Before I began annotating and thoroughly reading through Zimbardo’s piece, I gave
initial answers to the two questions proposed at the start for two reasons. One is just being
an active reader. I feel to truly understand someone else’s opinion; you have to have one of
your own that can be argued for or against. The second reason I gave an initial answer was
because I wanted to be critical of my own answer and his. This meaning, if we are to agree,
what information did he have or find that I was unaware of to have to same knowledge and
if we disagree how was our information put together resulting in knowledge that differs.
That being said, initially I felt that yes, psychology has made a significant difference in our
lives. The second question proposed was if psychologist …show more content…
Having these initial answers set me up to be even more critical than if I were to just read
the piece in its entirety and answer the questions.
Once I got reading, I thought it was interesting how he had placed the cons of the
field in the beginning. Zimbardo writes “because I am serving here in this article in the
capacity as cheerleader for our discipline, I will not raise questions about the political
misuse or overuse of testing nor indeed be critical of some of the other contributions”
(Zimbardo 341). Now had I not been being critical, this statement would not bother me as
much. However, by saying this I think this is an example of one of the costs and
consequence not mentioned in psychology. Zimbardo is saying that yes he knows there is a
problem with the misuse of testing and assessment, but because the article was setup to
argue how beneficial psychology is, he ignores this. Choosing to ignore that is a
consequence because it gives readers the impression that overall psychology is beneficial
besides a few mishaps he won’t explore for the sake of argument. So now let’s say
initial answers to the two questions proposed at the start for two reasons. One is just being
an active reader. I feel to truly understand someone else’s opinion; you have to have one of
your own that can be argued for or against. The second reason I gave an initial answer was
because I wanted to be critical of my own answer and his. This meaning, if we are to agree,
what information did he have or find that I was unaware of to have to same knowledge and
if we disagree how was our information put together resulting in knowledge that differs.
That being said, initially I felt that yes, psychology has made a significant difference in our
lives. The second question proposed was if psychologist …show more content…
Having these initial answers set me up to be even more critical than if I were to just read
the piece in its entirety and answer the questions.
Once I got reading, I thought it was interesting how he had placed the cons of the
field in the beginning. Zimbardo writes “because I am serving here in this article in the
capacity as cheerleader for our discipline, I will not raise questions about the political
misuse or overuse of testing nor indeed be critical of some of the other contributions”
(Zimbardo 341). Now had I not been being critical, this statement would not bother me as
much. However, by saying this I think this is an example of one of the costs and
consequence not mentioned in psychology. Zimbardo is saying that yes he knows there is a
problem with the misuse of testing and assessment, but because the article was setup to
argue how beneficial psychology is, he ignores this. Choosing to ignore that is a
consequence because it gives readers the impression that overall psychology is beneficial
besides a few mishaps he won’t explore for the sake of argument. So now let’s say