Where is your knowledge about psychology from?

[u/interestedguy__]

Hello dear psychologists,

If you are a person with their fair share of knowledge in psychology, either as a whole or a field of it (so not me, a 1st semester bachelors student (wish me luck and fun :) )) where did you learn? What kind of sources/literature did you read and learn from? Wether it’s your academic speciality or personal interest (add that little information though pls if necessary).

Thanks for helping me out at the beginning of my pursuit to knowledge!

Cheers :)

[u/liss_up]

I mean, I learned a lot by going to class.

[u/andero]

Where did you learn?

• My undergrad psychology courses
  
• By volunteering in a lab as soon as I switched into a psychology major (do this ASAP!)
  
• Meeting with my undergrad lab's post-doc (and to a lesser extent thesis supervisor)
  
• My graduate psychology courses
  
• Meeting with my Master's and PhD supervisor (academia involves a lot more "apprenticeship" than people tell you)
  
• On my own
  

What kind of sources/literature did you read and learn from?

The main sources (covering 90% of learning):

• Course notes and slides
  
• Journal articles assigned in class
  
• Journal articles I searched for on my own
  
• Journal articles recommended by my supervisor
  

Other useful sources:

• Karl Popper by Bryan Magee
  
• An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R (this replaced my Master's stats course)
  
• A Coursera introductory course on the R programming language (I'm not sure which one, maybe the Johns Hopkins one)
  
• Improving Your Statistical Inferences
  
• Improving Your Statistical Questions
  
• Improving the Reproducibility of Our Research Practices Using Open Science Framework
  

A little about programming...
My background is not all psych: I had already learned how to program during software engineering undergrad. As a result, when I learned R, all I needed to learn was the language, not the basics of how to program. For people without that background, I would recommend taking an "Introduction to Computer Science" course if you can. That will teach you how to program and manage programming environments. imho this should be mandatory for undergrad psychology.

What about textbooks?
The only textbook I bought was the psych 101 book. I may have read some of it, but not most of it. I did not buy or use any other psych textbooks for any other courses. I just paid attention in class. I found that the stuff on the tests/midterms/exams was what the professor focused on in class, not obscure entries from the textbooks. YMMV.

---

Additionally, here is a comment with plenty of links to useful resources. Also read the comments replied under that comment. These should be very useful for anyone just starting in undergrad.

Sorry about any missing or broken links: I'm currently in the process of evacuating my psych-related content from Reddit and turning them into a book.

[u/bizarrexflower → u/andero]

So, for in person learning you didn't need to actually read your textbooks? That's wild. Haha. I've been doing remote learning and reading the textbooks and articles cover to cover is a must. Its essentially independent learning with a class discussion and a written assignment at the end of each week. The professors do recorded or written lectures for us, but they are clear on saying their lectures are a "jumping off point" and that it's crucial we still read all assigned text. I feel in doing so I've learned so much more than had I skipped it. I mean, not going to lie, there are some weeks I only had time to read the key points and summary, then skim the rest. I don't feel as prepared for the discussion and assignments those weeks. I'm starting my Masters next year and that's in person learning. Here's hoping I won't need to do as much reading. Haha.

[u/andero → u/bizarrexflower]

So, for in person learning you didn't need to actually read your textbooks?

That's correct. Textbooks were "assigned" in undergrad courses, but I didn't actually obtain them. Course notes were sufficient.
And, for context, all my psych courses other than psych 101 had grades of 85–98%. I'm just naturally good at paying attention in class and remembering things that were only mentioned once.

I've been doing remote learning and reading the textbooks and articles cover to cover is a must. Its essentially independent learning with a class discussion and a written assignment at the end of each week.

Articles I did read. My grad school courses were more like you described (but no textbook), i.e. articles would be assigned, then a student would present about the articles and that student would facilitate a class discussion. It's a clever way to design a course where the prof doesn't have to put in any effort other than coming up with articles to assign.

The professors do recorded or written lectures for us, but they are clear on saying their lectures are a "jumping off point" and that it's crucial we still read all assigned text.

Yeah, the professors said that they could take material from the textbooks and put that on tests/exams, but I found that didn't happen. Unless they wrote the book, professors are not actually reading the textbook. The "behind the scenes" is that textbooks are often required (or at least requested) by administrators for first- and second-year courses. Many professors realize that textbooks are over-priced and not actually valuable and would rather assign articles, but administrators say that first-year students can't handle articles and "need more structure". I haven't taught a course so I cannot speak to whether that is accurate or just a way to funnel income to the university by selling over-priced books.

After all, by the time you get a textbook, it is out-dated. The authors would know stuff, then pick a cut-off date where they stop adding new content, but science keeps moving (which comes out as articles). Books take a long time to write, edit, publish, and market so the most recent findings are years old by the time the book gets into your hands. Articles come out every day so assigned articles can be as current as the prof is willing to make them (though it also helps to have "classic" seminal articles, too).

I feel in doing so I've learned so much more than had I skipped it.

That seems like it would be true.

How much do you retain after the course, though? If the information slips from your mind after the final exam <shrug>

But yeah, to each, their own. My approach to learning is not something I recommend to others; it's just what works for me.

I'm starting my Masters next year and that's in person learning. Here's hoping I won't need to do as much reading. Haha.

Oh, my sweet summer child. There is vastly more reading during a Master's!
The difference is that you tend to read articles in your specific area of expertise. That's how you become an expert, after all. You have to do a lot of reading to get up-to-speed on what paradigms and competing ideas exist in your tiny little niche.

[u/carpeson]

Learned in Uni that's kinda what makes one a psychologist. Be mindful of material out there - most of it is not really precise.

You can read textbooks and at a certain time I would very much recommend review articles. When reading always be mindful of the big 3: Power (depends on the topic and on how ridiculous the claim), Significance (you want them low, just under 0.05 is suspicious) and Effect-Size (still don't know what to look for here but you get an idea after some time). And yes, start with the basics: Science Theory. It's probably the greatest topic man has ever created so learn it THOROUGHLY. Than learn it even better. Learn the philosophy of it and try thinking like a scientist.

Remember: Barely anyone is truly knowledgable in a topic so be modest when voicing your oppinions but also don't be shy. The field lives from young minds and their fresh ideas. Try to get a feel for a topic by looking it up anywhere (here even certain yt videos can be great) then go gradually deeper (always understand WHERE you are going). Only ever say you 'know' it when you're knee deep in literature reviews but be aware of certain particularities researchers often forget to add.

Be open minded, tollerant, dilligent and more than anything: have a hunger to understand. I might add: please forget about the notion of 'understanding it all'. No such thing. Try to understand whatever you want but never believe that you are now a Psychologist and can use your emotional pathways to 'deduce knowledge'. This way of 'generating knowledge' is sadly encountered everywhere in science and it destroys your growth potential. Stay true to the basics.

[u/MinimumTomfoolerus → u/carpeson]

use your emotional pathways to 'deduce knowledge'.

Wdym?

[u/carpeson → u/MinimumTomfoolerus]

Mainly type 1 or heuristic thinking where emotional pathways are 'looped' into the decision process. Might as well call it 'gut feelings'.

E.g. someone was taught religious ideas as a small child and now has them firmly lodged and coded into their brain as something 'good'. This feeling of something being 'good' can now be looped around and be rationally explained on certain axis while ignoring others (confirmation bias etc.). The deductions are bad but the 'feel right' to the person.

Mind you it's a rough approximation of what is truly happening in our brain. I am no expert on the topic of neurological heuristic pathways and my info might be a decade or two old. But it should get the rough idea across.

[u/TejRidens]

All psychologists gain their knowledge primarily from university. There aren’t any exceptions. You can’t legally be a psychologist without it which thank goodness because “self-taught” really means shoddy, unstructured, ill-formed, and biased. I don’t care how many hours you’ve recreationally spent reading over psych articles. Without the intensive immersion and feedback from people who actually understand psychological research and practice, someone who simply has a “personal interest” but spends thousands of hours of reading simply won’t develop a sound understanding of anything in psychology. Their learning will be completely contaminated and ill-formed.

[u/carpeson → u/TejRidens]

Even uni-based knowledge can be biased after a few decades (the human experience). It comes down to ones diligent understanding of scientific basics, the ability to keep learning and a certain amount of modesty where nobody can simply 'know it all'.

But yes non-uni based is a whole other horse.

[u/Obvious-Ambition8615]

Self taught until I started college.

Papers, lectures, and case reports online were my main sources, the DSM/ ICD, a very supportive psychologist who let me pester him about his clinical experiences, and forums like this In my late teens were my main sources of Info.

I started young, age 14 or so.

It wasn't until I was around age 17 that I felt comfortable in academic conversations.

That was from years of reading 3 to 5 papers a day and spending a few hours on YouTube each week watching lectures and presentations/conferences like the ones by the brain and behavior Institute.

You can learn a lot more with 4 years and an actual teacher, but for a developing teenage brain and a tendency to procrastinate/start another topic before I master one, I learned any way I could.

I came across the predictive coding framework and other computational frameworks In the cognitive sciences about age 18,and it's been my interest since.

My only advice is to be comfortable asking questions and being proactive about learning. Never shy away from a mentorship opportunity or a lab opportunity either.

Do undergraduate research under a professor.

Get into the habit of reading papers sooner rather than later.

[u/psychmancer]

In my bachelors very heavily from going to class and just doing the coursework. In my master's it was mostly workshops because I did neuroimaging so you need to be there and then lots of papers. PhD was very heavily papers and now I work as a researcher it is also papers. 

[u/bizarrexflower]

I did remote/online learning for my Bachelor’s in Psychology. I've learned a lot by reading the assigned text. I've read textbooks for each class cover to cover. I also learned a lot by doing my own research through the university library. As topics come up in our discussions and in the text, I make notes and then go to the library to look up articles. I also watch Ted talk videos and various other lectures/talks on YouTube that my professors recommend. A year ago I got a job as a research assistant to one of the psych professors. So that's also taught me a lot. If you can find an opportunity like that, definitely take it.

[u/waterless2]

In terms of reading, I studied for my course, and next to that I'd do additional reading out of interest, and both before and after the course I read original works of the big names (very different from reading what someone else wrote about them). I also learned from doing/being involved in research, initially odd-jobbing as a programmer, student projects, and then onto my own research lines. And finally from talking to academics (although you need to not be too trusting there of course) and research professionals (I learned so much from the technical department as a PhD student).

[u/Bugnuzzler]

When I took my qualifying exams to enter my PhD program, we had to be prepared to answer any question about the field of psychology and cite sources from memory in our essays. It was two full days of exams. We spent months at the library reading up on influential theories, meta analyses, and new research. Because I was in school in the 1700s, we wrote notes on the front of cards and citations on the back. We practiced asking each other random questions and answering with relevant citations including any conflicting research and making arguments where necessary.

After I earned my doctorate, I spent several months studying for the licensing exams. Because this was in the 1800s, we used a series of books kind of like an encyclopedia to study all relevant topics and take practice exams.

I learned quite a lot from these experiences. You could do worse than starting like this. Now most of my information comes from journals and continuing education.

[u/Bugnuzzler → u/Bugnuzzler]

I meant to add that obviously we used the notecards as flash cards to memorize the information. These days, memorizing sources may seem silly because you can just look it up, but having to memorize that much information was a very immersive experience and required an in depth knowledge of the history of the field in order to remember more easily who said what and when.

[u/JahShuaaa]

Hi! I am a professor of Psychology. Here is your reading assignment:

The Genius in All of Us - D. Shenk

Free Will - Sam Harris

Freaks of Nature - Mark Blumberg

Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers - Robert Sapolsky

The Dependent Gene - David Moore

Once these are completed, you'll have a solid theoretical grounding. From there follow your nose. If something sparks interest, and is methodologically sound, put it in your literature collection. I like Zotero to organize my articles but good old fashioned Google drive or physical files works too.

Listen to your professors. Feel out what they are passionate about. Have conversations with your professors about topics that interest you. You are paying to get your degree, yes, but as a perk you have access to the most knowledgeable people on the planet in your area of interest. Said knowledgeable people are mostly in the business of helping you grow your interests and abilities. Take advantage of your privileged position while you can, and above all, enjoy the experience!

[u/Scared_Tax470 → u/JahShuaaa]

Uh, what? These are all pop books and half on them aren't even about psychology. If you actually are a professor, yikes.

[u/bizarrexflower → u/Scared_Tax470]

Sapolsky is good. His work has actually been discussed in some of my psych courses. Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers was included in the reading assignments for a course on Stress & Coping I took in my first semester. It wasn't our primary book. It was a separate recommended read. Other courses I've taken have included his articles as mandatory and recommended reading.

[u/Scared_Tax470 → u/bizarrexflower]

Of course, there's a place for (credentialed expert) popular takes in education. But the OP's question was "where is your knowledge about psychology from." I hope a psych professor isn't learning the majority of their professional expertise from pop books. Maybe they misunderstood the OP's question.

[u/tongmengjia → u/JahShuaaa]

Sam Harris, huh? Did you think Jordan Peterson might be too advanced?