Psychology and Science
Two nights ago, I had a most frustrating discussion about psychology with someone I would consider a friend. He's more a friend of Mike's, but for the intents and purposes of this discussion, he is my friend as well. I will refer to him as J. from here on in.
J. messaged me to say hello, and asked how things were going with me. I told him that things were well, although rather wearying since it's the beginning of a new term after a long summer. I added that one of the most difficult parts of this term is not the amount of work, which is expected, so much as learning to do that much work in Psychology, when I've been programmed for the last couple of years to do English reading, etc. To this, he responded that at least the major I added and had to learn to juggle wasn't a foreign language or a science.
Psych walks a fine line between social studies (in the literal sense) and science. I am aware of that. I also know that he's in chemical engineering, so that definitely influences opinions of other fields that are less "hard" science. So, I jokingly told him that my professors had been forcing it down our throats that psychology is, in fact, a science, and that it seemed like the department had a bit of a Napoleon complex about the issue. I figured he would let it go.
He didn't. Instead, he told me something along the lines of, "Well, it's not a science." I bridled a little at that, but I told him, very reasonably, that since there's a huge amount of pressure to do the research scientifically, learn and apply facts, etc, that I felt that they were justified in calling it a science. In fact, I have since gone to the OED (I'm that kind of snob) about it, to see just what defines a science. It took me until definition 5.b. to find anything really applicable. All of the earlier definitions were much too broad to be of use. 5.b. told me, " In modern use, often treated as synonymous with ‘Natural and Physical Science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use." If we go by that definition, the apparent modern one, there is still nothing restricting psychology.
But I digress. So, anyway, in reply, J. told me, "I don't think that clinical psychology ever does anything for anyone."
Yowch. That one stung, I'll admit, considering that my dream is to go into clinical psychology and help/save people. It took me a moment to respond, but when I did, I pointed out that that was false. Statistics do show that many people do, in fact, improve, with psychotherapy. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is particularly helpful. J. mainly ignored that, and asked if I really believed that therapy helped with psychoses, not things like marital therapy. Again, ouch. Patronization about what my field deals with is so unnecessary when you're already being rude. I told him that yes, I did believe that, although it did depend on the disorder. I told him that while things like schizophrenia need the pharmacological treatment, things like depression, OCD, anxiety disorders, etc, respond really well to cognitive therapy. Long term, this sort of therapy often proves more helpful than drugs for the disorders.
Again, he basically ignored this, and told me that he felt like psychology was just waiting for neurobiology to catch up and give some real answers. Spoken like a true "scientist." I explained that psychologists are trained in what we do know about the brain, the chemical pathways, the mechanisms of development, etc. Again, I explained where therapy is effective. He told me that he knows that we know some things, but that overall, it doesn't do much. At some point, I learned that he has had therapy for something, don't know what, and it didn't really help him. Of course, that might be an answer....
So, then the conversation turned into him telling me that he was entitled to his own opinion, and I shouldn't get defensive as though this was a personal attack. I told him that he certainly was entitled to his own opinion, but that I was also entitled to try to present evidence such that he might see another side and change his opinion. And that of course I was going to defend my field, since I believed in it. He continued to tell me that I was taking it too personally. I'm not sure I was the one with the strongest person reaction here, as a matter of fact. It's true...not everyone responds to therapy, but that doesn't make it useless. Also, telling me that, "maybe you will help people or contribute something, who knows"? Rather rude, I'd say. He even tried to say at one point that all he'd said was that he felt psychology hadn't reached its full potential yet, but that it was interesting nonetheless. I call bullshit.
There is more to science, and more ways to help people, than a chemical, or drug, or physical solution.
Usually, this is one of the smartest, wittiest, most articulate and caring people that I've ever met. I expect to have to defend my field for the rest of my life, but I wasn't expecting to have to do it to someone who I trust, much less to have them act so offensively about it. He didn't listen to or respond to most of what I had to say, or if he did listen, he gave no credit to the points I had. And rather than trying to make counterpoints, ask for more information, etc, all he had to say was that I was taking his opinions too personally, when I was laying out evidence firmly, but calmly. It was pretty gross all around, and of course, there was no apology to be had.
It's reconfirmed to me all the time how much I value open-mindedness and respect.
J. messaged me to say hello, and asked how things were going with me. I told him that things were well, although rather wearying since it's the beginning of a new term after a long summer. I added that one of the most difficult parts of this term is not the amount of work, which is expected, so much as learning to do that much work in Psychology, when I've been programmed for the last couple of years to do English reading, etc. To this, he responded that at least the major I added and had to learn to juggle wasn't a foreign language or a science.
Psych walks a fine line between social studies (in the literal sense) and science. I am aware of that. I also know that he's in chemical engineering, so that definitely influences opinions of other fields that are less "hard" science. So, I jokingly told him that my professors had been forcing it down our throats that psychology is, in fact, a science, and that it seemed like the department had a bit of a Napoleon complex about the issue. I figured he would let it go.
He didn't. Instead, he told me something along the lines of, "Well, it's not a science." I bridled a little at that, but I told him, very reasonably, that since there's a huge amount of pressure to do the research scientifically, learn and apply facts, etc, that I felt that they were justified in calling it a science. In fact, I have since gone to the OED (I'm that kind of snob) about it, to see just what defines a science. It took me until definition 5.b. to find anything really applicable. All of the earlier definitions were much too broad to be of use. 5.b. told me, " In modern use, often treated as synonymous with ‘Natural and Physical Science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use." If we go by that definition, the apparent modern one, there is still nothing restricting psychology.
But I digress. So, anyway, in reply, J. told me, "I don't think that clinical psychology ever does anything for anyone."
Yowch. That one stung, I'll admit, considering that my dream is to go into clinical psychology and help/save people. It took me a moment to respond, but when I did, I pointed out that that was false. Statistics do show that many people do, in fact, improve, with psychotherapy. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is particularly helpful. J. mainly ignored that, and asked if I really believed that therapy helped with psychoses, not things like marital therapy. Again, ouch. Patronization about what my field deals with is so unnecessary when you're already being rude. I told him that yes, I did believe that, although it did depend on the disorder. I told him that while things like schizophrenia need the pharmacological treatment, things like depression, OCD, anxiety disorders, etc, respond really well to cognitive therapy. Long term, this sort of therapy often proves more helpful than drugs for the disorders.
Again, he basically ignored this, and told me that he felt like psychology was just waiting for neurobiology to catch up and give some real answers. Spoken like a true "scientist." I explained that psychologists are trained in what we do know about the brain, the chemical pathways, the mechanisms of development, etc. Again, I explained where therapy is effective. He told me that he knows that we know some things, but that overall, it doesn't do much. At some point, I learned that he has had therapy for something, don't know what, and it didn't really help him. Of course, that might be an answer....
So, then the conversation turned into him telling me that he was entitled to his own opinion, and I shouldn't get defensive as though this was a personal attack. I told him that he certainly was entitled to his own opinion, but that I was also entitled to try to present evidence such that he might see another side and change his opinion. And that of course I was going to defend my field, since I believed in it. He continued to tell me that I was taking it too personally. I'm not sure I was the one with the strongest person reaction here, as a matter of fact. It's true...not everyone responds to therapy, but that doesn't make it useless. Also, telling me that, "maybe you will help people or contribute something, who knows"? Rather rude, I'd say. He even tried to say at one point that all he'd said was that he felt psychology hadn't reached its full potential yet, but that it was interesting nonetheless. I call bullshit.
There is more to science, and more ways to help people, than a chemical, or drug, or physical solution.
Usually, this is one of the smartest, wittiest, most articulate and caring people that I've ever met. I expect to have to defend my field for the rest of my life, but I wasn't expecting to have to do it to someone who I trust, much less to have them act so offensively about it. He didn't listen to or respond to most of what I had to say, or if he did listen, he gave no credit to the points I had. And rather than trying to make counterpoints, ask for more information, etc, all he had to say was that I was taking his opinions too personally, when I was laying out evidence firmly, but calmly. It was pretty gross all around, and of course, there was no apology to be had.
It's reconfirmed to me all the time how much I value open-mindedness and respect.