psychologist working in thefield of “animal behavior” is
anthropomorphism.Yetifhedidnotbelieveintheanalogue
of the human being and the lower animal even he,
presumably, would find his work largely unjustified.^46
Wecanseethekind ofjargontowhichHeimrefersinthe
reportsofexperimentsIhavealreadycited.Note thateven
whenSeligmanfeelscompelledtosaythatthesubjectsofhis
experiments“gave up” trying to escape shock, he finds it
necessarytoplacetheterminquotationmarks,asifto say
thatheisnotreallyimputinganykindofmentalprocessesto
the dog. Yet the logical consequence of this view of
“scientific method” is that experiments on animals cannot
teach us anything about human beings.
Amazingasitmayseem,some psychologistshavebeenso
concerned to avoid anthropomorphism that they have
accepted this conclusion.This attitude is illustratedby the
followingautobiographicalstatement,whichappearedinNew
Scientist:
Whenfifteen yearsago Iapplied todo adegree coursein
psychology,asteely-eyedinterviewer,himselfapsychologist,
questionedmecloselyonmymotivesandaskedmewhatI
believedpsychologytobeandwhatwasitsprincipalsubject
matter?PoornaivesimpletonthatIwas,Irepliedthatitwas
thestudyofthemindand thathumanbeingswere its raw
material. With a gladcry at being able to deflate me so
effectively,theinterviewerdeclaredthatpsychologistswere
notinterestedinthemind,thatratswerethegoldenfocusof
study,not people, andthenhe advisedmestrongly to trot
around to the philosophy department next door....^47