Research in psychology for a large part states the obvious. Most research studies under the guise of objectivity and scientific methodology reaffirm and strengthen our biases.
Often methodologies used to justify the verification of data. Quantitative methodology is often considered superior as it has numbers both from the sample and as an end result to justify itself. However the method cannot is not a way of correcting faulty ideas. Psychology is built on ideas that are usually biased and only reaffirms theses ideas in a ‘scientific’ manner.
Psychology tends to imitate the methods of the natural sciences and therefore tries to assert its legitimacy as a science. Statistics provide and obvious but sometimes-flawed answer the numbers are right but the premise on which they are based is wrong to begin with. Constructs cannot be measured directly so psychology measures them indirectly almost giving them legitimacy and making them look real. Take for example IQ the very idea of intelligence is debatable and the origins of IQ testing are more political than psychological. IQ rests on a shaky definition of intelligence. However most intelligence tests are said to be quite reliable and valid, are they really? The numbers maybe right but they don’t connect with anything tangible. Unlike a kilogram of iron, which will retain its weight and can be seen and touched intelligence remains a relative term.
So much research in psychology tries to prove ideas that are inconsequential. Take for example why does one need to establish personality types of different individuals who might share a few common features with other individuals. The very idea that everyone can be classified is a contradiction for the discipline which apparently looks at the individual and appreciates their uniqueness.
to be continued............
No comments:
Post a Comment