When is a psychology book considered "dated".

[Genecks]

I picked up a few social psychology books at my local college library and began to skim through them. I noticed many of them were made in the 1960s. One of the books I grabbed it a supposed introduction to social psychology, but it's dated about 1967 or so. I was wondering when a person can consider a certain psychology book dated. In other words, how many years until psychology and learnings are considered foolish and obsolete, a.k.a. not mainstream learnings.

 

The reason I picked out some social psychology book is because I'm preparing for a class I'm taking in the fall. I can't get ahold of the book offered for the class anytime soon, so I've become dependent on a few books the library has.

 

How has social psychology changed since the 1960's?

What new or changed concepts have shaken people?

 

I'm taking an introductory course; I'm looking for basic changes.

[SkepticLance]

Lots of psychology books are dead before they are published, since lots of them are full of theories, with little science to back up said theories.

 

This is mostly true of what is called 'clinical psychology'. Research psychology in general is much sounder.

[Genecks]

Psychology is a social science. I'm not asking you to use science to back up the idea of it. If there is a large amount of science detail, then I assume science would be of great importance. For what I know, science comes in the form of neuroscience and biology during most of psychology. I can't say there is or is not a lot of science in social psychology, but if there is, then please describe the scientific advancements and recognizable changes in social psychology.

 

Here's a better question for those of you looking down here before up there!

How has social psychology changed since the 1960's?

[Glider]

That's a hell of a question to expect anyone to answer in a forum. Your best bet would be to find a more recent introductory text and compare it with the old book.

[SmallIsPower]

Lance is right, except that the correct term is conjectures. Back in 1967, homosexuality was considered a form of mental illness. About 200 years ago some "experts" considered abolitionism a form of mental illness. Social Science is about as scientific as creation science.

[ecoli]

Social Science is about as scientific as creation science.

 

it's gets better when used in conjection with neuroscience or behavioral science.

[scicop]

When the author gets offered/wants to write a 2nd edition.

[Glider]

Lance is right, except that the correct term is conjectures. Back in 1967, homosexuality was considered a form of mental illness. About 200 years ago some "experts" considered abolitionism a form of mental illness.

So, you use examples from 40 years ago and 200 years ago to reach the conclusion that "Social Science is about as scientific as creation science". Can anyone else see the flaw here? Well into the 19th century, physicians believed that letting blood would restore a healthy balance in the 'humours'. Therefore medicine is about as scientific as creation science.

 

Have you actually done any reading of recent material in the social sciences?

[Cloud]

Whoaa. What are you trying to say, Glider?

 

That social science is a natural Science? or There is no such thing as a natural science? (natural science e.g. chemistry, physics etc)

 

Your post is confusing and my brain isn't working too well. Maybe you should use italics and the eye rolling smiley to express any sarcasm. Maybe.

[mimefan599]

Why is social science not science? Is it not grounded in observation? Any type of psychology cannot be directly observed except of organic origin. That doesn't equate it's science to that of creationism.

[michael]

I gave up teaching psychology about 25 years ago.

 

I thought, that with the pace of discovery, all my books would be soon out of date.

 

Now I am toying with the idea of going back to do some more study I am shocked at how little has changed.

 

Certainly our map of the brain has become more refined.

Refinement, of what we already knew, rather than new breakthroughs seem to be the norm in much of what I see.

 

Counselling Psychology I think is in a real hole.

 

Social psychology such as Zimbardo's Standford Prison Experiment are still being studied along with others of his like. We have learnt little of practical use from him. Witness Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay.

 

Group Psychology and Social Psychology , the Prima Donna area of study in my time seems to have stopped advancing.

Advances in Cognitive Psychology , I am told , have been made. Yet what I have read, in this area, sounds more like philosophy than psychology.

 

Psychiatric Treatment, in this country, has gone backwards.

It is in an appalling state.

We still don't have answers to Autism and schizophrenia and many other psychiatric illnesses. I thought we would have a pill for schizophrenia by now. Psychiatric treatment was much better resourced 35 years ago when I worked in Psychiatric Hospitals.

While priding ourselves on remarkable drug treatment for Clinical Depression, it still rages out of control with some of the drugs being counter-productive, especially with young people.

 

Of course I could be wrong I have been growing flowers for the past 25 years or so.

It remains to be seen, if I decide to go back to do more study,-just how hard or how boring will I find it?

 

In the meantime, I would recommend keeping the old books.

[Glider]

The problem with discussing Psychology as a whole (i.e. using terms like 'Psychology is standing still', or not), is that it is such a broad discipline, encompassing a huge range of sub-disciplines. Also, it is often confused with Psychiatry, which is not the same thing at all.

 

Psychology spans a continuum from (what I call) 'the pink and fluffy' end; counselling, therapy, social psychology and so-on, to the harder end; Cognitive neurosciences, psychoneuroimmunology, experimental social psychology, psychobiology, psychophysiology etc.

 

The upshot is that one cannot sensibly discuss 'change in Psychology' without being specific. Each sub-discipline changes at a different pace. Areas like Freudian Psychodynamics will change very little, whilst those at the other end have changed radically in the last 10 - 20 years. Experimental social psychology has been using cutting edge fMRI techniques for a decade. Psychoneuroimmunology has cut new ground on the relationship between an individual's psychology and immunocompetence, and so-on. At the 'harder' end, new theories are being proposed, tested and refined all the time.

 

The other thing is that seminal theories won't change at all, certainly in teaching Psychology. For example, Melzack & Wall's (1962) Gate Control Theory of Pain is still taught, because it is still valid. Even major theories that are are no longer considered valid (e.g. Schachter & Singer's (1982) 'Cognitive Labelling') are taught, because they show the path that was travelled to get where we are. These have to be taught, at least at an introductory level, to give an understanding of how Psychology got to where it is.

 

Anone who teaches at introductory level (i.e. BSc) and who is not also actively involved in research will get the impression that little has changed because more or less the same stuff is being taught. It has to be. It constitutes the basics of the discipline. At higher levels (e.g. MSc) where more advanced and specialist stuff is being taught, or when involved in active research, it becomes apparent how much certain areas have changed.

[Genecks]

I read through the current social psychology book I have.

 

 

I emailed a professor and learned that a psychology book is dated about every four years. If a person wishes to obtain a new psychology book, he or she can talk to a librarian and get a book through interlibrary loan, which is a system that allows a person to borrow books from another library through his or her library.