Reading widely from outside the discipline has a cost worth naming, and I am the case study.
I am rebuilding my own education in public, psychology and philosophy, no institution. Reading across fields is the easy part. What is missing is anyone to tell me when I have misread something, which a supervisor does for free and a comment section does badly and late.
So the advice may be harder to take than it sounds. Breadth without correction produces confident range, which from the inside looks exactly like understanding.
Recent psych BA here. I'm dealing with this challenge right now, also reading a lot of psych and philosophy. Here are some of my experiences as they might be relevant to you. Some of this you'll already know, but hopefully some of it may also be new info.
For phil, I'll note that AI + a standard reference (like internet encylopedia of philosophy, stanford encylopedia, a really good textbook, etc.) can be quite helpful. For instance, I just finished a course at ASU online (with Dr. Tom Blackson) on a survey on Ancient Greek Philosophy. With AI, I was able to effectively chat with the SEP and use it as a tutor, which was helpful for really difficult material like Aristotle's physics. Trying to restate the author's argument in their own words, while getting the details and nuances as right as possible, is for me the ultimate goal. In the case of ancient philosophers, this also includes accurately conveying what we don't know or the various interpretations offered about their arguments. I found a lot of the older texts on internet archive by really prolific authors really helpful, namely W.K.C Guthrie + Blackson's textbook for Plato and Aristotle. Imho a lot of the more recent phil work published in academic journals is not nearly as good. Seems to me a lot of contemporary phil professors (in phil departments) are riding on their titles, are overly analytic, are insufficiently historical, and are focusing on narrow academic details while missing the big picture. A lot of the texts from the early 1900s on internet archive are higher quality and aren't a pain to access. I will say that SEP had a lot of content on Plato and Aristotle, I also found it was overly analytical at times. I personally am skeptical of applying retroactive labels to these philosophers, but YMMV.
For psych, you need to learn both the theory and the methods. For the theory, I find it helpful to start by memorizing all the core terms (with Anki, Quizlet, etc.). This is easiest to do in a broad survey class, e.g,. if you're interested in developmental psych then in a developmental psych class. Many of these classes are offered online for ~$1,300 to $1,800 per class at places like ASU online or IU online, where I'm taking classes atm. Both of those places allow you to take classes as a non-degree student and don't hassle you on pre-reqs, which is why I'm there after getting my BA. Though I would still do the recommended pre-reqs if you don't actually have them, e.g,. taking intro to psych before social or dev psych. There are also MOOCs available if cost is an issue, like Dr. Bloom's intro psych MOOC on YouTube. I use a combo of my own writing + AI to make the flashcards. Then I use the spaced repetition software to make sure I actually remember them. If you're looking to read books, rather than take a course, I get the most value out of people who both have scholarly rigor and are also really good at popular writing, although by the looks of your substack you don't need me to tell you this. I will say if you're looking to go in-depth on a particular psych theory, Wikipedia is also often a good starting point. For instance, I found that the Wikipedia overview of Milgram was better than the overviews I got in my undergrad social psych classes.
For methods, you also need the stats background, as Dr. Bloom noted. You can get some of the stats background in a psych department, but I'd argue it's more straightforward and rigorous to get it in a stats department. Stats, maybe even more so than psych, is recursive and, especially in the early classes, linear. To understand the material on week 2, you have to understand the material from week 1. This applies all the way from early intro to stats through regression and up to advanced stats courses. If you want a really thorough stats education, I'd consider signing up for a stats course. Being in a course helps you keep on track, and if you have a good prof they can give good explanations as well. I've found the key in stats is solving worked examples in the form of math problems, while also noticing how the statistical concepts are used in the test (i.e., a worked example with schema activation). AI is very helpful for this as well, especially for generating worked examples if your prof doesn't provide one. But there's a catch – don't get too bogged down in verbal explanations. This applies both to AI explanations and to secondary texts (like Andy Fields’ textbook, which from what I remember is heavily verbal). This is a mistake I made early on, which I'm now remedying. Stats is inherently mathematical. Each test is like an algorithm that takes an input and gives you an output. I will also say that, in my experience, Wikipedia is not as good for stats as it is for psych. If you do take a stats course, I'd stick mainly to any practice problems you're given, with the AI helping to clarify confusing concepts within the context of the problem. Being able to upload pictures and documents is also crucial here. A yearly AI subscription is worth it for this purpose, because you often can't upload documents with the base plan. Gives you better models too, which in turn gives you better explanations.
This is the most useful reply I have had anywhere, thank you.
Reading it back, I notice almost everything on the list helps me acquire and none of it corrects. AI, the SEP, Anki, worked examples. They are patient and none of them knows what I think, so none can tell me I have misread.
The exception is the one you mention in passing, a course with a good prof.
Does restating it in your own words catch your errors, or does it just make you fluent in your own version of them?
I like recommendation #4 as it relates to AI If you have AI hovering over your writing such as what occurs when composing in Gmail, you receive unsolicited tips to improve your message. (The common admonition to "be concise" pops up.) You could lazily accept the rephrase and move on. But what you need to do is to think about the correction and learn from it. It amounts to free composition lessons.
Any advise for someone going back after a couple of decades to write their dissertation in Dev Psych and pivot from private sector consumer research to working on ways to advocate for approaches to AI that contribute to thriving? Asking for a friend…
Reading widely from outside the discipline has a cost worth naming, and I am the case study.
I am rebuilding my own education in public, psychology and philosophy, no institution. Reading across fields is the easy part. What is missing is anyone to tell me when I have misread something, which a supervisor does for free and a comment section does badly and late.
So the advice may be harder to take than it sounds. Breadth without correction produces confident range, which from the inside looks exactly like understanding.
Recent psych BA here. I'm dealing with this challenge right now, also reading a lot of psych and philosophy. Here are some of my experiences as they might be relevant to you. Some of this you'll already know, but hopefully some of it may also be new info.
For phil, I'll note that AI + a standard reference (like internet encylopedia of philosophy, stanford encylopedia, a really good textbook, etc.) can be quite helpful. For instance, I just finished a course at ASU online (with Dr. Tom Blackson) on a survey on Ancient Greek Philosophy. With AI, I was able to effectively chat with the SEP and use it as a tutor, which was helpful for really difficult material like Aristotle's physics. Trying to restate the author's argument in their own words, while getting the details and nuances as right as possible, is for me the ultimate goal. In the case of ancient philosophers, this also includes accurately conveying what we don't know or the various interpretations offered about their arguments. I found a lot of the older texts on internet archive by really prolific authors really helpful, namely W.K.C Guthrie + Blackson's textbook for Plato and Aristotle. Imho a lot of the more recent phil work published in academic journals is not nearly as good. Seems to me a lot of contemporary phil professors (in phil departments) are riding on their titles, are overly analytic, are insufficiently historical, and are focusing on narrow academic details while missing the big picture. A lot of the texts from the early 1900s on internet archive are higher quality and aren't a pain to access. I will say that SEP had a lot of content on Plato and Aristotle, I also found it was overly analytical at times. I personally am skeptical of applying retroactive labels to these philosophers, but YMMV.
For psych, you need to learn both the theory and the methods. For the theory, I find it helpful to start by memorizing all the core terms (with Anki, Quizlet, etc.). This is easiest to do in a broad survey class, e.g,. if you're interested in developmental psych then in a developmental psych class. Many of these classes are offered online for ~$1,300 to $1,800 per class at places like ASU online or IU online, where I'm taking classes atm. Both of those places allow you to take classes as a non-degree student and don't hassle you on pre-reqs, which is why I'm there after getting my BA. Though I would still do the recommended pre-reqs if you don't actually have them, e.g,. taking intro to psych before social or dev psych. There are also MOOCs available if cost is an issue, like Dr. Bloom's intro psych MOOC on YouTube. I use a combo of my own writing + AI to make the flashcards. Then I use the spaced repetition software to make sure I actually remember them. If you're looking to read books, rather than take a course, I get the most value out of people who both have scholarly rigor and are also really good at popular writing, although by the looks of your substack you don't need me to tell you this. I will say if you're looking to go in-depth on a particular psych theory, Wikipedia is also often a good starting point. For instance, I found that the Wikipedia overview of Milgram was better than the overviews I got in my undergrad social psych classes.
For methods, you also need the stats background, as Dr. Bloom noted. You can get some of the stats background in a psych department, but I'd argue it's more straightforward and rigorous to get it in a stats department. Stats, maybe even more so than psych, is recursive and, especially in the early classes, linear. To understand the material on week 2, you have to understand the material from week 1. This applies all the way from early intro to stats through regression and up to advanced stats courses. If you want a really thorough stats education, I'd consider signing up for a stats course. Being in a course helps you keep on track, and if you have a good prof they can give good explanations as well. I've found the key in stats is solving worked examples in the form of math problems, while also noticing how the statistical concepts are used in the test (i.e., a worked example with schema activation). AI is very helpful for this as well, especially for generating worked examples if your prof doesn't provide one. But there's a catch – don't get too bogged down in verbal explanations. This applies both to AI explanations and to secondary texts (like Andy Fields’ textbook, which from what I remember is heavily verbal). This is a mistake I made early on, which I'm now remedying. Stats is inherently mathematical. Each test is like an algorithm that takes an input and gives you an output. I will also say that, in my experience, Wikipedia is not as good for stats as it is for psych. If you do take a stats course, I'd stick mainly to any practice problems you're given, with the AI helping to clarify confusing concepts within the context of the problem. Being able to upload pictures and documents is also crucial here. A yearly AI subscription is worth it for this purpose, because you often can't upload documents with the base plan. Gives you better models too, which in turn gives you better explanations.
This is the most useful reply I have had anywhere, thank you.
Reading it back, I notice almost everything on the list helps me acquire and none of it corrects. AI, the SEP, Anki, worked examples. They are patient and none of them knows what I think, so none can tell me I have misread.
The exception is the one you mention in passing, a course with a good prof.
Does restating it in your own words catch your errors, or does it just make you fluent in your own version of them?
Let's continue the discussion via DM!
I like recommendation #4 as it relates to AI If you have AI hovering over your writing such as what occurs when composing in Gmail, you receive unsolicited tips to improve your message. (The common admonition to "be concise" pops up.) You could lazily accept the rephrase and move on. But what you need to do is to think about the correction and learn from it. It amounts to free composition lessons.
Any advise for someone going back after a couple of decades to write their dissertation in Dev Psych and pivot from private sector consumer research to working on ways to advocate for approaches to AI that contribute to thriving? Asking for a friend…