I honestly agree with the writer to a certain extent. I’m currently taking a criminology class on wrongful convictions and what happens in a lot of cases is experts are called to the stand as witnesses and basically will present what’s called “junk science” that looks and sounds scientific but is not actually rooted in real science methodology. Now, often times this junk science is not referring to behavioral science, but in some cases, it is, and that’s where a lot of wrongful convictions will really be solidified because the jury is prone to believe what an “expert” is telling them. I think that the statement that the majority of behavioral science is just “the study of college kids in psych labs” is going a bit too far because there are scientists where this is their life’s work (Philip Zimbardo for example), and they do make serious contributions to the behavioral science field. I could definitely see where the writer is coming from though, because when I read the statement “college kids in psych labs” it reminded me of the Stanford Prison Experiment which was exactly that, college kids in the (basement of) a psych lab and their behavior was observed and then conclusions drawn. And the reason I bring this specific experiment up is because although the study’s basis had a good scientific foundation, I think the conclusion that the majority of people, if put in a position of power over prisoners, would mercilessly beat them and do all of the other awful things some of those college kids in the study did is simply not backed by enough evidence. This is my reasoning simply because there are prison guards who have that much power who chose, everyday, to treat inmates as people.
Guard and Prisoner During the Stanford Prison Experiment
Overall, the writer does bring up a good point that you should always stay skeptical and I think that this does relate to my topic because the studies done on mental illness are very much behaviorally based. While I do love to cite scientific research when arguing a point, I definitely think this article will be in the back of my head from now on and hopefully stop me from putting any “junk science” in my writing.
We were just talking about this experiment, and this is such a good point. Also, I did not even think about wrongful convictions and how it related to that article, but you’re right. I had a hard time deciding exactly how I felt about the author’s opinion, but I agree with the fact that the general public is so willing to believe experts, studies, statistics, and more when the “science” that was used to get those results can easily be manipulated for a certain claim.