Here are some of the best answers to various questions on the last exam. The wording of the question in bold, and my comments in [] also in bold. Do not adopt these comments as hard and fast rules – they likely would not work for all essay questions. I have typed the essays almost verbatim, making minor corrections in grammar and spelling. All these answers come from freshmen in the course.
3. What does it mean to say that nature does not necessarily parse psychological phenomena the way psychologists do? When we say that nature doesn’t parse phenomena the same way psychologists do, we mean that nature doesn’t necessarily make distinctions between things according to the same criteria as psychologists. For example, just because psychologists have criteria to define schizophrenia doesn’t mean that nature is divided by those boundaries. It is possible for schizophrenia to represent several very diverse phenomena that happen to fall into the same category. It’s also possible that the psychologist’s definitions exclude other causes of these same phenomena. It’s even possible that there is no link between a schizophrenic and a non-schizophrenic in nature, only a range of effects. [More could have been said along the lines of why psychologists give the same label to rather different phenomena, but the ideas expressed are so clear that the reader immediately thinks the student knows what he (in this case) is saying and “forgives” its being just a tad bit light. This is a good example of how a short essay (5 or 6 sentences) can lead to a good grade, but only if all the sentences are perfectly on target]
2. According to Stanovich what is the principle of connectivity? According to Stanovich the principle of connectivity is the notion that a new theory must not only explain new facts and data but explain the old one from a previous theory as well. In this sense it “connect” to the old theories [This is the kind of statement that adds points to an essay – defines the meaning of the term straight off and clearly]. Stanovich often writes of the principle explains pseudoscience and people trying to scam others. Their theories often involve violation of the connectivity principle. Either they say that the old facts don’t exist or want to view things in an entirely new reality. He writes about this principle in order to warm against people feeling the need to make giant-leap breakthroughs which often don’t have any real validity. He shows that even Einstein’s theory of relativity utilizes the connectivity principle because it why Newton’s laws seem true. [Again a nice rather short answer. One set of ideas is missing which kept this from being a nearly perfect answer. A useful addition would have been something along the following lines: “The principle of connectivity implies that new data and theories must connect with existing theories within a discipline but also in other disciplines.” So for example, a psychological theory that violated basic principles of biology or physics would be highly suspect. One reason most psychologists distrust data that seem to suggest ESP exists or astrology can predict people’s lives is that you can’t make the physics “work” Sending information from one brain to another would violate all known laws of physics].
4. According to Pinker what are the differences between greedy and good reductionism? Reductionism as use of “nature” to describe our psychology has been generally described as fallacious by the proponents of the “nurture” idea. Yet, Pinker claims that there is not only bad reductionism but also good and useful reductionism [This couple of sentences of introduction are probably unnecessary but the idea of explicitly linking reductionism to the nature-nurture idea strongly suggests that the student has a good grasp of the issues. Puts the grader in the right frame of mind]. Bad reductionism is the attempt to explain complicate phenomena with too simple standards. It attempts to reduce problems to a simple form, and this can generally not explain complex interactions. The ultimate reductionism is the attempt to reduce everything to the interactions of subatomic particles. While these particles can determine some things (color, material, etc.) they cannot explain more complex things like feelings, thoughts, even shapes of things. It is impossible and ultimately useless for a science to pursue this kind of reductionist approach. On the other hand, Pinker also claims that there is a good kind of reductionism. This reductionism involves the interaction between levels of analysis. While bad reductionism simply eliminates the higher, more complex levels of analysis, good reductionism fosters communication and cooperation between all levels in order to explain a phenomenon more thoroughly [Nicely phrased]. It uses subatomic physics to determine the composition of serotonin, and it uses social psychology to determine the effects a person’s depression can have on his social interactions [Good examples, right on target, again convey the idea that the student is “on top of” the material – examples not from the reading are especially useful in that regard]. None of these two approaches can explain what the other explains, but in conjunction they can provide a more through explanation of depression. In summary, bad reductionism attempts to reduce explanations into terms of more simple phenomena while eschewing higher levels of analysis. On the other hand, bad reductionism fosters explanation at all levels of analysis, providing a more through explanation of phenomena. [These 3 summary sentences were not necessary since they repeat what was said before. On the other hand, this is a well crafted essay, and the summary reinforces the point that the student knows what he (in this case) is talking about. This essay is longer than it needs to be, but the writing is clear throughout and the extra prose is used to good effect. Having said that, it is worth pointing out that more of an unclear, rambling essay reinforces the idea that the student doesn’t have a grasp of the essential concepts and is sort of throwing out every idea he or she can think of to see if something will work. More good stuff tends to raise a grade, more bad stuff is almost always detrimental to grades.]
2. Principle of connectivity. The Einstein syndrome refers to the fact that many people believe that the progress of science is achieved by revolutionary ideas that are concocted every once in a while. They believe that new discoveries overthrow older beliefs, just like Einstein’s theory of relativity “overthrew” Newton’s system of physics. [Student is backing into the question, usually not a good sign, but in this case in the context of an otherwise clear statement that follows, these sentences set up the main idea nicely.] But in reality scientific progress is driven not by a few giant steps but by a swarm of small steps that derive their ideas from the science that came before. This evolutionary, rather than revolutionary progress [nice phrasing, perhaps lifted from the book – I didn’t check -- but nice in either case] is referred to by Stanovich as the principle of connectivity. All new theories must be connected to those before and it must be an evolution of previous concepts, not a complete rewriting of the laws. Even Einstein’s “revolutionary” concepts are connected to Newton’s laws; they are just a more broad and complete explanation, that at low speeds coincides perfectly with Newton The principle of connectivity gives the common people a standard with which to measure so-called scientific revolutions The more revolutionary a concept is claimed to be the more likely it is that it was discovered by non-scientific methods or made up [The last 2 sentences are not quite on target although true as far as they go. Connectivity can be used as a standard for any scientific discovery, revolutionary or not. I would have said that scientific ideas, theories, etc that are not connected to existing science, no matter how revolutionary they are, should be subject to the most thorough scrutiny.] In summary the principle of connectivity states that scientific research occurs in small evolutionary steeps, not evolutionary leaps. It serves to differentiate pseudoscience from real science [Given what has been said this summary is not necessary, but it doesn’t hurt and on longer essays summaries are often quite useful. This student also missed the idea that connectivity has a breadth as well as time dimension. Yes new science has to connect with the old, but it also has to connect with other “sister” sciences or at least not be inconsistent with them. So, for example astrology which is claimed to be a more or less physical science not only fails to connect with any known laws of physics but also fails every theory existing in biology. A new model of human memory might be connected with past models but if it’s inconsistent with what we know about neurology it also fails the connectivity test. This is not a trivial addition].
1. What are operational definitions? Operational definitions define theoretical concepts in a concrete way such that the events (concepts) can be observed and measured. [Not quite on target and a bit awkward. Operational definitions define concepts in terms of the operations used to measure them – not that they can be measured but they must be]. Operational definitions force scientists to think empirically and be objective about what they are testing. Essentialism is the belief in the natural essence of everything and the belief in an ultimate explanation or theory for certain phenomena. Essentially works against operationalism as it is more subjective, the majority of the public believes it, the theories are mostly unfalsifable and designed to attract a gullible, pseudoscience endorsing public. [Again not quite there. Often the essence is in terms of some function. The answer as given is not wrong but it’s not sharply focused. The issue about the public is irrelevant; even scientists believe in essence – the essence of a cat is kitty DNA]. However, psychologists steer away from essentialism and use operational definitions along with other important methods like experimental controls to produce more valid results that can be replicated, to hopefully confirm an explanation that also disconfirms other alternative explanations. [This sentence is probably uncessary and brings in material that is a bit extraneous to the question – probably didn’t hurt much but it tends to soften the rigor of the answer.][This is a pretty good but not excellent answer. This student gave better answers to some other questions, but I’m using it to illustrate why it is a good but not great answer. Clearly she has the basic ideas down, but some of her sentences not very precise. Her grade on this was a 9 – maybe an 8.5 would have been a bit better in retrospect, but there were so many terrible answers to this question that she probably got benefits of the doubt.]