Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
33 online now:
ICANT, jar, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq (7 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,794 Year: 16,830/19,786 Month: 955/2,598 Week: 201/251 Day: 30/59 Hour: 6/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Psychology Science?
JustinC
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 31 of 41 (405405)
06-12-2007 5:24 PM


Btw, thanks for engaging me on this issue. I've wanted to clarify my thinking wrt to it for a while but couldn't find someone of authority to discusss it with.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Larni, posted 06-13-2007 7:26 AM JustinC has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 32 of 41 (405493)
06-13-2007 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by JustinC
06-12-2007 5:24 PM


Psychiatrist are medically trained and have a grounding in the medical model.

You get ill, you find the physical cause, you use a physical cure. If this does not take place you stay ill.

Psychology is a vast science that is very often statistical. It covers the behaviours of global corporartions, athletes, how we process visual images, how we can recognise other people as conscious entities, how we can be conscious entities.

You seem to restrict psychology to clinical, which is still evidence led. Many psychologist do treat people, but in doing so they do research into behaviour and cognition.

With regards to the reliability and validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale you can find published research on the net.

The reliability and validity are determined statistically.

If this is not good enough then you are bashing statistics; not psychology. The evidence of clusters of symptoms that can be labled as (say) OCD is very good and improving all the time (hence the itterations of the DSM and the ICD.

I make an assumption that you have not read the DSM. It explains in very good detail the indicators for specific treatments (all based on research evidence).

No problem with engaging on this issue: it is one close to my heart and if I come across a bit terse it's only because to me these points are PRATTs that I field at work pretty often.

That said I appologise if I came sounded like a git.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by JustinC, posted 06-12-2007 5:24 PM JustinC has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 10:29 AM Larni has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 33 of 41 (405511)
06-13-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by JustinC
06-11-2007 3:11 PM


Re: double blind bind
Patients fill out questionnaires about their behavior and thoughts. Layman and psychologists ask patient about their behaviors and thoughts and presumably get honest answers.

You would have questionnaires that volunteers and patients would fill out, it would list a lot of general questions, yet buried in them would be ones keyed to making diagnosis of various conditions (say OCD behavior). They would not know that it was about disease diagnosis (it could be run as a study on precognition or esp for instance). The questionnaires would then be evaluated by lay people and psychologists, with the lay people given criteria to look for in answers to certain questions, and the psychologists to make diagnosis on those questions (they'd probably guess if just given the criteria).

Compare the results.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JustinC, posted 06-11-2007 3:11 PM JustinC has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 34 of 41 (405512)
06-13-2007 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Larni
06-13-2007 7:26 AM


Psychiatrist are medically trained and have a grounding in the medical model.

And can write prescriptions for drugs, psychologists can't.

My mother was a child psychologist and did some studies on learning in autistic children before retirement.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Larni, posted 06-13-2007 7:26 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Larni, posted 06-14-2007 3:27 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 35 of 41 (405643)
06-14-2007 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Larni
06-12-2007 2:12 PM


Re: Times a changing.
quote:
So you are looking at the early 70 for the DSM and the 90s (yikes) for the ICD for diagnostic change.


I'm reading some literature right now wrt to the conceptual changes that accompanied the DSM-III and general ideas about mental health, so hopefully I'll be able to make my post a little more informed soon.

From what I read, though, it was mainly the outrage and petitioning of the homosexual community that resulted in the change. In other words, there was no major conceptual shift or empirical results that prompted it. You may say that there was never any reason to regard it as a mental disorder, which may be the case.

But, to clarify the issue for me: if I wanted to propose homosexuality as a mental disorder, what criteria would have to be fulfilled?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 06-12-2007 2:12 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 06-14-2007 3:25 AM JustinC has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 36 of 41 (405648)
06-14-2007 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by JustinC
06-14-2007 2:27 AM


Re: Times a changing.
JustinC writes:

But, to clarify the issue for me: if I wanted to propose homosexuality as a mental disorder, what criteria would have to be fulfilled?

I can think of no non-religious reasons.

Do you yet have any reason to claim psychology is not a science?.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by JustinC, posted 06-14-2007 2:27 AM JustinC has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by JustinC, posted 06-14-2007 4:33 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 37 of 41 (405649)
06-14-2007 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
06-13-2007 10:29 AM


RAZD writes:

And can write prescriptions for drugs, psychologists can't.

Yup, psychiatrists are basically medical doctors: psychologists are not.

Btw: I worked with autistic adults for about 4 years, fascinating area.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 10:29 AM RAZD has not yet responded

    
JustinC
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 38 of 41 (405651)
06-14-2007 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Larni
06-14-2007 3:25 AM


Re: Times a changing.
quote:
I can think of no non-religious reasons.

That's not really what I asked. I understand there is considerable religious motivation against labeling homosexual behavior as "normal."

But let's say I proposed it as a canidate for a mental disorder; I understand we are not assuming it to be as such by default. What criteria would have to be fulfilled to be considered a mental disorder? Or conversely, what criteria aren't fulfilled?

quote:

Do you yet have any reason to claim psychology is not a science?.


The title of the thread is a bit of a misnomer at this point, and was at the beginning. It should have been titled "Is There An Objective Criteria For Mental Illness?"

Atleast, that is the direction I want to steer it in now. Also understand I'm not necessarily taking a hostile attitude toward the idea of mental illness. I simply want to understand it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 06-14-2007 3:25 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 06-14-2007 2:29 PM JustinC has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Larni, posted 06-14-2007 2:36 PM JustinC has not yet responded

    
tudwell
Member (Idle past 4236 days)
Posts: 172
From: KCMO
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 39 of 41 (405708)
06-14-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Larni
06-12-2007 10:14 AM


Larni writes:

The chemical imbalance can be seen as an indicator of illness; rather than a cause.

Well, either way, there's an objective, identifiable sign of an illness, which still is in contradiction to JustinC's argument:

JustinC writes:

it is clear why biological diseases are on surer footing than mental diseases: its not very clear there is a "normal way" for the brain, in particular the neocortex, to operate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Larni, posted 06-12-2007 10:14 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 40 of 41 (405719)
06-14-2007 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by JustinC
06-14-2007 4:33 AM


Re: Times a changing.
But let's say I proposed it as a canidate for a mental disorder; I understand we are not assuming it to be as such by default. What criteria would have to be fulfilled to be considered a mental disorder?

Well, the following resolution was produced by the APA:

Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities

The only homosexuals that were investigated before this, were insane homosexuals so the fallacious link was made that homosexuality is a mental illness. Your criteria then are that you need to be able to demonstrate an impairment in judgement/stability/reliability/social skills/vocational skills. In short - you have to show that they are impaired in some mental fashion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JustinC, posted 06-14-2007 4:33 AM JustinC has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 41 of 41 (405721)
06-14-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by JustinC
06-14-2007 4:33 AM


Re: Times a changing.
To be honest Modulous has pretty much summed it up.

There is no point trying to shoe horn homosexuality into a catagory that it does not fit.

Why would you want to?

Is not a better question 'what defines mental illness?'

If the OP title is misleading please change it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JustinC, posted 06-14-2007 4:33 AM JustinC has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019