Psychology as a belief system

[Sarah]

I believe it is.

Maslow, Graves, Jung, Frued...all these people were just philosophers.

Their conclusions and hpothesis' were their own.

One of the reasons I have so little respect for Psychology is not only my own experience of it, but also that it is taken by so many to be an absolute authority (and it is, by many).

This is taken as such without any evidence to back it up presented by the Psychologists.

Think about it: Habe you ever seen a psychologist say, "well, you have this and this going on because that was  what 'jung' believed (replace Jung with whomever)"

Very rarely.

They act like some sort of authority, when realy they are just shooting in the wind.

The Principles of modern Psychology when taken to their logical conclusions are:

The Human condition per individual, is caused by early childhood trauma or trauma earlier in their life.

If their suffering is not caused by that, then it is caused by bio-chemical 'imballances' that the person was born with, caused by 'random'(if you follow one school of Materialistic Darwinianism) mutations.

The conclusion being: what isnt' treatable as caused by this life, must be biochemical, and is thus "incurable" and only treatable by biochemistry. The person is believed to be forced to "deal" with the condition in some sense for the rest of their life.


>Hogwash. This is completely untrue. And this is one of the main reasons I disagree with psychology.

Not what they did and have done, but their conclusions.

I have seen personaly many, many people completely reverse, and set to rest (as in they never arise again) many, many syptoms that psychology thought to be "incurrable"
Almost all did it with some form oc contempative practice (I.E. Meditation, Yoga, etc.)

It is for this reason that I have so little respect for psychology: It doesn't work.

It is innefective compared with other means and far more expensive and dangerous.

As such I have a problem with the way our governments take this philosophy (because that is what it is) so seriosly and as an authority.

I have been privledged to have many friends who are shrinks or therapists of some sorts.

I am glad to have thier friendship.

But I don't take thier worldview with much seriousness. Anymore than I would a fundamentalist religious person.

I have no problem with some people using it, -it's helpful for many, Or people practicing it.
I have a problem with it considered an authority by Govt.

It has been caled the "New Religion". And I agree.

It is a religion of sorts, and I think it has no place in government or policy making.

Your thoughts?

Flame away.




Posted on: January 14, 2008, 01:46:39 PMSo I'll ask people who do believe in psychology:

On what basis do you base your beliefs?

Because it's what everyone else is doing?

If you see a therapist: have you read the works of the basis of psychology? Jung, Graves, Maslow, Freud, etc?

Or do you just assume that they were correct, and your therapist who read them is also correct?

What is the difference between this, and Christians who just go to Church on sunday  and let the pastor tell them what the Bible means?

Just because it is a science, doesnt mean that it is a fact. the conclusions in most of psychology are mostly untestable.(EDIT:however they ARE disprovable by empirical experience)

Which means it is more like a philosophy than anything else.

Just becuase some of it is helpful doesn't mean that all of it is. Same with the Bible.
Your thoughts?

[tekla]

That its a 'science' is up for debate.  Use of the scientific method does not a science make.  And not all psychology uses the scientific method. 

I would suggest the BBC series on The Century of Self (its on google vids)

Episodes 1-4 - each is about an hour.
1. Happiness Machines
2. The Engineering of Consent
3. There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed
4. Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering

Also see by the same guy, Adam Curtis:

- The Power of Nightmares
- Pandora's Box
- The Trap

[Sarah]

I agree, I was using "science" as a way of being polite, I don't personally agree that it is.

"Philosophy" is a far more accurate term in my opinion.

I have no issue with people beliveing this philosophy, just that it gets fovoritism in our government and public sector.

What makes Jung more of an authority than Jesus? Or Ghandi? or anybody?
And Jung was one of the better ones. And he was just trying to bring Rosicrucian religious beliefs in the mainstream of acceptance.

Posted on: January 14, 2008, 02:13:25 PM

That its a 'science' is up for debate.  Use of the scientific method does not a science make.  And not all psychology uses the scientific method. 

I was thinking about that: That's probably one of the biggest reasons why I have a problem with it: They (psychologists) make no distinction between when they use the scientific method and when they don't. Most (even my friends who are) just use their practitioners liscence as a free for all to start teaching whatever their personal belief of somthing is.

No standards are applied, and there is no way for the client to check the accuracy of their Therapist. The therapist essetialy is flying by the seat of their pants.

[tekla]

The key thing to 'pure' science is not just the use of the method, but the use of the method to achieve a predictable result.  That is where so much of this fails.  Its not predictable.  Its not verifiable in the traditional sense.  So yeah, its a faith system more than anything else.

[Sarah]

I have a friend of mine(and she IS a friend)
who is an LPC.

Now, she is also a Buddhist.

Now, I, am a Buddhist.

Now, here's the thing, she teaches "mindfulness" as a therapy practice.

Including meditation- Zazen.

However, she doesn't call it Buddhism, and as part of her practice she just lists her years of experiece of practice (in Buddhism) under her qualifications.

I once asked her who certified her to be a teacher. In Buddhism, you DO need to be certified by a legitamite teacher of some linniage in order to be a teacher of that tradition.

There was a long silence, and then she said "Uh, well what do you mean?" I mantioned to her what I just typed above.
She very aquardly and quickly mentioned, her practice years, and also some retreats she has been on, etc. Then she changed the subject.

The long and short of it was and is: She has no qualification to teach meditation or Buddhism.

And that is exactly what she is attemting to do.

And that is my problem.

She doesn't tell people that that is what it is, nor does she follow the Scientific Method.

She is basically making it up as she goes along. And making quite a bit of money doing it.

So she is neither teaching Psychology, or Buddhism. But she is teaching somthing.

What, I'm not quite sure, but "mindfullness" meditation is not in the works of Jung!

This is not an isolated incidence. This is actually more like the "rule" of psychologists than the exception.

They take what they want from different philisophical or religious beliefs and leave the rest behind, make no distinction between their works and the works of others, and do not give credit where the credit for that knowledge is due.

Also, they are not really accountable to anyone.  A person can go to college, get a 'C' average or better in psychology, ( which basicaly means studying the works of clasic and modern famous psychologists) get a basic rundown on suicide prevention, saftey, and confidetiality. and Presto! They are an LPC.

What makes anyone think that these people are in their right minds at all?
Or somehow an authority?

My friend is making it up. She doesn't have any certification to teach the things she is.

This is all to common for Psychologists to take whatever new way of thinking they come across, shake it up in a jar, and pour it out in thier therapy practice.
This is not science.

[tekla]

She is basically making it up as she goes along

As we all are, brave new world and all - as it turns out, we are the people we've been waiting for.  Anyone who thinks different is most likely mistaken.


A person can go to college, get a 'C' average or better in psychology, ( which basicaly means studying the works of clasic and modern famous psychologists) get a basic rundown on suicide prevention, saftey, and confidetiality. and Presto! They are an LPC.

Of course you don't know if your doctor got an "A" in liver and failed heart either.

[Sarah]

She is basically making it up as she goes along

As we all are, brave new world and all - as it turns out, we are the people we've been waiting for.  Anyone who thinks different is most likely mistaken.

Right, but in a science, you are supposed to adhere to some guidlines and standards.
Especially somthing that is supposed to be "medical"

There are saftey concerns, people don't have the right to experiment on thier clients.

Posted on: January 14, 2008, 03:14:02 PM

Of course you don't know if your doctor got an "A" in liver and failed heart either.

True, but there are standards they have to follow.
If they don't you can sue them for malpractice.

I can look on the piece or paper and say "here, this is where you screwed up. You were supposed to do *this*"
How does one do that with a  psychologist? say " you didn't follow Jungian tachings *here* so you screwed up?"

there are no such standards. They can do what they want.

Posted on: January 14, 2008, 03:17:39 PMThat's the other thing:
Doctors have to take the Hippocratic Oath.

Their entire livelyhood is tied up in making absolutely sure they Do no harm.

So they anyway? Sure, but they are often held accountable for it.

Psychologists do not have to take the hippocratic oath. Pyschyatrists do. But not Psychologists. and not LPC's and general Therapists.

[Sarah]

I'm somewhat aware of that, but I would be interested to see how you adress the other points.
Like the one of my friend.

It does seem once one has thier LPC they can do pretty much whatever they want.

My friend, who teaches "mindfulness" does so to other therapists as part of their "continuing education" in addition to her private clients.
She flies all over the county to teach seminars.

These therapists are getting "continuing education" about somthing she is not qualified to teach. But they are getting it anyway.

How do you address that?

[tekla]

Well continuing education is a huge place to go.  It could be anything from a top level seminar at Harvard to an all-expenses paid trip to a golf holiday with a lecture or two (or presentations by drug companies - Big Pharma) tossed in.

And though I'm not sure about Calif law, if its the same as most other things, its standards are more stringent than other states, not easier.

[Sarah]

Well continuing education is a huge place to go.  It could be anything from a top level seminar at Harvard to an all-expenses paid trip to a golf holiday with a lecture or two (or presentations by drug companies - Big Pharma) tossed in.

And though I'm not sure about Calif law, if its the same as most other things, its standards are more stringent than other states, not easier.

Well see that's my point.

People can walk away from these sorts of things and say "I've recieved mindfulness training" and then use it in their practice.

That is exactly my point. There is no standard of what they can and cannot use.

They can use whatever they want. And because they have some sort of "liscense", people take them seriously. Clients take them seriously.

There is no use of the scientific method with regard to these "techniques" they pick up.
No standard operation procedure, no accountability (as far as I can see) if the methods they use end up doing harm.

It seems to me that they can just say "well, I think I'll try *this*  with this person", and that there is no rule that says otherwise.

Kinda like a doctor who just says " I think I'll try this chipped glass scalpel that my native american friend at the sweatlodge gave me rather than the sterilized standard."

What??
Um no actually, I'd like my surgeon to follow some sort of standard, thank you.

[tekla]

I'm not even sure that 'mindfullness' is - or can be taught.  Its a state reached after long practice.  And kind of like "cool' or 'enlightenment' if you have to tell others you have it, you just missed it.

[Sarah]

I'm not even sure that 'mindfullness' is - or can be taught.  Its a state reached after long practice.  And kind of like "cool' or 'enlightenment' if you have to tell others you have it, you just missed it.

That is knida the point.

She is only using the word "mindfulness" as a label. a brand for the techniques she teaches.
In any case, it sorta besides the point

If I had my preference, psychologists would continue to exist and people would use them.
But their woed would not carry any weight in court, nor would it with regard to the creation of legal policies.

The problem of course is the issue of human rights. and how we defign "harm" in a  legal sense. Psychologists may be whakos but at least they can say torture is not a good thing for a person's psyche.

What a strange detached world we live in. We now need "experts" to tell us what morality is.

We no longer count on our public officials to be moral people, we now need 'expert verrification'.

We have seperated our concience from public knoledge and public forum, and now need expert opinion to verify that what we are doing is good or bad.

What a wierd planet.

At some point this has to change.

We no longer teach our children about cause and effect.

We used to teach our kids not to lie.

There are consequences for lying: paranoia, as one must always remember the storries one told who.

Killing. most every child knows that killing is wrong.

They almost allways cry or don't want to do it if their dad takes them hunting.

and yet as adults we ignore that feeling.

stealing.

etc, etc, etc.

we used to teach our kids to be responisble.
Save your money, because if you don't you will get debt, and or run out of resources.

Now, we encourage the use of credit cards and when people get depressed because they are living a life that spends more than it makes: we give them ten millagrams of zoloft or whatever.

I have watched my mom go to therapy for years.

It hasn't helped her one bit.

Not the way other things have. It was just a security blanket and a way to not have to make difficult choices.

We used to teach kids how to deal with their problems and teach them about hard truths.

now we encourage them to tell the teacher, or councilor, or cops rather than deal with the kid who teased them themself.

we used to have less crime.

Now we have a law for everything and it's nearly impossible not to break somthing.