心理专业学生如何才能做好学问？第三部分7

sos862004

How have your research interests changed since you were in graduate school?

Robert Sternberg.
When I was in graduate school, I was interested in intelligence, and I still am. But I began to realize that my picture of intelligence in graduate school was too narrow, so then I came up with a broader theory of intelligence, and that was followed by a broader interest. I have never actually lost an interest, but what has usually happened is the way I have perceived a phenomenon at a given time turned out to be a special case of the way I conceived it later. So one thing that has changed is that I have realized that what seemed to be broad conceptions of phenomenon, I now look at as kind of narrow.

The other thing that is great about psychology is that you can do anything, or almost anything, or maybe anything. At one point in my life, I started getting curious about love because my love life was not going so great, and I started studying love. At another point, I was not getting along with anybody (because other people are so difficult), and I started studying conflict resolution. I began to notice that some of the students I was teaching seemed to be very high in intelligence, but they never seemed to come up with any ideas, so I started studying creativity. Or I noticed that what seemed to be problematic with students was that their style of learning did not fit the teacher. One year my kid’s teacher said, “Wow, your kid’s really smart,” and the next year my kid would be a dummy. Of course the kid did not lose 50 points of IQ over the summer or have brain damage, but rather, there seemed to be a mismatch between the way my kid thought and the teacher thought, so I started to study thinking and learning styles.

The great thing about psychology is that just out of your life you can see things that are going on, and those can become the things you study. The very things that are problematic for you and others in your life or their life can be the next thing that becomes part of your research. So it is always expanding.

Shelley Taylor.
When I was in graduate school, I was especially intrigued by social cognition research, which I still think of as a Chinese puzzle kind of intellectual fascination. It is a lot of fun to be able to unpack and put back together these very tight intellectual puzzles, but the way in which my work changed the most was in seeing that that kind of intellectual satisfaction was not going to lead to the kinds of contributions I wanted to make, and that I was going to need a different kind of methodology to combine with the laboratory methods that I was using. When I was in graduate school, I had some training in interview methodology. I found this training to be invaluable and began working in health psychology in the late 70s, and then found, almost miraculously, that the back and forth, with moving from the tight laboratory investigations to the field, collecting interview data, and listening to people talk about their lives led to a better scientific contribution for me. So I would say that my evolution as a scientist has been as much methodological and learning to use a combination of methods that yield different kinds of insights and different degrees of rigor, as much as a change in the kinds or nature of the problems that I have studied.

Martin Seligman.
Substantively, I think I have worked on very different things in my evolution from graduate school to now, but formally, I have done the same thing over and over and over again. I see what we do in science as having a location in lit space, so that there are things that are in the darkness, there are things that are in the penumbra, and there are things that are in the light. I have always worked right at the border of the light and the penumbra. When I first started to work on helplessness, the notion that an animal could be helpless, could learn that thing as opposed to learn a response, was what was at the edge of the penumbra. So I brought what I knew about the light to bear on that problem, and I felt that after a while, the problem of helplessness had come into the light. So there was now more in the light. Then I looked out at the penumbra, and out on the penumbra was the question, well, could human beings be helpless and was this like depression? So I did the same thing again. I took what was in the light, brought it to bear on what was at the edge of the penumbra, and to my satisfaction, more of that entered the light. Then I said, well, what makes some human beings more susceptible to depression than others? We thought about optimism and pessimism, which was then the province of preachers and politicians and the like, in the penumbra and brought the same what was in the light from science to bear on that. Now as APA president, I think there is a set of problems in the penumbra that we now have enough in the light to be able to drag them into the light.

Robert Sternberg.
There is one other thing that changed for me, but it is not a substantive thing, it is more a style thing. When I started, I spent a lot of time thinking about how to answer a question, and what would be a clever experiment I could design to answer this question, and what does the answer mean, and so on. As I have gotten older, I have spent successively more time thinking about the question and less about the answer. Namely, is this a good question to ask in the first place? Why should I or anyone else care what the answer is? What is the best possible outcome if I even studied it? Would I find anything anyone (including myself) would care about? I think, in general, the developmental trend is to worry more about whether the question you are asking is one worth asking and perhaps less about whether the particular method you use is such a great method, because if you go to conventions like this, you find so often the answers are good, but the questions were not worth asking in the first place.

好奇心理学

原帖由 sos862004 于 2008-7-30 15:59 发表
How have your research interests changed since you were in graduate school?

Robert Sternberg.
When I was in graduate school, I was interested in intelligence, and I still am. But I began to realize that my picture of intelligence in graduate school was too narrow, so then I came up with a broader theory of intelligence, and that was followed by a broader interest. I have never actually lost an interest, but what has usually happened is the way I have perceived a phenomenon at a given time turned out to be a special case of the way I conceived it later. So one thing that has changed is that I have realized that what seemed to be broad conceptions of phenomenon, I now look at as kind of narrow.

和研究生的时候相比，你的兴趣有了怎样的变化？

罗伯特 斯顿伯格
当我还是研究生的时候，我对智能感兴趣，现在我还是依然。不过，我开始认识到，我研究生的时候对智能的理解过于狭窄和片面，所以我后来提出了广义智能理论，于是我的兴趣也随之扩展了。我其实从来没有失去过兴趣，但通常是我在某个特定时刻对一个现象的感觉方式，产生了我后来理解它的一种特别的方式。所以有一件已经改变了的事就是，我认识到，曾经看起来一个相当完全的概念，如今在我眼里已经变得狭隘片面了。

好奇心理学

原帖由 sos862004 于 2008-7-30 15:59 发表
The other thing that is great about psychology is that you can do anything, or almost anything, or maybe anything. At one point in my life, I started getting curious about love because my love life was not going so great, and I started studying love. At another point, I was not getting along with anybody (because other people are so difficult), and I started studying conflict resolution. I began to notice that some of the students I was teaching seemed to be very high in intelligence, but they never seemed to come up with any ideas, so I started studying creativity. Or I noticed that what seemed to be problematic with students was that their style of learning did not fit the teacher. One year my kid’s teacher said, “Wow, your kid’s really smart,” and the next year my kid would be a dummy. Of course the kid did not lose 50 points of IQ over the summer or have brain damage, but rather, there seemed to be a mismatch between the way my kid thought and the teacher thought, so I started to study thinking and learning styles.

心理学还有一个很棒的地方，就是可以做任何事情，或者说“几乎是”任何事情，或者说“也许是”任何事情。有一个阶段，我对爱很好奇，因为我的[url=http://bbs.psysoper.com/forum-25-1.html]爱情[/url]生活不那么如意，于是我开始研究爱。另一个阶段，我总是与谁都相处不好（因为别人都是那么难以相处），于是我开始研究冲突的解决办法。我开始注意到我所教的有些学生智力很高，却似乎总也提不出什么想法，于是我开始研究创造力。或者我注意到一些看似是问题学生，其实不过是他们的学习方法不适应那个老师。前一年我孩子的老师可能会说，“哇，你的孩子真是聪明，”而第二年，我的孩子可能就变成了傻瓜。当然，孩子并没有在一个夏天失去了50个智商，或遭受什么大脑创伤，而实际上，是我的孩子的思考方式和（第二年的）老师的思考方式不相适应而已。于是，我开始研究思考和学习的各种不同方式。

好奇心理学

原帖由 sos862004 于 2008-7-30 15:59 发表
The great thing about psychology is that just out of your life you can see things that are going on, and those can become the things you study. The very things that are problematic for you and others in your life or their life can be the next thing that becomes part of your research. So it is always expanding.

心理学的好处在于，在你生活中发生的事情，都可以成为你的研究对象。每一件在你或其他人生活中成为问题的事情，都可以作为你研究的一部分，所以你的研究永远是不断扩展的。

好奇心理学

原帖由 sos862004 于 2008-7-30 15:59 发表
Shelley Taylor.
When I was in graduate school, I was especially intrigued by social cognition research, which I still think of as a Chinese puzzle kind of intellectual fascination. It is a lot of fun to be able to unpack and put back together these very tight intellectual puzzles, but the way in which my work changed the most was in seeing that that kind of intellectual satisfaction was not going to lead to the kinds of contributions I wanted to make, and that I was going to need a different kind of methodology to combine with the laboratory methods that I was using. When I was in graduate school, I had some training in interview methodology. I found this training to be invaluable and began working in health psychology in the late 70s, and then found, almost miraculously, that the back and forth, with moving from the tight laboratory investigations to the field, collecting interview data, and listening to people talk about their lives led to a better scientific contribution for me. So I would say that my evolution as a scientist has been as much methodological and learning to use a combination of methods that yield different kinds of insights and different degrees of rigor, as much as a change in the kinds or nature of the problems that I have studied.

薛莉 泰勒
当我还是研究生的时候，我对社会认知的研究特别感兴趣，我至今仍认为它是类似于“中国之谜”一样的智力魅题。将这样高度智力挑战的谜题解构再重组，是一件非常有趣的事情。不过，我的工作变化最大的方面是，认识到那种智力上的满意并不会带来我想要的成果，我需要不同的方法与我正采用的实验室方法相结合。在我还是研究生的时候，我在面试方法.论方面受过训练。我发现这种训练的价值无法估量，并在70年代末开始致力于健康心理学的工作， 然后我发现，来来回回地从致密的实验室研究到实地，收集面试数据，聆听人们谈论他们的生活，几乎是奇迹般的，带给了我更好的科学性收获。所以，我要说，我作为科学家的进步，更多地在于方法上，学会了根据我所研究的问题的各种不同的性质变化，综合运用具备不同洞察力和严谨性的各种方法。

fanhypsy

罗伯特·斯腾伯格：
当我在研究生院时，我对智力感兴趣，现在仍然感兴趣。但是我逐渐认识到我在研究生院时的智力图景太狭窄了，所以我后来提出了更为宽泛的智力理论，随后我的研究兴趣也变得更广泛了。虽然我从未错误任何一个兴趣，但是通常的情况是在特定时间里我知觉一个现象的方式证明确实是我理解它的特殊方式。所以已经改变的一个事情是我已经认识到（在以前）看来有关现象的一个宽泛的概念，现在我觉得有些狭隘了。
关于心理学的另一件很棒是事情是，你可以做任何事，或者几乎任何事，或者可能是任何事。 在我生命中的某一点，我开始爱非常好奇，因为我的情感生活不是很顺利，我开始研究爱。在另一点，我与任何人都相处不好（因为其他人是如此的难以相处），随后我开始研究冲突解决。我开始注意到我所教的某些学生似乎具有很高的智商，但是他们似乎从不知道提出想法，所以我开始研究创造性。或者我注意到学生的学习风格与他们的老师相匹配，所以出现了问题。有一年我孩子的老师说，“噢噢，你家小孩真是聪明，”而过了一年我小孩的老师却说他是个垃圾。虽然这个小孩显然不可能在一个暑假后，或者脑部受伤后，他的IQ得分就下降50分，但是显然的是我家小孩思考的方式与他老师思考的方式不匹配，所以我开始研究思维和学习风格。
让人惬意的是通过你的生活你能看见事情是如何发展的，而这些可以变成你的研究内容。对你来说是个问题的事情，其它的事情，或者别人生活都可以成为你下一个研究的一部分。所以我的研究兴趣总是在拓展。

谢利·泰勒：
    当我在研究生院时，我对社会认知研究特别入迷，我现在仍然把社会认知研究看作是七巧板一样的中国智力游戏那样复杂的令人着迷的事情。虽然将这类非常复杂的智力难题解开又合在一起非常有趣，但是改变我的工作最大的是在看见这类智力满足不再给我带来我想要的贡献时，我将需要一个不同的方法学来包容我正在使用的实验室方法。当我还是研究生时，我曾接受过访谈方法的训练。我那时觉得这些训练毫无价值。70年代后期我开始从事健康心理学研究，那时才发现，真不可思议，来来回回，用从严格的实验室研究到现场研究等方法来收集数据，不断听人们谈论他们的生活，对我来说，这也能为科学有所贡献。所以我要说的是，作为一个科学家我的成长过程中同样注重各种方法学，并学习联合运用这些产生各种洞察和不同严格程度的方法，这些方法和变化和我研究的问题的种类一样多。

马丁·塞利格曼：
实质上，我认为自研究生阶段来到现在我已经研究过不同的事情，但是形式上，我却一次又一次地再做同一件事。我将我在科学所做的比作一个光照区，这样一来，有些事就在黑暗中，有些事在半影中，有些则在光亮下。我总是工作在光亮和半影的交界处。当我第一个开始研究无助感时，动物能有无助感，能学习一个与反应相反的事情这个概念就处在半影边缘。所以我运用我所知的光亮去瞄准那个问题，然后我感觉过了一会儿，无助感的问题就走入了光照。所以现在就有更多的光亮了。随后我朝那个半影看，在那个半影处看见一个问题，恩，人类也会有无助并像（狗）那样陷入抑郁吗？所以我又做同一件事。我用已在光亮中的东西来瞄准那些还在半影中的东西，令人满意的是，更多的东西进入光照了。随后，我问，恩，是什么让一些人比另一些人更易感染抑郁？我们想到了乐观主义和悲观主义，这是传教士和政客这类人的地盘，还是半影中，我们又从科学中已经知道的来瞄准它。现在，作为APA的主席，我认为有一大串的问题仍在半影中，我们现在光照中有足够的东西来将其它的东西拽如入光照中。

罗伯特·斯腾伯格：
      还有一件事对我来说已经改变了，但是这不是什么大事，它更像个风格问题。当我开始时（做研究生时），我花大量的时间来思考如何回答一个问题，我能设计一个什么样的精巧实验来回答这个问题，这个答案意味着什么，诸如此类的。当我年老些了，我花整块整块的时间来思考某个问题，而对答案就想得少了。即是说，这是一个值得问的好问题吗？为什么我或者其他人应该在意答案是什么？如果我研究它，最好的结果是什么？我能找到任何人（包括我自己）感兴趣的亮点吗？我认为，总体上发展的趋势是更多地担心你问的这个问题是不是一个值得问的问题，可能很少担心你所用的特定的方法是否是伟大的方法，因为如果你转到这个轨道上，你发现你的答案常常是好的，但是最重要的是那个问题是否值得一问。