Myth 2: Psychology Is Just Common Sense Kendra Cherry Psychology Expert

Often after hearing about the latest psychological research, people tend to have an "Of Course!" type of response. "Of course that's true! Why do people even waste their time researching stuff that's just common sense?" people sometimes exclaim.

But is it really? Pick up any book outlining some of the most famous experiments in the history of psychology and what you'll quickly realize is that much of this research refutes what was believed to be common sense at the time. Would you deliver potentially fatal electrical shocks to a stranger just because an authority figure told you to? Common sense might have you emphatically saying no, but psychologist Stanley Milgram famously demonstrated in an obedience experiment that the vast majority of people would do such a thing.

That's the thing about common sense – just because something seems like it should be true does not necessarily mean that it is. Researchers are able to take some of these questions and presumptions about human behavior and test them scientifically, assessing the truth or falsehood in some of our commonly held beliefs about ourselves. By using scientific methods, experimenters can investigate human issues objectively and fairly.

Source http://psychology.about.com/od/psychology101/a/myths-about-psychology.htm

http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/03/why-psychology-is-not-just-common-sense.phpMind-myth 3: Psychology it not just common sense, but do psychologists go too far in denying similarities? In this post I poke some holes in the standard arguments and consider the connections between psychology and common sense.If you want to see a psychologist’s head explode, tell them psychology is just common sense. It’s not that surprising as it’s like saying that they’ve been wasting their time all these years and needn’t have bothered studying all that claptrap in the textbooks. While psychology is, of course, more than common sense, there is certainly an intersection between the two, and anyone denying it should have their head examined. Because psychologists are so sensitive when told their discipline is nothing more than self-evident, they’ve often gone out of their way to prove how different psychology is from common sense, sometimes with disastrous results.

Two straw men An oft-cited argument against common sense pits two common sayings against each other. For example, how is it possible to reconcile, ‘birds of a feather flock together’, with ‘opposites attract’. Clearly these are mutually incompatible, it is argued, so common sense is (apparently) proved wrong. Psychology to the rescue!Common sense is something much more subtle than just hackneyed old sayings.But the problem with this argument is pretty fundamental: it assumes that these well-known sayings are a good proxy for common sense. In reality, they’re not. Common sense is something much more subtle than just hackneyed old sayings. Rather it is our intuitive sense of the way people think and behave based on all we know, both consciously and unconsciously. Assuming common sense is just cliche is doing it a disservice. eval(ez_write_tag([[250,250],'spring_org_uk-square-2'])); The second argument you’ll get about the problem with common sense refers to a study carried out by Houston (1985). Houston asked 50 random people in a local park 25 questions about psychology. The questions had all the psychological jargon removed so that they were easily understood, but the psychological principles remained. He found that out of 25 questions, 16 were answered correctly more often than would be expected by chance.So, what’s your interpretation of this finding? Does that support the idea that psychology is just common sense or not?Well, it can just as easily be interpreted both ways. The fact that

people score above chance means they have some intuitive understanding of psychology’s findings. On the other hand the fact that people don’t score 100% shows that people don’t know everything. Perhaps even this is just common sense!

Counter-intuitive findings No, rather than attacking common sense, psychologists are much better off defending their science by explaining the multitude of counter-intuitive findings. This blog is filled with them. Start with, say, choice blindness, and work on from there. These types of findings are the best evidence for how much more psychology is than just common sense.Ultimately what really sets psychology apart from common sense is the scientific method.Ultimately what really sets psychology apart from common sense is the scientific method. Psychology tests common sense ideas about people (along with some nonsensical ideas) to try and find out the truth. Sometimes common sense is proved right, other times not. But, again, let’s not be too down on common sense. While psychologists are usually sensitive and therefore defensive about the role common sense plays, they don’t need to be: in fact common sense is very important to them. The reason for that lies at the interface between psychology and common sense. - See more at: http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/03/why-psychology-is-not-just-common-sense.php#sthash.BdGRWJSr.dpuf

Crossing boundaries Academic psychologists are generally pretty coy about the role common sense plays in coming up with ideas for their research. They will talk about theory and hypotheses a lot, without really acknowledging that they just had a hunch.…many experiments don’t return common sense answers…What most people would call common sense plays a huge part in the early phases of psychological research. When psychologists first consider a new area of research, there’s little else to go on other than guesswork or common sense.And sometimes the results are exactly as we would expect and so common sense becomes science.Of course many experiments don’t return common sense answers and often these are the most fascinating. They can reveal the most to us about what it means to be human as well as setting up a whole line of further studies to try and hunt the answer down.When common sense is proved wrong, though, this begs the question of how, and whether, psychological knowledge can creep across the line to become common sense. Perhaps once psychological findings become well-known, people incorporate them into their intuitive thoughts and behaviour.People, such as myself, who are interested in disseminating psychological research, would hope the answer is yes. Wouldn’t it be fantastic if just understanding Milgram’s experiment on conformity really did allow us to avoid it’s more depressing consequences?This may be far-fetched but it doesn’t hurt to consider the interaction between common sense and psychology. After all what used to be ‘just’ psychology, can become ‘common sense’ and similarly what used to be ‘just’ common sense can become psychology. Each should inform the other.But, please, don’t try to tell a psychologist that psychology is just common sense. It’s safer for all concerned.[Image credit: birdbath]ReferenceHouston, J. (1985). Untutored lay knowledge of the principles of psychology: do we know anything they don’t?, Psychological reports, 57(2), 567-570. - See more at: http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/03/why-psychology-is-not-just-common-sense.php#sthash.BdGRWJSr.dpuf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Psychology is the study of mind and behavior.[1][2] It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.[3][4] In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist and can be classified as a social, behavioral, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and biological processes that underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.

Psychologists explore concepts such as perception, cognition, attention, emotion, intelligence, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships, including psychological resilience, family resilience, and other areas. Psychologists of diverse orientations also consider the unconscious mind.[5] Psychologists employ empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing empirical and

deductive methods, some—especially clinical and counseling psychologists—at times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques. Psychology has been described as a "hub science",[6] with psychological findings linking to research and perspectives from the social sciences, natural sciences, medicine, humanities, and philosophy.

While psychological knowledge is often applied to the assessment and treatment of mental health problems, it is also directed towards understanding and solving problems in several spheres of human activity. By many accounts psychology ultimately aims to benefit society.[7][8] The majority of psychologists are involved in some kind of therapeutic role, practicing in clinical, counseling, or school settings. Many do scientific research on a wide range of topics related to mental processes and behavior, and typically work in university psychology departments or teach in other academic settings (e.g., medical schools, hospitals). Some are employed in industrial and organizational settings, or in other areas[9] such as human development and aging, sports, health, and the media, as well as in forensic investigation and other aspects of law.

Uses empirical methods Researchers control and manipulate variables Objectivity Allows for hypothesis testing Results can be replicated Finding allow researchers to predict future occurrences

http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/03/why-psychology-is-not-just-common-sense.php

Psychology is a scientific and research based study of human mind-set and behaviours. The field of study focuses on emotions, characteristics and behaviours of individuals in their daily lives and their behaviours when interacting with other people. Wilhelm Wundt is the father of psychology, whom set up his first laboratory in Leipzig, Germany in 1879. His main contribution to the field of psychology was his idea of structuralism; the use of introspection to study individual’s experiences comprising of sensations, images and feelings. Throughout his course of research, he insisted on using systematic observation and measurement, which serve as a strong foundation for psychology studies in the future. Whereas, common sense basically refers to the common knowledge shared by the majority human population. Such knowledge usually arise from daily observation and interaction one another, past experiences, beliefs that are being passed down for generations and scenarios commonly portrayed in television shows. Much of psychology is not based on common sense, but on research, testing, and applications of theory. As such, psychologists are heavily trained in research methods and statistics. Psychology is a real science as It uses scientific methods such as the experimental research and analysis to support a hypothesis and that psychology is not just things we see everyday. Psychology has a wide variety of aspects; from the social side of understanding why people behave in a specific way, to the neuroscience side of understanding what goes wrong in the brain of people with mental health disorders. As psychologists attempt to explain the mind and brain in the context of real life, it is definitely not common sense. One common sense belief states that if someone recalls something vividly and confidently, that memory is true and accurate. In another words, an individual will not false memories. Even if there is, the individual will have the ability to differentiate real... https://www.studymode.com/signup?redirectUrl=%2Fessays%2FPsychology-And-Common-Sense-54213008.html&from=essay&from=essay

differences between psychology and common senseThis essay will examine the differences between psychology and common sense. It will also discuss the obstacles and drawbacks that primary experience and common sense beliefs can have on the epistemological advancement of any experimental science. The paper will start with a

brief history of psychology and then discuss the different perspectives and approaches within the field. Giving examples throughout and briefly touching on the pioneers in the development of psychology, this essay will argue that the use of systematic and objective methods of observation and experimentation in psychology make it much more than just 'common sense'.

The bathroom floor is somewhat colder than the bedroom carpet. Most people would agree with this statement and pass it off as just 'common sense'. But what if a thermometer showed that the bathroom floor was actually the same temperature as the bedroom carpet, and the real reason that the tiled floor in the bathroom 'felt' colder than the bedroom carpet was because the carpet is a better thermal insulator than the ceramic tile? Therefore feet lose heat to the floor more slowly on the carpet than on the tile floor, and consequently the cold receptors in the feet's skin are not stimulated to the same extent (Refinetti, 1992). This example, although not specifically a psychological one, shows that the element of primary experience and common sense beliefs in most humans can prove to be an obstacle in the development of any experimental science.

The first formal laboratory for psychological research was founded in 1879 by Wilhelm Wundt. Widely regarded as the "father of experimental psychology" (Teo, 2005; 40) and placed first in the list of most outstanding psychologists carried out by Korn et al in 1991, Wundt established psychology as a separate field of study with its own unique questions and methods. Thirty years later in 1910, Hermann Ebbinghaus, a pioneer in the experimental study of memory, described psychology as having "a long past but only a short history" (Ebbinghaus, 1910, cited in Hothersall, 1995: 1). Ebbinghaus was referring to the fact that although psychology is a relatively new discipline, studied perhaps for only a hundred years or so, philosophers and scholars since the time of Plato and Aristotle have been asking the same questions for thousands of years.

In many text books psychology is defined as the science of behaviour. Although this definition holds some merit it is also important to point out that many psychologists also accept accounts of their participants own conscious experience, often known as introspection (Eysenck, 1998: 2). It is this point that led Sternberg (1995: 4, cited in Eysenck, 1998: 2) to define psychology as:

The study of mind and behaviour...[that] seeks to understand how we think, learn, perceive, feel, act, interact with others, and even understand ourselves

Sternberg's definition shows that psychology contains two fundamental elements. Firstly, that psychologists study behaviour, any type of behaviour that can be measured or observed. Secondly, it shows that psychologists study the mind, referring to both the conscious and unconscious mental states that cannot be seen but can be observed through behaviour.

Because we spend so much of our time trying to understand other people's behaviour and the motives for their behaviour, in some sense we are all psychologists. Perhaps it is this reason that leads some people to dismiss psychology as nothing more than just common sense - or a slight advance of it (Eysenck, 1998: 2). Naturally, there are some similarities with one another in that they can both try to explain human behaviour; however this does not mean that they are the same thing.

The most important difference between psychology and common sense is that psychology uses systematic and objective methods of observation and experimentation. Common sense on the other hand is usually played out in proverbs or short phrases, most of which are contradictory to one another. For example 'he who hesitates is lost' and 'look before you leap' or 'out of sight, out of mind' and 'absence

makes the heart grow fonder' (Eysenck, 1998: 3). Common sense refers mainly to a set of beliefs and skills that are shared by most people but acquired through no specialist education. According to Refinetti (1992), the concept is too broad and any meaningful statement should refer not to the whole concept but to some component of it.

Another important reason why psychology and common sense are different is the outcome of psychological tests carried out over the years which on many occasion have produced very different results to what might have been predicted using only 'common sense' alone.

One example can been seen in a test carried out by Stanley Milgram (1974), a psychologist at Yale University who conducted a study focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. His test was designed to examine the claims made by those accused of war crimes during World War II at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials. The defendants often claimed that they were just obeying orders whilst under the authority of their superiors (Hayes, 2002 & Eysenck 1994).

In his Study of Obedience Milgram selected 40 male volunteers, all of who varied in age, educational and occupation. Hayes (2002) explains that Milgram then introduced the volunteers to a stern looking experimenter who stated that one subject would be assigned the role of "teacher" and the other would be assigned the role of "learner." The teachers were asked to give the learners some simple memory tests. Each time the learner got an answer wrong the teachers were instructed to administer a shock to them by pressing a button on what Milgram called 'the shock generator'. Unbeknown to the volunteers each of them would always end up playing the role of teacher and the learner was actually played by an actor instructed by Milgram to indicate increasing levels of discomfort as the teacher increased the shock level.

For every mistake the learners made the intensity of the shock was to be increased by 15 volts up to a maximum of 450 volts. Before the experiment Milgram had sought predictions from experts and non-experts about the outcome of the tests and with remarkable similarity they predicted that virtually all the subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter, in fact some professionals guessed that as little as one in a thousand would give the maximum shock. In actual fact Milgram found that on average about half of all participants obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale (Hayes, 2002 & Eysenck 1994).

This experiment along with many others shows that common sense can often be inaccurate and is subject to bias and life-experiences. One particular bias that common sense has against psychology is the problem of hindsight bias. This is a tendency to be wise after the event and can be very difficult to eliminate.

There are five main approaches in contemporary psychology, Behaviourist, Biological, Psychodynamic, Cognitive and Humanistic. According to Glassman & Hadad an approach can be defined as a perspective that involves certain assumptions about human behaviour. There may be several different theories within an approach, but they all share some common concerns: to make careful, consistent observations, to avoid errors, and to develop clear theories (2004: 17).

Each approach shows us something different in our understanding of human behaviour and each approach portrays strengths and weaknesses. Most psychologists would agree that no one approach is correct, although in the early days of psychology J.B Watson stated that psychology should abandon all study concerned with the mind and concentrate solely on behaviourism, believing that this was the only truly scientific approach.

The behaviourist approach studies observable responses and focuses on learning to explain changes in behaviour. They reject any attempt to study internal processes such as thinking (Glassman & Hadad, 2004: 147). The behaviourist psychologist regards all behaviour as a response to a stimulus and assumes that what we do is determined by the environment we are in. They argue that the environment provides stimuli to which we respond, and that past environments can lead us to respond to stimuli in particular ways. According to Watson (1913, cited in Eysenck, 1994: 21)

Psychology as the behaviourist views it is a purely objective, experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behaviour. Introspection forms no part of its method

Behaviourists use two processes to explain how people learn: classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning can be described as a neutral stimulus which gains the ability to bring on responses through regular pairings with another stimulus. This was first shown by Ivan Pavlov in 1904 who noticed that the dogs he had been feeding as part of a digestion experiment had become familiarised with the pre-feeding routines and began to salivate before food was put in front of them. In order for Pavlov to validate his observations he began to ring a bell before the actual sight or smell of food was present and after a certain time the dogs were shown to salivate profusely in association with the ringing of the bell alone.

Classical conditioning only allows the person to produce existing responses to new stimuli, but operant conditioning, a term used by B.F Skinner, is concerned with how the probability of a voluntary response changes as a function of the environmental consequences which follow the response (Glassman & Hadad, 2004: 120). Skinner argues that if certain behaviour produces a certain response and is followed by reinforcement then the likelihood of that behaviour being repeated increases in the future. A consequence can be reinforcing in two ways: either a positive reinforcement where the person gets something good or a negative reinforcement where the person avoids something bad.

Skinners theory, that human behaviour is determined by the contingencies of reinforcement, is contrary to that of the common sense belief that people behave in certain ways because of their thoughts, wishes, expectations, and feelings. B.F. Skinner was a radical behaviourist, unlike Edward Tolman, who although behaviourist in his methodology went on to propose through his experiments with rats that animals and therefore humans could develop cognitive maps. Tolman's experiments, although not completely accepted at the time, went on to path the way for later work in cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychologists are interested in understanding the thinking processes that underline our actions.

Read more: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/differences-between-psychology-and-common-sense-psychology-essay.php#ixzz3jb1IdCZl

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCIfzgomwvMcCFRIIjgodaB0P1w&url=http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/03/why-psychology-is-not-just-common-sense.php&ei=sUDYVcfWD5KQuAToury4DQ&psig=AFQjCNEceO1sV0NQL3FuipROh0CePuWBeg&ust=1440322082628482