Chicken Soup for the soulless?
February 10, 2002 9:54 AM Subscribe
posted by jmccorm at 10:25 AM on February 10, 2002
posted by UrbanFigaro at 11:03 AM on February 10, 2002
posted by srboisvert at 11:10 AM on February 10, 2002
I'm not much of a Fox fan, but this story really hits it on the head. News and information can not be complex, people are too stupid. They also have attention spands that last about 2 seconds, and would never pay attention to something that wasn't sensational in some way.
The same is true of the best selling books, and those TV ads for drugs, it's all geared to a quick fix, rather than a real fix to a complicated problem. People want things and answers NOW and much of psychology is about long term fixes, and generalizations, not exact answers.
There is ALOT more to psychology than meets the eye, but those stories don't make it through.
posted by Blake at 11:12 AM on February 10, 2002
Trauma experts agree that between 20 and 25 percent of people exposed to traumatic events typically develop significant psychological problems, most notably post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
posted by raysmj at 11:16 AM on February 10, 2002
where to start?
some in the United states has post traumatic stress disorder is according to, in the PTSD article, "[t]rauma experts." no one by name is mentioned, nor is any that of any respected and representitive group of psychologists (such the APA) quoted.
the creating false memories article? it centers on one bad apple; indeed, we've known for some time that false memories are difficult to distinguish from memories of fact.
Fleming's op/ed gives light to something we've known for some time when she writes that "there is a sense that as a country, we are in danger of overmedicating ourselves"; medication without therapy is not a good idea, nor has it ever been, for the medication we have today is not a cure and its effects will wear off once you stop taking the pills.
i find Lasch-Quinn difficult to give much credence to, since she refers only to counselors along with "victims and victimisers" vaguely and generally. in the article, it is stated that "'Ours is the age of therapy', she says, 'with its belief that you can't change the world, only the self.[']" it is difficult to address much her quotes, for they are simply the conclusions sans evidence.
similar "damning" arguments can be brought against medical doctors. i don't know what to tell you, srb. i disagree with the notion that it's ok to use metafilter as your soapbox upon which to rail against your pet peeves; i will admit that right now. while this thread provides a good example of the bad science done by a few in psychology in addition to some of the assumptions of psychology being made by others, it does nothing to prove your point that "the industry/profession of psychology and its drug prescribing cousin psychiatry seem to be both the sloppiest and most ethically bankrupt scientific field."
posted by moz at 11:52 AM on February 10, 2002
They work out much cheaper too, in the end. I thoroughly recommend them to anyone who thinks they fall into one of psychiatry's myriad conceptual snares.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:00 PM on February 10, 2002
Its not that I think all the people in psychology are bankrupt any more than I would say all Enron employees were bad. Some are and some are not. But the profession as an organization or institution seems to lack the checks and balances that exist in other areas of science.
While there are examples of bad medical practises they tend to be policed more aggresively. Doctors who botch surgeries or make their patients sicker tend to get sanctioned and may even lose their liscenses. Psychologist/Psychiatrists face little or no outcome evaluation and can continue using ineffective therapies forever at the patients expense.
But really I was just posting some example links and looking to see if anybody had anything interesting to say in reaction to my take... and you did. BTW: Is the soapbox okay if it is an pro- environmentalist position? I have a hard time knowing what I am allowed to say here ...
posted by srboisvert at 1:33 PM on February 10, 2002
Only if you let it. TV Commercials use Psychology.. The regimes of the 1930s used Psychology. Its real and it works. Practioners can use the knowledge for good or evil, knowingly or not. One should not look at selective negative results of Psychology and say it is the fault of the Science.
posted by stbalbach at 2:19 PM on February 10, 2002
I don't know jack shit about psychologists, but I do know about psychiatrists. And the fact of the matters is that many of them are kind, decent people who try to do what is in their patients' best interest.
We all know that the treatments have side effects, and are not perfect. For example, the vast majority of patients who suffer from major depression can benefit from psychiatric treatment. Most mental illnesses have a chronic course, and the repeated visits to the doctor reflect this fact. There are plenty of other diseases that require repeated treatments, e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, heart failure, lupus, etc. etc. To suggest that doctors (again, I'm only speaking about the psychiatric profession (not psychology, about which I know jack) have somehow fabricated the need for repeated treatments is preposterous.
As stated by someone else, the mind remains a mystery, for the most part. Modern psychiatry allows many of those who suffer from crippling mental illness to live something that resembles a normal life. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has had first-hand contact with mental illness would think that medical treatment is a complete waste of time.
PS And just to head someone off at the pass, for your information, ablahblah, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT, shock therapy, etc. ) is still used for unremitting depression. Which, lest you forget, people die from all the time (suicides). A la One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, minus the bullshit hooking-someone-up-to-a-car-battery effects and the screaming. This is how it works. Patients are placed under general anesthesia and electric currents are applied which generate a seisure-like pattern of brain activity. It is marvelously effective, painless, and pretty safe. It can have damaging side effects, but then again so does coronary bypass surgery and you don't hear people crying wolf about that. Better side effects than suicide.
This was a rant, but I don't care. I hope when someone you know has a psychotic break and you take them to the psych ER and they get put on anti-psychotic drugs that allow them to get on with their lives you will change your tune.
posted by dr_emory at 2:37 PM on February 10, 2002
[T]he industry/profession of psychology and its drug prescribing cousin psychiatry seem to be both the sloppiest and most ethically bankrupt scientific field.
Ha! Macroeconomics wins, hands down.
posted by electro at 2:39 PM on February 10, 2002
The reason I think psych(ology/iatry) is morally bankrupt is that a) there are many examples of bad science
my thought is that for one to be bankrupt of something, one would have to be unable to fulfill one's responsbilities. many examples of bad science don't suggest that psychology -- your usage of the word implies psychology in a broad sense -- cannot fulfill its responsibility to its patients as a moral agent. a few psychologists or psychiatrists, yes; all or most? no.
b) they are not repudiated or policed by their professional orgran (the APA)
there is an ethical statement by the APA; i am not sure how well this is enforced.
c) both counselling and medicating are a for profit industry which is actively seeking to expand its customer base.
i'm sure they feel differently. my only problem with this sort of argument is that it's indefensible -- what can i do to show you otherwise? maybe i can bring up some anecdotal evidence, but that would only be true for the psychologists or psychiatrists in question.
While there are examples of bad medical practises they tend to be policed more aggresively. Doctors who botch surgeries or make their patients sicker tend to get sanctioned and may even lose their liscenses. Psychologist/Psychiatrists face little or no outcome evaluation and can continue using ineffective therapies forever at the patients expense.
had you said this in the first place, i think your thread may have been a bit clearer. simply pointing out the failures of psychology or psychiatry does not suggest that it is not policed or that its practitioners face no consequences for their actions. still, what does it take to have one's license revoked in either area? is there a licensing requirement to be a practicing psychologist (a counselor without the ability to prescribe medication) besides one's PhD? i don't know.
BTW: Is the soapbox okay if it is an pro- environmentalist position?
foot in mouth, eh? sorry, srb; your point is well taken.
I have a hard time knowing what I am allowed to say here ...
you don't need to talk to me about what you're allowed to say or not; my userid is not 1. i can express an opinion without trying to force others to follow it. (not that the opinion in question is terribly relevant any longer, but...)
posted by moz at 3:35 PM on February 10, 2002
Hey, MC, anytime you want me to ignore something but can't afford the 9-volt, be sure to affix these words to it prominently.
posted by NortonDC at 4:01 PM on February 10, 2002
posted by Flimsy_Parkins at 4:39 PM on February 10, 2002
This is true brother Miguel, which I why I solve all my psychological problems with Pabst Blue Ribbon, Marlboro, and Hustler Magazine.
Seriously, who needs a shrink when you got the 7-11?
posted by jonmc at 4:43 PM on February 10, 2002
My experience with psychaitry has led me to the decision that if I ever have kids, unless their strangling toddlers at recess, I will never allow them to be medicated by the school system.
posted by jonmc at 4:54 PM on February 10, 2002 [1 favorite]
Okay, I'll admit it right here... I'm a psychologist. I think there is plenty wrong with my field, starting with the fact that the majority of my colleagues have bought into the notion that they have to appease managed care companies and have tied themselves to treatment planning based upon the whims of some accountant at Blue Cross or Aetna. Sure, there are psychologists and other mental health professionals who screw up, or make overzealous comments to the news media. And I agree, we'd all benefit from more accountability in psychology, medicine, accounting, etc. But to slam the whole field based on those flimsy arguments just polarizes everyone into the good/bad camps.
I don't think my profession can save the world, nor do I think we are responsible for the evils therein. It's a little more complex than that, just like everything else.
posted by apollo at 5:03 PM on February 10, 2002
posted by mdn at 7:07 PM on February 10, 2002
For people with seriously debilitating problems, however, they make the difference between being able to get up in the morning and function like a normal human being, and, well, not....
My grandfather was schizophrenic and my brother is extremely bipolar. My brother can *function* without medication, but not well. He has trouble holding down a job, gets paranoid, etc. My grandfather, however, couldn't go without meds for any length of time (and he tried to avoid them every chance he got.) On lithium he was happy, functional, and very lucid. Off meds, anything could happen. My dad wasn't thrilled about putting him on medication, but when you get a phone call from the local police to tell you that they found your father (my grandfather) walking naked along the side of the highway at some ungodly hour of the morning, you tend to think of the medication as the lesser evil. And when unmedicated people have violent episodes that they can't explain, or worse, don't remember, you don't have much of a choice...
posted by lizs at 7:28 PM on February 10, 2002
posted by jonmc at 7:37 PM on February 10, 2002
Interesting, because I experienced it the other way around. That is, as an adolescent and in my early 20s, I drank too much and smoke way too much pot; later, I was ecstatic to find that there were prescription drugs that could make me feel "right" in the same way that the recreational substances could (and sometimes better). I have to admit that Ritalin specifically depressed me, even though there's no doubt it helped me concentrate better. Now I'm on adderall (same drug family, i.e. amphetamines), and I can only dream of how much easier my childhood would have been if I'd had access to it then.
Of course, that's only in hindsight, now that I'm an adult and can think back through it more or less rationally. I don't believe in the mass-medication of "problem" kids that is becoming increasingly popular in public schools, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any kids who could use the help of a good psychiatrist who had the time, education, and inclination to help them find the right drug for their specific problem, if any.
I think it's rather obvious that there's no way, at this point, for the APA to really police psychologists in the same way that the AMA polices other clinicians, in most cases. They are pretty tough on shrinks who sleep with their patients, because at least that's a solid problem that you can point your finger at. Whether someone gave you the right advice, or makes the right decision about which experimental mind-altering substance you should try first, is too hard to prove. The field is still too young and self-conflicted to have a solid idea of what "good psychology/psychiatry" actually means in many cases.
posted by bingo at 7:54 PM on February 10, 2002
I think this is a popular misconception about what psychology is all about. In all the movies, the shrink is spending all his/her time getting the patient to figure out WHY he's having trouble. You spend years on the couch and finally figure out that you were worried your father was going to castrate you, or something (well, I admit, that would cause some problems!).
When I've seen therapy work well, it usually has much more to do with figuring out how to effectively deal with problems in the here-and-now, and not much to do with whether you were competing for your mom's affections, or whatever.
posted by apollo at 7:56 PM on February 10, 2002
Although I went off Ritalin after a year, I'm now old enough(31) to have a little perspective. I spent the years from 13 to 28 drinking, smoking and swallowing just about everything. I still [warning:personal confession ahead] drink way more than I probably should, on the order of about a 6-pack of malt liquor a night and smoke about 2 packs a day.
I remember, I was at a party once and people began talking about their shrinks and the meds they were taking, and I boasted that I was "the last non-medicated person in America." The guy next to me pointed at the Budweiser in my hand and said "And how many of those have you had tonight, Jonnie Boy?"
Guess he had a point.
posted by jonmc at 8:06 PM on February 10, 2002
I think it was more along the lines of the dangers of self-obsession and goals of homogeneity. But it looked into all sort of aspects of society.
I'm not against psychotherapy per se myself; I see a therapist, and I think it's good for me generally. But I can see the negative consequences too, and I think being mindful of just how little we really know about human psyche is important.
posted by mdn at 8:51 PM on February 10, 2002
posted by jonmc at 9:00 PM on February 10, 2002
posted by bingo at 9:15 PM on February 10, 2002
Since Psychiatrists are medical doctors subject to 100% of the licensing requirements and potential "sanctioning," as you put it, of any other MD; and psychologists receive much medical training themselves and are also required to have licenses and be "subject to sanctions" (when they aren't themselves also full MD psychiatrists), we can only conclude that the rest of your allegations in this thread are equally false, and that you have some sort of personal axe to grind and/or philosophical or religious reasons for your attempt to bring so many people over to your 18th-century viewpoint.
Whatever your reason, your statements are not merely completely wrong, they're downright dangerous. God help your soul if someone currently in treatment for a psychological problem reads your rant, decides to completely abandon treatment and ends up attempting suicide, or suffering for another umpteen number of years before seeking professional help again.
posted by aaron at 9:51 PM on February 10, 2002
Actually, the reverse is true on both counts (at least for depression, the only psychological illness about which I know anything or have had any experience). Anti-depressants generally either help your depression or do nothing at all. And most have very benign side effects, if any. And anti-depressants are neither downers nor "happy pills". Most depressives, I would venture to guess, are more emotionally involved with their surroundings when they're on anti-depressants than when they're off them (at least for those who respond positively to anti-depressants). Depression, after all, is all about being emotionally numb. Lifting depression renews the chance to engage life, rather than hide from it.
My father takes meds for paranoia. He also takes meds for hypertension. He's a healthier person when he takes both. Mood disorders, like any other health condition, are not things to be taken lightly. If you do a little research on depression and therapy, you'll find that therapy (including drug-therapy) beats no therapy at all.
posted by wheat at 11:20 PM on February 10, 2002
posted by bunnyfire at 4:08 AM on February 11, 2002
posted by goneill at 7:05 AM on February 11, 2002
posted by yesster at 8:37 AM on February 11, 2002 [2 favorites]
Meaning and value are so subjective. And in a world of 4 billion, it is one of our most horrible vanities to assume we are special. Only a few can be heroes, can live lives of great meaning and deep understanding. When we non-heroes of limited understanding finally admit that we are not going to live our dreams, are not special, that others are not set-dressing in the ongoing Saga of Me but actual people just like us, and we say to ourselves that despite this I will do what I can to make my life happier and that of those around me happier as well, then we can learn to live with the little insanities of our culture and world.
posted by UncleFes at 9:23 AM on February 11, 2002
And psychology does have self-review of new illnesses and drugs. And people in psychology are well aware of the 'false memories' problem. They cover it in the introduction to psychology class, and in a couple more after that.
While psychology doesn't have the pure concrete proofs that might be available in the other sciences, it is easy to prove many things are true statistically. If you want more talk about statistics, talk to me, I have a bit of history in it, and I can type about it for hours. No Twain comments please. Statistics can be used to fake stuff, yes. But it is as easy to catch statistics liars as it is to catch pure science liars.
posted by stoneegg21 at 9:27 AM on February 11, 2002
~wink~
After all, it was only a few centuries ago that people thought "cures" could come about through modalities like animal sacrifice, or casting out devils, or crystals, or prayer. Thank goodness we're ever so much more advanced now.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:14 PM on February 11, 2002
posted by goneill at 12:51 PM on February 11, 2002
posted by darukaru at 1:32 PM on February 11, 2002
But not all psychology/psychiatry is about pathologizing the individual in terms of the differences between him/her and the rest of society. In fact, "that Freudian crap" (the foundation of modern psychology) alluded to by goneill, deals with (or attempts to deal with) people's most basic drives, and how the individual reconciles those drives (or doesn't reconcile them) with pressures from outside the individual's head (indoctrination, humiliation, etc.).
Suggested further reading: "that Jungian crap," in which another key figure of modern psychology derives most of his philosophy from a dream he had in which God took a shit on a cathedral, suggesting the individual's innate (if oft-repressed) understanding of the difference between what the individual feels and what the world tells the individual that he/she ought to feel.
posted by bingo at 4:22 AM on February 12, 2002
« Older There's another Enron out there: | Barry White to Serenade Sharks: Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Next question.
posted by dong_resin at 10:17 AM on February 10, 2002