 |
|
Title: How To Think Straight About Psychology (8th Edition)
ISBN: 0205485138
Author:
Keith E. Stanovich
Publicate Date: 2007-07-23
Publish: 2007-07-23
List Price: $43.20
Average Customer Rating: 4.5
Format: Paperback
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $30.00
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $26.33
Amazon Merchant Price: $32.81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: Good Read
How to think straight about psychology is a great book about how to critical thinking in psychology. Excellent examples are provided for all concepts discussed. Great for the begining student.
|
2: Methodologically Good but Imaginatively Bankrupt
I'm not surprised this book has gotten good reviews. In terms of laying out the methodology of the discipline, and systematically defending some of the sophomoric objections people have to it, it's perfectly laudable. However, when the author goes on riffs against every strawman he can think of in the throes of a vague persecution complex, and regurgitates the party line of a Demon Haunted World, in which scientific empiricism is the only real savior, but does so without any of Sagan's inquisitive spirit and fundamental open-mindedness, my eyes glaze over. The fact that not many people have the critical background to see this -- particularly psychology students -- makes me a little sad.
"The world is full of nonsense, like psychic healers and astrology," the book will tell you in a vaguely messianic tone, proffering three or four caricatures of non-empirical quackery to drive the point home, "but now we have the power to question this nonsense, and it's called science!"
It's a good thing the world we live in isn't bass-ackwards like the one in Galileo's time, you think, and that you've found a like mind within it. You feel reassured.
"But," it says then, "there are forces out in the world that object to Psychology becoming widespread, just like they did with Galileo!" And, of course, you gasp, just as the author proffers a few more empirical examples about the unending folly of intuition and subjectivity, from which we finally have the scientific and statistical tools necessary to shelter ourselves.
Unfortunately, it turns out that every non-empirical idea presented in the book, whether dangerous or merely silly, is taken up as a caricature for the purposes of swift dismissal. "Crap", you think, "before we had science, we really had nothing! Just a bunch of dogma and lies!"
Now, of course, you have found someone who will help you to cut through the nonsense, and even allow you to pat yourself on the back for your newfound critical thinking skills -- according, of course, to the methodology he just gave you, which is quite unconcerned with the incredible leaps of reductionistic logic that litter the portions of his text that are not backed up by empirical evidence, and quite content with developing a narrative hostile to any other sort of thinking about human beings. Here, "American Experimental Psychology" is substituted for "Science in General" and we are supposed to be none the wiser.
Now, considering that Stanovich is out there to make you a "critical consumer of information," as he himself admits, this is all good and well, right? He's not out to make an Einstein or even a Skinner, he's out to keep you away from the Snake Oil salesman. This seems to reveal, to my mind at least, that the standards Stanovich aspires for in his readers are not too high, but entirely too low.
It simply seems to me that the scientific community ought to espouse understanding of society and the human condition not nearly so patronizing, or ultimately as adolescent as the one presented here. Is this an acceptable representation of the spirit of the endeavor? Doesn't the position of psychology, both as a body of scientific knowledge and as a privileged institution (particularly in North America), necessitate a less reactionary way of looking at the world? And to think that this book is often intended for students!
I shudder to think that a satisfied "consumer" of this book, who hadn't even thought to ask the question, might go on to become yet another cynical acolyte of the methodology, or worse, to be turned away from it altogether.
If you really want to be a critical thinker -- and an undogmatic one -- I don't necessarily discourage you from picking up this book and reading ever page of it, especially if you are in Psychology. Know the methodology and understand why it works. (It really does.) But in that regard I would say this: you ought not to forget that what really keeps science both serious and alive is not mere allegiance to a methodology but a respect for rigorous inquiry and a curious mind.
If the points I'm making interest you, and you like to read, I recommend a few things. I think the thing Stanovich brings attention to is important: more people ought to know how to think properly about what they're trying to think about. I also think that people ought to learn how to argue their cases without patronizing their readership, and there are a handful of good authors who do a far better job of avoiding precisely this.
First, pick up a more general text on logic or rhetoric -- to get a broader grasp on thinking in general. The "Introducing..." series by Icon Books is fantastic for this, illustrated throughout but without lacking good content. They even have one on Psychology and mind and brain.
Also, read Thomas Kuhn to get some general perspective on the philosophy of science. Kuhn presents a very difficult case of his own one with all the reserve one would expect of a respected physicist, and though the "theory" of his is well-known, the particulars of it are quite relevant to the sort of ideological thinking that Stanovich manifests so lamentably well.
So why does the choice even have to *be* between dogma and science? The answer, I would say, is that it does not. Jacques Barzun wrote an interesting book in this regard called "The House of Intellect" that might be worth looking into.
As for the "spirit of the endeavor" side of things I recommend two authors, Erich Fromm and Carl Sagan. The first wasn't a scientist in the sense that the modern discipline necessitates, but you'll at least get to see what I mean by a spirit that is driven by something quite other than a simple need to "stick-it-to-the-man of 'common sense' with the billy-club of science." Sagan on the other hand is an astronomer par excellence and one of its greatest popularizers, whose "Demon Haunted World" focuses on a similar theme to Stanovich's, but who nevertheless has always urged readers to let their imaginations soar. To see the just what sorts of wondrous speculative insights such a mind can have on the topic of human existence, take a look at "The Dragons of Eden."
"Straight" is certainly one important way to think about science, but as Sagan himself would likely tell you, it doesn't have to be the only one.
|
3: Must for psychology student
This book was assigned by my professor in Research Method class and it is the first textbook that I actually enjoy reading!
Accessible language, examples helpful in understanding complicated concepts- really great book!
|
4: Gen. Psych. textbook = steak, This book = good brown gravy!
Now this is a great book. It essentially addresses the ways psychologists (particularly those involved in research) think about what they do, and furthermore, debunks some of the criticisms and misconceptions from the public about what psychologists do (that's right - most of us no longer are interested in the pathology of potty-training!). Three particularly great parts are the one on falsifiability (crucial when evaluating the claims of self-help gurus, or advocates of unusual theories), the one on converging evidence (i.e. when the results of individual and differing studies point toward the same general conclusions), and the importance of probabalistic thinking (i.e. when thinking about coincidences).
The only criticism I can bestow on Stanovich is his treatment of parapsychology. Stanovich basically claims that psychologists don't have any interest in investigating psi phenomena because the majority of research conducted over the past few decades has been non-significant, and any significant results have been extremely difficult to replicate. I haven't received the impression that this is the case. For anybody interested, I recommend "The Conscious Universe," by Dr. Dean Radin. Radin presents an eye-opening analysis of psi research conducted throughout the past few decades. He makes a particularity strong case for its reality using the principle of converging evidence. The most derisive criticism for Radin's book came from the journal "Nature" in 1998. Interestingly, the journal refused to publish a rebuttal sent in by Nobel Laureate Brain Josephson citing statistical errors made by the reviewer (look in Brian Josephson's home page to find it, as well as a couple of Radin's letters asking the reviewer to correct some statistical errors made in the review). Likewise, the Parapsychological Association (www.parapsych.org) is teeming with professional research. I think most reasonable researchers would admit that not all of this research can be totally bogus, flawed, fraud, etc.
That said, Stanovich has written a great book (essential, in my opinion) for both psychology students, and perhaps the interested general reader alike!
|
5: EXCELLENT - must read for anyone into psycholgy
A very insightful introduction into scientific method as it used in Psycholgy. The text is well-written and full of references to research projects. The author incorporates real life situations as well as psychological research programs into the text. The way the author communicate is amazingly straightforward. Read it and you start to look at Psycholgy in a clearer way.HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
|
|
|
|
|
