Do you consider psychology a science or complete blasphemy?

[Capita]

I was studying psychology and really found it disappointing. Most of the basis for psychology was from drug addicted sexist men like Freud or biased as many of the older psycho analyst did not know the proper population selection. Psychology seems to take a one size fits all kind of approach. As I would read the development of child hood and adolescence I keep thinking to my self I don't relate at all to what this book is saying. Piaget says that you move up from one stage to another and cannot move on until that stage is completed. Almost instantly I would disagree and say that different children will grasp different concepts of logic at different times and rates. Not to mention Piaget used his children of all people who probably all had very similar life experiences.

 

Another thing I hate about psychology is the use of medication for things like depression. My father for example has PTSD from Vietnam, undoubtedly he does suffer from issues from the war. But it is hard to understand why a psychologist would prescribe him a drug that changes his brain chemistry when it is not the levels of serotonin in his brain making him depressed it was the environment. Im not saying some people really don't have lower levels of serotonin and respond well to anti-depressants but what I am saying is since his brain chemistry was fine in the first place why wouldn't the psychologist decide to work out the repressed issues with therapy which is permanent and drug free.

 

Lastly have you ever experienced someone else's thoughts? Didn't think so, for all I know your mind and though could and probably does work completely different. Who are you to take a cookie cutter approach to my problems when you in reality know nothing about me. With out actually measurements and physical data this makes this science very and almost to abstract.

 

I know this science uses correlations and statics to more accurately diagnose problems but in the end there are only a hand full of different kinds of medications for a few problems yet it seems like every one is recommenced medication for any mental disorder. In the end I look at psychologist as legal drug dealers who feed on people looking for a quick fix with a pill when in reality they should take the time and work things out. The best people to work those things out are really friends and family who know you and not some shrink who read a book and is going to take a cookie cutter approach. You don't need psychology to really stay mentally healthy just good support. If you really have no one to talk to then pay a shrink, but wouldn't you fell more satisfied talking to some one who really wants to listen rather than paying them?

[iNow]

Sounds like you are referring primarily to psychotherapy or counseling psychology, not the broader science. Either way, I know enough psychology to recognize that you are just venting, and that your rant ignores a lot of key areas of study.

 

 

EDIT: Also, FYI - Psychologists cannot prescribe medications. You must have an MD to do that, despite your claim to the contrary above.

Edited September 24, 2009 by iNow

[mooeypoo]

Also, how far along into your education are you?

 

It's very common that in the first segment of a degree you learn the very very basics, very simplified material, and go into the more complex less-simplified subjects a bit later.

[Mr Skeptic]

Psychologists also study things like optical illusions, for example, that you can't deduce from "common sense" and are definitely not some made up bull. Really, it's a broad area, and they are very limited because the brain is so complex and they can't actually study it directly (for the most part).

[Capita]

Sounds like you are referring primarily to psychotherapy or counseling psychology, not the broader science. Either way, I know enough psychology to recognize that you are just venting, and that your rant ignores a lot of key areas of study.

 

 

EDIT: Also, FYI - Psychologists cannot prescribe medications. You must have an MD to do that, despite your claim to the contrary above.

 

Im sorry I confuse psychologist and psychiatrist quite frequently... I know there are many areas I did ignore but really it would be a the length of a book and I know many will not read such a lengthy post to make for discussion on a forum.. please by all means share you knowledge of psychology I didn't post to prove my self right just to discuss the subject.

 

Looking back at the question at hand I was wrong to say all of psychology is false just any that deals with the mind more specifically individuals as it is all nothing that we can experience. The only subjects that are really is a good predictor of behavior and what your personality would be like social psychology and sociology. Even in social psychology it says that the power of the situation is more powerful than the mindset. For example lets say you were able to analyze every German before WWII. More than likely you would say on average every individual is relatively healthy and would not turn into genocidal killing machines. How ever when you look at the nation as a whole and the situation their in social psychology would be a great predictor of a idea situation for mind control. Really I just don't see how a there is such a big backing of a science studying the individual mind (psychology) when really there should be a bigger backing on groups and situations (sociology).

 

I took over 3 years of psychology and changed my major to chem there went three years of college oh well at least I got my core classes done.

[bascule]

I don't consider psychology a science. For the most part they do a good job having a rigorous methodology and pursue evidence-based research as much as possible, but they are not a science.

 

The closest thing to a science of consciousness is cognitive science. Cognitive scientists do follow a rigorous, double-blind experimental methodology, have peer reviewed journals, and remove themselves from the experimental process. Their conclusions mostly provide for understanding of the human sensory process, and provide repeatable experiments for how human sensation of various inputs functions. Because of this, their results are repeatable among the population of normally functioning human beings.

 

Psychology is far more complex and therefore cannot be based on the same experimental rigor as cognitive science.

 

My father for example has PTSD from Vietnam, undoubtedly he does suffer from issues from the war. But it is hard to understand why a psychologist would prescribe him a drug that changes his brain chemistry when it is not the levels of serotonin in his brain making him depressed it was the environment.

 

For what it's worth, psychologists cannot prescribe drugs, only psychiatrists can, because they are classes as physicians with diagnostic experience in mental disorders, not human cognitive function as a whole.

 

Ed: I see this has been addressed, but it's a distinction worth reiterating.

[dr.syntax]

I was studying psychology and really found it disappointing. Most of the basis for psychology was from drug addicted sexist men like Freud or biased as many of the older psycho analyst did not know the proper population selection. Psychology seems to take a one size fits all kind of approach. As I would read the development of child hood and adolescence I keep thinking to my self I don't relate at all to what this book is saying. Piaget says that you move up from one stage to another and cannot move on until that stage is completed. Almost instantly I would disagree and say that different children will grasp different concepts of logic at different times and rates. Not to mention Piaget used his children of all people who probably all had very similar life experiences.

 

Another thing I hate about psychology is the use of medication for things like depression. My father for example has PTSD from Vietnam, undoubtedly he does suffer from issues from the war. But it is hard to understand why a psychologist would prescribe him a drug that changes his brain chemistry when it is not the levels of serotonin in his brain making him depressed it was the environment. Im not saying some people really don't have lower levels of serotonin and respond well to anti-depressants but what I am saying is since his brain chemistry was fine in the first place why wouldn't the psychologist decide to work out the repressed issues with therapy which is permanent and drug free.

 

Lastly have you ever experienced someone else's thoughts? Didn't think so, for all I know your mind and though could and probably does work completely different. Who are you to take a cookie cutter approach to my problems when you in reality know nothing about me. With out actually measurements and physical data this makes this science very and almost to abstract.

 

I know this science uses correlations and statics to more accurately diagnose problems but in the end there are only a hand full of different kinds of medications for a few problems yet it seems like every one is recommenced medication for any mental disorder. In the end I look at psychologist as legal drug dealers who feed on people looking for a quick fix with a pill when in reality they should take the time and work things out. The best people to work those things out are really friends and family who know you and not some shrink who read a book and is going to take a cookie cutter approach. You don't need psychology to really stay mentally healthy just good support. If you really have no one to talk to then pay a shrink, but wouldn't you fell more satisfied talking to some one who really wants to listen rather than paying them?

 

REPLY: Dr.Janov would agree with everything you said about psycology as it is commonly practiced in America and throughout the world. Janov and others have developed a therapy that addresses the true issues of why we develope mental disorders such as PTSD and how to actually cure them. For many different reasons most of us become neurotics to one degree or another by the time we are 7 or so. Some much earlier. The cause is the same: repressed feelings and the cure is the same gaining access to those repressed feelings in a curative way and making those necessary connections throughout the brain and our bodies to where we have buried those unresolved feelings. It is called Primal Therapy, Here`s a link if this interests you : http:http://www.primaltherapy.com . The World is in dire need of some good therapists. Please check into this. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 27, 2009 by dr.syntax
spelling

[ennui]

Interestingly, Oxford and Cambridge don't consider an A-level in Psychology to be a rigorous enough academic subject. And so if you apply for them with this subject, they won't actually accept you.

 

As for whether psychology is a science - it depends which area of psychology. I've worked in fields of biochemistry which don't use double-blind experiments or follow a standard scientific procedure (no controls, even!), but are still considered a science.

 

(In regards to serotonin, I thought that the "serotonin hypothesis" of clinical depression was severely disputed. From what I've read, it has waning scientific evidence to support it. One book I recently read argued that drug companies were selectively revealing evidence, and hiding findings of SSRIs increasing risk of suicide.)

 

Part of me wonders whether there's a wee bit of snobbery in the scientific community. There's that invisible hierarchy of Physics > Chemistry> Biology > Psychology which has been lampooned in online blogs and comics.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

 

http://xkcd.com/435/

[Mokele]

Remember, everyone, that a LOT of psychology research (defined as 'research that goes on in the psychology department') includes fairly basic stuff such as understanding perception, memory, emotion, regions of the brain, learning, even proprioception and posture.

 

The whole "id/ego/superego" crap and other attempts to completely explain the human mind are the tiny minority of research.

 

Even the therapy parts are mostly treating the same few exceptionally common mental ailments again and again.

 

Think about it like paleontology - the stuff that gets press is grand theories about dinosaurs, but the vast majority of work is stuff about early mammal tooth shape and ancient snail assemblages.

[jamie hale]

I would agree with a few others in saying it depends of the area of pyschology you are addressing? In general, the field does emphasize pure speculation in some areas, but other areas are subject to rigorous scientific analysis and solid scientific findings.

 

Thanks,

Jamie Hale

[LawLord]

I was studying psychology and really found it disappointing. Most of the basis for psychology was from drug addicted sexist men like Freud or biased as many of the older psycho analyst did not know the proper population selection. Psychology seems to take a one size fits all kind of approach. As I would read the development of child hood and adolescence I keep thinking to my self I don't relate at all to what this book is saying. Piaget says that you move up from one stage to another and cannot move on until that stage is completed. Almost instantly I would disagree and say that different children will grasp different concepts of logic at different times and rates. Not to mention Piaget used his children of all people who probably all had very similar life experiences.

 

Another thing I hate about psychology is the use of medication for things like depression. My father for example has PTSD from Vietnam, undoubtedly he does suffer from issues from the war. But it is hard to understand why a psychologist would prescribe him a drug that changes his brain chemistry when it is not the levels of serotonin in his brain making him depressed it was the environment. Im not saying some people really don't have lower levels of serotonin and respond well to anti-depressants but what I am saying is since his brain chemistry was fine in the first place why wouldn't the psychologist decide to work out the repressed issues with therapy which is permanent and drug free.

 

Lastly have you ever experienced someone else's thoughts? Didn't think so, for all I know your mind and though could and probably does work completely different. Who are you to take a cookie cutter approach to my problems when you in reality know nothing about me. With out actually measurements and physical data this makes this science very and almost to abstract.

 

I know this science uses correlations and statics to more accurately diagnose problems but in the end there are only a hand full of different kinds of medications for a few problems yet it seems like every one is recommenced medication for any mental disorder. In the end I look at psychologist as legal drug dealers who feed on people looking for a quick fix with a pill when in reality they should take the time and work things out. The best people to work those things out are really friends and family who know you and not some shrink who read a book and is going to take a cookie cutter approach. You don't need psychology to really stay mentally healthy just good support. If you really have no one to talk to then pay a shrink, but wouldn't you fell more satisfied talking to some one who really wants to listen rather than paying them?

 

Let us assume your family are horrible abusive low lifes who would only critise you, in this case, I think a Psychologist would be beneficial, there alot of people out there who do not have the type of support from friends and family that you clearly do.

 

How about if your family happily tell others about sensitive issues regarding yourself?

 

I know at least 5 people with mental illness who are fine while on medication, but when they stop taking it... they lose it.

 

Psychology students and psychologists that I have met seem to genuinely care about others and are very passionate about their field.

 

To sum up, I think psychology is of great value to our society.

 

PS I would consider some parts of psychology science, and some parts of it art.

[BJwojnowski]

There is a definite significant difference between psychiatry and psychology. Most of the above post eludes to psychiatry not psychology.

[PAL/SECAM]

Do you consider psychology a science or complete blasphemy?

partly as a science and partly as a blasphemy:

 

psychoanalysis - blasphemy

humanistic psychology - blasphemy

behaviorism - science

cognitive psychology - science

psychobiology - science

[mooeypoo]

Sorry, what's humanistic psychology?

[toastywombel]

REPLY: Dr.Janov would agree with everything you said about psycology as it is commonly practiced in America and throughout the world. Janov and others have developed a therapy that addresses the true issues of why we develope mental disorders such as PTSD and how to actually cure them. For many different reasons most of us become neurotics to one degree or another by the time we are 7 or so. Some much earlier. The cause is the same: repressed feelings and the cure is the same gaining access to those repressed feelings in a curative way and making those necessary connections throughout the brain and our bodies to where we have buried those unresolved feelings. It is called Primal Therapy, Here`s a link if this interests you : http:http://www.primaltherapy.com . The World is in dire need of some good therapists. Please check into this. ...Dr.Syntax

 

Hahahaha. Oh man Dr. Syntax, long time no see. It made me laugh that you mentioned primal therapy again.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Note the date on his post.

[DJBruce]

Sorry, what's humanistic psychology?

 

Humanistic psychology is a psychological perspective that developed out of discontent with what many felt was the negativity of psychoanalysis and behaviorism. This perspective was pioneered during the 1950's and 60's by Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. The humanistic approach focuses on things like self-actualization and unconditional positive regard. When used in a therapeutic setting the humanistic approach focuses on:

- The present and future and not the past.

- Conscious thoughts rather than the unconscious.

- Taking immediate responsibility for one's feelings and actions, rather than uncovering the unconscious.

- Promoting growth instead of curring illness. Thus, those in therapy became "clients" rather than "patients".

Humanistic therapy also developed the idea of active listening. A good comparison that explains much about the humanistic approach is:

In contrast to Freud's study of the base motives of sick people, these humanistic psychologists focused on the ways healthy people strive for self-determination, and self-realization. In contrast to behaviorism's scientific objectivity, they studied people through their own self-reported experiences and feelings.

 

Although I am dubious to call humanistic psychology a science I feel that it definitely has its place, especially in the therapy setting. I would much rather go to a therapist who listened to me and helped me work words self-realization than go to a therapists who said that I was in competition with my father because I wanted to have sex with my mother. I also find it hard to call many perspectives with in psychology science as their processes are on the edge of the scientific method, however, I don't think that necessarily makes them invalid or useless.

 

Meyers, David G. "Exploring Psychology in Modules 7th Ed." Worth Publishers 2008

[stradi]

I was studying psychology and really found it disappointing. Most of the basis for psychology was from drug addicted sexist men like Freud or biased as many of the older psycho analyst did not know the proper population selection. Psychology seems to take a one size fits all kind of approach. As I would read the development of child hood and adolescence I keep thinking to my self I don't relate at all to what this book is saying.

 

Completely agree: Freud was indeed a cocaine addicted misogynist. More seriously yet, he was a professional fraudster who falsified each of his famous cases in order to make it

a) fit with his far-fetched and grotesque theories and

b) make it look like he had cured them.

 

Egs., little Hans was pretty sure his horse-phobia was the result of seeing a horse fall down in a street. But his psychoanalyst father, under Freud's direction, browbeat the poor 5 yr old until he "admitted" that it really meant he wanted to sleeop with his own mother. An Austrian reporter tracked "Wolfman" down decades after Freud had pronounced him psychoanalysis' greatest success. "Wolfman" told the reporter he found Freud's treatments "terribly far-fetched" (Freud insisted that a dream the man had had about wolves meant he's watched his own parents having anal sex when he was 18 months old and got jealous of them, even though poor wolfman had no such recollection).

 

Wolfman told the reporter the universal belief he had been cured was "false".

 

I remember Freud once saying his own father was a "pervert" who had "terrorised" his brother and sister. It sounds like the creepy oedipus theory may have been true of Freud himself; his insistence that it's true for people generally is, as wolfman would have said "terribly far-fetched".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't consider psychology a science. For the most part they do a good job having a rigorous methodology and pursue evidence-based research as much as possible, but they are not a science.

 

.

 

*Really*?

 

Eysenck performed a famous study in the fifties, with the proper controls psychology studies had formerly tended to lack. He found 2/3 of people were "cured" by psychotherapy, but the same number tended to get better as they were on the waiting list for therapy. The therapy was maybe helpful in speeding up the process for those who would have got better in any case.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hahahaha. Oh man Dr. Syntax, long time no see. It made me laugh that you mentioned primal therapy again.

 

Isn't Janov the guy who told people they would get better by lying spread-eagled on the floor and talking about how bad their lives have been for hours until they progress to screaming out something like "mommy I hate you!"?

 

After about a year they are deemed well enough to scream by themselves at home.

 

It's sad that some therapists are prepared to explot vulnerable people by charging top dollar for this nonsense.