Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19430853›Full record

ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2009

"Der Weisheits letzter Schluss"? Wisdom's last conclusion?: commentary on "is psychology based on a methodological error?" by Michael Schwarz.

Meike Watzlawik

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The living fossil of human judgment.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2014
    Article
  2. A moderate eclecticism: ontological and epistemological issues.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2012
    Article
  3. Biological roots of foresight and mental time travel.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2010
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Meike WatzlawikDepartment of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610, USA. mwatzlawik@clarku.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unexpected empirical findings lead Schwarz (2009) to question current methodological approaches within psychology. He claims that distribution anomalies, which cannot be explained by independent variables, actually prove an error in classical test theory, which then leads him to criticize current scientific conventionalism. In this commentary, it is shown that the current university system not only uses, but often reproduces conventionalism. It is, of course, necessary to teach certain techniques and tools to future psychologists, but using these critically seem to be essential in preventing scientific approaches turn into ideologies that are or must not be questioned-even if this is sometimes less threatening to one's identity as a scientist/psychologist. This is true for all sciences, but understanding the bio-psycho-social interdependencies of human nature (ambiguities), as Schwarz describes it, seems to be a particular challenge that is in many ways different from other disciplines. Instead of striving to be like them, it is suggested we establish an ambiguity-accepting and critical environment in psychology in which theories and approaches are not considered final but temporary to foster change and progress.

Indexed as

Psychological TheoryPhilosophyPsychologySocialization

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.