In the interview with Dan Gilbert, Professor Goodman makes the point that historians, unlike scientists, tend to disagree with the existence of some realistic, absolute, objective timeline of the human past. This makes me curious about where objectivity lies within Dan Gilbert's field of psychology, where individual perception seems to be such an important factor (at least, that's my perception). I would ask him which side he tends towards, that of the historian or that of the scientist? I also wonder how a belief in some objective truth, past or present, factors into his research, and into questions of uncertain in his research. He notes that even if we were able to perfectly predict everything that would happen, how we would feel about those events is more uncertain. It seems that even knowing about some absolute truth that will come to pass does not eliminate the presence of subjectivity, but I'd like to hear Dan Gilbert's discuss this further.
top of page
bottom of page
I think this is a fascinating question, Grace. The field of psychology in particular has a long and complicated relationship with objective truth. In the post-war period, psychological studies made sweeping conclusions about human psychology, proposing numerous objective systematic behaviors. However, despite the contemporary belief that these conclusions were supported by mountains of evidence, later evaluation found rampant flaws in research design and implementation. For example, the bystander effect was a much touted psychological phenomenon, but recent research suggests that the original bystander effect study left out major details of bystanders actually trying to help. As such, we should perhaps err on the side of humility when it comes to the objectivity of our psychological conclusions. However, as neuroscience advances, perhaps we can become more and more confident.