What are Psychologists Really Like?
Psychologists, have you ever guessed what they really like? Now I will talk about this matter in this post.
There is no answer to the question: "What are psychologists really like?" except to say that there are probably 40,000 of them in the country; and, like the members of every other profession, they are as much as different as they like.
Anne Roe (1961) is one of the few psychologists to take a close look at what scientists are really like. She points out that most accounts of scientists emphasize the objectivity of their work and describe them as cold, detached, and impassive observers of phenomena. But, Roe's research suggests that nothing could be further from the truth. She is convinced that the creative scientist is always very deeply involved emotionally and personally in his work.
She feels that the fundamentals of the creative process are probably the same in all fields. In those fields where an advance in knowledge is sought, however, there is an additional requirement--the need for a large store of knowledge and experience. The broader the scientist's experience and the more extensive his stock of knowledge, the greater possibility of a real breakthrough.
She notes that, while intelligence and creativity are not identical, intelligence does play a role in scientific forms of creativity--the minimum intelligence required for creative production in science is higher than average.
The personality of the scientist is also an important contributor to his or her success. Truly creative scientists, according to Roe, are more observant that others and value this quality. They are more independent and dominant. They tend to be radical, resist group standards and controls, and are highly egocentric. They have strong egos and have no feelings of guilt about their independence of thought and action. Their interpersonal relations are generally limited, and they are not very social or talkative. (This does not apply to social scientists.) This is true partly because they show a much greater preoccupation with things and ideas than with people.
Scientists, it appears, are a strange breed. Some laboratory psychologists fit the description exactly, whereas psychologists who work with people usually don't fit it.
(Source : McNeil, E. B. The Psychology of Human Being. New York: Canfield Press, 1974.)
There is no answer to the question: "What are psychologists really like?" except to say that there are probably 40,000 of them in the country; and, like the members of every other profession, they are as much as different as they like.
Anne Roe (1961) is one of the few psychologists to take a close look at what scientists are really like. She points out that most accounts of scientists emphasize the objectivity of their work and describe them as cold, detached, and impassive observers of phenomena. But, Roe's research suggests that nothing could be further from the truth. She is convinced that the creative scientist is always very deeply involved emotionally and personally in his work.
She feels that the fundamentals of the creative process are probably the same in all fields. In those fields where an advance in knowledge is sought, however, there is an additional requirement--the need for a large store of knowledge and experience. The broader the scientist's experience and the more extensive his stock of knowledge, the greater possibility of a real breakthrough.
She notes that, while intelligence and creativity are not identical, intelligence does play a role in scientific forms of creativity--the minimum intelligence required for creative production in science is higher than average.
The personality of the scientist is also an important contributor to his or her success. Truly creative scientists, according to Roe, are more observant that others and value this quality. They are more independent and dominant. They tend to be radical, resist group standards and controls, and are highly egocentric. They have strong egos and have no feelings of guilt about their independence of thought and action. Their interpersonal relations are generally limited, and they are not very social or talkative. (This does not apply to social scientists.) This is true partly because they show a much greater preoccupation with things and ideas than with people.
Scientists, it appears, are a strange breed. Some laboratory psychologists fit the description exactly, whereas psychologists who work with people usually don't fit it.
(Source : McNeil, E. B. The Psychology of Human Being. New York: Canfield Press, 1974.)
× 『rui@96yR』【butterflyuu】 ×
Komentar
Posting Komentar