As of right now I plan on definitely getting a bachelor’s in Anthropology (specifically physically) and possibly become a paleoanthropologist (study hominids and human evolution) but I’m currently uncertain as to whether I also want to major in Psychology in case I decide I’d like to study modern humans. I was thinking of double majoring in Psych and Anthro and then decide after my four years as to which road i’d take but now i’m a bit uncertain as to whether that would be a good idea if I end up liking the more objective, firm (as in being able to touch) paleoanthropology rather than the more abstract psychology. I think both are can be equally objective but the problem I have with psych is that you have to take in the emotional aspect of people to the equation which leads to a string of possible answers that i dont like while physical anthro would probably not include that. Im guessing this probably has a lot to do with what I like more but Im not certain i wouldn’t like experimental psychology. I’m also not certain if I’ll even find a job as a paleoanthropologist which is why i’ve considered psych. I feel like i’m just rambling really. Which do you guys think would be better for me?
I’m a research psychologist and I don’t study emotions. I do sometimes study mood (which is different in psychological parlance) but only in relation to how it affects health behaviors, and only in a few of my studies - I’m actually quite uninterested in people’s emotions. I study behavior. You don’t have to study emotion if you want to be a psychologist. Most of us don’t.
If you mean that there’s uncertainty in the research findings or mechanisms, well, that’s true of ALL sciences - natural, physical, social. Physicists and biologists often find something that IS but they don’t know WHY it is. Psychologists and anthropologists do, too. Off the top of my head one I can think of is a recent-ish discovery of two ancient skeletons lying in a grave next to each other; one was placed higher and had a spear, and the other was placed lower and had jewelry. The original discoverers assumed that the one with the spear was a man, possibly a warrior prince, and the one with the jewelry was a woman, possibly his lover or concubine. Well, after DNA testing it became clear that the one with the spear was actually a woman, and the one with the jewelry was the man. Then the discovering anthropologists revised their explanation to maybe the spear was part of some kind of love ritual (with the implication that women wouldn’t have been warriors or princes).
The point is that they did the paleo work and found these relics, but without all of the pieces of the puzzle we have no idea who and what those two people were doing. We can only make educated guesses - guesses on the basis of our scientific knowledge - and keep digging. You’re going to face that in any scientific field you enter.
That said, it’s impossible for us to tell you what would be better for you. The way to discover this is not through abstractly thinking about it (at least, not on its own) but by getting out there and getting experience. At your college the anthropology professors are doing research and the psychology professors are doing research; the thing to do is take some classes and get some research experience in one or the other (or both). Explore things and see what you like. You don’t have to have it all figured out right now, and you are allowed to change your mind. But you’ll need research experience to get a PhD anyway, and it’s a good way to discover what you love to study, so you should do that.