ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd May 2009, 12:12 PM   #1
Dr. Fascism
Critical Thinker
 
Dr. Fascism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 383
What's with the hostility to psychology here?

Looking through old threads, this place has a hostility to psychology that would almost lead you to think that Scientologists are innumerable here.

It's true that Freud, Jung, and others within the psychodynamic field are, to be charitable, a big joke, and that perhaps clinical psychology has some problems to overcome, but many of these problems are more within public perception and not the science itself. Many, if not most psych departments at least in the US from what I've seen don't even teach Freud's theories beyond psych 101; if they are brought up it's within a historical context.

Are we to roll our eyes whenever someone brings up physics because of the cold fusion quacks, or the "free energy" cranks, so on and so forth? Granted, psychology has emerged from philosophy far more recent than physics has, but good experimental psychology is as far removed from the quackery as good physics is from the type of nonsense you'd see Oprah peddling.

A lot of the criticisms I've read here were so out-of-date that it reveals complete ignorance over what most real psychological research is over. That's not to say that all psychological research is good research, but that is true of any field.

Do the people on this forum still hold that view of psychology?
Dr. Fascism is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 12:34 PM   #2
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Wow, totaly unreferenced and uncited opinion as an OP? (That does not bode well.)

There is no hostility to psychology and there are many proponenets of it here. (Merctio, Jeff Corey and Bpesta22 spring to mind.)

Maybe you could link to a thread and talk about it.

A lot of what gets called psychology is still crap.

(BTW I have a BS in psychology, from a 'behavioral' school. According to Jeff Corey I am a methodologist.)
ETA
here are four recent threads
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=140170
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=141297
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=140728
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=140247
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 2nd May 2009 at 12:42 PM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 12:40 PM   #3
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Wow, totaly unreferenced and uncited opinion as an OP? (That does not bode well.)
Perhaps he forgot to type the 'para' prefix.
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 02:14 PM   #4
Iconoclast08
Critical Thinker
 
Iconoclast08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by Dr. Fascism View Post
Looking through old threads, this place has a hostility to psychology that would almost lead you to think that Scientologists are innumerable here.
Out of curiosity, which threads?

Originally Posted by Dr. Fascism View Post
It's true that Freud, Jung, and others within the psychodynamic field are, to be charitable, a big joke, and that perhaps clinical psychology has some problems to overcome, but many of these problems are more within public perception and not the science itself. Many, if not most psych departments at least in the US from what I've seen don't even teach Freud's theories beyond psych 101; if they are brought up it's within a historical context.
Re clinical psychology, I totally agree with DD that a lot of crap (i.e., New Age self-help) calls itself psychology that isn't, but I also think that the field has been infiltrated by a fair number of whack jobs, especially in the "spirituality/religion" Kool-Aid speciality areas. And not all of the criticisms that I have seen on this forum are undeserved. For example, there was a thread awhile ago on woo-woo in 12 step programs, and while some of it was off-the-mark, there were valid criticisms and good points made. As an aside, there was a recent Free Inquiry article coming down pretty hard on 12 step as well. And for good reasons.

On a note of more personal observation (*anecdote alert!*) there seems to be disproportionately more soft thinking and poor critical thinking skills among many students and faculty at universities in clinical psychology in particular compared to other sub-fields (and definitely compared to the natural sciences). I have been so fed up with it in the past year that I have been tempted to leave the graduate program that I currently attend, which is actually a strong behavior-oriented one. But even here, the b.s. factor can be quite strong. It was even worse at a previous Ivy League university that I attended, where one tenured professor brought in a CD of The Secret for us to listen to one day. Ah, and we were asked to listen to trees for homework.

Originally Posted by Dr. Fascism View Post
Are we to roll our eyes whenever someone brings up physics because of the cold fusion quacks, or the "free energy" cranks, so on and so forth? Granted, psychology has emerged from philosophy far more recent than physics has, but good experimental psychology is as far removed from the quackery as good physics is from the type of nonsense you'd see Oprah peddling.
True, but given my experiences, it's understandable that I (and perhaps others) would see clinical psych as a worse woo-woo breeding ground that seems to give rise to disproportionately more wonky ideas. And lots of students eat it up without questioning any of it.

Originally Posted by Dr. Fascism View Post
A lot of the criticisms I've read here were so out-of-date that it reveals complete ignorance over what most real psychological research is over. That's not to say that all psychological research is good research, but that is true of any field.
Which ones?

Originally Posted by Dr. Fascism View Post
Do the people on this forum still hold that view of psychology?
Some do. And I can't say I totally blame them given the horrendous image that has been put into the public eye. But yes, you do have a good point that it is unfair to paint the *entire enterprise* of psychology with such a wide brush of disdain. There are skeptics among us. And there are lots of good researchers and evidence-based folks out there for sure.
Iconoclast08 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 02:32 PM   #5
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,588
Originally Posted by Dr. Fascism View Post

Do the people on this forum still hold that view of psychology?
I don't see the evidence of your claim. I might however be looking in the wrong places. The last thread that I was in that dealt with psychology was the one where Kurious_Kathy claimed that mental illness was really the devil messing with people's heads. Several posters then went on to explain (in no mild terms) that there are effective treatments for specific illnesses.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 03:04 PM   #6
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
 
Elizabeth I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Defending the Alamo
Posts: 9,929
I learned the scientific method from my psychologist stepfather.
Elizabeth I is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 04:10 PM   #7
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
 
bpesta22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,942
I think the average experimental psychologist is the best scientist in the world on average (though our best pale in comparison to hard science's best).

I do think there is some psych bashing here, but it doesn't bother me. The field's too broad and most have a narrow view of it.

So, what do you think about testing in general and IQ tests specifically?
__________________
Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.
bpesta22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 04:15 PM   #8
themusicteacher
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 708
My father in law has a heavy distaste for psychology and psychiatry saying that basically, it is all "bunk." I'm not sure if he has a strong foundation for this dislike but I did see a copy of "Whores of the Court" on his bookshelf (he is a lawyer). It was written by a psych prof at Boston College (can't recall her name) but she seems to have a keen hatred for clinical psychology. I do wonder if this stems from the woo that tries to pass itself off as real science and gets mixed up in the real study of the human mind. I've never really read any psych texts or authors so I can't really say what the difference between basic psych and clinical psych is. Could someone enlighten me?
themusicteacher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 04:15 PM   #9
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
"So, what do you think about testing in general and IQ tests specifically?" I thought that stuff was correlational rather than experimental. Experiments entail manipulating an independent variable.

Last edited by Jeff Corey; 2nd May 2009 at 04:16 PM.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 04:17 PM   #10
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Here is one reason:
Quote:

Perspectives on Scientism, Religion, and Philosophy Provided by Parapsychology


Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 2, 70-100 (1992)

Charles T. Tart

Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.

Modern views of neural functioning hypothesize that we live in a largely automatized simulation of reality rather than being in direct contact with the world. Scientism, a view that distorts the scientific process to make it compatible with a materialistic philosophy, is an important component controlling the modern world simulation process. Some of its psychologically deleterious effects are discussed in relation to a belief experiment for discovering these effects on a personal level. Scientism cannot be dismissed simply because it is dis-spiriting, however. The facts of science cannot be rejected out of hand.

Parapsychological research-thus plays a critical role in the transition from a modern to a postmodern view of human life; for, using the best kind of genuinely scientific method, its findings undermine scientism's claim to providing a total picture of life. In this way, parapsychological findings open us to serious consideration of a spiritual side to existence. The most solidly established parapsychological findings force us to consider a view of human beings that includes the possibility of Mind, without using the physical senses, sometimes reaching out directly, to touch other minds occasionally "perceiving" the state of the physical world and sometimes materially affecting it through volition alone, and sometimes foretelling a future that is materially unpredictable.

Other parapsychological findings, less solidly established but still demanding consideration, suggest a view of the nature of Mind that includes its ability to heal the body in a psychic fashion, to observe the world from a location other than where the physical body is located, and possibly to survive physical death in some form.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=158
http://jhp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/2/70
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 04:19 PM   #11
themusicteacher
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 708
Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
I think the average experimental psychologist is the best scientist in the world on average (though our best pale in comparison to hard science's best).

I do think there is some psych bashing here, but it doesn't bother me. The field's too broad and most have a narrow view of it.

So, what do you think about testing in general and IQ tests specifically?
IQ tests are tough. I think the problem with all tests is the application of them. People tend to place too much stock and value in them rather than seeing them as a valid measure of what, EXACTLY, is in the test. Concurrently, many people fail to look at test design to determine if it is, in fact, a valid measure. Education is obsessed with testing and it is, imo, destoying more young minds than it is helping. If testing were applied correctly and judiciously (and rarely), I think we'd have a bit more sanity around schools.
themusicteacher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 04:20 PM   #12
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
The problem with Psychology is that it is composed of very old and unscientitic theories and happy feel good new age nonsense at one end AND the more advanced and scientific studies on human behavior and neuroscience at the other end of the spectrum.

They're very good psychologist that do a lot of neurological research but there are also morons like Tart and many other post-modernist idiots with psychology degrees running around spewing crap out there.
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 04:24 PM   #13
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Originally Posted by themusicteacher View Post
... the real study of the human mind...
That's the problem. "Science of the mind" is an oxymoron, since the mind is not material and, hence, not part of the science of behavior. A number of psychological scientists have gotten fed up with this and prefer to be called behaviorists. There are two flavors there, those who practice the experimental analysis of behavior, the other , applied behavior analysis. There is some overlap, I teach both.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 04:57 PM   #14
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
 
bpesta22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by Jeff Corey View Post
"So, what do you think about testing in general and IQ tests specifically?" I thought that stuff was correlational rather than experimental. Experiments entail manipulating an independent variable.
Well, studying individual differences involves correlations, but trying to explain them involves designing experiments where variables are manipulated.

I think technically none of us are doing "experiments" unless we're randomly assigning things to levels of the IV. Good luck with that in most social science.
__________________
Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.
bpesta22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 07:16 PM   #15
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
The stuff I have done involves two types of experiments. One involves randomly assigning subjects to different groups, which are then exposed to different levels of an independent variable. The other involves exposing each subject to all levels of the independent variable in such a way as to control for order effects.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 08:14 PM   #16
Iconoclast08
Critical Thinker
 
Iconoclast08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by Jeff Corey View Post
"So, what do you think about testing in general and IQ tests specifically?" I thought that stuff was correlational rather than experimental. Experiments entail manipulating an independent variable.
Precisely. We can make it a bit fancier with multiple regression and even path analysis (or even higher order structural equation modeling), but in the end, you're right. Highfalutin statistics analyzing variance-covariance matrices. Observational/correlational stuff. We can't ethically manipulate IQ to create pre-arranged group discrepancies (feeding kids paint chips comes to mind). So we play with what we're given. And we can't make causal inferences from it... unless we go experimental. The very academic psychologists who wail to their undergraduate students about "correlation does not equal causation" are the same ones who go off on theoretical rampages steeped in causal assumptions in discussion sections of studies running correlational analyses. ...And that just pisses me off.

Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
The problem with Psychology is that it is composed of very old and unscientitic theories and happy feel good new age nonsense at one end AND the more advanced and scientific studies on human behavior and neuroscience at the other end of the spectrum.

They're very good psychologist that do a lot of neurological research but there are also morons like Tart and many other post-modernist idiots with psychology degrees running around spewing crap out there.
Couldn't agree more. Psych is a weird field, and we need an overhaul at the woo-woo end. The trick is getting people to cut the political b.s. and stand up to the bullies and mountebanks. And that's not easy.
Iconoclast08 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 08:28 PM   #17
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
 
bpesta22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,942
I don't disagree with you Icon, but i think it's a consequence of reality. We can't RA people to many groups that are very interesting to social science (sex, race, political party, personality, IQ, marital status, etc., etc).

Does that mean we shouldn't study these variables because we can't be scientific?

I don't think so. We can still use the rules of scientific evidence to decide whether or not data are worth keeping. Then we can devise and test theories based on that data. That we can't RA means we gots to be extra careful about causal inferences (by replication, and high internally valid research designs, and even sophisticated statistics that tests these theories).
__________________
Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.
bpesta22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 08:30 PM   #18
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
 
bpesta22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,942
eta, but it's also unfair to lump all of psych into one ball of wax. Clinical psychology is far, far away from, say, perceptual psychology.
__________________
Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.
bpesta22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 08:41 PM   #19
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
I just finished Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink". Some of the experiments he sites in the book are quite worthwhile, imho, and of the realm of psychology.
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 09:33 PM   #20
Rairun
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by Jeff Corey View Post
That's the problem. "Science of the mind" is an oxymoron, since the mind is not material and, hence, not part of the science of behavior. A number of psychological scientists have gotten fed up with this and prefer to be called behaviorists. There are two flavors there, those who practice the experimental analysis of behavior, the other , applied behavior analysis. There is some overlap, I teach both.
Is this really true? I dislike the term "mind" as well, but as far as I'm aware, the cognitive revolution made it legitimate for scientists to talk about mind again. The idea is that the mind is to the brain as software is to hardware. It's not immaterial. It's just a higher level of abstraction used to describe brain functions.

I just found the way you explained the whole thing very anachronistic. "A number of psychological scientists have gotten fed up with this and prefer to be called behaviorists"--to be honest, this made it sound like there was some new movement called behaviorism, founded by current scientists who got fed up with non-empirical, unfalsifiable theories. But the truth is that behaviorism is a century old, and many of its features were heavily criticized in the 50s. Behaviorism lost its hegemony in scientific psychology then, and it was not supplanted by woo.
Rairun is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 03:00 AM   #21
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
...Does that mean we shouldn't study these variables because we can't be scientific?...
I said, "experimental", not "scientific". Correlation is a valid scientific technique to use in cases where you cannot manipulate variables.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 03:05 AM   #22
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Originally Posted by Rairun View Post
Is this really true? I dislike the term "mind" as well, but as far as I'm aware, the cognitive revolution made it legitimate for scientists to talk about mind again. The idea is that the mind is to the brain as software is to hardware. It's not immaterial. It's just a higher level of abstraction used to describe brain functions.

I just found the way you explained the whole thing very anachronistic. "A number of psychological scientists have gotten fed up with this and prefer to be called behaviorists"--to be honest, this made it sound like there was some new movement called behaviorism, founded by current scientists who got fed up with non-empirical, unfalsifiable theories. But the truth is that behaviorism is a century old, and many of its features were heavily criticized in the 50s. Behaviorism lost its hegemony in scientific psychology then, and it was not supplanted by woo.
I was being a bit ironic there. And the behaviorism that I was referring to is not Watson's S-R brand, but rather radical behaviorism.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 08:26 AM   #23
Iconoclast08
Critical Thinker
 
Iconoclast08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
I don't disagree with you Icon, but i think it's a consequence of reality. We can't RA people to many groups that are very interesting to social science (sex, race, political party, personality, IQ, marital status, etc., etc).
True. But my beef isn't with our random assignment constraints. It's with the pompous-ass, two-faced way that many research psychologists in non-experimental arenas decry anyone conflating correlation and causation in teaching contexts and then turn around to brazenly commit the same fallacy in their journal article discussion sections.

Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
Does that mean we shouldn't study these variables because we can't be scientific?
I don't think that I implied that at all. My problem is with the *inferences* drawn from the statistical tests. Correlation is a necessary first step toward ascertaining causality, so of course it's important. But we can do without the premature, grandiose claims.

Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
I don't think so. We can still use the rules of scientific evidence to decide whether or not data are worth keeping.
If properly collected, sensible, and not error-ridden, I'm not concerned about the data proper. But I am concerned about premature conclusions.

Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
Then we can devise and test theories based on that data. That we can't RA means we gots to be extra careful about causal inferences (by replication, and high internally valid research designs, and even sophisticated statistics that tests these theories).
Yep.
Iconoclast08 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 08:43 AM   #24
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
 
bpesta22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,942
Icon

I think correlation doesn't imply causality is often misused as a fallacy. It's true, certainly, but people seem to think that if it's a correlation, it therefore, means no causality, which is odd.
__________________
Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.
bpesta22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 09:00 AM   #25
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
And correlational data can falsify hypotheses, as in the case of the lunar-lunacy legend.
By the way, Pesta,I see you're up at the crack of noon today.

Last edited by Jeff Corey; 3rd May 2009 at 09:01 AM.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 09:17 AM   #26
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,626
I feel that the fields of psychology and psychiatry are evolving in the right direction as more tools become available that are evidence based and more is learned about the causes of mental illness.

In a lot of cases there is woo mixed in, but some of it is helpful since a lot of patients respond to the placebo effect. For instance, if you tell a patient to relax to get yen balance, whatever, the fact that you can get them to relax at all is helpful to their overly stimulated body. I found that helpful myself, but looked at in a different context from what I'd seen in a video by a psychiatrist:

Your brain is a phyical part of your body, and like anything physical you need to give it a rest. If you bang your leg against the wall once, you get a bruise. You keep banging that leg against a wall in the same place, well you will damage it beyond repair at some point. I personally was very stressed out constantly, and this constant stress is much like banging it against the wall with no break. From the time I was very young I experienced extraordinary stress, and was still going like a mad energizer bunny headlong into stress all day long with no break, ever. I had to learn to take breaks because my brain was suffering, and I won't go into great detail, just know I've described it here elsewhere.

So, the relaxation techniques allowed my brain to get a much needed break and calmed my nervous system all over my body, and my muscles started to stop twitching involuntarily as well. I began to stop looking like I was addicted to speed or something.

So, whatever techniques a person adopts for relaxation, there is a benefit in stress reduction physically. You can do yoga, go for a run and then stretching exercises and get outside, vegetate in front of a nature show that is rather pleasant (not a lion chasing an antelope with sound effects taht gets the heart racing), whatever works for whatever person.

I prefer a therapist/psychologist or psychiatrist understand why relaxation helps an anxious person, but some patients wouldn't respond to the technical explanations anyways. I'm just glad I was taught that I'd better do it for my health, along with many other things I've learned in therapy along the way. I also found that regular medicines that just blocked seratonin uptake didn't work on me. I needed something that affected other brain chemicals as well. I had to learn the difference between the medicines and how they affect the brain. This information is incomplete yet, but psychiatrists are learning about this now too. Psychiatrists will send patients to neurologists now too.

There is a combination of people you need to see now to get psychiatric help. Only psychiatrists prescribe meds. Psychologists do a lot of therapy and have to experiment to see what non-med interventions a patient needs. Group therapy may be included, so you aren't just seeing a doctor one on one anymore. Talk therapy is needed to "change" a person's self-talk, which is quite often negative and needs to be more positive. If you're so hard on yourself, then how can you ever expect to be confident?

Psychological help is complicated now, but you have to shop around for the doctor that can help in your individual situation. There are a variety of approaches out there. A person needs to know that they may go through several therapists or psychiatrists before they find the right fit. Or they may go through several medications as well (if that is deemed necessary). This part is unfortunate, but until the entire field completely evolves to have therapists take an evidence based approach (there are quacks out there just like there is in settings for other medical treatments) along with a flexible approach to meet individual needs and styles that can be tailored to any patient, then a patient needs to shop around. If a medication is clearly not working, or a particular non-medicinal treatment is only making things worse, then you need to let the "team" know it and work with them for what you need. If they won't listen, then fire the team, but don't give up and call the whole "industry" useless.

There are no quick fixes for the brain. The brain is extremely complex and each person's situation is complicated. Every person may respond to slightly or dramatically different approach. This is one area where doctors, patients, and therapists must be a team and know that successful treatment can take years.

So, while some people here may be prone to denouncing psychology and/or psychiatry, there are many more who don't. This is a complicated area, and a layperson can't be expected to know just how much. We all hear from the media, and that is pretty much how we learn our viewpoint of practically everything, and the media folks are not exactly experienced or educated in this area, and neither am I beyond my own experience. The general public is therefore given the wrong impression overall, and some of that is due to the history, a rather unfortunate history of this field, -and images of torturous labotomies, bad medicines (addictive) and bad electrocution experiments come to mind.

As I've said though, this field is evolving and improving over time, and more people are actually being helped long-term and now are leading healthy independent lives. It depends on the laws in areas too, some people, and I'm thinking of a close relative of mine, fall through the cracks. But their conditions are far more complicated than mine was, and people don't have to get treatment until they are a demonstrated harm to themselves and/or others. There is a long way to go, but I feel things are going in the right direction at least.
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it.
the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey
my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke
The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 12:14 PM   #27
Iconoclast08
Critical Thinker
 
Iconoclast08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
Icon

I think correlation doesn't imply causality is often misused as a fallacy. It's true, certainly, but people seem to think that if it's a correlation, it therefore, means no causality, which is odd.
Strange, I haven't seen the fallacy twisted in that direction before (correlation means no causality). But I don't doubt it.

And yes, Jeff, I agree that correlation can falsify hypotheses. That's perfectly consonant with the point that correlation is an indispensable piece for determining causal links.
Iconoclast08 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 12:16 PM   #28
Rairun
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by Jeff Corey View Post
I was being a bit ironic there. And the behaviorism that I was referring to is not Watson's S-R brand, but rather radical behaviorism.
Yeah, I realize you were being a little ironic.

Isn't radical behaviorism Skinner's brand of behaviorism, though? And wasn't that exactly the kind that got obliterated by Chomsky's review of Verbal Behavior and the rise of cognitive psychology? My point is: from that point on, behaviorism couldn't claim that those who study the mind were unscientific, because "mind" was thoroughly redefined. Also, although I admire their aspirations to be scientifically rigorous, behaviorists had a very idiosyncratic methodology. For example, limiting oneself to establishing input-output (in general, not just S-R) relations, without making use of non-observable objects in one's theories, can be a practical nightmare. Even the hardest of sciences, physics, uses plenty of theoretical concepts which aren't directly observable, but which add to the predictive power of the theories.

I don't know how modern-day behaviorists work, though, so maybe they overcame their shortcomings. But then what would be the difference between a behaviorist and a cognitive scientist? I can't see any.

Last edited by Rairun; 3rd May 2009 at 12:17 PM.
Rairun is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 12:29 PM   #29
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
This article by the president of the Association for Psychological Science, a cognitive psychologist, may answer your questions. Chomsky didn't obliterate anything. It was obvious he never read Skinner's Verbal Behavior.
From the article"Chomsky was and is a rationalist; he had no uses for experimental analyses or data of any sort that pertained to language, and even experimental psycholinguistics was and is of little interest to him. My guess is that Chomsky's review deserves to be credited as a minor cause of the cognitive revolution. To most psychologists, empiricists at heart, it was the great new experiments that researchers were conducting on cognitive topics that created the cognitive revolution and not Chomsky's review of Skinner's book (rather effectively refuted in a commentary by Kenneth MacCorquodale, by the way)." http://www.psychologicalscience.org/...le.cfm?id=1540

Last edited by Jeff Corey; 3rd May 2009 at 12:34 PM.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 04:06 PM   #30
borealys
Critical Thinker
 
borealys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
I don't see the evidence of your claim. I might however be looking in the wrong places. The last thread that I was in that dealt with psychology was the one where Kurious_Kathy claimed that mental illness was really the devil messing with people's heads. Several posters then went on to explain (in no mild terms) that there are effective treatments for specific illnesses.
I've noticed some hard-core anti-psychology comments and posts here. I've also noticed that they tend to get slapped down pretty quick. When it comes to controversial issues like the use of medications to treat psychological and behavioural disorders like depression or ADHD, the opinions tend to run the full spectrum, including a small amount of kookery, but I've found that overall, the debate tends to be pretty intelligent.
__________________
You could say to the universe, this is not fair. And the universe would say: Oh, isn't it? Sorry. -Terry Pratchett

Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. -Bruce Cockburn
borealys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 06:39 PM   #31
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,143
I think it is kind of funny that we get a post and away about how people don't take psychology seriously here, and we get professionals in the fields arguing about it.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 07:40 PM   #32
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
OK, here is an anti-psychology comment:

I see psychology as an embryonic "science" -- at best. The fact that there exist "schools of thought" within the field of psychology is a telling reality. If it were a true "science" there would be a large body of thought that would be universally viewed as foundational.

Consequently, the fact that there exist so-called "clinical psychologists" is a travesty. Which "school" is the subject of the clinician going to impose on his victim? Does the practitioner know if his approach is best? In reality, he does not even "know" if his "school" has any value whatsoever. It's a scam!
Is that hostile enough?
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 4th May 2009 at 08:33 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 05:23 AM   #33
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
OK, here is an anti-psychology comment:

I see psychology as an embryonic "science" -- at best. The fact that there exist "schools of thought" within the field of psychology is a telling reality. If it were a true "science" there would be a large body of thought that would be universally viewed as foundational.

Consequently, the fact that there exist so-called "clinical psychologists" is a travesty. Which "school" is the subject of the clinician going to impose on his victim? Does the practitioner know if his approach is best? In reality, he does not even "know" if his "school" has any value whatsoever. It's a scam!
Is that hostile enough?
OMFSM!

Sorry PS but that is a rather uninformed statement.

The study of psychology is a rather broad one, being the main issue, and I won't make a laundry list to make you look bad, but I will state that there is a long history of real science is psychology and that 'clinical psychology' is more likely to be judged by the kind of practise the 'clinical psychologist' engages in, but please let yourself make a more informed choice next time. Clinical psychology runs a gamut as well.

Be sure to say that it is a scam without any boundaaries, that makes it easier for me to slam you if I chose to do so.

I suggest you start with Br. Aaron Beck and the book on depression, it is rather a seminal text and the foundation of much good stuff. His first one was in 1967, rather a number of revisions since then:

http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Depr.../dp/0898629195

Then I would ask Jeff Corey or Mercutio to post thier links to radical behavioris, very cool stuff. Then there is neuro anatomy, neurochemistry and the like. And that covers about 5% of psychology.

Now granted there is boat load (many boat loads in fact) of crap that gets labelled as psychology.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 05:34 AM   #34
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,759
Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
I think the average experimental psychologist is the best scientist in the world on average (though our best pale in comparison to hard science's best).

I do think there is some psych bashing here, but it doesn't bother me.

...snip...
That's because your mother didn't breastfeed you.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 06:35 AM   #35
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
...Then I would ask Jeff Corey or Mercutio to post their links to radical behaviorism...
I did link an article in response to Railrun's polite query, but this latest, uninformed poster merits either TO or EXT.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 07:39 AM   #36
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
OMFSM!

...

The study of psychology is a rather broad one, being the main issue, and I won't make a laundry list to make you look bad, but I will state that there is a long history of real science is psychology and that 'clinical psychology' is more likely to be judged by the kind of practise the 'clinical psychologist' engages in, but please let yourself make a more informed choice next time. Clinical psychology runs a gamut as well.

...

Now granted there is boat load (many boat loads in fact) of crap that gets labelled as psychology.
OK, there is some genuine research going on, but the reality is the field of psychology is still quite embryonic.
Unfortunately, there also exist an overwhelming number of pseudo-scientists and pseudo-practitioners to muddy the waters.
A good analogy with the state of today's clinical psychologist might be the physician of 200 years ago, carrying his bag of herbs, potions and leeches while treating an "imbalance of humours."
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 5th May 2009 at 08:21 AM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 08:47 AM   #37
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
 
bpesta22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That's because your mother didn't breastfeed you.
But I did have fun holding in my feces which explains why I is anal retentive.
__________________
Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.
bpesta22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 10:13 AM   #38
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
OK, there is some genuine research going on, but the reality is the field of psychology is still quite embryonic.
Unfortunately, there also exist an overwhelming number of pseudo-scientists and pseudo-practitioners to muddy the waters.
A good analogy with the state of today's clinical psychologist might be the physician of 200 years ago, carrying his bag of herbs, potions and leeches while treating an "imbalance of humours."
Hi, now the terminology I would use is this 'some practioners use strategies and methods which are not effective.'

However you offer nothing in the way of data, in the 1940s, unfortunately unfounded psychodynamic theories and therapies dominated.

That is not the case in recent history, and is why I mentioned Beck's book in 1967.

But you offer no data to support your assertion, there are a wide variety of things that 'clinical psychologists' might or might not do, ranging from psychometrics and testing to talk therapy.

So where is your data, and who is your beef with, many states do not regulate 'talk therapy' except very loosely, some have some requirements.

So who, where, when and what are you complaining about.

I personally have a huge bias against any therapy that is not time limited and goal directed. (I once was at a training with Fred Kanfer, a social worker.)
He stated very clearly that all talk therapy should be goal directed, measurable and time limited. twelve weeks and then a new issue or out the door.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...-8&oi=scholart

I also have a total bias against any therapy that does not use behavioral techniques, now when I first went to school, there was neo-Freudian, gestalt, Jungian, existential, etc...

But because of people like Beck and Kanfer the landscape is changing and you find most practioners using some form of DBT within their 'framework'.

Now the main issue is that a lot of what is done in the name of talk therapy is done by people with absolutely no training, even Illinois, a rather regulative state allows for different forms of counseling, which may or may not be good. But that does not mean 'clinical psychologists'. That means 'counselors', it gets even worse as you approach areas of the grass roots, like substance abuse, DV and rape counseling. Much less peer to peer counseling, like AA sponsorships.

So please be more specific as to who , what , where and when you are talking about here.

I have a real problem with a poster here Nick227 who practices some form of existential experience , dupes and defrauds people for the supposed benefit. But he has never stated his credentials at all.

If I said ‘all teachers in the US are bad, should be fired and never have tenure’, would that make sense to you?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 11:19 AM   #39
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Dancing David:

OK, tell me what universally held organizing principles or foundational discoveries or theories define psychology.
Make it something like the DNA molecule for genetics or quantum theory for physics. These are discoveries and theories that all specialists within those fields embrace and only crackpots deny. For example, within the field of genetics there are no schools of thought that deny the role of the DNA molecule.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 11:31 AM   #40
Ashles
Pith Artist
 
Ashles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The '80s
Posts: 8,689
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Dancing David:

OK, tell me what universally held organizing principles or foundational discoveries or theories define psychology.
Known brain structure?
Known aspects of brain neurochemistry and nerve transmission?
The mechanisms and organs/structures of perception?
Speech processing?
Memory?
Conditioning?

I'm unsure what you are asking for. There are many areas within Experimental Psychology which are robustly evidenced and accepted to a level that anything in a scientific discipline can be accepted as a foundation on which to build.
__________________
With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell
It is obvious to any scientist that the bumblebee can fly because experiment proves it. - Zetie 1996
Ashles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.