'A Science of Man' to transcend 'The Man of Science'

[coberst]

‘A Science of Man’ to transcend ‘The Man of Science’

Psychology, which began as protest against religion, has evolved into a reaffirmation of a non material aspect of our human nature. I would say that this non material aspect is not yet readily definable but is referred to as a ‘spiritual’ aspect of our nature; this spiritual aspect transcends our material nature but need not be synonymous with that aspect of human nature that religion wishes to focus upon and define.

I think that a person who wishes to comprehend what the science of psychology offers us must hold in abeyance their inclination to dismiss anything that does not fit their present categories of knowledge. If we add to our standard ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ attitudes a button for ‘hold judgment until better informed’ we might learn much important knowledge and might just develop an understanding of what we are and why we do the things we do.

Modern depth psychology consists of varied theories interpreting the “unconscious depths” of wo/man; these theories reverse some of the earlier concepts and focus not only upon “a new conception of human personality, but a new approach to art and religions as well as change in the way we see ourselves in history.”

The principal figures in this depth psychology are Sigmund Freud and his three protégés Alfred Adler, C.G. Jung, and Otto Rank. These individuals are considered to be the Big Four depth psychology. They are like branches sprouting from the same tree trunk.

Psychology attempts to understand the modifications in human existence resulting from the changes in deeply held patterns of culture of the accustomed national or tribal ways of life before the industrial revolution. These traditional ways of the past provided “built-in psychic security for the individual…But when the old groups were physically broken up and their members were scattered in the factories of the cities, or when, for any of many reasons, the faith in their teachings was gone, the individual was left unprotected.”

The materialistic and mechanistic model of human nature that evolved from the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment coupled with the modern success in technology has produced a citizenry in Western society that is enchanted with the view of human nature that idolizes the Man of Science.

The man in the Man of Science is a cipher. The scientific method is a process wherein the human agent is best when he or she is cleansed of many humanistic characteristics. Often a robot would better serve as the scientist than would a human.

The man in the Science of Man is center stage. The man, either he or she, is the major participant and the major object of comprehension in all activities that form the focus of a Science of Man.

I think that cognitive science coupled with the sciences of psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology, and anthropology now provide us with knowledge of human nature that makes possible a Science of Man that goes well beyond this mechanistic view of human nature. I also am led to conclude that the unconscious is the most important aspect of man and woman that must be studied in a Science of Man.

Quotes from “The Death and Rebirth of Psychology”—Ira Progoff

Questions for discussion.

Can you tolerate a mode of self-learning that includes the attitude of “hold judgment until better informed”?

[luckyme]

Jungian's are fun, but the we've moved past them. The 1940's are over. It's like studying the history of alchemy in todays market.

luckyme

[kerowo]

Physchology is a science?

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
Physchology is a science?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you question the statement? In what aspect does psychology not qualify as a science?

Quickie from wicki:

Philosophy of science studies the philosophical assumptions, foundations, and implications of science, including the formal sciences, natural sciences, and social sciences. In this respect, the philosophy of science is closely related to epistemology and metaphysics. Note that issues of scientific ethics are not usually considered to be part of the philosophy of science; they are studied in such fields as bioethics and science studies.
In particular, the philosophy of science considers the following topics: the character and the development of concepts and terms, propositions and hypotheses, arguments and conclusions, as they function in science; the manner in which science explains natural phenomena and predicts natural occurrences; the types of reasoning that are used to arrive at scientific conclusions; the formulation, scope, and limits of scientific method; the means that should be used for determining when scientific information has adequate objective support; and the implications of scientific methods and models, along with the technology that arises from scientific knowledge for the larger society.

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
Jungian's are fun, but the we've moved past them. The 1940's are over. It's like studying the history of alchemy in todays market.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


I see statements like this often on these Internet forums but I usually just discount them as sophomoric bluff and bluster. Do you have some substantive reference to cause me to think that your statement is any less sophomoric than the rest?

[kerowo]

Mostly because for most of it's existence it was decidedly soft, eschewing math and statistics for observations and making [censored] up.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jungian's are fun, but the we've moved past them. The 1940's are over. It's like studying the history of alchemy in todays market.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


I see statements like this often on these Internet forums but I usually just discount them as sophomoric bluff and bluster. Do you have some substantive reference to cause me to think that your statement is any less sophomoric than the rest?

[/ QUOTE ]

you'd like to be involved in the 'science of psychology', so what's with this wallowing in freud and jung disciples? They had no interest in a scientific approach to psychology. you can't have it both ways.

luckyme

[CrayZee]

It should be noted that many critics of the psychodynamic approach love to dismiss the area as if it was frozen when Freud died, but the area is still relevent to personality theory, psychological disorders, psychotherapy, etc.

I'd still consider it another useful tool in the psychology toolbox. Yes, it has its limitations. Don't use a hammer when you can use a drill, etc.

[coberst]

luckyme

The bluff and bluster of a sophmore. Many of us have passed through such a phase and can understand it well.

[MidGe]

coberst,

I have read the complete (yes) work of Jung translated in english (yes every volume of the collection) and many derivative works. That was in the late seventies. IMO, Jung is so wrong, so much more lame than Freud, and Freud follower's Lacan etc... That it is not even a contest.

Yes, call it a sophomoric conclusion but I would like to know the basis of yours.

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
coberst,

I have read the complete (yes) work of Jung translated in english (yes every volume of the collection) and many derivative works. That was in the late seventies. IMO, Jung is so wrong, so much more lame than Freud, and Freud follower's Lacan etc... That it is not even a contest.

Yes, call it a sophomoric conclusion but I would like to know the basis of yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

The basis of my conclusions are contained in the following books:

"Denial of Death" Becker
"Escape from Evil" Becker
"The Birth and Death of Meaning" Becker
"Beyond Alienation" Becker
"Art and Artists" Rank
"Life Against Death" Brown
"The Heart of Man" Fromm
"Philosophy in the Flesh" Lakoff and Johnson
"Understanding Media" McLuhan

[m_the0ry]

While it has helped us stake a few claims about man, I agree that psychology is mainly a pseudoscience.

The problem is that it attempts to categorize emergent complexity. When we cannot fully understand the underlying nature of the human psyche (specifically the physical or natural laws) we are really just making educated guesses, and there is absolutely no rigor in that.

I think the results of scientific studies speak for themselves. In any given field of science (psychology excluded) a correlation coefficient somewhere in the range of .95 to .99 is to be expected for any reasonable conclusion. This is nothing close to what can be seen in most psych studies and yet they reach the conclusion of 'strong correlations'.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
While it has helped us stake a few claims about man, I agree that psychology is mainly a pseudoscience.

The problem is that it attempts to categorize emergent complexity. When we cannot fully understand the underlying nature of the human psyche (specifically the physical or natural laws) we are really just making educated guesses, and there is absolutely no rigor in that.

I think the results of scientific studies speak for themselves. In any given field of science (psychology excluded) a correlation coefficient somewhere in the range of .95 to .99 is to be expected for any reasonable conclusion. This is nothing close to what can be seen in most psych studies and yet they reach the conclusion of 'strong correlations'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think many of you realize how far psychology has come. Studies are very rigorous now and are heavily controlled. People make hypotheses and test them. This is all ignoring the field of cognitive neuroscience which usually falls under the umbrella of Psychology.

If you're talking about psychotherapy, then I would have to concede that there is a little more pseudoscience involved. But as far as cognitive psychology, social psychology, and behavioral neuroscience go, things are pretty scientific.

[m_the0ry]

Simply put, psychology is based on the definition of suitcase words (thus the invention of the DSM-IV) with highly disputable and arbitrary meanings. Because of this the causality of the science is backwards. Some study is conducted with, for example, event A and event B being the possible choices for each human sample. Then some word is arbitrarily defined as the set of people who pick event A and the set of people who pick event B. This is an a posteriori inference and has no place in science.

Not until psychology can predict the behavior of someone with an indisputable set of prior knowledge (we can dispute until the end of time over what defines someone as "depressed" or even "old/young") does it become a true science.

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put, psychology is based on the definition of suitcase words (thus the invention of the DSM-IV) with highly disputable and arbitrary meanings. Because of this the causality of the science is backwards. Some study is conducted with, for example, event A and event B being the possible choices for each human sample. Then some word is arbitrarily defined as the set of people who pick event A and the set of people who pick event B. This is an a posteriori inference and has no place in science.

Not until psychology can predict the behavior of someone with an indisputable set of prior knowledge (we can dispute until the end of time over what defines someone as "depressed" or even "old/young") does it become a true science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have some support for this opinion?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put, psychology is based on the definition of suitcase words (thus the invention of the DSM-IV) with highly disputable and arbitrary meanings. Because of this the causality of the science is backwards. Some study is conducted with, for example, event A and event B being the possible choices for each human sample. Then some word is arbitrarily defined as the set of people who pick event A and the set of people who pick event B. This is an a posteriori inference and has no place in science.

Not until psychology can predict the behavior of someone with an indisputable set of prior knowledge (we can dispute until the end of time over what defines someone as "depressed" or even "old/young") does it become a true science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you clarify your position a little? This post is really dense and wordy and I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you talking about clinical psychology or all psychology? Experimental psychology and clinical psychology are very different.

[coberst]

Taraz

I am talkng about psychology as a means for comprehending why humans do the things they do.

Ernest Becker has woven a great tapestry, which represents his answer to the question ‘what are we humans doing, why are we doing it, and how can we do it better?’

Becker has written four books “Beyond Alienation”, “Escape from Evil”, “Denial of Death”, and “The Birth and Death of Meaning”; all of which are essential components of his tapestry. Ernest Becker (1924-1974), a distinguished social theorist, popular teacher of anthropology and sociology psychology, won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction for the “Denial of Death”.

Many weeks ago a forum member suggested that I might be interested in the author Ernest Becker and I was given the following web site.
http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/hidden/solomonsound.htm This is a great one hour audio about Becker’s ideas given by a very good lecturer.

Becker provides the reader with a broad and comprehensible synopsis of the accomplishments of the sciences of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and psychiatry. Knowledge of these accomplishments provides the modern reader with the means for the comprehension of why humans do as they do.

Becker declares that these sciences prove that humans are not genetically driven to be the evil creatures that the reader of history might conclude them to be. We humans are victims of the societies that we create in our effort to flee the anxiety of death. We have created artificial meanings that were designed to hide our anxieties from our self; in this effort we have managed to create an evil far surpassing any that our natural animal nature could cause.

Becker summarizes this synoptic journey of discovery with a suggested solution, which if we were to change the curriculums in our colleges and universities we could develop a citizenry with the necessary understanding to restructure our society in a manner less destructive and more in tune with our human nature.

The only disagreement I have with Becker’s tapestry is in this solution he offers. I am convinced that he has failed to elaborate on an important step that is implied in his work but not given sufficient emphasis. That step is one wherein the general adult population takes up the responsibility that citizens of a democracy must take on; adults must develop a hobby “get a life—get an intellectual life”. In other words, it will be necessary that a significant share of the general population first comprehend these matters sufficiently to recognize the need for the proposed changes to our colleges and universities.


.


http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/hidden/solomonsound.htm This is a great one hour audio about Becker’s ideas given by a very good lecturer.

http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/ This is the Becker Foundation.

I have a “Friends of the Library” card from a local college. For a yearly fee of $25 I can borrow any book in that library. I suggest that you get one for your self. I suspect most college libraries will have a copy of Becker’s books. I suggest you read Becker and decide for your self his value.

[luckyme]

The simplest way of seeing the major flaw in Freud, Jung, Becker et al is they are using a 'looks like' interpretation of events and human psychology rather than a view from the inside.

We could claim the expansion of the Persian Empire out to the seas on 3 sides exhibits they had a love of salt water. Or that the spider we remove from it's web and watch it scramble back "wants to go home".

Another way of seeing the mess that a freud/becker approach causes is to realize the level-jumping they perform to reach their conclusions. Looking at a society and reading in personal traits to the overall direction of the society and then claiming those traits are present in the individuals. A combination of personification and transference errors.

It's better to use freud/jung as a metaphor, sometimes useful, but never to fall into the trap that the metaphor is reality.

Read some contemporary works to get a better grasp of what I touched on above. Perhaps some Dennett would be a start.
hope that helps.

luckyme

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you clarify your position a little? This post is really dense and wordy and I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you talking about clinical psychology or all psychology? Experimental psychology and clinical psychology are very different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. The following is a title and excerpt from the abstract of a research paper in experimental psychology, published in Vol 120 of American Journal of Psychology.

[ QUOTE ]
Trait dissociation and commission errors in memory reports of emotional events


In 2 studies we examined whether trait dissociation is related to spontaneous commission errors (reports of events that did not occur) in free recall of emotional events. We also explored whether the functional locus of the dissociation–commission link is related to repeated retrieval or shallow encoding. In Experiment 1 participants were exposed to a staged incident and were repeatedly asked to add more information to their written accounts of the event. Dissociation levels were related to commission errors, indicating that people who report many dissociative experiences tend to make more commission errors. However, it was not the case that the overall increase in commission errors over successive retrieval attempts was typical for high dissociative participants. In Experiment 2 participants saw a video fragment of a severe car accident. During the video, half the participants performed a dual task, and the other half did not. Participants performing the dual task made more commission errors than controls, but this effect was not more pronounced in those with high trait dissociation scores. These studies show that there is a link between dissociation and spontaneous commission errors in memory reports of emotional events, but the functional locus of this link remains unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel it is clear that the primary independent variable of interest is an 'emotional event'. What is an emotional event, or should I look in the DSM? Again, this is a 'suitcase word' - a name given to a highly complex idea that may or may not be reducible but its constituents are in no way acknowledged as independent variables of their own.

[coberst]

luckeyme

Give me some credible authority that supports your opinion. I receive a constant barrage of anti-psychology comments from all sorts of angles but no one gives me any authority that supports their standard bluff and bluster.

[m_the0ry]

I don't need a credible authority to state my opinion. It is given as is.

Marvin Minsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky)

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you clarify your position a little? This post is really dense and wordy and I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you talking about clinical psychology or all psychology? Experimental psychology and clinical psychology are very different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. The following is a title and excerpt from the abstract of a research paper in experimental psychology, published in Vol 120 of American Journal of Psychology.

[ QUOTE ]
Trait dissociation and commission errors in memory reports of emotional events


In 2 studies we examined whether trait dissociation is related to spontaneous commission errors (reports of events that did not occur) in free recall of emotional events. We also explored whether the functional locus of the dissociation–commission link is related to repeated retrieval or shallow encoding. In Experiment 1 participants were exposed to a staged incident and were repeatedly asked to add more information to their written accounts of the event. Dissociation levels were related to commission errors, indicating that people who report many dissociative experiences tend to make more commission errors. However, it was not the case that the overall increase in commission errors over successive retrieval attempts was typical for high dissociative participants. In Experiment 2 participants saw a video fragment of a severe car accident. During the video, half the participants performed a dual task, and the other half did not. Participants performing the dual task made more commission errors than controls, but this effect was not more pronounced in those with high trait dissociation scores. These studies show that there is a link between dissociation and spontaneous commission errors in memory reports of emotional events, but the functional locus of this link remains unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel it is clear that the primary independent variable of interest is an 'emotional event'. What is an emotional event, or should I look in the DSM? Again, this is a 'suitcase word' - a name given to a highly complex idea that may or may not be reducible but its constituents are in no way acknowledged as independent variables of their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't get the PDF of this particular study, but I think you're going to have to read past the abstract to prove your claim. Most of the time in the introduction or the discussion section of papers like this they specifically define their terms and often concede the objections you are raising. This doesn't mean that the results of the study are meaningless or that you can't draw certain conclusions from their work.

I will readily admit that there are a lot of crappy neuroscience and psychology articles out there. But that doesn't necessarily reduce the entire field to rubbish. I'm sure there are awful articles in other fields as well. We've learned an incredible amount and as long as we don't claim to have 'figured it all out' there are many important contributions that can be made.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]


Give me some credible authority that supports your opinion. I receive a constant barrage of anti-psychology comments from all sorts of angles but no one gives me any authority that supports their standard bluff and bluster.

[/ QUOTE ]


Comments you get are not anti-psychology they are anti-mythical psychology, leaps of metaphor that pose as psychology. Please tell me you have read some of the vast literature that deals with the flaws in a freud/Jung/Adler approach ( besides just the general non-scientific nature of it). Heck, you could could do a google search and come up with long lists of criticism and comments. I'm not cutting and pasting from one 'hero', jeeez. After you've read a handful of works based on modern psychology you may feel a new freedom from "quote me a line from some authority" that pervades your posts.

Or you could just think about the claims you are making yourself and see if there is any basis for them. That would be the most rewarding. There is some space in life for your own thinking between comparing one authority to another authority and signing on with one. There are very few interesting areas where there is "The Authority".

luckyme

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Give me some credible authority that supports your opinion. I receive a constant barrage of anti-psychology comments from all sorts of angles but no one gives me any authority that supports their standard bluff and bluster.

[/ QUOTE ]


Comments you get are not anti-psychology they are anti-mythical psychology, leaps of metaphor that pose as psychology. Please tell me you have read some of the vast literature that deals with the flaws in a freud/Jung/Adler approach ( besides just the general non-scientific nature of it). Heck, you could could do a google search and come up with long lists of criticism and comments. I'm not cutting and pasting from one 'hero', jeeez. After you've read a handful of works based on modern psychology you may feel a new freedom from "quote me a line from some authority" that pervades your posts.

Or you could just think about the claims you are making yourself and see if there is any basis for them. That would be the most rewarding. There is some space in life for your own thinking between comparing one authority to another authority and signing on with one. There are very few interesting areas where there is "The Authority".

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckyme is right on the freud/jung thing. They made a few important contributions, but they're work was pretty flawed and basically conjecture.

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't need a credible authority to state my opinion. It is given as is.

Marvin Minsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky)

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, any one can state any opinion at any time as long as the language is not too crude.

[coberst]

luckyme

Independent thinking when supported by knowledge is very valuable. Independent thinking unsupported by knowledge is so much fantasy.

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Give me some credible authority that supports your opinion. I receive a constant barrage of anti-psychology comments from all sorts of angles but no one gives me any authority that supports their standard bluff and bluster.

[/ QUOTE ]


Comments you get are not anti-psychology they are anti-mythical psychology, leaps of metaphor that pose as psychology. Please tell me you have read some of the vast literature that deals with the flaws in a freud/Jung/Adler approach ( besides just the general non-scientific nature of it). Heck, you could could do a google search and come up with long lists of criticism and comments. I'm not cutting and pasting from one 'hero', jeeez. After you've read a handful of works based on modern psychology you may feel a new freedom from "quote me a line from some authority" that pervades your posts.

Or you could just think about the claims you are making yourself and see if there is any basis for them. That would be the most rewarding. There is some space in life for your own thinking between comparing one authority to another authority and signing on with one. There are very few interesting areas where there is "The Authority".

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckyme is right on the freud/jung thing. They made a few important contributions, but they're work was pretty flawed and basically conjecture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this sounds like so much sophomoric fantasy.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Give me some credible authority that supports your opinion. I receive a constant barrage of anti-psychology comments from all sorts of angles but no one gives me any authority that supports their standard bluff and bluster.

[/ QUOTE ]


Comments you get are not anti-psychology they are anti-mythical psychology, leaps of metaphor that pose as psychology. Please tell me you have read some of the vast literature that deals with the flaws in a freud/Jung/Adler approach ( besides just the general non-scientific nature of it). Heck, you could could do a google search and come up with long lists of criticism and comments. I'm not cutting and pasting from one 'hero', jeeez. After you've read a handful of works based on modern psychology you may feel a new freedom from "quote me a line from some authority" that pervades your posts.

Or you could just think about the claims you are making yourself and see if there is any basis for them. That would be the most rewarding. There is some space in life for your own thinking between comparing one authority to another authority and signing on with one. There are very few interesting areas where there is "The Authority".

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckyme is right on the freud/jung thing. They made a few important contributions, but they're work was pretty flawed and basically conjecture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this sounds like so much sophomoric fantasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really man. I mean, they were an important stepping stone in our understanding of the psyche, but their theories aren't really the best that we have out there these days.

[wazz]

You've read a few books and now you think you're an expert in the field? Cripes, get a grip on reality.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
You've read a few books and now you think you're an expert in the field? Cripes, get a grip on reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you responding to me or coberst?

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've read a few books and now you think you're an expert in the field? Cripes, get a grip on reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you responding to me or coberst?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess would be coberst, he sounds like he just got out of a frosh pysch class and it changed his life.

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
You've read a few books and now you think you're an expert in the field? Cripes, get a grip on reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading books is an important element in learning about reality; we learn little from social osmosis.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading books is an important element in learning about reality; we learn little from social osmosis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you think the authors of books learned about reality from? Other books? Or do you feel so incompetent/different in relation to them?

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reading books is an important element in learning about reality; we learn little from social osmosis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you think the authors of books learned about reality from? Other books? Or do you feel so incompetent/different in relation to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

One must acquire knowledge to be a productive person. Little knowledge is acquired through social osmosis.

[wazz]

One must refer to a book to find the appropriate internet response to someone who doesn't believe me. Little posting acumen is acquired through intelligent observation, or by using terms like 'social osmosis' and 'sophomoric fantasy'.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
One must acquire knowledge to be a productive person. Little knowledge is acquired through social osmosis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you have or do soon then. I would also suggest you try social osmosis in real life before you try it on the net, in case you think the media are the same.

Hey, Coberst, I am only trying to help! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

Hiya coberst,

I have been thinking a bit more about what I posted, and realized that it was somehow cryptic in terms of definitive or clearcut answers and criticism.

Here is my take: lookup B. F. Skinner and his followers and derivatives. At, the very least they look at psychology scientifically. To paraphrase Skinner, "if it can't be measured it is of no worth from a scientific viewpoint". His life research was devoted to observable and measurable psychology!

Quite different from the "soft", albeit more comfortable and easier to sound like an expert type of psychology, of Jung, Adler, etc.