心理专业学生如何才能做好学问？第三部分1

sos862004

第三部分 1.
Discussion Session

1.What were some of your more significant failures, and how did you deal with them?

Shelley Taylor.
You receive a huge amount of negative feedback over the course of a career in psychology. This does not ever end. You might think that things get more positive after a certain point, but in fact we live with disappointments at every career level. My biggest failure experience was not getting tenure. It is very hard when a university tells you, no, we do not want you. We are not going to keep you. It is very hard to believe in yourself enough to say, I think I am right, I think this is the career for me, I will find my home someplace else where I am valued, and to go on and to make contributions to a field. The criteria of being self‐conscious about your career choice and passionate about what you do become terribly important because these are the only things that sustain you in the face of major negative feedback like not getting tenure.

Robert Sternberg.
I think that one of my biggest failures was in advising a student early in my career who was really good. She got two job offers, and one job offer was from a really high prestige place, one of the top departments in the country. And the other job offer was from a place that was fairly high in prestige, but it is not a department that has really set the world on fire. She asked me what job she should take, and being a relatively young, inexperienced, and foolish advisor, I said, well isn’t it obvious? At the time it seemed obvious, but it was a little complicated because the kind of work she did was clearly the kind of work that the less prestigious place valued; it was a good fit to that department. The more prestigious place, even though they do great work, did not happen to do the kind of work she was doing. In fact, we were both kind of surprised that they offered her the job. So I said, we both know that the kind of work you do is more consistent with the middle‐ground place, but if you do not take the job at the more prestigious place, you will always wonder whether you could have succeeded if you went there, and you will spend the rest of your life wondering about that, so you should take the more prestigious job.
The failure was that she followed my advice. She took the job at the more prestigious place and she did OK, but she never got to the point where she came up for tenure. She realized and they realized that it was not working out, and she went to another institution that emphasized teaching, which was a really good fit. What I realized is that a lot of students have the idea that what you want to go for is the prestige, the name recognition, but what is really important is to find a setting that is a good match to you. It is finding a place that values what you have to offer and you value what they have to offer to you, and the failure was to suggest that she should do anything else. I think the lesson was that when you go on the job market, I would worry much less about what anyone else might say. Indeed, you should ask if this is the place that is going to value you, that is going to allow you to grow, and will enable you to develop into the kind of person that you want to be, and at the same time valuing what they have to offer to you so that you can help them and they can help you.

Martin Seligman.
I want to talk about the little failures then the big failures. With respect to the little failures, I think my batting average on journal acceptance and grant getting is well under 33%, but the important thing is that Shelley, Bob, and I try a lot. The number we turn in is large enough so we keep going. So you just have to be a resilient person to survive in science. But I want to talk about the big failures—I had not expected this question—so I was thinking about, what are some of the things I have been failing about since I was 21 and the things I am still failing about, and there are two of those.

The first I am going to call the analytic–synthetic failure, and the second has to do with mind–body issues. I think of the department I come from, the University of Pennsylvania, as one of the three or four scientifically traditional, rigorous—constipated—of any department I know. I have always been sort of the left wing of my department. I have been the person who believes that to do good science, to do good analysis, was not enough. That is, to reduce things to what you thought their elements were and play with the elements was only half of good science, because there are a lot of ways of reducing things. So to find out if your explanadum was actually the way it was done, you needed to take those explanadum and concatenate them to see if you could reconstruct a real‐world phenomenon. So you had to do good synthesis as part of science. Well, to this very day, I have been in one faculty battle after another trying to convince the bulk of my colleagues that synthesis is a worthwhile form of activity in science.

The second failure involves a whole set of mind–body issues. This is more a failure of what I believe is actually going on in the psychology of health and what the American public largely believes, what Congress largely believes, and what the New England Journal [of Medicine] largely believes. It has been clear to me for 20 years that there are simply major influences of mental states on physical health that are causal in nature. I have spent a fair amount of my time trying to quantify things like optimism, Type A, and so on, versus cholesterol, blood pressure, and the like on heart attack, and the psychological variables, when you play with the regression equation, are just much larger than the traditional variables. And so from a good science point of view, the data are convincing. And yet, we live in a society, we have a Congress, we have a reductionistic view of the world that pervades most of science that none of this data affects. And that has been the second most frustrating and failure‐filled endeavor of my career.

好奇心理学

原帖由 sos862004 于 2008-7-29 17:24 发表
Discussion Session

1.What were some of your more significant failures, and how did you deal with them?

Shelley Taylor.
You receive a huge amount of negative feedback over the course of a career in psychology. This does not ever end. You might think that things get more positive after a certain point, but in fact we live with disappointments at every career level. My biggest failure experience was not getting tenure. It is very hard when a university tells you, no, we do not want you. We are not going to keep you. It is very hard to believe in yourself enough to say, I think I am right, I think this is the career for me, I will find my home someplace else where I am valued, and to go on and to make contributions to a field. The criteria of being self‐conscious about your career choice and passionate about what you do become terribly important because these are the only things that sustain you in the face of major negative feedback like not getting tenure.

讨论部分
1, 你遭遇的比较严重的挫折是什么，你是怎样应付的？

薛莉 泰勒
在心理学职业生涯中，你得到许许多多负面的评价。永远没有尽头一样。你也许会想，过了某个临界点，一切都会好起来，可是事实上，我们在职业生涯的每个阶段都会与失望相伴。我经历的最大的挫折，是得不到转正。当一个大学对你说：“不，我们不需要你，我们不能再留你了。”是让人很难过的。你很难自信到可以对自己说：“我知道我是对的，我相信这是适合我的职业，我会在别处找到珍惜我的地方，并为这个领域做出贡献。” 对自己职业选择的把握，以及对自己所从事的工作的激-情，变得非常重要，因为这是在你面临转正时，得到重大负面评价时，唯一能够支撑你坚持下去的依靠。

好奇心理学

原帖由 sos862004 于 2008-7-29 17:24 发表
Robert Sternberg.
I think that one of my biggest failures was in advising a student early in my career who was really good. She got two job offers, and one job offer was from a really high prestige place, one of the top departments in the country. And the other job offer was from a place that was fairly high in prestige, but it is not a department that has really set the world on fire. She asked me what job she should take, and being a relatively young, inexperienced, and foolish advisor, I said, well isn’t it obvious? At the time it seemed obvious, but it was a little complicated because the kind of work she did was clearly the kind of work that the less prestigious place valued; it was a good fit to that department. The more prestigious place, even though they do great work, did not happen to do the kind of work she was doing. In fact, we were both kind of surprised that they offered her the job. So I said, we both know that the kind of work you do is more consistent with the middle‐ground place, but if you do not take the job at the more prestigious place, you will always wonder whether you could have succeeded if you went there, and you will spend the rest of your life wondering about that, so you should take the more prestigious job.
The failure was that she followed my advice. She took the job at the more prestigious place and she did OK, but she never got to the point where she came up for tenure. She realized and they realized that it was not working out, and she went to another institution that emphasized teaching, which was a really good fit. What I realized is that a lot of students have the idea that what you want to go for is the prestige, the name recognition, but what is really important is to find a setting that is a good match to you. It is finding a place that values what you have to offer and you value what they have to offer to you, and the failure was to suggest that she should do anything else. I think the lesson was that when you go on the job market, I would worry much less about what anyone else might say. Indeed, you should ask if this is the place that is going to value you, that is going to allow you to grow, and will enable you to develop into the kind of person that you want to be, and at the same time valuing what they have to offer to you so that you can help them and they can help you.

罗伯特 斯顿伯格
我的最大的一次失误，发生在我职业生涯的早期，当我给一个非常优秀的学生作咨询时候。她得到了两个工作机会，其中一个职位有很高威望，属于国家顶--级机构之一。另一个职位则还算高级，但属于一个不见得那么重要的机构。她问我应该接受哪一份工作。当时我作为一个比较年轻，没有经验，并有点愚蠢的建议者， 说道：“嘿，这还不明显吗？” 在当时看来似乎很明显，但其实却并不是那么简单，问题是，她所做的工作在那个比较不那么高级的职位中更有价值，非常适用于那个机构。而那个高威望的职位，虽然他们的工作很重要，却偏巧不是她目前所从事的那种工作。事实上，我们俩当时都有点吃惊他们竟然录用了她。所以我说：“你我都知道，你所从事的工作比较适合中等职位，但是，如果你不去那个高级职位的话，你可能会一辈子都在想自己如果真去了那里，说不定也会成功。所以，你应该选择那个高级职位。”遗憾的是，她听从了我的建议。她选择了那个较高的职位，做得还可以，但她总也达不到转正的程度。她和他们都意识到没戏了。然后她去了另一家研究所注重做教学，这才真正适合她。我现在认识到，许多学生以为自己想要的是高薪，和好听的名气，但其实真正重要的是找到与你相配的环境，一个需要你的才能，同时也能提供你所需要的环境。我的失误在于建议她不必考虑这些。我认为，教训在于，当你进入职业市场，我会尽量不去考虑别人会怎么说。其实，你应当问问你自己，这个职位是否能体现你的价值，让你成长为你希望成为的那种人，同时，你是否也能善用他们所能提供的一切，使你能够帮助他们，他们也能够帮助你。

好奇心理学

原帖由 sos862004 于 2008-7-29 17:24 发表
Martin Seligman.
I want to talk about the little failures then the big failures. With respect to the little failures, I think my batting average on journal acceptance and grant getting is well under 33%, but the important thing is that Shelley, Bob, and I try a lot. The number we turn in is large enough so we keep going. So you just have to be a resilient person to survive in science. But I want to talk about the big failures—I had not expected this question—so I was thinking about, what are some of the things I have been failing about since I was 21 and the things I am still failing about, and there are two of those.

The first I am going to call the analytic–synthetic failure, and the second has to do with mind–body issues. I think of the department I come from, the University of Pennsylvania, as one of the three or four scientifically traditional, rigorous—constipated—of any department I know. I have always been sort of the left wing of my department. I have been the person who believes that to do good science, to do good analysis, was not enough. That is, to reduce things to what you thought their elements were and play with the elements was only half of good science, because there are a lot of ways of reducing things. So to find out if your explanadum was actually the way it was done, you needed to take those explanadum and concatenate them to see if you could reconstruct a real‐world phenomenon. So you had to do good synthesis as part of science. Well, to this very day, I have been in one faculty battle after another trying to convince the bulk of my colleagues that synthesis is a worthwhile form of activity in science.

马丁 斯里格曼
我想先从小挫折谈起，再谈大的挫折。算上小的挫折，我觉得我在获得赞同和接受的征途上的平均成功率远远低于33%，但重要的是，薛莉，鲍勃和我都很努力。我们完成的数量够多，所以我们还能够坚持着。因此，你必须是一个性格开朗有韧性的人，才能在科学界生存。但是，我想说说那些大的挫折——我先前没有料到这个问题——所以我在想，哪些挫折是发生在我21岁的时候，而且我到现在依然不能克服的，这里面有两个这样的挫折。
第一个我把它称作“解析合成”挫折，第二个是有关心身问题的。我所来自于宾夕法尼亚大学的科系，是据我所知的所有科系中，三四个最“科学化传统严谨保守”的科系之一。在我们系，我总是属于类似左翼的分子。我相信仅仅做好科学，做好解析是不够的。也就是说，把事情简化到你所认为的基本要素，并只是研究这些要素，只能说是做好了一半的科学，因为存在着许多不同的方式来简化事物。如果想知道你的假设是否就是现实的发生，你必须将这些假设连结起来，看是否能推想出一个真实世界的现象。所以，作为科学的一部分，你必须做好“合成”。嗯，到目前为止，我仍在不断与我的许多同事们争论，试图说服他们在科学中，“合成”是值得花时间和精力去做的。

好奇心理学

原帖由 sos862004 于 2008-7-29 17:24 发表
The second failure involves a whole set of mind–body issues. This is more a failure of what I believe is actually going on in the psychology of health and what the American public largely believes, what Congress largely believes, and what the New England Journal [of Medicine] largely believes. It has been clear to me for 20 years that there are simply major influences of mental states on physical health that are causal in nature. I have spent a fair amount of my time trying to quantify things like optimism, Type A, and so on, versus cholesterol, blood pressure, and the like on heart attack, and the psychological variables, when you play with the regression equation, are just much larger than the traditional variables. And so from a good science point of view, the data are convincing. And yet, we live in a society, we have a Congress, we have a reductionistic view of the world that pervades most of science that none of this data affects. And that has been the second most frustrating and failure‐filled endeavor of my career.

第二个挫折涉及到整个心身问题。这个问题我认为是冲突于整个健康心理学界和美国公众的普遍信仰，协会的普遍信仰，和《新英格兰杂志》（医学）的普遍信仰。20年来，我一直很坚定地相信，心理状态对自然因素引起身体健康具有重大的影响。我花费大量的时间，试图量化诸如乐观，A型，等，相对于胆固醇，血压，和心脏病发作的概率的关系，以及，当你研究衰退方程式时，心理变量要比传统的变量大得多。因此，从一个好的科学观来说，数据是有说服力的。但是，我们生存于中的社会，我们的协会，我们的整个科学界所充斥着的还原主义者的观点，都不为这些数据所动。这就是那第二个最令人沮丧的挫败——贯穿我的职业生涯中的努力。

[ 本帖最后由 好奇心理学 于 2008-8-4 15:46 编辑 ]

芦苇

原帖由 好奇心理学 于 2008-7-30 21:14 发表

因为这是在你面临转正时，得到重大负面评价时，唯一能够支撑你坚持下去的依靠。

是不是改成   因为这是在你面临诸如不能转正等重大负面反馈时？