Is there a way to provide a principled distinction between areas of inquiry where reliance on the dictates of common sense is legitimate because necessary and areas where it is illegitimate because it is an obstruction to intellectual and practical progress? Would it be common sense to continue holding on to those prejudices if they were proven wrong? The Risk takers tend to acquire more common sense, than those who prefer to limit their learning to books or symposiums. Feel free to follow me on twitter WhoDat?! Much of psychology is not based on common sense, but on meticulous research, testing, and appropriate applications of theory. The scientific method is the way that scientific psychologists gain knowledge about behaviour and the mental processes. So, when do these childish misconceptions leak through into adult judgements? In fact, I think that a course in scientific thinking and methodology for everyday life should be a requirement for all students. This is similar to common sense in the sense that they both try to explain human behaviour in a social context. That is what allows us to keep searching, never stopping at our understanding of the way the world works. But we like to pretend it is.
I like to describe psychology as a philosophy that likes to play dress up in the clothes of science. Social Psychology and Common Sense may seem relatively similar or even the same thing: often, scientific studies into what are perceived as 'common sense notions' are mocked in the mass media as 'unnecessary' and 'pointless'. Perhaps the biggest problem with common sense is that it falls prey to the clear limits of personal experience. Human beings are limited to their genetic endowment. We are studying a very new science that is vastly complicated and it is important for everyone to understand and appreciate that. Logic and maths are also languages.
If something looks like a science and acts like a science, then it likely should be considered a science. In both these cases, the terms are often used as opiates, to dull or stall discussion. Skill is an improvable ability. Well there are many common sense issues to address here right. Common sense is anything that works practically speaking regardless of opinions or emotions.
Ok not to get too far into the vast areas of research psychology scientifically conducts, but I hope I have made myself clear regarding just how young this science really is. Lets say my neighbour is sick and i have spent the day indoors and I decide at 11 at night I want to go outside and do work on my new garage, drilling hammering and listen to an upbeat radio station playing rock to keep me going. Nevertheless, when you are explaining or defending something, I think invoking intuition or, worse, common sense, can be like closing a curtain and hiding behind it. Also, Psychology is a discipline that has an extensive theoretical background with many theoretical perspectives such as , , , etc. A Grand Master uses intuition liberally early in the game, saving time for heavy analytical thought later in the game. Empathic concern then becomes a point within the sphere of pro-social behaviour: people will be less likely to be pro-social if they do not empathise with the problem. Such a study that shows this is Rosenthal and Jacobenson's 1968 study with five year olds entering school.
This is shown in the explanation of drug addiction. It can usually be recognized even by a raving lunatic when he hears it. But in many cases, giving in to angry impulses often causes people to become even more upset. But, if we use our elected representatives as examples though I can't vouch for how representative they actually are , I think it's safe to say that unsound judgment, that is, the absence of common sense, doesn't discriminate based on political ideology. Just because a person might be intelligent enough to learn all about Civil Engineering, he can still be too stupid to come in out of the rain. Despite the fact that common sense does not contribute to such a purpose, it should be utilized to solve a number of problems related to life. We, therefore, comprehend … the truth offered by science through an understanding of how we arrived at such truth.
This shows that addiction, like so many things in social psychology, is dependent on social and environmental factors, not solely biological or individual factors. Dump soup mix into hot water and get soup. In addition, the start of the field begins with a review of major approaches that all have merit, such as behaviorism, cognitivism, humanism, , evolutionary and cultural approaches not to mention purely physiological or nonwestern approaches , all of which are different and competing angles on the subject matter, however that is defined. In fact, I think that so-called common sense is a fallacy that has been foisted on us by our culture of ideology any ideology that wants to tell us what we should think and do that prefers us to be stupid, ill informed, and poor decision makers. Or it might even mean shifting to an entirely different path altogether. Common sense is our usual understanding of practical issues. Why back away from that fact? Only the people that put forth or follow that propaganda have sense.
However, sciences such as biology measure phenomenon which psychology does not do. Most of these interactions would be the same, but gradually over time they would change. I think Gene Bellinger has a good framework for how data, information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom relate to each other: 1. We are too often pushed in directions and allow ones self to be led by others. The article was a waste of time to read even halfway already - you just don't have a point.
Newton created a paradigm for understanding matter in motion that stands as a pinnacle of real scientific achievement. Clear goals expectations and rules are discernable. Psychology has very little distillable theory, from the classes I have taken. They asked half the participant group to predict the results of the election of a controversial Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas, a week before the election; the other half to say what they would have predicted if they were asked a week ago. Of course, we can't do an in-depth scientific study of every issue for which we need to draw a conclusion or make a decision. Does that guarantee sound judgments? What distinguishes Scientific Psychology from Common- Sense or Popular Psychology? Common Sense is not Common Practice.
Common sense may not be as uncommon as it seems, but it is hard to look something in the eyes hidden behind the face of oppression. This does not help your credibility as a thinker, at least with skeptical people like me. If you have a different understand of the risks of the project at this point in our testing that you feel this is rash or counter productive, please share them with me so I can reevaluate where I think I am in this game. Some of the people will argue that this attributes to American Author and Humorist Mark Twain. You do indeed have no idea where the decision came from. Bandwidth compression plus give-and-take, with the prominent alternative being turning on a firehose of disagreement. It probably has to do with experience and neurology, both.