Book Review

Last year, when the lads in Parliament were [unclear: yiny] on about how the standards of behaviour [unclear: en't] all they might be and that some of the [unclear: cs] they got up to threatened the reputation [unclear: he] institution, it was my opinion that those [unclear: plaining] should have packed it in. They should [unclear: e] given up the fat salaries and the free trips [unclear: ween] their constituencies and Bellamys and [unclear: e] off to do something more productive like [unclear: king] in factories making perfumed ball-point [unclear: s] or nozzles for enema hoses. After reading Wayne Innes' 'Psychology in [unclear: n] Zealand' those same old feelings come [unclear: oding] back. Mr Innes has written a lively [unclear: k] doing for psychology what Robert [unclear: iton] did for politics last year. Unfortun [unclear: ly], it has less novelty appeal and the [unclear: hor] goes to comparatively few lengths to stantiare his arguments. Unlike Mr Fenton does not have the convenience of the daily paper [unclear: lis] disposal that have chronicled all the inst[unclear: es] of misconduct by his collegues.

[unclear: His] task is a fair enough one for any con[unclear: ned] psychologist to undertake, especially with [unclear: ate] raging about us on the use of unmod[unclear: d] electro-convulsive therapy and the [unclear: blem] of a gross over-supply of psychology [unclear: duates]. Psychology, as the new chic, quasi[unclear: ofession], should be looked at critically and [unclear: chologists] should be asked to account for [unclear: use] they make of the massive resources [unclear: it] are poured into training and employing [unclear: m]. The public, and potential employers [unclear: uld] feel confident that they are getting [unclear: much] value from them as from any other [unclear: up] of university graduates — but that is [unclear: ther] interesting question altogether. But Innes is wide of the mark in this book, [unclear: iting] forty pages that only really state and [unclear: tate] that psychologists are the pampered [unclear: w] charlatans of society doesn't add a great [unclear: mount] of new material to the [unclear: deb on thd][unclear: fulness] of social sciences.

His sections on psychologists and psych[unclear: rists]; psychologists as people; psychology [unclear: a] profession and psychologists in education [unclear: d] welfare would have been greatly enhanced [unclear: some] facts and figures. For example, Mr [unclear: es] makes the assertion that 'one of the [unclear: in] functions of psychologists is to [unclear: minister] tests which give the patient a [unclear: chiatric] label such a 'schizophrenic', [unclear: ranoid]', 'manic-depressive', etc. [unclear: 'ell], I'm not about to dispute that, but [unclear: s] particular point could have been more [unclear: quently] made had he referred to the [unclear: sting] reputable figures relating to the fre[unclear: ency] with which psychologists mis-diagnose [unclear: d] wrongly classify their patients. These figures [unclear: uld] exemplify the 'witch doctor' aspects [unclear: psychiatric] practice more concisely than any[unclear: ng] in the text. The book is full of inst[unclear: es] where any first year psychology student would have his nerves on edge because of the absence of substantiating data.

In his attempts to give a personal testimony of some of his misgivings about the use and development of psychology in New Zealand, Mr Innes repudiates accepted social science methods and his efforts come out a bit patchy, and a bit too rabid for them to be accepted at face value by any other psychologist. But, I fear that Mr Innes hasn't written the book for psychologists and, presenting the unbalanced view of the psychological fraternity that it does, in a layman's hands, it would be a source of unreasonable fears and doubts about psychologists and psychology. Criticism of a profession should not be restricted to the practitioners and, as with any product, consumer opinion should be canvassed. This book will not provide a sound basis for any future discussions by laymen because of the absence of compelling factual observations about the science that can be independently verified.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the book is the absence of a political perspective. Mr Innes states that, as a person who has some ten years experience in psychology, he must admit that psychology cannot answer questions like "What causes people to become criminals? Why are people attracted to each other" How can some people avoid stress? and "What do people want out of society?" Now, it is stretching one's expectations of psychology a bit far to hope to find the answer to everything in the science, especially if the science has grown up in middle class universities, under the guidance of middle class recruits who have developed their product for a middle class market. Psychology, as it is practised in New Zealand doesn't really take account of the immense influence of economic factors on all aspects of social life and human reactions. Perhaps if Mr Innes investigated this area, he might well find a few answers.

The book should be read by any current or aspiring psychologist because it raises, on an emotional level, real doubts that all psychologists experience at one time or another about the limits of their subject. It should not be read sceptically but must be viewed in the context of more substantial critiques of psychological method and practice. As a document for general consumption its usefulness is severely limited, and in some quarters it could do unwarranted damage to the reputations of competent and responsible psychologists, and gravely impair the confidence of their patients in the methods they are using to treat them.

Mr Innes explains his doubts in highly personal and emotive terms, he states often that psychololists are conning the unsuspecting public. I wonder if he has had the decency to abide by the dictates of his conscience and get out of the game.