Hi Carl, I can comiserate with you. operant conditioning, ala BF Skinner is alive and well. Having been fully immersed in psychological techniques to help a young man, I am familiar with many of the strategies used for such children. Since rational intervention (discussion) is not available, the intervention is basically one of antecedent control or response cost/reward. It is indeed a rat in a maze model. Very little information is gathered on how the child actually "sees" the world.
I fully value the occupation of councelor and have been to several way back in my mispent youth. They always helped me since I was willing to listen, and much can be said of practice in a career as such. I also value the function of good (accepting) friends, and elders who have my best interest at heart. Both will tell me like it is, regardless. In many ways our current predicament, at least in the US, is one of estrangement. We are stuck in a deterministic impersonal environment where we are told there are so many things outside of our control in terms of our actions. It is one where we are born with a death sentence, and death is something to be feared. Some people get hit with this much harder than others. In many ways, MoQ (at least through ZAMM) encouraged one to get back involved and not interact with the environment (people and jobs included) as if it were an object to be dealt with. This is one of the principles of Zen, as I understand it. To be intrinsically "part of" each and every moment, and make the object of one's endeavor into an extension of oneself. This brings about responsibility and caring rather than "it's just my job". I feel that the segregation of our interaction with "that outside" into 800 theories is really a distraction, and is just one of cataloguing. Of course for those who catalogue it is a job, and we must all justify our jobs. Yes, and I know, there is a preponderance of those that really care. As I stated above, I have personally seen how the child is treated as an object and subjected to accepted concepts of what works. Little endeavor is made to tailor the psychological intervention to match the inate expression of the child. Sad, I know, but it is by the numbers and government institutions that deal with these things do not have the manpower to make these things better. Private therapy is of course not available to everyone, and so the plan is one which is found in a book, as written by the gurus of this stuff. To get back to the subject, we can easily create a world in which each behavior has a cause and a cure. This could indeed work out in terms of "success". However, I believe much of the human spirit is lost in this form of Aristotelian cataloguing of the mind. It could suppress more than it frees, and limit creativity to advance community harmony. Counceling itself is more of a one to one correspondence, where the councelor can learn as much as the patient. However, the other sort of psychology, when taken to the extreme, as it now is trending, is an approach to reality of low Quality, in my opinion (of course). If we do choose to incorporate psychologic lingo (a la James, for example) into MoQ, I am curious about the motivation and the benefits. Cheers, Mark On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Carl Thames <[email protected]> wrote: > I seem to have the ability to kill threads, which is not my intent. I do > ask questions, and consider "Beats the hell out of me" as an appropriate > response. I'm fully aware that "a fool can ask a question that a thousand > wise men cannot answer." Having said that, (I am NOT casting myself in the > role of the fool, although many would wonder at times) I do have something > to contribute to this thread. > > Specifically, as of last Friday, I am now 33 credit hours into a 48 hour > Master's program in Counseling. The process, up to now, has been > enlightening. Keep in mind that this is totally from my perspective, and > take from that what you wish. > > There seems to be TWO branches of psychology operating at this time. There > is Counseling Psychology, which is what I'm learning, and Research > Psychology, which is what someone would be getting with an M.S. (I'm getting > an M. ed.) The one I'm in studies different theories of counseling, the > other is watching rats in a maze. (To put it crudely.) The big push now is > for "empirically validated" approaches to counseling. Simply put, it seems > that the powers-that-be, i.e. the insurance companies that pay for most > counseling, are not comfortable with any approach that uses intuition as its > base. More significantly, they are interested in short-term therapy > designed to get the client back to work. Short term means they don't have to > pay as much for treatment. The most commonly used of this approach is > Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, or CBT. This approach involves making the > client aware of the problem behavior, and then offering suggestion of how to > improve or ameliorate it. That's a gross simplification, but essentially, > that's what it is. In my opinion, it is short-term therapy that produces > short-term results. The underlying causes are ignored, and deemed > unimportant. Without treating the underlying causes, there is no way to > prevent a resurgence of the problem. > > The other problem, in my opinion, is that the insurance companies and big > pharma are driving the research. (Remember what I said above about > 'empirically validated?') There are over 800 different theories out there > about counseling. It seems that the research that gets funded are those > involving short-term approaches. Do you see a problem here? > > Add to that the idea of using the medical model that's in place now for > treating patients, and you end up with a mess. Specifically, in order to > get reimbursed by an insurance company, you are required to provide a > diagnosis. That means digging out the DSM-IV (TR) and coming up with a set > of numbers that the insurance company recognizes. The problem with that is > that once that diagnosis is made, it follows the client forever. There are > a number of therapists that won't take insurance because they don't want to > label people. > > These labels are created by Psychiatrists selected by the American > Psychological Association,(APA). They are currently working on the DSM V, > which was supposed to be out in May of 2011, but got so much adverse > reaction that it's been pushed back to 2013. I have heard they want to add > something like 400 new diagnosis, including such things as "Internet > addiction." Each of the diagnoses will have a corresponding pill to treat. > This is where the rats in the maze come in. > > There is a problem, though. Remember the commercial about the neural > receptors catching the little floating things they called neuro > transmitters? It turns out that it was made up. There is no science > whatever behind that. i.e. there is no test currently available to measure > your levels of neurotransmitters. There is no credible science available > that proves the effect of neurotransmitters on your mood. In fact, you have > more Serotonin receptors in your stomach than you do in your brain. Then > you have the instances of people like one big pharma company. Apparently, > they paid a ghost writer to make up their "research" whole cloth. Using > that "research" they managed to get the FDA to approve their new drug. > > This sort of thing explains why Pirsig has such a distrust for modern > psychiatry. I personally agree with him. I have a lot of faith in > counseling, because I have seen the results. I have NO faith in > psychopharamacology. Okay, one quick anecdote to illustrate: A woman was > married to an abusive alcoholic. She went to her doctor, and told him she > felt like crap. She was prescribed an anti-depressant and told to come back > in six months. She did. She told the doctor that she felt better, but she > was still married to the same a-hole that caused the problem in the first > place. Her symptoms were treated, but the underlying cause was ignored. > This is the current trend. It's actually a win-win for the insurance > companies and big pharma. The insurance companies don't have to pay out as > much, and big pharma gets a customer that will be on pills for the rest of > her life. > > As for psychiatry, I had the opportunity to talk with a recent graduate from > medical school. She was a psychiatrist. I asked her how much training she > had received in therapeutic techniques. She replied, "None." She had been > trained in psychopharmacology and symptom management. To me, that's just > sad. > > I wonder what William James would have said about that. Keep in mind that > he made his living as a psychologist, and did philosophy on the side. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "118" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:50 AM > Subject: [MD] Modern Psychology: Good, Bad, or Indifferent to MoQ > > >> Dear Reader, >> This thread grew out of recent discussion involving the applications >> of modern psychology to metaphysics. If interested, I would encourage >> the reader to word search the archives of December 2011. >> >> Hi Andre, >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Mark to Andre: >>> >>> As you probably know, my objection to psychology is its attempt to >>> objectify >>> and encapsulate the mind. We cannot address the mind from the outside >>> in, >>> that is done for robots without personal awareness, or individuality. >>> >>> Andre: >>> I do not agree with this Mark, as you probably guessed. There are 1st,2nd >>> and 3rd person perspectives to loads of static patterns which I think we >>> would do well to consider and take into account. To be able to see things >>> from different perspectives is very useful and when appropriately >>> formulated >>> can enhance a more integrated understanding of different aspects of these >>> same phenomena. >>> >>> I certainly see a role for the MOQ here as well i.e. as unifying and >>> integrative. >>> >>> If psychology is the study of human consciousness and its manifestation >>> in >>> behavior I find it difficult to follow your reasoning when talking about >>> all >>> those people not only engaged in the field of psychology but also >>> psychiatry >>> and a whole host of those working in the helping professions (and I >>> include >>> nurses, doctors and brain surgeons and related medical professions as >>> well). >>> >>> There are a lot of people in pain 'out there' for whatever reason and >>> through whatever experiences some have had to face. To dismiss people who >>> study human consciousness and its manifestation in human behavior and/or >>> apply findings (usually based on massive amounts of experiential data >>> through appropriate research) as 'robots without personal awareness, or >>> individuality' is a bit disingenuous and I think an insult to those who >>> care. It tells me you know very, very little of the aims of therapeutic >>> interventions Mark. >>> >>> To work with people who are hurt,in pain, and vulnerable you gotta care. >>> You >>> gotta really, really care. And, having worked in these fields I realize >>> that >>> the vast majority of these people do. >> >> >> [Mark] >> Andre, I appreciate your rhetoric and it is indeed compelling. I also >> have considered the medical benefits of psychology and have attempted >> to determine whether such use can indeed justify and support the >> growth of psychology which has taken hold since the 1900's. As you >> can possibly gather, this is not just idle evaluation on my part. >> Because psychology claims to provide understanding of our very being >> it is of great interest to people who are wondering about such things, >> which probably includes most of us. >> >> Psychology claims to require a disciplined approach and education >> supporting such an approach, which has resulted in experts, >> professors, and medical doctors of psychology. By way of example, in >> a court of law a suspect can be relegated to the category of "insane". >> The determination of such insanity must be performed by an "expert" >> (or pannel of such) who alone can assign such a label to the >> individual. This can mean the difference between lifetime >> incarceration in a prison or the placement of such individual in a >> more expensive medical institution. The psychological profiling of an >> individual is considered to be a social imperative in these cases. Of >> course the reaches of psychology in society are far greater than this >> example, and indeed reach into the very depths of an individual's >> valuation of self. >> >> In order to better present what I believe are the shortfalls of >> psychological interpretation, I need to explain my understanding of >> understanding. We create an understanding of the universe and our >> place within it by abstracting from a variety of personal inputs (this >> may seem like a psychological approach, but bear with me as I can most >> usefully present using the vernacular of the age we find ourselves >> in). This understanding can be analogized to "connecting the dots" in >> the same way that we create constellations in the sky. Since life is >> so full at every second, we cannot connect all the dots of experience, >> so we much choose those dots which we feel are the most important. We >> objectify experience and then connect these objects into greater >> objects which we then call concepts. These concepts are then combined >> in a way we feel is appropriate to form overriding principles which >> then guide us to the further gathering of "objects of experience". >> Therefore, of importance is the choice of objects, the manner in which >> they are combined, and the nature of the overriding principles which >> we then term "understanding". Once this "understanding" is >> established, it then colors the experience which we started with. >> "Understanding", in this sense, becomes a self perpetuating apparition >> which can be difficult to shed. >> >> Psychology seeks to create an understanding of our experience and >> motivations based on current concepts which we find ourselves >> surrounded by. These concepts have a historical basis and include >> such things as the theory of evolution, the structure of the brain, >> the anecdotes of severely ill patients and approaches which seem to >> help such people, the philosophy of the time, a data based collection >> and interpretation of individual and societal movements, and so forth. >> Psychology is therefore a product of its time, and its constellation >> is meant to provide meaning to individuals. If meaning is indeed >> found in some personal cases, then an individual has the choice as to >> whether to subscribe to the discipline as a whole. Acceptance of >> psychology as a Valuable interpretation of ourselves does have its >> consequences, however. >> >> The categorization of our behavior and our personal interpretation of >> the universe into modern psychological concepts will indeed affect our >> attitude to the experience which comes after such an acceptance of >> interpretive quality. Having models from which to evaluate our own >> visions promotes our selective creation of understanding (selection of >> dots). We then justify of our place here according to distinct >> guidelines. We place ourselves into a well organize system of belief, >> and act according to its instructions. We evaluate others according >> to the understanding provided by psychology, and thus promote and >> strengthen its influence. This is of course no different to any >> religion. That is, once the precepts are accepted, any religion makes >> a lot of personal sense, simply because we have come to agreement with >> the terms. >> >> Any ontology (being), such as MoQ, must have an epistemology (knowing) >> based around foundational principles. If such principles subscribe to >> the modern concepts of psychology, we need question whether it is >> indeed an appropriate discipline to draw from to give us an >> appropriate world view of Quality. There is indeed great rhetorical >> strength in psychology and any tie into such a discipline would >> further promote MoQ. However, I am very weary of doing this because >> at present I believe it will take MoQ away from its original >> intention. In my opinion, the tenents of psychology can set us down >> the wrong path for incorporating Quality into our everyday experience. >> MoQ is, after all, a fundamental interpretation of being. It is >> under evaluation as the best constellation. >> >> If discussion does proceed from this post, I hope to gain further >> understanding of the importance of psychology to MoQ, and perhaps >> change my opinion. >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2012.0.1873 / Virus Database: 2108/4679 - Release Date: 12/13/11 >> > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
