Alison Gopnik on medicating children and the difference between science and journalism
Alison Gopnik (author of one of my favorite books: The Scientist in the Crib) offers an excellent critique of Judith Warner's new book about medicating children. Gopnik's review is really well worth reading because of the clear distinction she makes between journalistic and scientific investigation, and the real questions we miss by not applying the scientific approach. Here's an excerpt:
[Hat-tip: @BoraZ]
It's a truth verging on a truism that journalism is about telling stories. But what exactly is it that narratives—good stories—do for us? Stories work because they explain important or unusual or compelling events in terms of our everyday psychology—the causal principles that we all understand by the time we are 4. A good journalist explains why the health care bill failed, for example, by telling us about the beliefs, desires, and emotions of the wavering senators.
But science isn't about applying the causal principles we know about. It's about discovering causal principles we don't know about. Psychological science, in particular, is about using evidence to find new and unexpected causal explanations for our actions and experiences. It's not about using our everyday psychological knowledge to explain what we do. When psychologists do that, we rightly accuse them of just telling us what we already know.
This is especially true when scientists are trying to explain the conditions we vaguely call "clinical" or "dysfunctional" or "pathological." After all, people aren't pathological when they are angry or frustrated or sad because of what they want or believe. They are pathological precisely when we can't explain their miseries in the normal way—when the successful author suddenly kills himself, or when the bright child with loving and concerned parents just can't read no matter how hard she tries. Clinical scientists try to use evidence to discover the less than obvious causal principles (his serotonin level was too low, she can't process language sounds) that can explain these events.Read the rest of the review if you are concerned about excessive use of medication to control children's behavior. The other key point is that science isn't about confirming common sense notions of causality, but about overcoming the limitations of said common sense and finding real causes. That's worth remembering.
[Hat-tip: @BoraZ]
3 comments:
Good day,
I can only assume you did not read Judith Warner's excellent book ("We've Got Issues") if you found Alison Gopnik's review worthwhile.
Most of the comments on the review at Slate disagreed with Gopnik's assessment, with one calling it a "hack job." I wholly agree.
Frankly, it's hard for me to imagine that even Ms. Gopnik read the book. And if she did, she seems to have scanned it with the distinct "remove" of an academic psychologist who fails to understand the neuroscience and a philosophy professor who thinks in abstractions and not the suffering of real people.
Gina Pera, author
Is It You, Me, Or Adult A.D.D.?
Dear Ms. Pera,
Thank you for sharing your views. You are correct in your assumption that I haven't yet read Warner's book - and I'm afraid Gopnik's review pushed it further down my ever lengthening reading list!
The main reason I shared Gopnik's review here was not because of specific criticisms of Warner's book, but because of the broader point she (Gopnik) makes about the nature of science itself. And yes, her perspective is academic and philosophical - and therefore all the more worth pondering.
I have no doubt that many suffer from these illnesses and neuroscience is making much headway in figuring out why and offering solutions. But if we are to make the most of this still new discipline, we must emphasize the science in neuroscience. And yes, to do science properly and follow where it leads us to unexpected results, we have to think in abstractions - or we'll miss the forest for the trees!
I hope you can see where I (also an academic) am coming from, as an outsider to the whole field.
Madhu
Hi Madhu,
Thank you. Sorry I didn't see your response until now.
Yes, we must emphasize the science in neuroscience. Of course.
But it's important to remember that just because someone has a Phil. D and writes/speaks authoritatively, that doesn't mean they are correct. We must look at a consensus of evidence and scientific opinion, and that's where Gopnik fails.
Perhaps she knows her own academic focus well, but it's obvious from reading her review of Warner's book that she is not wholly familiar with the science of ADHD. The "remove" of a philosopher is very different from that of a scientist. As far as I can tell from her CV. she has no training or expertise in neuroscience, molecular biology, neurology, etc.
As she writes on her webpage: "I began as a philosopher and I have also always written about how developmental psychology can help illuminate philosophical problems."
At any rate, it doesn't take a PhD in neuroscience to read her review and see that she's all wet about ADHD. It only takes an understanding of the published research and the opinion of a large consensus of experts. It also doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she shows careless disregard for the very real challenges faced by children and adults with ADHD. And that is highly troubling.
Post a Comment