-
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
a poll about psychology's view of our symptoms
- Thread starter lauluce
- Start date
alex3619
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,810
- Location
- Logan, Queensland, Australia
I have no problems with psychological counseling for sick people to help them cope better. I have huge problems with unproven hypotheses being promoted, and unproven treatments being used and claimed as evidence-based, and effective.
All of psychogenic medicine is unproven hypotheses. The claims that CBT and GET result in improvement have minimal objective evidence supporting them, and substantive objective evidence refuting them. They base their arguments on unproven hypotheses, irrational claims, redefining terms which results in confusion, bad statistical methodology, and rhetorical argument that is not based on sound reason. The entirety of psychogenic medicine is reliant on the Psychogenic Fallacy. Its not science. Its more like religion.
The sad thing is that psychiatry could probably become a sound academic discipline, but most of it first has to give up the claim to be scientific, and recognize that the problems inherent in psycho-psychiatric research are more akin to sociological problems. They could learn a lot from sociology. Most of their problems have parallels with problems in sociology, and sociology has developed ways to cope for the most part.
Bio-psychiatry on the other hand needs to become more formalized, abandon claims based on psychologization of everyday experience, and go for biomarkers and defined treatment endpoints. Only then will it develop as a science. Until then its not a science.
Counseling is different again, but has similarities to sociological issues. There is no question that large numbers of people going through difficult times could use independent, compassionate and reasoned advice. Most of the issues covered under this should not be considered psychiatric problems. Bad stuff happens, people need help, its not a mental disease.
The DSM needs to be overthrown, or revamped to such an extent that it would no longer be recognised in comparison to prior and current DSMs. Psychologization of normal human emotions and thinking so that they are considered mental disease has to end.
On psychogenic fallacy, some might like to read my blog: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?entries/the-witch-the-python-the-siren-and-the-bunny.1149/ The second half of the blog discusses the psychogenic fallacy.
All of psychogenic medicine is unproven hypotheses. The claims that CBT and GET result in improvement have minimal objective evidence supporting them, and substantive objective evidence refuting them. They base their arguments on unproven hypotheses, irrational claims, redefining terms which results in confusion, bad statistical methodology, and rhetorical argument that is not based on sound reason. The entirety of psychogenic medicine is reliant on the Psychogenic Fallacy. Its not science. Its more like religion.
The sad thing is that psychiatry could probably become a sound academic discipline, but most of it first has to give up the claim to be scientific, and recognize that the problems inherent in psycho-psychiatric research are more akin to sociological problems. They could learn a lot from sociology. Most of their problems have parallels with problems in sociology, and sociology has developed ways to cope for the most part.
Bio-psychiatry on the other hand needs to become more formalized, abandon claims based on psychologization of everyday experience, and go for biomarkers and defined treatment endpoints. Only then will it develop as a science. Until then its not a science.
Counseling is different again, but has similarities to sociological issues. There is no question that large numbers of people going through difficult times could use independent, compassionate and reasoned advice. Most of the issues covered under this should not be considered psychiatric problems. Bad stuff happens, people need help, its not a mental disease.
The DSM needs to be overthrown, or revamped to such an extent that it would no longer be recognised in comparison to prior and current DSMs. Psychologization of normal human emotions and thinking so that they are considered mental disease has to end.
On psychogenic fallacy, some might like to read my blog: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?entries/the-witch-the-python-the-siren-and-the-bunny.1149/ The second half of the blog discusses the psychogenic fallacy.
Nice and comprehensive answer Alex, you're really a learned person, thanks for your input. I do think to that psychology an psychiatry have potential to eventually help people with troubles related to their behaviour, thinking an emotions, whether they derive from alterations in their minds, bodies or both. But in the specific case of CFS this people and their beliefs are only obstructing our progress, both collectively and individually, having even infected the physicians view of our symptoms and giving them the easiest of exits "it;s psychological, go see a psychologist/chiatrist, nothing I can do for you". That causes terrible anger, pain an and frustration.
Beyond
Juice Me Up, Scotty!!!
- Messages
- 1,122
- Location
- Murcia, Spain
Wait. I am getting a channeling from the Lemurian Starseeds of Alpha Orionis... yeah... they say the poll will have massive majority of votes in one option... I just can´t figure out which one... 
A huge problem with so-called cognitive "science" is that it completely ignores emotions.
They are considered to be minor and irrelevant, that the "logic" of the "mind" rules.
They do sometimes refer to "valence" (which I thought was a silly frill around a bed) and "arousal", giving some token nod to the activity in the brain stem, even then, probably only because Eysenk came up with it.
(They've been watching too much Star Trek and have been taking Spock seriously.)
While neuroscience has proven that emotions rule, we make all our decisions based on our emotions and intuition, that language (which they consider to be some form of deity) is just the after-machinations we use to make excuses to justify our behaviour to ourselves and others.
And the problem is that psychology bases far too much on this "pie in the sky" sort of theoretical stuff, comparing itself loftily with the ivory towers of theoretical physics... they claim to be a science because they do "experiments", they do things to generate numbers.
If it's got numbers in it, it must be science, they "reason".
Most psychologists don't bother to study the basic sciences, plain old chemistry, physics and biology, where all science should be firmly rooted.
They either don't have an aptitude for science or they simply don't have the intelligence to study it in the first place.
It is to be found in the arts Faculties of universities, not Science faculties.
Behaviourism should never have been killed off. Skinner simply didn't have access to the equipment we have nowadays, not that his ideas were wrong.
The seminal paper by Fodor and Pylyshyn, (I call it Fetor and Pollution) which claimed to have put the final nail in its coffin, has itself been discredited.
They are considered to be minor and irrelevant, that the "logic" of the "mind" rules.
They do sometimes refer to "valence" (which I thought was a silly frill around a bed) and "arousal", giving some token nod to the activity in the brain stem, even then, probably only because Eysenk came up with it.
(They've been watching too much Star Trek and have been taking Spock seriously.
)While neuroscience has proven that emotions rule, we make all our decisions based on our emotions and intuition, that language (which they consider to be some form of deity) is just the after-machinations we use to make excuses to justify our behaviour to ourselves and others.
And the problem is that psychology bases far too much on this "pie in the sky" sort of theoretical stuff, comparing itself loftily with the ivory towers of theoretical physics... they claim to be a science because they do "experiments", they do things to generate numbers.
If it's got numbers in it, it must be science, they "reason".
Most psychologists don't bother to study the basic sciences, plain old chemistry, physics and biology, where all science should be firmly rooted.
They either don't have an aptitude for science or they simply don't have the intelligence to study it in the first place.
It is to be found in the arts Faculties of universities, not Science faculties.
Behaviourism should never have been killed off. Skinner simply didn't have access to the equipment we have nowadays, not that his ideas were wrong.
The seminal paper by Fodor and Pylyshyn, (I call it Fetor and Pollution) which claimed to have put the final nail in its coffin, has itself been discredited.
Last edited:
alex3619
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,810
- Location
- Logan, Queensland, Australia
@peggy-sue, do you have a link to the paper discrediting Fodor and Pylyshyn's view of behaviourism, or recall its name or something that will help me search. I studied a little of Fodor's stuff at one point. I understand Chomsky had something to do with behaviorism falling out of favour too, based on linguistics.
Neuroscience is pointing out that what we understand is based on intuition. We can reason, use logic, etc., but these are largely taught skills, and definitely not intuitive, and the concepts we reason with are understood intuitively.
However for most people, most of the time, we can't use reason. Its impossible. Rationalists are generally aware of this, its one of the rationalist dilemmas. Rational thinking has to be used selectively, because there is not enough time, resources and information to be rational about everything. Intuition rules most of what we do, and emotion often takes its cue from intuition. What we learn intuitively is also strongly influenced by emotion.
Neuroscience is pointing out that what we understand is based on intuition. We can reason, use logic, etc., but these are largely taught skills, and definitely not intuitive, and the concepts we reason with are understood intuitively.
However for most people, most of the time, we can't use reason. Its impossible. Rationalists are generally aware of this, its one of the rationalist dilemmas. Rational thinking has to be used selectively, because there is not enough time, resources and information to be rational about everything. Intuition rules most of what we do, and emotion often takes its cue from intuition. What we learn intuitively is also strongly influenced by emotion.
Last edited:
I don't I'm afraid. Alex. I'm sure it was an article in New Scientist at some time.
I had been waiting for it, since I was forcibly exposed to Fetor and Pollution, so when it appeared, I did take mental note.
I believe Fodor has changed his tack a bit - and Chomsky is now (unless he's dead) concentrating on working for Amnesty - I think (hope?) he's ashamed of his "contribution".
(universal grammar, language aquisition devices )
He certainly doesn't talk about it any more!
I had been waiting for it,
since I was forcibly exposed to Fetor and Pollution, so when it appeared, I did take mental note.I believe Fodor has changed his tack a bit - and Chomsky is now (unless he's dead) concentrating on working for Amnesty - I think (hope?) he's ashamed of his "contribution".
(universal grammar,
language aquisition devices )He certainly doesn't talk about it any more!