Talk:Experimental psychology

Criticisms?

I'm sorry, but the "criticisms" given in this article are so weak that they are unworthy of being in the article at all.

To the "postmodern criticism" - this is a total non-sequitur. Nothing in that paragraph follows from experimental psychology, because it is a method, not an ideology. While it is certainly possible that an experimental psychologist might think all of those things, it is equally as possible that another might think just the opposite. Experimental psychology has no ideological assumptions. This notion is ridiculous.

To Skinner's criticism - this is no longer relevant. With the rise of neuroscience, we can observe mental activity at the level of the brain. No modern psychologists accept radical behaviorism.

To Jung's criticism - this is even less relevant than Skinner's criticism. The notion that the mind is related to the "soul" rather than the brain expresses a substance dualism which we can reject on its face. While it is true that psychologists may learn from experience more than in the laboratory, no psychologists disagree with this. In fact, field/observational research is very much a part of experimental psychology. But it does not follow that "he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul." This is ridiculous and wrong. ArcadianGenesis

I agree with these comments. The Criticisms were very one-sided. I noted published criticisms of "Critical Theory" by significant philosophers and social scientists. I assume Paul Meehl etc. may have written something, also. It would be fine to just remove the whole section, because Wikipedia is supposed to give due weight of knowledge in reliable and leading sources. It is not obvious that (shudder) Marcuse or (Nazi-psychologist wannabe) Jung meet that standard. Further, I shall remove the Skinner topic immediately, because it is a (weird) criticism of cognitive psychology, not of experimental psychology. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I also removed the comment by Jung, which states (poetically) that there is more to human life than experiments. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree (see bellow). I also think that the cricisms section is difficult to read and complex when a simple section on external validity would be easy to introduce along side methods Ralphmcd (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What does it take to be a Experimetnal Psychologist?

Not knowing the specifics of your question, I'll assume you're asking about educational requirements (and being an American, I can only answer based on my experience in the US). Most experimental psychologists that I know have at least a bachelor's degree, usually in psychology, biological psychology, neuroscience, or cognitive science, all of which share quite a bit of overlap in terms of university course requirements. Being a rich field, the course of study (at least at UCLA) typically includes a general introduction to neuroanatomy, pharmacology, and behaviorism, psychophysics (and signal detection theory), learning & memory, human development, artificial intelligence, Research Design & Statistics, and others.

To work professionally, many also obtain an advanced degree in psychology, such as a master's degree or a PhD, which often means that they've produced a research-based thesis, and have a rich understanding of current literature (such as the APA's Journal of Experimental Psychology series) and modern experimental techniques and practices.

I hope that helps. Best wishes, Diberri | Talk 19:36, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

In the article it mentioned Wundt as the founder of the school of structuralism...however, I thought it was his student Titchener who developed the school? Clarification would be great...

I have not really thought about it before, but is an experimental psychologist not just a psychologist who uses experimental methods? In fact I think a nice section on the advantages and disadvantages of the experimental method would be nice... Ralphmcd (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversial statements about the foundation of experimental psychology

Earlier, I removed the statement that experimental psychology began with Ibn al-Haytham, and that he is regarded as the father of the discipline, because there are a number of problems with such a strong claim:

The claim that al-Haytham 'is regarded as the father of experimental psychology' is a claim of consensus. As Wikipedia guidelines state: Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

In contradiction to the claims regarding Ibn al-Haytham, the referenced paper actually describes the the current consensus of the importance of Fechner to experimental psychology:

...historians of psychology agree that Fechner with his publication in 1860 of Elements of Psychophysics marks the starting point of experimental psychology. He is seen as the founder of psychophysics and experimental psychology. He was the first scientist to give psychology a mathematical foundation, and he took the first steps toward a quantitative psychology.

It is an exceptional claim for the discipline, and yet it is not widely known. Wikipedia guidelines say that: Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific topics. Only one reference is provided, and the journal in which it is published does not appear to be peer-reviewed, but only 'refereed'. Thus, the claim has not been subjected to rigorous examination by the wider scientific community.

In addition, the author of the paper admits that:

My aim is simply to present The Book of Optics as I understand it, therein justifying my belief that it laid the foundation of psychophysics and experimental psychology.

The justification of belief does not constitute academic authority, and as such the paper should not be cited as a reliable source.

I have noticed that similarly contentious statements have been made by the same author (Jagged 85) on other psychology pages, and considering their potential significance, these claims need to be addressed.

I fully endorse Wikipedia's intention to widen the Western-centric nature of its English language content. Similarly, I absolutely encourage the publication of new knowledge. In no way am I attempting to silence, denounce or discourage the work of Muslim scholars in this century or any other. However, any such contentious claims made on this forum must be treated in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, and it is in this spirit that I am raising these objections to the recent edits of psychology articles.

Since Jagged 85 has re-installed the contentious claim that I removed, and because I have no wish to engage in an ongoing editing battle, I have refrained from further editing of the article. (In my opinion, minor changes of phrasing would avoid the contentiousness of the claims, e.g. 'one author has suggested that..') Instead, I have posted these comments here and would welcome opinion and advice from any more experienced contributors.

Birkinstein 18:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I restored it was because you initially assumed it was original research, which was never the case (the reference was just not visible). Now that your wider concerns have become clearer to me, I have re-worded the paragraph more neutrally and elaborated on what both men contributed to the field. Feel free to leave any comments on my re-wording of the paragraph. Jagged 85 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What if it said something like:

While the origins of experimental psychology can be traced as far back as the eleventh century, when Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen) used an experimental approach to visual perception and optical illusions and Rayhān al-Bīrūnī discovered the concept of reaction time, experimental psychology emerged as a modern academic discipline in the 19th century when Wilhelm Wundt introducted a mathematical and experimental approach to the field and foudned both the first psychology labratory in Leipzig, Germany and the structuralist school of psychology. Other early experimental psychologists, including Hermann Ebbinghaus and Edward Titchener, included introspection among their experimental methods.

That would give the due nod to the ancient Muslim scholars who did work within what's now considered part of experimental psychology, without giving the undue impression that they are universally (or even widely) accepted as the founders of experimental psychology as it is understood today. XL2D (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, what exactly is the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and refereed journal? I've always assumed they were pretty much the same (if I'm not mistaken). Jagged 85 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Talk:Experiment: Concern about misuse of sources

Others have questioned the edits about medieval Islamic science. Therefore, you may be interested about the following, which was posted on the talk page for Experiment (Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)):

Misuse of sources

"A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 20 edits by Jagged 85 in March 2010. Tobby72 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)"

On Developmental Psychology

Developmental psychologists routinely use experimental and quasi-experimental moethods to discover developmental tendencies and phenomena. As such, I've taken it out of the first paragraph and included it in the a of topics investigated by experimental psychologists. XL2D (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Plan to work on this page

Hey all. I'll be working on this page for the next while in hopes of getting it up to GA/FA status. I'll probably add to it bit by bit, so if you see something that could be improved, be ruthless! :P

I'm a new wikipedian, so please don't hesitate to give me advice on page construction, content quality, personal hygeine, or anything else you think would be useful.

Also, if anyone is interested in working on this page too, let me know so we can divide the work up or collabourate on sections to avoid duplicating each others' work.

My books are in another city right now so it will be a couple weeks before many citations can be added, but rest assured they're coming. XL2D (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention of external validity

Before I start I would like to point out that I am an experimental psychologist. So I'm not having a go. As far As I could see there is no mention of the problem of external validity. There is some critism that says similar things, but it might be hard to follow and rather obtuse for some. As external validity is most straight forward problem for much experimental psychology - a brief section on this would seem sensible and easy to understand. Doesn't need to be more than a paragraph. Pehaps also some critisim along the lines that it only reveals syntax, not meaning. Coppying wholesale (feel free to hat) "cognitive psychology essentially syntactical in its structure and thus cannot accommodate meanings. Constructs such as ‘arousal’ or ‘gist’ are defined in terms of relations of the relations in which they stand to each other and do not seem to be widely related to their referents in the world (McGhee, 2001). A clear example of this is connectionist networks such a Seidenberg and McClelland’s (1989) model of language. How is it that an activation pattern can be related to semantic knowledge of a word given that it is not related to the words referent? As Searle (1980) points out in his Chinese room thought experiment, we would not say that a computer with an English to Chinese dictionary understands Chinese, so why do we think that cognitive psychology explains understanding if all it proposes are relations between concepts (or activation patterns)". I know that would be sysnthesis as it is from a paper I wrote. But it could be stated shorter simple quoting a few philosophers opinions. Soz for the length Ralphmcd (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact after sleeping on it I suddently realised that the second part about syntax applies more to cog sci. Mea culpa. Ralphmcd (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)