BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology

Subject: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Mr Red
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:58 PM

On the shelves near the exit of my library the computer section caught my eye. Java for Dummies, VB6 in 6 Hours, How to HTML, and the Idiots' Guides to "younameit".

Worryingly, on the same shelf as the V and Z cyber-tomes was the Supernatural section. Then below, Philosophy, and lastly Psychology. What is that telling us?

And guess what book I saw there in familiar orange and blue livery ..... you guessed it.

Scarrrrrry or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 06:22 PM

I'm waiting till they bring out "Ventriloquism for Dummies."

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 06:30 PM

It's telling us that most people are very stupid, but I think that we knew that already.

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 07:17 PM

Ya know, Mister Red, I just don't have the faintest idea what you are on about!! Elucidate, man!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 09:35 PM

I reread your post. It makes slightly more sense, although I have no idea what V and Z refer to. Put I assume you actually found a book called Psychology for Dummies, and were unnerved by it, 's that right?

But ya know man, any field or subject can produce a book for those who know nothing about it, just by laying out a basic course in its major items of nomenclature. You can feel vastly educated just by learning, say, 100 specialized wordas about anything. It doesn't really give you skill but it gives you at least some conversance with the subject.

So what's scary? And rather than meaning that most people are stupid, as our supercilious anonymouse puts it, maybe it indicates that there are enough people smart wnough to want to learn about new subjects, to create a market for introductory books in a lot of subjects. Would that not seem like a positive, healthy sign?

Now, "Brain Surgery for Dummies" -- _that_ would be something to worry about! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 09:42 PM

"Brain Surgery Self-Taught?"
"Raising Children (for fun and profit)?"
"International Politics for the Complete Idiot?"

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 09:45 PM

I think that third one is secretly beibng distrributed by the Republican Samizdat section of the little-known Committee to Resurrect theAlmost- President, or CRAP.

They are selling it instead of rubber chicken at $300 a copy. In keeping with their mandate to conserve things that don't exist any more, they are producing their distribution on a mimeo machine.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 09:48 PM

"International Politics for the Complete Idiot?"

By George Bush?

We are getting practical lessons in that and it scares me.

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 10:46 PM

I've found that the "for Dummies" books are often very much more intelligently written than the "offical" books. Tried to figure out how to do something in MS Access using the manual (BIG mistake) and after a table of intcontinence, index and several pages gave up. Took me about a minute to get the answer in Access for Dummies

I think many of our politicians are using "Politics for Dummies," but mistakenly got the Cliff notes.

I've been thinking about writing the "Sort Of Depressed Person's Guide to Inertia" or "100 Things To Do While Your Butt Takes Root in the Couch." Helpful advice on buying stuff in bags for dinner, how to duct tape all your remotes together so they're all in one handy place - that sort of thing. I'm not sure anyone who'd read it ever gets out to the bookstore though.

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: michaelr
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 11:14 PM

I'm with Jeri here -- the "Dummies" books are written not for ventriloquist's puppets, but for laypersons of average intelligence and education. I got my start in Photoshop with one of them, and they really are more helpful to a novice than the "official" publications.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: michaelr
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 11:15 PM

Oh -- I still don't get the orange and blue reference, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 11:22 PM

Drifting Jeri, but every Access book I have read (not your dummy one -I've not seen it) has been crap. They all seem to give loads of screen shots, tell you what you can learn from following wizards (assuming you have 1/2 a brain - and I know you have rather more than that!) in great detail, may give ideas how to attach code to events, but omit the most important bit - or if you are lucky put it in at the end...

That important bit is how to work out what tables you need. Normalisation is one approach but I just go for Entity-Relationships, e.g this place has threads and posts. Having seen this place work, you know each thread has a threadID and a subject. Each post has a postID, a subject(again) and a message. The hidden bit in my simplified (forgetting poster) example is the relationship between thread and post. The answer there is each post has a field you never see - the ID of the thread to which the post belongs and that is the relationship...

I'm no expert by any means and will openly admit to asking others like Dave for advice at folkinfo but, unless the basic principles are understood, you can work through some books, come up with something looking pretty, but pretty useless.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 11:29 PM

Kind of reminds me of something that happened in one of the college classes I took a bunch of years ago.

On a day when we were supposed to take a test or get a grade or something, one young man entered the classroom, took his seat directly in front of the teacher (and just to my right), gave her a big, friendly smile, and said, "That's a nice dress you're wearing". This was a deep-thinking, quiet young man who wasn't given to making comments like that to people.

I turned to him and said, "You're taking Intro to Psychology this semester, aren't you?"

He got a sheepish look on his face and said, "Yeah... "

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 11:39 PM

I think the orange and blue reference is to the "Idiots" series of books as opposed to the yellow and black of the "Dummies" series. Two competing series of the same types of books, both published by the different subsidiaries of the same publisher (Simon & Schuster).

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:03 AM

Aha -- thanks, BWL!

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:09 AM

The burning question is, is there such a thing as psychology, in any reliable sense? I've read and done a heap o' messin' about with the subject and I wonder if anyone thinks they have their arms around a reliable model that goes anyfurther than Maslow, that accounts for the very strange and wide range of phenomena and accounts for them in some sensible way?

What, if so, are th fundamental laws? Anyone know? 'Cuz for all I have learned it still beats the hell outa me!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:10 AM

Jon, I could often figure out how to do what I wanted by messing around before I found it in the manual. Had an experience last year with an Access DB. I'm really good at figuring out how I should have set the tables up after I've already set them up and the thing's too complicated to re-do.

At one place I worked, I'd go into our System (IT) office, and the bookshelves were full of "Dummies" books. I asked, and they told me even they got more out of them than the 1,000 page manuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:33 AM

"Raising Children (for fun and profit)?" by Venus Williams father

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:45 AM

Sorry to continue our drift but, Jeri, in view of what you said, I will try to look for a reasonable on-line guide for you. IMO (and I admit to not being expert), if you really screw up at that level, to change you may be asked to move the foundations of the house but: if that level is reasonable, the worst you are likley to face is being asked to move a partition wall within the house. Hope that makes some sense.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Mudlark
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:54 AM

Amos...Still don't know the fundamental laws of psychology? Well, how do you feel about that?

Jeri...I think your Depression for Dummies is a great idea...you could always market it on the Web for those that never remove butt from chair...

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 01:04 AM

Is it to teach how to manage depression? Or how to get depressed if they decide they'd really like to experience it??

A

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 03:39 AM

Can recomend, "Famillies, and how to survive them" and "Life and how to survive it" both by John Cleese & Robin (Skinner?)
Excellent entry level to psychology

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 04:45 AM

What, if so, are th fundamental laws? (Amos)

I know, Amos, you did mean it more as a rhetorical question and you are much more interested in the fundamental flaws of psychology but I pretend it was a real question.

Your reading must have been solely in the soft areas of psychology if you have never encountered a law. (BTW, I guess I share a good deal of your contempt for the models and theories in those soft areas).

So you really have never encountered Fitts' law in movement control which beautifully describes the speed of your mouse movement when you sit in front of your computer? Or the Hicks-Hyman law in choice reaction times? Or Fechner's law in perception or Emmert's law in the same field describing (and explaining) the perceived size of an afterimage? And nobody ever has told you that exactly the same law that governs the radioactive decay predicts the rate of forgetting of nonsense syllables? And, and, and...

These (and similar) laws explain a much smaller range of phenomena than could be wished for but to pretend that that are no lawful relationsships that can be predicted by explanatory models and that can be replicated easily and reliably is (wilfull?) blindness to a very large body of data and theories.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Mr Red
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 08:02 AM

Er Hi Pholkies
It was the proximity (and implied common categorising) of Computer Books with the other subjects that alerted me. But "The Idiots' Guide to Pstchology" did raise an intellecual smile in me (rare but not unknown).

As the late great Spike Milligan said (amongst other things)

I wish I was a moron, I wouldn't give a damn.
I wish I was a moron. My God! I think I am.

Sadly there were no genuine subject for "Dummies" that raised a smile. Unless 'catters have seen them.

Discuss............

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 08:54 AM

Wolfgang, thanks for the usual clear answer. While I have been aware of some of the kinds of rules you mentiuon, I was looking for more cognitive laws. One that I am pretty sure of -- the mind tries as hard as possible to survive and also to be right. Sometimes these two collide! :>)

Sad but true that most psychological models don't tell us much.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 10:18 AM

I am currently working on several books, the working titles of which are: "... with Captain Clumsy." The name came about because I am rather large and spend significant time teaching sailing in small boats.

I believe that putting the onus on the writer rather than the reader will be a better way to go, long term. The project that is making the most progress at present is "Very Basic Cooking with Captain Clumsy." This book is based on teaching my [then] 10 year old son to cook and having him read each of the entries for clarity. I must be doing something right. He just told me he wants to become a chef.

The first chapter is about recognizing what kind of stove you have and how to turn it on safely. The next chapter is about boiling water and what to do with it. I have almost reached the point where the illustrations are needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 10:52 AM

Terrific scheme! I like it!!

Let me know when you want to do "Thinking with Captain Clumsy" and I'll drum up an outline.

LOL!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 11:21 AM

Amos, with what Wolfgang refers to as the "soft areas of psychology", I think it's pretty much all theory. You picks your theories and you takes your chances ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 11:46 AM

Jon sent me a link to an on-line tutorial - thanks. I don't know that I would have had to move the foundations of the house. I was feeling like I had to build a new one and just move the people over from the old.

Picky: I didn't propose "Depression for Dummies" and the idea was more focused on managing inertia. I'm not qualified to deal with the serious stuff, but I AM an expert in couch potato-hood. One thing you can do is find a nice comfy chair and post stuff on the internet all day. Works for me, and I suspect I'm not alone. (Except I have to go out and shovel 6" or so of ****ing snow, because it ****ing snowed AGAIN last night! Completely blew my non-plans for the day!)

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Kim C
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:04 PM

Jon & Jeri, I have had my go-rounds with Access, and I agree that the Microsoft manuals are good only for paperweights. We have Access for Dummies, and that's helped me some - but I finally took an online class, and that was the best.

A lot of subjects seem large and scary to a lot of people, usually because the other people who really know about these subjects, speak in $20 words. The Idiots/Dummies guides are good for demystifying these sorts of things.

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 06:14 PM

As one who works (a euphemism) peripherally in the computer book publiishing industry, I must take mild exception to Kim C's "people who really know about these subjects, speak in $20 words."

The use of jargon, when not specifically warrented, is the first evidence of one who does NOT understand his subject or his audience. And there are no $20 words. With a proper definition, which is too frequently omitted, anything that initially looks like a $20 word is at best a $2 word perfectly useful in the commerce of information exchange.

An EDUCATOR (that should be printed about 9 feet tall), whom I greatly respected, once said "If you can't explain it to a 12-year old, YOU don't understand it." I firmly believe in that principle, although it sets a high standard - particularly for an old fart like me who avoids, on principle, associating with juveniles.

Not every book should be written in the language of the uninformed - but if you can't put it in that language, you're not ready to write with authority for those who already know the "buzzwords."

Unfortunately, when someone produces something useful, the people who understand it are usually busy using - or improving - it. The ones left over to be "authors" are too frequently those who have only superficial understanding, but will do anything to make a $buck$ until they can find a real job. (cynical observation - don't take me too seriously)

The question of why so many people put themselves in the "Dummy/Idiot" class deserves real examination, but my opinions there probably need a book - not a post.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 07:42 PM

John,

I agree with you whole heartedly right up tot he last paragraph. These poeple are assessing their level of "eptitude" relative to a highly specialize4d subject. And moist specialized subvjects, rightly or no, do involve themselves with specialized nomenclature, the better to (a) pursue their specialty andf (b) create an insulated group of elite specialists. Anyone is qualified to call themselves a Dummy about X if it such a field and they have no starting knowledge of it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Sam L
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 07:54 PM

I thought the familiar blue and orange meant there was an idiot's guide to Howard Johnsons motels.

   I tried to read a computer guide once but couldn't get past a paragraph explaining that "defragment" was not something you hear among experienced computer users. They speak of "defragging", it helpfully explained, at some length. Apparently somebody was getting paid by the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 08:06 PM

Believe it or not, there actually is a book out ther called "Stupidity For Dummies".

Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: bbc
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 08:44 PM

I'm currently reading The Complete Idiot's Guide to Menopause & finding it interesting & informative. It's written by a medical doctor who specializes in OB/GYN & it was reviewed favorably by a female PhD who is a leading "women's health expert" in the U.S. Don't, as they say, judge a book by its cover.

best,

bbc

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 04:55 AM

In one of the first "Idiot's Guide" books I saw, the author's introduction explained that the author was the "idiot," with the premise that "If I can can understand it, you can understand it." I've never looked at enough of them to know whether that was a "publishers premise" for the series, or if the one I saw was an exception.

The later books of the ilk were obviously intended to cater to the apparently popular notion that "real people can't understand that stuff" so it has to be "dumbed down." It is somewhat worrisome that this "sales approach" worked so well in the beginning; but I think that by now it's just a "trademark" that people have learned to recognize and associate with books that are (usually) fairly well written. It does, at least to some extent, tell you what the "target audience" is, so that you can decide more readily whether it's at the "right level" for your use.

Good writing, and especially good technical writing, is incredibly difficult; but there are no dummy readers. If a book fails to get its message across, it is the AUTHOR's fault - because he failed to identify a target audience and stick to what that audience needs in order to learn something, or (most often) because he just can't write, and should do something else more useful.

Unfortunately, there are too few good (esp. technical) authors to satisfy the publishers' gr(n)eed to get information to market, so a lot of poorly qualified people get their names on books.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 05:23 AM

Well said about it being the author's fault John! However, I've found that for a couple of big league conferences, if you submit a paper that explains things simply, then people presume it's not worthy of publication by their "elite" conference. This is such a crap attitude. It also backfires because I don't believe that all the same people undertand everything they read straight off. It takes me a while to get to grips with some papers, and often I have to rephrase it in simpler form to get the gist of it.

Technical writing is such an enjoyable thing to do - the best teachers are those who make things look simple, not those who make it look difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 05:57 AM

Fib

Target audience!

If you are writing for a thesis committe, or often for a "conference," much of the target audience is probably more interested in proving what they know than in learning from you. The technical term for what an author must do here is called "sucking up" rather than writing. It's one of the well known barriers to scientific progress.

Unfortunately, too many "authors" apparently learn the "conference method" and never get over it.

An actual quote from a Tech Editor's email to an author about a week ago:

"Anyone who understands what you wrote here doesn't need this book."

Sums it up pretty nicely.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 10:40 AM

lol - great quote!

Yeah, I know about that sucking up thing - don't diss the previous work if that author is on the review panel... describe other people's approaches as "different" rather than "useless"...

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Pied Piper
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 11:44 AM

I like Amos's "moist subjects", possibly Oceanography or Metrology.
Here in the UK we have a series of books called Teach Yourself (what ever), and believe it or not, one was Teach Yourself Alcoholism.
PP

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: GUEST,cobber
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 11:06 PM

The Dummies and Idiot books remind me that back in the sixties we had a popular series of Teach Yourself books. When my brother became a psychologist, I bought him the book "Teach Yourself Psychology". These books were not just about understanding the jargon but were meant for hands on application. I wonder how many fifty-odd year old self taught psychologists there are out there. Scary thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 08:12 PM

Why is it that I can't find a copy of "Solitary Sex For Major Losers" anywhere? I had wanted to send one to Spaw for Christmas, but had to settle for getting him another "Billy Big Mouth Bass" talking fish instead (I believe his old one stopped working awhile back....I hope so, anyway. Well, I did the best I could on short notice.)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 08:58 PM

My wife and I got "Wine for Dummies" and have learned a whole heck of a lot, and bought some wines we would never have bought otherwise, and which we greatly enjoyed.

Part of the problem with many fields is that they develop a very convoluted and inward-looking terminology, so that if you don't know the vocabulary going in, most of the books you pick up will read like Linear B. The great thing about the "dummies"/"idiots" books is that they write them in jargon-free English, so that somebody without any special training/brainwashing/zombification can still read and profit from them.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 09:15 PM

Well as far as psychology is concerned, measuring the time to react to primary colors or word associations is not what I think of at all as fundamentals. I think there are possible axiomatic statements governing the dynamic state-changes of thought, but I wish someone could provide them. I hate having to work them out. It is so goddamn much work! :>) But regardless, I believe they exist or could exist in forms that transcend cultural and hereditary variants and speak to the common denominators of human thought.

There's a risk involved, though. To have a map always implies a viewpoint outside the map for the person looking at the map. Even if its an electronic map that shows you where your SUV is on the highway, you're still looking at it from a somewhere else.

Thus to have a map of thought means that you stand somewhere where you run the risk of thinking the unthought thought, the New View, which of course means saying goodbye to a whole mess of agreements and probably a lot of friends as well. Very risky, no? But, perhaps, like having yet another birthday,, it beats the alternatives.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Idiots' Guide to Psychology
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 05:36 AM

Well I never thought I would spawn a discussion on the efficacy of the "Idiots' Guides"!

My copy of "Idiots' Guides to HTML 4.0" has been very useful. It allowed me to make far more complex mistakes than I ever could have without it. Having just been in discussion with a more experienced HTML webmaster I find he makes far more complex mistakes, than I !!!