Bifurcation/Categorization - Behaviorism, Cognitive & Developmental Psychology

[jenelsan]

Hi folks,

 

This is probably more of a 'waiting it out' post, but it's psychology specific so I thought here would be the most appropriate forum.

 

For me, the hardest aspect of applying to grad school/seeking out a PhD has been knowing under which heading I might find appropriate supervisors. This year I made applications to very few places (2) based upon papers and specific research I'd come across that I was particularly inspired by. I'm an international applicant so I'm not feeling entirely confident that it will all work out for me. But since I've been introduced to this site and on seeing so many people pursuing grad-school-level psychology in one place, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic:

 

As new recruits, how cohesive do you feel psychology is as a field? Do you feel study of the 'mind' is the crux of your inquiry? If so what does mind mean to you? Do you care about the constraints of the mechanisms of biology? Can a scientific community reach stability when its vocabulary includes ambiguous terms such as 'mind,' 'executive' and 'control'? Or perhaps you don't see your area of interest as 'scientific' per se? Are you looking for a complete model of 'how things work' or any approximation that will answer a specific question you are interested in? Or are you more interested in aiding behavioural strategies/creating pharmacological solutions that result in a better quality of life?

 

My undergraduate background is in artificial intelligence, but I recently completed a masters which was a catalyst in prompting consideration of metaphysical assumptions with regard to research pursuit. I'm interested in computational modelling of certain behavior acquisition through developmental processes - but I didn't know I had to include all these terms when I started out! I think this has been half the battle. Has anyone else experienced any similar taxonomical/categorisation difficulties?

[psych face]

You're asking a lot of questions here that have long answers, so I'll just address the last thing, which is probably closer to current research interests of mine.

Frankly, I have noticed that there are some issues within my particular interests that are systemic and almost paradigmatic assumptions that make very little ultimate sense to me, given my (frankly) broader education than a lot of psychology majors. For example, some major theories in psychology violate basic principles of evolution and are therefore eventually to be discarded when the field figures this out. -mistakes like that. One of the major things I'm coming up against when formulating projects in my subfield is that the whole set of premises the existing literature stands on need to be torn down and reformulated, and this is daunting to me. But it is more difficult to build a great house on a poor foundation than to rebuild the foundation - sometimes. This is one of the major issues that have been confronting me, as I come up with new projects. I suppose I'm coming up with difficult problems from the opposite end of the issue where your last concern is - that is, that I can see all the subparts that go into the problem and because of that it becomes a much larger problem than the simple project should have been. In that way it becomes a totally different problem, one where you need to step several spheres outside of your original question and figure out what you would really have to do to get to the true solution. This almost requires several sub-projects before you can even attack your inital idea. It's frustrating, but no shortage of research projects. Also, not bored.

Nice questions.

[jenelsan]

You're asking a lot of questions here that have long answers, so I'll just address the last thing, which is probably closer to current research interests of mine.

 

Hey psych face,

 

Thanks for replying! I did ask a lot of questions! Just casting a net to see if anyone was up for discussing related thoughts. Hope you don't mind if I ask you some follow up questions on your reply. 

 

 

 

For example, some major theories in psychology violate basic principles of evolution and are therefore eventually to be discarded when the field figures this out. -mistakes like that.

 

Could you give me an example of one of these major theories and the basic principles of evolution that they violate?

 

 

 

One of the major things I'm coming up against when formulating projects in my subfield is that the whole set of premises the existing literature stands on need to be torn down and reformulated, and this is daunting to me.

 

I think I can relate to this. For me, it's maybe been more of an issue of lack of suitable precedent that's been daunting. The practicalities of pursuing a PhD seem quite centred on having detailed timelines of investigation and quick turn around of results, both of which are more easily predicted if there already exists similar research work done. This is a fine productive model for a mature science, but psychology is not at a definitive stage. Perhaps it's more of a UK-PhD application problem, because these proposed details need to be worked out before you've submitted your application. The US system seems more appropriate in that applicants find a good match with supervisors/departments at interest-level as a primary concern.

 

I'm now very curious as to what your particular research interests are and what you feel the assumptions of their common paradigm(s) are? (That you take issue with.)

[psych face]

Could you give me an example of one of these major theories and the basic principles of evolution that they violate?

 

I'm now very curious as to what your particular research interests are and what you feel the assumptions of their common paradigm(s) are? (That you take issue with.)

 

As far as the theories that need some work, I'm actually working out projects and papers of my own to deal with that so I'm trying to keep it to myself for now. I've been working with professors in the past who taught me to keep any bright ideas I had to myself until I could publish. There was a pretty common policy of making sure you got proper credit for your ideas, among the professors I was with (they are really great about that), so I've learned to be careful talking about things if I think I'm on to something important. Especially in a random and open forum like this one with people that might be bored 12 year olds, for all I know, if you know what I'm saying.

 

As far as my interests, the only reason I'm keeping that to myself is that a few people have taken a disliking to me here and I don't want their attitudes to get in the way of my progress if they deduce who I am. I will say that I am in a unique position to see some of the systemic errors in my area field, and that position isn't something that a college education can bestow you with. For example; (and this isn't my position, but is elaborative of what I mean) a person who grew up in an African slum or worked formerly as a stock trader would be more able to see errors in assumptions with regards to ethics of poverty in African slums, or ethics employed by those in stock trading, respectively. I have a similar position. When you do have an insider insight on a particular field of research, it can be really irksome to read some of the assumptions that academics from outside of that world have made of the system as a whole and then built theories upon. It also makes it really easy to correct those assumptions because you can see exactly where the flaws in the logic are. I think everyone should capitalize on their strengths that way, it will make them more competitive (in my opinion). But it can take a long time to realize that you have a unique expertise to offer, because we are trained to minimalize and hide our differences from each other in order be more normal and fit in - ironically to be more competitive. So I think we frequently don't even consciously notice that we have these experiences to offer a discipline, making us uniquely qualified to help out in a field of research. And it might actually be really rare that someone with a strong and unique position of experience switches into contributing to psychology research in that area. I think it would be great if there was more heterogeneity in all of the disciplines, in that respect, but they seem to becoming more and more like a genre, or comical version of themselves, where you can make generalizations about "what sort of person goes into X,Y, or Z." I've noticed it in a lot of fields. Probably why it's a good thing that there's such a push for interdisciplinary collaboration now.

I feel that I will go on tangents for a long time if I don't stop now. So,...

[jenelsan]

As far as the theories that need some work, I'm actually working out projects and papers of my own to deal with that so I'm trying to keep it to myself for now. I've been working with professors in the past who taught me to keep any bright ideas I had to myself until I could publish. There was a pretty common policy of making sure you got proper credit for your ideas, among the professors I was with (they are really great about that), so I've learned to be careful talking about things if I think I'm on to something important. Especially in a random and open forum like this one with people that might be bored 12 year olds, for all I know, if you know what I'm saying.

 

As far as my interests, the only reason I'm keeping that to myself is that a few people have taken a disliking to me here and I don't want their attitudes to get in the way of my progress if they deduce who I am. I will say that I am in a unique position to see some of the systemic errors in my area field, and that position isn't something that a college education can bestow you with. For example; (and this isn't my position, but is elaborative of what I mean) a person who grew up in an African slum or worked formerly as a stock trader would be more able to see errors in assumptions with regards to ethics of poverty in African slums, or ethics employed by those in stock trading, respectively. I have a similar position. When you do have an insider insight on a particular field of research, it can be really irksome to read some of the assumptions that academics from outside of that world have made of the system as a whole and then built theories upon. It also makes it really easy to correct those assumptions because you can see exactly where the flaws in the logic are. I think everyone should capitalize on their strengths that way, it will make them more competitive (in my opinion). But it can take a long time to realize that you have a unique expertise to offer, because we are trained to minimalize and hide our differences from each other in order be more normal and fit in - ironically to be more competitive. So I think we frequently don't even consciously notice that we have these experiences to offer a discipline, making us uniquely qualified to help out in a field of research. And it might actually be really rare that someone with a strong and unique position of experience switches into contributing to psychology research in that area. I think it would be great if there was more heterogeneity in all of the disciplines, in that respect, but they seem to becoming more and more like a genre, or comical version of themselves, where you can make generalizations about "what sort of person goes into X,Y, or Z." I've noticed it in a lot of fields. Probably why it's a good thing that there's such a push for interdisciplinary collaboration now.

I feel that I will go on tangents for a long time if I don't stop now. So,...

 

Thank you for this very honest reply! Lots of things going on there - I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. Sorry to hear that not all of your interactions have been positive. I really hope that you are able to get to where you want to go and to make the contribution you are passionate about making :-) Good luck and best wishes!