TOW #14- The Joy of Psyching Myself Out

Forgoing my usual satire, I have decided to read an editorial piece published by the New York Times called "The Joy of Psyching Myself Out." The author, Maria Konnikova, is an ex- psychologist turned author. Within her piece, she discusses the underlying misconceptions behind writing and the scientific pursuit of the mind, and how despite their differences, they both require exact-ivity and creativity- and separating the creativity from the world of physiology is not only unwarranted, but also downright destructive. To emulate this, not only does Konnikya utilizes concrete examples, but she employs parallel structure to not only add factual support, but a sense of convictions and passion.

In order to make the argument that the freedom to explore is crucial to scientific discovery, Konnikova talks about the revolutionary psychoanalysis Sigmund Frued. She first gives background on his methods of studying and researching- and how he relies on creativity to come up with his hypothesis. Because of his willingness to think abstractly, he was able to achieve success. This creativity made him  “a breed of psychologist that hardly exists anymore: someone who saw the world as both writer and psychologist, and for whom there was no conflict between the two.” That boundary melding allowed him to posit the existence of cognitive mechanisms that wouldn’t be empirically proved for decades.

Konnikya also utilizes parallel structure to end the editorial on a powerful note. At the end, she refers to the reasons why she left the field of phycology; saying, “ I left psychology behind because I found its structural demands overly hampering…most new inquiries never happened — in a sense, it meant that objectivity was more an ideal than a reality. Each study was selected for a reason other than intrinsic interest.” Then, immediately following this claim, she declares, “I became a writer to pursue that intrinsic interest. But I do so having never quite left the thinking of the psychologist behind” and foes onto talk about the merits. This structure revolving around the word intrinsic interest and the comparison of pros and cons leaves the reader with an underlying feeling of torn interest. It is up to them to derive their own opinion through the information presented oh so jumbled and befuddled by Konnnikya.