Myth 2: Psychology Is Just Common Sense

Kendra Cherry Psychology Expert

Often after hearing about the latest psychological research, people tend to have an "Of Course!" type of response. "Of course that's true! Why do people even waste their time
researching stuff that's just common sense?" people sometimes exclaim.
But is it really? Pick up any book outlining some of the most famous experiments in the history of psychology and what you'll quickly realize is that much of this research refutes
what was believed to be common sense at the time. Would you deliver potentially fatal electrical shocks to a stranger just because an authority figure told you to? Common sense
might have you emphatically saying no, but psychologist Stanley Milgram famously demonstrated in an obedience experiment that the vast majority of people would do such a
thing.
That's the thing about common sense just because something seems like it should be true does not necessarily mean that it is. Researchers are able to take some of these questions
and presumptions about human behavior and test them scientifically, assessing the truth or falsehood in some of our commonly held beliefs about ourselves. By using scientific
methods, experimenters can investigate human issues objectively and fairly.
Source http://psychology.about.com/od/psychology101/a/myths-about-psychology.htm
http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/03/why-psychology-is-not-just-common-sense.php
Mind-myth 3: Psychology it not just common sense, but do psychologists go too far in denying similarities? In this post I poke some holes in
the standard arguments and consider the connections between psychology and common sense.
If you want to see a psychologists head explode, tell them psychology is just common sense. Its not that surprising as its like saying that
theyve been wasting their time all these years and neednt have bothered studying all that claptrap in the textbooks. While psychology is, of
course, more than common sense, there is certainly an intersection between the two, and anyone denying it should have their head
examined. Because psychologists are so sensitive when told their discipline is nothing more than self-evident, theyve often gone out of their
way to prove how different psychology is from common sense, sometimes with disastrous results.
Two straw men An oft-cited argument against common sense pits two common sayings against each other. For example, how is it possible to
reconcile, birds of a feather flock together, with opposites attract. Clearly these are mutually incompatible, it is argued, so common sense is
(apparently) proved wrong. Psychology to the rescue!Common sense is something much more subtle than just hackneyed old sayings.But the
problem with this argument is pretty fundamental: it assumes that these well-known sayings are a good proxy for common sense. In reality,
theyre not. Common sense is something much more subtle than just hackneyed old sayings. Rather it is our intuitive sense of the way people
think and behave based on all we know, both consciously and unconsciously. Assuming common sense is just cliche is doing it a disservice.
eval(ez_write_tag([[250,250],'spring_org_uk-square-2'])); The second argument youll get about the problem with common sense refers to a
study carried out by Houston (1985). Houston asked 50 random people in a local park 25 questions about psychology. The questions had all
the psychological jargon removed so that they were easily understood, but the psychological principles remained. He found that out of 25
questions, 16 were answered correctly more often than would be expected by chance.So, whats your interpretation of this finding? Does that

support the idea that psychology is just common sense or not?Well, it can just as easily be interpreted both ways. The fact that people score
above chance means they have some intuitive understanding of psychologys findings. On the other hand the fact that people dont score
100% shows that people dont know everything. Perhaps even this is just common sense!
Counter-intuitive findings No, rather than attacking common sense, psychologists are much better off defending their science by explaining
the multitude of counter-intuitive findings. This blog is filled with them. Start with, say, choice blindness, and work on from there. These types
of findings are the best evidence for how much more psychology is than just common sense.Ultimately what really sets psychology apart from
common sense is the scientific method.Ultimately what really sets psychology apart from common sense is the scientific method. Psychology
tests common sense ideas about people (along with some nonsensical ideas) to try and find out the truth. Sometimes common sense is proved
right, other times not. But, again, lets not be too down on common sense. While psychologists are usually sensitive and therefore defensive
about the role common sense plays, they dont need to be: in fact common sense is very important to them. The reason for that lies at the
interface between psychology and common sense. - See more at: http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/03/why-psychology-is-not-just-commonsense.php#sthash.BdGRWJSr.dpuf
Crossing boundaries Academic psychologists are generally pretty coy about the role common sense plays in coming up with ideas for their
research. They will talk about theory and hypotheses a lot, without really acknowledging that they just had a hunch.many experiments dont
return common sense answersWhat most people would call common sense plays a huge part in the early phases of psychological research.
When psychologists first consider a new area of research, theres little else to go on other than guesswork or common sense.And sometimes
the results are exactly as we would expect and so common sense becomes science.Of course many experiments dont return common sense
answers and often these are the most fascinating. They can reveal the most to us about what it means to be human as well as setting up a
whole line of further studies to try and hunt the answer down.When common sense is proved wrong, though, this begs the question of how,
and whether, psychological knowledge can creep across the line to become common sense. Perhaps once psychological findings become wellknown, people incorporate them into their intuitive thoughts and behaviour.People, such as myself, who are interested in disseminating
psychological research, would hope the answer is yes. Wouldnt it be fantastic if just understanding Milgrams experiment on conformity really
did allow us to avoid its more depressing consequences?This may be far-fetched but it doesnt hurt to consider the interaction between
common sense and psychology. After all what used to be just psychology, can become common sense and similarly what used to be just
common sense can become psychology. Each should inform the other.But, please, dont try to tell a psychologist that psychology is just
common sense. Its safer for all concerned.[Image credit: birdbath]ReferenceHouston, J. (1985). Untutored lay knowledge of the principles of
psychology: do we know anything they dont?, Psychological reports, 57(2), 567-570. - See more at: http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/03/whypsychology-is-not-just-common-sense.php#sthash.BdGRWJSr.dpuf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
Psychology is the study of mind and behavior.[1][2] It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general
principles and researching specific cases. [3][4] In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist and can be classified as a social, behavioral, or cognitive

scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and biological processes that
underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.
Psychologists explore concepts such as perception, cognition, attention, emotion, intelligence, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and
interpersonal relationships, including psychological resilience, family resilience, and other areas. Psychologists of diverse orientations also consider the unconscious mind.[5]
Psychologists employ empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing empirical and
deductive methods, someespecially clinical and counseling psychologistsat times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques. Psychology has been
described as a "hub science",[6] with psychological findings linking to research and perspectives from the social sciences, natural sciences, medicine, humanities, and philosophy.
While psychological knowledge is often applied to the assessment and treatment of mental health problems, it is also directed towards understanding and solving problems in
several spheres of human activity. By many accounts psychology ultimately aims to benefit society.[7][8] The majority of psychologists are involved in some kind of therapeutic role,
practicing in clinical, counseling, or school settings. Many do scientific research on a wide range of topics related to mental processes and behavior, and typically work in
university psychology departments or teach in other academic settings (e.g., medical schools, hospitals). Some are employed in industrial and organizational settings, or in other
areas[9] such as human development and aging, sports, health, and the media, as well as in forensic investigation and other aspects of law.

Uses empirical methods

Researchers control and manipulate variables

Objectivity

Allows for hypothesis testing

Results can be replicated

Finding allow researchers to predict future occurrences

http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/03/why-psychology-is-not-just-common-sense.php

Psychology is a scientific and research based study of human mind-set and behaviours. The field of study focuses on emotions, characteristics and behaviours of individuals in
their daily lives and their behaviours when interacting with other people. Wilhelm Wundt is the father of psychology, whom set up his first laboratory in Leipzig, Germany in 1879.
His main contribution to the field of psychology was his idea of structuralism; the use of introspection to study individuals experiences comprising of sensations, images and
feelings. Throughout his course of research, he insisted on using systematic observation and measurement, which serve as a strong foundation for psychology studies in the future.
Whereas, common sense basically refers to the common knowledge shared by the majority human population. Such knowledge usually arise from daily observation and interaction
one another, past experiences, beliefs that are being passed down for generations and scenarios commonly portrayed in television shows. Much of psychology is not based on

common sense, but on research, testing, and applications of theory. As such, psychologists are heavily trained in research methods and statistics. Psychology is a real science as It
uses scientific methods such as the experimental research and analysis to support a hypothesis and that psychology is not just things we see everyday. Psychology has a wide
variety of aspects; from the social side of understanding why people behave in a specific way, to the neuroscience side of understanding what goes wrong in the brain of people
with mental health disorders. As psychologists attempt to explain the mind and brain in the context of real life, it is definitely not common sense. One common sense belief states
that if someone recalls something vividly and confidently, that memory is true and accurate. In another words, an individual will not false memories. Even if there is, the individual
will have the ability to differentiate real... https://www.studymode.com/signup?redirectUrl=%2Fessays%2FPsychology-And-Common-Sense54213008.html&from=essay&from=essay

differences between psychology and common sense

This essay will examine the differences between psychology and common sense. It will also discuss the obstacles and drawbacks that primary experience
and common sense beliefs can have on the epistemological advancement of any experimental science. The paper will start with a brief history of
psychology and then discuss the different perspectives and approaches within the field. Giving examples throughout and briefly touching on the pioneers
in the development of psychology, this essay will argue that the use of systematic and objective methods of observation and experimentation in
psychology make it much more than just 'common sense'.
The bathroom floor is somewhat colder than the bedroom carpet. Most people would agree with this statement and pass it off as just 'common sense'.
But what if a thermometer showed that the bathroom floor was actually the same temperature as the bedroom carpet, and the real reason that the tiled
floor in the bathroom 'felt' colder than the bedroom carpet was because the carpet is a better thermal insulator than the ceramic tile? Therefore feet lose
heat to the floor more slowly on the carpet than on the tile floor, and consequently the cold receptors in the feet's skin are not stimulated to the same
extent (Refinetti, 1992). This example, although not specifically a psychological one, shows that the element of primary experience and common sense
beliefs in most humans can prove to be an obstacle in the development of any experimental science.
The first formal laboratory for psychological research was founded in 1879 by Wilhelm Wundt. Widely regarded as the "father of experimental psychology"
(Teo, 2005; 40) and placed first in the list of most outstanding psychologists carried out by Korn et al in 1991, Wundt established psychology as a separate
field of study with its own unique questions and methods. Thirty years later in 1910, Hermann Ebbinghaus, a pioneer in the experimental study of
memory, described psychology as having "a long past but only a short history" (Ebbinghaus, 1910, cited in Hothersall, 1995: 1). Ebbinghaus was referring to
the fact that although psychology is a relatively new discipline, studied perhaps for only a hundred years or so, philosophers and scholars since the time of
Plato and Aristotle have been asking the same questions for thousands of years.
In many text books psychology is defined as the science of behaviour. Although this definition holds some merit it is also important to point out that many
psychologists also accept accounts of their participants own conscious experience, often known as introspection (Eysenck, 1998: 2). It is this point that led
Sternberg (1995: 4, cited in Eysenck, 1998: 2) to define psychology as:

The study of mind and behaviour...[that] seeks to understand how we think, learn, perceive, feel, act, interact with others, and even understand ourselves
Sternberg's definition shows that psychology contains two fundamental elements. Firstly, that psychologists study behaviour, any type of behaviour that
can be measured or observed. Secondly, it shows that psychologists study the mind, referring to both the conscious and unconscious mental states that
cannot be seen but can be observed through behaviour.
Because we spend so much of our time trying to understand other people's behaviour and the motives for their behaviour, in some sense we are all
psychologists. Perhaps it is this reason that leads some people to dismiss psychology as nothing more than just common sense - or a slight advance of it
(Eysenck, 1998: 2). Naturally, there are some similarities with one another in that they can both try to explain human behaviour; however this does not
mean that they are the same thing.
The most important difference between psychology and common sense is that psychology uses systematic and objective methods of observation and
experimentation. Common sense on the other hand is usually played out in proverbs or short phrases, most of which are contradictory to one another.
For example 'he who hesitates is lost' and 'look before you leap' or 'out of sight, out of mind' and 'absence makes the heart grow fonder' (Eysenck, 1998: 3).
Common sense refers mainly to a set of beliefs and skills that are shared by most people but acquired through no specialist education. According to
Refinetti (1992), the concept is too broad and any meaningful statement should refer not to the whole concept but to some component of it.
Another important reason why psychology and common sense are different is the outcome of psychological tests carried out over the years which on
many occasion have produced very different results to what might have been predicted using only 'common sense' alone.
One example can been seen in a test carried out by Stanley Milgram (1974), a psychologist at Yale University who conducted a study focusing on the
conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. His test was designed to examine the claims made by those accused of war crimes
during World War II at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials. The defendants often claimed that they were just obeying orders whilst under the authority of
their superiors (Hayes, 2002 & Eysenck 1994).
In his Study of Obedience Milgram selected 40 male volunteers, all of who varied in age, educational and occupation. Hayes (2002) explains that Milgram
then introduced the volunteers to a stern looking experimenter who stated that one subject would be assigned the role of "teacher" and the other would
be assigned the role of "learner." The teachers were asked to give the learners some simple memory tests. Each time the learner got an answer wrong the
teachers were instructed to administer a shock to them by pressing a button on what Milgram called 'the shock generator'. Unbeknown to the volunteers
each of them would always end up playing the role of teacher and the learner was actually played by an actor instructed by Milgram to indicate increasing
levels of discomfort as the teacher increased the shock level.
For every mistake the learners made the intensity of the shock was to be increased by 15 volts up to a maximum of 450 volts. Before the experiment
Milgram had sought predictions from experts and non-experts about the outcome of the tests and with remarkable similarity they predicted that virtually

all the subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter, in fact some professionals guessed that as little as one in a thousand would give the maximum
shock. In actual fact Milgram found that on average about half of all participants obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale
(Hayes, 2002 & Eysenck 1994).
This experiment along with many others shows that common sense can often be inaccurate and is subject to bias and life-experiences. One particular bias
that common sense has against psychology is the problem of hindsight bias. This is a tendency to be wise after the event and can be very difficult to
eliminate.
There are five main approaches in contemporary psychology, Behaviourist, Biological, Psychodynamic, Cognitive and Humanistic. According to Glassman &
Hadad an approach can be defined as a perspective that involves certain assumptions about human behaviour. There may be several different theories
within an approach, but they all share some common concerns: to make careful, consistent observations, to avoid errors, and to develop clear theories
(2004: 17).
Each approach shows us something different in our understanding of human behaviour and each approach portrays strengths and weaknesses. Most
psychologists would agree that no one approach is correct, although in the early days of psychology J.B Watson stated that psychology should abandon all
study concerned with the mind and concentrate solely on behaviourism, believing that this was the only truly scientific approach.
The behaviourist approach studies observable responses and focuses on learning to explain changes in behaviour. They reject any attempt to study
internal processes such as thinking (Glassman & Hadad, 2004: 147). The behaviourist psychologist regards all behaviour as a response to a stimulus and
assumes that what we do is determined by the environment we are in. They argue that the environment provides stimuli to which we respond, and that
past environments can lead us to respond to stimuli in particular ways. According to Watson (1913, cited in Eysenck, 1994: 21)
Psychology as the behaviourist views it is a purely objective, experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of
behaviour. Introspection forms no part of its method
Behaviourists use two processes to explain how people learn: classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning can be described as a
neutral stimulus which gains the ability to bring on responses through regular pairings with another stimulus. This was first shown by Ivan Pavlov in 1904
who noticed that the dogs he had been feeding as part of a digestion experiment had become familiarised with the pre-feeding routines and began to
salivate before food was put in front of them. In order for Pavlov to validate his observations he began to ring a bell before the actual sight or smell of food
was present and after a certain time the dogs were shown to salivate profusely in association with the ringing of the bell alone.
Classical conditioning only allows the person to produce existing responses to new stimuli, but operant conditioning, a term used by B.F Skinner, is
concerned with how the probability of a voluntary response changes as a function of the environmental consequences which follow the response
(Glassman & Hadad, 2004: 120). Skinner argues that if certain behaviour produces a certain response and is followed by reinforcement then the likelihood

of that behaviour being repeated increases in the

future. A consequence can be reinforcing in two
ways: either a positive reinforcement where the
person gets something good or a negative
reinforcement where the person avoids
something bad.
Skinners theory, that human behaviour is
determined by the contingencies of
reinforcement, is contrary to that of the common
sense belief that people behave in certain ways
because of their thoughts, wishes, expectations,
and feelings. B.F. Skinner was a radical
behaviourist, unlike Edward Tolman, who
although behaviourist in his methodology went on
to propose through his experiments with rats that
animals and therefore humans could develop
cognitive maps. Tolman's experiments, although
not completely accepted at the time, went on to
path the way for later work in cognitive
psychology. Cognitive psychologists are interested
in understanding the thinking processes that

underline our actions.

Read more: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/differences-between-psychology-and-common-sense-psychology-essay.php#ixzz3jb1IdCZl