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
