Rick Froman, in reference to Michael Kane's quote about astrology,
rightly noted the emphasis a student placed on what feels good. The
"validation" of
ideas based on what feels good or appears to work, is tied to psychology
with William James' emphasis on pragmatic criteria. If beliefs lead to
comforting, or useful consequences, then they are justified. In the area of
pseudoscience, as well as psychotherapy, and other ideas, the pragmatic
criterion of truth is stressed. Students seem to be saying, "what's the
harm? If it makes people happy, it's true enough." Of course, this can be
dealt with by arguing against the relativism it leads to, and the fact that
it doesn't really answer the problem but puts it off on the different
meanings of "being useful." In addition, one can point out the harm and
deception that is promoted when falling back on simply "making people feel
happy." Finally, as Chuck Huff noted, feeling good is not always the same
as an effective outcome. Recent controversy over the Consumer Reports survey
of client
satisfaction with psychotherapy attests to the problem and popularity of the
pragmatic criterion among psychologists. William James may have recognized
a distinction between the consequences of a true idea and the consequences
of believing, feeling happy about, and acting on that idea, but his
exploration of pragmatism spun off more ways to rationalize delusions than
ways to appreciate the hard work involved in "testing" popular belief. For
my part, I have always felt psychotherapies rest their popular acceptance on
the same sand as that of the psychic reader or astrological counselor. This
makes it all the more important that our colleagues in clinical fields be
able to distinguish themselves from such competition. Here is where the
distinctions between the __goals__ of the psychic astrologer and the
professional clinical worker should be important. Do modern therapists have
different goals? Debate about, and differences in valuing various "ways of
knowing," rest on adherance to different cultural institutions and values.
They also have socio-political, and health consequences (See Fadiman, 1997).
I think the student question/view should be dealt with sympathetically, and
its ties to psychological thinkers recognized. I also think these issues
make for interesting class discussion about the history of the
scientist-practitioner model as well as the role of traditional shaman,
witchdoctors, and healers in contemporary and so-called, traditional
cultures (See Torrey, 1986). Gary Peterson
Barzun, J. (1983). A stroll with William James. New York: Harper and
Row.
Fadiman, A. (1997) The spirit catches you and you fall down: A Hmong
child, her American doctors, and the collision of two cultures. New York:
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux
Torrey, E. F. (1986). Witchdoctors and psychiatrists: The common
roots of psychotherapy and its future. New York: Harper and Row.
Gerald (Gary) L. Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-517-790-4491
>> **I think the quote speaks for itself, and it does not
>> **express a rare view: If it feels good, it has value.
>> **I guess there should also be little call for the cultural
>> **degradation of racism or genocide, since they clearly
>> **"work" for some people...
>
>I had a student tell me a similar thing about psychotherapy. I was
>trying to communicate the importance of objective studies of
>psychotherapeutic effectiveness since both the client and the
>therapist have obvious biases in the direction of claiming that the
>therapy works. The student responded,
>
>"Well, I know the clinician and patient will both be bias, but that
>doesn't change the fact that to them it was a success and is that
>not what the goal was....to alleviate a problem or give them a
>personal victory over a problem? I think this is no different than
>anything else, if it works...it works. If someone is diagnosed with
>cancer and with medication goes into recession, it is considered
>successful for a that period of time and the patient is grateful for it.
>If it reoccurs, the patient was still given a reprieve from the horrible
>condition and I think psychology is no different. Psychology for an
>individual is based on just that...the individual and if you feel like it
>is fixed and you are relieved from the problem you had...whether it
>is from the actual therapy or just the "thought of the therapy"...I
>think that makes success."
>
>I guess you can't argue with success.
>
>Rick
>
>
>Rick Froman
>206 Greenwood
>Siloam Springs, AR 72761
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Dr. Rick Froman
>Psychology Department
>Box 3055
>John Brown University
>Siloam Springs, AR 72761
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.jbu.edu/sbs/psych
>Office: (501)524-7295
>Fax: (501)524-9548
