...can psychology really be called a science? — rickyk95

Fanelli D (2010). ""Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences.": "...these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree."
https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010068

The hard science - soft science debate is useful to an agenda which attempts to discredit Psychology by means of disinformation (itself a psychological tool based on the premise: information control is mind control). What would be the purpose of such an agenda? The findings of Scientific Psychology can have disturbing implications regarding human behaviour. Would it cause distress among the populace to know how easily their thoughts, attitudes, and behaviour can be (and are) manipulated?

The more pertinent question is: to what extent has the reliable application of Psychology affected people over the past 120 years?

It is the nature of human beings to be genetically predisposed to certain cognitive and intuitive misinterpretations (i.e., errors, biases, and illusions), and to predictable behaviour in group dynamics, etc. If the facts of extensive psychological research were known and understood, many cherished models of "free will" (among other things) would be considered absurd, and simply collapse.

Structural models of the human mind based on memory, knowledge, and processing capacity, dynamic models which simulate cognitive and intuitive processing (e.g., interpretation and mental modelling), and formal domain ontologies containing knowledge, are all being constructed and contribute to the field of artificial intelligence.

Time doesn't permit a sufficient summary of the many other applications, but the Wikipedia article on Psychology would be a good place to start.

If the facts of extensive psychological research were known and understood, many cherished models of "free will" (among other things) would be considered absurd, and simply collapse. — Galuchat

Of course the inverse of this is true as well. If the nature of free will was known, and understood, many cherished psychological models would simply collapse.

Structural models of the human mind based on memory, knowledge, and processing capacity, dynamic models which simulate cognitive and intuitive processing (e.g., interpretation and mental modelling), and formal domain ontologies containing knowledge, are all being constructed and contribute to the field of artificial intelligence. — Galuchat

The concept of free will, as developed by St. Augustine is based on a tripartite model of the human mind consisting of memory, understanding, and will. If you remove will, such that you produce a model based on memory and processing (understanding), you have an incomplete model, ignoring a crucial aspect of the mind. You cannot even bring "knowledge" into this model because knowledge is based in belief which requires a choice, i.e. an act of will, conviction. So you necessarily have a gap of inconsistency between your model with its memory and processing, and the content which exists within the memory, and is being processed. Where does that content (knowledge) come from? I know, your model takes it for granted. That's how those models work, they take some fundamental principles as granted, and build upon that. But the production of such principles is critical to a real understanding of the mind. How valid is any claim to have modeled the mind, when you simply leave out, as granted, a very important aspect?

The way in which we diagnose depression seems to be way less reliable than the way that for example you would find a tumor on someones body, or a life weakening viral infection. The latter seems to have more epistemological validity than the former. What are your thoughts on this? — rickyk95

It seems to me that all diagnosis is based on dialogue. The concept of 'diagnosis' is dialogue-based: it assumes that a medical professional can eventually write something down, generally with the patient's agreement, which they both believe is a satisfactory explanation of why the person called 'the patient' came along in the first place. It's just a ritual we like.

A substantial minority of doctor-patient encounters end without diagnosis, or with a labelling that lacks significant content.

I don't see that there's something separate about mental distress from physical distress. One issue is, how far do we spread the causal web. Many people in the polluted valley where I live have difficulties called respiratory problems, but they aren't diagnosed as having pollution problems. The poor visit the doctor disproportionately for 'mental' problems: they are not diagnosed as having inadequate incomes. It requires coroners with an active view of public health to make sure that individual diagnoses of all sorts of industrially- or behaviourally-caused problems are recognised as not simply the problems of indivduals.

It seems to be that the way psychologists and psychiatrists diagnose mental illness is through conversation with the patient. The patient tells them what bothers them, what they feel, their thoughts, etc. So, if you have lost enjoyment in life, and experience constant sadness, you are diagnosed with depression (based on the things that you said to the mental health professional.) The way in which we diagnose depression seems to be way less reliable than the way that for example you would find a tumor on someones body, or a life weakening viral infection. The latter seems to have more epistemological validity than the former. What are your thoughts on this? And given this problem, can psychology really be called a science?

The conversation depends on the type of therapy.

Cognitive Control Therapy begins at media res and proceeds to establish goals which the patient sets with the assistance of the therapist. This method removes symptoms, which may be sufficient for normal functioning in society. I think it tries to transfer (the unconscious redirection of feelings) these symptoms into the goals the patient has established. The US Military use Cognitive Control Therapy to treat cases of PTSD. This is the quickest treatment method, 3 to 6 months avg and it can be combined with online sessions.

Many believe that all mental issues are chemical related. Imbalances in the brain. This is the case for schizophrenics and others with severe forms of psychosis. Structural issues need to be addressed with such treatments, talk has limited utility in these cases.

Neurotics make up the majority of those with mental issues and in order to get at the causes of these issues long term psychiatric sessions are necessary. The psychiatrist does not effect the relief, the patient does, and over time with the careful guidance of a skilled psychiatrist good results are possible. It is not so much finding causes but leading the patient to make his own realizations.

Is is a science? Perhaps at the structural level but...I get the impression that finding the right fit between patient and therapist is critical to the success of the treatment.

Thats why you need to share your observations with others in order be more objective. Even in observing external phenomenon requires you to share those observations with others in order to be objective. If you were their only person in existence and had no one to bounce your ideas about the extenal world off of, then could you really say you're being objective?

Isnt that why you go to the psychologists - to ask the person in which many others go to and shares their internal states with in order to compare them and apply similar solutions to similar problems?

Psychology isn't unique in it's reliance upon subjective history. Typically the first question asked of any patient is to ask where it hurts, and it's not possible to objectively verify the pain. A neurologist, for example, will diagnose migraines and post concussive syndromes based entirely on history. An orthopedist cannot simply look at an MRI and tell you if or how bad your back hurts. An arthritic back is rarely treated just because arthritis is seen. It's the subjective pain that is treated.

And just like there are objective elements in other fields, so too psychology. That you feel sad is subjective, but that you sleep 20 hours a day, you drink a pint of gin a day, that you can't hold a job, and that you commit crimes is not. The reduction in measurable criteria is evidence of resolution.

And no, I don't accept the conclusion that psychology has no therapeutic value. It can work.

If the one doing it was named,"Joe" then he would be 1 joe tall, while everyone else would be 0.8, 1.2, etc joes tall. Measurements are relative. It's just we have agreed on the use of particular measurements (inches, yards, metres, etc.).

And no, I don't accept the conclusion that psychology has no therapeutic value. — Hanover

I don't think anyone was offering it.

no, I don't accept the conclusion that psychology has no therapeutic value.
— Hanover

I don't think anyone was offering it. — unenlightened

But you said "Science is very successful when directed outwards to the world of objects. But directed inwards at the subject that is (or isn't) scientific, it fails utterly, precisely because it must methodologically eliminate subjectivity in trying to be objective. Thus science applied to the psyche is a madness of the form of going to sea in a sieve."

I took "fails utterly" to mean it's useless.

I took "fails utterly" to mean it's useless. — Hanover

How dare you.

Confusing isn't it. Unless, possibly, not all psychology is science.

lol. So in other words, if 'perfectly healthy' miserable people continue to kill themselves and others because their psychological needs are ignored by psychiatry who should only concentrate on a minority of major depression disorder cases, then society's response should be a post-hoc sermon of "oughts". — sime

No, no. It is neither possible nor appropriate for 'psychiatry' to deal with the unhappiness of 20% of the population -- that's 60 million people in the US alone. The unhappiness of 60 million people is something that society as a whole can, should, and must deal with. We have arranged society to function in some unhealthy ways, and this can be changed. Not easy, certainly, but there is no other entity other than "society" capable of doing it.

Check out "The Sane Society" by Erich Fromm.

I once spent six weeks with a schizophrenic in the full flowering of a manic episode, and without drugs. It is a distressing, baffling, frightening condition for all parties. In no sense am I a mental illness denier. However, to say that it must have a biological origin is to deny strong evidence that there is a significant social environment factor. — unenlightened

I once spent 30 years with a mate who was afflicted with a severe bi-polar disorder.

I'll readily grant that there are several factors in play: social factors, personal factors (lifestyle, good or bad life-choices, etc.), and biological factors. I'll readily grant that most people with major mental illness diagnoses are capable of functioning productively, most of the time, at least.

But what convinces me that the major mental illnesses (which, after all, do not afflict most people -- 97% of the population) have a significant causative biological component is that otherwise bright, happy, productive people who are doing well in society can quickly unravel into disabling psychotic or depressive conditions.

For most of us who have or will display garden variety mental dysfunction, it's almost all socially related, or related to bad decisions (like getting into and staying in a bad job, a bad marriage, a bad relationship, bad habits, etc).

Why do you think it is, that people of various age groups, who are apparently completely mentally stable, not diagnosable of having major mental illness, will decide to commit suicide? Doesn't the act of suicide imply "major mental illness"?

Doesn't the act of suicide imply "major mental illness"? — Metaphysician Undercover

It could mean major mental illness or it could mean excessive other-directedness which has suddenly let them down.

However, when we see high rates of suicide among a particular demographic, like middle aged, white, unemployed, working class men, then it points towards social dysfunction -- on the part of society and maybe on the part of some of the men. The number of working class men that have been shuffled out of the economy is quite high, and not very much has been done on their behalf. That's a social dysfunction. Some working class men simply can't find an identity outside of work, and that's a social dysfunction on the part of the men.

I'm not blaming them for despair, please understand.

What is "other-directedness"?

However, when we see high rates of suicide among a particular demographic, like middle aged, white, unemployed, working class men, then it points towards social dysfunction -- on the part of society and maybe on the part of some of the men. — Bitter Crank

I think you are adding too many qualifying terms to your demographic here. Doing this just directs your conclusion. So for instance, many middle aged men commit suicide, regardless of whether they are white or unemployed. You might conclude that this is the result of a dysfunctional society, casting the blame of causation onto some phantom existent called "society". But why not look at the reality of this, that these are individuals who cannot cope with their environment. Who knows, perhaps if the conditions were right, you or I could join that group, but wouldn't this classify us as mentally ill? Mental illness doesn't have to be something you are born with.

What is "other-directedness"? — Metaphysician Undercover

"other directed" people rely heavily on other people for cues about their own worth, their proper role, what's important, what's not. Nobody is entirely other-directed of course. The opposite is inner directed people who rely more on the own judgements about their self worth, their proper role, what's important, what's not. Inner-directed people are usually somewhat less gregarious. It isn't that they are at all unsocial, they just don't require as much social interaction with and validation from others as other directed people do.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being either inner or other directed. Different traits are better in different circumstances.

In the suicide context, an other-directed young person who relies on the group's approval for self-esteem may lose that approval--for some odd reason. This would be more devastating for an other directed person than an inner directed one. Being inner directed is no protection against suicide.

I didn't make up the group, "middle aged, white, unemployed, working class men". They figure large in the declining economies of rust-belt areas in the midwest (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Appalachia). It is among this group that the highest rates of unemployment for the longest periods have recently occurred; this is the group figuring largely into the opiate drug epidemic, and has a significantly higher rate of suicide than they did 25 years ago, and a significantly higher rate of suicide than among their employees peers.

Long-term unemployment with little likelihood of re-employment is a relatively new experience for these people. This group self-identified very strongly as "the American work force", and now that has come unraveled for millions of this demographic.

Some members of this group are resilient, resourceful, flexible, and take the initiative in finding some other type of work. If they are not resilient, resourceful, flexible, and take a passive approach, then things can not get better for them (they might not get better even for the agile, nimble, flexible worker either).

When entire industries vacate a region, the consequences are often so devastating that individuals just get chewed up and spat out. This happened in Flint, MI (GM); Gary, Indiana (steel); Akron, OH (rubber); Janesville, WI (GM); and many other places where once mainstay industries either went bankrupt or the industry decamped to Asia.

Who knows, perhaps if the conditions were right, you or I could join that group, but wouldn't this classify us as mentally ill? — Metaphysician Undercover

You and I could certainly end up in this group, and I didn't suggest that merely being in this group made one mentally ill. I've had bad episodes of work and unemployment and it did not make me feel at all suicidal. One doesn't need to be mentally ill to commit suicide. But being depressed and feeling hopeless and abandoned makes it a bit more likely that somebody that has a gun handy will load it, point it at their head, and pull the trigger.

some phantom existent called "society" — Metaphysician Undercover

You aren't going to quote me Margaret Thatcher, "there's no such thing as society" are you?

Society exists, and it exists in various functions, forms, and demographics. It's not a phantom. It is also a useful "placeholder" for several subsystems of society: the economy, foreign trade, the education system, the mental health system, the welfare system, religious organizations, labor, corporations, the government--all sorts of things.

You might conclude that this is the result of a dysfunctional society, casting the blame of causation onto some phantom existent called "society". But why not look at the reality of this, that these are individuals who cannot cope with their environment. Who knows, perhaps if the conditions were right, you or I could join that group, but wouldn't this classify us as mentally ill? Mental illness doesn't have to be something you are born with. — Metaphysician Undercover

What I conclude is that the whole notion of mental illness is flawed. As you say, anyone can find themselves in an environment they cannot cope with, and the details of what they cannot cope with will vary with the individual. But one becomes dysfunctional in relation to a social environment, and that is what we call 'mental illness'. The same mentality that functions stably in one environment breaks down in another. Whereas another mentality might respond in the opposite way.

Epidemiologic research has documented that associations between particular features of the urban environment, such as concentrated disadvantage, residential segregation and social norms, contribute to the risk of mental illness. We propose that changes in DNA methylation may be one potential mechanism through which features of the urban environment contribute to psychopathology. Recent advances in animal models and human correlation studies suggest DNA methylation as a promising mechanism that can explain how the environment “gets under the skin.” Aberrant DNA methylation signatures characterize mental disorders in community settings. Emerging evidence of associations between exposure to features of the environment and methylation patterns may lead toward the identification of mechanisms that explain the link between urban environments and mental disorders. Importantly, evidence that epigenetic changes are reversible offers new opportunities for ameliorating the impact of adverse urban environments on human health.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230535/ (to placate the science addicts)

The fact that these epigenetic changes are reversible seems to suggest that they are more like immunological responses to a toxic environment than illnesses (to stick as close as possible to the medical model). Thus I appear idiotic, self-contradictory and frankly insane, because I am writing in a science and medicine addicted community, where my challenges to the socially established mode of thought are 'unthinkable'.

Calling it 'mental illness' directs one to look only at one side of the relation. But perhaps sometimes the suicide is simply conforming, manifesting the fact that his environment, that is the community he finds himself in, wishes him dead. Which happens to marginalised folks everywhere. But in wishing himself dead, his mentality is exactly the same as the rest of the community that we call, by definition, sane.

Dude is found to have numerous decapitated heads buried in his back yard. They're all from females and they're all facing his bedroom. Its hard to imagine what environment he would thrive in?

Isis.

Probably. There is something primal a person has to overcome in order to consciously inflict pain. It's a precarious path. The name for that thing in the shadows is insanity: loss of the ability to judge and therefore to function. Believe it or don't.

One doesn't need to be mentally ill to commit suicide. — Bitter Crank

But this is exactly the proposition I am question, and merely stating it doesn't prove it. It appears to me like the will to commit suicide would be a defining element of mental illness. Doesn't the mind serve to support ad protect oneself? To will an end to oneself is of course contrary to this, so why wouldn't this be called metal illness? Do you believe that the mind serves a purpose other than to support and protect oneself?

You aren't going to quote me Margaret Thatcher, "there's no such thing as society" are you?

Society exists, and it exists in various functions, forms, and demographics. It's not a phantom. It is also a useful "placeholder" for several subsystems of society: the economy, foreign trade, the education system, the mental health system, the welfare system, religious organizations, labor, corporations, the government--all sorts of things. — Bitter Crank

"Society" is a phantom notion because it's a manmade object which is immaterial. It has many material manifestations, such as school houses, courts, town halls, etc., but to assign to "society" some kind of causal power, requires that one adopts a metaphysics whereby immaterial things such as ideas have causal power. The only way I see that it is possible for ideas to have causal power, is through the willful actions of individual human beings. Ideas do not have causal power the willful actions of individual human beings do. This forces a reduction of "society" to the actions of individual human beings. So in the context of "society is a cause of mental illness", what is really being said here is that an individual's interactions with other individuals is a cause of mental illness.

More specifically though, since "society" refers to this immaterial aspect, which is best described as concepts and ideas, laws, or perhaps ideology in this case, then to blame society for mental illness is to blame this interaction of ideas and ideologies between individuals. But this opens a whole can of worms, because we cannot say that an individual who has unstable ideas is mentally ill, as this is how we develop and grow our knowledge, by allowing our ideas to evolve. Furthermore, we cannot say that a person who has stable ideas which are inconsistent with others (bad or incorrect), is mentally ill, because this person must be held morally or legally responsible.

But one becomes dysfunctional in relation to a social environment, and that is what we call 'mental illness'. The same mentality that functions stably in one environment breaks down in another. Whereas another mentality might respond in the opposite way. — unenlightened

If I understand you correctly then, what we call "mental illness" is an inability to adapt to one's changing social environment. Depending on the individual, a different sort of social environment might trigger the mental illness. Would you say that if given the necessary social environment, every one of us would suffer mental illness? There is no one who can adapt to every possible social environment?

According to the quoted passage, it is quite likely that the adaptation you refer to requires methylation and demethylation of DNA. I had to research this methylation, because it's new to me. It appears like H3C binds itself to the DNA molecule, so the DNA may or may not have H3C. And this affects the activities of the DNA. If I understand correctly, H3C cannot exist freely, it is too unstable and must be bound to oxygen or something. Do you have any opinion as to how it is possible that H3C can move around freely within the living organism, what moves it to and from the DNA?

There is something primal a person has to overcome in order to consciously inflict pain. It's a precarious path. — Mongrel

It's not difficult at all to overcome the resistance to consciously inflict pain. We quite often do this with our dealings with animals, in training and husbandry. It is a simple part of the occupation. There are two aspects to overcome, one is the noise, or actions, which the animal makes indicting it is in pain, and the other is the moral feeling of guilt, this is wrong to inflict pain on this animal. The former, the noise and behaviour enhances, or even brings about the latter, the guilt. So the desired procedure is to inflict just enough pain to induce the desired behaviour, without the animal displaying its pain, then the animal behaves with no evidence of pain, and no feeling of guilt for the trainer. The well trained animal then doesn't even require pain, just a signal, a reminder, an indication that pain could be coming if it doesn't behave. We take this to the extreme with slaughter. Quick and easy is no display of pain, and no feeling of guilt.

Of course there may be some human beings who go the opposite way, and start to enjoy those noises and actions which indicate pain. Then we have to judge those individuals are they suppressing their guilt, or are they mentally ill?

Having no difficulty inflicting pain on animals is a sign of psychopathology that could manifest in more dramatic ways. So I'm keeping my eye on you.

Yeah, well this just reinforces unenlightened's point "the whole notion of mental illness is flawed".

Japanese aesthetics says flawed is good.

What I conclude is that the whole notion of mental illness is flawed. As you say, anyone can find themselves in an environment they cannot cope with, and the details of what they cannot cope with will vary with the individual. But one becomes dysfunctional in relation to a social environment, and that is what we call 'mental illness'. The same mentality that functions stably in one environment breaks down in another. Whereas another mentality might respond in the opposite way. — unenlightened

It doesn't have to do with the society itself defining what is sane vs. insane behavior. It has to do with the common features we all share vs. rare features that occur within our population.

One of the defining properties of a human being is that they are highly social. If a person is anti-social, in any social environment, that person is defined as mentally unstable in every social environment, even in the social environment of ISIS.

As you say, anyone can find themselves in an environment they cannot cope with, and the details of what they cannot cope with will vary with the individual. But one becomes dysfunctional in relation to a social environment, and that is what we call 'mental illness'. — unenlightened

What kind of social environment produces denial (i.e., an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable)?

What kind of social environment produces denial (i.e., an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable)? — Galuchat

Typically, childhood abuse, physical, sexual, or psychological. More generally, a dependent relationship that is simultaneously intolerable and inescapable. Such is my best current understanding, anyway.

One of the defining properties of a human being is that they are highly social. If a person is anti-social, in any social environment, that person is defined as mentally unstable in every social environment, even in the social environment of ISIS. — Harry Hindu

Not at all. An anti-social person is ideally suited to being a night-watchman or a lighthouse keeper, or a mountain shepherd. No reason at all to call such people ill.

Or do you mean by 'antisocial' one who opposes the society they are in, in some way? Such people are agents of change and progress.

What kind of social environment produces denial (i.e., an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable)? — Galuchat

Typically, childhood abuse, physical, sexual, or psychological. More generally, a dependent relationship that is simultaneously intolerable and inescapable. Such is my best current understanding, anyway. — unenlightened

Thanks for that.

But one becomes dysfunctional in relation to a social environment, and that is what we call 'mental illness'. — unenlightened

Actually, what we call mental disorders are listed in diagnostic manuals (e.g., ICD-10, Chapter V). What kind of social environments produce autism and catatonia?