Skinner: If two events happen simultanously people will begin to associate them with each other

Freud: Events in childhood may have impact throughout life

Bandura: Winessing behaviour increases the chance of it being imitated

Bowlby: The failure to create a strong carer/infant bond may cause emotional difficulties.

Milgram: Under certain kinds of social pressure most individuals are capable of acting inhumanely

etc etc etc. All "obvious" once stated.

As to "common sense", at one time it was common sense that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it....

First we need to mention qualitative methods focussing on small samples which can be extremely valuable. These can focus in on individual experience, our construction of the world and how 'make meaning'.

Second, and more broadly, there's a post on the Language Log which articulates fantastically what motivated me to ask this question in the first place. Namely that while networked crowds have wisdom, they also have considerable ignorance. It's this ignorance which can drag the discussion of science down into the gutter.

Happily this ignorance is not much in evidence on PsyBlog's comments. But that's only to be expected from such discerning readers as your good selves!

Anon: common sense is contradictory.

Shari: power of psych studies is when they accumulate.

Shari: relying on subjectivity is a problem cross-culturally, between individuals and across time-points.

Will: the 'common sense' argument can be applied to any science - and it's just as pointless each time.

Dr G.: Pressure to publish may mean more studies than 'necessary'. But psych studies do accumulate and reach across individuals. Research leads to developments in applied psychology.

1) One thing that should be noted, however, is that research is, in large part, the currency of those in academe. Publish or perish, the adage goes. That should not be forgotten. I'm not suggesting this is the sui generis of psychological studies, but it is there, and to not point it out is to ignore the agoraphobic bull in the china shop.

2) I get my hackles up when conversations turn to applying the research to individuals. The research reveals how the subjects (usually, but not exclusively, humans) tend to behave/feel/perceive in general. We should avoid attempting to apply the research findings to any specific individual, including ourselves. (That is one of the reasons I never reveal myself as a psychology to anyone sitting next to me on a plane).

3) All that said, all research is ultimately conducted to better understand the universe. Of course, what we do with that (admittedly limited) understanding is quite diverse (ranging from personal and corporate profit-making to altruistic helping of communities)

I mean, consider the uses of the research in other fields: understand, deconstruct, and then reconstruct in some new form (i.e., technology).

What are the potential uses of of psychological science? There have been many (counseling, self-awareness, marketing, comfort, entertainment, community improvement, etc...)

The science builds upon itself, thereby eliminating the need to reinvent the wheel every time. Some of the research will go nowhere (imagine how many plants had to be chewed with no results before some with beneficial properties were recognized). Science had dead-ends. Some of the research is worthless. But that is the evolutionary process of science.

The reason is because applying the scientific method and measurable, repeatable experiments to the observable world allows us to do more and to dig deeper into understanding why things happen as they do, and maybe even how we can make them work better.

Psychology is a science. Common sense is balogna. Simple as that.

"Also Peter has raised some more challenges to psychology in a comment on this post on guilt. I'm summarising these here as they're more relevant to this post:

He asks: how can psychology tell us anything about humans when it is 'objective' and distanced? Surely our own personal experience is the best indicator of what it is like to be us"

Subjective observations aren't valid across a society or culture because they are too limited and biased. It is valid only to the individual. Psychology has little interest in anecdotal experience or subjective analysis. The observations of the individual don't serve the greater purpose of the "science" of psychology which is to determine what is "normal" in human behavior and what indicators or predispositions show "abnormal" behavior. Knowing what leads up to a psychological disorder helps diagnose and hopefully prevent disorders before they become a serious problem.

The main issue with subjective "reality" is that individuals are constantly editing things to suit their egos. In other words, what the individual thinks can't be trusted to truly represent reality. This is why objective means of measuring behavior is necessary because it (supposedly) removes the part where we delude ourselves into thinking trends, ideas, or behavior exist which to outside observers are not there.

To provide a more concrete example, you may believe a co-worker dislikes you and constantly gives you "dirty looks". If a picture of the look you think is denoting anger or antagonism is shown to 1000 people and none of them see anything hostile in it, it's fair to conclude that your perception of the individual is coloring your interpretation and that the party probably is not actually giving you a "dirty look".

we are able to be excited by a wonderful result of a study . But the process among the study can fill us with much more profit.

The skeptical attitude make us far from contented with our study.That means we will be nonstop to ask the question about the point of pyscho studies .

Anon: common sense is contradictory.
Shari: power of psych studies is when they accumulate.

Also Peter has raised some more challenges to psychology in a comment on this post on guilt. I'm summarising these here as they're more relevant to this post:

He asks: how can psychology tell us anything about humans when it is 'objective' and distanced? Surely our own personal experience is the best indicator of what it is like to be us?

Also, implicit in Peter's post is the question of whether psychology has any greater claim to 'truth' than do card-readers or psychics.