[MD] Modern Psychology: Good, Bad, or Indifferent to MoQ

[Carl Thames]

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" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
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 <andrebroersen at gmail.com> 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
>