Hello,
An ‘industrial psychologist’ is a psychologist who studies relationships between workers and managers and between the managers themselves. A few of the things they study are things like why some workers do and don’t join unions, why salaries and pay raises motivate some workers and not others, and why bosses place some employees at the top, some in the middle and some at the bottom, or in some cases a few at the top and everyone else at the bottom.
Perhaps some of you would like to elaborate on this or just about psychologists in general. Thanks for any feedback!
A ‘road sweeper’ is a sweeper who studies relationships between litter and roads and between the roads themselves. A few of the things they study are things like why some litter does and doesn’t get binned, why recycling and temperature rises motivate some litter and not others, and why roads place some rubbish at the top, some in the middle and some at the bottom, or in some cases a few at the top and everything else at the bottom.
Perhaps some of you would like to elaborate on this or just about sweepers in general. Thanks for any feedback!
Garzo, You don’t seem to think much of psychologists. Do they call them "shrinks" in England like they do in the U.S. or something else?
Katy, I appreciate the sense of humor. I’ve heard people talk about how they like their coffee "industrial strength". Oh, well I think I will but out of this conversation for a while.
I’ve not heard this expression before. It seems that the terms "industrial psychology" and "organizational psychology" are more often encountered, but I guess it’s just a small step to "industrial psychologist".
This seems to be a sub-branch of social psychology. (;D I just recalled as I wrote that, the story of the Rugby captain who called the play name psychology and confused the whole team…!)
I guess what bothers me the most about psychology and the "social sciences" in general is the pretended objectivity. Once we start discussing motive, intent, and personality, we must make alot of assumptions to even begin to say anything.
In political science, for example, any analysis that goes anywhere must show some sort of bias for capitalism or marxism or some other framework of ideology, much like a lens of microscope, otherwise, we end up with statitical significances, which do not show cause and effect, but only associations.
This "close association" concept has been creeping into the science of medicine slowly, but surely. The result being that medical science now looks at "close associations" instead of finding definitive causes and cures. Note that these close associations are what insurance rates are based on.
The social sciences have a long way to go to become legitimate sciences. How can one test history? It is not reproduceable in any real sense.
The whole idea of psychology is to decide on types (say, of personalities, or of organizations) and then pigeonhole people into categories for "significant correlations."
Except in the broadest or widest sense, psychology does not attempt to make scientific preditions.
Psychology is not a science. It is, at best, an outlook, an attempt to categorize, perhaps a philosophy, but certainly an ideology disguised as science in whatever branch one looks!
[quote author=Tim Ward link=board=wordsuggest;num=1085252751;start=0#5 date=05/22/04 at 16:21:38]I’ve not heard this expression before. It seems that the terms "industrial psychology" and "organizational psychology" are more often encountered, but I guess it’s just a small step to "industrial psychologist".
This seems to be a sub-branch of social psychology. (;D I just recalled as I wrote that, the story of the Rugby captain who called the play name psychology and confused the whole team…!)
Well if there is a brand called industrial psychology, its practitioners will be industrial psychologists. Nothing new there. I am more worried about the fact that they want to be an orgainzed bunch of SIOPs.
Psychology is not a science. It is, at best, an outlook, an attempt to categorize, perhaps a philosophy, but certainly an ideology disguised as science in whatever branch one looks!
To a great extent I agree with you Sitran. On the other hand, I would rather work for a company that at least thinks about organizational behavior than one that could give a flying precursor to sprognostication.
Garzo, I shall expect a report from the road sweepers on "why some litter does and doesn’t get binned, why recycling and temperature rises motivate some litter and not others" in triplicate by tuesday week!
Perry
PS: Business Week and Fortune will always make a living reporting on organizational misbehavior.
[quote author=Sitran link=board=wordsuggest;num=1085252751;start=0#8 date=05/22/04 at 16:48:45]Psychology is not a science. It is, at best, an outlook, an attempt to categorize, perhaps a philosophy, but certainly an ideology disguised as science in whatever branch one looks!
I think this rant is specifically targeting the "social psychology" branch… Would that be more akin to psychiatric care, rather than psychological...?
-Tim
...does the Surgeon General warn against curiosity?
. Its [psychology’s] concern has been methodological—the individual is a useful construct in making knowledge claims about groups or formulating general laws of behavior. Psychology’s intense and extensive study of the individual has not been done in the name of, nor has it empirically supported, human diversity and uniqueness. Its object of investigation has not been the individual, nor has it really discovered anything about the actual and potential ways in which people differ from one another. Far from contributing to a culture that supports individual differences and fosters individual expression, psychology has been instrumental in contributing to a culture of conformity.
The information required by the "agents of social control" (primarily in industry, the military, and education, as we will see shortly) was not about individuals but about types of people; it was not about their experiences but their attributes.
Quetelet, the pioneer of statistical social science, came up with a new conception that was at least a partial solution—"propensities" toward certain actions that could be attributed to an "average individual."
. Psychology without Philosophy, unscientific psychology—that is, a psychology freed from the myths of reality, truth and explanation—is also divested of the myth of (bounded) particulars. The mythic construction of development has contributed enormously to the myth/hoax of Psychology.
Yes, but there is the branch of psychology that also focuses on neurological pathology, isn’t there?
Tim, at a guess I would say that neurological pathologies fall within the realm of psychiatry, which, as you know, is not exactly the same thing as psychology. For example, a psychologist cannot help you with saratonin reuptake inhibition, but a psychiatrist can.
SR (who hasn’t a clue what reuptake means and doesn’t feel up to researching it right now, all of his saratonin having be reuptaken)
I am sure that in some small hidden laboratory somewhere there is actual neurological pathology going on, but that is not what the pseudosciences of psychology and psychiatry are all about these days.
Our love and trust of science and technology has increased our ability to embrace a lie, as long as it sounds scientific.
Every psychiatrist knows that psychotropic substances, tranquillisers and neuroleptics have inconstant and unpredictable effects on symptoms, inasmuch as double-blind trials have shown only insignificant difference between the effects of the drug and the placebo.
Psychiatrists’ research and propaganda, financed by big pharmaceutical companies in order to maintain an exclusively pharmaceutical approach to psychic disturbances, as well as the endless suffering of patients and their families and the high costs that society has to pay, make the psychiatrists’ dream unacceptable.
It is high time that we wake them up.
[url=http://www.sntp.net/drugs/drugs.htm]"There are no "safe" psychiatric drugs. Each has numerous harmful short term and largely unknown long term effects. Each psychiatric drug which was orginally heralded as the new "safe" wonder drug, was found to have severe harmful side effects, including addiction, and withdrawal symptoms, among others. Psychiatric drugs obtain their result by causing brain dysfunction." -
Psychiatric Drugs: Types, Side-Effects,
Dangers and Permanent Damage[/url]
