Psychoquackery on BBC Radio 4

[MeSci]

Here is a thread about tests that can be carried out by the NHS in the context of ME.

 

[sarah darwins]

@MeSci - I was really motivated at first. I'm definitely not anti-psychology. The exploration of the human mind is a compelling subject. And applied psychology, done right, can do so much good. Unfortunately, as we both found out, it doesn't half attract a lot of BS. Good luck to your neice. I hope she can steer clear of the rocks and be one of the good ones.

 

[TiredSam]

I did a year of criminology. It was all ridiculous nonsense except some Scandanavian twin studies which conclusively proved a causal link between the tendency to peddle quackery and the ability to get away with crime.

 

[Sean]

I do think that their tactic of constant name changes bites them in the ass a bit.

Dead giveaway that their castles are built on shifting sand.

 

[Scarecrow]

In psychology, these observations of behaviour, physiological parameters, etc. are just a launch pad for making various untestable claims.

Yes, there's the problem.

A little anecdote. I was in a year 3 physics class at school (age 14). The teacher was explaining how all energy on earth originated from the sun. One of my classmates argued with him that it couldn't possibly be true (I forget the details). Her final coup de grace was 'What happens when the sun's not shining?'

Now, she wasn't actually a stupid girl (despite how the story sounds) but she definitely didn't have a logical brain. When she went to university she got a first in psychology. We were stunned. Whatever psychology is, it certainly isn't physics!

I have known some eminently sensible and intelligent people who either studied psychology or are currently academic psychologists. We have some at PR.

Psychology is an applied science, so I suppose the issue is how well the science is applied. There are good and bad scientists everywhere.

The term psychobabble wasn't coined without reason but not all psychology is psychobabble.

 

[user9876]

Thanks for listening to this, MeSci, so that I don't have to. I can't face it. I had resolved not even to comment on threads like this for a while, but ....

It's one thing for a psychologist to talk about coping strategies etc. But if she is suggesting to physicians that they carry out fewer tests, that feels like a serious line being crossed. She is in no way qualified to make such a recommendation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Moss-Morris

I think its particularly note worthy that she is saying do less tests in a week where there have been reports at how bad cancer diagnosis is in the UK. It's an attitude that kills patients.

 

[user9876]

Yes, there's the problem.

A little anecdote. I was in a year 3 physics class at school (age 14). The teacher was explaining how all energy on earth originated from the sun. One of my classmates argued with him that it couldn't possibly be true (I forget the details). Her final coup de grace was 'What happens when the sun's not shining?'

She could have talked of nuclear power or even light from stars (which is energy albeit very weak).

Now, she wasn't actually a stupid girl (despite how the story sounds) but she definitely didn't have a logical brain. When she went to university she got a first in psychology. We were stunned. Whatever psychology is, it certainly isn't physics!

I have known some eminently sensible and intelligent people who either studied psychology or are currently academic psychologists. We have some at PR.

Psychology is an applied science, so I suppose the issue is how well the science is applied. There are good and bad scientists everywhere.

The term psychobabble wasn't coined without reason but not all psychology is psychobabble.

It can be worth looking at different bits of psychology. I've tended to think that cognitive science has a reasonably scientific approach and that's the main bit of psychology I've read. It does leave me surprised when I read the medical type papers as to how bad the methodology is.

 

[Scarecrow]

She could have talked of nuclear power

There may have been an exclusion clause - I forget.

or even light from stars (which is energy albeit very weak).

Good luck heating your home with that, smarty.

 

[Bob]

...or even light from stars (which is energy albeit very weak).

Good luck heating your home with that, smarty.

The trick is to harness a star. It can be any old star. It's easy once you've got the knack. I've got one in my basement. But it was quite a struggle getting it there.

 

[MeSci]

The trick is to harness a star. It can be any old star.

Would Johnny Depp do, or do you think George Clooney radiates more?

 

[JamBob]

Just listened - I find this kind of output so frustrating. Mark Porter and R M-M just seem to be incredibly intellectually lazy. Because a patient's symptoms don't fit into a currently known pathology doesn't mean there is no pathology - it just means that the right tests haven't been done or haven't yet been developed.

As far as BioPsychoSocial goes, I would argue that all diseases have a psychosocial element. For example, stress can make my blood sugars rise, which has an impact on my disease management. However, I would be furious if I was sent to a psychologist for my "primary" treatment, rather than a diabetologist. It seems like a false construct to define some diseases as "psychological" and others as "physical" when without the "physical" there would be no "psychological".

I have a psychology degree. I found that psychology is a very broad church. Some divisions eg. social psychology and evolutionary psychology appear to be based on psychologists promoting different theories which they can't really prove. Whereas cognitive psychology particularly neuropsychology is much more focused on objective measurement of cognitive abilities/deficits, using more scientific approaches.

It annoys me to see psychology misused by doctors and psychologists.

 

[worldbackwards]

Rona Moss Morris is Professor of Psychology as Applied to Medicine at King's College London and she believes the NHS fails such patients.

This always unnerves me a bit. The saving grace of NHS treatment for ME is that there is so little funding for it that it is very easy to avoid. This, presumably, is why the NHS likes it - no-one wants to provide it and no-one wants it anyway. It's when the true believers start insisting that we're being "let down" you have to worry.

Though I suspect that fortunately for us (and unfortunately for the mentally ill), the shambles of mental health treatment on the NHS will continue long after Moss-Morris' bleating has faded. The money will never arrive, because it never arrives for us anyway.

My brother did a psychology degree. He made up his entire practical study from start to finish because it involved an annoying kid who he didn't want to deal with. No-one noticed.

 

[Scarecrow]

My brother did a psychology degree. He made up his entire practical study from start to finish because it involved an annoying kid who he didn't want to deal with. No-one noticed.

Should we or ?

 

[jimells]

In psychology, these observations of behaviour, physiological parameters, etc. are just a launch pad for making various untestable claims.

Would it be fair to say that psychology *could* be scientific - if the industry chose to go that route?

 

[jimells]

I did a year of criminology. It was all ridiculous nonsense except some Scandanavian twin studies which conclusively proved a causal link between the tendency to peddle quackery and the ability to get away with crime.

Was there any discussion among your classmates about this? I'm guessing that thinking was probably not encouraged...

 

[worldbackwards]

Should we or ?

I dunno. It got him a 2:1!

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Q E D is the basis of actual Science.
How can you measure and quantify a person's behaviour/psyche?
How can you do repeat experiments with a thing you cannot measure, to get proof by showing no negatives?

Ergo Psychology is NOT a Science. It can be a useful medical *art*, but let's be blunt, all this PISH! we face is really more gas lighting, witch hunting bullshit.
Untermenschen and ubermenschen, good and bad blood, now in the mind, it's the same arrogant nasty evil which has bedevilled the world for at least a thousand years, and should have died a permanent death after Auschwitz and the Nuremberg Trials.

 

[Snowdrop]

Whereas cognitive psychology particularly neuropsychology is much more focused on objective measurement of cognitive abilities/deficits, using more scientific approaches.

Re: cognitive psychology--brain washing is tightly focussed on objective measures too. And neuropsychology depends on actual scientific instruments for measuring.

Before psychology, the study of the human mind individually and socially was the purview of philosophy.
I think it belongs there. Because science is/can be/should be so precise other domains of study have hoped to cash in on that certainty. While there may be some well designed studies that stand up to scrutiny at the end of the day they can only generalise. People are not protons they don't follow scientific laws. Any psychological studies will have all manner of exceptions, outliers, variations.

As to R M M I think for us, a focussed strategy on keeping the momentum going with the changing attitudes of the NIH and various universities/researchers doing important biological work will benefit us all. Ultimately making people like R M M irrelevant.

That's not to say we ignore the excellent advocacy and research being done elsewhere. Or even criticising nonsense.

But as we gain ground with the existing momentum R M M et al will be irrelevant, at least to ME/cfs. Sad for other poorly defined illnesses no doubt as they move on to their next victims.

 

[SOC]

Science is based on observables, certainly - if you can't observe a thing you can't measure it - but behaviour is an observable and so is self-report of subjective phenomena.

That's closer to a complex art than science. Self-report of subjective phenomena is not true science as it is not objectively measurable. Sometimes it's the best we have, so we use it, but the simple fact that it requires opinion-based interpretation by the user minimizes its scientific validity.

This isn't to say the psychology, properly done, is not valuable. Many lives have been saved by good psychology. Medicine is willing to admit that it is, largely, an art with scientific underpinnings. Psychology is even more of an art, and not at all an easy art to perform well. It takes a special kind of person to be a good psychologist -- intelligent, empathetic, and wise. But that does not make is a science... or at least not more than any other social science, where "science" is used in only the broadest sense of "a study".

 

[A.B.]

The problem could be summed up with: some psychologists do pretend-science and end up believing that they understand the disease 100%. So we end up with psychologists telling doctors to avoid running lab tests, or with patients getting ignored when they report deterioration after exercise therapy.