A new discipline emerges: The psychology of science
October 19, 2011 in Psychology & PsychiatryYou've heard of the history of science, the philosophy of science, maybe even the sociology of science. But how about the psychology of science? In a new article in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, San Jose State University psychologist Gregory J. Feist argues that a field has been quietly taking shape over the past decade, and it holds great promise for both psychology and science.
"Science is a cognitive act by definition: It involves personality, creativity, developmental processes," says Feisteverything about individual psychology. So what is the psychology of science? "Simply put," he writes, it is "the scientific study of scientific thought and behavior." The psychology of science isn't just about scientists, though. It's about how children make organized sense of the world, what comprises scientific talent and interestor growing disinterestand even people's embrace of pseudoscience.
Reviewing about two dozen articles, Feist mentions work in many psychological subspecialties. Neuroscientists have observed the brain correlations of scientific reasoning, discovering, for instance, that people pay more attention to data that concur with their own personal theories. Developmental psychologists have found that infants can craft theories of the way the world works. They've also looked at the ages at which small children begin to distinguish theories from evidence.
In its focus on such processes as problem-solving, memory, and creativity, cognitive psychology may be the most mature of the specialties in its relationship to the doing of science. Feist's own work in this area offers some intriguing findings. In meta-analyses of personality studies of scientific interest and creativity, he has teased out a contradiction: People who are highly interested in science are higher than others in "conscientiousness" (that is, such traits as caution and fastidiousness) and lower in "openness" to experience. Meanwhile, scientific creativity is associated with low conscientiousness and high openness.
Feist believes that a new psychology of science is good for science, which has become more and more important to society, culture, and the economy. Educators need to understand the ways children and adolescents acquire the requisites of scientific inquiry, he says, "and we want to encourage kids who have that talent to go that way."
But the new sub-discipline is also good for psychology. "Like other disciplines, psychology is fracturing into smaller and smaller areas that are isolated from each other," he says. "The psychology of science is one of the few recent disciplines that bucks that trend. We're saying: 'Let's look at the whole person in all the basic psychological areascognition, development, neuroscienceand integrate it in one phenomenon.' That's an approach which is unusual these days."
Provided by
Association for Psychological Science
-
Life lessons: Where psychology stands on living well
Jul 22, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Researchers outline ways to advance scientific thinking in children
Aug 18, 2011 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Will psych majors make the big bucks?
Jun 08, 2011 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Social ecology: Lost and found in psychological science
Aug 05, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Knowing me, myself and I: What psychology can contribute to self-knowledge
Jul 16, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Of mice and mental models: Neuroscientific implications of risk-optimized behavior in the mouse
May 25, 2012 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Limits to growth: Scientists identify key metastasis-enabling enzyme
May 22, 2012 |
5 / 5 (4) |
0
-
Seeing is as seeing does: Spatially-structured retinal input in early development of cortical maps
Apr 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (4) |
1
-
Dreamless nights: Brain activity during nonrapid eye movement sleep
Apr 09, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (12) |
0
-
Take your time: Neurobiology sheds light on the superiority of spaced vs. massed learning
Mar 28, 2012 |
4.5 / 5 (21) |
3
-
Potential Breakthrough in Seizure Control
6 hours ago
-
Popping/Cracked sternum.
11 hours ago
-
Which Mental Illness Encompasses This Problem?
11 hours ago
-
A question about drug tolerance
May 23, 2012
-
Poor nutrition leading to overeating?
May 23, 2012
-
Math and dyslexia?
May 21, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Medical Sciences
More news stories
More mental health care urged for kids who self-harm
(HealthDay) -- Doctors have long known that some kids suffering severe emotional turmoil find relief in physical pain -- cutting or burning or sticking themselves with pins to achieve a form of release.
Psychology & Psychiatry
22 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
Questionable research practices surprisingly common
(Medical Xpress) -- Not all scientific misconduct is flat-out fraud. Much falls into the murkier realm of questionable research practices. A new study finds that in one field, psychology, these practices are surprisingly ...
Psychology & Psychiatry
May 25, 2012 |
not rated yet |
0
|
Feeling strong emotions makes peoples' brains 'tick together'
Experiencing strong emotions synchronises brain activity across individuals, research team at Aalto University and Turku PET Centre in Finland has revealed.
Psychology & Psychiatry
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
Formal recognition of PMDD will lift stigma for women
A decision to recognise premenstrual dysphoric disorder as a genuine psychiatric condition will finally provide validation for this awful and poorly understood syndrome and alleviate the stigma ...
Psychology & Psychiatry
May 24, 2012 |
2 / 5 (1) |
1
Long-term meditation leads to different brain organization
(Medical Xpress) -- People who practice mindfulness meditation learn to accept their feelings, emotions, and states of mind without judging or resisting them. They simply live in the moment.
Psychology & Psychiatry
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (5) |
0
|
Family history of Alzheimer's affects functional connectivity
(HealthDay) -- Cognitively normal individuals with a family history of late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) may display lower resting state functional connectivity in the default mode network (DMN) of the brain, ...
Travel to high altitudes tied to Crohn's, colitis flare-ups
(HealthDay) -- People with inflammatory bowel disease, which includes Crohn's disease and colitis, may be at increased risk for flare-ups when they fly or travel to high altitudes for skiing or mountain climbing, ...
Transvaginal mesh op restores pelvic organ prolapse at price
(HealthDay) -- Transvaginal mesh (TVM) procedures are effective for anatomical restoration of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), but patients report a worsening of sexual function following surgery, according to ...
Cancer may require simpler genetic mutations than previously thought
Chromosomal deletions in DNA often involve just one of two gene copies inherited from either parent. But scientists haven't known how a deletion in one gene from one parent, called a "hemizygous" deletion, can contribute ...
Inherited DNA change explains overactive leukemia gene
A small inherited change in DNA is largely responsible for overactivating a gene linked to poor treatment response in people with acute leukemia.
Skp2 activates cancer-promoting, glucose-processing Akt
HER2 and its epidermal growth factor receptor cousins mobilize a specialized protein to activate a major player in cancer development and sugar metabolism, scientists report in the May 25 issue of Cell.
Oct 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Oct 19, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Somebody who's deeply interested in science, like a layman, and somebody who actually practices science by doing research, experimentation and undergoing peer review, are two entirely different people. Innovators in any scientific field take great risk, in a variety of ways, so doesn't throwing caution to the wind usually result in advances ? I would think that the more knowledge you have of a subject, the less risk you see in trying new things ( creativity )
Oct 19, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
During my activities at many public forums, I usually met with reactions, which weren't based on any objective arguments, i.e. they were all based on religion in any form. The concept of religion is much wider, then the people are probably willing to believe. The religion is simply irrational, belief based attitude: it doesn't matter if you believe in something or in the negation of it. For example, when you're refusing the cold fusion or aether concept without arguments, then your attitude is not skeptical - but a religious one.
Oct 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
The truth of the matter is that ANY belief is based on an incomplete frame of knowledge, it is a comfortably-held position that realistically should be discarded in lieu of new material. I consider myself agnostic about a topic until I really start to dig into the meat and potatoes of it. Skepticism gets in the way of exploration, most people won't examine alternate views because of it.
The more we dissect a topic for discussion, the more divergent views we get, religion, cosmology, philosophy, science, all the same in that respect.
Oct 20, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
No.
You need to remember how you learned. I suggest you start in the womb, or at least from birth.
No excuse. Don't tell me you don't remember the most important spectrum of your life spans. The span where nothing was a 'challenge'. Where nothing was a failure. Where 'all' you did was 'learn' - effortlessly. Remember. How.
And put the 'psychology' of 'science' to shame for learning otherwise.