ramin

I also shouldn't forget another art aspect of psychology, and that is that because it will always require inference of indirectly relevant data to human life, by all the data together being inherently incomplete or analogous (i.e. by use of lab animals), it will need correct application and convergence of the data to human life: an art.

This is partly an argument about boundaries. The difference between psychology and molecular biology and physics say may be a quantitative as opposed to qualitative one, to some extent. Though it seems that a part of psychology will also be purely art, always.

How is there any qualitative difference between studying the behavior of a human, a chimp and a rat? I mean, they're all mammals, and thus similar in form and behavior. What makes the study of human behavior different form the study of monkey behavior, which you evidently consider a science? After all, the only difference is that we're smarter, and think faster. That's all, we're just a smart monkey. I fail to see how qualitative differences could even arise.

Why would you assume that I think primate and other animal life is also solely science, and use that as an argument? Just because science is necessary, it doesn't mean it is complete to me.

How does our ability to interpret the finding in any way we see fit make it less of science? I mean, look at quantum physics and the sheer amount of Newage (no space, pronounced like "sewage") crap that's been based on it and typical misunderstandings of it.

We cannot explain ourselves and our behavior via solely observations and data. Neither can we with life and behavior of birds. Philosophy will interfere, and in a direct way as opposed to its relation to physics, biology and bio-chemistry say. Furthermore, psychology is self-reflective. We look for data to understand principles, but we use these principles in our construction of our lives, making it an art. The principles of physics and biology, on the other hand, define their domains completely and this does not count as reduction. These principles will be used outside of their domains for the same reason psychology uses its principles, only the use of these principles are part of the psychology domain.

Just because we can apply, for instance, operant conditioning to rid someone of a phobia does not make the discovery of operant conditioning any less of a scientific discovery.

What we use and how is an art. Operant conditioning could be a scientific discovery in the science subdomain of psychology.

That's like saying that the invention of lasers for CD players make quantum not a science.

False analogy. The art of invention based on physics, such as inventing lasers, is not necessarily part of physics, though inventing therapy is a part of psychology.

I know of Chaos theory, but fail to see what it has to do with this discussion.

If I'm not mistaken it says that human behavior is unpredictable.

Another way of saying all this may be that human life is fast-paced and always changing and thus it cannot be solely based on principles, unless it is the opposite principle of scientific principles: that it can not be based on principles.

Read chaos theory (I think)...

Wrong' date=' in two major ways.

 

Firstly, biology *also* studies social interactions, just not between humans. Dominance rituals, mating dances, competition within and between species, etc. Other animals can learn from each other two; even octopi can learn a skill by watching a fellow perform it. Chimps and many other primates have "cultures", in which certain learned behaviors are present or absent or variant between populations. Learning is common, and how does that prevent the study of anything? It makes it harder, yes, but that can be dealt with.

 

Secondly, why do you assume we cannot quantify and discretely measure human interactions. I can quantify, for example, how stressed someone is by bullying, by simply taking blood samples immediately after the event and assessing corticosteroid levels. Other variables of behavior can be quantified, such as sterotyped patterns that always occur in response to a stimuli.

 

 

 

Actually, many aspects of psychology deals with the quantifiable. For instance, the effectiveness of various therapies designed to get people off drugs can be quantified by the rate of relapse. Not to mention that "pyschology" often includes things as simple as exploring how our sensory system works and interacts with our brain (do congitive biases alter perceptions, for instance).

 

 

 

So, is any study in biology which deals with animals that can learn "not science"? By your criterion, all studies of animal behavior are "not science" because it interacts with the environment.

 

Hell, by your criterion, *genetics* isn't a science because genes and gene products interact with the environment to produce the phenotype of the organism. For instance, siamese cats are 100% black, geneticly. But on the protiens in the melanin production pathway is temperature senstive, and can't function at the temp of the cat's skin over the main body, only in the cooler extremities, hence why the "tips" of the animal are black. But, since the environment is involved, I guess you don't think that's a scientific conclusion.

 

 

 

I'm studying snake locomotion. The snakes do *not* behave in the same way between trials. Does this mean my results are useless and "not science" because the cycle time of the snake's movement I find is only approximate?

 

In fact, by your deterministic arguement, nothing is a science. Last I checked, a ball doesn't roll down a ramp with *precisely* the same speed every time; a million tiny random imperfections slightly alter the speed every time. What about chemistry? Ever read an NMR? The hydrogen spike isn't always in *exactly* the same place, nor is there a way to calculate it in advance to any reasonable accuracy. So it that not a science? Let's not forget biology as a whole, which tends to have all sorts of complicating factors that makes results go awry from what they "should" be.

 

If you insist on total determinism, nothing is a science. If there's some "wiggle room", then the definition of what constitutes acceptable variablibity in predicted results in essentially arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

 

What makes something a science? Hypothesis, prediction, observation, conclusion. Testable, falsifable hypotheses. Psychology as a whole clearly fits that bill, regardless of how odd some of the sub-fields are. After all, before you criticise Freud, remember that *some* of his ideas have been borne out by experimental tests, which I certainly cannot say for Superstring.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Those points may be right, but it still doesn't mean that Psychology can ever be a science fully. The elaborated and non-ambiguious version of the argument is the following:

Neuroscience, the biology end of psychology, is a science in the pure sense. How the environment interacts with neuroscience is again an art, because you are not dealing with purely observable phenomena. Furthermore, psychology can never be a science because its inferences can never be stable and systematic. Perhaps the most important, and interesting, is that making psychology a science is a reduction of humans to a determined (non-wonderous, 'figured out') phenomenon which they're not. A human reflecting on its own 'figured out-ness' is an oxymoron. Humans are the inventors of science. Psychology is useful as an art for more innovations, alleviations, etc, which draws upon science heavily.

 

First thing to note is that I'm not saying that a field has to yield fully stable results in order to be a science, the point you accurately point out. My point is that the stability and determinism of psychological findings is different in nature than the other sciences, and this very factor makes it an art always, at least partly. Namely, humans will always have the domain of using scientific findings creatively and philosophically to draw conclusions about life, society, and psychological dynamics. In this view it is an art that is based on science and applied science, and thus is not reducible to science.

 

I believe this is also consistent with the effective chaos theory if you've heard of it.

 

If they made Psychology more an art in conjunction with science, it would be much more successful. This is what you might see happening with the emergence of cognitive science (which is also an art, and in a suitably different way than psycohlogy).

Can we make a debate tournament, e.g. by making groups and setting up playoffs etc.?

First of all' date=' what is "all this new psychology stuff"? Its difficult to follow your reasoning if your not complete.

 

Second, can you elaborate what you mean by "medium"? To say that the environment is the "primary" cause of behavior is rash and deterministic in its own right. Is this a revisit of behaviorism? The environment and our biology interact, and what emerges is behavior.

 

I sure don't udnerstand this "simplification & generalization" comments. Is that not what sciences does? Look at string theory, or the attempt to reduce everything down to one "formula". Is that not the ultimate simplification (as well as reductionism)? Does it not attempt to generalize to ALL phenomena?

 

I think your making blanket statements about psyhcology that are not exculsive to the science.[/quote']

 

I'm saying psychology right now holds and educates genetic determinism due to cultural conflicts, as opposed to potentialism and allowing many human (including psychological) and environmental problems to desist. You can easily see how this could happen, even accidently, when genetic determinism is inherently supportive of the status quo.

 

This is while the reality is that environments destruct human psychology as well as alleviate them.

 

By the way, I'm not too sure about behaviorism. Its more potentialism.

 

I sure don't udnerstand this "simplification & generalization" comments. Is that not what sciences does? Look at string theory, or the attempt to reduce everything down to one "formula". Is that not the ultimate simplification (as well as reductionism)? Does it not attempt to generalize to ALL phenomena?

 

Psychology admits to representing things inaccurately, attributed blindly to some 'state' of the "science," instead of to the fact that psychology will always be an art as well.

Not everything in "hard" sciences is directly observable either. Ever seen a electron? No' date=' of course not, you can only observe their behavior. Same applies for psychology. We can't see the what is "in" the mind, but from observing an individuals "behavior" we can sure make some reliable inferences.

 

 

 

First of all, how can psychology be deterministic if we don't have "laws"? If anything, hard sciences are far more deterministic than psychology.

 

Second, we do employ systematic methods. So our inferences are reliable to a point. Knowledge is no more than the probability of a truth, and while hard science can offer more accurate predictions, we do fairly well given the dynamic and multidetermined phenomena we study.

 

I just don't understand you post, you say that we are not "stable" but "deterministic"....Sounds a little contradicting.[/quote']

 

If you agree that psychology can not be as much of a determinable "science" as the sciences, then you have agreed with me regarding psychology not being able to be a hard science.

Are you talking about stigma? Do you mean that sort of deliberate isolating behavior that is like shunning because someone is different?

It's really more complicated than that, though it could be summed up in that way, yes.

This definition that you've given is right (its what I'm talking about) but it really comes in different forms, i.e. in different intensities, at different times, and in different ways. One form could be indirect in that the pressure to socialize kids a certain way makes kids that are different (in various ways) simply lose out from being fully understood, which will affect their freedom and development in the environment.

It could be in a different form for this same person if these things happen at a later time in development.

It could be in the form of discrimination, or rejection & neglect, due to the caregivers being pressured to live a certain negative stereotype and/or social class, or due to a general drop in motivation to understand kids due to socialization in the adult-world.

More obviously...

To be really honest, I am not sure it is that easy to know what is natural and normal. Maybe for some people . . . I am not close enough to normal to have a clear picture. I've had an interesting life.

Understanding that one is a human being is the most elementary of things that I would think even occurs in babyhood, but is distracted & repressed after due to the oppressive-style environment.

I think feelings of alienation are a part of being human. Maybe I should have never read Camus. I suppose the answer would be that families or society do not accept them. I don't offer a justification. I am just one person and not "society."

But I'm not saying feelings of alienation are not natural. I'm saying actually being alienation is unnatural.

I used to be a job coach and I worked with mentally retarded young people -- which is some what different from mental illness, but there is still a stigma attached to it.

I'm sure you're right...

If you cannot enter someone else's world, it is not the same thing as deliberately isolating them. It could simply be a failure of the imagination rather than a failure of compassion. Also, I have noticed people resist dealing with problems that frighten them. I don't disagree with you that society can create isolation. Of course it can. But it doesn't cause all mental diseases. I believe some mental illness will happen without that societal trigger. Schizophrenia seems to be one of them.

You obviously don't know much about schizophrenia when you're saying that. You see the danger of implication? Just because schizoprhenia is highly bio-pathological, you think it is genetic. But these are not the same thing. Schizoprhenia is one of the most known diseases to have a necessary environmental component. Even over-deterministic and arbitrary behavioral genetic research has proven this as they admit that the environment is necessary for schizophrenia to form via their data. Schizophrenia is according to them partly genetic, partly environmental. But that's non-sense. It is due to highly unnecessary social isolation that can be prevented via a less deficient society and thus is not genetic at all. Genes are only the medium.

Autism may be one of them.

Let's not jump the gun again. Bio-pathology does not mean genetic. Stress, vaccination, drugs, and nutrition to name a few things come from the environment and they induce bio-pathology in various ways.

I know that most people think Bipolar Disorder is highly heritable but it is comorbid with PTSD so often that I begin to have some doubt. At this point, I don't feel that pedophilia is a disease that can happen without a trigger. I think it is more likely that pedophiles are made, not born.

I agree as well. The interesting question that you brought up is what to do with them, and others with disorders. It seems that though they are made, it is sometimes too late and interventions (in the case of pedophilia intervention, in the case of bulimia for instance cognitive therapy) must be administered.

Not.

 

I don't have to argue for that because I never denied that society can make people feel inhuman. Of course it can. And it can make some people feel more inhuman that others. But is that causal? Which comes first? If someone doesn't fit by being different in some marked way, then they can be isolated long before any illness manifests itself. Do you wish to equate "differentness" with illness? Let us say that someone begins displaying schizotypal behavior at 17. Does that mean that any past isolation that person experienced must be view as causal.

 

 

 

In order for us to proceed to any understanding, shouldn't you describe specifically some of the isolating behaviors that our society displays that you feel causes mental illness.

 

 

 

Well actually it is funny. You are the person who says you have autism and I think you are trying to make me feel something, so I keep running to my dictionary to avoid dealing with this. Call it an inadequate defense mechanism if you like. The point is that I am the one taking you seriously enough to respond to your POV.

 

So define the type! Offer some examples.

 

Ok, I responded to all these in the beginning of this post. But what's a POV?

No one understands better than I do that I do not fit very well in todays fast-paced, and highly structured and time-driven world. How am I going to make society slow down? That's why I take medication to keep up. I would probably be unemployed if I didn't. Do I like taking Adderall? Hell no! I rather leave it to the meth freaks. Do I have a choice? Not really. Welfare and disability are not what I choose to live on.

How is it that you can carry on this complex conversation better than me then?

You trumped me! I don't even know what UP is.

 

But I am just arrogant enough to quibble with a couple of your diagnoses. You may be on the Autism Spectrum but you have Asperger's do you not? Second, you either have a Schizophrenia or you don't. (You must be in your twenties.) How can you possibly say for sure it is on the horizon? Why would you want to borrow such trouble?

 

You probably see that last paragraph of mine as isolating.

Look here's the evidence! All this "disorders" thinking is making you think I actually have some kind of disorder, a salad of disorders even! I was being sarcastic about having a disorder. The notion of a disorder is sometimes so proposterous that I was making fun of it.

The notion of disorder is NOT for the patient ever to "know" either. It is only useful as a tool for clinicians and should not be made public, because people can't stop thinking about it and that highly affects them in various ways such as making them lazy to develop, finding themselves an easy to accept pre-made "role" or status level, or method of dealing with their problem.

Anyway, you mentioned you have had an interesting life. What did you mean?

Yes, BUT even Vygotsky and his contemporaries acknowledge the maturational factor in development. If the system is not up and running in a biological sense, what good is environmental influence?

No one would deny the environment interacts with the brain. It is that the environment is the primary cause of behavior, while the brain is primarily the medium.

Vygotsky, and in some dark and disturbing manner even Freud, are the only known psychologists who acknowledge this accurately, with Vygotsky perhaps uncomparably better than Freud. This principle is a great way of explaining human psychology accurately, and thus reading Vygotsky is very rewarding. All that new psychology stuff, all over North America (and infiltrating into other places as well), that's just bogus material. What you have to realize is that the people in the top of psychology know this already. Some of them, like the former head of APA I believe (Sternberg) are able to counter this in some minor way. Others say that psychology highly simplifies, overgeneralizes, and presents phenomenon incompletely, but that is because it is the state of the science currently, still a little bit young, not realizing that they already can and eventually will have to make inferences outside of the science end of psychology, where abstract sequences of events and potential events take place. Which is the environment part of psychology (and thus not emphasized).

There are some hopes in reforming these aspects of psychology by use of a new cognitive systems approach called "situated cognition," in which arguments about the nature of information in the environment (and its processing) can be formally made.

What' date=' and you don't think society affects biology? Take a look at system dynamics theory and "maybe" you'll get an idea of where modern evolutionary developmental psychology is going. Its all about gene-environment interactions and genetic assimilation.

 

Not a science my ass.[/quote']

 

You didn't read the post. Psychology can never be a science such as biology because it will have to deal with abstract, non-physical, and undiscoverable features of the environment. It will always be an art.

 

Neuroscience, the biology end of psychology, is a science in the pure sense. How the environment interacts with neuroscience is again an art, because you are not dealing with purely observable phenomena. Furthermore, psychology can never be a science because its inferences can never be stable and systematic. Perhaps the most important, and interesting, is that making psychology a science is a reduction of humans to a determined (non-wonderous, 'figured out') phenomenon which they're not. A human reflecting on its own 'figured out-ness' is an oxymoron. Humans are the inventors of science. Psychology is useful as an art for more innovations, alleviations, etc, which draws upon science heavily.

Really? So all that research funding is just going to waste? Damn!

You better believe it. A whole lot of wasted money that could go to starving children. Also, they do harm as well as waste money: through spreading their deterministic ideology.

There's a funny thing about common sense: It's not really that common. For example, common sense would suggest tell one that assumptions and conjecture are a poor basis for conclusions concerning the aetiology of such ilnesses. Common sense would suggest that such conclusions need to be supported by evidence.

Ok? Well, common-sense that has a lot of evidence to support it doesn't seem to be shared by many researchers.

Also, to say that everything needs evidence is ridiculous and tedius.

Of course, this evidence must be generated by researchers, however tedious and laughable their intellect may be.

Its the sick ideology behind it that doesn't allow for the correct inferences. All evidence is incomplete on its own and requires inference and argument. And they can't infer truth because of fed political norms.

You should tell somebody. There are thousands of people wasting their time looking for the root cause of such illnesses, and there you are with the answer all along, keeping it to yourself.

There intellect is tedius and laughable! There are millions of people with common-sense that already know the answer...

To your third sentence above: Yes, I do. I am not saying these norms are good; I am saying that establishing them is part of human nature. It is one way people create for themselves a sense of order and fair play. It is also a way that people gain a sense of justice (although some might call it vengeance).

You're obviously talking about a different isolation than I am.

To your fourth sentence above: I suspect no one really thinks they are equal. Human beings are massively insecure. But I think that you mean that some people are made to feel subhuman? Of course this is true. I have worked with mentally retarded young people and I can tell you that -- despite political correctness -- their experience tell them exactly that. "Normal" people often think they are not smart enough to know when they are being insulted or condescended to -- but they are exactly that smart, even with IQ in the low 70s and functional IQ in some areas that make some of their skills around 55.

Comon...Denying one's own humanness is hardly natural. Feeling insecure and inferior at times is a better argument.

So what's your justification that humans don't realize their humanness naturally again? I didn't get that last thing about youth and the mentally ill. If people feel insecure all the time, it doesn't mean that's by nature. It's probably due to my first premise: that society creates such isolation. As long as you argue against me, I think you have to consider my premises. You are arguing for a certain nature of humans, while I say that the very same behaviors are due to social influences. You have to somehow justify your position how it is not society that influences people to feel subhuman.

The nice thing about the English language (or probably any language) is flexibility. You have decided that isolation should be defined your particular way.

No!!! I'm saying that's the type of isolation people feel that makes them mentally ill: that they are not accepted as humans.

Look in an adequate dictionary and you will find otherwise.

A dictionary!!! That's funny...

To me isolation would mean not being able to contact my daughter for a couple of weeks. To others, it might mean going to the movies alone.

Great, but that's not the type of isolation I'm saying people experience in order to become mentally ill!!!

Not denying. Just forgetful. I have ADD.

Well for having "ADD" you're pretty good at this. So what does ADD refer to again, society's labelling of healthy people with attentional pressure in a fast, isolating society!!!? It would seem like society needs some cognitive and behavioral therapy!!

I also want to note here that I have ADD, Autism, OCD, BP, UP, Fetishism, GAD, Fugue, as well as Schizophrenia right on the horizons!

Also, you gotta love the Fugue...

I reread and just want to clarify that you see a deficient environment as one that does not meet a person's needs. To also clarify: You see parents as often being unresponsive to the needs of their children. Do you also see cultures as not being responsive to the needs of children?

Cultures...hmm. I'm not sure. I would use the phrase "political or social pressures" rather than culture. Culture to me seems to be the good side of things: the developed meanings and values according to good reason. So I would again say political or social pressures...

We cannot eliminate social norms that may make some people feel isolated.

I can understand how some people will always at times 'feel' isolated. The point is that in reality they not be isolated. Do you think there has to be social norms that always isolate some people? Isolation in the sense that they do not feel that they are considered basically equal with others' date=' as human beings.

And what justification do you have for such a claim? I think this is the real issue at hand: this belief that you and many others have. First you seem to think isolation means the 'feeling of isolation,' while it means not being considered human. Secondly, and where we consequently diverge, you believe that isolation is a must, in other words that humans will always not feel human!

I really look forward to your views...

Could you define a depleted environment? Or if that question requires too broad an answer, could you give an example of a depleted environment that might lead to the impacted person being a sex offender against children?

I already did, in detail, in response to your previous threads. Why would you deny it?

ahem! exuse me' date=' but i did not avoid becoming a paedophile by becoming insane. i avoided becoming a paedophile simply by not having the desire to have sex with kids.

 

 

 

and i do not feel isolated from society or that its completely corrupt etc, when i said 'this is how i feel' i was agreeing with the last centanse, ie 'why should we follow these peoples rules etc', but reguardless of the reasons, the effect is still that i have no inclination to respect the rules of society. however, i am not a paedophile or, may i add, schitzophrenic, autistic, a member of the monstor raving loony party etc. my point was that disreguard for the rules of society does not nessesaraly equate to paedophile[/quote']

 

Why are you making the point when I never said anything close to that it is?

Okay. But to put a rather simple twist on it, are these related to attachment disorder of a sort or to poor object relations?

Directly why not. But ultimately this is due to social norms, beliefs, and behaviors.

I know from a past chat with you that you reject any genetic causes.

This can be taken in two different ways, and hopefully you're not playing semantics on me.

I reject the importance of genetic factors in depleted environments.

General legal definition of a pedophile is someone who acts upon this impulse. What is a "premature pedophile?" Is there a "premature" schizophrenic? You seem to be saying all of these illnesses have the same root cause.

I used the word "premature" to indicate premature stages of it. Any illness has onset stages.

Yes, most illnesses have the same root cause of social isolation.

Relieving isolation is easier than one thinks. It can come from simply thinking that one is basically a human being just like everyone else. It doesn't mean communism, theocracy or any other purported lack of freedom.

are you saying that the labeling of paedophiles as mentally ill causes them to become mentally ill' date=' or that the labelling of someone as a paedophile causes them to become a paedophile?

 

 

 

this is exactly how i have always felt. i follow my own rules, not the rules that society attempts to press upon me. in my mind, if something is illegal, this equates to 'dont get caught doing it'. however, i have never had sex with a kid. i guess that getting annoyed with society could be a factor which makes it easyer for paedophiles to have sex with childeren, but they would need the inclination to have sex with kids first. unless its just to spite society, which is mindlessly distructive enough that id assume the perpetrator was mentally ill.[/quote']

 

That's why I mentioned in conjunction with other social factors, such as various forms of isolation, abuse, arbitrary expectations & discrimination, false assumptions about nature, and labelling of pedophilia.

 

To clarify the labelling, what I mean is the consciousness that people and society reject you as a person due to your current thoughts and inclinations.

 

And for yourself, I'm sure your circumstances have allowed your mental health and willpower. Even if you have the isolation of a premature pedophile, however, I don't think you would have become one. You may have resisted it or expressed via other forms of mental illness such as schizophrenia, autism, depression, anxiety etc.

Ramin, can you expand a bit upon your last sentence? I am not certain I understand what you mean.

It isn't clear? Society isolates, and this comes out in different ways such as the non-burden, isolated, schizophrenic and autistic attitudes, or the revenge-seeking, sick, meaningless attitude of various types of psycho-paths and pedophiles, or the self-destructive attitude such as the bulimics.

To close-up into the problem of pedophilia, societies that assume sickness and disturbance are susceptible for self-fulfilling prophecies and the snowballing of people's disturbing thoughts (tell someone they are sick, and they will become it). Being rejected from false and arbitrary definitions of right, as well as being labelled sick (just by the label existing), one does not gain anything from following those definitions and in fact sees reason to not follow them and rationalizes their habit as a decision. Another factor is when society itself is currupt and discriminatory. Why should one follow these people's rules and norms?

Vygotsky is a window into reality (for some, "a different perspective"). The reason I say this is that he emphasizes potential and influences of society as opposed to boring and rigid genetic determinism. This opens the door of psychology and life to new arenas.

Psychology is the medium between neuroscience, a science, and sociology, an art. It is NOT a science as in biology and never will be, because society affects human psychology, and study of social influence is a science in a different sense than biology etc (e.g. it does not study mechanisms in the level of discreteness and physicality of science).

I believe they should be identified early and incarcerated through monitoring these things in the community. However, and here's the catch, society has to take responsibility as well. These things are necessarily illicited and allowed by society, through isolating people.

The way you all are defending genetics is similar to the way people used to defend behaviorism. New phenomena have their eras, because they are interesting discoveries, and improvements relative to the past. Nevertheless, they are usually very overemphasized, and even detrimental.