The Best Theory is a Flawed One

This was an interesting talk and discussed topics I had not fully considered before First, I enjoyed his critical take on research on implicit biases. I would argue that we are aware of most of our biases one way or another. We may not be directly aware, but if we observed ourselves or introspected a bit more, we would find them. Say I hate cats- they scare me, they're gross, and I really do not like them. Maybe I am directly aware of that so I stay away as best I can from anything cat-related. Maybe, I don't fully understand my hatred of cats, but I notice that I feel uneasy as I walk by the cat section in Petsmart or feel anxious anytime I see one walking down the street. If I took a second to observe my behavior and feelings when I am close to a cat, I may come to realize that I am not their biggest fan. I know that is a silly example, but I think situations like these happen all the time. Maybe I find myself not relying on individuals younger than me to complete important tasks. Though they have done nothing to support the idea that they cannot be relied on or are incompetent, my own bias was impacting my behavior and thoughts about them. 

I enjoyed his critical analysis of the current research and his statement that "[he] might lose [his] mind, but it is good for the theory." I really connected with that statement and his frustration with the quality of research being accepted. He mentioned that we try to get what we want out of theory rather than examining what the theory wants from us. For me, I have found that correctional psychology (specifically the risk-need-responsivity model) is a fairly new field. The RNR model was proposed in the 90's but it is the leading theoretical model in correctional rehabilitation. The current research seems to be pulling things we want to work on and want to implement instead of seeing what the theory wants from us. For example, researchers have been trying to understand the relationship between serious mental illness and criminal involvement but nothing seems to pan out as perfectly as we want. We already have expectations of what the data should be doing according to the RNR theory. In psychology in general, we try to simplify the theory down to digestible terms, but is that what the theory should be? 

If you look at philosophical theories, the consensus (after pages and pages of reading of course) is often "we don't know." Is it possible that theories aren't really supposed to fit neatly into a box and be directly translated into a 12-week intervention? I think we should have tangible intervention methods, don't get me wrong, but I wonder if we move too fast from theory to implementation. Dr. Hussey discussed how the theory of implicit biases was translated into research and we found a nice, pretty answer. Under the surface, however, it was not a nice, pretty answer. He discussed how the measure itself is likely not the problem (like we usually claim it is), but the underlying construct is unstable. It is like we are trying to build a puzzle in the air or on an uneven surface. We might make a few connections and build something important, but it will fall apart without structure or having a strong theoretical basis. We move very quickly to translate our research and implement our findings, but they may be doing more harm than good if we are not grounded in theory. Statistics are just numbers that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. It is important to let theory inform your results rather than have your results inform your theory. I thought this talk was very thought-provoking and I'll be interested to see if I am more aware of these issues moving forward. 

25/25