logie! I wondered, since some people seem to have studied here.. Unlike me! Psychology is not something I have studied, but it is a bit of a hobby of mine, an interest. But the odd thing about psychology is that the practical process is often defined by sensible theories, to problems that allow for other different sensible theories as well. Which one is considered the right one is the ones that end up scoring the best on the general mass. But there is little hope for the exceptional individual. Basicly, the essence of Psychology could be right or wrong, truth or lie. Effective or uneffective. It does not matter for there is no scientific reasoning solid enough to back it up. It seems psychologists are like the old skool doctors with test subjects, wondering what happens if this or that is done. And they end up generalising the mass based on the, although mostly extensive, research they do on live subjects, they take the general conclusion and despite the impurities, they base their entire treatment on such. A few things that shocked me the most.. The PCL-R checklist (Checklist to see if a person can be considered a psychopath or not) for example. For half of those checks in that list I can think of point scoring answers that are completely unrelated to the psychopathic mind. Mostly point scoring answers based on shifted priorities and ambitions. The problem in that test is intention. And if you rework this checklist back to Freud's little schematic to the brain's conscious, preconscious and subconscious one would imagine that the true intention of the person is not neccesarily the intention that person believes to have. So the answers to that test could be severely biased and untrue, even though appearances state otherwise. Although the checklist might be useful in most standard cases, there are plenty of people that could very well be diagnosed wrongly, and it seems that all of the practical diagnoses in psychology are majorly flawed in this way, not covering for the many loopholes that exist in the brain. Now, the problem is, how does one learn to understand the true intentions for someone's actions, if that person does not even comprehend them him or herself. And to make matters worse, believes the nature of their intentions is based on a mistaken understandment of their ego and believe it to be different then what drove them in reality. Unlike textbook cases, how would standard treatment react to these people. Which made me wonder, is Psychology really that useful? Sure it might give you a nice direction, but I believe rigorous treatment can be just as harmful to the individual as it can be good. The responsibility that psychology brings is a lot for any human mind to bare. Humanity is only starting to understand psychology and already learned how to abuse it well. But when will they be able to use it? I don't think I would ever trust a psychologist in my entire life. See the intended problem there for any future diagnoses? While I don't trust psychologists in my conscious ego, how many people would lack that trust subconsciously and therefor bring out biased answers from their subconscious mind, effectively undermining any diagnose presented. It is impossible to test any subject on these flawes and impurities unless the subjects start to realize it themselves. PS: Yah, I never even went to college so pardon the probably heavily flawed post, although unless someone can tell me otherwise, I would still bare this opinion. As I don't know better. Anyone having similar thoughts about the subject?
Um, well, I'm quite curious as to why everyone is so critical of psychology, it's not as if the basic scientific method is possible given the circumstances; it's not like I can ethically stab you in the head for the sake of experimentation. Psychologist and psychiatrists are unable to perform experiments in the traditional way, so they perform extensive studies, interpret pre-existing conditions, etc., etc. Psychology is by no means perfect, it's very hard to perfect a science in which you can't actually get to the root of the issue you're studying, since that would involve ripping someone's skull off. Psychologists use a number of charts and questionaires to help diagnose conditions, like psychopathia, but those are also not perfect. The basic premise you're going on, however, is equally flawed, because first of all, by 'psychopathic mind,' I really don't think you're fully cognizent of what the actual definition of psychopathic is; it's somewhat removed from the Hollywood version, with axes and killing sprees. Secondly, while many of the questions might be answered differently, to answer every question a certain way is certainly a sign of your inner mental health, especially when one of the facets of psychopathia is hearing voices or seeing hallucinations. Surely tripping balls every day of your life isn't just a differing priority. The problem most people have in understanding psychology is that those theories just simply DON'T disprove one another. There are several major ones, including Freud's that pretty much everything you do is based on either libido, the use to create, have sex with, love, or thanatos, the urge to destroy. But it would be folly to assume that psychology hasn't advanced beyond Freud. There is a competing idea, behaviorism, which simplifies the human mind down to action-reaction, stimuli-response. Many professionals find it over-simplistic, but it IS true in many situations. Although the doctor who came up with it would have loved to disprove Freud with it, he hasn't, and it is apparent that BOTH schools of thought are true to certain extents. The other school is cognitive, basically the way we think leads us to certain other conclusions, some of which can cause a dangerous spiral, such as depression or anxiety. If you want to know about how useful psychology has been, you can talk to the autistic children who take classes at my college. You see, without behaviorism, they never would have developed the techniques for providing therapy to people with autism and Asberger's, therapy which has developed to the point where, if started early enough, the patient can progress far enough to the point where they can hold a job, attend college, and generally behave in a way that is almost normal. Without Freudian psychology, none of this would have happened, but Freud's early work with hypnosis and repression pioneered our understanding in dream analysis as a method of accessing a person's subconscious, and he also led to a scientific understanding of faith healing. Basically, the patient has developed a psychological condition serious enough to result in an actual physical problem, usually paralysis. Unlike normal paraplegics, however, the patient retains mobility while sleeping, or under deep hypnosis, which is a physiological impossibility if the problem had a bodily cause. Suddenly, after an intense therapy session, or after being 'healed' by the grace of God, the patient jumps up and can suddenly walk. If the paralysis were 'actual,' then the patient's legs would have atrophied to the point where they COULDN'T walk, but lo and behold, they're not just walking, they're RUNNING. Freud led to our understanding of this. Cognitive therapy has led to our dissection of depression and anxiety, and other mood disorders, and has yielded some of the most effective treatments thusfar. It works on the premise that a cognitive disorder has a cause, and a result, but there is a belief in between, usually a flawed one. For example, Al's girlfriend dumped him, and so he is depressed. Well, why is he depressed, what are his exact feelings? Well, Al feels like he is worthless, he says he's going to be lonely for the rest of his life, and he thinks that Sarah was the only girl who could ever understand him. Well, ok, but how does Sarah dumping him make him worthless? There are a million and one reasons she could have no longer wanted to be with him, but even if it was his fault, his lack of ability as a boyfriend certainly doesn't make him useless, that's a belief based upon faulty logic. Likewise, saying he's going to be lonely for the rest of his life is only provable after he dies, and unless he's currently jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, that isn't a very sound premise either. Nor is saying that Sarah is the only woman who could understand him, because he hasn't given every woman a chance to understand him. If every female human on Earth stood in a line, and at the end of it every single one said, you're a freak, except for Sarah, that would be a point, but that hasn't happened. This therapy is usually remarkably effective in getting people over mood disorders.
Wow, awesome reply. Thanks And well, I do know many people profit alot from psychology and I am not saying it is completely wrong, hmm, I guess seeing it from the point of view that one should not get the right or wrong answer, but any answer regardless and analyze the process. After reading your post I am remarkably less skeptical too. I am generally interested in myself and all other people, to learn more about us. I think most people have that ambition ofcourse, it's really interesting. Hmm, thanks! In a funny way, you helped me with my mind blob. I can't even get a pin between your post and have no need to either. ^^
You're welcome, and I can't presume to be an expert, I'm only partially into my abnormal psychology course.
