Category: Parenting

‘Psychology in Crisis’ is now available

About the Author

Imprint: 2018
Psychology in Crisis
Author: Brian M. Hughes
Publisher: Palgrave, London

ISBN-10: 1352003007
ISBN-13: 978-1352003000

Click here to view on Palgrave Macmillan
Click here to view on Amazon.co.uk
Click here to view on Amazon.com
Click here to view on Amazon.in
Click here to view on Amazon.co.jp
Click here to view on Barnes & Noble
Click here to view on Book Depository
Click here to view on The Guardian Bookshop
Click here to view on Waterstones
Click here to view on WHSmith

From the cover: Throughout the history of psychology, attempting to objectively measure the highly dynamic phenomenon of human behaviour has given rise to an underappreciated margin of error. Today, as the discipline experiences increasing difficulty in reproducing the results of its own studies, such error not only threatens to undermine psychology’s credibility but also leaves an indelible question: Is psychology actually a field of irreproducible science?

In this thought-provoking new book, author Brian Hughes seeks to answer this very question. In his incisive examination of the various pitfalls that determine ‘good’ or ‘bad’ psychological science – from poor use of statistics to systematic exaggeration of findings – Hughes shows readers how to critique psychology research, enhance its validity and reliability, and understand the strengths and weaknesses of the way psychology research is produced, published, and promulgated in the twenty-first century.

This book is essential reading for students wanting to understand how to better scrutinise psychological research methods and results, as well as practitioners and those concerned with the replication debate.

Psychology in Crisis is an unflinching tour of the challenges of doing psychological science well. Brian Hughes describes six crises facing psychology that could make one think that all is lost. But it is not. At their core, the crises are illustrations of just how hard it is to study human behavior and, simultaneously, why it is worth doing. Hughes closes with a path toward a science that is robust, transparent, and self-skeptical to help accelerate discovery and ensure that psychology meets its potential as a scientific enterprise.” — Professor Brian Nosek, Professor in psychology at the University of Virginia and Executive Director for the Center for Open Science


Contents

Chapter 1 ‘The Same Again, But Different’: Psychology’s Replication Crisis
Chapter 2 ‘Black Is White’: Psychology’s Paradigmatic Crisis
Chapter 3 ‘Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width’: Psychology’s Measurement Crisis
Chapter 4 ‘That Which Can Be Measured’: Psychology’s Statistical Crisis
Chapter 5 ‘We Are The World’: Psychology’s Sampling Crisis
Chapter 6 ‘Fitter, Happier, More Productive…’: Psychology’s Exaggeration Crisis
Chapter 7 From Crisis to Confidence: Dealing with Psychology’s Self-Inflicted Crises

Why ‘Inside Out’ is kind of interesting

image

Metaphors are powerful tools. Similes are like tools. And tools are — well, tools are just tools. Now, of the three statements just made, only the last (‘tools are tools’) is truly indisputable. And yet for many people it will be the least interesting, the least compelling. Such is the power of metaphor. Metaphors are smart.

Inside Out — the Pixar movie that everyone’s raving about — takes the metaphor gun and blows the audience’s brains out with it. But does that mean it’s as smart as everyone says it is?

People certainly are raving about this movie. It has been praised for encapsulating elaborate philosophy with heretofore unattained clarity. It has been lauded for providing a framework for children and adults to better understand mental health and illness. It has even been credited with helping previously unreachable autistic kids communicate their emotions to therapeutic effect. And it has a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. You’ll probably want to go see it.

Across a series of reviews, The Guardian described it as “high IQ family entertainment“, “a metaphysical mouldbreaker“, and “a crash course in PhD philosophy.” One of its reviewers was the prominent British philosopher Julian Baggini, who completed a (real) PhD in the relevant subject matter, as well as a well received book. He thought Inside Out “succeeds brilliantly” at being among the best children’s movies, and “reflects some of the most important truths about what it means to be an individual person.”

Baggini’s review attaches particular merit to the way the movie depicts Riley’s “self” as comprising the sum of different and competing impulses, rather than a single autobiographical inner monologue. He also really likes the way the movie shows the various parts of a person’s selfhood to be impermanent and shifting, and the importance of memory for gluing everything together. As he describes it, our self is the end-product of many ongoing processes, with nothing permanent at its core.

From the perspective of contemporary scientific psychology, this is all fair enough. But is it really that astounding? Inside Out uses as its paradigm some well established psychological perspectives on consciousness. Its success is in bringing these to a new audience — and in explaining them in ways that (even?) children can comprehend. But in my view the content itself is just not that profound.

In fact, the content has many imperfections. For example, the whole storyline implies that our emotions are (a) finite in number, and (b) separately functioning impulses that jockey for influence over our thoughts and motivation. In reality, emotions are far more confused and are not so easily disentangled. This is shown in the movie itself when the various emotion characters themselves feel mixtures of different feelings: sometimes Joy experiences sadness and fear, at other times Fear exhibits joy, and throughout Sadness expresses, if not quite joy, then at least intermittent satisfaction or happiness. Individual emotions cannot and do not function or exist in isolation. And it is misleading to suggest that we have just five (or so) of them. Instead, our thought processes are permanently addled by a hotchpotch of multidimensional and often ambiguous emotionality.

Some questions might help explain the point. Firstly, how might the Inside Out model explain negative emotions such as shame? How might it explain emotions that are partly negative and partly positive, such as schadenfreude? Secondly, are there not several different types of every single emotion (for example, different types of happiness)? And thirdly, straight from Philosophy 101, if Riley has all these little characters (the philosophical term is ‘homunculi‘) running the show inside her mind, then who is running the show inside the minds of each of these little characters? Do they have a team of homunculi inside their minds too? And if they do, then who is running things inside the minds of these homunculi? More homunculi? You can see where such a metaphor is limited. It isn’t.

The contribution of Inside Out is not its explanation of the mechanics of the human psychological self. This explanation — involving competing emotional impulses, ephemeral islands of identity, and the nuances of memory storage and retrieval — combines a number of different theories from mainstream academic psychology. Many of these theories are decades if not centuries old, and some are hampered by unresolved shortcomings. Nope, the really groundbreaking impact of Inside Out is the very fact that audiences get to see any of these ideas portrayed on-screen at all.

It is something of a sad commentary on the profile of academic psychology that its theories can seem so awe-inspiring to movie audiences. When psychologists use a series of mechanical metaphors to depict what goes on inside your head, they are ignored. When Pixar do it, they are heralded as geniuses.

Now I’m not saying this because I’m jealous of Inside Out and feel that psychology should get more credit. Actually, that’s the opposite of what I feel. I’m saying this because I worry that people might eventually notice where these theories come from and then draw false conclusions about psychology. They might conclude that it is psychologists who are imaginative geniuses and that they deserve, I don’t know, maybe Oscars.

In many ways, Inside Out is a terrific movie and I’m sure it will continue to get many many accolades. However, the praise should be for its imagery, story-telling, dialogue, sentimentality, conciseness, clarity, and suspense. We shouldn’t simply assume that a structured effort to explain or depict human cognition marks a movie out as some kind of intellectual landmark of culture.

Being comfortable citing concepts from academic psychology — in other words, talking like a psychologist — is not synonymous with having a “high IQ”.

Take my word for it. I know a lot of psychologists.

Won’t somebody *please* think of the validity?

mobile parents

I’ve concluded that they’re right. Mobile phones DO addle the brain. They DO interfere with competent cognition. They DO cause people to become rambling, incoherent, and negligent thinkers, and to talk ever-more-ridiculous garbage. But their effects are quite subtle. They cause this result in some people simply by existing: all these folks have to do is think about cell phones and they become nonsensical.

Especially if their job is to write news headlines on such matters, or to otherwise fill content on the media’s health pages.

Have a look at this headline: Continue reading “Won’t somebody *please* think of the validity?”

%d bloggers like this: