Simplification Is Not Indoctrination

IF 1.9 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Mario Gollwitzer, Johannes Prager, Marlene S. Altenmüller, Rizqy Amelia Zein
{"title":"Simplification Is Not Indoctrination","authors":"Mario Gollwitzer, Johannes Prager, Marlene S. Altenmüller, Rizqy Amelia Zein","doi":"10.1177/14757257231195352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bartels (2023; this issue) argues that (a) classic studies and topics covered in psychological textbooks and introductory classes are often misrepresented, (b) that there is an ideological bias among scholars in psychology towards the left side of the political spectrum, and (c) this bias is responsible for the misrepresentation of studies and topics in textbooks. In our commentary, we argue that claims (a) and (b) may be correct, but they have nothing to do with each other. Thus, claim (c) – that a liberal bias among scholars and course instructors leads to “indoctrination” in introductory courses and textbooks – is unsubstantiated and actually detrimental.","PeriodicalId":45061,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14757257231195352","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Bartels (2023; this issue) argues that (a) classic studies and topics covered in psychological textbooks and introductory classes are often misrepresented, (b) that there is an ideological bias among scholars in psychology towards the left side of the political spectrum, and (c) this bias is responsible for the misrepresentation of studies and topics in textbooks. In our commentary, we argue that claims (a) and (b) may be correct, but they have nothing to do with each other. Thus, claim (c) – that a liberal bias among scholars and course instructors leads to “indoctrination” in introductory courses and textbooks – is unsubstantiated and actually detrimental.
简化不是灌输
巴特尔(2023;本刊认为(a)心理学教科书和入门课程中涉及的经典研究和主题经常被歪曲,(b)心理学学者对政治光谱的左翼存在意识形态偏见,(c)这种偏见是教科书中研究和主题歪曲的原因。在我们的评论中,我们认为(a)和(b)的说法可能是正确的,但它们之间没有任何关系。因此,声称(c)——学者和课程教师的自由主义偏见导致入门课程和教科书中的“灌输”——是没有根据的,实际上是有害的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT
Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信