I was talking (informally) with a group of combined honours students (mathematics + psychology) the other day and something very interesting struck me.
During the discussion it became clear that most of them struggled with the concept of argument, argumentation, and informal logic in a scientific context. In addition. they had a very low tolerance for ambiguity in a conclusion. They just wanted to know "who is right" or "what theory is the best one". When I explained it's a little more complicated than that - you could almost hear the mental sigh.....
Their perception seemed to be that sciences which require and rely on cogent arguments were 'weaker'. I countered if they were weaker then it should be easier for you to answer the question and not get yourself in such a fuddle.....They left having a better appreciation that things are more complicated than they think they are - but that this is no bad thing. In addition I explained that if I gave them exact numbers for psychological variables (if such a thing were possible) - this would merely be the illusion of precision and not precision in any real way.
Now I dont want to get into a discussion about the merits of psychology relative to other sciences (all sciences have their place) - but it was very obvious to me that these students did not like ambiguity at all (personally i think its good to have an area which clearly demarcates the need for further research). Obviously these are just young students starting out on their journey - but half of the job is deconstructing their version of reality before you can re-construct an appropriate and accurate one and then start to have the real interesting discussions.
What also struck me was that such intolerance for ambiguity is also a trait in psychoses and hallucination / delusion proneness.....I feel a study coming on....
Last edited by Dr B; 9th February 2009 at 11:04 AM.
I misread the thread title as including tolerance for students and tolerance for psychology ...
When I was at school (back in the dark ages) the general idea was that you were told something by the teacher that was "right" and that was what you had to learn and reproduce in the exam. The idea that there might be two sides to any issue was rarely, if ever, considered.
I remember even at university, doing computer science, a tutor disagreeing with the way I had suggested performing a particular operating system function, saying that I should do it using a technique he had lectured about, but which I didn't agree was best in this case. It was a fairly balanced debate until he told me he would knock 5% off my test score if I didn't change my view to his. I wasn't sure whether he really wanted to bribe me into changing, or whether he was testing whether I had the integrity to stick to my guns, but I stuck to my way of doing it anyway.
Interestingly, the method I proposed is now essentially the way things like keyboard strokes and mouse clicks are handled in Windows programs, and the tutor's method is not normally seen except hidden deep within the workings of the system.
I can understand why your students dont like ambigious answers. People like to know exactly why things are the way they are. This information furnishes them with accuracy and confidence. Of course it is all an illusion, because there is no black & white. There are only shades of grey. Thinking of the world in black & white (absolutes) is something we appear to learn as a child, and its a very hard habit to break as we reach adulthood. At least this is my view on this, I am no psychologist or philosopher.
I found university a shock after school. Instead 'this is how it is', there was 'what do you think it is'? I'm talking a long time ago here but I suspect the national curriculum is hardly likely to have improved things.
Do kids now come out of school expecting there to be a 'right' and a 'wrong' answer to everything in science?
Yes. They also think they can 'save the world' with their unique brand of psychology.....Originally Posted by Mulder
Some people pick a psychology degree based on (i) Psychologists on Richard & Judy (ii) Psychologists on Big Brother (iii) Psychologists in fluffy magazine's.
More often than not these people are not real psychologists (though not always) and it hides the reality of the fact that its a demanding experimental science that requires a skill set in science, maths, statistics, reasoning, etc.
There is a long tradition (fostered by religion, unsurprisingly) that all possible knowledge was ready-known in ancient times, and we have lost it due to our sinfulness etc. A corollary of this belief is the idea that there is an existing "right" answer to every question, and that we should be able to find it out if only we could recover the wisdom of the ancients.
The myth taught to school students that teachers know all about a subject and that all you have to do is learn what they tell you, is a minor version of this.
I had this drummed into me in schoold when a answer without an error estimate was only half an answer and only awarded half marks. DOubt is good, certainty is wrong.
We were taught error bars, but I'm pretty sure we were still told that there was a "right" answer, only that our experiments could not be counted on to find it exactly.
Indeed but couldn't the same be said for the OP. There may well be a right answer in psychology but our experiments cannot be counted on to find whihc of the various considered and as yet unthought of options is the best model.
Of course then we get to quantum phsyics...
Even without quantum physics, the brain, or any system capable of storing a large amount of information with uncontrolled input from outside, is a chaotic system and so intrinsically unpredictable. All psychology can do is try to work out the paths which are possible, but the one actually taken can never be known for sure.
There are things that cannot be known due to the imprecission of our intruments and things that cannot be known at all. In both cases doubt is good, certainty is wrong.
Are you sure about that?
Interesting!
I wonder how this relates to the 'leaping to a conclusion' effect that such people also display?
I was thinking about a way of explaining the idea of a 'demarcation line' between not knowing something and accepting something and what I came up with was something like this:
Imagine I have a 5-sided die and a 6-sided die. I will choose one at random, keep throwing it, giving you the result of each throw and then you have to decide with one it is.
But here's the crucial factor - you could actually throw a 6-sided die for eternity without ever getting a 6! (Incredibly unlikely, but not impossible).
So, if I report the results in a sequence without sixes, i.e. 1, 4, 5, 2, 4, 5, 1, 3, 4, 2, 4, 2, 5, 1, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 4..., how many results would you have to see before you decided that it was the 5-sided die and not the 6-sided one?
The idea behind this was to demonstrate that you could never be certain that it was the 5-sided die but the more results you see without a 6 appearing, the more certain you could be that that it was - to the point that it would become absurd to think otherwise.
But there turned out to be a flaw in this idea as an explanation of deciding without absolute proof.
Some people, who score highly on the magical ideation scale (are very prone to paranormal beliefs etc.), make what's known as the 'leaping to a conclusion' error. What they do, is see only a few results (sometimes even just the one) and they will make a decision and feel certain that their decision is correct!
I bet there's a correlation between this effect and an intolerance for ambiguity (it would be my research hypothesis anyway!)
.
I'm sorry but you lost me at this point. Can I imagine that you have a ten-sided die with 1 to 5 on it twice? Thus sticking within the reasonable possibilities of this reality.
Religious believers certainly show a stong liking for certainties!
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6926275.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks