Psychology --- Science or Art

[DeletedUser]

So the psuedo-scientific approach of psychologists to examine human behavior, label, and speculate is what you think as the appropriate field for study of...

How is psychology pseudoscience? Real psychology, not Freud.

 

[DeletedUser3]

What do you define as "real" psychology and we can start from there.

 

[DeletedUser]

Uh, modern psychology, you know... the stuff that's actually tested, the stuff that makes it in the dsm4, the stuff they teach in college psychology classes (barring the Freud class)? How do I define real psychology any better than I can define real physics? Do you want me to call up the friend that's getting her degree this year?

It's true that psychology was absolutely not science for a long time. Freud was not a scientist; he was a philosopher, and as much as I enjoy philosophy, it is not science by any stretch of the imagination, nor should it be practiced clinically. Freud both introduced the field and crippled it by forcing people to take his word as law and not allowing anyone to apply critical thinking to anything he said... and he said a lot of silly things without testing any of them.

Then this guy Skinner came along and pointed out that while subjective experiences cannot be measured, hence the methods of the time not counting as science, behavior can be measured. He paved the way for modern psychology, and though Freudian garbage has persisted, it is not as prevalent as it once was. (Now we can also measure things like brain waves. I remember reading about a study in either Discover or Science News in which they did exactly that and came to the conclusion that not only do women think about sex just as much as men, but they do so more efficiently.)

It's a challenge to use scientific methods to determine how and why people work the way they do, but it is by no means impossible.

 

[DeletedUser3]

There you have it, "behavior can be measured."

Pray tell how can behavior be measured except by subjective means? This points to the flaw, the error in considering it a science. The DSM is periodically reviewed and modified by a panel. Their decisions are almost entirely subjective and, in some cases, political. The DSM at one point defined homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was later changed due to political pressures.

The DSM serves as a cheat sheet for labeling symptoms, but does not participate in causation. Determining causation is almost entirely subjective, as is psychological treatment (not to be confused with psychiatric, which utilizes psychotropic drugs, shock inducement, and other brain-altering intrusions).

That's a start. Please review the commonly applied Scientific Method and see where it is not presently possible to apply that, or for that matter any other scientific method, to the field of psychology. There's no high math in psychology, only statistical averages...

No, it's not a science, it's an art. Some psychologists can help you while others can make you far worse. Consistent results, reproducible results, are a dependency for any science. You don't get the same results twice with psychology. Hell, most of the time you don't get any results.

 

[DeletedUser3]

(( Moved these posts from a different thread, as it was sufficiently off topic and is a pretty good topic all on its own ))

 

[DeletedUser]

Uh, yeah, behavior can be measured, yes it absolutely can. Interpreting it is another matter, but the behavior itself can be measured objectively and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. The mouse activated the lever three times. Bam.

For the most part, it is literally impossible to get consistent, reproducible results, because every individual is different. One thing that is consistent and reproducible is some of the stuff they've gathered by monitoring brain activity, but it's been a while since I read anything on the subject.

The DSM does not exist in a void. Of course it's going to be influenced by politics. I never suggested it was without flaws.

"Hell, most of the time you don't get any results."

A bold claim. I'm afraid I have to request citation. I find this unlikely, personally, because it is standard practice for psychiatrists to recommend a psychologist or some other councilor in addition to medication, if not before. Furthermore, everything I have read on the subject of clinical depression (admittedly only one example of many) says that studies suggest most people benefit the most from a combination of both. And I have read a lot.

I'm not a scientist. It's four in the morning right now, but when she gets up, I'll ask my mom about some of the studies they did in the seventies when she worked at Washu, and then submit them to my dad (a former brain scientist with doctorates in chemistry and neuroanatamy) to see if he finds them sufficiently scientific, and report the results. If he finds them to be lacking, I'll look up something more recent and try again. Don't worry, I'll give details and supply links to the studies if I can find them.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Uh, yeah, behavior can be measured, yes it absolutely can. Interpreting it is another matter, but the behavior itself can be measured objectively and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. The mouse activated the lever three times. Bam.

A mouse is not a human... Bam

For the most part, it is literally impossible to get consistent, reproducible results, because every individual is different. One thing that is consistent and reproducible is some of the stuff they've gathered by monitoring brain activity, but it's been a while since I read anything on the subject.

Umm, not part of psychology. Well, except for maybe one or two psychologists' subjective interpretations and premature presumptions on data collected by psychiatrists and biologists working on said research projects.

The DSM does not exist in a void. Of course it's going to be influenced by politics. I never suggested it was without flaws.

It's interesting how you indicate such like it's a given. You would be hard-pressed to pose that same line of thinking to any of the sciences. No arbitrary, politically influenced rulebook exists for the sciences, only consistently reproducible laws and as-of-yet-to-be-produced theories.

A bold claim. I'm afraid I have to request citation. I find this unlikely, personally, because it is standard practice for psychiatrists to recommend a psychologist or some other councilor in addition to medication, if not before. Furthermore, everything I have read on the subject of clinical depression (admittedly only one example of many) says that studies suggest most people benefit the most from a combination of both. And I have read a lot.

That's nice, you read a lot while I worked in the field. Is this a contest now?

Do not confuse psychiatry with psychology. I mentioned this earlier. Medications can stabilize, but therapy can just as easily destabilize as stabilize. The results of therapy, the cornerstone to the "resultant" argument of psychology's value, has demonstrated itself to be largely ineffective.

Let's face it, giving advice to a person who is mentally and/or emotionally unstable isn't likely to illicit reasoned, logical thought, no matter how hard you want it to.

Do not forget the method of delivery for the "medicine" of psychology. I.e., it's delivered by another human. Every person completing a doctorates in psychology must undergo therapy for a period of time, it's a prerequisite. Why? Because a person's baggage, their state of mind, can and does have an effect on their patients. The delivery of psychology is one's reactions and words.

No, not a science... but an art. The best psychologists had the talent of empathy prior to obtaining the education of averages. If you lack empathy and insight at the onset, you certainly cannot obtain it through academic study of averages, and certainly not through memorization of labels.

The process of diagnosis is that of watching, listening, and interacting with a patient, then attaching labels from the DSM that most closely resembles the behaviors and/or symptoms presented by a patient. But, they get it wrong quite often, precisely because diagnosis is a process of attaching labels, of categorizing symptoms, not determining causation.

Determining causation has many schools of thought within the field of psychology, all of them speculative interpretations. And while some psychologists adhere to one school, many adopt presumptions from more than one school, essentially creating their own, eclectic style of therapy.

That's simply not science, it's art.

I'm not a scientist. It's four in the morning right now, but when she gets up, I'll ask my mom about some of the studies they did in the seventies when she worked at Washu, and then submit them to my dad (a former brain scientist with doctorates in chemistry and neuroanatamy) to see if he finds them sufficiently scientific, and report the results. If he finds them to be lacking, I'll look up something more recent and try again. Don't worry, I'll give details and supply links to the studies if I can find them.

Great, would be interesting to see what you learned and are willing to share from this.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ahh, sorry it's taking me so long. It will probably be a while before I get around to doing what I said I would; been pretty much devoid of energy lately. That's why I haven't been on very much... too tired to even argue with people on the internet! That is saying something. Anyway, I have a late start psychology class this semester so I might end up talking to the professor about it, as he or she would probably know more than my mom.

Human behavior can be measured as well as animal behavior.

If you have any relevant experiences in the field you can share, I'd love to hear it.

I'm well aware of the difference between psychiatry and psychology and I don't recall saying anything that indicated otherwise. How is psychiatric diagnosis any different than psychological diagnosis? I'm not saying they're the same, only that I don't know the difference myself.

I can certainly understand why one would not regard psychology as science; I admit I'm a little iffy about it myself and am half playing devil's advocate here. But it is not an art. Art, while certainly not without value, has no practical application. Psychology does.

EDIT: On a related note, my dad also has a bachelor's in sociology, which is even less scientific. I intend to ask him about that.

 

[DeletedUser3]

I'm well aware of the difference between psychiatry and psychology and I don't recall saying anything that indicated otherwise. How is psychiatric diagnosis any different than psychological diagnosis? I'm not saying they're the same, only that I don't know the difference myself.

Diagnosis is merely identifying symptoms or behaviors and labeling such. It is the same for both psychiatry and psychology. The difference between psychology and psychiatry is, however, substantial. A short is to state that a psychiatrist is a person who has obtained a medical degree specializing in pharmaceuticals and other invasive treatments that influence the brain.

I can certainly understand why one would not regard psychology as science; I admit I'm a little iffy about it myself and am half playing devil's advocate here. But it is not an art. Art, while certainly not without value, has no practical application. Psychology does.

Hmm, well writing is an art. Are you saying it has no value?

 

[DeletedUser]

Diagnosis is merely identifying symptoms or behaviors and labeling such. It is the same for both psychiatry and psychology. The difference between psychology and psychiatry is, however, substantial. A short is to state that a psychiatrist is a person who has obtained a medical degree specializing in pharmaceuticals and other invasive treatments that influence the brain.

As opposed to a clinical psychologist, who has obtained a doctorate in psychology, specializing in non-invasive treatments that influence the brain. I know the difference is substantial but it does not lie in diagnosis, which seems to be one of the things you cited as problematic. I might have read that wrong, though.

Hmm, well writing is an art. Are you saying it has no value?

Hahaha, you definitely read that wrong! "Art, while certainly not without value," I said. Art has little practical application but is valuable. As for writing, I regard myself as a writer, seeing as it is the one hobby I have maintained over the years. It is absolutely an art, but only if you write artistically. As a means of communication alone, it is no more an art than casual conversation. Buuut that's getting off topic.

 

[DeletedUser3]

As opposed to a clinical psychologist, who has obtained a doctorate in psychology, specializing in non-invasive treatments that influence the brain. I know the difference is substantial but it does not lie in diagnosis, which seems to be one of the things you cited as problematic. I might have read that wrong, though.

Umm, if you do not properly diagnose, you cannot properly treat. As to "non-invasive treatment," that's therapy, which entails sitting there utilizing the "art" of communication to illicit a response.

Hahaha, you definitely read that wrong! "Art, while certainly not without value," I said. Art has little practical application but is valuable. As for writing, I regard myself as a writer, seeing as it is the one hobby I have maintained over the years. It is absolutely an art, but only if you write artistically. As a means of communication alone, it is no more an art than casual conversation. Buuut that's getting off topic.

No, actually, I didn't read it wrong. I just left it open for you to correct your "no practical application," which almost did by stating it has "little practical application."

In truth, art has ample practical application... or perhaps you want to agree with me and say that therapy, whose means of application is communication (art), has no/little practical application.

*bing* got ya, hehe

 

[DeletedUser]

But I just said I don't regard communication alone as an art...

 

[DeletedUser3]

Umm, no u said writing for the sole purpose of communication is not an art. I beg to differ, but it's irrelevant for this particular point because we're not referring to writing, we're referring to communicating via voice and via interpretation of body language. Also, communication is the medium utilized to pose psychology's methods of treatment (i.e., therapy, counseling, etc). Since it is via communication that these treatments are administered, they of course must go beyond mere posing of information, they must pursued, invoke change. There is no science in the world capable of that, there is only art, be it verbal, written, or otherwise. And while it is reasonably understood some approaches to communication are more effective than others within specified parameters, that is still not science.