Abstract
In their target article, Zagaria et al. (Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 2020) highlight the fragmented state of mainstream Psychology. Their diagnosis begins with an analysis of how core psychological terms are treated in introductory textbooks. To remedy the state of affairs, they propose using evolutionary psychology to unify Psychology. In the present commentary, I join the authors’ critical stance, while also raising several questions: (1) Can we adopt an evolutionary meta-theory and still demand that our core concepts have fixed meaning? (2) Can evolutionary theory apply to the normative dimension of the sociocultural domain? (3) Can evolutionary theory account for the critique of psychological science? These questions, I believe, point out several gaps in the target article that require further attention. I argue that unless we identify the essential differences between mainstream psychology and contrarian psychology, we repeat the mistakes of mainstream psychology under a new guise.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allport, D. A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on Perception and Action (pp. 395–419). New York: Routledge.
Bergner, R. M. (2016). What is behaviour? And why is it not reducible to biological states of affairs? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 36, 41–55.
Bergner, R. M. (2017). What is a person? What is the self? Formulations for a science of psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 37, 77–90.
Billig, M. (2012). Undisciplined beginnings, academic success, and discursive psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 413–424.
Brinkmann, S. (2010). Psychology as a moral science: Perspectives on normativity. Cham: Springer.
Christensen, B. A. (Ed.). (2019). The second cognitive revolution: A tribute to Rom Harré. Cham: Springer.
Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind. London: Sage Publications.
Dennett, D. C. (1996). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. Simon and Schuster.
Engelsted, N. (2017). Catching Up with Aristotle: A Journey in Quest of General Psychology. New York: Springer.
Freeman, M. (2011). Toward poetic science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45(4), 389–396.
Giorgi, A. (2014). Phenomenological philosophy as the basis for a human scientific psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 42(3), 233–248.
Gozli, D. (2017). Behaviour versus performance: the veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27(6), 741–758.
Gozli, D. (2019). Experimental Psychology and Human Agency. Cham: Springer.
Gozli, D. (2020). Experimental psychology and distortions of common sense. In T. G. Lindstad, E. Stänicke & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Respect for Thought: Jan Smedslund’s Legacy for Psychology. Cham: Springer.
Gozli, D., & Deng, W. (2018). Building blocks of psychology: On remaking the unkept promises of early schools. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52, 1–24.
Harré, R. (1993). Social being (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Henriques, G. (2003). The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology. Review of General Psychology, 7(2), 150–182.
Henriques, G. R. (2004). Psychology defined. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12), 1207–1221.
Hibberd, F. J., & Gozli, D. G. (2017). Psychology’s fragmentation and neglect of foundational assumptions: An interview with Fiona J. Hibberd. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 366–374.
Lindstad, T. G., Stänicke, E., & Valsiner, J. (2020). Respect for Thought: Jan Smedslund’s Legacy for Psychology. Cham: Springer.
Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture and synthesize the social sciences. University of Chicago Press.
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353–383.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25.
Simons, D. J. (2000). Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 147–155.
Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160384.
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 946–958.
Smedslund, J. (2009). The mismatch between current research methods and the nature of psychological phenomena: What researchers must learn from practitioners. Theory & Psychology, 19(6), 778–794.
Smedslund, J. (2016). Why psychology cannot be an empirical science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(2), 185–195.
Teo, T. (2018). Outline of theoretical psychology: Critical investigations. New York: Palgrave.
Valsiner, J. (2012). A guided science: History of psychology in the mirror of its making. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Valsiner, J. (2017). From methodology to methods in human psychology. Cham Springer.
Wallis, G. (2020). How to fix education: A handbook for direct action. New York: Warble Press.
Zagaria, A., Andò, A., & Zennaro, A. (2020). Psychology: A giant with feet of clay. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09524-5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Davood Gozli declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval / Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gozli, D. Staying with Questions and Resisting Quick Answers: Commentary on Zagaria, Andò, and Zennaro. Integr. psych. behav. 54, 572–578 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09542-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09542-3