Psychology as Pseudoscience

[Rcs6r]

***Before you read below, please, please, PLEASE keep discussion civil. Don't start arguing about personal beliefs of who is right or wrong. I want this thread to be about sharing ideas, and an enjoyable place for discussion (as all threads should be). Thank you.***



This is a quote from a friend of a friend on facebook in response to this article:

I would say basically all psychology is pseudoscience. Neuroscience is actually a thing, however.

From a physics forum:

If you're talking about "classical" psychology/psychiatry after Freud/Jung/Adler, yup, pseudo-science all right. If that. Freud, of course, had his weird obsessions with Oedipus and penis envy, but you should read some of the crap Jung came up with - synchronicity, archetypes, the collective unconscious. Mysticism, not science.

Modern psychiatry, with an emphasis on pharmacy (drug treatment) and evidence based interventions (electroconvulsive therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy), etc. - pretty scientific. A neurophysiologic basis is sought whenever possible and treatments are evaluated with randomised controlled trials.

Some modern practices are still pseudoscientific - the Rorscharch test, hypnotic "regression" therapy, etc. - but self-respecting psychiatrists don't generally pander to this crap.

And even more (same forum thread):

the common misconception of Jung's Collective Unconscious is probably more like mysticism- but the actual idea is more properly understood by the very real science of evolutionary biology- the Collective Unconscious [as well as synchonicity/ archetypes/ subtle correspondences] is merely mystical sounding description for a very physical idea: that many of a human's foundational conscious structures are NOT learned structures built uniquely for each individual during child development as was generally accepted during Jung's time- instead his colorful conjecture essentially shows that our most primitive fears and ways of thinking about basic survival are hard-wired adaptations that our species cultivated in it's genome over it's evolutionary history- so that each human would essentially have the same copy of these unconscious ways of thinking hard-wired into them at birth- the other part of Jung's idea is that this kludged black-box of hard-wired neural processes that we all share is responsible in part for the nature of human myths and metaphysics- this is because the 'collective unconscious black-box' has priority flight-or-fight brut survivability programs: be scared of the dark- be scared of snakes- embrace the light of the sun- look for pure water/food/resources- stay away from violent humans- trust calm humans- etc- all of these millions of little algorithms that are hard-wired for each of us and tell us how to react to very basic survival scenarios provided the basis for morality and ethics as well as all the creative mythical symbologies primitive humans developed to organize and implement these core concepts-

so there is nothing mystical about the collective unconscious in these terms- it is the folk interpretation that instead of each human possessing his own 'black-box' of adapted wiring that our 'souls' are connected in some kind of spiritual hyperspace in which the myths are real- and that we sometimes tap into it-

There's a lot of info to think about, and could branch into many sub-categories. But for the sake of this thread, I am interested in what your thoughts of psychology as a science/pseudoscience are.

---
Thoughts I've had on this subject:

I know quite a few of us here are spiritual, myself included, but the concept of our collective unconsciousness as survival hard-wiring makes sense. But what created the hardwiring? It is difficult to explain the mind beyond the material. If all we are are a series of chemical firings adapted to keep our biology alive, do we not have free will? All our likes are because our body responded positively to a stimuli, and our dislikes a response to pain? What about introversion? You could say it is caused by negative experiences with people, but what about someone who has always had positive experience, but just becomes tired from the interaction? How does it work? Can there be a material explanation to everything? And if not, should the non-material be written off as pseudo?

 

[CindyLou]

I noticed this too and this is something I've thought a lot about the past couple years.

This is a deep subject with many different angles to approach. Psychology is already written off by many as pseudo, and I think will eventually be abandoned entirely.

 

[Stu]

How can we disregard the depth of understanding into human nature that folks like DW Winnicott, Melanie Klien, Erich Fromm, Otto Kohut, and a host of others have given us by applying the scientific method to human consciousness?

 

[Paladin-X]

Hahaha! The subject title alone is funny to me. In both of my intro to psychology classes, we cover scientific method vs pseudoscience and how to differentiate them. In any case, there is a bit of 'pseudoscience' to it, but not really. It is more of a bridge between philosophy and physiology, with scientific method for measures of proof or correlations, as it relates to the mind and behaviour. Regardless, I still think there is a lot of accepted theories that are incorrect in psychology and especially psychiatry.

Setting aside scientific method for a moment and discussing academic disciplines, I think neither is better than the other. Neuroscience and Psychology both cover different parts of a whole. In my own research into mental disorders, I have looked at it from at least 10 different academic disciplines and discovered many interesting things when looked at as part of a whole. Examining something so vastly complex as the human brain should be looked at from every perspective. I really like how McGill University presents information about the brain on their site:

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca

They cover 5 different perspectives, from Social Science, Psychology, Neurology, down to the cellular and molecular level. They also explain each concept at 3 different difficulty levels (beginner, intermediate, advanced). It is a very informative and brilliantly designed site.

 

[Paladin-X]

I know quite a few of us here are spiritual, myself included, but the concept of our collective unconsciousness as survival hard-wiring makes sense. But what created the hardwiring? It is difficult to explain the mind beyond the material. If all we are are a series of chemical firings adapted to keep our biology alive, do we not have free will? All our likes are because our body responded positively to a stimuli, and our dislikes a response to pain? What about introversion? You could say it is caused by negative experiences with people, but what about someone who has always had positive experience, but just becomes tired from the interaction? How does it work? Can there be a material explanation to everything? And if not, should the non-material be written off as pseudo?

I agree that there is more beyond the hardwiring, whether or not it is truly the work of an omnipotent being or some metaphysical concept we have yet to explore and define. Scientists might say that because when the brain is damaged, the person is altered, therefore a person is nothing more than the neurons in the brain. Religious and/or spiritual people might say that it is all the work of God(s) or some other mystical force. I like to think both are correct. They are different parts of a whole. I like to think of it as a race course. 'You' are the driver, the car is your brain, and the Universe (or God or other force/entity) is the track. If you pop a tire on the track, it could steer you off-course and crash. However, it is also possible for the driver to oversteer at the incorrect moment and go off-course. Also, the upcoming section of track may have you coming full bore into an unexpected hairpin, which could also cause you to go off-track. All three play parts.

 

[linger]

What about introversion? You could say it is caused by negative experiences with people, but what about someone who has always had positive experience, but just becomes tired from the interaction? How does it work? Can there be a material explanation to everything? And if not, should the non-material be written off as pseudo?

I don't know enough about evolutionary biology (although it's uber-interresant), but couldn't the differences like i vs e also be accounted for in the ways that humans evolved as groups? For instance, might it have been necessary for survival for some people to be extroverted while others were introverted--the balance required to ensure the survival of the whole group (so that some people passed down hard-wiring for intro while others passed down hard-wiring for extro--you might further posit then that if introverts/extroverts are now more rare, it's a product of the way that society's values have changed and priority pairing has changed the dominance of one function over the other in humans in general).

Or, perhaps, it's the neanderthals vs early modern humans thing--maybe I really am a peace loving neanderthal descendent and that's why I'm more introverted and averse to conflict or challenge. )

 

[CindyLou]

I agree that there is more beyond the hardwiring, whether or not it is truly the work of an omnipotent being or some metaphysical concept we have yet to explore and define. Scientists might say that because when the brain is damaged, the person is altered, therefore a person is nothing more than the neurons in the brain. Religious and/or spiritual people might say that it is all the work of God(s) or some other mystical force. I like to think both are correct. They are different parts of a whole. I like to think of it as a race course. 'You' are the driver, the car is your brain, and the Universe (or God or other force/entity) is the track. If you pop a tire on the track, it could steer you off-course and crash. However, it is also possible for the driver to oversteer at the incorrect moment and go off-course. Also, the upcoming section of track may have you coming full bore into an unexpected hairpin, which could also cause you to go off-track. All three play parts.

I would agree there is more than the hard wiring but I would be reeeeally slow to say that was God or anything close to that nature. However, the mere fact that people want to dismiss it so easily is what seems so dishonest about the collective thoughts of people today. Free will is dying unless you're a philosopher. People don't even know WHY they think what they think. They just think but they never think about thinking. I love the trinity of parts you put together in your post. *wink*

Our unconscious is the truth that is known, but yet still unknown about ourselves. It is not observable, its only something that we can experience, but most of the time we don't experience it unless we're searching for it.

Good posts.

I wanted to "voice" my opinion but didn't feel organizing my thoughts on this subject because there is just too much. I have a snapshot of everything I wanna say in my mind, but this is one of those few topics it would be easier for me to talk about than discuss through posting. It would take entirely too long for me to organize the mess in my mind. I'm enjoying reading everyone's posts though.

 

[Rcs6r]

Hahaha! The subject title alone is funny to me. In both of my intro to psychology classes, we cover scientific method vs pseudoscience and how to differentiate them. In any case, there is a bit of 'pseudoscience' to it, but not really. It is more of a bridge between philosophy and physiology, with scientific method for measures of proof or correlations, as it relates to the mind and behaviour. Regardless, I still think there is a lot of accepted theories that are incorrect in psychology and especially psychiatry.

Setting aside scientific method for a moment and discussing academic disciplines, I think neither is better than the other. Neuroscience and Psychology both cover different parts of a whole. In my own research into mental disorders, I have looked at it from at least 10 different academic disciplines and discovered many interesting things when looked at as part of a whole. Examining something so vastly complex as the human brain should be looked at from every perspective. I really like how McGill University presents information about the brain on their site:

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca

They cover 5 different perspectives, from Social Science, Psychology, Neurology, down to the cellular and molecular level. They also explain each concept at 3 different difficulty levels (beginner, intermediate, advanced). It is a very informative and brilliantly designed site.

Which is part of why I got upset at that facebook post and created this thread. I didn't feel like arguing with a stranger so I sought out other people's opinions here (even though I'm sure anyone who's on an MBTI forum would know psychology is a science.)

 

[Sriracha]

Read this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child) or this video (is worthwhile)

[video=youtube;jcIyXQ20Z1o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcIyXQ20Z1o[/video]

This might help to answer your question. I've written over and over again about the history of Psychology that frankly I'm tired of repeating myself. I'll try to find some of my old posts.

ETA: I can't find it my old posts, but this will help: http://www.studentpulse.com/article...ntal-illness-from-skull-drills-to-happy-pills

 

[Poetic Justice]

It is not pseudo science. It is simply incomplete.

MBTI isn't true. It's just a vague approximation of what is really going on and has many holes in it. If it was pure nonsense, typing people wouldn't work at all. It does

Many of the theories in psychology aren't even meant to be literally true. They are just meant to be sometimes useful. The problem comes when some people think that any particular theory is the final word.

The collective conscious thing is just a theory. Something that might be true. Claiming it definately is true is nonsense because it hasn't been proven. that doesn't mean that it isn't true, just that you shouldn't necessarily believe it completely yet.

It may be proven to be true one day. It may be proven to be false one day

You shouldn't dismiss theories as pseudo science just because they haven't been proven yet. You also shouldn't believe it blindly

 

[Matt3737]

Science is systemized knowledge based on observation and experimentation that is structured in the form of explanations and predictions (i.e. theory).
Science neither proves nor disproves, but provides evidence in support of or not in support of particular interpretations.

Psychology is tested mostly against observation/experimentation, logical consistency, and statistical analysis.

As a whole it is fine, but there will always be subfields (any field in science, really) that will attempt to push the boundaries of validity.

 

[INFJ2277]

Psychology is tested mostly against observation/experimentation, logical consistency, and statistical analysis.

As a whole it is fine, but there will always be subfields (any field in science, really) that will attempt to push the boundaries of validity.

We can't tell if we're pushing on any barriers, much less should we act like we know where that is. The bubble of psychology also continues to grow as more/ more forms of data come in.

***Before you read below, please, please, PLEASE keep discussion civil. Don't start arguing about personal beliefs of who is right or wrong. I want this thread to be about sharing ideas, and an enjoyable place for discussion (as all threads should be). Thank you.***



This is a quote from a friend of a friend on facebook in response to this article:



From a physics forum:



And even more (same forum thread):



There's a lot of info to think about, and could branch into many sub-categories. But for the sake of this thread, I am interested in what your thoughts of psychology as a science/pseudoscience are.

---
Thoughts I've had on this subject:

I know quite a few of us here are spiritual, myself included, but the concept of our collective unconsciousness as survival hard-wiring makes sense. But what created the hardwiring? It is difficult to explain the mind beyond the material. If all we are are a series of chemical firings adapted to keep our biology alive, do we not have free will? All our likes are because our body responded positively to a stimuli, and our dislikes a response to pain? What about introversion? You could say it is caused by negative experiences with people, but what about someone who has always had positive experience, but just becomes tired from the interaction? How does it work? Can there be a material explanation to everything? And if not, should the non-material be written off as pseudo?

Your brain p) is a thing that can be observed in many ways. Obviously there are barriers and environmental factors that need to be scientifically accounted for when dealing from the outside, but it's there and can be observed in nature. Calling an entire study that attempts to understand this phenomenon a pseudoscience is like assuming that observation of other planetary systems is wrong because we can't clearly see them. It really isn't hard to mark the territory between arbitrary speculation and data.

 

[Cocopah]

Hi I am currently studying Psychology, and from what I have seen so far Psychology is far from a pseudoscience. For as of right now Psychology is in the Cognitive School and is thus making considerable contributions to many aspects in life such as attention, memory, perception, cognition, etc... But there will always be a unobservable trait to Psychology for it focuses on the mind and many internal aspects such as affect, cognition's, and drives. The only observable traits come through behavior, and everyone knows about how "Psychology lost its mind" during the era of Behaviorism. But Psychology is still in its adolescence because one of its "roots/parents" biology is trying to take over Psychology through the use of Neuroscience. If this happens Psychology will lose its entire value because biology will try to explain every individuals actions through chemical processes. So we have to break away from our parent again and become independent. Thus after saying this Psychology will never be like Physics or Biology for it will never be able to definitively explain certain human characteristics in a concrete manner because there is such a wide diversity of human life throughout the world. But as time progresses Psychology is slowly gaining more and more concrete scientific evidence to support its studies. And remember that Jung/Freud were a part of the Psychoanalytic School, which has some validity to the theories that were proposed during the time, but Freud did admit that he may have skewed his research to give it more legitimacy and the times were much different then now.

All together if one looks at the peer-reviewed journals of the studies that are being conducted at the moment one will see a much different Psychology then was seen by Freud/Jung. It is much more scientific now and is accomplishing great things in regards to cognition.

 

[Tin Man]

Psychology isn't a hard science but I don't think that it should be completely ignored. Neuroscience is a long way from fully understanding the brain and if psychology is rejected that will mean people will be diagnosed and given medication without searching for the reason behind a person's condition.

 

[Cocopah]

Psychology wouldn't be necessarily rejected but more absorbed in a sense meaning that aspects of the mind would be lost. And people are given medications everyday without knowing the reasons behind their conditions. Just look the DSM-IV only diagnoses and tells one what the symptoms are giving no explanations to why the problem is even there in the first place.

 

[Poetic Justice]

The theory of relativity is also incomplete

Is that a psuedo science?

 

[YourFavoriteNightmare]

Sounds like Sensing take over to me...

My problem with all of science and whenever I disagree with it is that I'm afraid for it going in wrong direction. Then, 500 years later..."Hey, this psycho-algae, or however you pronounce it, stuff really works." "Yeah, let's infuse it everywhere!!" But I could be totally wrong as well.
I hate to for society to be so inefficient. Not to progress, to waste time. To lose precious time and resources that you can't always get back. But, you know what? The world can't take away the INTPs, the INFJs, INFPs, and INTJs. The ENTPs, and the ENFPs. The ENTJs and ENFJs. We'll always be here. Even if we recede into the shadows. Questioning. And I'm pretty sure it'll be a little band of NTPs to slap Science's leaders in the face and get the INJs really thinking..."Yeah. This could work." It's then infected to the ENJs to implement and the ENPs to popularize. The SPs will excitedly catch on and we'll all help ease the SJs into the new traditions that they will faithfully and dutifully uphold.
I do have faith in humanity.
Not really deserved.
But you gotta give it to us...we'll always come around.