Psychologists recurring misinformation and oversimplificiation of neurology.

[Grenth]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Where did you get this odd notion that psychologists/lecturers in psychology look at textbooks as these infallible canons of the profession? They are useful tools but it's not like anyone should be using a textbook as a primary source of research. And I'm not surprised a lecturer wouldn't know every detail of a general/introductory type course, my undergrad courses like that covered so much information some of it was bound to be a little wrong. There's a good chance I could things wrong in a lecture on my own area of research if I wasn't reading straight from my sources. Just make a correction politely and don't act smug and like you're cleverly challenging the foundations of psychology when you're making minor corrections to introductory things.

 

[erg923]

Where did you get this odd notion that psychologists/lecturers in psychology look at textbooks as these infallible canons of the profession? They are useful tools but it's not like anyone should be using a textbook as a primary source of research. And I'm not surprised a lecturer wouldn't know every detail of a general/introductory type course, my undergrad courses like that covered so much information some of it was bound to be a little wrong. There's a good chance I could things wrong in a lecture on my own area of research if I wasn't reading straight from my sources. Just make a correction politely and don't act smug and like you're cleverly challenging the foundations of psychology when you're making minor corrections to introductory things.

Righteous indignation is often a phenomena with undergraduates in the applied science fields. Part of graduate training is instilling humility and instructing on appropriate and effective professional behavior and conduct. Its when these people get to the internship year and they still like this that I become worried.

 

[smalltownpsych]

90 is within the normal range. Also, define good at math. I doubt either one of you appreciate what that truly entails. Psychologists tend to have a very narrow concept of mathematics. Holts book claimed that Albert Einsten was exceptional at math. What Holt doesn't know is that Einsteins equations were written out incorrectly, and that he had his wife do the math for him in physics. His wife was clearly bad at it too.

How am I supposed to know what good at math means, I'm a psychologist and you've already decided that we don't know much about math since we are not intelligent. Oh and the 90 pound weakling thing is a cultural idiom not a literal reference to anything.

 

[Indiana_Jane]

Righteous indignation is often a phenomena with undergraduates in the applied science fields. Part of graduate training is instilling humility and instructing on appropriate and effective professional behavior and conduct. Its when these people get to the internship year and they still like this that I become worried.

Like erg and others have said.... Prototype, you are going to struggle in graduate school if you maintain this attitude of superiority and supposed omniscience.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Justanothergrad]

Like erg and others have said.... Prototype, you are going to struggle in graduate school if you maintain this attitude of superiority and supposed omniscience.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Or, you know, in life.

 

[singasongofjoy]

OP, I'm confused about the purpose of your initial post / this thread. There was no question in your initial post. If you've got beef with your school / department / lecturers, then take it up with them, with people who are actually in the position to do something about it if you think it is really that bad. If your point was just kvetching, consider it done. If I missed the point of your initial post, please clarify.

 

[Prototype123]

OP, I'm confused about the purpose of your initial post / this thread. There was no question in your initial post. If you've got beef with your school / department / lecturers, then take it up with them, with people who are actually in the position to do something about it if you think it is really that bad. If your point was just kvetching, consider it done. If I missed the point of your initial post, please clarify.

I am curious about you're experience. The inaccuracies presented to the students seem never-ending. I would expect that from a high school, but not a university.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Undergrad education in regard to Psych is highly variable and needs to improve at some/most places; not so much in regard to misinformation, but more about increasing the rigor and weeding out of weaker students.

 

[Prototype123]

not so much in regard to misinformation, but more about increasing the rigor and weeding out of weaker students.

Are mathematical disabilities residing in the left or right hemisphere of the brain (hint*) and was Kim Peek autistic or suffering from a brain abnormality? Psychologists just can't catch a break. They have bad luck thinking.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Are mathematical disabilities residing in the left or right hemisphere of the brain (hint*) and was Kim Peek autistic or suffering from a brain abnormality? Psychologists just can't catch a break. They have bad luck thinking.

I'm not engaging about that topic, as it won't be productive for reasons previously covered in the thread.

I'm posting with the hopes to have a fruitful discussion about education at the undergrad level, which IMHO needs to be beefed up to increase quality candidates for doctoral programs.

 

[Prototype123]

I'm posting with the hopes to have a fruitful discussion about education at the undergrad level, which IMHO needs to be beefed up to increase quality candidates for doctoral programs.

So you agree.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Are mathematical disabilities residing in the left or right hemisphere of the brain (hint*) and was Kim Peek autistic or suffering from a brain abnormality? Psychologists just can't catch a break. They have bad luck thinking.

First answer is it depends. Second answer. Don't know as I never met Kim Peek and am not an expert on autism. It does bring up some questions though. Autism is not a brain abnormality or does a brain abnormality automatically rule out autism or do we even know what autism is?

 

[Prototype123]

First answer is it depends. Second answer. Don't know as I never met Kim Peek and am not an expert on autism. It does bring up some questions though. Autism is not a brain abnormality or does a brain abnormality automatically rule out autism or do we even know what autism is?

Kim Peeks savant skills were not due to autism. Researchers learned that the source of his memorizations feats was a very distinct brain abnormality, and mr Peek was never diagnosed with autism.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Having more hard science and statistics courses required for a psych major would be a good start. Requiring research as an undergrad would be nice too, though that could be a harder sell at some places.

 

[Prototype123]

I support psychology moving closer towards natural science. I adore Eysenck because he stepped outside the realm of social science and scored a natural science homerun. What makes it even more impressive is that he did so with a counterintuitive proposition: extroverts are less cortically aroused than introverts.

 

[singasongofjoy]

Having more hard science and statistics courses required for a psych major would be a good start. Requiring research as an undergrad would be nice too, though that could be a harder sell at some places.

Agreed. It's hard to get a ton of research outside of class requirements at small liberal-arts schools- which is why I felt I needed to get a MS before applying to doctoral programs. Anyway as far as the rigor of the classes goes, I think some schools are trying to scoot by with too many adjuncts to save a dime and not hire faculty that they have to pay better with full benefits. At the undergrad level, at some large schools, a shameful amount of classes are taught by adjuncts. I have a friend who is an adjunct in a program that has about 2x the number of classes taught by adjuncts rather than full-time faculty for undergrad classes. The adjuncts are barely scraping by with horrible wages and no job security, many with master's degrees. My friend has been more than once called into the admin's office to discuss in a roundabout way that his student reviews say he's too hard and he's not getting good scores on the end of semester evals- basically he was called out for being "too hard" as an instructor (and I've sat in on some of his teaching, and he's an excellent instructor imo). But if you're hiring adjuncts en masse, and each of them is concerned about job security and paying rent on their measly pay, and you feel you've got to teach more than a full load to manage any savings... it's a sucky situation all around. I guess it might be worth noting that this is a school that does not offer advanced degrees in psych, but still, it's a major university- one of the two largest in the state, maybe the largest, I don't know.

...and I do appreciate your effort to turn this into a more fruitful discussion 🙂

 

[neurobain]

I am curious about you're experience. The inaccuracies presented to the students seem never-ending. I would expect that from a high school, but not a university.

My experience in graduate school has been very different. Whether it was in class lectures by professors or more advanced graduate students, visiting researchers and clinicians, and also my clinical supervisors on externship and now internship, I have always been impressed by their knowledge of structural and functional neuroanatomy. This may be a function of having trained in NY and regularly hearing lectures from the like of Orrin Devinsky, Yaakov Stern, Oliver Sacks, William Barr, Steve Mattis, Joseph LeDoux, etc. However, being highly active in student committees of NAN and Division 40 ANST, I can attest that most of my peers across the U.S. have had similar experiences.

It seems to me that you might have had some less than stellar presentations. I also have seen conference talks go poorly, sometimes presenting outdated information. Just note that this does not represent the entire field. I would highly recommend going to AACN to watch Russ Bauer give his talk on neuroanatomy. Everything from the "inaccurate" old history all the way to modern research on a particular brain structure. It seems to me that a few poorly perceived experiences have resulted in much frustration, which is unfortunate because you are missing out on an incredible field.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Kim Peeks savant skills were not due to autism. Researchers learned that the source of his memorizations feats was a very distinct brain abnormality, and mr Peek was never diagnosed with autism.

You make very definitive statements. As psychologists, we try to avoid making such definitive statements and as we discuss aspects of psychology with students we try to educate them how to question their premises and suppositions. We don't necessarily disagree with what you say as opposed to how you state it as though your perspectives and information represent objective facts. Each of the three statements that you made above could and I would argue should be challenged and questioned. It is surprising to me that you enjoy questioning the field of psychology and the perspectives of psychologists, but are unwilling to do the same. I challenge you to see how each of those three statements about Mr. Peek could be critiqued. If you really want to learn, that is.

 

[Prototype123]

As psychologists, we try to avoid making such definitive statements.

Mhmm...One claimed that there was no correlation between brain size and intelligence, categorically, and pointed to neanderthal brains. Such statements rub me the wrong way. I feel like a douche with my bigass head arguing against his peach-sized, but things are much more complicated than that. Nevermind that neanderthal brains were wired differently, thus making size irrelevant. Just neglect that and argue the politically correct view.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Mhmm...One claimed that there was no correlation between brain size and intelligence, categorically, and pointed to neanderthal brains. Such statements rub me the wrong way. I feel like a douche with my bigass head arguing against his peach-sized, but things are much more complicated than that. Nevermind that neanderthal brains were wired differently, thus making size irrelevant. Just neglect that and argue the politically correct view.

Lots of inaccurate things have been said or believed by scientists since the beginning of time. The better scientists don't make definitive statements about hypotheses that can't be tested using definitions about constructs that aren't clearly operationalized. Intelligence is just one example of that type of construct.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

 

[smalltownpsych]

Mhmm...One claimed that there was no correlation between brain size and intelligence, categorically, and pointed to neanderthal brains. Such statements rub me the wrong way. I feel like a douche with my bigass head arguing against his peach-sized, but things are much more complicated than that. Nevermind that neanderthal brains were wired differently, thus making size irrelevant. Just neglect that and argue the politically correct view.

I would argue that being able to introspect and self-critique one's own thinking process is also an aspect of cognitive ability. My understanding is that the prefrontal cortex is mainly involved in this process, but I could be wrong though. 😉

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I would argue that being able to introspect and self-critique one's own thinking process is also an aspect of cognitive ability. My understanding is that the prefrontal cortex is mainly involved in this process, but I could be wrong though. 😉

To be fair…it isn't like you studied this stuff. 😉

 

[Central_Perk]

I once had a boss who was a medical doctor that often cited outdated statistics or made up new ones in order to bolster his ego, win an argument, get his way, etc., even when they were easily disproved by a quick internet search. What can I say, he was into "alternative facts" before they were cool. I never assumed all doctors were misinformed. It was very much a problem with him as a person, and not the field in general.

 

[Prototype123]

I would argue that being able to introspect and self-critique one's own thinking process is also an aspect of cognitive ability. My understanding is that the prefrontal cortex is mainly involved in this process, but I could be wrong though. 😉

Whether he was right or wrong, his argumentation was unsound.

 

[Prototype123]

Like erg and others have said.... Prototype, you are going to struggle in graduate school if you maintain this attitude of superiority and supposed omniscience.

The things I point out are non-starters for any scientifically informed human being.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: As this thread is now essentially moving in circles, it is being closed.