Lysenko rides again - Rated 
In reviewing this book, we have some good news and some bad news. First the good news.
As the Description and Synopsis above show, a great deal of thought has gone into this book. it is handsomely produced and liberally, one might even say lavishly, illustrated with pleasing photographs. The organisation seems natural and logical. Many tutorials are hard to use as reference books and vice versa; this volume may be used with equal ease as either. Adequate space is taken for author and subject indices, a glossary and a list of references. There are also tables of statistical significance.
Particularly commendable and useful is a section at the front explaining how the exam will be structured, what features will be expected in good answers, how best to revise, and helpful hints on how to pass the examination. But then we come to the following statement:
'Note that there are no "right answers" in psychology -- there are only answers that are well informed and well argued.'*
It is here that the reader may possibly feel the slightest twinge of unease. After all, Joseph Black and Daniel Rutherford argued well for the phlogistic theory of combustion, but it was still wrong -- because it led to counterfactual conclusions.
Down the Rabbit Hole
===============
So now the bad news. Unfortunately, addressing this is rather like like addressing the question 'Why couldn't Superman really exist?' -- it can't be done in a couple of sentences. So gird your loins and grit your teeth, dear reader, and come with me on a journey to an imaginary university not unadjacent to Egham, Surrey. Imagine, too, that you are reading a modern text, not about Psychology, but about Astronomy. This is what you read:
'For hundreds of years scholars accepted that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and that the heavens revolved around it.
'In the early 17th century a certain Galileo Galilei, following correspondence with his friend Nicolai Copernicus, advocated a rival theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun. However, following a discussion in Rome, Galileo apparently changed his mind, and publicly disavowed this opinion. Copernicus himself was not sufficiently convinced of it to publish it in his own lifetime.'
Now you know all about the geocentric and heliocentric theories.
Whether this flight of fancy has any relationship to the present book, I must of course leave to the reader. 'Can this be?' you ask. 'Surely a modern textbook must be a model of scientific integrity and impartiality?'
Follow me now, then, as I in turn follow the authors, tiptoing, metal-detector in hand, through the minefield of inconvenient facts.
Unfortunately, even Amazon's generous space allowance is not enough to deal with the subject fully. I must concentrate on the topic which impressed the Galileo analogy on me most forcefully; even here I can only provide a few examples. It is (unsurprisingly), the issue of differences in intelligence (on average) between groups -- most controversially, between races.
On p.393 we learn 'Jensen (1969) and H.J. Eysenck (1981) argued that genetic differences might be involved'.
Eysenck first argued it, and more fully, in "Race, Intelligence and Education" (1971), which was entirely devoted to the topic. There is no mention of this, and no reference to it in the back, although that book caused more fuss in Britain than any other work on the subject. What is curious about this is that RI&E is by the father of one of the present authors.
Then on the next page, we find:
'Herrnstein & Murray (1994) published the controversial book "The Bell Curve", in which they argued that there are genetic differences in IQ. Since these differences are inevitable, why are we wasting money in trying to educate individuals who will never progress beyond a fixed potential?'
The first sentence is certainly true. However, I cannot recall, nor can I now find, anything remotely likely the second, and I notice that there are no quotation marks nor page reference.
And on p.394 again:
'Indeed, the whole notion of "race" has been questioned, and seems to have no scientific definition.'
Well, now. There is one in RI&E (p.36): '[Races] are populations that differ genetically and may be distinguished phenotypically (i.e. by appearance). Races are not species; they are able to interbreed, and are fertile when they do.' (etc.)
It seems strange that MWE, at least, should be unaware of this. Maybe Ms. Black wrote this part of the book.
The authors again:
'Even H.J. Eysenck (1981, p.79) admitted that the issue cannot be resolved by experimental evidence: "Can we... argue that genetic studies... give direct support to the hereditarian position? The answer must, I think, be in the negative. the two populations (black and white) are separate populations, and none of the studies carried out on white people alone, such as twin studies, are feasible." '
But this quotation from Eysenck & Kamin's "The Intelligence Controversy" is itself a quotation from RI&E (p.117), which continues:
'...critics are perfectly right in saying that the genetic evidence existing at the moment is not conclusive.
However, it constitutes presumptive evidence which is quite strong, and cannot be disregarded. Any argument aimed at disavowing the genetic evidence runs into difficulties which may be more disturbing to the environmentalist hypothesis than anything postulated in this book.' (etc.)
The authors kindly inform us:
'This illustrates the extremely political nature of the debate.'
It does indeed, but perhaps not quite in the way intended.
This is to deal only with one point, of course, and there is obviously a great deal more to say: unfortunately, this much is already near 1,000-word limit allowed in the UK. Should you be interested, you can find a lengthier version on the US site, which now allows 3,000 words.
*This is in fact tantamount to saying that statements in Psychology are not falsifiable, which would disbar it from qualifying as a science at all.
The book is just tooooo large - Rated 
I was given this as my text book for doing my A2 in psychology and it is massive, so large i cant even transport it into school
it is hard to read as there is continous writing
now i need to buy a revision book to supplement it
wouldn't recommend it
An excellent study guide - Rated 
As an A level Psychology student this book is incredibly useful. It is clear and comprehensive where other text books have failed. It is particularly useful for those who struggle with the physiological aspects of the course. This text book covers a broad range of topics which makes it useful for people with an interest in the subject area, not just for use as a study aid. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in deeping their knowledge of Psychology.
An excellent book for key studies & extended reading - Rated
Eysenck's book for A/S level Psychology was a real bonus to me last year in teaching the subject. This book should help me to repeat the success of last year. This book is ideal for those who wish to read around the subject and gain a more indepth insight into topics on the syllabus. It does, however, also contain the most important key studies which are presented in a clear format with evaluations and analysis included. My students loved this approach last year ! An excellent book but perhaps not for those who simply wish to "pass" exams without really gaining an insight into the subject.
|
