A Little Learning . . . . . . or Too Much

I do not intend to enter the current controversy which is developing around the question of the place of philosophy in the university. My primary interest is in psychology, and I find Mr. Congalton's suggestion that this subject "should be made compulsory to be taken in the first year of the university course" somewhat alarming. I myself would like to see the rule laid down that no student be permitted to take lectures in psychology unless he signify his honest intention to continue his study of that subject to at least stage III. My reason for desiring such a rule is that by the time a student has completed the third stage he has learned enough to realise that he knows very little, and that it is extremely unlikely that he will ever know all there is to know about human thought and behaviour. At the present time numbers of students "do" psychology I because it is at a convenient hour, or is supposed to be easy, or because they think it must be "fascinating," and then go out into the world carelessly throwing about scientific terms, and finding in their acquaintances mental states of which they have no adequate knowledge. If by doing this they were merely displaying their own ignorance little harm would be done. Unfortunately, however, their irresponsible generalisations tend to bring psychology, which is (in spite of assertions to the contrary of some science students who have spent a few months in elementary psychological work) as much a science as an art, into general disrepute.

Psychology is one of the most valuable instruments we can use in the understanding of human problems and in the relief of human suffering (and Mr. Sutton-Smith, in stating that its study is divorced from everyday problems, merely reveals his failure to keep up with current psychological work), but it is an instrument which, like those of the surgeon, should be used only by experts. Otherwise the result can be mental turmoil and increased scepticism. No student after his first year at Med. School thinks he is a doctor, no stage I English student thinks he has a thorough knowledge of English language and literature; it is only in the psychology department that such naive self-confidence is found.

There is the possibility that frequent emphasis upon the introductory nature of the stage I course might lessen the danger of a little psychological learning proving a dangerous thing, but this would mean the wasting of time, already limited, for both lecturer and serious student, with no certainty that even the most careful precautions would be effective. The solution would seem to lie with the intelligent realisation that psychology is just as broad in its scope, and requires just as much study, as any other subject. Until there is this general realisation I think a rule such as the one suggested by me above is greatly to be desired.

(This correspondence is now closed.—Ed.)