Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I've been reading a few peer reviewed papers on Transsexualism and it seems like psychology as a whole has no clue what it's talking about. It talks of gender variance, but in black and white terms; how backwards is that! Plus most of the time the papers are just outright offensive and rely on generalizations.

I'm curious as to what other intellectuals think about Psychology.

Is it a Pseudoscience?

Isn't it extremely black and white?

Are there many hard facts backing up many of its claims? Or is the majority of it just ridiculous?

(Edit)

The only reason I asked for intellectuals is because I didn't want the thread to degenerate into, "All psychologists are idiots/jerks".

Quote from: Sky-Blue on January 31, 2013, 01:11:42 PM
I'm curious as to what other intellectuals think about Psychology.

Well I'm not an intellectual, but I'll give my opinion.

I think psychology's intentions are good. It operates with the hope of helping people with very serious problems that keep them from living fulfilling lives.

However the human brain is so complex with so many variations, that they struggle with coming up with conclusions that can be verified scientifically.

Most psychotherapists would tell you that their craft is more of an art than science and is not scientifically based.

Psychology is at its most damaging when we rely upon it to make predictions (about whether someone will kill someone, whether someone will be helped by a certain treatment, etc.), since even statistically verifiable processes will have variation and outliers that can be disastrous for the individuals involved.

As someone who inteds on completing her degree in psychotherapy, I like psychology. One thing you need to keep in mind, is psychology is a collection of past information and personal opinions. It is by far an exact science. Only neurological psychology has some sort of scientific basis to it.

Quote from: agfrommd on January 31, 2013, 01:19:40 PM
Psychology is at its most damaging when we rely upon it to make predictions (about whether someone will kill someone, whether someone will be helped by a certain treatment, etc.), since even statistically verifiable processes will have variation and outliers that can be disastrous for the individuals involved.

It's like when I was reading a paper that called people either "Autogyniphiles" or "Androphiles". It takes the human aspect out of the research: essentially Androphiles = Hydrophillic, reducing people to particles. Not to mention the fact that statistics make categories out of people, instead of making categories for people.

I think there's so much variation, it's hard to pin anything down. Psychology, in my opinion, tries to understand transsexualism and not be offensive about it but most of what I've read is clearly written by someone who hasn't walked that path.

My feeling is that they know or have known that "sex changes" work for a long time but to be honest I don't think they know why. Most of what I have seen is based on statistical samples so small that any conclusions drawn would be irrelevant. A lot of the other theories like  ->-bleeped-<- or differently gendered brains constitute a logical argument known as the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" where a small cluster of values are used to arrive at sweeping conclusions that can be easily disproven.

What I find interesting from psychology when studying humans is the lack of control groups, double blind studies and so on that are part of medicine or science in general. There are a lot of logical fallacies in how conclusions are assumed. Example if I want to go about proving  ->-bleeped-<- and all I meet are people that meet the criteria then the theory is proven. This is a popular misconception. If I am looking for red snails for example and I only look at red snails then I assume that all snails are red. The differently gendered brain problem assumes causality. It can be no more provable that some part if the brain creates a TG person than to say it is caused by the moon.

In the end it's not so much that its pseudo science, it's more accurate to say its bad science.

I think the problem is that some researchers study this condition because they really, genuinely want to understand it and others do so because they have an axe to grind.

Quote from: Zumbagirl on January 31, 2013, 01:50:27 PM
My feeling is that they know or have known that "sex changes" work for a long time but to be honest I don't think they know why. Most of what I have seen is based on statistical samples so small that any conclusions drawn would be irrelevant. A lot of the other theories like  ->-bleeped-<- or differently gendered brains constitute a logical argument known as the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" where a small cluster of values are used to arrive at sweeping conclusions that can be easily disproven.

What I find interesting from psychology when studying humans is the lack of control groups, double blind studies and so on that are part of medicine or science in general. There are a lot of logical fallacies in how conclusions are assumed. Example if I want to go about proving  ->-bleeped-<- and all I meet are people that meet the criteria then the theory is proven. This is a popular misconception. If I am looking for red snails for example and I only look at red snails then I assume that all snails are red. The differently gendered brain problem assumes causality. It can be no more provable that some part if the brain creates a TG person than to say it is caused by the moon.

In the end it's not so much that its pseudo science, it's more accurate to say its bad science.

Here is what I meant by Pseudoscience

Quote
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

Source

Wikipedia- Article, "Pseudoscience".

According to that definition, I would say yes. Psychology is a pseudoscience.

Although I don't intend to imply that the whole of psychology is pseudoscience. All I'm saying is that Psychology is largely hit and miss with its theories; and sometimes some theories are half-truths.

Hence Pseudoscience...it is science, but in some respects/parts it also fails to pass the criteria of being science. Practical...perhaps, but also not usually provable. 

Using that definition then yes it could be pseudoscience, but I don't believe that is the intent of the people who do the studying. I liken it more to scientific incompetence than to someone trying to
deluberately mislead. So in my mind magnet therapy is pseudoscience and  ->-bleeped-<- is scientific incompetence.

I liken the same thing to dietary fads. Today carrots are good for you and then someone finds a case where somebody got cancer from eating too many carrots and then suddenly carrots cause cancer. This is scientific incompetence in action whereas a cancer cure from carrot therapy would be pseudoscience.

I'm interested to see if some of the scientific members on here chime in.

I know my intent on studying psychology, and people is not to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people. It is to learn as much as I can about many types of people and to use that knowledge to help others. I want to be a psychotherapist that actually sits and listens to her patients and helps guide them through their troubles. But, that is not a scientific approach.

Quote from: Zumbagirl on January 31, 2013, 02:51:47 PM
Using that definition then yes it could be pseudoscience, but I don't believe that is the intent of the people who do the studying. I liken it more to scientific incompetence than to someone trying to
deluberately mislead. So in my mind magnet therapy is pseudoscience and  ->-bleeped-<- is scientific incompetence.

I liken the same thing to dietary fads. Today carrots are good for you and then someone finds a case where somebody got cancer from eating too many carrots and then suddenly carrots cause cancer. This is scientific incompetence in action whereas a cancer cure from carrot therapy would be pseudoscience.

I see, you just prefer "Scientific Incompetence" over "Pseudoscience" (regarding psychology) because of the negative connotations of the word "Pseudoscience".

Personally, I don't really see too much of a difference. Whether they intend to mislead or it's just "scientific incompetence", both end up creating half-truths and harmful generalizations.

I do understand the connotations of each term.

Quote from: Brooke777 on January 31, 2013, 02:58:06 PM
I'm interested to see if some of the scientific members on here chime in.

I know my intent on studying psychology, and people is not to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people. It is to learn as much as I can about many types of people and to use that knowledge to help others. I want to be a psychotherapist that actually sits and listens to her patients and helps guide them through their troubles. But, that is not a scientific approach.

If only the "Leading Researchers" had your perspective and compassionate attitude. It seems to me that a fair number of scientists can't/don't think outside of the box; resulting in them becoming stuck in their repetitive thought patterns.

Logic is extremely useful, but without creativity it grows stagnant. Science is useful, but without compassion it creates cold uncaring people and mechanical perspectives. The key is balance.

By definition, the word "psychology" means "the study of the soul".  Imo, psychology will never be able to come to conclusions that are any more applicable than generalizations and "guesstimates" for the simple fact that every person's inner being is different in a myriad of different ways. 

No two people will react exactly the same way to exactly the same circumstances all the time; therefore replicating "cures" for psych problems is itself a problem.  Outward reactions to similar stimuli may be quite similar, but the internal workings may get them there differently and may cause them to react differently if exposure to that same stimuli is repeated.

Quote from: Sky-Blue on January 31, 2013, 01:37:02 PM
It's like when I was reading a paper that called people either "Autogyniphiles" or "Androphiles".

The "Autogynophilia" conjecture has been largely discredited, from what I can recall. If you want to dig into the pseudoscientific aspects of current and past psych "research" and thinking, a good place to start might be Jeffrey Masson's dissection of Freud. Unfortunately, his blog (http://jeffreymasson.wordpress.com/) is not particularly well-organized, but his decades-old critique was something of a sensation when it came out.

It's generally better to avoid this stuff unless you have oodles of time to follow through and see how various pet theories have been smashed to bits over the years. There's a lot of crap out there, and the psych establishment really hasn't come up with a good way of marking the stuff as BS that is pretty clearly BS and based in overassumptions, saying more about the writers than about anyone's real experience.

Quote from: Elspeth on January 31, 2013, 03:46:33 PM
The "Autogynophilia" conjecture has been largely discredited, from what I can recall. If you want to dig into the pseudoscientific aspects of current and past psych "research" and thinking, a good place to start might be Jeffrey Masson's dissection of Freud. Unfortunately, his blog (http://jeffreymasson.wordpress.com/) is not particularly well-organized, but his decades-old critique was something of a sensation when it came out.

It's generally better to avoid this stuff unless you have oodles of time to follow through and see how various pet theories have been smashed to bits over the years. There's a lot of crap out there, and the psych establishment really hasn't come up with a good way of marking the stuff as BS that is pretty clearly BS and based in overassumptions, saying more about the writers than about anyone's real experience.

I was meaning that a lot of psychologists treat patients as though they literally are their disorder/affliction. They don't see them as people, but as objects to be studied and analyzed.

Thank you though for the info and link though :) ; I occasionally study the most obscure things, maybe I'll check out what you suggested. I have read a bit about various theories on transsexualism, I got a textbook on sexology that I intend to read at some point here.

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories."

Considering that psychology cannot be proven due to the fact that it relies on casting generalizations over billions of variables, it is not science. Science involves there being definite answers to every question that don't change each time the question is asked. There is always a definite method, whether we know it or not. Plus, if you read an actual scientific journal, no one will ever say that he/she is proven absolutely correct. A hypothesis is never "proven" so much as it "cannot be disproved, and is therefore operating as the best answer by current standards."

That's not to say that science is never wrong. It's just limited by current methods//technology, which is why people once thought that nothing could get smaller than an atom, until one was split and all of this other stuff came out.

Science basically deals with facts. Psychology deals with opinions made by people who aren't immune to human variability. Variables trying to figure out one answer for many variables does not sound like science to me.

I started my career choices off wanting to be a clinical psychologist, got a degree in Psychology, then went another route though never lost my interest in Psychology.

Two things occurred to me here: First, it's not that Psychology is a pseudo-science, I think it just takes a great deal of time for psychologists to truly understand a complex subject. To this extent, Psychology can be considered many fields, as there are areas of psychology that are advanced and well known now, and ares that aren't (transsexuals, though better now than in days past).

Another thing I think is important is to make a distinction between psychologists and psychiatrists. Psychiatry, in my opinion, is a somewhat outdated profession; it's unscientific roots show, and those practices are still used, whereas psychologists, I believe, use a more scientific method toward their research. A perfect example are the Baily/Blanchards and their Authogynephilia idea (which I believe is a total fiction, I don't think there's a single autogynephile on the planet because the very idea is seriously flawed). This "research" was done using the classic Psychiatric method: in other words, they used a small sample, very little actual scientific method, based most of their conclusions on their own ideas (most of which were conceived before they even began to "study"), and ignored data that did not fit their hypothesis. And, of course, they framed everything in a sexual context.

This is one reason why, for myself, I avoid Psychiatrists and prefer therapists.

Quote from: TanaSilver on January 31, 2013, 06:20:49 PM
This is one reason why, for myself, I avoid Psychiatrists and prefer therapists.

I'm sure it's different in some areas, but in the US, psychiatrists seem to limit themselves to the one area where they have a legal guild monopoly, psycho-pharmacology. The self-fulfilling theories transcend the borders between the various titles of those who provide "therapies," and considering that there's a legal challenge likely to win preserving the rights of "reparative therapy" practicioners to continue their abuse, I'd just look extremely carefully at individual therapists to decide who is trustworthy, and where they are likely (or not) to be of any use.

Quote from: Sky-Blue on January 31, 2013, 01:11:42 PM
I've been reading a few peer reviewed papers on Transsexualism and it seems like psychology as a whole has no clue what it's talking about. It talks of gender variance, but in black and white terms; how backwards is that! Plus most of the time the papers are just outright offensive and rely on generalizations.

I'm curious as to what other intellectuals think about Psychology.

Is it a Pseudoscience?

Isn't it extremely black and white?

Are there many hard facts backing up many of its claims? Or is the majority of it just ridiculous?

(Edit)

The only reason I asked for intellectuals is because I didn't want the thread to degenerate into, "All psychologists are idiots/jerks".

So, as far as what contributions to the understanding of GID has been made by the fields of Psychiatry and/or Psychology ...I am afraid the answer is: "NOTHING!!!"..the proverbial "jack s.."

Now, Neurobiology...that is a different story..neurobiologist have undercover a wealth of information on the  biological basis of GID, say for the last 15 years or so...

Dr. Peky

Quote from: peky on February 01, 2013, 12:01:30 PM


So, as far as what contributions to the understanding of GID has been made by the fields of Psychiatry and/or Psychology ...I am afraid the answer is: "NOTHING!!!"..the proverbial "jack s.."

Now, Neurobiology...that is a different story..neurobiologist have undercover a wealth of information on the  biological basis of GID, say for the last 15 years or so...

Dr. Peky

I was hoping you would get involved with this discussion.

There is one more thing to think about and that is science itself is self correcting. Disproven or falsifiable theories are thrown out especially incompetent science. Pseudoscience will continue on because it has a religious like following. The so called "new age" medicines despite out and out disproof still persist. People still want to believe that magnets or sounds or any number of things are a cure for disease, old age, cancer you name it.

The reason I think we as a group are misunderstood is that there is not enough research and by this I mean "real" research. When was the last time you heard of long term follow up studies of post-ops? No one is doing them. They know the process works and weeds out those who probably don't want a real change so why fix something that isn't broken? Our very lives are a living testament to the efficacy of the standards of care. That might be why we don't see much. Also why look for genes, brains etc when it may or may not prove anything because there is so much overlap between the sexes. That's just my thoughts.

the problem is that psychology isn't really a science at all, per se.  it's a social science, which is a different thing that abides by different standards and uses a different method of approaching problems than hard sciences do.  trying to uphold the standards of neuroscience when you're looking at psychology isn't fair to either of the disciplines, and probably won't net you much in the way of answers.

(which is to say nothing of the travesty that is pop psychology.)

I think there are a few reasons why it seems so black and white.

1. They kind of approach an understanding of something (like convergence in math) where you build up a series of this is true, this is not true little by little until you see the whole picture. Unfortunately because it's very theoretical and is largely based on sociology which is a huge huge huge thing to try to understand, the chances of ever seeing the whole picture are slim.

2. There's a language barrier. There are only so many ways to describe something without leading to confusion. You're talking about trying to describe feelings that one person has over feelings that another person has. By the time you get done explaining it all, nobody's going to remember what the original purpose was. So they come up with labels to group similar ideas together to make them easier to work with. If you start adding too many labels, nobody's going to be able to remember them all and psychology will start having lots of splits like the sciences do, where people can only specialize in very tiny sub-sections and never fully understand the whole subject. And I don't mean psychology as the whole subject. The whole subject may end up being transsexualism with 10 different sub-sections of specialization and the same goes for the other labels that fall under transgender (and any other area of psychology for that matter).