Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Psychology=junk science
- Thread starter biteme
- Start date
W
Warik
Guest
Psychology = pseudoscience. It's one of the only branches of "medicine" can claim that we do not know shit about how the brain really works and at the same time claim that "new mind drug #7" will help your depression and anxiety.
Give me a fucking break. The minute you get off of it you will feel like shit again. You call that medicine? Imagine if the minute you stopped taking NyQuil, you'd start coughing up a storm again. rofl. Reminds me of those alcohol rehabilitation centers:
"Yes sir... you are completely cured of your drinking problem as long as you don't touch another beer!" Wow that makes real fucking sense!
It just pisses me off to see people claiming that they are trying to "help" people when in fact they are just taking advantage of their ignorance and calling it science.
-Warik
Give me a fucking break. The minute you get off of it you will feel like shit again. You call that medicine? Imagine if the minute you stopped taking NyQuil, you'd start coughing up a storm again. rofl. Reminds me of those alcohol rehabilitation centers:
"Yes sir... you are completely cured of your drinking problem as long as you don't touch another beer!" Wow that makes real fucking sense!
It just pisses me off to see people claiming that they are trying to "help" people when in fact they are just taking advantage of their ignorance and calling it science.
-Warik
CollegeKid
New member
psychology is pure bullshit. it's theories without the science. something that belongs back in the 20th century, not the 21st. neuroscience is where it's at, hard facts about the brain, not arm-chair philosophizing.
collegiateLifter
New member
Freud had some good points.
A
anythingbutsane
Guest
WODIN said:
dude... wodin... tell them about back in your day when the cure for mental illness was to drill holes in your temples.
musclebrains
New member
Warik said:
Sort of like insulin and diabetes?
musclebrains
New member
Excellent article in yesterday's NY Times Magazine about the typical breakdown of theories in psychotherapy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/magazine/23REPRESSION.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/magazine/23REPRESSION.html
HansNZ
New member
Psychology can never be like mathematics or physics. It is not like engineering whereby you can input this + this and = this. Any science that deals with non-linear phenomena is going to be more of a challenge.
Anyway, aren't you pleased that you have free will rather than a mind that operates like a machine?
Anyway, aren't you pleased that you have free will rather than a mind that operates like a machine?
CollegeKid
New member
HansNZ said:
sorry to break it to you but the brain IS a machine. a highly complex one, but a machine nonetheless.
Longhorn85
New member
HansNZ said:
Oh really? Then why is it that most liberal arts majors I knew in college struggled with required math and science classes while math, business and engineering majors found the psych classes to be "easy A's", in some cases without even attending class, just reading the text?
Also students that obtain degreees in subjects that are intensive in math and engineering find jobs easier and draw higher salaries upon graduation than their liberal arts counterparts. These skills are in demand by employers because they are harder to obtain.
circusgirl
New member
Warik said:
Actually Warik, so-called "abormal psychology" as in mental illness, is a fairly minor area as regards research in psychology in general.
Most academic psychologists are cognitive psychologists, eg they do experiments to see how tracking eye movements can be used to investigate theories on reading and writing, perception, hearing etc. Most "psychology lecturers" have ZERO interest in depression, etc, that is for PSYCHIATRISTS ie doctors. Hence why the take-a-pill approach is prevalent, this is what medics do. Most research in psychiatry is carried out by medically trained personnel, biologists, pharmacologists etc, not psychologists. The psych majors are busy doing MRI scans to see how your brain reacts when asked to conjugate verbs and so on.
A lot of the theories on perception and the like are extremely interesting, as are the theories of memory, language and so on. Personally, as a comp sci computational linguistics person, I'm don't give a shit what the brain does, I just want my system to work, dammit, some other folks in the dept here are interested in this sort of thing though.
W
Warik
Guest
musclebrains said:
Yes.
Don't think for a moment that I praise modern medicine. I have a relative and someone close to me in the hospital, and two relatives in a cemetary, because the greatest minds in medicine with two decades and the most sophisticated medical technology is not enough to find cures or effective treatments for cancer, diabetes, heart & lung disease, etc...
The quality of the treatment does not correspond to the cost. I don't think medical treatment should cost so much when anything more serious than a broken arm triggers a "you'll be fine except for the following life-long painful side effects" response.
-Warik
W
Warik
Guest
HansNZ said:
Actually, my egocentric nature leads me to believe that I am the only being in the universe with free will and that everyone else is just a highly complex machine that will respond to input in a specific way. Now if only I could figure out and control all the variables, I will rule the world.
-Warik
atlantabiolab
New member
musclebrains said:
No not like diabetes, which has a proven demonstrable organic basis. Show us the organic nature of "addictions". Or maybe the organic origin of sociopathy. Not to mention the amazing scientific conclusions drawn from psychological research: subject A gets a hard-on while asked to watch gay porn, yet maintains that he is heterosexual and from all records is heterosexual. Conclusion: he is really a repressed homosexual.
Psychology has medicalized human behaviour into "illnesses" and is an immerging tool for socialization. Thomas Szasz is an excellent author on this subject.
Judah Bauer
New member
the drug aspect belongs to psychiatry, not psychology at all. psychology is more related to counseling and behavior ect ect.
sure psychology pails in comparison to other sciences considering what its done....its the newest! less than a century old. But its a science and a necessary one at that. Philosophy and Physiology (the precursers of psych) are no where near broad enough in scope to cover what psych does.
But psych has had alot of big discoverys ...classical and operant conditioning, tons of stuff relating to behavior...everything to do w/ memory (long and short term ect)...Freud and Jeung et all had amazing theories....
sure psychology pails in comparison to other sciences considering what its done....its the newest! less than a century old. But its a science and a necessary one at that. Philosophy and Physiology (the precursers of psych) are no where near broad enough in scope to cover what psych does.
But psych has had alot of big discoverys ...classical and operant conditioning, tons of stuff relating to behavior...everything to do w/ memory (long and short term ect)...Freud and Jeung et all had amazing theories....
A
anythingbutsane
Guest
HansNZ said:
free will is an illusion that can be easily explained via natural selection.
S
Stryker1992
Guest
biteme said:
You seem to really know a lot. Let me guess you are taking your first entry level psych class and learning about early thoeries from freud, piaget, maslow, socartes, cannon etc. Of course they do not agree at that point, they are in the early part of the science. Secondly man, how much in the medical field stays consistent. Salt is bad, meat is bad, heart disease, blood pressure. All has changed. Antibiotics have changed and our use of them. Think before you speak. How much has changed in basic science, global warming, not global warming it is bad, it is not. Train this way train that way. Get my point? Probably not!
Re: Re: Psychology=junk science
No, you arrogant cocksucker. I already have a worthless degree. Many agree with me, that it's mostly nonsense. Some of it has value. I didn't make a blanket statement. I think I said it was mostly unproven theories and that is correct IMO and many others as well. Shut your goddamn arrogant mouth. I'll ignore you from this point on.
bkellyms said:
No, you arrogant cocksucker. I already have a worthless degree. Many agree with me, that it's mostly nonsense. Some of it has value. I didn't make a blanket statement. I think I said it was mostly unproven theories and that is correct IMO and many others as well. Shut your goddamn arrogant mouth. I'll ignore you from this point on.
musclebrains
New member
Warik said:
LOL...I am scared of that!
Judah Bauer
New member
Yeah I'm sure the handful of guys, such as yourself, who posted on this thread against psych really are qualified to determine what constitutes a "worthy" science. If there wasn't a need for it, it wouldn't be here...bottom line.
musclebrains
New member
atlantabiolab said:
At last we agree on something. I have read Szasz at length and attended a debate between him and my mentor. "The Manufacture of Madness" and "The Myth of Mental Illness" are brilliant books. Like Foucault's examination of the criminal mind and the prison, though, they precede a lot of neuroscience.
The comparison to insulin and drugs that maintain sertonin levels is certainly valid. Both address an organic condition. Neither cures the condition but corrects it through the introduction of a substance that the body is not sufficently producing or of a stimulant of that substance.
atlantabiolab
New member
Re: Re: Psychology=junk science
None of the examples you present are examples of good science: salt/hypertension, cholesterol/atherosclerosis, etc. are all examples of bad science. Epidemiological studies are "useful" to show links, but have no validity to show causation, which current organizations seem to try and forget.
Antibiotics have changed??? What the hell are you talking about? Global warming IS basic science. If repeated measurements show elevations in earth's temperature, then the earth is warming. This, however, cannot be extrapolated to show that 'X' (generally human actions) is the reason, in light of the extremely limited data. This is bad science, assuming with no evidence or little evidence.
As for Freud and early psychoanalysts, they were closer to philosophers than scientists. Show us where the "id" is located. How do we measure it? Dream interpretations, please....
bkellyms said:
None of the examples you present are examples of good science: salt/hypertension, cholesterol/atherosclerosis, etc. are all examples of bad science. Epidemiological studies are "useful" to show links, but have no validity to show causation, which current organizations seem to try and forget.
Antibiotics have changed??? What the hell are you talking about? Global warming IS basic science. If repeated measurements show elevations in earth's temperature, then the earth is warming. This, however, cannot be extrapolated to show that 'X' (generally human actions) is the reason, in light of the extremely limited data. This is bad science, assuming with no evidence or little evidence.
As for Freud and early psychoanalysts, they were closer to philosophers than scientists. Show us where the "id" is located. How do we measure it? Dream interpretations, please....
Judah Bauer
New member
show me a picture of "electricty" or "gravity".... it doesn't matter that you can't "see" something. If a theory accurately describes the behavior of something, its good science....note: I'm not defending the Id here in particular....we know there's more to consciousness than that now.
musclebrains
New member
CollegeKid said:
Actually, we don't know that at all -- unless you have a novel definition of mechanics.
This thread fails to make some important distinctions between research psychology, the practical application of it and applications out of the psychoanalytical tradition.
You can't dismiss psychology because its research isn't definitive in its conclusions. One would have to dismiss quantum physics on the same basis. Along with much of medical research, which is continually being revised. (Consider the way the food pyramid has been overturned or the way hormonal therapy in women was recently scrapped.)
One goal of psychology, even cognitive psy, which has been appropriated by behaviorists, has always been to examine how people make meaning of their experience. The practical application of this aspect of psychology is to help people in that endeavour. Psychoanalysis was never intended, really, to proceed scientifically. Freud, later in his life, repeatedly said that his inspirations were works of literature, like Goethe's, and that his "art" was better understood by creative types than by scientists. It's one reason he believed in lay analysis. To say that an effort to make meaning out of your life is not valuable because it is not scientific is to say that the art or music or sports by which many people feel enlightened and enriched, is not valuable. People can spend their money the way they want for illumination.
At the same time, it is true that psychology has often represented itself as scientific even in respects where it is nothing of the kind. It often, as biolab noted, is used as a tool of social normalization. A classic example of the lengths to which it will go was creating a diagnosis to pathologize runaway slaves during the 19th century. Because they were violating the social norm, they HAD to be sick, not just rebellious in an unjust world.
Another example is the pathologizing of same-gender sexual interactions. The American psychoanalytical community literally re-wrote Freud to do this. In fact, Freud was very clear in a famous letter to the mother of a gay man that he thought there was nothing inherently wrong in being homsexual. Also, whereas the American community adopted the idea that the unresolved Oedipus Complex explains homosexuality, Freud himself said it could as clearly be an actual desire for the body of the father. The point is that, operating under the rubric of science, psychology, in its practical applications, has worked very hard to legitimate prejudice and conservative values. Its pathologizing of women, including its massive campaign in the 50s and early 60s to medicate uppity women who were suffering from a misogyny they could not longer tolerate is another example. Now the target community is young people who are stuck in mental institutions and special schools because their parents don't like the way they are behaving.
The fact is that some of the cognitive interventions, such as exposure therapy, have helped many people's symptoms. And many people have felt their lives were enriched by psychoanalytical work. But where psychology attempts to establish and enforce norms of social behavior, it inevitably proves monstrous, so that, as R.D. Laing said, madness becomes the only appropriate response in an insane culture -- that happens to be too often regulated by psychologists in cahoots with the state.
atlantabiolab
New member
musclebrains said:
The comparison is logical, but what if one, who is not suffering from any said "condition" takes a small amount of methamphetamine. The person claims to be able to focus more effectively, feels better and improves his/her work while on the drug. Does the person have a subclinical "condition" that is being exposed with the use of the drug? Was the former state really an "illness" because the drug corrected a "condition"?
Being libertarian, I am for the OTC sales of essentially all drugs, with well regulated restrictions of course, so I am not against people taking SSRI's, amphetamines, benzo's, etc. But the studies validating the use of SSRI's for depression are mediocre. Many show low effectiveness, often 40% or less, and often comparable rates to placebo or non-pharmaceutical interventions. Essentially we don't know what causes depression but it seems we found some classes of drugs that give some relief and we made depression an illness of serotonin levels.
musclebrains
New member
atlantabiolab said:
I do not disagree with the contention that much of what is ordinary melancholy or situational depression, like grief, has been turned into an illness and medicated -- usually unsuccessfully.
The problem of methamphetamines -- we are medicating children in huge numbers with speed -- is as much societal as clinical in my opinion, even when used in the superficially benign way you mention. Use of the drugs to improve focus and work reiterates the goal of capitalism or consumer culture, just as Prozac does. In that, regardless of your viewpoint toward capitalism, they are serving the culture's need for productivity (and pleasantry in the case of Prozac). Thus they are also a tool of social adaptation. Whether that is appropriate, I'm not so sure.
The problem with making all drugs available OTC is that in cultures where that is done, antibiotics become less effective because resistant strains of diseases quickly develop. STDS in Thailand are a good example.
musclebrains
New member
Re: Re: Re: Psychology=junk science
Freud did not maintain his topography of the psyche had loci. The unconscious is simply what is disowned by consciousness -- forgotten or repressed. And, yes, repression has been demonstrated to be a neurological fact. Dream interpretations are exercises in the imagination. They are as valid in the making of meaning as any other work of imagination. The notion that there is a concrete symbology of dream images has long been abandoned. Freud called psychoanalysis, and dreamwork, a "healing fiction."
atlantabiolab said:
Freud did not maintain his topography of the psyche had loci. The unconscious is simply what is disowned by consciousness -- forgotten or repressed. And, yes, repression has been demonstrated to be a neurological fact. Dream interpretations are exercises in the imagination. They are as valid in the making of meaning as any other work of imagination. The notion that there is a concrete symbology of dream images has long been abandoned. Freud called psychoanalysis, and dreamwork, a "healing fiction."
S
Stryker1992
Guest
What the hell am I talking about. Euphemestically speaking, If I had all fucking day I would explain it to you. The bottom line is the asshole that started this thread needs a good psych and so do his supporters.
If you do not have the knowledge to understand an argument do not condem it.
If you do not have the knowledge to understand an argument do not condem it.
S
Stryker1992
Guest
Re: Re: Re: Psychology=junk science
They are not good science? Why because technology evolved and the theories were disproved? Global warming has only raised temperatures in antartica by .5 degrees in the last 10 years. presenting no threat. Let me ask you how warm is it in the northeast?
You do not know most antibiotics have become ineffective or antiquated?
They are not good science? Why because technology evolved and the theories were disproved? Global warming has only raised temperatures in antartica by .5 degrees in the last 10 years. presenting no threat. Let me ask you how warm is it in the northeast?
You do not know most antibiotics have become ineffective or antiquated?
atlantabiolab said:
collegiateLifter
New member
Re: Re: Re: Psychology=junk science
Show me where the "mind" is located and how do we measure it? surely its not just little electrical pulses and neurons? BTW modern scientists (psychologists i'd wager) are starting to find truth in the libido theory, although it is a more encompassing drive nowadays.
atlantabiolab said:
Show me where the "mind" is located and how do we measure it? surely its not just little electrical pulses and neurons? BTW modern scientists (psychologists i'd wager) are starting to find truth in the libido theory, although it is a more encompassing drive nowadays.
W
Warik
Guest
musclebrains said:
Ah... so this is the stimuli that will strike pure FEAR into your heart. I am learning more about your species every day.
-Warik
J
JohnyJuice
Guest
Warik said:
Not if i beat you to it.
atlantabiolab
New member
Judah Bauer said:
You must be joking right? I didn't say that something had to be "visible" to be real, but to be scientifically defined it must be measurable in some way, for with no measurements there is no objectivity. Gravity fits neatly into a objectively measurable concept, whereas things like dreams, certain mental illnesses, "ids", etc. are not.
atlantabiolab
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Psychology=junk science
Not because of the technology, but because of the conclusions drawn from the research. The above examples were of "links" not causations. Linking two variables does not show that one has effect on the other. Here's an example: a study finds that men in urban cities have bigger dicks than men in suburbs. Conclusion: urban cities cause big dicks.
Are you saying the since antibiotics can lose effectiveness against organisms that the science is flawed? You don't understand science.
bkellyms said:
Not because of the technology, but because of the conclusions drawn from the research. The above examples were of "links" not causations. Linking two variables does not show that one has effect on the other. Here's an example: a study finds that men in urban cities have bigger dicks than men in suburbs. Conclusion: urban cities cause big dicks.
Are you saying the since antibiotics can lose effectiveness against organisms that the science is flawed? You don't understand science.
duritz
Banned
It's pretty funny how people that know nothing about a topic try to debate how the topic is worthless. I think I am the board expert on this topic since I have my BA in psychology and am 15 credits shy of my Masters in Counseling Pysch. Can anyone here say they have been in Intro to PSych, Nuero 1 & 2, Child psych, educational psych, abnormal psych, adult and aging psych, social psych, health psych, experimental psych, psych stats, theories of personality, Drugs and Behavior, clinical psych, psychology of gender, and countless others??? I didn't think so.
If you've read up on anything related to psychology you would know the basics. A psychologist is a person who isn't licensed to prescribe drugs. That would be a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist is pretty much a doctor who is well versed in the nuerological aspect of the human body. You tell them you have depression and they give you a drug to combat it. But if anyone knows anything about psych, you would know that you don't cure the patient by just covering up the problem. You have to go to the root of what is causing the problem. This is where the counseling aspect of psychology comes into play. In order to cure depression you have to find out what is causing it (ex. parents, no love live, negative outlook etc.) You fix this and you fix the depression.
To the person who responded that nothing comes out of psychology this is what i have to say. Who is more important?? A Dr. that can fix a broken bone or a Dr who can help a girl who was molested her entire life finally be able to have a good nights sleep, or be able to trust a man, or to eliminate the sudden flashbacks she has of the incident?? They are both very important.
You also have to realize that Psycholgy is less than 100 yrs old. The medical profession is thousands of yrs old as well. We are making great strides in our field everyday and it's people like yourselves that try to hold us back because you think it's a "waste". Remember that when one of your children is bipolar and every day you cry yourself to sleep wishing the pain would go away from them. How would you like your son or daughter to be in a catatonic state for days and weeks at a time and then all of a sudden be off the wall for days on end?? When you finally meet that Dr that can alleviate this you would be willing to pay $10,000,000 to help your child out.
Granted there are disputes in our field, but you are not realizing there are disputes in every field. Why do you think people go get second opinions on diagnoses given to them by medical doctors??
on a side note.. whomever said that the temp in antarctica on was raised .5 degrees in the last 10 yrs really needs to read up on this topic. Do you realize that a few degree change in temperature will melt all of the polar ice caps and flood the entire earth?? let's assume the number is 5 degrees. and .5 increase is every 10 yrs. that means in 100 yrs the earth is gone. Way to go hot shot.
Any well versed people on the topic agree??
If you've read up on anything related to psychology you would know the basics. A psychologist is a person who isn't licensed to prescribe drugs. That would be a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist is pretty much a doctor who is well versed in the nuerological aspect of the human body. You tell them you have depression and they give you a drug to combat it. But if anyone knows anything about psych, you would know that you don't cure the patient by just covering up the problem. You have to go to the root of what is causing the problem. This is where the counseling aspect of psychology comes into play. In order to cure depression you have to find out what is causing it (ex. parents, no love live, negative outlook etc.) You fix this and you fix the depression.
To the person who responded that nothing comes out of psychology this is what i have to say. Who is more important?? A Dr. that can fix a broken bone or a Dr who can help a girl who was molested her entire life finally be able to have a good nights sleep, or be able to trust a man, or to eliminate the sudden flashbacks she has of the incident?? They are both very important.
You also have to realize that Psycholgy is less than 100 yrs old. The medical profession is thousands of yrs old as well. We are making great strides in our field everyday and it's people like yourselves that try to hold us back because you think it's a "waste". Remember that when one of your children is bipolar and every day you cry yourself to sleep wishing the pain would go away from them. How would you like your son or daughter to be in a catatonic state for days and weeks at a time and then all of a sudden be off the wall for days on end?? When you finally meet that Dr that can alleviate this you would be willing to pay $10,000,000 to help your child out.
Granted there are disputes in our field, but you are not realizing there are disputes in every field. Why do you think people go get second opinions on diagnoses given to them by medical doctors??
on a side note.. whomever said that the temp in antarctica on was raised .5 degrees in the last 10 yrs really needs to read up on this topic. Do you realize that a few degree change in temperature will melt all of the polar ice caps and flood the entire earth?? let's assume the number is 5 degrees. and .5 increase is every 10 yrs. that means in 100 yrs the earth is gone. Way to go hot shot.
Any well versed people on the topic agree??
circusgirl
New member
musclebrains said:
Ah but Warik has to find out how to deal with his evil Nemesis Skeletor first.....
musclebrains
New member
duritz said:
I'm pretty well versed but don't entirely agree. I have a clinical master's but I found the practice of psychology so dubious, so full of hocus pocus, that I went back for a PhD in, basically, the philosophy of psychology -- though I ended up doing a lot of clinical work even for that.
My main point of contention is your statement about uncovering the causes of psychological disturbance like depression in order to heal it. I refer you to the NY Times piece I made allusion to earlier here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/m...REPRESSION.html
There is a growing body of evidence that it is not always useful to disclose the origin of a psychological disturbance or to review it at length. Although I think this article is not very well written and misunderstands repression -- which is by definition an unconscious process and can't,therefore, be an act of the will -- it does outline the argument for a kind of process of active denial or perspectivizing of events. Freud himself, who "discovered" the unconscious, said that repression was a natural event to maintain the integrity of the psyche. As long as it worked, he wasn't for depressing material in the unconscious.
Since my training was mainly in the cathartic humanistic therapies, including Janov's primal work, I have experienced again and again the way patients become attached to their traumas -- or, maybe better put, the way people become victims of their own memory. I have also watched the way clients conspire with therapists in maintaining a cycle of memory and catharsis. Catharsis does not necessarily heal. (Confession may be more to the point than the catharsis.) This process is very good at establishing repeat business and is good for the economy of the psy industry. It maintains the illusion of progress while giving the client an authorized defense against re-connecting with life.
I also dispute your contention that medication only treats the symptom. We aren't sure. There is evidence in the case of endogenous depression, which arises independent of life circumstance, that medication gives enough experience with coping more effectively that people eventually learn to do so without the drug -- or experience an actual organic change. We reflexively say that medication ought to be accompanied by talk therapy, but, as the article points out there is ample evidence that rehashing the traumatizing event deepens the disturbance.
That doesn't mean I don't think talking things out isn't valuable. But I'm not sure it needs to be a therapist charging $120 an hour. A famous French study let taxi cab drivers stand in for therapists and there was utterly no difference in the reported improvement felt by these patients compared to those who talked with trained therapists. There are many other ways to deal with suffering -- people managed for two millenia without psychology.
Finally, I don't even find the symptom-based cognitive therapies terribly impressive at this point. Most studies reveal short-term improvement followed by relapse in the long term.
maxpayne72
New member
The problem with the fields of psychology and psychiatry is that unlike the psychic friends hotline, which both parties know is a joke, the psych practitioners dangerously believe they aren't simply guessing.
A good psychiatrist admits they know fuck all, and are just there to guide you to recovery as best they can. A dangerous one thinks they know how to help you. I've learned this the hard way.
A good psychiatrist admits they know fuck all, and are just there to guide you to recovery as best they can. A dangerous one thinks they know how to help you. I've learned this the hard way.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
Wow, you really went back in the day to revive this thread. Having one of my degrees in psych and being a cognitive researcher and now working in the medical field. I cant believe I actually read this thread in its entirety. I am now depressed.
You still got game.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
Well thankyou, I feel better already. Actually Im pretty chill normally, just it was interesting to see some of those posts. I just said I was depressed b/c I didnt want to criticize anyones point directly so the arguments wouldnt start over again. Didnt want to give anyone any ammo.
Growth&Courage
New member
What I am concerned of Psychology is its epistemological establishment.
Psychology has become another branch of politics intertwined with Power, Truth & Knowledge; shortly following Psychiartry and the most significant of all => MEDICINE /SCIENCE.
Psychology has become another branch of politics intertwined with Power, Truth & Knowledge; shortly following Psychiartry and the most significant of all => MEDICINE /SCIENCE.
Facts about psychology/psychiatry:
It is not as precise and advanced as other sciences.
People may find it easy to learn compared to say, biochemistry.
I paid more attention to this subject mainly to understand myself.
Before Freud, there was no such concept as 'subconscious'. No one had idea about 'hidden motives' behind one's actions.
I often observe human behavior and tell myself 'Freud didn't know how correct he was'.
It becomes 'pseudo-science' when people try to over-expand its use.
Freud himself over-reached and tried to explain psychiatric behavior by his theories that was clearly caused by biochemical imbalances in the brain.
Psychological experiments discover amazing things about us that we may not beilive otherwise. Like the study that normal human beings, given circumstances, would torture other human beings just for fun. And that subjects will tolerate torture although they had the option to leave at any time.
I wish there was more research in this field.
Too little research going on (except by pharmaceutical companies) is my only criticism.
It is not as precise and advanced as other sciences.
People may find it easy to learn compared to say, biochemistry.
I paid more attention to this subject mainly to understand myself.
Before Freud, there was no such concept as 'subconscious'. No one had idea about 'hidden motives' behind one's actions.
I often observe human behavior and tell myself 'Freud didn't know how correct he was'.
It becomes 'pseudo-science' when people try to over-expand its use.
Freud himself over-reached and tried to explain psychiatric behavior by his theories that was clearly caused by biochemical imbalances in the brain.
Psychological experiments discover amazing things about us that we may not beilive otherwise. Like the study that normal human beings, given circumstances, would torture other human beings just for fun. And that subjects will tolerate torture although they had the option to leave at any time.
I wish there was more research in this field.
Too little research going on (except by pharmaceutical companies) is my only criticism.
milo hobgoblin
New member
I have a strong feeling most of its is total crap with a very small number of successes.. like chiropracters.
But Im very jaded against meical proffesionals of any kind.. especially the quacky ones like psyches and chiropracters.
But Im very jaded against meical proffesionals of any kind.. especially the quacky ones like psyches and chiropracters.
Similar threads
