you a special insiders view of the process. (Includes all reward from level amounts)
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $60 or more
68 backers
CHILDREN'S BOOK DOWNLOAD -- when finished, we'll email you a digital pdf of the entire book, outlining the story. We don't know if we'll find a publisher, so this may be a one time, exclusive look at the film. Sure to be special! (Includes all reward from level amounts)
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $75 or more
69 backers
"ART STORY" CAST & CREW T-SHIRT. An exclusive T-shirt designed only for our backers. Throwing your money in with us makes you a part of the team and we want you to celebrate it on your chest!!! (We'll match your size, female cuts too!) (Includes all reward from level amounts)
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $100 or more
112 backers
PRE-PRODUCTION MOVIE POSTER signed by filmmakers & T-shirt. The Poster is not designed yet – but it'll be great! We'll send a signed, high quality print right to your doorstep. (Includes blog, DVD, Digital Artwork download, "How to Draw" download -- all lower level amounts)
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $150 or more
74 backers
SWAG COMBO PACKET -- DVD of film, Film Pitch Book, Cast & Crew T-shirt, Children's Book Download, blog access, digital artwork of your choice and signed Pre-Production Movie Poster! If you like movie swag, this is for you!!!
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $200 or more
18 backers
***SPECIAL TEACHER'S PACKET*** – a more detailed synopsis of the characters and story, select artwork prints of the show, background/history of artists & paintings used in the film, "how to draw" tutorials, coloring print outs, ideas for how to include material in class – e.g., research, sketches, reading selections. All material with be digital and includes a Cast & Crew T-shirt for the teacher. *Use the story to introduce the kids to fantastic classical paintings and their painters. >>If you want to buy this package for a teacher or are referred by one, just send us the teacher's email info and we'll get it to him or her. <<
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $250 or more
17 backers
ALL DIGITAL PRINTS COMBO PACKET – everything in the Swag Packet (pitch book, DVD. T-shirt, Poster, etc.) plus all the hi-res Digital Prints emailed to you! For the "Art Story" ultimate fan.
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $500 or more
18 backers
PERSONALIZED PITCH BOOK & ORIGINAL ARTWORK signed by filmmakers. We'll send you a printed copy of the Pitch Book with a special note of thanks from the filmmakers and an original sketch of one our characters. A unique way to give our thanks. (Includes Swag Combo Packet)
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $1,000 or more
6 backers
ONE OF EVERYTHING PACKET – all the digital prints, poster, t-shirt, DVD, pitch book pdf, teacher's packet, an original sketch and a PERSONAL PHONE CALL or SKYPE thank you from the filmmakers. (All items in Swag Combo Packet)
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $1,200 or more
1 backer Limited (7 left of 8)
CONSULT ON YOUR STORY! Aaron and Chuck will spend 3 hrs. consulting with you on your story idea. Together, Aaron and Chuck have nearly 50 years of working in animation on world class stories. They'll spend 2 x 3 hours on the phone, in person or on Skype helping you on your story idea. (Travel not included, available anytime over the next year and half).
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $2,000 or more
2 backers
ORIGINAL SKETCH & STUDIO TOUR – come see how animated films are made and get an original sketch of the film from one of our primary artists. We'll take through the ins and out of where we are in the process, let you spend a couple of hours with us in the studio and make sure you leave with one of the original, signed sketches of the project (a character from the film). (Includes Swag Combo Packet)
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $2,200 or more
3 backers Limited (2 left of 5)
LIMITED EDITION CHARACTER SCULPTURE (Maquette) by Disney character sculptor Tony Cipriano. Includes everything from the previous tiers, unless noted, PLUS an amazing cast action pose of Walt going into a painting (design coming) -- approx. 10 inches tall.
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $4,000 or more
5 backers
PRIVATE SCREENING & ALL THE SWAG -- watch the film with the filmmakers followed by lunch. Be one of the first to see the finished film and stay around for a discussion with the crew (Location TBD, Travel and accommodations not included) (Includes Swag Combo Packet)
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $5,000 or more
7 backers Limited (3 left of 10)
JOIN THE STORY TEAM -- That's right, be a part of the story! Come for a day with the story team. Story meetings are fun, creative, multi-hour sessions where we're figuring out the story: we brainstorm, laugh, argue and, yes, even cry a little all in the effort to make the best story possible. Come see what it's like and contribute to the ideas. (Travel and accommodations not included) (Includes Swag Combo Packet)
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $7,500 or more
4 backers Limited (1 left of 5)
BE SEEN IN THE MOVIE! The movie journeys through many paintings and includes many characters. We'll design a character after you or a loved-one's likeness and include it in the film. You might be a ballerina in a Degas, a medieval peasant in a Bruegel, or a pirate in an NC Wythe – we can't guarantee when or where, but we'll get your likeness in the film! (Placement to be determined by filmmakers). (Includes Swag Combo Packet)
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $8,000 or more
2 backers Limited (6 left of 8)
GALLERY NIGHT SCREENING! Screen the finished film at your gallery or a gallery of your choice. Use it to raise money, honor your special patrons and their families or just to celebrate art! We'll supply the film, provide promotional artwork and do our best to be there (schedule permitting) -- you do the rest.
Estimated delivery:Ships anywhere in the world -
Pledge $9,000 or more
1 backer Limited (3 left of 4)
PREMIER NIGHT TICKETS!!! Come to the world-wide premier (location TBD). We'll layout the red carpet: introduce you to the attending cast, join us at any before and after parties, and, if you like, sit next to us at the premier. Sure to be a fun, exciting night for all! (Pledge includes 2 tickets, travel and lodging not included) (Includes all previous Swag and maquette)
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $10,000
4 backers Limited (1 left of 5)
VOICE A CHARACTER! The ultimate animation fan dream. Be a voice in major release animated film! Dozens of voices make up an animated film of this size. We'll be sure you have a line or two in the film, the voice of a minor character, but still an interregnal part of our complex film. (Includes Swag Combo Packet)
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $10,000
2 backers All gone!
APPRENTICE WITH THE FILMMAKERS -- a 3 month experience with the directors on the project. Everything from deep research to coordinating artists all over the world to taking notes in story meetings -- you'll work directly with the leadership of the film, learning the ins and outs of making a movie. Room and board not provided, pre-production based in West Palm Beach, FL. Great for aspiring students, resume stuffing, or that second start on a career. (We'll work with you to schedule the best time). (Includes Swag Combo Packet)
Estimated delivery: -
Pledge $10,000
4 backers Limited (1 left of 5)
SPOTLIGHT YOUR PAINTING -- Already an art collector or an artist yourself? Have a painting you want seen? We'll give your favorite painting a prominent position in the film so everyone can see. (Placement determined by the directors, image must be in good taste -- hey, it's a family film). (Includes Swag Combo Packet)
Estimated delivery:
Funding period
- (47 days)


text:
Log Out
Call in to speak with the host
(818) 495-6931
Ross Mathews chats with Candi and Randy about his new talk show "Hello Ross!" on the E! Network.
From the "intern guy" on The Tonight Show to hosting major awards shows red carpets to "Chelsea Lately" regular, Ross talks about his journey and career as the world's "Pop Culture Super Fan."
Plus, Ross shares his work with the Human Rights Campaign on behalf of LGBT rights, being honored as the Grand Marshal at Palm Springs Pride this year and at the Las Vegas Gay and Lesbian Center's Honorarium.
For more info on Ross Mathews visit his website on the E! Network by clicking here.
Sorry we couldn't complete your registration. Please try again.
Please enter your email to finish creating your account.
old-style code for hosted blogs
Player Size 300 x 295 400 x 370 640 x 550

subset: commoncrawl


text:
ok thats a very disturbing myspace right there. Mostly all the comments from his "friends". Although the messages to jackson seem atleast normal.
My guess is you are under 25 to think it's pretty cool. Those of us of a more mature vintage think crap like that is offensive. (Of course when we were teens, we thought stuff like that was pretty "cool", too.)


text:
what is the best lube to use for an AR im trying to find something that wont dissipate over a couple hundred rounds something i can have for long range runs or just sitting in the safe ready to go need opinions please
Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!
Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more. Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.
Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here
many people like Mobile 1 motor oil
I always use hoppes 9 never had problems with it dissipating.
Work Hard Play Hard
If you want to run an AR hard you grease it just like a M1 or M14. Use a high temperature bearing grease or something similar that doesn't break down at normal AR operating temperatures. There are higher-tech solutions to the problem, like XF-7, but any high temp bearing grease that's not loaded with PTFE should do the trick. Just like the high temp greases, Mobil 1 synthetic won't break down at AR operating temperatures, but just like other relatively low viscosity lubricants it can run off if left in the safe for any length of time. Light oils work well for light shooting and they're cheap and readily available. That said, the high temp greases work better for heavier firing schedules and lubricants like XF-7 don't attract dust and grit if applied as directed.
i use 30weight motor oil when im actually shooting clp for storage and cleaning. gun greases work well as well. i just find that motor oil is the easiest to use. i use grease on my ccw guns prevents oil stains in my clothes.
"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." L. Neil Smith The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things... "I crapped my pants to avoid the draft!!" -Ted Nugent
I have an old tube of Gunslick Anhydrous Graphitic Lubricant. Its black grease that stays where you put it. So far its the only lubricant Ive used on my Delton and haven't had any malfunctions. Im not sure they even make this stuff anymore. Its in a silver tube stored in a red box. Its a small .20oz tube but a little goes a long way. Sooner or later Im gonna have to find a similar product. I have used 5-30 mobil one synthetic, remoil, hoppes and I mainly use CLP for cleaning. I bought a Otis cable pull thru kit that came with a small tube of 085 UltraBore that seems to work pretty well.
I really like frog lube, it soaks into the metal so as it heats up it lubricates itself.
I'm a fan of a combo of slip2000 products EWL and EWG I use the "extreme weapons lube" to relube during class' and on the bolt "rib" itself during mild winter months and the "extreme weapons grease" on the carrier "pads" cam pin also thin layer on bolt rib in warmer months.. I really like the grease and usually that exclusively unless squirting lube into the vent holes during high round counts which then I use the EWL.
I always use Mobil1 full synthetic motor oil. Works great and doesn't evaporate.


text:
Fleurs De Citronnier Perfume
By Serge Lutens for Women
Fleurs De Citronnier Perfume by Serge Lutens, Perfumer christopher sheldrake is one of the most respected perfumers in the world, and is the nose for serge lutens fragrances and in this floral oriental, he creates a oriental fragrance for woman that is perfect for day time . Lemon blossom is the star in the top and middle notes. It is surrounded by petitgrain, neroli, white honey. The base includes iris, musk and styrax resin. All products are original, authentic name brands. We do not sell knockoffs or imitations.
- Y Tu Tambien
- Yardley Iris
- Yardley London
- Yardley London Soaps
- Yardley Peony
- Yellow Jeans
- Yendi
- Yendi De Capucci
- Yes We Can
- Yin
- Yin 2
- Yin Yang
- Ylang In Gold
- Yohji Essential
- Yohji Yamamoto
- You & I
- You & Me
- You Are Divine
- Young Sexy Lovely
- Youth Dew
- Youth Dew Amber Nude
- Ysatis
- Ysatis Iris
- Ysl
- Yujin Art
- Yujin Ecstacy
- Yujin Paradise
- Yujin Sensual
- Yujin Star
- Yujin Starnight
- Yves d'Orgeval
- Yves De Sistelle
- Yves dOrgeval
- Yves Rocher
- Yves Saint Laurent
- Yvresse
- Yvresse Legere
- YZY Perfume
1.69 oz Eau De Parfum Spray (Unisex)
Item #465419
In Stock & Ready to Ship!
Hurry! Only 1 in stock
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
More Serge Lutens fragrances
for Women: Chergui , Feminite Du Bois , Fille En Aiguilles , Daim Blond , Arabie , morefor Men: Ambre Sultan , Vetiver Oriental , Chergui , L'eau Serge Lutens , Daim Blond , more
See all Serge Lutens products
Customer Comments
Yes, I am very pleased with the service I received from fragrance X.com. There is a good chance that I will order from you again.
D. Ruggle (Waunakee, WI)


text:
• Compare and contrast the respective roles of "pop" psychology with the science of psychology in contemporary society.
• Examine future of psychology in contemporary society.
Course Assignments
1. Readings
• Read Ch. 12 of How to Think Straight about Psychology.
• Review this week's Electronic Reserve Readings.
2. Individual Assignment: The Future of Psychology
• Prepare a 700 to 1,050-word paper in which you examine the future of psychology. As a part of your examination, be sure to address the following:
a) Compare and contrast the respective roles of "pop" psychology with the science of psychology in contemporary society.
b) Examine the future of psychology in contemporary society.
c) Explain how psychology will impact your life.
d) Your paper must contain at least three references from peer-reviewed sources.
e eBook Collection chapter 12.docx Download Attachment
eeBook Collection
The Rodney Dangerfield
of the Sciences
Although there is a great public fascination with psychological topics, most
judgments about the field and its... eeBook Collection
The Rodney Dangerfield
of the Sciences
Although there is a great public fascination with psychological topics, most
judgments about the field and its accomplishments are resoundingly negative.
Psychologists are aware of this image problem, but most feel that there
is little they can do about it, so they simply ignore it. This is a mistake. As
the mass media become more and more influential in determining public
perceptions (e.g., fictional TV docudramas become the true history for a
public that does not read), ignoring psychologys image problem threatens
to make it worse.
Rodney Dangerfield was a popular comedian for over three decades
and whose trademark was the plaintive cry I dont get no respect! In a
way, this is a fitting summary of psychologys status in the public mind. This
chapter will touch on some of the reasons that psychology appears to be the
Rodney Dangerfield of the sciences.
Psychologys Image Problem
Some of the reasons for psychologys image problem have already been
discussed. For example, the Freud problem discussed in Chapter 1 undoubtedly
contributes to the low esteem in which psychology is held. To the extent
that the public knows about any reputable psychologists at all, Freud and
B. F. Skinner are those psychologists (Overskeid, 2007). The distorted
versions of their ideas that circulate among the public must contribute to the
idea that psychology is a frivolous field indeed. There would appear to
be little hope for a field when one of its most renowned scholars is said to
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
186 Chapter 12
have claimed that we have no minds and that we are just like rats. Of course,
Skinner did not deny that we think (Gaynor, 2004), and many principles of
operant conditioning that he developed from work with animals have been
shown to generalize to human behavior. However, the public is little aware
of any of these facts. Distorted ideas from Freudian doctrine also contribute
to lowering the public esteem for psychology.
Psychology and Parapsychology
The laypersons knowledge of reputable psychological research, outside of
the work of Freud or Skinner, is virtually nonexistent. One way to confirm
this fact is to look in your local bookstore to see what material on psychology
is available to the general public. Inspection will reveal that the material
generally falls into three categories. First, there will be few classics (Freud,
Skinner, Fromm, Erickson, Jung, etc.) heavily biased toward old-style psychoanalytic
views that are totally unrepresentative of modern psychology.
Frustratingly for psychologists, works of real worth in the field are often
shelved in the science and/or biology sections of bookstores. For example,
psychologist Steven Pinkers well-known and esteemed book How the Mind
Works (1997) is often in the science section rather than the psychology
section. Thus, the important work in cognitive science that he discusses
becomes associated with biology, neurophysiology, or computer science
rather than psychology.
The second class of material found in most stores might be called
pseudoscience masquerading as psychologythat is, the seemingly
never-ending list of so-called paranormal phenomena such as telepathy,
clairvoyance, psychokinesis, precognition, reincarnation, biorhythms,
astral projection, pyramid power, plant communication, and psychic
surgery (Lilienfeld, Lohr, & Moirer, 2001). The presence of a great body of
this material in the psychology sections of bookstores undoubtedly contributes
to the widespread misconception that psychologists are the people
who have confirmed the existence of such phenomena. There is a bitter
irony for psychology in this misconception. In fact, the relationship
between psychology and the paranormal is easily stated. These phenomena
are simply not an area of active research interest in modern psychology.
The reason, however, is a surprise to many people.
The statement that the study of ESP and other paranormal abilities is
not accepted as part of the discipline of psychology will undoubtedly provoke
the ire of many readers. Surveys have consistently shown that more
than 40 percent of the general public believes in the existence of such phenomena
and often holds these beliefs with considerable fervor (Farha &
Steward, 2006; Kida, 2006; Musella, 2005; Rice, 2003). Historical studies and
survey research have suggested why these beliefs are held so strongly
(Begley, 2008b; Humphrey, 1996; Lilienfeld, 2005; Park, 2008; Stanovich,
2004). Like most religions, many of the so-called paranormal phenomena
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences 187
seem to promise things such as life after death, and for some people, they
serve the same need for transcendence. It should not be surprising, then, that
the bearer of the bad tidings that research in psychology does not validate
ESP is usually not greeted with enthusiasm. The statement that psychology
does not consider ESP a viable research area invariably upsets believers and
often provokes charges that psychologists are dogmatic in banishing certain
topics from their discipline. Psychologists do not contribute to public understanding
when they throw up their hands and fail to deal seriously with
these objections. Instead, psychologists should give a careful and clear explanation
of why such objections are ill founded. Such an explanation would
emphasize that scientists do not determine by edict which topics to investigate.
No proclamation goes out declaring what can and cannot be studied.
Areas of investigation arise and are expanded or terminated according to a
natural selection process that operates on ideas and methods. Those that
lead to fruitful theories and empirical discoveries are taken up by a large
number of scientists. Those that lead to theoretical dead ends or that do not
yield replicable or interesting observations are dropped. This natural selection
of ideas and methods is what leads science closer to the truth.
The reason that ESP, for example, is not considered a viable topic in
contemporary psychology is simply that its investigation has not proved
fruitful. Therefore, very few psychologists are interested in it. It is important
here to emphasize the word contemporary, because the topic of ESP was of
greater interest to psychologists some years ago, before the current bulk
of negative evidence had accumulated. As history shows, research areas are
not declared invalid by governing authorities; they are merely winnowed
out in the competing environment of ideas.
ESP was never declared an invalid topic in psychology. The evidence of
this fact is clear and publicly available (Alcock, 1990; Hines, 2003; Hyman,
1992, 1996; Kelly, 2005; Marks, 2001; Milton & Wiseman, 1999; Park, 2008).
Many papers investigating ESP have appeared in legitimate psychological
journals over the years. Parapsychologists who thrive on media exposure
like to give the impression that the area is somehow new, thus implying that
startling new discoveries are just around the corner. The truth is much less
The study of ESP is actually as old as psychology itself. It is not a new
area of investigation. It has been as well studied as many of the currently
viable topics in the psychological literature. The results of the many studies
that have appeared in legitimate psychological journals have been overwhelmingly
negative. After more than 90 years of study, there still does not
exist one example of an ESP phenomenon that is replicable under controlled
conditions. This simple but basic scientific criterion has not been met despite
dozens of studies conducted over many decades. Many parapsychologists
and believers themselves are even in agreement on this point. In short, there
is no demonstrated phenomenon that needs scientific explanation. For this
reason alone, the topic is now of little interest to psychology.
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
188 Chapter 12
And now the irony. Psychologists have played a prominent role in
attempts to assess claims of paranormal abilities. The importance of their
contribution is probably second only to that of the professional magicians,
who have clearly done the most to expose the fraudulent nature of most purported
demonstrations of paranormal abilities (Randi, 2005). Many of the
most important books on the state of the evidence on paranormal abilities
have been written by psychologists.
The irony, then, is obvious. Psychology, the discipline that has probably
contributed most to the accurate assessment of ESP claims, is the field that is
most closely associated with such pseudosciences in the public mind.
Psychology suffers greatly from this guilt-by-association phenomenon. As
will be discussed in greater detail later, psychology is often the victim of a
double whammy. Here is just one example. The assumption that anything
goes in psychology, that it is a field without scientific mechanisms for deciding
among knowledge claims, leads to its being associated with pseudosciences
such as ESP. However, if psychologists ever become successful in
getting the public to recognize these pseudosciences for what they really are,
the pseudosciences association with psychology will be seen as confirmation
that psychology is indeed not a science!
The Self-Help Literature
The third category in the bookstore psychology section is the so-called selfhelp
literature. There are, of course, many different genres within this
category (see Fried & Schultis, 1995; Lilienfeld et al., 2003; Meyers, 2008;
Paul, 2001; Santrock et al., 1994). Some books are spiritually uplifting tracts
written with the purpose of generally increasing feelings of self-worth and
competence. Others attempt to package familiar bromides about human
behavior in new ways. A few (but all too few) are authored by responsible
psychologists writing for the general public. Many that are not in the latter
category vie for uniqueness by presenting new therapies that are usually
designed not only to correct specific behavioral problems but also to help
satisfy general human wants (making more money, losing more weight, and
having better sex are the big three), thereby ensuring larger book sales.
These so-called new therapies are rarely based on any type of controlled
experimental investigation. They usually rest on personal experience or on
a few case histories, if the author is a clinician. This is often true of the treatments
of so-called alternative medicine. Humorously, R. Barker Bausell, a
biostatistician at the University of Maryland, calls the term alternative
medicine a scientific term for something you heard about from your hairdresser,
who thinks she saw it on Oprah (Adler, 2007, p. 22).
The many behavioral and cognitive therapies that have emerged after
painstaking psychological investigation as having demonstrated effectiveness
are usually poorly represented on the bookshelves. The situation
is even worse in the electronic media. Radio and TV carry virtually no
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences 189
reports of legitimate psychology and instead present purveyors of bogus
therapies and publicity-seeking media personalities who have no connection
to the actual field of psychology. The main reason is that the legitimate
psychological therapies do not claim to provide an instant cure or improvement,
nor do they guarantee success or claim a vast generality for their
effects (Not only will you quit smoking, but every aspect of your life will
It is similar in the case of the Internet. The lack of peer review ensures
that the therapies and cures that one finds there are often bogus. Here is one
example. In 2008 Paul Offit published an important book titled Autisms False
Prophets in which he detailed the many treatments for autism that have been
found to be bogus by actual scientific research but that have enjoyed popularity
among parents desperate for a treatment to help their children. One,
facilitated communication, I have discussed in Chapter 6. Offit describes
many other pseudoscientific treatments that have falsely raised parents
hopes and have led them to spend thousands of dollars and to waste their
time and energy chasing a bogus cure. On January 2, 2009, I identified one
of the bogus chemical cures for autism discussed in Offits book (I will not
name it in order not to add to its publicity) and typed it and the word
autism into Google. Of the first ten links that appeared in the outcome of
my search, four links were to websites that were advocating this totally bogus
chemical cure. Scientific accuracy is not guaranteed in a Web search
because websites are not peer reviewed. They thus provide no consumer
protection for the random searcher with no further knowledge of the scientific
literature on the topic in question.
The self-help literature, which accounts for a substantial portion of the
book market in the United States, has many unfortunate effects on the general
perception of psychology. First, like the Freud problem, it creates confusion
concerning the problems that dominate the attention of psychologists.
For example, although a substantial number of psychologists are engaged in
providing therapy for problems of obesity, of relationships, and of sexuality
and also in researching these problems, the actual number is far less than
that suggested by their representation in the self-help literature. This misrepresentation
also contributes to the publics view that most psychologists are
engaged in the treatment of and research on abnormal behavior. In fact, most
psychological research is directed at nonpathological behavior that is typical
of all humans. Ex-president of the American Psychological Association
Martin Seligman (2002) has lamented that, to the public, psychology has
become almost synonymous with treating mental illness. Its historic mission
of making the lives of untroubled people more productive and fulfilling
takes a distant back seat to healing disorders (p. 19).
Beyond the content confusion, the self-help literature creates an inaccurate
impression of the methods and goals of psychology. As we showed in
Chapter 4, the science of psychology does not consider a few case studies,
testimonials, and personal experienceswhich are the database for most
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
190 Chapter 12
of the self-help therapiesadequate empirical evidence to support the
efficacy of a therapy. The self-help literature misleads the public by implying
that this is the type of database on which most psychological conclusions
rest. As illustrated in Chapter 8, the confirmation of a theory must rest on
many different types of evidence, and case studies yield the weakest type of
data. It is a fundamental mistake to view such data as definitive proof of a
particular theory or therapy.
Recipe Knowledge
Finally, the self-help literature creates confusion about the goals of psychology
and about the type of knowledge that most psychological investigations
seek. Psychologist Leigh Shaffer (1981) suggested that this literature
strongly implies that psychological researchers seek what has been termed
recipe knowledge. Recipe knowledge is the knowledge of how to use something
without knowledge of the fundamental principles that govern its
functioning. For example, most people know many things about how to use
a telephone. They know how to dial, how to get information, how to make
long-distance connections, and so on. But many are completely ignorant of
the physical principles on which the operation of the telephone is based.
They do not know how it does what it does; they only know that they can
make it work. This is recipe knowledge of the telephone. Our knowledge of
many technological products in our society is also recipe knowledge.
Of course, this is not an entirely bad thing. Indeed, most technological
products have been designed to be used without knowledge of all the principles
that make them work. In fact, the idea of recipe knowledge provides one
way of conceptualizing the difference between basic and applied research.
The basic researcher seeks to uncover the fundamental principles of nature
without necessarily worrying about whether they can be turned into recipe
knowledge. The applied researcher is more interested in translating basic
principles into a product that requires only recipe knowledge.
Most self-help literature provides only recipe knowledge about human
behavior. It usually boils down to the form Do X and you will become more
Y, or Do Z and person A will react more B. Now, there is nothing inherently
wrong here, assuming, of course, that the recipes provided are correct
(which is usually not a safe assumption). Many legitimate psychotherapies
also provide much recipe knowledge. However, a problem arises when
people mistakenly view recipe knowledge as the ultimate goal of all psychological
research. Although a number of psychological researchers do work
on turning basic behavioral principles into usable psychotherapeutic techniques,
health-maintaining behavior programs, or models of efficient industrial
organization, psychological research is largely basic research aimed at
uncovering general facts and theories about behavior. Here we have another
reason why psychological research may seem strange to the outsider.
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences 191
Investigations of basic principles often look very different from studies
focused on developing applications.
We would consider it silly to walk into a molecular biology laboratory
and ask a researcher whether we should take two or three aspirins for a
headache. The reason is not that molecular biology has nothing to do with
pain relief. Future developments in pain relievers will probably involve
knowledge from this area of science. It is silly to ask this question because the
molecular biologist is simply not working at the recipe level that deals with
whether to take two aspirins or three. The researcher is concerned with fundamental
facts about the molecular level of biological substances. These facts
could lead to recipe knowledge in any number of areas, but the transformation
to recipe knowledge will probably not be accomplished by the same investigator
who uncovered the basic facts at the molecular level, nor will it be accomplished
by use of the same methods that led to the original discoveries.
Thus, because the self-help literature has led people to believe that
most psychologists work at developing recipe knowledge, much of the basic
research that psychologists conduct appears strange. What did Hechts data
(Chapter 7) about subjects looking at red lights in a dark room have to do
with anything in the real world? Well, on the surface, nothing. Hecht was
interested in uncovering basic laws about the way the visual system adapts
to darkness. The basic principles were eventually translated into recipe
knowledge of how to deal with some specific problems, such as night blindness
due to vitamin deficiency. However, this translation was not done by
Hecht himself, and it did not come until several years later.
Thus, the self-help literature has two unfortunate side effects on the
public perception of psychology. The range of problems addressed in this
literature does not necessarily represent the focus of contemporary psychology.
Instead, it reflects, quite naturally, what people want to read about. The
logic of television, radio, and web-based content is the same. However, the
focus of science is not determined by polling the public. In all sciences, and
in psychology in particular, there is usually a gap between the ideas that are
productive for scientists and those that can be packaged to sell to the public.
Consider the area of weight loss prescriptions. Scientists have slowly accumulated
evidence for some mild prescriptions that help with weight control
(Brody, 2008) but they are not breakthrough remedies. By contrast, consider
the report of retired physician Harriet Hall (2008), who writes a sciencebased
medicine blog. She describes one weight-loss product that made the
usual claims: eat all you want and still lose weight. But it had the best advertising
slogan ever: We couldnt say it in print if it wasnt true! I laughed
out loud. Anyone can say anything in print until they get caught. These diet
ads all say things that arent true, and the Federal Trade Commission cant
begin to catch them all (p. 47). Halls point is that there is a complete disconnect
between good science and what the media (from television to print
to websites) wants to publicize.
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
192 Chapter 12
Journalists Barbara Kantrowitz and Claudia Kolb (2006) described the
disconnect between science and the media in an article on the media reporting
of the health effects of various foods. The subtitle of their article was
A new appetite for answers has put science on a collision course with the
media. The collision course in the subtitle refers to the fact that the
media want quick answers to questions that are of public interest,
whereas science produces slow answers to questions that are scientifically
answerableand all the questions that the public finds interesting might
not be answerable.
Psychology and Other Disciplines
Psychology, of course, does not have a monopoly on studying behavior.
Many other allied disciplines, using a variety of different techniques and
theoretical perspectives, also contribute to our knowledge. Many problems
concerning behavior call for an interdisciplinary approach. However, a frustrating
fact that most psychologists must live with is that when work on an
interdisciplinary problem is publicized, the contributions of psychologists
are often usurped by other fields.
There are many examples of scientific contributions by psychologists
that have been ignored, minimized, or partially attributed to other disciplines.
For instance, the first major survey of the evidence on televisions
effects on childrens behavior was conducted under the aegis of the
U.S. Surgeon General, so it is not surprising that the American Medical
Association (AMA) passed a resolution to reaffirm the surveys findings of a
suggested causal link and to bring the conclusions more publicity. Again,
there is nothing wrong here, but an unintended consequence of the repeated
association of the findings on televised violence with the AMA is that it has
undoubtedly created the impression that the medical profession conducted
the scientific research that established the results. In fact, the vast majority of
the research studies on the effects of television violence on childrens behavior
were conducted by psychologists.
One of the reasons that the work of psychologists is often ascribed to
other disciplines is that the word psychologist has, over the years, become
ambiguous. Many research psychologists commonly append their research
specialty to the word psychologist when labeling themselves, calling themselves,
for example, physiological psychologists, cognitive psychologists,
industrial psychologists, evolutionary psychologists, or neuropsychologists.
Some use a label that does not contain a derivative of the word psychology at
all, for example, neuroscientist, cognitive scientist, artificial intelligence
specialist, and ethologist. Both of these practicesin conjunction with
the medias bias that psychology isnt a sciencelead to the misattribution
of the accomplishments of psychologists: The work of physiological
psychologists is attributed to biology, the work of cognitive psychologists is
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences 193
attributed to computer science and neuroscience, the work of industrial psychologists
is attributed to engineering and business, and so on. Psychology
wont be helped by the fact that one of its most brilliant contemporary
researchers, Daniel Kahneman, received the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics!
Of course, no Nobel Prize is given in psychology (Benjamin, 2004;
Kahneman, 2003; MacCoun, 2002).
In fact, here is how ridiculous the tendency to overlook psychology can
get. In its April 17, 2008 issue, the New York Review of Books published the
following correction on page 86: In Sue Halperins review of books about
happiness [NYR, April 3], the field in which economist Daniel Kahneman
has done pioneering research should have been referred to as hedonic psychology,
not hedonistic psychology. At first we might give the magazine
some points for accuracythey corrected the mistaken use of the word
hedonistic with the word hedonic. However, the editors did not notice,
before printing this correction, that they had introduced another error
Daniel Kahneman is a cognitive psychologist, not an economist!
Psychologist Frederick King (1993), the director of the Yerkes Primate
Research Center at Emory University, told of taking time to explain to a
reporter the importance of animal models in the study of human neurological
disorders. After listening to the long explanation by King, who had
contributed for years to the research literature on the neurological and
behavioral problems of epilepsy, the reporter asked, How do you know
anything about epilepsy? Youre just a psychologist.
It is such thinking that leads many people to assume that the root of
most medical errors lies in medical technology or in pharmaceutical products
that do not work properly. In fact, most medical errors trace to defects in
thinkingthey are rooted in aspects of human psychology that are being
studied so that medical practice might be improved (Groopman, 2007, 2008).
Consider another example. In the late 1970s, several cases involving the
use of standardized tests were adjudicated in the courts. One such case,
PASE vs. Hannon, involved the issue of cultural bias in intelligence tests. The
judge in the case felt that the only way to arrive at a decision was to inspect
each test item himself and to trust his own intuition. He had no reservations
about his ability to make an accurate judgment and, in his legal opinion,
cited his own view of each question on the tests involved (Bersoff, 1981,
1982). He concluded that eight items in one test and a single item in another
may have been biased. The judge did not realize that the issue in question is
an empirical one that can be answered by use of the scientific method.
Personal opinion is not only irrelevant but may be extremely misleading.
The determination of bias in test items involves complex statistical procedures
and extensive data collection. Psychologists have been prominent
in collecting the necessary data and developing the necessary statistical techniques
for their evaluation.
Ironically, given the judges action, research has in fact revealed that
the laypersons intuitive judgment about which items are culturally biased is
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
194 Chapter 12
often markedly inaccurate. Many items that are judged to be fair are in fact
biased in various ways, and many that are thought to be unfair are actually
statistically unbiased (Sandoval & Miille, 1980). For example, the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale has been criticized in Canada because some of
the items on one of its subscales (Information) clearly seem to be biased in
favor of U.S. citizens. One item, for instance, asks the respondent to name
four men who have been president of the United States since 1950. Thus,
some of the items have been Canadianized for administration in Canada
(Violato, 1984, 1986). The presidents item, for example, was changed to
Name four men who have been prime minister of Canada since 1900.
However, there was one little problem with this obvious, commonsense
change: Canadian citizens do better on the presidents version than on the
prime ministers version!
Our Own Worst Enemies
Lest it appear that we are blaming everyone else for psychologys image
problems, it is about time that we acknowledge the contribution of psychologists
themselves to confusion about their field. There are very few
rewards for the legitimate psychologist who tries to communicate actual
psychology to the public. However, the APAand the APS are making more
efforts to facilitate public communication. The APS has started a new journal
for this purpose: Psychological Science in the Public Interest. The APS
also sponsors a blog called Were Only Human for this purpose
(http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/). Psychology needs
to make much more of an effort in this area. Otherwise, we will have
only ourselves to blame for the misunderstanding of our discipline
(West, 2007).
Past APA president Ronald Fox (1996) spoke of psychologys communication
problems in a recent presidential address and how we have brought
some of these communication problems on ourselves:
Some practitioners who are appearing in the mass media are behaving in ways
that are unprofessional, marginally ethical at best, and downright embarrassing
to a majority of their peers. . . . Our discipline lacks effective measures for
responding to irresponsible and outrageous public claims. . . . Too often in
todays world, the public is treated to the views and opinions of charlatans (as
observed on a recent TV talk show in which a psychologist claimed to have
helped dozens of patients remember traumas suffered in past lives), rather
than rational practitioners. (pp. 779780)
And, finally, there is the phenomenon of antiscientific attitudes within
parts of psychology itself. For example, some groups of psychotherapists have
traditionally resisted scientific evaluations of their treatments. Columnist and
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences 195
psychotherapist Charles Krauthammer (1985) wrote of how this attitude
presents a serious threat to the integrity of psychotherapy. First, there is the
proliferation of therapies that has occurred because of a reluctance to winnow
out those that do not work. Such a proliferation not only removes a critical
consumer protection but also promotes confusion in the field: Psychotherapy
has come upon this state of confusion because . . . it permits too few deaths
among its schools. It is incapable of killing its own. Psychotherapy is dying of
dilution. Krauthammer was here lamenting how the failure to use the falsification
strategy prevents scientific progress.
Finally, Krauthammer pointed to the inconsistency of a therapeutic
community that, on one hand, argues against scientific evaluation because it
is more art than science, in the common phrase, but is still greatly concerned
about what he called the 800-pound gorilla: reimbursement for
services by government and private health insurers. Krauthammer exposed
the inconsistency of these attitudes within the psychotherapy community:
As long as psychotherapies resist pressure to produce scientific evidence
that they work, the economic squeeze will tighten. After all, if psychotherapy
is really an art, it should be supported by the National Endowment for
the Humanities, not by Medicare. Consistent with this sentiment, in their
review of psychotherapy outcome research, Kopta, Lueger, Saunders, and
Howard (1999) argued, The effectiveness of specific psychological treatments
must be empirically validated to justify reimbursement by insurance
and managed care companies and by government agencies that are demanding
more accountability (p. 442).
Some readers of the first few editions of this book commented that they
thought I had let psychologists get off too easily by not emphasizing more
strongly that unprofessional behavior and antiscientific attitudes among
psychologists themselves contribute greatly to the disciplines image problem.
My task of providing more balance on this point was made easier by the
publication, in 1994, of Robyn Dawess House of Cards: Psychology and
Psychotherapy Built on Myth. If anyone doubts that psychologists themselves
have contributed greatly to the fields dilemmas, they need only read this
book. In this courageous work, Dawes did not hesitate to air psychologys
dirty linen and, at the same time, to argue that the scientific attitude toward
human problems that is at the heart of the true discipline of psychology is of
great utility to society (although its potential is still largely untapped). For
example, Dawes argued that there really is a science of psychology that has
been developed with much work by many people over many years, but it is
being increasingly ignored, derogated, and contradicted by the behavior of
professionalswho, of course, give lip service to its existence (p. vii).
What Dawes, and others (Garb, 2005; Lilienfeld, Lynn, & Lohr, 2003;
Lilienfeld, Ruscio, & Lynn, 2008; Mook, 2001; Wood, Nezworski, Lilienfeld, &
Garb, 2003), are objecting to is that the field of psychology justifies licensure
requirements based on the scientific status of psychology and then uses licensure
to protect the unscientific behavior of psychological practitioners. For
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
196 Chapter 12
example, one thing that a well-trained psychologist should know is that we
can be reasonably confident only in aggregate predictions. By contrast, predicting
the behavior of particular individuals is fraught with uncertainty (see
Chapters 10 and 11) and is something no competent psychologist should
attempt without the strongest of caveats, if at all. As Dawes (1994) noted,
A mental health expert who expresses a confident opinion about the probable
future behavior of a single individual (for example, to engage in violent acts) is
by definition incompetent, because the research has demonstrated that neither
a mental health expert nor anyone else can make such a prediction with accuracy
sufficient to warrant much confidence. (Professionals often state that their
professional role requires them to make such judgments, however much
they personally appreciate the uncertainty involved. No, they are not
requiredthey volunteer.) (p. vii)
In short, the APAhas fostered an ethos surrounding clinical psychology
that suggests that psychologists can be trained to acquire an intuitive
insight into the behavior of individual people that the research evidence
does not support. When pushed to defend licensure requirements as anything
more than restraint of trade, however, the organization uses its scientific
credentials as a weapon (one president of the APA, defending the organization
from attack, said Our scientific base is what sets us apart from the social
workers, the counselors, and the Gypsies; Dawes, 1994, p. 21). But the very
methods that the field holds up to justify its scientific status have revealed
that the implication that licensed psychologists have a unique clinical
insight is false. It is such intellectual duplicity on the part of the APA that
spawned Dawess book and that in part led to the formation of the APS in the
1980s by psychologists tired of an APA that was more concerned about Blue
Cross payments than with science.
Scott Lilienfeld (1998), the winner of the David Shakow Award for
early career contributions to clinical psychology, reiterated all of these points
in his award acceptance speech, warning that we in clinical psychology
seem to have shown surprisingly little interest in doing much about the
problem of pseudoscience that has been festering in our own backyards
(p. 3). Lilienfeld (1998) listed several categories of pseudosciences that have
flourished in clinical psychology during the 1990s, including
1. Unvalidated and bizarre treatments for trauma
2. Demonstrably ineffective treatments for autism such as facilitated communication
(see Chapter 6)
3. The continued use of inadequately validated assessment instruments
(e.g., many projective tests)
4. Subliminal self-help tapes
5. Use of highly suggestive therapeutic techniques to unearth memories
of child abuse.
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences 197
Lilienfeld quoted noted clinical researcher Paul Meehls (1993), If we
do not clean up our clinical act and provide our students with role models of
scientific thinking, outsiders will do it for us (p. 728; see also, Mahrer, 2000).
Meehl was here referring to the tendencydiscussed in Chapter 11for
clinicians to imply, contrary to the empirical evidence, that they have
special knowledge of people that goes beyond general behavioral trends
that are publicly available as replicable scientific knowledge. Arguing that
the clinical psychologist must, if anything, be more concerned that knowledge
be empirically and publicly verified, Meehl (1993) warns that it is
absurd, as well as arrogant, to pretend that acquiring a PhD somehow
immunizes me from the errors of sampling, perception, recording, retention,
retrieval, and inference to which the human mind is subject (p. 728).
Questionable practices still plague the field of clinical psychology,
however. For example, the critical-incident stress debriefing has, in many
localities, become a standard procedure used to treat witnesses to catastrophic
and traumatic events such as bombings, shootings, combat, terrorism,
and earthquakes (Groopman, 2004; McNally, Bryant, & Ehlers, 2003).
The debriefing procedure involves having the client talk about the event
and ventilate their emotions, especially in the company of peers who have
experienced the same incident (McNally et al., 2003, p. 56), and its purpose
is to reduce the incidence of posttraumatic stress disorders (PTSDs). The
majority of debriefed clients report that the experience was helpful. Of
course, no one who has read this book will find that evidence convincing
(recall the discussion of placebo effects in Chapter 4). A control group (who
is not given the critical-incident stress debriefing) is obviously needed. In
fact, the vast majority trauma survivors recover from initial posttrauma
reactions without professional help (McNally et al., 2003, p. 45), so it clearly
needs to be demonstrated that the recovery rate is higher when the criticalincident
stress debriefing is used. Properly controlled studies have shown
that this is not the case (Groopman, 2004; McNally et al., 2003), yet the
procedure continues to be used.
Emery, Otto, and ODonohue (2005), in a recent review of a large body
of evidence, have shown that, likewise, the clinical psychology surrounding
child custody evaluations is filled with pseudoscience (Novotney, 2008). For
example, they describe several assessment instruments used by clinical psychologists
purportedly to assess childrens best interests in these custody
disputes. After reviewing several of these instrumentsfor example, scales
purporting to assess the perception of relationships and parental awareness
skillsEmery et al. (2005) conclude that none of them have demonstrated
reliability or validity. They note that no study examining the properties of
these measures has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journalan
essential criterion for science (p. 8) and conclude that our bottom-line
evaluation of these measures is a harsh one: these measures assess illdefined
constructs, and they do so poorly, leaving no scientific justification
for their use in child custody evaluations (p. 7).
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
198 Chapter 12
Emery et al. (2005) point out that it is not just the instruments in child
custody evaluations that are often faulty, but the very concepts used by clinical
psychologists. Emery et al. give as one example so-called parental
alienation syndrome. It is based on the clinical experience of just a single
person and has no validation in convergent scientific research, but it is
bandied about by clinical psychologists in custody evaluations as if it were a
truly scientific construct. It is likewise with some well-known measures for
assessing sex offenders. Clinical psychologists continue to use them in spite
of their lack of predictive validitythe measures have no demonstrated ability
to differentially predict the probability of re-offense (Ewing, 2006).
Cognitive psychologist Hal Arkes (2003) described his frustration
when federal agencies did not use the information he provided them regarding
how to make the grant review processes fairer. But, upon reflection, he
had to admit that our profession presents an embarrassing face to the public.
He recalls recently receiving a brochure from a conference at which professional
psychologists would receive continuing education credit for sessions
on communication with spirits and deceased ancestors. He admits that it
is not surprising that federal agencies fail to be influenced by psychologists
when professional organizations grant continuing education credit for
highly dubious workshops [and when] I continue to have fully credentialled
colleagues who embarrass the profession (p. 6).
Psychoanalytically oriented clinical psychologists, as another example,
have been guilty of many pseudoscientific practices. A historian of Freudian
thought, Frank Sulloway, has argued that in response to critiques of Freuds
ideas, psychoanalysis reacted regressively by privatizing its training mechanisms,
which means that it took itself out of the enormously successful
tradition, which first emerged during the scientific revolution, of testing
theories using formal methods of self-criticism. Instead, the discipline of
psychoanalysis took a step back toward the medieval tradition that preceded
the scientific revolution by founding small private institutes in which knowledge
could be transmitted dogmatically and where students were taught
how to overcome resistances to the theory (Dufresne, 2007, p. 65).
Things may be looking up, however. In 2002 a new journal was started:
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice (Lilienfeld, 2002, 2007; see also,
Lilienfeld, Ruscio, & Lynn, 2008). The journal is dedicated to research that
tries to distinguish scientific from pseudoscientific treatments, and it has
been endorsed by the Council for Scientific Mental Health Practice. Even
more heartening are indications that at least some psychological organizations
are showing the fortitude required to police clinical practice and to rid
psychological practice of its ultimately destructive anything goes attitude.
Lilienfeld and Lohr (2000) report on how the Arizona Board of Psychological
Examiners sanctioned a psychologist who attempted to treat phobias with a
pseudoscientific treatment that involved tapping body parts in a predetermined
order. Needless to say, there are no controlled studies of the efficacy of
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences 199
this treatment, and the Arizona Board ordered the therapist to stop using it
and put him on probationan all too rare example of a psychological organization
policing the pseudoscience that is practiced by its clinical members.
In short, psychology has a kind of Jekyll and Hyde personality.
Extremely rigorous science exists right alongside pseudoscientific and antiscientific
attitudes. This Jekyll and Hyde aspect of the discipline was clearly
apparent in the recovered-memoryfalse-memory debate of the last two
decades (Brainerd & Reyna, 2005; Gardner, 2006; Lilienfeld, 2007; Loftus &
Guyer, 2002; McHugh, 2008). Many cases were reported of individuals who
had claimed to remember instances of child abuse that had taken place
decades earlier but had been forgotten. Many of these memories occurred in
the context of therapeutic interventions. It is clear that some of these memories
were induced by the therapy itself (Gardner, 2006; Lilienfeld, 2007;
Loftus & Guyer, 2002; Lynn, Loftus, Lilienfeld, & Lock, 2003). Some people
insisted that such memories were never to be trusted; others insisted that
they were always to be trusted. In the emotionally charged atmosphere of
such an explosive social issue, psychologists provided some of the more balanced
commentary and, most important, some of the more dispassionate
empirical evidence on the issue of recovered or false memories (Alexander
et al., 2005; Brainerd & Reyna, 2005; Bremner, Shobe, & Kihlstrom, 2000;
Goodman et al., 2003; McNally, 2003; Moore & Zoellner, 2007). Here we have
the Jekyll and Hyde feature of psychology in full-blown form. Some of the
cases of therapeutically induced false memoriesand, hence, of the controversial
phenomenon itselfwere caused by incompetent and scientifically
ignorant therapists who were psychologists. On the other hand, whatever
uncertain partial resolution of the controversy we do have is in large part
due to the painstaking efforts of research psychologists who studied the
relevant phenomena empirically. Finally, I must make clear that I do not
wish to imply that it is only psychology that is beset with such problems.
Indeed, medicine has had to draggedkicking and screamingtoward a
fully evidence-based approach, and it is not there yet (Beane, Gingrich, &
Kerry, 2008; Kenney, 2008).
I hope this section has helped to dispel the notion that I wish to let
psychology off the hook with the use of my Rodney Dangerfield joke to title
this chapter. In his book on research methods, psychologist Douglas Mook
(2001) referred to my use of the Dangerfield joke and commented that often
indeed, psychology gets no respect; but sometimes, too, it is respected more
than is warranted and for the wrong reasons (p. 473). I agree completely
with this sentiment. Mook is right that the student of psychology needs to
understand the paradoxes that surround the discipline. As I have presented
it in this book, as the science of human behavior, the discipline of psychology
often gets too little respect. But the face that psychology often presents to the
publicthat of a clinician claiming unique insight into people that is not
grounded in research evidenceoften gets too much respect. The discipline
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
200 Chapter 12
is often represented to the public by segments of psychology that do not
respect its unique defining featurethat it validates statements about
human behavior by employing the methods of science.
Isnt Everyone a Psychologist?
Implicit Theories of Behavior
We all have theories about human behavior. It is hard to see how we could
get through life if we did not. In this sense, we are all psychologists. It is very
important, though, to distinguish between this individual psychology and
the type of knowledge produced by the science of psychology. The distinction
is critical because the two are often deliberately confused in popular
writings about psychology, as we shall see.
In what ways is our personal psychological knowledge different from
the knowledge gained from a scientific study of behavior? We have already
discussed several. Much of our personal psychological knowledge is recipe
knowledge. We do certain things because we think they will lead others to
behave in a certain way. We behave in particular ways because we think that
certain behavior will help us achieve our goals. But it is not the mere presence
of recipe knowledge that distinguishes personal psychology from
scientific psychology (which also contains recipe knowledge). The main difference
here is that the science of psychology seeks to validate its recipe
knowledge empirically.
Scientific evaluation is systematic and controlled in ways that individual
validation procedures can never be. Indeed, psychological research
on decision making has indicated that humans have difficulty detecting
correlations in their behavioral environment that run counter to their
accepted beliefs (see Baron, 2008; Kida, 2006). We see what we want to see.
Psychologists have uncovered many of the reasons why, but they need not
concern us here. Even if we wanted to evaluate personal recipe knowledge
on an individual basis, built-in biases that make us less than adequate
observers of behavioral phenomena would make it extremely difficult.
The scientific method has evolved to avoid the biases of any single human
observer. The implication here is a simple one. The recipe knowledge generated
by the science of psychology is more likely to be accurate because it
has undergone validation procedures more stringent than those to which
personal recipe knowledge is exposed.
As discussed throughout this book, the differences between personal
and scientific psychologies go beyond the validation of recipe knowledge.
Science always aspires to more than recipe knowledge of the natural world.
Scientists seek more general, underlying principles that explain why the
recipes work. However, the personal psychologies of some people are similar
to scientific psychology in seeking more basic psychological principles and
theories. These personal theories, though, often depart from scientific theories
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences 201
in important ways. We have already mentioned that they are often unfalsifiable.
Rather than being coherently constructed, many peoples personal
psychological theories are merely a mixture of platitudes and clichs, often
mutually contradictory, that are used on the appropriate occasion. They reassure
people that an explanation does exist and, furthermore, that the danger of
a seriously contradictory eventone that would deeply shake the foundations
of a persons beliefsis unlikely to occur. As discussed in Chapter 2, although
these theories may indeed be comforting, comfort is all that theories constructed
in this way provide. In explaining everything post hoc, these theories
predict nothing. By making no predictions, they tell us nothing. Theories in
the discipline of psychology must meet the falsifiability criterion, and in doing
so, they depart from the personal psychological theories of many laypeople.
Theories in psychology can be proved wrong, and, therefore, they contain
a mechanism for growth and advancement that is missing from many
personal theories.
The Source of Resistance
to Scientific Psychology
For the reasons we just discussed, it is important not to confuse the idea of a
personal psychological theory with the knowledge generated by the science
of psychology. Such a confusion is often deliberately fostered to undermine
the status of psychology in the public mind. The idea that everyones a
psychologist is true if it is understood to mean simply that we all have
implicit psychological theories. But it is often subtly distorted to imply that
psychology is not a science.
We discussed in Chapter 1 why the idea of a scientific psychology is
threatening to some people. A maturing science of behavior will change the
kinds of individuals, groups, and organizations that serve as sources of psychological
information. It is natural that individuals who have long served
as commentators on human psychology and behavior will resist any threatened
reduction in their authoritative role. Chapter 1 described how the
advance of science has continually usurped the authority of other groups to
make claims about the nature of the world. The movement of the planets, the
nature of matter, and the causes of disease were all once the provinces of
theologians, philosophers, and generalist writers. Astronomy, physics, medicine,
genetics, and other sciences have gradually wrested these topics away
and placed them squarely within the domain of the scientific specialist.
Many religions, for example, have gradually evolved away from claiming
special knowledge of the structure of the universe. The titanic battles
between science and religion have passed into history, with the exception of
some localized flare-ups such as the creationism issue. Scientists uncover the
structure of the natural world. Many religions provide commentary on the
implications of the uses of these discoveries, but they no longer contest with
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
202 Chapter 12
scientists for the right to determine what the discoveries are. The right to
adjudicate claims about the nature of the world has unquestionably passed
to scientists.
Writer Natalie Angier (2007) reminds us that many years ago when
lightening would hit the wooden towers of churches and burn them down,
the clergy and the populace would engage in an intense debate about
whether this was a sign of the vengeance of God. However, she reminds
us that in the eighteenth century, Benjamin Franklin determined that lightening
was an electric rather than an ecclesiastic phenomenon. He recommended
that conducting rods be installed on all spires and rooftops, and the
debates over the lightening bolts vanished (p. 26).
The issue, then, is the changing criteria of belief evaluation. Few newspaper
editorials ever come out with strong stands on the composition of the
rings of Saturn. Why? No censor would prevent such an editorial. Clearly
the reason it is not written is that it would be futile. Society knows that
scientists, not editorial writers, determine such things. Only a hundred years
ago, newspapers and preachers in the pulpit did comment vociferously on
the origins of species in the animal kingdom. These comments have largely
disappeared because science has destroyed the conditions that would allow
them to be believed by rational thinkers. Psychology threatens to destroy
those conditions in another large domain of nature.
Some people find it difficult to accept such a state of affairs when it
comes to psychology. They cling tenaciously to their right to declare their
own opinions about human behavior even when these opinions contradict
the facts. Of course, the correct term here is really not right, because, obviously,
in a free society, everyone has the right to voice opinions, regardless of
their accuracy. It is important to understand that what many people want is
much more than simply the right to declare their opinions about human
behavior. What they really want is the conditions that are necessary for what they
say to be believed. When they make a statement about human psychology,
they want the environment to be conducive to the acceptance of their beliefs.
This is the reason that there are always proponents of the anything-goes
view of psychology, that is, the idea that psychological claims cannot be
decided by empirical means and are simply a matter of opinion. But science
is always a threat to the anything-goes view, because it has a set of strict
requirements for determining whether a knowledge claim is to be believed.
Anything does not go in science. This ability to rule out false theories and
facts accounts for scientific progress.
In short, a lot of the resistance to scientific psychology is due to what
might be termed conflict of interest. As discussed in earlier chapters, many
pseudosciences are multimillion-dollar industries that thrive on the fact that
the public is unaware that statements about behavior can be empirically tested
(there are 20 times more astrologers in the United States than astronomers;
Gilovich, 1991, p. 2). The public is also unaware that many of the claims that
are the basis of these industries (such as astrological prediction, subliminal
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences 203
weight loss, biorhythms, the administration of laetrile, and psychic surgery)
have been tested and found to be false. A subcommittee of the U.S. Congress
has estimated that $10 billion is spent annually on medical quackery, an
amount that dwarfs the sum that is spent on legitimate medical research
(Eisenberg et al., 1993; U.S. Congress, 1984).
How do we recognize pseudoscientific claims? Clinical psychologist
Scott Lilienfeld (2005, p. 40) gives us a list of things to watch for that could
serve as a summary of many of the things that have covered in this book.
Pseudoscientific claims tend to be characterized by
A tendency to invoke ad hoc hypotheses as a means of immunizing
claims from falsification
An emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation
Atendency to place the burden of proof on skeptics, not proponents, of
Excessive reliance on anecdotal and testimonial evidence to substantiate
Evasion of the scrutiny afforded by peer review
Failure to build on existing scientific knowledge (lack of connectivity).
True scientists are at pains to emphasize these criteria rather than to
avoid them. For example, three of the scientists who had major roles in introducing
the concept of emotional intelligence (EI) into psychology became
worried about the media, clinicians, and even other researchers at times using
the concept in unscientific ways. They wrote an article specifically directing
others to invoke the types of scientific criteria listed above and discussed in
this book: In our opinion, the journalistic popularizations of EI frequently
employ inadequate and overly broad definitions of EI, implausible claims,
and misunderstandings of the concepts and research more generally. We urge
researchers and practitioners alike to refer to the scientific literature on emotions,
intelligence, and emotional intelligence to guide their thinking. Simply
put, researchers need to cite the research literature rather than journalistic
renderings of scientific concepts, which serve a different purpose (Mayer,
Salovey, & Caruso, 2008, pp. 513514).
By contrast, many purveyors of pseudosciences and bogus therapies
depend on an atmosphere of anything goes surrounding psychology. It
provides a perfect environment for feeding on public gullibility, because the
public has no consumer protection if anything goes. As attorney Peter
Huber (1990) argued, [At] the fringes of science and beyond . . . assorted
believers in homeopathic medicine and the curative powers of crystals and
pyramids . . . must discredit orthodox science to build their own cases for
unorthodox nostrums (p. 97). Those selling pseudoscience have a vested
interest in obscuring the fact that there are mechanisms for testing behavioral
claims. As biologist Michael Ghiselin (1989) warned, What is going
on here is quite straightforward. People are trying to sell a given point of
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
204 Chapter 12
view. Those who know how to evaluate the product are not the same as
those to whom it is being marketed (p. 139). In the domain of behavioral
claims and therapies, psychologists are the ones who know how to evaluate
the product. This is why the pseudoscience industry continues to
oppose the authority of scientific psychology to pass judgment on behavioral
claims. However, the purveyors of pseudoscience often do not need to
do direct battle with psychology. They simply do an end run around psychology
and go straight to the media with their claims. The media make it
very easy for cranks, quacks, and pseudoscientists to do an end run around
scientific psychology. The talk shows that have inundated the airwaves do
not ask the guests to produce their bibliographies of scientific research. If
these guests are interesting, they are simply put on the show.
Folk wisdom often contains a lot of wishful thinking: People want to
believe that the world is the way they wish it to be rather than the way it is.
Science often has the unenviable task of having to tell the public that the
nature of the world is somewhat different from how they wish it to be (No,
that fast-food lunch is not good for your health). The media, which could
help in this situation (by telling people what is true rather than what they
want to hear), only make it worse with their focus on what will entertain
rather than on what will inform.
Science, then, does rule out the special-knowledge claims of those
proposing statements that do not meet the necessary tests. The courts rule
out claims of special knowledge too. In ruling on a famous case known as
Daubert vs. Merrell Dow, the Supreme Court established when expert testimony
could be presented in courtthat is, what makes expert testimony
expert! The Court identified four factors that judges could consider when
deliberating about whether to allow expert testimony: (a) the testability
of the theoretical basis for the opinion; (b) the error rates associated with the
approach, if known; (c) whether the technique or approach on which
the opinion is based has been subjected to peer review; and (d) whether the
technique or approach is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community
(Emery, Otto, & ODonohue, 2005; Michaels, 2008). The four criteria
map into major topics in this book: (a) falsifiability; (b) probabilistic prediction;
(c) public knowledge subjected to peer review; and (d) scientific
knowledge based on convergence and consensus. The courts are like science
in ruling out claims of special knowledge, intuition, and testimonials
as adequate evidence.
In this book, we have briefly touched on what are considered adequate
and inadequate tests in science. Introspection, personal experience, and testimonials
are all considered inadequate tests of claims about the nature of
human behavior. Thus, it should not be surprising that conflict arises because
these are precisely the types of evidence that nonpsychologist commentators
have been using to support their statements about human behavior since
long before a discipline of psychology existed.
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences 205
However, it should not be thought that I am recommending a sour,
spoilsport role for the science of psychology. Quite the contrary. The actual
findings of legitimate psychology are vastly more interesting and exciting
than the repetitious gee-whiz pseudoscience of the media. Furthermore, it
should not be thought that scientists are against fantasy and imagination.
Again, on the contrary, scientists have nothing against fantasy, imagination,
and flights of fancyin their proper contexts. Peter Medawar (1990)
addressed this point,
I am quite a believer in hot air in its proper place. I believe that most people
psychologically need to be what Paul Jennings calls bunkrapt. (You may
remember Paul Jennings typewriter when he was trying to write bankrupt
wrote bunkrapt.) Everybody needs to be bunkrapt, and I prefer to be
bunkrapt by listening to Wagners music dramas or reading Tolkiens novels.
But it must not spill over into science (p. 5).
If we stop and think for a minute, most of us would agree with
Medawars point. We want fancy and fantasy when we go to the movies or
the theaterbut not when we go to the doctors office, buy insurance, register
our children for child care, fly in an airplane, or have our car serviced.
We could add to this list going to a psychotherapist, having our learningdisabled
child tested by a school psychologist, or taking a friend to suicideprevention
counseling at the university psychology clinic. Psychology, like
other sciences, must remove fantasy, unfounded opinion, common sense,
commercial advertising claims, the advice of gurus, testimonials, and wishful
thinking from its search for the truth.
It is difficult for a science to have to tell parts of society that their
thoughts and opinions are neededbut not here. Psychology is the latest of
the sciences to be in this delicate position. The difference in time period for
psychology, however, is relevant. Most sciences came of age during periods
of elite control of the structures of society, when the opinion of the ordinary
person made no difference. Psychology, on the other hand, is emerging in a
media age of democracy and ignores public opinion at its own peril. Many
psychologists are now taking greater pains to remedy the disciplines lamentable
record in public communication. As more psychologists take on a
public communication role, the conflicts with those who confuse a personal
psychology with scientific psychology are bound to increase.
Not everyone is a physicist, even though we all hold intuitive physical
theories. But in giving up the claim that our personal physical theories must
usurp scientific physics, we make way for a true science of the physical universe
whose theories, because science is public, will be available to us all.
Likewise, everyone is not a psychologist. But the facts and theories uncovered
by the science of psychology are available to be put to practical ends
and to enrich the understanding of all of us.
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
206 Chapter 12
The Final Word
We are now at the end of our sketch of how to think straight about psychology.
It is a rough sketch, but it can be of considerable help in comprehending
how the discipline of psychology works and in evaluating new psychological
claims. Our sketch has revealed that
1. Psychology progresses by investigating solvable empirical problems.
This progress is uneven because psychology is composed of many different
subareas, and the problems in some areas are more difficult than
in others.
2. Psychologists propose falsifiable theories to explain the findings that
they uncover.
3. The concepts in the theories are operationally defined, and these definitions
evolve as evidence accumulates.
4. These theories are tested by means of systematic empiricism, and the
data obtained are in the public domain, in the sense that they are
presented in a manner that allows replication and criticism by other
5. The data and theories of psychologists are in the public domain only
after publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
6. What makes empiricism systematic is that it strives for the logic of
control and manipulation that characterizes a true experiment.
7. Psychologists use many different methods to arrive at their conclusions,
and the strengths and weaknesses of these methods vary.
8. The behavioral principles that are eventually uncovered are almost
always probabilistic relationships.
9. Most often, knowledge is acquired only after a slow accumulation of
data from many experiments each containing flaws but nonetheless
converging on a common conclusion.
The most exciting endeavor in science today is the quest to understand
the nature of human behavior. By learning the concepts in this book you
become able to follow this quest and perhaps, indeed, become a part of it.
How to Think Straight About Psychology, Ninth Edition, by Keith E. Stanovich. Copyright 2010 by Keith E. Stanovich. Published by Allyn & Bacon.
View Full Attachment Show more
I have accepted...
Please find...
Download Preview:
Running Head: The Future of Psychology
The Future of Psychology
The rise of human interest in nature and structure led to the origin of philosophy as a discipline.
As numerous...