Name-dropping in social science
When talking to people there is one topic I love above anything else, psychology. So when someone mentions that they also study psychology or love the subject I’m all ears. My first question is typically: “Oh, cool. What have you read?” And unfortunately, I’m often let down by the typical reply focused on names: “I’ve read all of Jung and Freud.” They are 2 big old-school theorists that are now mostly considered to be unscientific, but are an easy way into layman psychology. Another reply may be names of psychologists known for single models that may not be scientifically supported: “We studied Bronfenbrenner, Bowlby, Piaget, Bandura, Skinner.” Imagine if someone told you they loved physics and then when you asked them about it they would reply: “Yeah, I’m a huge physics fan. I read a lot. Mostly Galileo and Archimedes.”
I get it, there is a big difference between how a layman sees and describes psychology vs. how a science-focused individual would describe it. I see psychology as something that is, or rather ought to be, a proper science. Intelligence is for me general intelligence. A factor we can measure and describe with a number for any individual. Personality traits are for me OCEAN. All other personality trait theories are interesting, but as they don’t have scientific support I wouldn’t use them practically. And while emotional intelligence sounds interesting it’s not really a separate factor we have found in any human so far. Emotional intelligence is like a big name in psychology. It’s holistic and tells a story, but we don’t know for sure what that story implies in real life.
So for me social science is not the names of famous dead people, but rather the findings we have in the field. Because people like Piaget had both keen observations and observations we would consider loose untestable hypotheses or just plain wrong statements. Many of the big names got famous because they were the first to be well-known in their area of expertise.
While social science will remain a science focused on big men and simple ideas, science actually works by disproving and testing hypotheses in endless circles. A person known for a theory may have done new research and discovered that his former hypothesis is faulty. He would then create a new hypothesis, but may still die being known for his first hypothesis in the field.
A name is also a person with a personal life story that may influence your thinking about their main idea. The famous behaviorist, John B. Watson, had an affair with a student like so many professors have. Should that affair influence what you think about behavioral psychology overall? Or do we just look at the results and uncover that his main statements in psychology are wrong? Once you mention his name to support a theory the reply could be: “But what about his affair?” Next thing you know you are talking drama instead of psychology.
So when I talk about social science I’m talking about things we test, retest, rethink and renew so many times that thousands of people have had a hand in creating some theory that may even be slain by the replication crisis. Big names are fine intros and engaging discussion topics, but they lead you astray as much as they explain. Don’t simplify things so much that social science ends up looking like a discussion about favorite football players or musicians.
