|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page revised and Copyrighted: Theon Doxazo |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
|
04.1.1.0 |
||||
|
Hi! This is Juan. Juan, this is Fred and Erma Psychometric. They are the Psychometrics.
There. I did it. I've introduced you to Psychometrics.
OK. I know it isn't that easy. But, Psychometrics is not easy. I taught Statistics and Research Methods for almost 20 years. One thing I know is that, for most people, they come away from public schooling with the belief that they 'aren't any good at math'. I know it sounds crazy, but I took one of the introductory lectures in my Stat course and tried to convince the kids that 'Stat isn't Math'. If they approached Stat like they did with all the other kinds of Math they'd been exposed to, they'd never get anywhere. So, I started by trying to disabuse them of the obvious. Strange as it seems, within a few class sessions, it worked! They discovered that they WERE able to do Stat! It wasn't like the other, dreaded, Math classes they'd taken. Of course, that was because the subject was so intrinsically understandable. Clearly, it had nothing to do with the Teacher!
If you've been able to follow me this far, then we should have no problem dealing with Psychometrics. Notice what has been going on. We've been working on two different levels. The obvious truth of reality that strikes you in the face every morning when you wake up is the first level. The second level is a high-level abstraction that guides how we think about that reality. OK? Two different levels of 'Reality.' There's what we normally think of as Reality. And then there's a second, different level of how we 'understand' that Reality. They are NOT the same thing! If you are going to have anything to do with Psychology, you've really got to learn this lesson! They are NOT the same thing!
Consider: Theories of Personality. This is the name of a course that I also taught for almost 20 years. What it consisted of was an overview of MANY different theories that Psychologists had come up with to try to understand and describe Human Beings. Personally, I can't think of a better course for a budding Clinician to take to prepare him or her for a life helping the 'Perplexed.' I don't think this class is taught anymore. What you've got to understand is that Psychology is Plagued by Fads. At the time I wrote what you are now reading, Psychology has been taken over by the Cognitive Approach to understanding people and their problems. Before that, it was Behaviorism. Before that, it was Humanistic Psychology. Before that it was Freudian. Et cetera, et cetera. Like great tides, different 'schools' of thought have overrun Psychology. Even the basic definition of what Psychology IS changes as these Fads take over the discipline.
So, what IS Psychology? I blew the mind of one of my Doctoral Professors when I answered that question. What IS Psychology? Psychology IS a battle ground! Psychology IS the books, articles, and schools where Psychology is taught. And how is the 'battle' fought? Teachers argue for different ways of looking at the world and understanding how Human Beings work. They teach the 'party line' current in their day. How do these Fads change? Psychology is 'ruled' by experimental results. One school of thought teaches X and another attacks it with experimental results that demonstrate that X is wrong, that human beings DON'T work that way. So, then, a new fad rises to take the place of the previous one. At least, that's HOW it is SUPPOSED to work. Currently we've been flooded with so many ill-trained 'researchers' that our schools and journals are also flooded with 'junk science.' People don't really understand how to do research any more. Or maybe they're unwilling to do the work involved in doing and using it. Either way, we've got lots of 'research' and 'researchers' that are Labeled as Psychologists, that simply don't do what is needed to actually demonstrate what they are trying to say.
I began these last two paragraphs by extolling the virtues of Theories of Personality. Why? That class, when it's taught well, builds bunches of pictures of people in the minds of the students. They come to have some passing familiarity with MANY different ways of understanding people. You can be sure that, when these theories were initially presented, the Psychologists that presented them, and their students, believed they were 'Correct.' EVERY theorist believes his or her theory is correct. If he didn't, he wouldn't present it for your consideration, and his students wouldn't accept it and put it to use.
So?? The Theories of Personality class provides a wide survey of these different ways of understanding people. The key take-away I tried to instill into MY students with this class is that, each of these theories are right, sort of, sometimes. Think of that old adage: 'When all you've got is a hammer, all the world looks like a nail.' Simply put, you want more in your toolbox than just a hammer! You want lots of different tools, and the understanding of when and how to use them. Then, when you are confronted by a Patient that is particularly 'Perplexed' you can reach into your toolbox and find something helpful to that particular person, in that particular situation.
People are messy. They get into all kinds of different problems and try to deal with them in lots of different ways. That's true for Psychologists, too! If one is to actually Help someone else, you CANNOT simply be a True Believer and apply the one approach you're convinced is right. You must have multiple different ways of understanding people and their problems, so that you will at least have a Chance at saying something useful. A professional MUST be eclectic! Why? Because people are messy. They differ broadly one from another. If a Psychologist approaches a Patient with a wide variety of different theories, it may be that the needs of the Patient will drive the Psychologist to choose one approach, instead of a different approach. Because he has a wide diversity of tools at his disposal, he, at least, has a chance of impacting the wide diversity of people wandering around loose out there.
I'd like to 'introduce' you to a couple of good books. The first is: 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Kuhn. Talk about a 'high level abstraction'! This one certainly qualifies, and it delivers. Kuhn is comfortable with much of what I've said so far. He also argues that scientific 'schools' change when empirical evidence emerges that contradicts that Status Quo and forces said professionals to change. It provides real 'teeth' to the image of Psychology as a 'battle ground.'
The second book I'd like to recommend is: 'Theories of Personality' by Calvin Hall and Gardner Lindzey. It's an oldie, but a goodie. It was initially published when I was just starting elementary school. Oh, My! But, it lives within that old tradition of Eclecticism that I advocate. From soup to nuts, they survey many very different ways of looking at the world. If you're dealing with a retarded patient, then you should use a Behavioral approach. A Cognitive approach simply wouldn't work. You get the idea. Each of these approaches offers something useful, in a certain situation, with a particular person. Your goal it to understand the patient and help. Will one of these approaches help everybody? Probably not. Will each of these approaches deal with the wide diversity of Psychopathology out there? Probably not. Yet, each of them will help some of the Patients, some of the time. And some help is better than no help. Sometimes, that's the best one can do.
I can hear the gears turning. If you actually believe what you're saying about clinical eclecticism, then Why have you taken so much time and trouble to propound the Second Peter Theory?
Well, it seems I have a bit of 'splainin' to do.
|
||||