Why you should (not) study psychology?
Psychology is the scientific study of behaviour and the mind (Passer & Smith, 2007). The term behaviour refers to observable actions and responses, whereas the term mind refers to internal state – such as thoughts and feelings – that are not visible to the eyes, thus we must inferred them from measured quantitative and qualitative statistics (Passer & Smith, 2007). For example: we cannot measure the feelings of sadness or happiness, but we can observe the behaviours of individuals who are experiencing such states and measure their actions/responses in quantitative and qualitative ways such as: the amount of crying/smiling, the amount of dopamine and/or cortisol present in said individuals. These measures are quantifiable and visible for observation. This is psychology.
To many people, there seems to be misconceptions and false association of psychological science and, by extension, misunderstanding what psychologists do. The association of psychologist being a person sitting on a chair, with a notepad, asking their client “ How are you feeling today?” is false. This misconception is understandable, as a large number of psychologists work in a subfield called clinical psychology. This false association can also be attributed to the media portrait of psychologists and the fact that many psychologists work behind the scene. There are many fields an individual with a degree in psychology can go into, such as: cognitive psychology, biopsychology, behavioural neuroscience, developmental psychology, experimental psychology, industrial-organisation psychology, social psychology and many more.
Studying psychology can broaden your perspective and understanding on behaviours and psychological phenomenon such as the bystander effect, children’s typical trajectory of development and pro-social behaviours. Studying psychology can also enable you to critically evaluate so-called claims and studies that you may come across on the Internet. For instant, consider this so-called research:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by istlef but the wrod as a wlohe.
First, let’s consider what this research is claiming. There are three claims; with the first claim being that people can read jumble words as long as the first and last letter are the same. The second claim is that this occurs because we read words as a whole, instead of reading each letter by itself. Lastly, this research was conducted at Cambridge.
Secondly, who is making the claim? The author for this claim is anonymous, which should raise the suspicion. We cannot evaluate the credibility of the author and his/her trustworthiness.
Thirdly, what’s the evidence and how good is it? No reference (researchers’ names, publication date and location) was given. This should raise further suspicion.
Lastly, are there alternative explanations available? Yes, there is. Sixty-five percent of the words aren’t jumbled because they’re three-letter words (Passer & Smith, 2007). Four-letter words only have one possible transposition of switching the second and third letter, which makes them quite easy to process (Passer & Smith, 2007). For five or six-letter words, the transposition is minimal (e.g. for “mttaer”, only the “a” is out of order) (Passer & Smith, 2007). Further more, these words provide contextual information, which enable readers to anticipate the meaning of the next words (Passer & Smith, 2007). I will not start on the “we only use 10% of our brain”, because misinformation deserves a whole topic by itself. However, it’s very frustrating to see this misinformation is being exacerbated and perpetually exploited by Hollywood (exhibit A, B, C being Limitless, Lucy and Limitless TV series, respectively).
Obviously, we do not go through our daily live critically observe and evaluate every single claims and research that we came across, as doing so would be exhaustive. However, it’s the inability to think critically that can have severe consequences, economic-wise and health-wise. A study conducted by Zimmerman et al. (2007) found a large negative association between viewing of baby DVDs/videos and language acquisition in children 8 to 16 months old. In simpler words, children who have poor vocabulary often watch relatively more baby DVDs/videos and children who watch DVDs/videos extensively often have relatively poor vocabulary. It is very important to distinguish between correlation and causation. Correlation does not mean causation, so in this case we cannot conclude that watching baby DVDs/videos causes poor language acquisition. There could be other explanation and/or confounding variables. Despite the lack of scientific research, parents spent approximate 200$ million on a Disney baby media product called “ Baby Einstein”, which falsely advertised as educational (Lewin, 2009).
It is also important to distinguish between psychological science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience such as: astrology, palm readings, horoscope, 2 minutes personality tests… are often unsubstantiated, have no foundation and lack scientific research and evidence to back up their claim (Passer & Smith, 2007). People who lack the ability to think critically would be more likely to fall for bogus advice from psychics and unfounded treatments. Aside from the monetary loss, said individuals would likely to suffer psychological stress and needless bodily harm from failing to employed scientifically researched, evident-based treatments (Passer & Smith, 2007).
The question remains, should you study psychology? Well, if you want to gain a better understanding of human’s behaviours, their motivations, cognitive ability, lifespan development, psychological disorders, the ability to think and evaluate critically, introspection and some (by some I mean a lot of) statistics. When you get into 2nd and 3rd years there is so many statistical procedures involve in psychology, more than you’d expect. T-test, f-test, z-score, ANOVA analysis, SPSS and you-name-it.
I study psychology because I find people fascinating. On the evolutionary scale, humans have accomplished more than any sentient beings (penicillin, advanced medical infrastructure, the discovery of physics and chemistry). Humans are the only beings that are self-aware. However, despite our intelligence and the capacity for change, we, humans, are capable of destructive deeds such as racism, sexism, discrimination, industrialisation, animal farming, climate change, knowing that smoking causes cancer yet not banning it, obesity, ignorance, warfare, violence and many more. Sometimes, I wonder if being self-aware and being intelligent, is it worth it? I am aware of all the amazing things that humans have, is, and will accomplished but I am also aware of all the destructive and horrible things that humans have, is and will commit.
Should you study psychology?
References
Passer, M., & Smith, R. (2007). Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Lewin, T. (2009, October 23). No Einstein in your crib? Get a refund. New York Times. Last accessed June 21st, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/education/24baby.html?_r=0
Zimmerman, F., Christakis, D., & Meltzoff, A. (2007). Associations between Media Viewing and Language Development in Children Under Age 2 Years. The Journal Of Pediatrics, 151(4), 364-368. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.04.071
Responses