Psychology: a Giant with Feet of Clay

Zagaria, Andò & Zennaro (2020) raise several issues for the study of the human condition, highlighting the precarious status of psychology on account of a core weakness: The absence of consensus about fundamental concepts. Using the metaphor of a giant, albeit one with feet of clay, the authors develop an argument about how evolutionary psychology is the best possible candidate to advance a unified paradigm on account of theoretical consistency. In this commentary we examine the metaphors and models invoked in the article and suggest alternative perspectives on the grounds that a grand singular solution and consistency in definitions are not urgent requirements for understanding the complexity, diversity, and nuances of the human condition. We argue that plurality and low consensus can be taken as productive and functional; precisely because psychological and cultural phenomena are always characterized by uncertainty in irreversible time. Cultural psychology is a valuable paradigm, inclusive of universal and individual processes in ways that provide more appropriate resolution for cultural pluralism. Every definition of psychological phenomena, however obscure and contested, has arisen from theoretical speculation arising from a specific perspective.

Section: Concluding Comments: a Unifying Framework Of Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Musings about Metaphors and Models: the Need to Put Psychology Together Again

Chaudhary

Sriram

2020

“…If one recognises that psychology is dealing with cognitive factors connected to subjective issues unique for each individual, it will be difficult if not impossible to reach a "hard" psychology representing universal laws with a non-argumentative first principal (evolution). Zagaria et al (2020) find that "cognitive functions" often are the main object of study of scientific psychology. However, since there is no clear definition of the concept 'cognition', they fail to find a specific list of "cognitive function" and "concepts" anywhere.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleaning Up or Throwing out the Psychological Insight with the Bath Water

Joranger

2020

In their article Psychology: a Giant with Feet of Clay, Zagaria, Andò and Zennaro aim to clean up the confusing and inconsistent conceptual landscape in current psychology. They find that evolutionary psychology with its dialectical focus on nature and nurture could be the unifying meta-theory that contemporary psychology is depending on in order to compete with harder sciences, such as biology and physiology. The aim of developing a unified conceptual consensus in psychology is flattering. However, the view depends on a worldview that one can reach a psychological science with objective properties through universal concepts that are non-effected by cognitive factors. My point of view is that psychological concepts carry a great deal of implicit theoretical baggage because they come with rich connotations, acquired through everyday usage. My view has got a methodological point that leads to considerations concerning the question: how psychologists are to study concepts in order to understand them? To grasp the meaning of a given concept in its context means to understand not only its literal meaning but also how it can be applied to the world and what is done by it. All these dimensions of the meaning of a concept are deeply rooted in the respective diachronic and synchronic contexts, and that is why a psychologist should be radically prepared to change her or his expectations considering the meaning of any concept under study.

“…(Firestein 2012, p. 98) In recent decades we have seen an exponential growth in the amount of data gathered within psychological research. Study after study is conducted to test various hypotheses, and yet in psychology at large there is little consensus regarding the core concepts in use, and there is a general absence of broader theories or overarching paradigms that would allow for the meaningful organization of research findings (Valsiner 2017;Zagaria et al 2020). For this reason, considerable attention today is given to discussions of such broader or higher-order concepts as theory and paradigm, and rightly so.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this reason, considerable attention today is given to discussions of such broader or higher-order concepts as theory and paradigm, and rightly so. Within such discussions, some psychologists have argued that the field would be well served by adopting an inclusive, pluralistic, "meta-theory," such as evolutionary psychology (Zagaria et al 2020). The main aim of the current piece is to suggest that, before looking for unifying ("scientific") theories, psychologists interested in the scientific progress of the field should look into the nature of the questions being asked and the degree to which those questions open the door to the possibility of scientific progress in the first place.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As assessed along a number of metrics (e.g., the theories-to-laws ratio, the rate of consultation between researchers in the field, citation frequency of new researchers, citation concentration), psychology is considered a "soft science" relative to the natural sciences (Zagaria et al 2020). In addition to these factors, the soft status of psychology also arises from the nature of the questions that give impetus to psychological research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Progress in Psychological Science. The Importance of Informed Ignorance and Curiosity-Driven Questions

Mazur

2020

In recent decades we have seen an exponential growth in the amount of data gathered within psychological research without a corresponding growth of theory that could meaningfully organize these research findings. For this reason, considerable attention today is given to discussions of such broader, higher-order concepts as theory and paradigm. However, another area important to consider is the nature of the questions psychologists are asking. Key to any discussion about the scientific status of psychology or about progress in the field (scientific or otherwise) is the nature of the questions that inspire psychological research. Psychologists concerned about scientific progress and the growth of theory in the field would be well served by more robust conversations about the nature of the questions being asked. Honest, curiosity-driven questions-questions that admit to our ignorance and that express an active and optimistic yearning for what we do not yet know-can help to propel psychology forward in a manner similar to the development of theory or paradigm. However, existing as it does in the "twilight zone" between the natural sciences and the humanities, psychology is fertile ground for questions of wide-ranging natures, and thus the nature of progress in the field can be variously understood, not all of which will be "scientific." Recent psychological research in three areas (cognition, memory, and disorders/differences of sex development) are discussed as examples of how curiosity-driven questions being asked from a position of informed ignorance can lead to progress in the field.