What is your general opinion of psychology?

[Evola Dennis]

My aunt said to me a bout half an hour ago that it's a load of crap. She's a matron (i think) in a hospital. She said that on a brief psychology course she had to take she was told that children from broken homes never become doctors. Yet, her children have come from what you may describe as this and her eldest is a doctor.

[gone]

I would agree that most courses are crap.
Every course I've 'had' to attended was presented by a business who provided courses for financial gain, that didn't mean they were specialist in the subject. They seemed to know very little. Something like the courses paradied in the TV show the office'..
Courses I've attended through interest, be in university, local college I would also agree are a load of crap. They just teach the stuff from books and if the books are a load of crap, the teachings will be too.
Therefore it's not psychology that's a load of crap, it's the way courses are presented that's a load of crap. And your aunt was probably right, at least she is independent in her thinking that what was being taught was wrong, as she has the evicence that contractics the teachings. Psychology itself I can't agree is a load of crap, it promotes understanding of others and I like to study the subject, however I would never have someone teach it to me, but rather do my own learnings from observations, experiements, books, thinking etc...

So to summarise I agree courses are crap but psychology isn't.

[Penelope903]

Psychology for me is the study of state of mind....

[pixx]

It would help to distinguish here what the subject is: Education or Science?

[Enigma]

Psychology can never be a real hard science.

[sakoz]

 patientsA general opinion of psychology is quite vague.  There's 250 schools of psychology. That's like asking; do you like apples? All the way from little green ones up fully ripe ones. Consider my opinion.
"All creatures are involuntarily responsive to perceptions." The involuntary is "first responder" to perceptions; it's our ancestral heritage.
Sometimes it's so subtle, we don't recognize it. For a demonstration,do the Nine Dot puzzle, (again, if your already familar with it).
As you look at the dots, they are automatically "gestalted"(by involuntary), that is, unwittingly assumed and believed they are a square. You perceive your image as real, and proceed to(attempt) to connect the dots within the confine of your imposed image. It's not possible to connect the dots then as directed. (That's what makes it a puzzle).
We can't override such a subtle intervening by our involuntary when we are not aware of it occurring.
When we "unwittingly believe" some of our images are real, we in effect "counterfeit" perceptions our amygdala can't distinguish from perceptions of/from environment, thereby needlessly overstimulating our amygdala and experiencing emotional suffering and/or dysfunctional behavior.
Most of us saw John Boehner emote in public, it's not likely he intended to do so, but as he was talking, some words accessed a "believed image" and his amygdala reacted to it. We are all  prone to "unwittingly believe" some of our images are real. "Think of a image that disturbs you." See? It's not the image per se that 'disturbs' but the reaction to it.
We are conditioned to and by language,(without noticing it). That's the side-effect of using language. The most pernicious one is, "unwittingly believing some of our images are real." In those cases, the status of the image changes from representation/proxy to a referent in and of itself. (self-reference/reification). It took a long time to recognize and put warning labels on cigarettes. We need; WARNING: Using Language Can Be Hazardous- If you don't recognize believing some thought-images are real".
A good example that even Mental Health practioners are 'subject' to not recognizing their covertly believed images, is the article; "On Being Sane In Insane Places". The gist of it,some experimenters sent "normal" people to  pose as  patients to a men tal facility.(The pseudo patients only falsified their names and symptoms, thereafter they acted normal and answered all other questions truthfully. They were admitted and treated. FOR WHAT? The staffs misdiagnosis? They saw what they believed, (like we saw'square' where there was none.)

[pixx]

if we cannot believe ourselves in our perception what is the point of doing anything, except for pure fun? We surely shall be able to learn how to overcome our perceptual obstacles by learning them. In other words 9 dot problem as much as it is natively seen as sqare, perhaps can be overcome with not reacting to a instinct perception thus using abstract thinking and seeing square with white space around it. Where psychology is lingering amidst this? Playing with tricks?

I like explanation of perception being subtle to the point that we can be unaware, my question is geared towards the situation of being aware of our functional shortcomings.

[sakoz]

pixx thanks. I like your thinking. Yes let's address the "functional" shortcoming, very perceptive of you, our error is not structural.
There does not appear to be anything wrong with empirical perceptions ( of/from environment) we got this far via evolution.
We unknowingly/inadvertantly 'mistake' some of our images for real, empirical perceptions. (Our amygdala can't distinguish the two sources.)
We see what we believe. If you believe there's something 'wrong' with you; how confident,will you act? Or if you believe you can't do something, etc?
Henry ford said; "If you believe you can or if you believe you can't, YOUR RIGHT."
I want collaboration on understanding "believing"; are you 'up for it'? We can start with the placebo effect.  Once a subject knows (aware) that the pills are fake he/she can not replicate the pain relief and/or healing. So instead of pills, we been mistaking some of our images for real, but they are fake facts. Once we recognize them as such, we are free of self inflicted emotional suffering and dysfunctional behavior.
Remember when you STOPPED believing your concept of boogyman? You stopped being afraid. Research on 'believing' is as important as research on cancer; both cause a lot of "problems".

[pixx]

I am often accused of being not emotional enough. Thus I am possibly failing to see what many people react to natively. I am not expert but amygdala to my knowing is emotional "gland", could this be that we needed amygdala in the past to quickly wisely react to environment with best possible survival strategy and today where our survival is generally protected (at least in some parts of the world) we do not need its wisdom yet we continue to use it.

Belief is in the base of knowledge. We first need to believe in something in order to form knowledge on top of it. Of course by changing our beliefs we change knowledge, that is why so many people when they change religion realize that they learned something significantly new. Beliefs are cause of conflict, and truth is in between uncatchable, because what we declare as truth is consensus of believes.

If we assume above - that our perception is then generally murky. Consequently whole world is based on wrong beliefs, thus having wrong knowledge.

Am I alone in this?

If we have 250 schools of psychology - what is the point of cacophony of beliefs if we cannot summarize. This brings again question from the top. General opinion is that psychology is an art, not a science, as it bases its view on belief. If one is fine with that start, it is good to continue.

Or,.... I completely fail to understand art.

[sakoz]

pixx, I'm just quickly checking my e-mail before going to the mall. I'm eager to get back and continue our dialogue.
You wrote;"My question is geared towards the situation of being aware of our functional shortcomings." YES, lets address that, that's my passion/goal.

[pixx]

take your time, i see this as casual dialogue

[sakoz]

Your often accused of not being emotional enough? I should be so luckly. (See on line the article; "When The Brain Knows No Fear".)
Yes your right, our amygdala is our 'early warning system'. I'm concerned with 'false alarms', like I pointed out about John Boehner above.
Caused by 'unwittingly believing some our images are real'. The amygdala is always on 'standby alert'.
(Opps have to stop, an interruption.Gives you a chance to read that article.)

[pixx]

Resource (one of) above mentioned article - http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/211909.php

[pixx]

The night of a full moon. The time of werewolf. Humans not working, machines not working. A pause for contemplation is advised.

[sakoz]

In the article they barely allude to my topic, (unwittingly believing some of our images are real.) They mention 'fear of death, public speaking,PTSD. Those are based on believing some images are real and they don't mention that.
You or anybody can be in a environment that's perfectly safe, and still feel anxiety. (reread that for emphasis.)
"Think of a image that disturbs/distresses you." ANY reaction to a image believed real is a indication of 'conditioning'; analogous to Pavlov's dogs,also the placebo/nocebo efffects.
You have been accused of not being emotional enough; I would take that as a compliment, as not being  as much 'conditioned' as the rest of the population.
Images are a component of thought. Language is used to express thoughts. When I said; 'Think of a image that distresses you'. Shows that you can make yourself experience emotional suffering on demand. But usually we all do it 'unwittingly', merely by using language.
Judging by the number of therapists and self-help books, we are creating 'massive' amounts of emotional misery and mistakes.

[pljames]

What is the mind? Every one has a opinion. I like philosophy psychology and theology as basic disciplines. We all or individuals with individual thoughts. Agreeing with each other is sometimes hard. I wonder sometimes if when we compromise we lose our original thoughts on our original thought. And lose all perspective on compromising? Knowledge is the basis of understanding even how and what others think, even general psychology. Thoughts please. pljames

[Zepher08]

"Beliefs are cause of conflict" ~ Pixx

A belief is not the cause of conflict. What causes conflict is the threat the ego experiences with a different belief. When I am attached to a belief in a manner that MY BELIEF IS ME/SELF... then a different belief challenges my existence. This is where conflict comes from.

But it is true that conflict can and does arise in the area of belief systems. It doesn't have to.

[sakoz]

Zepher08; You wrote; "When I am attached to a belief in a manner that MY BELIEF IS ME/SELF.....". Why didn't you write that (profound) statement sooner?
pljames wrote, a while back, that his mind was reeling from RECOGNIZING/EXPERIENCING  ego is NOT  the REAL SELF. That can only occur from a "WITNESSING PERSPECTIVE"  that locus is not IN nor attached to the ego.  "When I am attached to a belief....etc." Who is that "I" when NOT attached to a belief or ego? I been writing about  'attachment' to other thoughts not attached to ME/SELF, but unwittingly BELIEVING the thought is real and so involuntarily reacting to 'pseudo' perceptions AS IF they were bonafide/legitimate,empirical perceptions.
( Being free of attachment to ego or any other thought, is EMPOWERMENT of great magnitude.)

"MY BELIEF IS ME" (not so)Can we reverse that? Can we "crack the code" or does it occur serendipitously/grace?
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions NOT to ATTACH  to ego or other thoughts?

[Zepher08]

Sakoz, I do not consider the statement profound. I have made at least one comment back in the days when I was commenting. Knowing that some where I wrote at least a smidgen about ego identification. Knowing how ego operates and not totally committing ones existence or self value , seeing how limiting ego is well, that is the basis of some serious growth out side the head room. It is what comes about through regular meditation and creativity. Those are the two mediums that assist stepping out of the box or at least loosing the lid.

[sakoz]

OK.  ' Knowing' about ego/thought identification is not the way to "stepping out of the box",  meditating and creativity are two mediums that assist.
For the benefit of other readers, you can't 'think' your way out-of the attachment to the 'hampster wheel of thinking'. "Stepping out is more  of shifting/jumping out. 'Stepping out' and 'shifting/jumping out' implies volitional action, and it is not volitional, that's what I meant by "serendipity/grace'.
pljames; when you realized/experienced 'your' ego was not the 'real you', were you meditating? If not, then there's more than two mediums, etc.
After meditating, how long before your 'back in or on the wheel of attachment", how soon do you need another 'fix' of meditating?

[Zepher08]

Meditation is not like a fix as in a drug. It is a practice. so meditating changes gradually the way one experiences  operating a MIND rather than mind identified. "I think there fore I am" etc....

Although I have read quite often that some folks who get meditating mixed up with clocking out and in that way it may just be more or less of a "fix".

I suppose the peak experience would be to maintain the state of meditative mind all of the time.

Sakoz, instead of asking so many questions why don't you DO something like meditate ... hang out with people that meditate and see the difference in energy, vibe etc. Stop reading about it and writing about it and talking about it and just DO something in the direction of observing mind in a non critical manner.

[pert -5]

Meditation is not like a fix as in a drug. It is a practice. so meditating changes gradually the way one experiences  operating a MIND rather than mind identified.

Right on Zepher08.  With entheogens there is that continual need of the fix in order to achieve higher states of consciousness.  Keep in mind that I in no way am attempting to execrate the use of psychedelics as a means of exploring the psyche.  If they work to "loosen the girders of the Ego", then power to you.  However, meditation is more geared toward creating a permanent shift in one's perspective, which (as the word "permanent" implies) continues after the meditation "session" is through.  Continued practice will concretize that perspective into the mindset of the everyday life.  Hence, further meditation will only serve to augment the realization in perspective, rather than simply bringing it about again.

[sakoz]

Zepher08; Thankyou for the unsolicited advice. I don't plan on doing any of it. You mentioned meditation and creativity as two "mediums that assist stepping out of the box.."
I prefer insight/intuition understanding. The definition of the word "intuition': the direct knowing of something without the conscious use of reason." (Conscious use of reason is DOING).
Insight/intuition understanding may be inherent or may come from a external source; either way it's REAL. Being 'real', we do 'receive' from that 'source'. I'm not sure we can 'visit' that source by 'doing', but we definitely receive from that 'source'. Our goal may be the 'same', but the 'means' differ. I don't have a 'problem' with your 'way'.
(Many of the questions I ask, I have answers. Questioning is my way to get readers to consider a topic, and find there own answers. "Telling' is not the best way.)

[Zepher08]

Thanks for additions Pert.

Meditation sharpens intuition.

[pixx]

"Beliefs are cause of conflict" ~ Pixx

A belief is not the cause of conflict. What causes conflict is the threat the ego experiences with a different belief. When I am attached to a belief in a manner that MY BELIEF IS ME/SELF... then a different belief challenges my existence. This is where conflict comes from.

But it is true that conflict can and does arise in the area of belief systems. It doesn't have to.

I must admit that I like that you are putting ego in the mixture. The keyword is THREAT though. It goes along the line of cause and effect.

[slinkysally]

My general opinion of psychology is that it is great and it only has room to get better. I prefer psychology that is based in the cognitive sciences, CBT and REBT naturally. I like the idea of starting with everything we can objectively ascertain regarding the mind and it's cognitive processes, and a lot of the experiments I've read about in this area are just pure ingeniously contrived.
I also have a distaste for a lot of clinical psychology as well as psychoanalysis, at least in terms of private practice (not talking about research). Questionnaire forms aren't signs of a skilled psychotherapist, IMHO, and while the DSM has value in diagnosis of problems, actually using it in practice most likely has a tendency to be counter-productive and clumsy (as in "You have this disorder."). In terms of actually relating to the clients and assisting them to resolve their problems and grow as individuals, anything Milton Erickson inspired is just smooth and sweet. Finally, I think a lot of psychologists probably fall pretty short of a gold standard in actually being able to understand and treat effectively, but that might just depend on one's region of the world.

[HexHammer]

Psychology is a very importaint profession/science, but riddled with idiots, people who really should look for another profession/trade. A skilled psychologist can indeed work wonders, but the ethical rules hinders any efficient consultation based on Freud's disasterous approach to a patient driven to the brink of suicide.