|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4869 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Psychology Science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4869 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:I'm not being intentionally obtuse (its just natural) but I don't see how this would work. Patients fill out questionnaires about their behavior and thoughts. Layman and psychologists ask patient about their behaviors and thoughts and presumably get honest answers. Then what? We see who can better classify the behaviors as disorders according to descriptions given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders? How do we check who "really" got the right answers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4869 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Agreed, which is why i'm not totally adverse to the idea of mental illnesses. I just think there needs to be some conceptual check followed by some internal housekeeping; we can't have the number of mental illnesses doubling every 20 years or so. quote:Again, can't really disagree here. quote:True. I see sibling rivalry disorder and laugh but I take deep depression seriously. I'm just trying to figure out a way to distinguish between the two in a meaningful way. And it doesn't seem like any progress is going to change that much if there's not a serious discussion about basal concepts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5978 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
JustinC writes: True. I see sibling rivalry disorder and laugh but I take deep depression seriously. I'm just trying to figure out a way to distinguish between the two in a meaningful way. And it doesn't seem like any progress is going to change that much if there's not a serious discussion about basal concepts. I volunteer that for me, the difference lies in whether a person MUST be treated, or would simply benefit from treatment. Going back to my example of stress, there are a number of treatments available. It may indeed be proven that these medicines have results, but I would rather not be given medication for a problem which may be solved by better organization and prioritizing in life. I suppose I am holistic in that regards, rather go to a spa than take a medicine with possible side affects. Stress is a disorder, sure. Anxiety interferes with life as it could be. I would not categorize something as disease unless it were incurable via other means, because I don't relish the idea of making excuses and being subject to the opinions of others. I think that being 'diagnosed' with something is misunderstood by many, and the people in our lives may use this an excuse to blame everything on the 'sick' person. I have never been diagnosed, never been to the psychiatrist, but even a lay diagnosis gets me in trouble with people who want to stereotype or place fault on me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I nearly jumped out of my skin when I saw this!
JustinC writes: First off, let's talk about psychological theories. Popper famously derided Freud's ideas as being unfalsifiable. At best, they were explanatory frameworks that helped one understand there own behavior and guide their lives. At worst, the obfuscated one's self-awareness and hindered their ability to accurately assess their internal problems. The question comes down to the fact that you can't really get objective evidence when it comes to psychological analysis. There is always the "leading the witness" problem. A patient may think at the end of a session that they gained some deep insights to their behavior, and this may be true. But how does one know they aren't merely interpreting their behavior interms of some arbitrary framework? How do you assess the theories contact with reality? How do I observe the Id, Ego, or Superego? Or how do I assess whether my actions are guided by unconscious motivations that aren't immediately apparent to my conscious self? You are in fact addressing the drivel that was Freud. To count psychology not a science because of an old defunct 'theory' is foolishness. I know it still gets some air time in the USA but in the UK with an evidence based health service it not used in public interventions. Freud is bollocks and about as far away from psychology as you can get.
JustinC writes: If is of my opinion that the discipline is riddled with pseudoscientific concepts and methodologies, especially clinical psychology. Evidence please (taking into account my point above about Freud being bollocks).
JustinC writes: Shouldn't the inability to define "mental disorder" in a meaningful way give pause to the practitioners and open up a debate as to the efficacy of the incessant manufacturing of diseases? Please show the 'inability to define mental disorders' or, take a look at the DSM-IV for all the diagnostic tools you could ask for. Oh, and please show any actual understanding of psychology you have. You appear to have none.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
JustinC writes: In the recent DSM, there is a "sibling rivalry disorder." In previous editions "homosexuality" was considered a mental disorder. Now, I ask, what exactly changed that they decided homosexuality is no longer a mental disorder and the sibling rivalry suddenly is? What are the criteria for mental disorders as opposed to "normal" behavior? As with all science there is a progression of knowledge. A quick peruse of journals like 'Behaviour Research and Therapy' will give you all the evidence based classification criteria and theoretical perspectives on psychological disorders. I'm a cogntitive behavioural therapist myself so if you have any specific (modern) diagnostic quanderies I would be happy to go through them with you. You are also getting close to confusing psychology with psychiatry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
tudwell writes: Most mental illnesses are biological diseases also, caused by chemical imbalances or malfunctions in the brain. Some of the sillier ones (sibling rivalry disorder?) may not be so objectively identified, but bipolar disorder, ADHD, schizophrenia, and other prominent illnesses are known to be caused by chemical imbalances. The jury is very still out on that. There is a raft of research that shows that cbt can dramatically effect the presenting symptoms of the above. The chemical imbalance can be seen as an indicator of illness; rather than a cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
RAZD writes: In populations where the sample size is small this may be difficult, but where we have a large sample (say for battle fatigue?) they should be able to manage it. Yup, the DSM-IV has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder on Axis 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
JustinC writes: Patients fill out questionnaires about their behavior and thoughts. Layman and psychologists ask patient about their behaviors and thoughts and presumably get honest answers. Then what? We see who can better classify the behaviors as disorders according to descriptions given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders? We use the DSM-IV to inform the therapy. If a client is experiencing meta worry we know there is a Generalised Anxiety Component that will respond to GAD interventions. If the client has intrusive thoughts and neutralising behaviours we know there is an OCD componsent that will respond to OCD interventions.
JustinC writes: How do we check who "really" got the right answers? We know this because of 40+ years of scientific research that is error correcting and peer reviewed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4869 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:I understand the Freud paragraph seemed like a bit of a strawman, but I just wanted to stress what a scientific theory isn't. Since you are obviously more informed on the subject than I, what empirical result or conceptual change resulted in homosexuality not being classified as a mental disorder and sibling rivalry being ruled as such? This is all in the spirit of friendly discussion btw, I didn't mean to offend any practicing psychologists. I'm not speaking authoritatively, just asking some questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4869 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Again, you may be right that I am confusing psychiatry and psychology. I was referring to repressed memories and facilitated communication when I wrote that. Can you clarify the difference? Would you say clincial psychology is the practice of classifying mental diseases and finding effective treatments for them? And psychiatry is ...?
quote:Can you give me a definition as to what constitutes normal behavioral variations and to what constitutes a diseased behavioral pattern?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4869 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:I have no doubt that people experience mental patterns which debilitate their lives in several respects. The question I have is: can thought patterns be classified as diseased without reference to how it affects their lives? For instance, I've been diagnosed with ADHD. I never thought I had it, nor has it noticeably had a negative impact on my life. Sure I'm a little hyperactive but can't that just be classified as a part of my personality and not a disorder?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
JustinC writes: what empirical result or conceptual change resulted in homosexuality not being classified as a mental disorder and sibling rivalry being ruled as such? Homosexuality as a 'disease' has been around since the 19C and in early 20C Freud came out with all of his usual displacement/anxiety bullshit. Then later the American military recognised it as a disability (still does). If you want someone to blame it is Freud: the man was a charlatan and a fraud. But if you want a more cultural reason, blame the Big Three Religions. Sin! All is Sin! When Freuds' teachings were shown to be devoid of any empirical support things changed. So you are looking at the early 70 for the DSM and the 90s (yikes) for the ICD for diagnostic change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
JustinC writes: Would you say clincial psychology is the practice of classifying mental diseases and finding effective treatments for them? Yes.
JustinC writes: And psychiatry is ...? The same thing. The difference is that a psychologist uses the field of psychology: a psychiatrist uses the field of medicine.
JustinC writes: Can you give me a definition as to what constitutes normal behavioral variations and to what constitutes a diseased behavioral pattern? To the first yes; with qualification. We can define normal in terms of 'caselessness'. That is to say there is now clinical need in the patient. If you score less than 8-8 on the Hospital Anxiety Depression scale you would normally be declined treatment on the NHS. Below 8-8 and (under normal circumstances) you not get diagnosed. Remember this is not some scale that was pulled out of someones arse: this measure has been tested to death for reliability and validity. I don't understand why you are using the term 'diseased behaviour pattern'. This is a relic of the medical model (here in the UK we are moving to the psychosocial model) beloved by psychiatrists (who are after all trained that way).
Larni writes: Please show the 'inability to define mental disorders' or, take a look at the DSM-IV for all the diagnostic tools you could ask for. Care to respond?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
JustinC writes: I've been diagnosed with ADHD. I never thought I had it, nor has it noticeably had a negative impact on my life. Sure I'm a little hyperactive but can't that just be classified as a part of my personality and not a disorder? Take a look at this.
National Institute of Mental Health writes: Not everyone who is overly hyperactive, inattentive, or impulsive has ADHD. Since most people sometimes blurt out things they didn't mean to say, or jump from one task to another, or become disorganized and forgetful, how can specialists tell if the problem is ADHD? Because everyone shows some of these behaviors at times, the diagnosis requires that such behavior be demonstrated to a degree that is inappropriate for the person's age. The diagnostic guidelines also contain specific requirements for determining when the symptoms indicate ADHD. The behaviors must appear early in life, before age 7, and continue for at least 6 months. Above all, the behaviors must create a real handicap in at least two areas of a person's life such as in the schoolroom, on the playground, at home, in the community, or in social settings. So someone who shows some symptoms but whose schoolwork or friendships are not impaired by these behaviors would not be diagnosed with ADHD. Nor would a child who seems overly active on the playground but functions well elsewhere receive an ADHD diagnosis. To assess whether a child has ADHD, specialists consider several critical questions: Are these behaviors excessive, long-term, and pervasive? That is, do they occur more often than in other children the same age? Are they a continuous problem, not just a response to a temporary situation? Do the behaviors occur in several settings or only in one specific place like the playground or in the schoolroom? The person's pattern of behavior is compared against a set of criteria and characteristics of the disorder as listed in the DSM-IV-TR. NIMH Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder I can't speak for the US, but the thing about the NHS is that it is a tight fisted institution and time limits interventions and loathes giving out expensive drugs. Thats why we use so much cbt. It's cheap and it works better than drugs!.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4869 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:If they're relying on the field of medicine won't they by definition be relying on psychological research pertaining to mental health? quote:Since psychologists define "clinical need" that really can't be considered an objective criteria can it? That sounds like, "You're normal if I say you're normal." quote:I just want to know how you test a scale like that. To what do you compare it to see if its accurate? For instace, if someone has leukemia there is an associated plethora of symptons which may be associated with it. The reliability of symptons for diagnosing leukemia can then be tested by seeing how many people with those symptons actually have leukemia by using more invasive methods or by seeing the disease progress. What about your scale? Is it true by defintion that if you score higher than an 8-8 HAD do you have HAD? Or can that test give an innaccurate diagnosis? How is that determined? I think I'm having trouble distinguishing between symptons of the disease and the disease itself. If I overgeneralize, have all-or-nothing thinking, disqualify the postive, etc. are these symptons of depression or are they depression. In other words, is depression causing these thought patterns or are these thought patterns depression.
quote:Sure. I was referring to the philosophical debate started by Thomas Ssasz and particularly a section in my biomedical ethics textbook plus this website: Document Not Found where there is a long discussion about how best to define the concept. Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024