(Part 2) Best psychology research books according to redditors
We found 74 Reddit comments discussing the best psychology research books. We ranked the 48 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
That strip is like a rash, all over statistics textbooks.
From: http://www.amazon.com/Research-Methods-Psychology-Glynis-Breakwell/dp/0857022644/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345772667&sr=1-2
http://imgur.com/k1bJ0
I currently live with two MTF transwomen, both Christian. One Catholic, one protestant. I am genderqueer and Anglican. I have personally done a lot of research on this issue, as have my roommates.
A great place to get actual scientific literature (as opposed to gender theory) is here: http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Dysphoria-Disorders-Sex-Development/dp/146147440X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411329057&sr=1-2&keywords=gender+dysphoria
My conclusion after quite a lot of research: Yes, the existence of intersex individuals does throw a monkey wrench into the traditional framework.
The gender binary is an illusion. An approximation. It seems like gender and sex operate more on a double bell-curve. If you do some research on sex-differentiation and how that works, it's pretty easy to see how things can end up less-than-normative.
There are a lot of people that display non-normative traits in relation to their chromosomal sex. This can be anything from ambiguous genitalia, abnormal hormonal disorders (like hirsutism), chromosomal disorders (XXY, CAIS, etc), and neurological disorders such as gender dysphoria where one's brain chemistry more closely matches that of the opposite sex.
Sexual orientation is just one of many sex-linked traits. In the case of male homosexuality you have males expressing a typically female trait in terms of attraction, and vice versa for female homosexuality. So essentially, just like intersex individuals (where both masculine and feminine traits are morphologically present), you have a mixed expression of sex that deviates from the norm. If you accept that one's sex is encompasses more than just genitalia but also the neurology of the brain and hormones, then it seems to greatly complicate the issue of who gets to marry whom.
I have had quite a few discussions with pastors and priests on the subject. It is like trying to convince someone from the middle ages that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. What seems to be the "obvious truth" is blown away when you scrutinize the subject. Problem is, most theologians haven't actually studied the biology of sex in any capacity.
Unfortunately I can't give you many answers. I consider myself fairly sexually conservative, but I think most conservative theology regarding sex and gender is extremely misguided. I don't think people are entitled to sexual fulfillment in their lives, but at the same time it seems like an intellectual cop-out to say, "Any deviations from the normative male/female binary must be celibate because we don't know how to fit you into our theological framework."
Jackson specifically says that her examples for sources of knowledge are not of equal value. Your source does not support your assertion. Retract it
S. Jackson Research methods and statistics pg 8-11
http://www.amazon.com/Research-Methods-Statistics-Critical-Thinking/dp/1111346550#reader_1111346550
> There are ways to gain knowedge, some are better than others
> Superstition: Not Empirical or Logical
> Authority: Not Empirical or Logical. Authority may not be an expert
etc.
Statistics in Plain English is a good book for a quick review of major statistical concepts :)
I'm a big fan of the historical or diachronic approach to philosophy, so I would recommend a book like A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science for a general introduction.
My two favorite books with direct relevance to psychological methods are Cognitive Science: A Philosophical Introduction and Measuring the Mind: Conceptual Issues in Contemporary Psychometrics.
On my own current reading list are:
Second Tabachnik & Fiddle along with Hunter & Schmidt
Rogelberg's IO Handbook
Brannick & Levine's JA text
HLM - Raudennbush & Bryk
Ployhart et al's Staffing Organizations
I have lots of other O-oriented things, but those will depend on your specific area.
Edit: This!
Statistics in Plain English is highly rated on amazon. the english isn't entirely plain, but not bad. also, they had it at my library, so hopefully yours as well
http://www.amazon.com/Statistics-Course-Pack-Set-Op/dp/0805852417/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2
This probably isn't the most helpful answer, but any resources I might have used to learn the fundamentals myself are probably pretty outdated now. Honestly I'd just try to find highly rated books on Amazon that are reasonably priced. I haven't read this one for psych research methods, but looking through the table of contents, it covers a lot of what I'd expect (ethics, validity and reliability, study design and common methods) and according to the reviews it's clear, concise, and has good stats info in the appendix. I had a similar "handbook" style textbook in undergrad that I liked. For practicing stats, I'm personally more of a learn-by-doing kind of person, and there are some free courses out there like this one from Khan Academy that covers the basics fairly well.
But if you can, take courses in college as electives! Chances are you'll have a few to fill (or maybe audit some if you can't get credit), so go outside of HCDE's offerings to get some complementary skills in research or design. I usually find classrooms to be more engaging than trying to get through a textbook at home on my own, and especially for psych research methods, you'll probably have a project that gives you hands-on experience doing research with human subjects (most likely your peers). There are lots of free online courses out there as well if you aren't able to take them for credit.
You guys are making me miss school.
Getting specifically into UX self-study, in addition to a UX-specific research methods book (this is a newer version of one I read in school) I'd also go through the UX classics like Don Norman's The Design of Everyday Things and Emotional Design, Krug's Don't Make Me Think, and Casey's Set Phasers on Stun (this last one being more of a fun read than a practical one).
>I’m just going to respond to one bit.
Oh, Bobby. I'll tell you straight -- I'm not here to entice you. I'll respond anyways because I'm still interested, regardless of whether or not you respond again.
It honestly makes me sad you can only debate with me on the matters I openly admit ignorance to. In a friendly way, I ask that you would think more about that fact. The only way I can perceive this, personally, is that you are either looking for a dopamine rush in "proving" you're right or showing someone you know more than them on a topic, or you are convinced there is only black and white truth and that people who view things differently than you are just under the influence of evil. This black and white truth just isn't the case -- simple versus complex cognition, my friend. You aren't "throwing pearls to swine" here -- I'm pretty dang sure people aren't down-voting you because they disagree or are too far gone to understand you. They're down-voting because of the manner in which you're conducting yourself in the discussion. Forgive me if I'm wrong on any of that! Again, just my perception of the matters at hand -- not trying to entice.
​
> Occasionally confused according to whoms authority?
Confused in the sense that some think they are connected and some people don't -- there is open confusion about the topic. This is from Encyclopedia Britannica:
>Nimrod, also spelled Nemrod, legendary biblical figure of the book of Genesis. Nimrod is described in Genesis 10:8–12 as “the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord.” The only other references to Nimrod in the Bible are Micah 5:6, where Assyria is called the land of Nimrod, and I Chronicles 1:10, which reiterates his might. The beginning of his kingdom is said in the Genesis passage to be Babel, Erech, and Akkad in the land of Shinar. Nimrod is said to have then built Nineveh, Calah (modern Nimrūd), Rehoboth-Ir, and Resen.
>
>There is some consensus among biblical scholars that the mention of Nimrod in Genesis is a reference not to an individual but to an ancient people in Mesopotamia. The description of Nimrod as a “mighty hunter before the Lord” is an intrusion in this context, but probably, like the historical notices, derived from some old Babylonian saga. However, no equivalent of the name has yet been found in the Babylonian or other cuneiform records. In character there is a certain resemblance between Nimrod and the Mesopotamian epic hero Gilgamesh.
I get that it is a secular source, but I'm still confused in the sense that this doesn't line up with what you said...does it? It seems to me that if there is no found equivalent of the name, Nimrod, yet, then it makes sense why there is confusion on the topic.
​
> The connection to Lucifer is in the bible when you read Isiah 14.
This specific Bible commentary reveals that what you said is a debated interpretation:
>i. ...second, there is the distant and ultimate fulfillment regarding the spiritual empire of Babylon – the world system – and its king, Satan.
>
>ii. Some strongly disagree, and see this passage as only referring to the king of literal Babylon and having no reference to Satan at all. “The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need to wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise… “But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text…
I provided the link so you can get the full context. I had to delete some stuff for word count. But, as has been a common theme in our entire debate here, interpretation is a problem. So I'm naturally not convinced of your argument.
No good comes at all when any Christian stands by their own interpretation and refuses to consider another. I completely understand preferring and fully trusting a particular interpretation -- however, the problem starts when we become completely unwilling to consider an alternative. There's always a chance it's wrong, so any who are unwilling to consider are setting themselves up for being painfully wrong.
Another problem arises when you don't state that it is a debated interpretation in the first place: you're not being transparent with readers of this thread, or me. You're allowing for confusion and misrepresentation in the thread. Stating that I am just plain wrong and the evidence is clearly there is a false statement in itself.
​
> You really shouldn’t have to google any of this information.
I'm not Christian anymore -- I don't carry a Bible everywhere I go, and I don't have it memorized. So I have to Google. Haha. This is an example of why you're being down-voted.
​
Second part of comment is below. We have too much to talk about Bobby!
Agreed, my statement is predicated on sample size (i.e., we need more data). Small N design is growing in popularity though. There was a time when case studies were the only form of investigation in psychology. Additionally, qualitative methodology is foundational to generating theory. I hated and misunderstood qualitative investigation until I read https://www.amazon.com/Qualitative-Inquiry-Clinical-Educational-Settings/dp/1609182456
I have found the APA style manual (pg. 128-150) and Nicol and Pexman's book helpful in designing tables and figures.
Off the top of my head:
widthheight (kinda relates to 5.17 in style manual, with regard to white space)Edit: See above (though it might be good to balance the widths of the columns too).
if you're interested in checking out books on the topic, "women who love men who kill" by Sheila Isenberg is a must read.
https://www.amazon.com/Women-Who-Love-Men-Kill/dp/0595003990
For quantitative research methods and SPSS, I really like Meyer, Gamst, and Guarino's book (http://www.amazon.com/Applied-Multivariate-Research-Design-Interpretation/dp/1412904129/). It lays out steps for analyzing and interpreting common research and statistical procedures (in APA format!), as well as step by step guides for SPSS (with dialogue box screenshots!).
The second edition (http://www.amazon.com/Applied-Multivariate-Research-Design-Interpretation/dp/141298811X/) is available but I have not read it -- seems like it would have more up-to-date SPSS instructions.
Guessing that the most tests you encounter are correlations, t-tests and analyses of variance, this should be a good fit:
https://www.amazon.com/Statistics-Plain-English-Third-Timothy/dp/041587291X/ref=pd_sim_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=P41CBPWRCRDMB2CC52X0
These are all good recommendations. I'd also add to my recommendation above Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course, which is also very good and has a fair overlap with the Kruschke book. (It's also shorter and cheaper.)
Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine, Verity and Fable in Organizational and Social Sciences written by an I/O professor at my school.
Drive by Daniel Pink
This is likely a myth. I'm going to quote a long slab from Klein and Stockley, two very well known historians.
http://www.amazon.com/A-Quantitative-Tour-Social-Sciences/dp/0521680034
Highlighting mine.
> Let me begin with a major
contemporary debate about how many Africans crossed the Atlantic. This ques-
tion is the occasion for a sometimes acrimonious and often highly politicized
debate. The numbers range from about 10 million to about 100 million or even
higher. These numbers have all sorts of political implications and often serve as
background to many contemporary debates on race and ethnic politics in the
United States. Can we derive some coherent set of numbers? One way has been to
use known population growth rates to estimate what must have been the original
populations of Africans in various parts of the New World. This estimation, based
on birth and death estimates for slave and free colored populations, along with
some preliminary work on shipping, was used by Philip Curtin (Curtin 1969) to
generate a roughly 10 to 12 million population migration figure.
>Many historians rejected these numbers as too low, and the debate raged for
years without serious resolution. But in the past several decades, historians
were able to generate enormous datasets of actual voyages from African,
European, and American archives. From the surviving archives, you can estimate
what mortality was like on the voyages by having information on those who left
Africa and the numbers who died during the crossing. We know the volume of
shipping, and its change over time and by route, and so we can use average
numbers for missing data and thus estimate the total number of migrants. We now
know almost exactly – within a small margin of error – how many Africans came
across the Atlantic in the slave trade. Intensive research has been devoted to this
question since the late sixties. Almost every important archive in the world has
been exploited. We even have a CD containing all the known voyages, and these
voyages are estimated to be about 60% of all the voyages that took place. This
allows us to calculate with great accuracy how many slaves crossed the Atlantic.
>In the end, while Curtin’s estimations have been changed by route and by century,
the overall number of roughly 10–12 million crossing the Atlantic remains the
same. Unfortunately, it turns out that for political reasons, the number derived this
way is unacceptable to many. Both the total number and the mortality suffered are
just not high enough to serve their appointed political agenda. Therefore, the
number is usually inflated by adding on “unknowns” about which no one has any
data and whose elasticity seems unbounded. In particular, two unknowns are
added in this case: mortality on arriving at the coast and mortality from the arrival
in America through, say, the first six months in the New World. We currently have
no reliable data for these two quantities, and they have therefore been the subject
of politically motivated and intellectually questionable manipulations so that the
number that we know to be pretty close to the actual number is doubled, tripled, or
further increased to arrive at a politically endorsable number. This is a case where
attempts to resolve one historical problem have led to new historical debates and
to new issues (for example, mortality on land before and after crossing the
Atlantic) that only quantitative analysis can resolve.
>Another closely related debate in which I am directly involved is mortality in
the slave trade. The typical textbook probably refuses to discuss mortality in the
slave trade or the numbers that I and researchers of various nationalities have
established. Why? The mortality of around 8% in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries, which has been established through careful research, sounds
too low and would offend the sensibilities of politicians, who insist, erroneously
I think, that the victim status of black Americans would be somehow diminished if
it were known that Africans didn’t die in droves during the Atlantic crossing. But
the fact of the matter is that 8% mortality during an approximately one-month
period is very high. If you were to study, say, a French village in the eighteenth
century and found such a level of mortality in one month, you would think that the
Black Death had passed through.
> The lesson here is that one must be aware of the political freight that some
historical questions bring with them and that numbers derived through historical
research can have larger political implications. Sometimes it’s not good enough
simply to tackle a politically sensitive question with scientific objectivity. One has
to be conscious of groups that might take offense at the cold light shed on the
subject by a rigorous examination of the facts as best we can ascertain them. I am
reminded of the famous line near the end of John Ford’s film The Man Who Shot
Liberty Valance in which the newspaperman says, “When the legend becomes
fact, print the legend.” Sometimes it seems that, for many, the emotional cost of
giving up cherished myths outweighs the alleged benefits of objective knowledge.
I say this to caution you against thinking that you’ll be loved if you expose as
myth that which everybody had long thought to be the truth.
You should, similar to this one maybe: https://www.amazon.com/Submissive-Training-Everything-Become-submissive/dp/1533177147/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1481481414&sr=8-2&keywords=how+to+be+submissive
I will tell you exactly what to do.
You need to read this book. Actually every single women who is in higher education neesds to read it:
Erotic Mentoring: Women's Transformations in The University.
http://www.amazon.com/Erotic-Mentoring-Transformations-University-Writing/dp/159874027X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318879345&sr=8-1