The Psychologist’s Fear of the Party
Just like any other tribe, scientists have a hierarchy. Psychologists are
somewhere near the bottom. I discovered this in my first year at university,
where I was studying natural sciences. It was announced that, for the first time, students would be able to study psychology in part 1 of the natural sciences tripos. I went eagerly to my college tutor to ask him if he knew anything about this new possibility. “Yes,” he replied. “But I didn’t think any of my students would be crass enough to want to study psychology.” He was a physicist.
序言:真正的科学家不学心理学
心理学家害怕的聚会
像其他群体一样，科学家也有金字塔一样的等级。心理学大概就是在金字塔的底部。当我在大一学自然科学课时就意识到这个问题。学校规定学生可以在修自然科学学位考试第一部分修心理学，我急忙去问我导师他是否知道这个新的可能性。“是的”，他回答“但是我认为没有学生笨到想学心理学”--他是个物理学家。
Possibly because I was not entirely sure what “crass” meant, I was
undeterred by this remark. I switched from physics to psychology. I have
continued to study psychology ever since, but I have never forgotten about my place in the hierarchy. Inevitably the question will come up at academic parties, “so what do you do?” and I think twice about replying,“ I’m a psychologist.”
可能我没有懂他“笨”的意思，我并没有因为他这样说而气馁。我从修物理转修心理学
从此以后，我一直从事心理学研究，但我从未忘记我的位置和层次。“你是做什么工作的？”
这个问题将不可避免的出现在学术交流会上，我能学思考再三回答说：“我是个心理学家。”
Of course, much has changed in psychology over the last 30 years.
We have borrowed many skills and concepts from other disciplines. We
study the brain as well as behavior. We use computers extensively to
analyze our data and to provide metaphors for how the mind works.
My university identity badge doesn’t say “Psychologist,” but “Cognitive
Neuroscientist.”
“So what do you do?” someone asks. I think she’s the new Head of
Physics. Unfortunately the reply, “I’m a cognitive neuroscientist” to the
question simply delays matters. After I have tried to explain what I
actually do, she says, “Ah, you’re a psychologist!” with that characteristic
look which I translate to mean, “Wouldn’t you rather be doing real
science?”
当然，最近30年后，心理学变化了很多。我们从其他学科借鉴很多技术和理念。不仅
研究人类行为也研究大脑。广泛的使用计算机分析数据去研究思维的机理。我的学术头衔
是"认知神经系统专家"而不是"心理学专家".有个人问我"你的工作是?",估计她一定是新的物理系负责人."我是认知神经系统专家",不幸的是我用这句简单的话搪塞了.在我努力解释我实际工作一些特征后,她说"哦,你是个心理学专家!","你能研究点真正的科学么?"
The Professor of English joins the conversation and starts talking
about psychoanalysis. One of her new girls is “having difficulty accepting
Freud.” I don’t want to spoil my drinking time by proposing that Freud
was a story-teller whose speculations about the human mind were largely
irrelevant.
一个英语教授加入了谈话并开始说关于心理分析。他的一个学生不太能能理解弗洛伊德。我不要破坏我的酒兴告诉他弗洛伊德是个讲故事的，他对人类心理的推论很多都是不恰当的。
A few years ago the editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry, no
doubt in error, asked me to assess a Freudian paper. I was immediately
struck by a subtle difference from the papers I usually assess. As in any
scientific paper, there were lots of “references.” “References” refer to
papers already published on the same topic. We make these references
partly to acknowledge the work of our predecessors, but mainly to support
the claims we make in our own paper. “Don’t just take my word
for it. You will find my methods fully justified in Box & Cox (1964).”
But no attempt was made to support the evidence in the Freudian paper.
The references were not about the evidence. They were about the ideas.
Using these references you could trace the development of these ideas
through the various followers of Freud back to the original words of the
master himself. No evidence was presented as to whether the ideas of
the master were right。
无独有偶，几年前，伦敦精神学杂志的编辑让我评价弗洛伊德的书。我立刻意识到一个和平时评论的报告细微的差别。在任何科学报告里都有很多参考文献。“参考文献”涉及的内容是在与之相关课题已经发表的。我们引用这些文献通常一方面表示对前辈们的致谢，另一方面主要是支持我们自己报告里的观点。“不必仅凭我的一面之辞，你可以在Box & Cox (1964)找到已经被证明的我的这个论证”。但是弗洛伊德的书里找不到任何支持他的观点的参考文献迹象。都是一些臆想。通过弗洛伊德的追随者到弗原始的话我们可以追溯到这些观点的发展，没有证据证明他的观点的正确性。
“Freud may have had a big influence on literary criticism,” I say to the
Professor of English, “but he was no scientist. He wasn’t interested in
evidence. I study psychology scientifically.”
“So,” she replies, “you use the monster of mechanical reason to kill off
our humanity.”
From both sides of the cultural divide I get the same response,
“Scientists can’t study the mind.” So what’s the problem?
“弗洛伊德也许在文学方面有很大影响”，我对英语教授说，“但他不是一个科学家，他对证据不感兴趣，而我是系统地研究心理学。”
“那么，”她回答：”你们就用你们所知道的机械的理论去扼杀人性？”
从文化的差异我得到相同的反馈“科学家不能研究心理学”，为什么？
本文 Google Docs 文件地址: http://tinyurl.com/mutm002 : 需要编辑权限 Just contact me!
