Is Psychology a real science?

[Rum]

Is psychology a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws?

Yes of course it is. So is voodoo.

There is a key difference. Whereas Voodoo uses powerful drugs to turn people into living zombies as a means of social control you'll find Pyschology uses powerful drugs to turn people into living zombies as a means of social control.

Actually psychologists can't prescribe drugs.

That's just being pedantic.

I think not. It slashed your point to shreds after all..

[Atheist-Lite]

Is psychology a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws?

Yes of course it is. So is voodoo.

There is a key difference. Whereas Voodoo uses powerful drugs to turn people into living zombies as a means of social control you'll find Pyschology uses powerful drugs to turn people into living zombies as a means of social control.

Actually psychologists can't prescribe drugs.

That's just being pedantic.

I think not. It slashed your point to shreds after all..

If you say. Does seem a petty point to score in the greater picture.

[Mr.Samsa]

If it is science, does it actually achieve anything, apart from shortened sentences for criminals, so that they can get out and commit more crimes?

You're confusing psychology with clinical psychology. Clinical psychology is a medical field, therefore is not a science, instead it is an evidence-based practice like medicine. Psychology, on the other hand, refers to the study of behavior, which is undeniably a science since it performs repeatable experiments, reproducible results, falsifiable theories and deals with highly predictable phenomena.

Can psychologists do anything that common sense can't achieve?

Many of the results in psychology are contrary to common sense. It can even explain and predict why people mistakenly think psychology only describes what we already know through common sense; it's called hindsight bias.

Problem with psychology is due to ethical and practical problems its extremely difficult to undertake accurate experiments with decent controls, a petri dish may be a poor simulation of what goes on inside a living organism but its nowhere near as poor as trying to get get psychological labs to emulate the real world.

You simply can't keep all variables constant bar the single one you are studying.

Psychology is very good at coming up with scientific hypotheses but it is very poor at proving/disproving then.

Human beings if you have enough of them may be studied via statistics but like electrons you can't predict the behaviour of individual ones

These certainly can be difficulties in some areas of psychology, but they aren't universal problems with a lot of psychological experiments. The first thing to point out is the myth that psychology is about the study of the human mind. It is not, instead psychology is the study of behavior, which includes animals, and since animals can be bred and raised in labs, controlling variables is pretty easy.

And, of course, we can use methodological designs which don't require the use of control groups but still reach the same levels of statistical power and rigorousness as, for example, RCTs. Single subject designs for instance can reliably demonstrate causation with only 3-4 subjects.

But even when we study human beings, when placed in environments which are relatively well-controlled, are incredibly predictable. We don't need to aggregate results across groups (and often doing so can pollute our results), and it's only a myth that the behavior of an individual is difficult to predict. We have incredibly simple mathematical equations like the matching law which does so consistently.

I think the problem most people have with accepting psychology as a science is that they suffer from some serious misunderstandings of what psychology is. I'll present a short list below of some myths (some I've already mentioned above):

1) "psychology is about sitting people on a couch and talking about their problems": this is clinical psychology. Confusing the two is like confusing medicine and biology.

2) "psychology is a social science/part of the humanities": parts of psychology deal with social behaviors, but it is not limited to that, nor is it limited to humans.

3) "the results in psychology aren't reproducible, or behavior isn't very predictable": 100 years ago this still would have been a ridiculous claim. Only people who have not opened a psychology journal would think the results aren't reproducible or that behavior is unpredictable.

4) "But what about things like repressed memories or facilitated communication? Those were ridiculous concepts and entirely unscientific!": Neither techniques has been accepted by mainstream psychology, and the latter was never promoted by a psychologist. Instead it was created by a speech therapist, and disproved by psychologists.

5) "Freud is the father/grandfather of psychology and he was nuts, so it can't be a science": Freud is the father of psychoanalysis, a field which is largely rejected by psychology. The science of psychology was going on long before Freud came around.

There are more, but I think I've covered the main ones.

For those who think psychology isn't a science, I'd be really interested in hearing some detailed arguments as to why they believe this.

[mistermack]

1) "psychology is about sitting people on a couch and talking about their problems": this is clinical psychology. Confusing the two is like confusing medicine and biology.

And who's fault is that? Someone obviously chose a stupid name.

3) "the results in psychology aren't reproducible, or behavior isn't very predictable": 100 years ago this still would have been a ridiculous claim. Only people who have not opened a psychology journal would think the results aren't reproducible or that behavior is unpredictable.

Make that "some behavior" and "some results".
This illustrates some of the problem I have, and that is that psychologists seem to have a track record of MASSIVELY overclaiming what they know, and what they can predict. Especially in court cases.

For those who think psychology isn't a science, I'd be really interested in hearing some detailed arguments as to why they believe this.

Because in real science, what you claim is rigorously ripped apart by critics. You don't just reproduce your experiments, you have to prove WHY things happen, and prove that they ALWAYS happen, in the way that you describe.

Overclaiming is ripped to shreds in real science, and a field of study should not be used in legal matters, if conclusions rely so heavily on the infallibility of "experts" who are so prone to exaggerating the certainty of their opinions.

I would say that psychology is a real science, as a valid field of study, but less so as an applied science.

Of course this happens in many fields, you often get physical ailments treated in ways that are later debunked as useless.
So overclaiming isn't resticted to psychology.

[Mr.Samsa]

1) "psychology is about sitting people on a couch and talking about their problems": this is clinical psychology. Confusing the two is like confusing medicine and biology.

And who's fault is that? Someone obviously chose a stupid name.

I assume this is a joke, but I'm a bit slow on the uptake today...

3) "the results in psychology aren't reproducible, or behavior isn't very predictable": 100 years ago this still would have been a ridiculous claim. Only people who have not opened a psychology journal would think the results aren't reproducible or that behavior is unpredictable.

Make that "some behavior" and "some results".
This illustrates some of the problem I have, and that is that psychologists seem to have a track record of MASSIVELY overclaiming what they know, and what they can predict. Especially in court cases.

You're confusing practical applications with scientific findings. For example, physicists can accurately predict the direction, motion, acceration, etc, of a falling object when they know all the variables (force of gravity, weight of object, wind resistance, etc), but if I said to a physicist, "I have an object in my hand and I'm going to throw it, tell me where it's going to land" then they're likely to make mistakes. This is the same with psychologists working in the real world, like with court cases, because they are forced to work with incomplete knowledge of variables. It sucks that they aren't omniscient, but criticising them for not being gods is perhaps a little unfair - especially when you don't apply the same arguments to other scientists.

The fact is that humans are extremely predictable (with our current choice theories consistently predicting 95-100% of the variance in any given session), and we're still great at predicting real-life behaviors when we know enough variables (e.g. experiments predicting who, and for how long, someone will talk to at a dinner table, or when basketball players are going to take 2 or 3 point shots).

For those who think psychology isn't a science, I'd be really interested in hearing some detailed arguments as to why they believe this.

Because in real science, what you claim is rigorously ripped apart by critics. You don't just reproduce your experiments, you have to prove WHY things happen, and prove that they ALWAYS happen, in the way that you describe.

And psychologists do, that's why we have peer review which criticise results, for example, laws of behavior which show that these results always happen. These are universal laws that apply to all living organisms, and allow us to predict with incredible accuracy the behavior of organisms. Of course psychologists show why things happen, it'd be a shitty science if it didn't. This is why we don't just sit back and say, "Oh, sometimes responding will continue in a concurrent variable-interval and extinction procedure because the subjects get "confused" or something" - instead we come up with mathematical laws to plot what this "confusion" is, and we demonstrate how it is a natural derivation of certain variables being placed within certain laws of behaviors.

Overclaiming is ripped to shreds in real science, and a field of study should not be used in legal matters, if conclusions rely so heavily on the infallibility of "experts" who are so prone to exaggerating the certainty of their opinions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "infallibility" of experts? If you're still talking about court cases, then those psychologists aren't scientists, they're medical professionals. They present evidence in the same way a forensics expert will present evidence of some point of impact, or their suspected murder weapon etc, but they aren't doing science.

I would say that psychology is a real science, as a valid field of study, but less so as an applied science.

Well obviously an applied science isn't a real science, it's not meant to be. Given the huge successes of clinical psychology in recent decades though (with treating/curing autism, depression, anxiety disorders, etc) I'm confused as to why you would doubt its validity.

Of course this happens in many fields, you often get physical ailments treated in ways that are later debunked as useless.
So overclaiming isn't resticted to psychology.

Interestingly, the reverse was the problem with clinical psychology. It originally assumed that mental disorders were a product of a physical ailment and there was a reliance on fixing the brain abnormality or chemical imbalance. Fortunately, evidence and research turned us away from this mistaken notion (hence why we no longer refer to it as a "mental illness"). I'm still not sure what exactly you mean by "overclaiming" though: can you link me to some research or a paper where a psychologist spoke beyond their facts?

But again, if you're referring to psychologists in court rooms or therapy then this is obviously clinical psychology (which isn't a science) and so it has no impact on the question of whether psychology is a science.

[Cunt]

This is just one of the reasons I find psychology to be stupid, dangerous and generally worse than useless.

(from the Canadian Psychological Association site)

What psychological approaches are used to treat alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence?

The best known treatment for alcohol abuse/dependence is Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). The AA approach is consistent with the medical model and includes a strong spiritual component. Abstinence (no drinking at all) is the treatment goal. Research has shown AA is effective for those who stick with it. One of its strengths is peer support and encouragement. However, AA has high dropout rates.

Even I am smart enough to see the steaming bullshit in this one, and that is with little study. AA is nothing more than a church group, and has so many illogical parts conflicting with each other and reality it's hard to understand why so much support exists for it.
Oh yeah, it's religion and people eat that shit up.

But tell me, Mr. Samsa, how can this kind of thing go on with psychology being a science? Why such a large group of psychologists could be so blindingly stupid as to swallow AA is beyond me. It, like most religions, falls apart at a glance.

So yeah. Overclaiming. Also, I heard someone just the other day say that *John NEEDED to be on meds because of a chemical imbalance in his brain.

I then asked if his brain had been tested, and which chemicals were out of balance. I was met with a blank stare. By the doctor. I have heard that phrase regularly since getting involved with people who suffer from a diagnosis of *insert label here* Whoever is doing the science, it isn't reaching beyond the odd lab, it seems.

Oh, and I get that they are doing successful science, really I do. It just seems that the only success I see is improved marketing strategies.

[Mr.Samsa]

This is just one of the reasons I find psychology to be stupid, dangerous and generally worse than useless.

(from the Canadian Psychological Association site)

What psychological approaches are used to treat alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence?

The best known treatment for alcohol abuse/dependence is Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). The AA approach is consistent with the medical model and includes a strong spiritual component. Abstinence (no drinking at all) is the treatment goal. Research has shown AA is effective for those who stick with it. One of its strengths is peer support and encouragement. However, AA has high dropout rates.

Even I am smart enough to see the steaming bullshit in this one, and that is with little study. AA is nothing more than a church group, and has so many illogical parts conflicting with each other and reality it's hard to understand why so much support exists for it.
Oh yeah, it's religion and people eat that shit up.

So I take it you also believe medicine to be 'stupid, dangerous and generally worse than useless' because the AMA supports AA on its website?

But tell me, Mr. Samsa, how can this kind of thing go on with psychology being a science? Why such a large group of psychologists could be so blindingly stupid as to swallow AA is beyond me. It, like most religions, falls apart at a glance.

A couple of points need to be made:

1) You've linked to the Canadian Psychological Association. To be fair, I never knew they existed. Most psychologists are affiliated with the American Psychological Association, and I can't find any reference to AA on their website.

2) Their website is only summarising the research, and they're careful to point out the limitations of their claims; i.e. AA is effective, but only for those who stick at it, and they recognise there are huge drop out rates. This is "science talk" for "the results are problematic". But since addiction is such a difficult area due to the number of issues involved, the CPA seems to think that AA is the best of a bad bunch. Most other psychological associations disagree with them, and emphasise the other treatments they mention, like cognitive behavioral therapy.

3) AA doesn't need to include a religious component, you can find atheist groups as well. However, "spirituality" is still considered a necessary part of the treatment (if I recall correctly). This doesn't not make it a religion, but rather it requires us to accept the overwhelming scientific findings that people with high spirituality scores also score higher in health and happiness measures. This spirituality doesn't need to be believing in a god, it simply means something like "Accepting your place in the world", and this could be accepting that you are part of the constantly evolving animal kingdom.

4) And perhaps most importantly, how do you know AA is problematic and potentially ineffective? Because psychologists have done the studies to highlight these flaws.

So yeah. Overclaiming. Also, I heard someone just the other day say that *John NEEDED to be on meds because of a chemical imbalance in his brain.

I then asked if his brain had been tested, and which chemicals were out of balance. I was met with a blank stare. By the doctor. I have heard that phrase regularly since getting involved with people who suffer from a diagnosis of *insert label here* Whoever is doing the science, it isn't reaching beyond the odd lab, it seems.

The idea of a "chemical imbalance" has never been popular in psychology, and was rejected almost the instant it was coined backed in the 50s. Unfortunately, the public love little catchphrases like that so it's continued to spread despite not being a part of science (like attacking evolution for claiming "survival of the fittest"). By "doctor", I assume you mean a GP or someone similar? If that's the case, then yeah it's highly unlikely they'll know what they're talking about when it comes to psychology, in the same way asking a psychologist about your bacterial infection will likely be met with a blank stare as well.

Oh, and I get that they are doing successful science, really I do. It just seems that the only success I see is improved marketing strategies.

Marketing strategies of what?

[Cunt]

So I take it you also believe medicine to be 'stupid, dangerous and generally worse than useless' because the AMA supports AA on its website?

Yes I do, in that area. Ditto the authorities who are supposed to be doing their research.
This from a quick browse of AA dot org.

What A.A. Does NOT Do
1. Make medical or psychiatric diagnoses or prognoses, or offer advice.
2. Provide drying-out or nursing services, hospitalization, drugs, housing, jobs,
money or other welfare services.
3. Accept any money for its services or contributions from outside sources.
4. Provide letters of reference to parole boards, lawyers, court officials, social
agencies, employers, etc.
5. Engage in or support education, research, or professional treatment.

See, they say quite clearly in their church handouts that they are not treatment, or claiming to be. The CPA and far too many judges, employers, social workers and other folks operate as if it is indeed treatment. The best treatment.

It is actually very damaging, in my opinion. Like chiropractic manipulations, tarot cards or reiki healing, AA can prevent someone from accessing real treatment.

But tell me, Mr. Samsa, how can this kind of thing go on with psychology being a science? Why such a large group of psychologists could be so blindingly stupid as to swallow AA is beyond me. It, like most religions, falls apart at a glance.

A couple of points need to be made:

1) You've linked to the Canadian Psychological Association. To be fair, I never knew they existed. Most psychologists are affiliated with the American Psychological Association, and I can't find any reference to AA on their website.

Well great, but I love and want to stay here in Canada. What the fuck am I going to do...

2) Their website is only summarising the research, and they're careful to point out the limitations of their claims; i.e. AA is effective, but only for those who stick at it, and they recognise there are huge drop out rates. This is "science talk" for "the results are problematic".

It may indeed be science talk for 'the results are problematic', but it's average-joe talk for 'AA is the most effective treatment known by our august body of members'.

Funny how one would think a psychologist association would know that, and make efforts to be better understood.

But since addiction is such a difficult area due to the number of issues involved, the CPA seems to think that AA is the best of a bad bunch. Most other psychological associations disagree with them, and emphasise the other treatments they mention, like cognitive behavioral therapy.

I think there is a very bad reason to favour AA over other intervention options (like when a judge decides what to interpret as 'treatment' or when a funder decides to fund 'treatment') and it is that it is awfully cheap.
If alcoholism is truly a medical problem at its core, then victims of it are being seriously short-changed in the treatment department.

3) AA doesn't need to include a religious component, you can find atheist groups as well. However, "spirituality" is still considered a necessary part of the treatment (if I recall correctly). This doesn't not make it a religion, but rather it requires us to accept the overwhelming scientific findings that people with high spirituality scores also score higher in health and happiness measures. This spirituality doesn't need to be believing in a god, it simply means something like "Accepting your place in the world", and this could be accepting that you are part of the constantly evolving animal kingdom.

I still don't know what 'spirituality' means, but I usually watch my wallet when I hear someone talk about it.
There is much we could say about AA, but could you have a look over it first? Even just the 12 steps and 12 traditions should be enough to see how awful it is. If not, consider that these writings can not be altered. Not even in the face of evidence of their damaging effects on those it aims to help.

I guess I kind of lied. I have thought about it much. Read about it much. Wrote about it much. I would honestly be very pleased to know that someone whose sensibility I admire so much was interested.

4) And perhaps most importantly, how do you know AA is problematic and potentially ineffective? Because psychologists have done the studies to highlight these flaws.

Nope. I came by it honestly, Mr.Samsa.

When I was a young guy, my uncle used to bring me along to the 'open' AA meeting that he attended. I believed (after slight objections) what those adults were saying, if you know what I mean.

For the next, oh, bunch of years (more than I want to admit to), I believed it, attended some functions, went to meetings with friends, and basically until the last 10 years or so, accepted it.

Then I shook my head. Started reading about it. It started with a critical look at the 12 steps and 12 traditions, and wandered from there.

But maybe some psychologists have learned that it is bullshit as well. They might have published more broadly than me.

Oh, and I get that they are doing successful science, really I do. It just seems that the only success I see is improved marketing strategies.

Marketing strategies of what?

Whoever pays the most...Walmart, Nike...what did you buy today? I know for SURE I am not immune to the influence of advertisers. The effective marketing strategies are the most clear proof (to my experience) of the power of the science of psychology. Fuck, now I need a McDonalds run...

[Mr.Samsa]

So I take it you also believe medicine to be 'stupid, dangerous and generally worse than useless' because the AMA supports AA on its website?

Yes I do, in that area. Ditto the authorities who are supposed to be doing their research.
This from a quick browse of AA dot org.

What A.A. Does NOT Do
1. Make medical or psychiatric diagnoses or prognoses, or offer advice.
2. Provide drying-out or nursing services, hospitalization, drugs, housing, jobs,
money or other welfare services.
3. Accept any money for its services or contributions from outside sources.
4. Provide letters of reference to parole boards, lawyers, court officials, social
agencies, employers, etc.
5. Engage in or support education, research, or professional treatment.

See, they say quite clearly in their church handouts that they are not treatment, or claiming to be. The CPA and far too many judges, employers, social workers and other folks operate as if it is indeed treatment. The best treatment.

It is actually very damaging, in my opinion. Like chiropractic manipulations, tarot cards or reiki healing, AA can prevent someone from accessing real treatment.

No, they say they're not a "professional treatment".

But I do agree, AA is ridiculous and any "effectiveness" that studies find supporting it are simply people who were going to quit anyway. The fact that an organisation partially supports it is not evidence of psychology or medicine being flawed, but simply a reflection of the fact that there are very few evidence-based treatments for addiction.

But tell me, Mr. Samsa, how can this kind of thing go on with psychology being a science? Why such a large group of psychologists could be so blindingly stupid as to swallow AA is beyond me. It, like most religions, falls apart at a glance.

A couple of points need to be made:

1) You've linked to the Canadian Psychological Association. To be fair, I never knew they existed. Most psychologists are affiliated with the American Psychological Association, and I can't find any reference to AA on their website.

Well great, but I love and want to stay here in Canada. What the fuck am I going to do...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'what you're going to do'? You can do whatever you like - if you don't want to go to AA, then the psychologist will recommend something like cognitive-behavioral therapy.

2) Their website is only summarising the research, and they're careful to point out the limitations of their claims; i.e. AA is effective, but only for those who stick at it, and they recognise there are huge drop out rates. This is "science talk" for "the results are problematic".

It may indeed be science talk for 'the results are problematic', but it's average-joe talk for 'AA is the most effective treatment known by our august body of members'.

Funny how one would think a psychologist association would know that, and make efforts to be better understood.

And unfortunately those two options are not mutually exclusive. It is both problematic, and the most effective treatment that we currently know of. It just so happens that being better than nothing is not really a good treatment option at all.

But since addiction is such a difficult area due to the number of issues involved, the CPA seems to think that AA is the best of a bad bunch. Most other psychological associations disagree with them, and emphasise the other treatments they mention, like cognitive behavioral therapy.

I think there is a very bad reason to favour AA over other intervention options (like when a judge decides what to interpret as 'treatment' or when a funder decides to fund 'treatment') and it is that it is awfully cheap.

Potentially this is part of it. But this is a problem with politics, not science. I'm not sure how it's a bad reason to favour AA over other intervention options though? If it is the option with the most evidence behind it, what else could they do?

If alcoholism is truly a medical problem at its core, then victims of it are being seriously short-changed in the treatment department.

Not necessarily. Obviously the idea that alcoholism is a biological problem is debatable, but even assuming it is, they wouldn't be short changed by being recommended a form of talk-therapy (which is kind of what AA is). This is because, if it is a biological problem, it's a brain problem. This would be comparable to autism, which can only be treated through behavioral therapy (i.e. there is no pharmaceutical or surgical intervention available, or perhaps even possible).

3) AA doesn't need to include a religious component, you can find atheist groups as well. However, "spirituality" is still considered a necessary part of the treatment (if I recall correctly). This doesn't not make it a religion, but rather it requires us to accept the overwhelming scientific findings that people with high spirituality scores also score higher in health and happiness measures. This spirituality doesn't need to be believing in a god, it simply means something like "Accepting your place in the world", and this could be accepting that you are part of the constantly evolving animal kingdom.

I still don't know what 'spirituality' means, but I usually watch my wallet when I hear someone talk about it.

I made a mistake, I confused "spirituality" with the term "transcendence". They are used a bit interchangeably in the literature, but the term used is usually 'transcendence'. This is the label given to a number of traits which are statistically correlated to improvements in mental health, and strictly defined it is: "Strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning". In more simple terms, it means finding meaning to your life and being interested in making your world a better place.

I know, I hate the wooey connotations to the terms too, but the science behind it is sound.

There is much we could say about AA, but could you have a look over it first? Even just the 12 steps and 12 traditions should be enough to see how awful it is. If not, consider that these writings can not be altered. Not even in the face of evidence of their damaging effects on those it aims to help.

I guess I kind of lied. I have thought about it much. Read about it much. Wrote about it much. I would honestly be very pleased to know that someone whose sensibility I admire so much was interested.

Oh trust me, I don't accept AA at all. The problem is simply that valid therapies in the field of addiction are few and far between. (And most psych research into AA looks at taking apart all the steps to see which are useful and which aren't).

4) And perhaps most importantly, how do you know AA is problematic and potentially ineffective? Because psychologists have done the studies to highlight these flaws.

Nope. I came by it honestly, Mr.Samsa.

When I was a young guy, my uncle used to bring me along to the 'open' AA meeting that he attended. I believed (after slight objections) what those adults were saying, if you know what I mean.

For the next, oh, bunch of years (more than I want to admit to), I believed it, attended some functions, went to meetings with friends, and basically until the last 10 years or so, accepted it.

Then I shook my head. Started reading about it. It started with a critical look at the 12 steps and 12 traditions, and wandered from there.

But maybe some psychologists have learned that it is bullshit as well. They might have published more broadly than me.

I'm confused - so you believed it was bullshit before reading scientific studies demonstrating it was bullshit?

Oh, and I get that they are doing successful science, really I do. It just seems that the only success I see is improved marketing strategies.

Marketing strategies of what?

Whoever pays the most...Walmart, Nike...what did you buy today? I know for SURE I am not immune to the influence of advertisers. The effective marketing strategies are the most clear proof (to my experience) of the power of the science of psychology. Fuck, now I need a McDonalds run...

The psychological techniques used in advertising are decades old and poorly implemented. If a psychologist were to actually apply what we know about people to marketing, then I would start to fear advertising..

[mistermack]

Mr. samsa, I wish I knew more about the subject. I did make it crystal clear in my OP that I know fuck all, except what the average man gleans from the media. So my question is in that context.

Can you clear up what exactly is the difference between psychologists and clinical psychologists? You said that there is a huge difference, but didn't say what it was. ( and the wiki article makes no distinction at all ! ).
And why do we need psychiatrists, psychologists and clinical psychologists?
Surely there should be a mental health qualification that covers all of it?

The average man like me never gets to hear about the successful treatments. The "cures".
Someone gets a new heart, or cleared of cancer, or a stent, or a baby survives that should have died, and we hear about it.
All we hear about psychology is that some absolute assehole is "suffering from" a personality disorder, or some innocent women have spent time in jail for harming their own children, on the trusted opinion of a now discredited psychologist. This has happened in England.

Perhaps there should be a site dedicated to their successes. Otherwise, we might be paying big salaries for no benefit, or even harmful treatments.

And lastly, can you tell me what is humour? I still want to know.

[apophenia]

Can psychologists do anything that common sense can't achieve?

Many of the results in psychology are contrary to common sense. It can even explain and predict why people mistakenly think psychology only describes what we already know through common sense; it's called hindsight bias.
.
.
.
I think the problem most people have with accepting psychology as a science is that they suffer from some serious misunderstandings of what psychology is.

This is likely compounded by an irrational preference for common sense explanations, aka "folk psychology", which isn't scientific, is wildly unreliable, and makes up nonsensical mechanisms at the drop of a hat (when it isn't bastardizing real science, ala "the God center"). No doubt The Backfire Effect as well as a whole host of cognitive errors are involved in maintaining the popularity of folk psychology. I think there's also a strong element of The Introspective Illusion and The Bias Blind Spot1 at work here -- all of which, again, we know about due to research in psychology. And, all of which has a tendency to reinforce a peculiar brand of cynicism towards psychology (the folk equivalent of healthy scientific skepticism perhaps?).

1 "Since biases operate unconsciously ... introspections are not informative..."

[Cunt]

See, they say quite clearly in their church handouts that they are not treatment, or claiming to be. The CPA and far too many judges, employers, social workers and other folks operate as if it is indeed treatment. The best treatment.

It is actually very damaging, in my opinion. Like chiropractic manipulations, tarot cards or reiki healing, AA can prevent someone from accessing real treatment.

No, they say they're not a "professional treatment".

But I do agree, AA is ridiculous and any "effectiveness" that studies find supporting it are simply people who were going to quit anyway. The fact that an organisation partially supports it is not evidence of psychology or medicine being flawed, but simply a reflection of the fact that there are very few evidence-based treatments for addiction.

Why then, does the organisation not support the demonic possession theory of mental health?
AA was created decades ago, has many cult characteristics, and consider the effect that the usual meeting would have on a person.
They 'drunk-a-logue' a lot, and tell themselves and everyone else over and over again - 'Drink a little, you will drink a lot and end up dying drunk in the gutter'.
I wonder what a psychologist would think of that kind of 'treatment' for other ailments...

Well great, but I love and want to stay here in Canada. What the fuck am I going to do...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'what you're going to do'? You can do whatever you like - if you don't want to go to AA, then the psychologist will recommend something like cognitive-behavioral therapy.

I like drinking occasionally, and don't seem to be developing any problems staying away from it when I want to (drink currently maybe once a week, and can't remember the last time I felt intoxicated...)

I am asking because many of my clients report alcoholism as their disability. I am supposed to help someone develop accommodations to work with their disability, or to refer them for help if they are not 'employment ready'. I tell them (currently) that I think AA has an overall negative effect, that they should ask their doctor for help.

Mostly, doctors refer folks to AA. I know that in at least two cases (here in a VERY small town) those doctors are members of AA.

It may indeed be science talk for 'the results are problematic', but it's average-joe talk for 'AA is the most effective treatment known by our august body of members'.

Funny how one would think a psychologist association would know that, and make efforts to be better understood.

And unfortunately those two options are not mutually exclusive. It is both problematic, and the most effective treatment that we currently know of. It just so happens that being better than nothing is not really a good treatment option at all.

Are you honestly saying that AA as an intervention is better than no intervention? Is there reasonable data to back that up?
As it stands, one of the reasons I won't refer to AA is the way they repeat certain messages which seem to increase binge drinking, but not move that locus of control any closer to the individual.

Potentially this is part of it. But this is a problem with politics, not science. I'm not sure how it's a bad reason to favour AA over other intervention options though? If it is the option with the most evidence behind it, what else could they do?

They could make it change with new knowledge. The rest of 'medicine' tends to grow and even flourish by integrating new knowledge. AA is static, stagnant and ridiculous.

If alcoholism is truly a medical problem at its core, then victims of it are being seriously short-changed in the treatment department.

Not necessarily. Obviously the idea that alcoholism is a biological problem is debatable, but even assuming it is, they wouldn't be short changed by being recommended a form of talk-therapy (which is kind of what AA is). This is because, if it is a biological problem, it's a brain problem. This would be comparable to autism, which can only be treated through behavioral therapy (i.e. there is no pharmaceutical or surgical intervention available, or perhaps even possible).

I thought you had said earlier that there was a cure for autism. I don't think there could be, and I know a few folks who would be appalled at the notion.

I still don't know what 'spirituality' means, but I usually watch my wallet when I hear someone talk about it.

I made a mistake, I confused "spirituality" with the term "transcendence". They are used a bit interchangeably in the literature, but the term used is usually 'transcendence'. This is the label given to a number of traits which are statistically correlated to improvements in mental health, and strictly defined it is: "Strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning". In more simple terms, it means finding meaning to your life and being interested in making your world a better place.

Funny, I think I am a nihilist and still have a VERY strong interest in making my world a better place.

I know, I hate the wooey connotations to the terms too, but the science behind it is sound.

I still don't understand it. People may be happier with it, but most drunks are happier drunk than sober...doesn't mean it's the best way to live.

There is much we could say about AA, but could you have a look over it first? Even just the 12 steps and 12 traditions should be enough to see how awful it is. If not, consider that these writings can not be altered. Not even in the face of evidence of their damaging effects on those it aims to help.

I guess I kind of lied. I have thought about it much. Read about it much. Wrote about it much. I would honestly be very pleased to know that someone whose sensibility I admire so much was interested.

Oh trust me, I don't accept AA at all. The problem is simply that valid therapies in the field of addiction are few and far between. (And most psych research into AA looks at taking apart all the steps to see which are useful and which aren't).

Research all they want, but when you go to AA's head office and ask them to make the changes which science has found will reduce suffering due to alcohol, you will find two things.
1. It is located in the Interchurch Centre in New York.
2. Nothing can be changed just because of 'facts' or 'science'.

Does that remind you of anything?

Nope. I came by it honestly, Mr.Samsa.

When I was a young guy, my uncle used to bring me along to the 'open' AA meeting that he attended. I believed (after slight objections) what those adults were saying, if you know what I mean.

For the next, oh, bunch of years (more than I want to admit to), I believed it, attended some functions, went to meetings with friends, and basically until the last 10 years or so, accepted it.

Then I shook my head. Started reading about it. It started with a critical look at the 12 steps and 12 traditions, and wandered from there.

But maybe some psychologists have learned that it is bullshit as well. They might have published more broadly than me.

I'm confused - so you believed it was bullshit before reading scientific studies demonstrating it was bullshit?

Absolutely. When I read the stuff with a critical eye, it fell apart on its own.

All one has to do is read the material with a critical eye and it shows itself bad. I wish there was more scientific studies refuting their bullshit. I would gladly share it around.

Whoever pays the most...Walmart, Nike...what did you buy today? I know for SURE I am not immune to the influence of advertisers. The effective marketing strategies are the most clear proof (to my experience) of the power of the science of psychology. Fuck, now I need a McDonalds run...

The psychological techniques used in advertising are decades old and poorly implemented. If a psychologist were to actually apply what we know about people to marketing, then I would start to fear advertising..

I was wondering...why would you think that major corporations would not integrate what is currently known about human psychology into their marketing? I would expect that whoever (in the competitive business world) had the best marketing information would be the most successful at marketing their products and services...

[Mr.Samsa]

Mr. samsa, I wish I knew more about the subject. I did make it crystal clear in my OP that I know fuck all, except what the average man gleans from the media. So my question is in that context.

Don't worry, I saw that bit in your OP.

Given your responses though, I think your question is really: "Is clinical psychology a science?", and the answer is obviously "No, because it's not meant to be".

Can you clear up what exactly is the difference between psychologists and clinical psychologists? You said that there is a huge difference, but didn't say what it was. ( and the wiki article makes no distinction at all ! ).

Sorry, I thought I had made the distinction clear. Psychology is the study of behavior; a science. Clinical psychology is the application of this science in order to treat mental disorders; it is an evidence-based practice. The distinction is the same as biology vs medicine (i.e. medicine is not a science).

Does that make sense?

And why do we need psychiatrists, psychologists and clinical psychologists?
Surely there should be a mental health qualification that covers all of it?

Well psychologists don't deal with mental health, so even if there was a 'mental health qualification' they wouldn't be included in it. Psychologists are generally scientists in white lab coats studying how rats respond to flashing lights or something (obviously over-simplified, but hopefully the point is clear). Their work can sometimes be used to help people with mental health issues, but that's not their concern at all, they're simply trying to learn what causes behavior.

The distinction between psychiatrists and clinical psychologists is arguably a bit more controversial, but the easiest way to explain it is that they approach similar problems from different perspectives. The problem with an issue like mental health is that the brain is an organ of the body, so mental disorders can either be a product of physical malfunctions, or they can be purely mental (or, to confuse matters, a bit of both). This means that we need professionals with degrees in medicine and a specialisation in psychiatry in order to study the brain and how drugs can help certain problems. Clinical psychologists, on the other hand, largely deal with the 'mental' causes of disorders. Generally, clinical psychologists have more tools to deal with mental disorders (e.g. cognitive behavioral therapy, systematic desensitisation, etc).

To summarise:

Psychologists - scientists who study what makes organisms tick
Clinical psychologists - apply the science of psychologists to understanding mental disorders
Psychiatrists - medical doctors who treat mental disorders as if they are physical diseases.

The average man like me never gets to hear about the successful treatments. The "cures".
Someone gets a new heart, or cleared of cancer, or a stent, or a baby survives that should have died, and we hear about it.
All we hear about psychology is that some absolute assehole is "suffering from" a personality disorder, or some innocent women have spent time in jail for harming their own children, on the trusted opinion of a now discredited psychologist. This has happened in England.

Perhaps there should be a site dedicated to their successes. Otherwise, we might be paying big salaries for no benefit, or even harmful treatments.

I'm not sure if there are any websites dedicated to it because 1) it would be a massive task, and 2) anything that is used by psychologists in their practice is evidence-based. I'm not sure why you've never heard of the successful treatments, haven't you ever heard of cognitive-behavioral therapy? It has been all over the news for the last decade because it has been so overwhelmingly successful, even beating out anti-depressant drugs in a number of studies.

And lastly, can you tell me what is humour? I still want to know.

I don't really know what the dominant theory is, to be honest. There's a list of some at wikipedia: Theory of Humour.

A theory of language and communication (with a vast amount of supporting evidence) has also made vague claims to be able to study and understanding humour: Relational Frame Theory.

The common element among most theories seem to be the idea of incongruity and resolution.

This is likely compounded by an irrational preference for common sense explanations, aka "folk psychology", which isn't scientific, is wildly unreliable, and makes up nonsensical mechanisms at the drop of a hat (when it isn't bastardizing real science, ala "the God center"). No doubt The Backfire Effect as well as a whole host of cognitive errors are involved in maintaining the popularity of folk psychology. I think there's also a strong element of The Introspective Illusion and The Bias Blind Spot1 at work here -- all of which, again, we know about due to research in psychology. And, all of which has a tendency to reinforce a peculiar brand of cynicism towards psychology (the folk equivalent of healthy scientific skepticism perhaps?).

1 "Since biases operate unconsciously ... introspections are not informative..."

:nod: I'm sure I've read a study where people who said "psychology is just common sense" were tested on basic findings in psychology, and most of them failed horribly.

No, they say they're not a "professional treatment".

But I do agree, AA is ridiculous and any "effectiveness" that studies find supporting it are simply people who were going to quit anyway. The fact that an organisation partially supports it is not evidence of psychology or medicine being flawed, but simply a reflection of the fact that there are very few evidence-based treatments for addiction.

Why then, does the organisation not support the demonic possession theory of mental health?

Because demonic possession has no evidence to support it. Aspects of AA do seem to work, it's just that research is having some difficulty recreating those advantageous aspects without the extraneous features. Arguably, things like CBT are the embodiment of this.

AA was created decades ago, has many cult characteristics, and consider the effect that the usual meeting would have on a person.
They 'drunk-a-logue' a lot, and tell themselves and everyone else over and over again - 'Drink a little, you will drink a lot and end up dying drunk in the gutter'.
I wonder what a psychologist would think of that kind of 'treatment' for other ailments...

I'm not sure what you mean?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'what you're going to do'? You can do whatever you like - if you don't want to go to AA, then the psychologist will recommend something like cognitive-behavioral therapy.

I like drinking occasionally, and don't seem to be developing any problems staying away from it when I want to (drink currently maybe once a week, and can't remember the last time I felt intoxicated...)

I am asking because many of my clients report alcoholism as their disability. I am supposed to help someone develop accommodations to work with their disability, or to refer them for help if they are not 'employment ready'. I tell them (currently) that I think AA has an overall negative effect, that they should ask their doctor for help.

Mostly, doctors refer folks to AA. I know that in at least two cases (here in a VERY small town) those doctors are members of AA.

Why not refer them on to psychologists who specialise in CBT then?

And unfortunately those two options are not mutually exclusive. It is both problematic, and the most effective treatment that we currently know of. It just so happens that being better than nothing is not really a good treatment option at all.

Are you honestly saying that AA as an intervention is better than no intervention? Is there reasonable data to back that up?

Most of the research on AA backs up the idea that people who stay in AA will be successful.

As it stands, one of the reasons I won't refer to AA is the way they repeat certain messages which seem to increase binge drinking, but not move that locus of control any closer to the individual.

How does it increase binge drinking?

And the locus of control shouldn't be placed on the individual, it should be placed on changing the environmental variables which cause the behavior in the first place. My main beef with AA is precisely that it places the locus of control on the individual - it assumes that "will" alone is enough to change behavior.

Potentially this is part of it. But this is a problem with politics, not science. I'm not sure how it's a bad reason to favour AA over other intervention options though? If it is the option with the most evidence behind it, what else could they do?

They could make it change with new knowledge. The rest of 'medicine' tends to grow and even flourish by integrating new knowledge. AA is static, stagnant and ridiculous.

And they do. AA might stay the same, but it's not a psychological treatment. The psychological treatments are the ones that are developed by looking at what works in AA and recreating it - like CBT.

Not necessarily. Obviously the idea that alcoholism is a biological problem is debatable, but even assuming it is, they wouldn't be short changed by being recommended a form of talk-therapy (which is kind of what AA is). This is because, if it is a biological problem, it's a brain problem. This would be comparable to autism, which can only be treated through behavioral therapy (i.e. there is no pharmaceutical or surgical intervention available, or perhaps even possible).

I thought you had said earlier that there was a cure for autism. I don't think there could be, and I know a few folks who would be appalled at the notion.

They can be appalled all they like but their being offended doesn't change reality.

Behavioral therapy is universally recognised as being the only, and the most, successful treatment for autism. It is so successful, that a child diagnosed with autism at one point can sometimes, after treatment, no longer meet the criteria for autism (and this is statistically different from people who naturally 'grow out' of their diagnosis). Since they no longer have a diagnosis of autism, then they aren't autistic. This is generally referred to as a 'cure'. Obviously there is some variation of the effect of the treatment, but at the very least there is always significant improvement in their symptoms.

I made a mistake, I confused "spirituality" with the term "transcendence". They are used a bit interchangeably in the literature, but the term used is usually 'transcendence'. This is the label given to a number of traits which are statistically correlated to improvements in mental health, and strictly defined it is: "Strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning". In more simple terms, it means finding meaning to your life and being interested in making your world a better place.

Funny, I think I am a nihilist and still have a VERY strong interest in making my world a better place.

That doesn't negate anything. As I mentioned, 'transcendence' is a label given to a subset of specific responses, so very few people would match every single example of transcendence. What matters is your score - so if you're a nihilist, but otherwise happy with yourself, and you have a strong interest in making the world a better place, then you will likely score very highly on the transcendence/spirituality scale. And this means you'll be more likely to have good mental health.

I know, I hate the wooey connotations to the terms too, but the science behind it is sound.

I still don't understand it. People may be happier with it, but most drunks are happier drunk than sober...doesn't mean it's the best way to live.

Well psychology isn't a political or moral tool. All they do is look at the evidence for what improves mental health and report the results. (But obviously being spiritual doesn't necessitate being religious, or "drunk" as you compare it to, as demonstrated by the fact that you would score highly on the spirituality scale).

Oh trust me, I don't accept AA at all. The problem is simply that valid therapies in the field of addiction are few and far between. (And most psych research into AA looks at taking apart all the steps to see which are useful and which aren't).

Research all they want, but when you go to AA's head office and ask them to make the changes which science has found will reduce suffering due to alcohol, you will find two things.
1. It is located in the Interchurch Centre in New York.
2. Nothing can be changed just because of 'facts' or 'science'.

Does that remind you of anything?

But AA isn't a psychological treatment. Whether it changes or not is irrelevant to the question of whether psychology is a science. Psychologists will find the aspects that work, and create AA Mark II or whatever they want to call it. In my opinion, this is what CBT has become for alcoholism.

I'm confused - so you believed it was bullshit before reading scientific studies demonstrating it was bullshit?

Absolutely. When I read the stuff with a critical eye, it fell apart on its own.

All one has to do is read the material with a critical eye and it shows itself bad. I wish there was more scientific studies refuting their bullshit. I would gladly share it around.

I'm not sure if a "critical eye" is good enough to reject it.. I don't agree with it as a valid treatment option, but it's a hugely complex issue that requires a fair amount of reading to understand the evidence on it.

I was wondering...why would you think that major corporations would not integrate what is currently known about human psychology into their marketing? I would expect that whoever (in the competitive business world) had the best marketing information would be the most successful at marketing their products and services...

The same reason newspapers don't hire journalists with science degrees to report science. They think they know better. And they do try to apply psychological theories to their work, the problem is that they are businessmen reading through "Psychology Today" and making guesses about how to apply it to marketing..

[Cunt]

No, they say they're not a "professional treatment".

But I do agree, AA is ridiculous and any "effectiveness" that studies find supporting it are simply people who were going to quit anyway. The fact that an organisation partially supports it is not evidence of psychology or medicine being flawed, but simply a reflection of the fact that there are very few evidence-based treatments for addiction.

Why then, does the organisation not support the demonic possession theory of mental health?

Because demonic possession has no evidence to support it. Aspects of AA do seem to work, it's just that research is having some difficulty recreating those advantageous aspects without the extraneous features. Arguably, things like CBT are the embodiment of this.

But judges, employers and others are considering AA 'treatment'.

It doesn't 'work' as far as I can tell. (of course 'work' means different things to different people)

AA was created decades ago, has many cult characteristics, and consider the effect that the usual meeting would have on a person.
They 'drunk-a-logue' a lot, and tell themselves and everyone else over and over again - 'Drink a little, you will drink a lot and end up dying drunk in the gutter'.
I wonder what a psychologist would think of that kind of 'treatment' for other ailments...

I'm not sure what you mean?

I mean that repeating that message to all comers, and pressuring them to do the same (social proof kind of pressure, not physical usually) is planting a terrible message in each person - that if they drink a little they are OUT OF CONTROL.

Curiously enough, lots of them believe they are out of control after one drink.

Why not refer them on to psychologists who specialise in CBT then?

Please move here and hang out a shingle. I mean it.

The last psychologist I spoke with here supports AA completely, and didn't know much about CBT (certainly wasn't trained to practice it)

I guess I got a bit discouraged, but I should poll the few we have here and see if any others know how to work it. I gave some information on it to a fellow who wanted to try it out on himself...don't know how that went for him...

Most of the research on AA backs up the idea that people who stay in AA will be successful.

Same with any approach to quitting. They all manage to quit sooner or later.

I don't like how AA is getting credit for what was going to happen anyway.

As it stands, one of the reasons I won't refer to AA is the way they repeat certain messages which seem to increase binge drinking, but not move that locus of control any closer to the individual.

How does it increase binge drinking?

I don't know, it was an observation of the study...it simply noted behaviour, wasn't trying to explain it. It was a while ago, and I certainly don't mind conceding the point, but I will try to dig it up if you think it is important.

And the locus of control shouldn't be placed on the individual, it should be placed on changing the environmental variables which cause the behavior in the first place. My main beef with AA is precisely that it places the locus of control on the individual - it assumes that "will" alone is enough to change behavior.

I have personally changed behaviour with 'will'...I am not sure what you mean here. I always found the happiest, most successful (by their own definition) people I know have blamed themselves for pretty much everything that happens to them.
I do acknowledge that circumstances and luck can come into play quite a bit, too.

And they do. AA might stay the same, but it's not a psychological treatment. The psychological treatments are the ones that are developed by looking at what works in AA and recreating it - like CBT.

I wish you could tell everyone that. They still use it up here as if it works. (though now that I think about it, while the psychologists seem to favour AA, the psychiatrists haven't, in at least three cases...hmm...)

They can be appalled all they like but their being offended doesn't change reality.

Behavioral therapy is universally recognised as being the only, and the most, successful treatment for autism. It is so successful, that a child diagnosed with autism at one point can sometimes, after treatment, no longer meet the criteria for autism (and this is statistically different from people who naturally 'grow out' of their diagnosis). Since they no longer have a diagnosis of autism, then they aren't autistic. This is generally referred to as a 'cure'. Obviously there is some variation of the effect of the treatment, but at the very least there is always significant improvement in their symptoms.

I guess, now that I recall, the diagnosis requires that the behavioural abnormalities cause the person difficulty at school, work or home. I guess if you are born with good supports, you don't get (or need) a diagnosis, but if you are less autism-affected, yet have no suitable support, you get the diagnosis.

Seems sensible, mainly, but not very 'sciency'...more fuzzy.

That doesn't negate anything. As I mentioned, 'transcendence' is a label given to a subset of specific responses, so very few people would match every single example of transcendence. What matters is your score - so if you're a nihilist, but otherwise happy with yourself, and you have a strong interest in making the world a better place, then you will likely score very highly on the transcendence/spirituality scale. And this means you'll be more likely to have good mental health.

But I don't believe in spirits

I said 'I THINK I am a nihilist'. I am not sure I am, because I haven't looked up the label.

Well psychology isn't a political or moral tool. All they do is look at the evidence for what improves mental health and report the results. (But obviously being spiritual doesn't necessitate being religious, or "drunk" as you compare it to, as demonstrated by the fact that you would score highly on the spirituality scale).

You are much more confident about that than I am. How could I test it to see?

But AA isn't a psychological treatment. Whether it changes or not is irrelevant to the question of whether psychology is a science.

Very true. I have a niece who is doing her masters in cognitive psychology. She measures and counts things. It is exciting, and certainly science.

She said she would NOT do clinical.

I'm not sure if a "critical eye" is good enough to reject it.. I don't agree with it as a valid treatment option, but it's a hugely complex issue that requires a fair amount of reading to understand the evidence on it.

I think that reading AA's literature ALONE is enough to refute it as anything remotely sensible.

The same reason newspapers don't hire journalists with science degrees to report science. They think they know better. And they do try to apply psychological theories to their work, the problem is that they are businessmen reading through "Psychology Today" and making guesses about how to apply it to marketing..

That is about my level of understanding (or slightly below). I think it would be a bit niave to think that no people have taken psychology into the business world for profit, though...shit, I need more McDonalds...

[irretating]

Thank god for mr samsa I was worried I'd feel compelled to respond to some of crap in this thread otherwise