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?