what i do for a living
The conversation typically goes like this.
“So, Jon, what are you going to be studying?”
“I’m going for a PhD in cognitive psychology.”
“Oh wow. Good luck. I’d never want to be a therapist.”
“Neither would I. That’s not the kind of psychology I’m doing.”
This is followed by an awkward silence and some empty head nodding.
When people learn that I’m going to be studying psychology, they have a tendency to assume, incorrectly, that I intend to become a therapist. It’s an understandable error. I say “psychologist,” you say, “Freud.” You think of couches, brain pills, and word association tests where I say “psychologist” and you say “Freud.”
Contrary to popular belief, Sigmund Freud did not invent modern psychology; he developed and popularized a school of talk therapy known as psychoanalysis. Freud was born in 1856. When young Sigmund was still a toddler, no doubt developing the oral fixation that would eventually lead to terminal oral cancer, scientists like Helmholtz and Wundt were making the earliest experimental explorations into color vision and the perception of sound. These people, who clearly predate Freud, can be credited with the creation of modern psychology. This, for the record, is my kind of psychology.
The point of it is to figure out how you do the things you do: how you see, how you walk, how you process the world, and a million other things. This field of research has changed your life in ways you don’t even realize. When Jakob Nielsen writes about banner blindness and refers to his visual heatmaps, he’s really talking about saccades and information filtering. Usability research would not exist without cognitive psychology. Joel Spolsky complains about Microsoft’s confusing new product packaging, saying that it has “false affordances.” He got this term from Donald Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things, who in turn got it from its originator, one J. J. Gibson, the most brilliant and influential psychologist that you’ve never heard of. Design, or at least useful design, would not exist without cognitive psychology.
So that’s the field I’m entering. Don’t get me wrong, clinical psychology (the heading that subsumes all forms of psychological therapy) is a noble and fascinating field. It’s just not the only thing out there.
I truly enjoyed this post because I often encounter similar conversations with people given that I study in an academic field people don’t really understand. Below, I have re-posted some of Jon’s writing but catered it to my personal experiences:
“So, Garrett, what are you going to be studying?”
“I’m going for a PhD in criminology and justice policy.”
“Oh wow. I love CSI! So you’re gonna catch serial killers?”
“No.”
This is followed by an awkward silence and some empty head nodding.
When people learn that I’m going to be studying criminology, they have a tendency to assume, incorrectly, that I intend to become an actor on an incredibly unrealistic police drama. It’s an understandable error. I say “criminologist,” you say, “profiler,” and you think of Silence of the Lambs, Law & Order: SVU, DNA tests and dusting for prints.
For the love of God, people. True forensic investigators as you know them on TV do NOT exist! Actual professions involving criminal investigation are not so exaggerated, and yes, this includes the (in)famous Behavioral Sciences Unit of the FBI which has published several papers on investigative technologies using statistical methods considered highly suspect among many professionals in the academic community. Frankly, watching CSI is like seeing an episode of Blues Clues for adults. Every corner they turn there is a microscopic brown hair from the killer that somehow stands out like a giant blue paw on the carpet. “Look Blue, it’s another clue!” Scene.
It doesn’t even have to be an academic field. I, too, have a similar recurring conversation:
“So, Damian, what do you do?”
“I’m a photographer.”
“Oh, so, like weddings?”
“No.”
“Oh. Well, what do you take pictures of then?”
“Editorial portraits and human interest scenes.”
This is followed by an awkward silence and some empty head nodding.
Although, instead of word associations, I will illustrate my point with an analogy. “Wedding” is to “photography” what “daytime” is to “television.” Wedding photographers, like soap actors and talk show hosts, make plenty of money, but they don’t easily transition to prime time. And on the ladder of prestige, they’re both on the rung immediately above porn.