心理专业学生如何才能做好学问？第三部分6

sos862004

If you could change anything in the field of psychology, what would it be and why?

Martin Seligman.
As president‐elect of APA, I have four broad initiatives, and they represent what I would like to change in the field of psychology. They are (1) ethnopolitical wa**re, (2) prevention, (3) effectiveness of therapy, and (4) wiring the association. I will briefly discuss each in turn. With the death of communism, I believe that the kind of wa**re that you will be most concerned about in the 21st century will be wa**re of the sort we have seen in Bosnia and Rwanda, ethnic slaughter. I am a reader of this literature, and I have found out that psychology has made very little contribution to thinking about it. Sociology, political science have made decent contributions. Questions of predicting why, what is going on psychologically before, during, and after, posttraumatic stress, preventing, picking up the pieces are all parts of this.

There is plenty of work in this, and we believe that if we do good work in this area, the jobs will follow. To get this started, we are going to set up an institute at the postdoctoral level. The hope is that it will become a widespread predoctoral program in which at the postdoctoral level you get one year of scholarship with scholars from all around the world. There would be a North American site, a site in Capetown, and a site in Northern Ireland. Then you spend one year in the field, not doing war tourism but actually being in Rwanda or Bosnia or Cambodia for a year. We believe we have the funding for this. This is going to be a reality.

In terms of prevention, before WWII [World War II] the mission for psychologists who were scientists that also wanted to change the world, like many of you, was threefold. One was to cure mental illness, the second was to make the lives of normal people more productive and fulfilling, and the third was the nurturing of genius, the nurturing of high talent. In 1946, the VA [Veterans Administration] system got set up, and suddenly the bulk of psychologists found out, hey, I can make a living treating neurotics in Omaha. Then the National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH] got set up, and we found out, hey, we can get research grants if they were relevant to curing mental illness. But I believe the other two missions have been more or less forgotten, mak-ing normal people’s lives better and nurturing genius.

What brings me to this is having thought seriously about prevention for the last decade or so. The funders, the NIMH and Congress, are now thinking more seriously and with more dollars about prevention, but as they think about this, they suddenly discover that it looks like the great preventative things for mental illness are the virtues: honesty, work ethic, persistence, courage, interpersonal skills. In this rush to cure mental illness, we forgot to learn about the virtues. I believe that the threefold mission of psychology needs reviving. So the second thing I want to do is remind us that our mission is not only victimology, not only to work on the cure of mental illness, but to think seriously in our research and our practice and in clinical science about the virtues. The theme for my presidency next year will be Prevention: Building Strength, Health, and Resilience in Young People.


The third thing that is coming down the pike concerns the effectiveness of therapy and has perhaps the largest effect on your career. Something earthshaking is about to happen to the funding of research in clinical science. It looks to me that the NIMH and the Substance in Mental Health services group, which basically control the research budgets for psychologists, are going to do something about effectiveness of psychotherapy, I should say as opposed to efficacy. That is, those of you who have followed the disputes that rose out of the Consumer Reports study that I was part of know the effectiveness–efficacy distinction. Efficacy studies are laboratory studies of short‐term treatments for various well‐defined disorders. Effectiveness studies are real‐world studies of how they are actually delivered and what the outcomes are like. Now the government has decided to fund effectiveness studies. Their motivation for doing this is very interesting, and it is something that will bring science and practice together. Their motivation is managed care. They think that in a profit‐driven health delivery system, there is at present nothing to bridle the ratcheting down of quality of services. What is needed is a substantive, massive body of effectiveness data on what works. This data will arise over the next 5 to 10 years, and then the aim is to get the mental health associations of America, not as separate guilds, but with one voice, to agree that looking at empirical data is the best way to form practice guidelines. This will enable us to sit down - with the managed care industry and the accrediting bodies and create empirically driven practice guidelines. This is coming; you should get ready to meet it.


The final initiative involves wiring the association. Due to the foresight of the Board of Directors, starting about five years ago we began to massively set up a central computer system at APA. By my lights, we are now the leading scientific organization in America as far as electronic communications go. I want to mention two things, both of which are relevant to you. When I became president‐elect of APA, people asked me, particularly my science colleagues, whether I was going to conduct a membership campaign, bang my shoe on the table and get scientists to join APA? I said absolutely not; not only was that not my style, but that was backwards. Instead, what I wanted to see happen was to have APA do the things that were so important to science that young scientists would say, gee, to do good science, I have to be a member. We would thus deserve their membership.

Toward these ends, we are in the process of setting up a series of nets, so that if you are in perception or cognition, a leading researcher will run the network and act as your mentor. You will be able to, though your APAGS membership, join an electronic net that the researcher will moderate, enabling you to talk with him or her and your fellow graduate students about the issues that confront the field. We are going to try and do this for every area in scientific psychology. In addition, we have already allocated a million dollars, and we will probably be doubling this, to digitize the journals. Now what that means to you is you do not have to go to the library anymore. You will have on your PC, as part of your APAGS membership, as part of being a member of APA, the entire literature indexed, searchable. You will get the first three or four years of this back to ’93, ’94 within about six months. You will get the whole literature back to 1894 within between one and two years. We are also trying to buy up the digital rights to the penumbra that is neuroscience, cognitive science, and the like, so that you will be able to get the allied literature as well. It is my hope that with APA doing these kinds of things, it will deserve the loyalty and membership of young scientists in America.

Shelley Taylor.
I think one of the things that has been personally and professionally frustrating to me has been what I perceive to be the apparent decline in the centrality of psychology to intellectual life. During the 1950s and early 60s, psychoanalysis lit up people in ways that psychology had not previously done and, in certain respects, has not done since. Although during the 60s the social sciences were very much heralded, since that time I have seen us fall away from the mainstream of American intellectual life, as well as international intellectual life. We are often relegated to input from a self‐help vantage point: quick cures, quick bits of wisdom. If there was something I would like to see restored and that I would personally want to work toward, it would be putting psychology back into the mainstream of intellectual life.

Robert Sternberg.
The main thing I would like to see changed is that I feel psychology has reached the point where it is like an image of multiple competing teams. Each team wants to win more of a share of the resources, and more respect, and more prestige, and so on. It could be in terms of organizations, with APA and APS [American Psychological Society] and neuroscientists. It can be with respect to specialties. The thing I would most like to see changed is that instead of viewing ourselves as multiple competing teams, we view ourselves as being on the same team and to try to have teamwork within the whole field rather than within segments of the field that then compete with other teams.

fanhypsy

假如你可以改变心理学界的任何事，那它将怎样，为什么？

马丁•塞利格曼：
        作为大家推选的APA主席，我有4个大的计划，它们代表我想改变些什么。这4个计划是：（1）种族政-治（或种族战争）；（2）预防；（3）治疗效果；（4）协会的资料建设。我将依次对它们进行简要的讨论。随着【苏联】消亡【译者注：这是美国佬的偏见】，我相信你们关心的21世纪的战争就是你们看见的在波斯尼亚和卢旺达的那种，种族屠***杀。我读过一些这方面的文献，我发现心理学在这方面的关注很少。倒是社会学、政-治学对这些贡献甚大。诸如为什么会产生创伤后应激？期间发生了哪些事情？在这之前又如何预防等等问题，都是这属于这方面的。产生前、产生中及以后为什么及如何
      这方面已经有了很多著作，我们要相信如果我们【心理学家】做出很好研究，这些工作将会得到推进。为了开启这项工作，我们打算建立一个博士后层次的学院。在这个博士后层次上，你能与来自世界各地的学者共度一年的时间。希望这能成为一个普遍的计划。这个计划有北美、开普敦和北爱尔兰三个站点。那么你可有一年的时间呆在这个领域里，不用真的去战事频发的卢旺达，或者波斯尼亚，或者柬埔寨。我们相信有基金来做这个事情，这很快就会变为现实。
说到预防，【我想起】二战前自诩为科学家的心理学家们梦想着改变世界，和你们中的很多人一样，他们有三个抱负。一是治疗心理疾病，二是让正常人的生活更多产和完善，三是培育天才，就是培育高智商的人。1946年，美国退伍兵管理系统建立了，突然间，心理学家们发现，嘿，我能靠治疗奥**（Omaha，泛指美国退伍兵）的神经症（neurotics）过活。
      随后，【美国】国家心理健康研究院（NIMH）建立了，我们又发现，嘿，如果我们做些与治疗心理健康有关的研究，还可以获得研究经费。但是我相信其它两个抱负——让正常人生活更好和培育天才——或多或少地被遗忘了。
大约10年前，我才认真地想了想有关预防的事。NIMH和国会现在也正在思考预防问题，并投入了大把的美元。但是，正如他们所想的，他们突然发现预防心理疾病最好的办法是美德（virtues）：诚实正直、工作伦理、毅力（persistence）、果敢（courage）和人际技能。当我们匆忙地跑去治疗心理疾病时，我们忘了了解这些美德。我相信心理学家的三个抱负需要复兴。所以我想提醒大家的这第二件事是，我们的抱负不仅是消极心理学（受害人学说，victimology），不仅为了治疗心理疾病，还应在我们的研究和临床实践中认真思考美德。明年我的主席报告的主题就是，预防：在年轻人中建立力量、健康和毅力（Prevention: Building Strength, Health, and Resilience in Young People）。
接下来的第三件事是关于治疗的效果(the effectiveness of therapy)的，这也许是你们职业生涯中的大部分努力（的方向）。极具震撼的是在临床科学（clinical science）中确立研究。在我看来，NIMH和心理健康服务团体（the Substance in Mental Health services group），他们控制着心理学家的研究预算，将做些有关心理治疗效果的工作。我说的是效果，而不是效率（efficacy）。你们听说过那个消费需求研究报告中，我对这个效果和效率的区分（the effectiveness–efficacy distinction）也略知一二。
       效率研究是对各种界定良好的疾病的短期治疗进行的实验室研究。效果研究是真实世界中研究，关注的是治疗如何进行，以及结果如何。现在政 * 府决定资助效果研究了。他们的动机非常有趣，是为了让科学和实践能走到一块。这是一种管理上的需要。他们认为在一个利润驱动的健康服务系统中，目前没有办法控制 服务质量。（所以）需要大量的高质量的效果数据（effectiveness data）来评价服务工作到底怎么样。这种数据将在接下来的5到10年里出现。
目标是让美国心理健康界（the mental health associations of America）用一种声音说话，而不是分 裂的行会，也是着眼于经验数据（empirical data）这种最有效的途径来形成实践规范（practice guidelines）。这让我们不得不忍受那个管理驱动的行业，和认证体系，我们正在创造研究证据驱动的实践规范。这个正在到来，你们应该准备好去迎接它。
最后一个计划涉及协会的资料建设。得益于理事会的远见，5年前我们即已开始大规模地建立APA的中*央计算机系统。要我说，我们现在是美国第一大科学组织。至于数字资料交流，我想提两件事，都与你们有关。当我被选为APA主席时，人们问我，特别是我的科学家同行，我是否要发动一个会员运动，站在桌子上狠狠地跺跺脚，让后让科学家们加入APA？我说绝对不会；不仅因为那不是我的风格，还因为那是一种倒退。相反，我希望看到的是，APA做如此多对科学有益、重要的事情，以至于年轻的科学家会说，为了做好科学，我必须成为APA的一员。这样他们入会就很值得。
       为了这些目的，我们正在建立一系列的网络，假如你是知觉或认知中的主要研究人员，你可以运用这些网络，你可以像你的导师那样。虽然还是研究生会的成员（APAGS membership），你们也将加入这个电子网络，这能让你们与那些著名的研究者，或者你们的研究生朋友，交流你们那个领域里所面临的问题。我们将努力为科学心理学的每个领域做这些工作。另外，我们已经斥资数百万美元，也许会双倍于此，打算将杂志数字化。这对你们而言意味着再也不用去图书馆了。你们在自己的个人电脑上，部分地作为研究生会的成员，部分地作为APA的会员，拥有全部文献，并可进行检索。在6个月内，你们可以得到3-4年的回溯到93、94年的杂志；在1到2年内，你们就可以得到回溯到1894年的所有文献。我们还会全部买下神经科学、认知科学等学科的文献，这样你们就将获得相关的文献。这就是我希望为APA做的事，它对得起美国年轻科学家对协会的加入和忠诚。

谢利•泰勒：
       我想起一件让我个人和我们专业都倍感挫折的事情，我感觉心理学从人们理智生活的中心被边缘化。在50年代和60年代早期，精神分析点亮了人们的生活，这在心理学来说是前所未有的事，在某种意义上，从那以后也再没有出现过。虽然60年代社会科学极大地繁荣了，但从那时起我看见心理学从美国人的理智生活的主流中渐行渐远了，在国际理智生活中也一样。我们常常自我感觉良好，快速治疗，快速聪明。如果有什么事情是我想看到它复兴的，我个人想为之努力的，就是将心理学带回人们理智生活的主流去。

罗伯特•斯腾伯格：
      我想改变的主要事情是，我感觉心理学已经到了这样一种状况，它分 裂成多个竞争团队了。
每个团队都想赢得更多的资源，更多的尊重，和更多的特权，诸如此类的。在组织层面，它分 裂为APA，APS和神经科学家。至于专业（specialties），我最想改变的就是，不要把我们看成竞争的团队，我们应该是同一个团队。我们应该在心理学这个大的领域内拥有一个团队，而不是分 裂成碎片，然后彼此竞争。