Is Psychology Science?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Psychology has, I think we'd all probably agree, advanced considerably since Freud. What I want to know is: is the current schema of psychology, as it relates to a hierarchy of the self, solid, scientific fact in the same sense that evolution, or the big bang, or quantum physics is science, or is it largely esoteric and/or philosophical?

Chris

 

[citizenzen]

I don't know.

Happy to be of service.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What's your best guess? Are transference, repression, neurosis, the Id, Ego and so forth scientifically valid, proven concepts. I'm not talking about ironclad. I mean, the big bang theory is to some degree speculative, but it's scientifically valid so long as it remains a consensus position. Can we say the same of Psychology?

Chris

 

[Avi]

Psychology is an interesting field, on the soft science side it interfaces with philosophy and religion, on the physical science side, chemistry, physics and math and the life sciences as well. Psychology programs around the country are struggling with their identities.

And by the way, I think the big bang is on very solid ground. It explains many phenomena very well (e.g. the red shift).

 

[Tao_Equus]

Yes. It is in some sense a soft science none the less many rigorous studies have been performed that show consistently repeated results. Finding such truths is science.

Government, religions, army recruiters and advertising executives the world over put the data from this science to use all the time. And in our personal relationships whether it be spouse, child, peer, enemy, family, boss or whatever we are all constantly making adaptations based on our psychological knowledge of those people. A lot of psychology is nothing less than plain common sense. Some more tenuous and even counter-intuitive.

What makes it seem less than rock steady is the complexity and occasional unpredictability of its subject.

 

[iBrian]

There's always been a long debate within psychology itself as to whether it is more art than science - the problem is that unlike the physical sciences, social sciences such as psychology and sociology depend a lot on statistical analyses, rather than clear cause-effect formulas which can give rise to clear predictions.

There is also the pointer that there is a lot of subjectivity in the formulation of hypotheses as well. For example, BF Skinner postulated that thought is merely a function of the physical movements of the body. The refutation was a psychologist filling himself with enough curare to paralyse many of his functions, then declare he was able to think, thus disproving Skinner. You wouldn't get comparable experiments in physics.

Unfortunately, there is also a big motivation within psychology as a discipline to label itself as a science - it opens up more avenues of funding.

 

[Snoopy]

What's your best guess? Are transference, repression, neurosis, the Id, Ego and so forth scientifically valid, proven concepts.

Psychology employs the scientific methodology so yes I would say it is a science (social rather than physical, clearly). The use of statistics is, as has been alluded to, required to bring about a level of robust objectiveness to the analysis and description of the outcomes. Investigating human interactions is somewhat more complicated than the cause and effect of a test tube interaction.

Terms that are created to refer to internal constructs or activities, such as the Id or repression, are perhaps necessary and perhaps useful verbal tools to assist in investigations but can only have saliency and meaning if they manifest in physical (ie behaviourial) ways. Otherwise these aspects remain unsupported philosophical musings. (But then I always was a behaviourist )

s.

 

[Snoopy]

A lot of psychology is nothing less than plain common sense. Some more tenuous and even counter-intuitive.

I often think that psychology is in a no-win situation with the "general public."

If research is published in the non-scientific journals that "confirms" common sense then it is dismissed as a waste of time and money. If research is published that runs "counter" to common sense it is dismissed as rubbish; "I've never heard such a lot of nonsense". For example, people wouldn't deliver possibly fatal electric shocks to strangers just because they were asked to by a scientist would they...

Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

s.

 

[Postmaster]

The muslims were the first to lay the foundations of the systematic exploration of Psychology. But the ancient Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Persians all explored it aswell.

To me it's an artform. In the west there has been a big shift from considering psychology an artform to a science so that it gets more attension and funding from the government by the acedemic world. It gets science when you go into reductionism and biological pyschology.

There hasnt been huge beifits from pyschology. Human nature will always remain unpredictable to a huge extent.

 

[nativeastral]

The muslims were the first to lay the foundations of the systematic exploration of Psychology. But the ancient Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Persians all explored it aswell.

To me it's an artform. In the west there has been a big shift from considering psychology an artform to a science so that it gets more attension and funding from the government by the acedemic world. It gets science when you go into reductionism and biological pyschology.

There hasnt been huge beifits from pyschology. Human nature will always remain unpredictable to a huge extent.

are you kidding? advertisers and other manipulators of human society have exploited it to the max. we have all been psychologists since we can see and think about what we see and act accordingly as there seems to be quite a lot of psychological norms so although not quite automatic behaviourists it is still in the running with many domains.

there are universals, but definitely cultural [conceptual/perceptual] and social constructs effect/affect the 'pysche' [old fashioned but pertinent word].

its been specialised into many sub disciplines to rid itself of the denigrated 'folk' pyschology, like cognitive science, evolutionary psychology and neuroscience and develop theories eg information, eliminative materialism etc. [yeh all about funding..]

 

[wil]

advertisers and other manipulators of human society have exploited it to the max.

Quite the valid point. The advertizers on Wall Street producing commercials, web pages, radio spots, print ads on infinitum spend more on researching this science and how to use it effectively than anyone else...

Forget curing any issues...what can we get them to buy?

 

[Netti-Netti]

Terms that are created to refer to internal constructs or activities, such as the Id or repression, are perhaps necessary and perhaps useful verbal tools to assist in investigations but can only have saliency and meaning if they manifest in physical (ie behaviourial) ways. Otherwise these aspects remain unsupported philosophical musings. (But then I always was a behaviourist )

Well, that's too bad for you, Snoopy.

Just kidding. But I do disagree with the emphasis. I always thought that overt behavior was never fully reflective of what was going on with an organism because of environmental constraints. As a result behavior may actually tell us more about external conditions that about what's was going on with a person.

Like Buddhism, psychology tells us that people's thoughts influence their emotions. This can happen in significant and recurring ways without any obvious overt behavioral manifestations.

 

[Netti-Netti]

What's your best guess? Are transference, repression, neurosis, the Id, Ego and so forth scientifically valid, proven concepts. I'm

Chris, not sure why focus on concepts that were developed by psychiatrists - not psychologists. But that's an aside.

To me the basic principle of scientific evidence is replicability. Take for example the so-called self-serving bias. Give people random positive feedback on a problem solving task that's actually impossible to solve because it's bogus. In numerous studies, people would attribute success to themselves even though the feedback they had received was random.

How many studies are necessary that demonstrate this effect? The basic idea is the same for any psychological phenomena. If it can be shown over and over again, you can probably consider it scientifically valid.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Chris, not sure why focus on concepts that were developed by psychiatrists - not psychologists. But that's an aside.

That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about that.

Chris

 

[Postmaster]

are you kidding? advertisers and other manipulators of human society have exploited it to the max. we have all been psychologists since we can see and think about what we see and act accordingly as there seems to be quite a lot of psychological norms so although not quite automatic behaviourists it is still in the running with many domains.

there are universals, but definitely cultural [conceptual/perceptual] and social constructs effect/affect the 'pysche' [old fashioned but pertinent word].

its been specialised into many sub disciplines to rid itself of the denigrated 'folk' pyschology, like cognitive science, evolutionary psychology and neuroscience and develop theories eg information, eliminative materialism etc. [yeh all about funding..]

Good point.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Terms that are created to refer to internal constructs or activities, such as the Id or repression, are perhaps necessary and perhaps useful verbal tools to assist in investigations but can only have saliency and meaning if they manifest in physical (ie behaviourial) ways. Otherwise these aspects remain unsupported philosophical musings. (But then I always was a behaviourist )

s.

In the fifties Erving Goffman said that the label "mentally ill" referred to those individuals who were least able to project a "sustainable self." What he meant was that the way the mental health conglomerate pigeon holed the mentally ill was, essentially, "according to the degree to which they violated the ceremonial rules of social intercourse." That does sort of lead to what we seem to have now in the mental health profession, which is a sliding scale of who gets the heavy drugs based on controlling behavior. "Behavioral health" is a term in common parlance, and it refers to a sort of cottage industry which has sprung up to contain, and hopefully reintegrate individuals who just can't keep up their end of the social dance.

What provoked the question of the OP, which was supposed to be a poll but I screwed up, was me wondering why nobody seems to want to use the language of psychology, or psychiatry as Netti points out, to describe the experience of the self. In thinking about how one reaches for enlightenment from various religious perspectives, why do we prefer the arcane language of milquetoast metaphysics to the modern lexicon of psychology? I can't find anyone who will admit to repression, or narcissism, or any sort of neurosis, yet psychology tells us that we're all repressed, that we're all neurotic, that we all transfer our power to others, that we all have issues with our parents that snuck into our programming before we could say no. Admitting to this kind of stuff would go a long way toward explaining things like guilt and sin, just to name the easiest examples, but we prefer these long winded bard's tales of avatars and the like. Why?

Chris

 

[Snoopy]

Well, that's too bad for you, Snoopy.

It's OK, I'm in therapy for it.

But I do disagree with the emphasis. I always thought that overt behavior was never fully reflective of what was going on with an organism because of environmental constraints. As a result behavior may actually tell us more about external conditions that about what's was going on with a person.

Like Buddhism, psychology tells us that people's thoughts influence their emotions. This can happen in significant and recurring ways without any obvious overt behavioral manifestations.

Crumbs, perhaps I got the emphasis wrong cos I agree with what you say. All flows from the internal environment I think; but I only meant that it is difficult to nail this to a science unless it manifests as overt behaviours (if only as self-reporting of thoughts and emotions).

s.

 

[Snoopy]

That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about that.
Chris

I think it is difficult (or perhaps impossible?) to completely separate the two. When I studied psychology it included Freud (albeit as part of a historical overview). In the modern context of a mental health hospital, psychiatrists and psychologists can both be found working side by side; the most obvious practical difference being that the former can prescribe drugs whereas the latter cannot. Psychiatrists as medical people tend to see mental health within the "medical model" of an illness; whereas psychologists may see mental health in broader, more varied terms; based perhaps on a broader and more varied training (you can see this in the different "types" of counsellor).

s.

 

[Snoopy]

What provoked the question of the OP, was me wondering why nobody seems to want to use the language of psychology, or psychiatry as Netti points out, to describe the experience of the self.

By nobody, do you mean on IO, or generally?

My easy (flippant?) answer is that there is no self. Boy, that was easy.

In thinking about how one reaches for enlightenment from various religious perspectives, why do we prefer the arcane language of milquetoast metaphysics to the modern lexicon of psychology? I can't find anyone who will admit to repression, or narcissism, or any sort of neurosis, yet psychology tells us that we're all repressed, that we're all neurotic, that we all transfer our power to others, that we all have issues with our parents that snuck into our programming before we could say no. Admitting to this kind of stuff would go a long way toward explaining things like guilt and sin, just to name the easiest examples, but we prefer these long winded bard's tales of avatars and the like. Why?

Good question. A thought or two:
Perhaps this sort of meeting of worlds is going on? It certainly is with regards to science and meditation (as an easy example).
Perhaps it is to do with language and viewpoint? There is a whole distinct world of terms and perspectives associated with science and various religions. Is amalgamating or comparing the two a mammoth / impossible appropriate task? A (poor?) analogy: Why do people talk about music in terms of subjective response and experience when it could be discussed solely in terms of the physics of acoustics? In fact, why don’t we talk about everything in scientific parlance with a scientific approach?

And I am perfectly happy to admit (!) to the stuff you refer to, on the basis that I am a human being (except I do not accept the notion of sin). This is one reason why I meditate; others deal with this stuff in their own way (I hope).

Thanks again for the thoughtful question, as ever Chris.

s.

 

[nativeastral]

l think in a way we still do not want to admit to an unconscious within [which freud is undervalued for] nor give credence like other cultures to our dream world [considered too irrational/unreal in our thoroughly rational and reasonable 'worldview], for a time popularly highlighted by jung.

and we have had the influence of the existentialists/nihilists/eastern no-self as well as the admittance of the over weening ego and individualism in modern society, where the individual is above the collective, so admitting to a neurosis is still stigmatised as sub normal, ultimately irresponsible, and a lacking, a half person.

we have in science now a breakdown of the subject/object as a realisation that the observer effects the observation [going back to the pyschological experiments] and humans in their gestalt perceptual mechanisms want to complete the picture, using concepts already internalised. so even overt behaviour is learned, culturally determined to a large extent, as snoopy says its difficult, if you have religious concepts [say] to also use psychological ones, to explain similar thoughts/feelings as its impossible to think outside the constructed box [mind] we've 'made' or been exposed to.

science has realised we are largely unconscious most of the time which is why a lot of them are disregarding the mind as a separate entity/phenomenon from the brain, hence no 'subject'. but the question and conundrum of consciousness, and therefore continued success of pyschology [as individual psyches] is a stumbling block to those scientists who wish to see us a biological brains reacting to external stimuli 'en masse'.
so even though thats why mass hypnotism/consumerism works, there is the unpredicability and too many factors and variables in humans and in social science to make it as concrete as the so called laws of physical science.
consciousness/con science/ soul/ psyche - still an enigma rather than a phenomenon that can be pinpointed or measured much to science's chagrin.