The harshest criticism I've yet read of Henriques' bid to unify psychology (starting here) comes from Stephen Yanchar. He sees Henriques' work as an attempt to repackage extant theoretical perspectives and sidestep critical reflection.
Yanchar (2004) draws attention to the literature that cautions against unification. Indeed, the idea of unity would 'force psychology into a theoretical straightjacket'. Henriques' model is described as: 'rigid', 'exclusive' and 'disciplinary agenda setting'. More important than unification, for Yanchar (2004:1280) is: "...a continual dialogue among psychologists from diverse research communities," and, "...the pursuit of truth..."
I'm bursting with questions. How can psychologists from diverse research communities communicate with each other if they don't speak the same language? What is this pursuit of truth? Isn't unification a kind of truth? Anyway, how does one small step towards a macro-level theory suddenly curtail the search for truth or put psychology in a straightjacket?
Sounds like someone is comfortable in his ghetto and doesn't want to move.
Yanchar (2004) Some discontents with theoretical unification (Abstract)
How to Be Creative
If we can all be creative, why is it so hard to come up with truly original ideas?
It's because creativity is mysterious. Just ask any scientist, artist, writer or other highly creative person to explain how they come up with brilliant ideas and, if they're honest, they don't really know.
But over the decades psychologists have given ordinary participants countless tests, forms and tasks and conducted hundreds of hours of interviews. From these emerge the psychological conditions of creativity.
Not what you should do, but how you should be...
Join PsyBlog's 51930 readers now:
Share/save this article:
Featured