—
Nicole Pernat is a friend and colleague, who worked with me in the Lifespan Cognition Lab. Here we talk about her research and interest in psychology, part 3. (Part 1 here and Part 2 here)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What advice do you have for undergraduate students in psychology intending to pursue graduate-level study?
Nicole Pernat: Take time to figure out what you really want to do. Talk to many people in different disciplines, professors and students included; when you are prospecting potential supervisors, ask their students what their relationship with the prof is like, because your supervisor is someone you are going to be in close contact with for 2-7 years. Apply for a Tri-Council Scholarship. The process is a… challenge, but it’s rad if you get it. (Food!)
Ask yourself if you willing to spend another 2-9 years getting a degree, that might not get you the job you want? Also, if you don’t like travelling, academia probably isn’t the place for you; if you pursue academic work, you’ll go wherever the schools are and wherever the job is. Psychology and philosophy are overflowing with masters and doctorates, and there are very few jobs out there. For example, if you get a PhD from one of the top 50 philosophy programs, you might have a 25% chance of actually getting a career as a philosopher. And don’t expect the career to happen right away. Many have to wait a number of years before they get an untenured job as a sessional, with no health benefits and unstable work. It’s a damn tough market. That said; if your dream is to be a psychologist or philosopher, do not give up on it quite yet. Even though it’s tough to get into, there is still a job market. I hear it is slightly better for psychology.
Of course, you should read Scott Jacobsen’s blog.
Jacobsen: Who influenced your intellectual development the most? Have they written any noteworthy books/articles that characterize their views well?
Pernat: At the risk of sounding cliché, my professors at Kwantlen played important roles. Certain profs stand out clearly; in Intro Psychology I brought up some sketchy “evidence” from a book for some weird claim about consciousness; Jocelyn Lymburner asked to see the book’s references. That has stuck in my mind for eight years now. Wayne Podrouzek also punched some of the dumb out of me. He pushed me to really think about morality, consciousness, pseudo science, and personal issues. I used to think I had substantially different sensations and perceptions than others–Rick LeGrand challenged my interpretation, suggesting that perhaps I pay attention to those things more, and that because I share the human physiology, it’s likely that others (can) have similar experiences. Danny Bernstein drilled better writing skills into me (any errors I’ve made here are thanks to my neglecting his advice). I’m convinced that the 15 rounds of editing on one manuscript gave me my wicked score on the GRE’s analytic writing section. Overall, the most valuable thing that I got out of my degree was a radical shift in how I look at the world. I used to have unsubstantiated “New-Age” beliefs (ghosts, psychic powers, etc.). Now I have the training to scrutinize such claims and realize that either there is no evidence, or “evidence” from studies that usually had shitty methodology. It took most of my degree (and the professors) to get there, and the rest to hone my skills.
Outside of Kwantlen, I’ve been particular touched by the “4 horsemen,” Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. These four to me are paragons of critical thinking applied to religious dogma (find them on YouTube to see what I mean. I recommend Harris’ (audio) books “End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Harris’ succinct, eloquent style is ear-candy; I recommend Harris’ (audio) books “End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation” His book, presumptuously entitled “Consciousness Explained,” is an eye-opening read for anyone interested in blind sight, split-brain phenomenon, illusions of time, 1st person science of consciousness, and I host of other related issues.
On the topic of colour vision and its pervasive use in philosophical thought-experiments, Kathleen Akins has moved me. She and Dr. Martin Hahn (SFU) are currently coming out with a tome on colour vision. Colour is not the basic property philosophers and others often think it is; chromatic information (hue / wavelength, brightness, and saturation) are each processed for multiple different functions, such as motion detection, object identification, and distinguishing surface properties from atmospheric ones (e.g., looking at obnoxious blue pants in a yellow-lit store looks different than under sunlight, but we compare the pants to colours of other objects to figure out what the colour of the pants actually are).
On a totally different vein, my interest in physics have led me to David Bohm’s “The Implicate Order,” where he discusses a notion based on quantum mechanics that events, not objects, are basic units of reality. In the first third of the book, he even suggests a verb-based language to reflect this—a rather philosophical endeavour for a physicist! He later argues that the universe is something like a hologram, with information about the whole existing in every part.
Of course, no dilettante of physics would be complete without Stephen Hawking, the god of black holes. His book “A Brief History of Time” is a pleasant-to-read, comprehensive overview of physics, starting with some of its philosophical roots (Aristotle), and discussing the evolution of physics, including, of course, our theoretical knowledge of black holes. I fell in love with those mysterious things in grade four, and owe much of the satisfaction—and sparking—of my curiosity to Hawking. Could black holes really lead to other universes? Is that where half of my socks have gone?
Coming back to Earth, dish-washing has become a mental adventure; the dishes feel solid, but are actually mostly empty space interlaced with collapsing probabilities—or something to that effect. (Thank you string theorist Brian Greene, for your description of quantum mechanics). When you are exposed to these ideas, you look at your environment and think, Holy shit, this is awesome. And then you wonder how a physical thing like your brain could produce all these fantastic experiences. And then you pursue something like neurophilosophy.
How has physics for lay people influenced my intellectual development? (1) By giving me mental stimulation, satisfying and provoking my curiosity in the nature of reality, and (2) by showing me that this is the value of science brought to the public. I think that science has a duty to share its findings with the public, and these authors have demonstrably (and admirably) fulfilled that duty. I think the same is true of all academic disciplines; access to what the Ivory Tower is finding can enhance the life quality of the (interested) public. At least, it did for me. And considering the public funds our work, it’s important to give information back to them. In this way, every academic author of books (that I have read) for the common person has affected me.
—
Original publication on www.in-sightjournal.com.
—
Image Credit: Getty Images.