Psychology is not rocket science

Someone made that statement a couple of weeks ago and at the time, I thought, Boy, are you right. However, I agreed for a different reason. The speaker was implying that it was not all that difficult, but I think she is way off base.

In rocket science, people know what they know and are aware that there is a lot they don’t know. If they want to try and figure something out from their equations and come up with a theory and test it – – -well, they do it in a controlled area because what we really don’t know can really blow up.

In psychology, people think they know some things and are willing to guess that they know the other stuff that hides in the length of synapses and the amount of chemicals and goodness knows what. When they come up with a theory, they put it out there and declare new facts.  They don’t put fences around their brand new band wagons; they don’t state that Dr. Phil’s opinions are his own.

And people get hurt because psychological theories at this point in knowledge are like dirty bombs – they not only can blow up but they can leave fallout, the half-life of which is usually longer than a lifespan.  Then, maybe, decades later, some psychologist will say, Oh, that’s wrong; hook up the clydesdales to a new band wagon.

No, psychology is most certainly not rocket science, but, by gosh, you can get a mail order DIY kit so easily. Sometimes the requirements is the belief that two and two don’t equal four because so and so says so. (A little alliteration to analyze at your leisure and come up with an AmeliaJake theory.)