Pseudoscience and Psychology

[Diirez]

We all know that pseudoscience is prevalent in many many fields (especially healthcare) but to what extent is psychology itself perpetuating that it isn't a science and what can we do about it?

For instance, my (state) university's department is entirely soft psychology. No neuroscience offered and very very rarely any biological or physiological classes offered (physio psych and perception are the only two available).

For instance, there's a developmental psych class that only focuses on the 'cultural' significance of dev psych but no biological or cognitive perspectives (teaching things like autism can be caused by an unloving mother [refrigerator mother hypothesis])

More recently, I had a professor who constantly talked about the importance of 'religious psychology' and that we need more Buddhism and other religious values in the field. She also described that within our lifetimes diagnoses will be gone, we will stop looking at the biological and physical basis for mental health and instead practice mindfulness as a therapy. She even had an exam question that said asked what the most powerful psychological tool is and one of the multiple choices was cognitive behavioral therapy but the right answer was actually 'love.'

It also seems like the majority of my classes the professors have a psychiatrist vs psychologist mentality. Almost all of my psych classes had a lesson on how psychologists are the good ones and psychiatrists are useless and over medicate horrible drugs.

So I guess to say, to what extent do you think psychology is perpetuating the stigma of it being a pseudoscience and any ideas on what to do about it?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Your experience is not consistent with any of the undergraduate psych departments that I have been affiliated with. May be an outlier.

 

[PsychPhDone]

I imagine a conversation will ensue, but wanted to mention that you might enjoy this book:
http://a.co/evqpn5x

 

[erg923]

We all know that pseudoscience is prevalent in many many fields (especially healthcare) but to what extent is psychology itself perpetuating that it isn't a science and what can we do about it?

For instance, my (state) university's department is entirely soft psychology. No neuroscience offered and very very rarely any biological or physiological classes offered (physio psych and perception are the only two available).

For instance, there's a developmental psych class that only focuses on the 'cultural' significance of dev psych but no biological or cognitive perspectives (teaching things like autism can be caused by an unloving mother [refrigerator mother hypothesis])

More recently, I had a professor who constantly talked about the importance of 'religious psychology' and that we need more Buddhism and other religious values in the field. She also described that within our lifetimes diagnoses will be gone, we will stop looking at the biological and physical basis for mental health and instead practice mindfulness as a therapy. She even had an exam question that said asked what the most powerful psychological tool is and one of the multiple choices was cognitive behavioral therapy but the right answer was actually 'love.'

It also seems like the majority of my classes the professors have a psychiatrist vs psychologist mentality. Almost all of my psych classes had a lesson on how psychologists are the good ones and psychiatrists are useless and over medicate horrible drugs.

So I guess to say, to what extent do you think psychology is perpetuating the stigma of it being a pseudoscience and any ideas on what to do about it?

It does not sound like any your professors have left the university, much less seen a patient or worked in a clinical setting, for many years. Does not sound representative of the general psychological community even and then to the notoriosly insulated and outdated world of academia.

Mindfulness indeed be a powerful tool if mental hygiene.

 

[smalltownpsych]

We all know that pseudoscience is prevalent in many many fields (especially healthcare) but to what extent is psychology itself perpetuating that it isn't a science and what can we do about it?

For instance, my (state) university's department is entirely soft psychology. No neuroscience offered and very very rarely any biological or physiological classes offered (physio psych and perception are the only two available).

For instance, there's a developmental psych class that only focuses on the 'cultural' significance of dev psych but no biological or cognitive perspectives (teaching things like autism can be caused by an unloving mother [refrigerator mother hypothesis])

More recently, I had a professor who constantly talked about the importance of 'religious psychology' and that we need more Buddhism and other religious values in the field. She also described that within our lifetimes diagnoses will be gone, we will stop looking at the biological and physical basis for mental health and instead practice mindfulness as a therapy. She even had an exam question that said asked what the most powerful psychological tool is and one of the multiple choices was cognitive behavioral therapy but the right answer was actually 'love.'

It also seems like the majority of my classes the professors have a psychiatrist vs psychologist mentality. Almost all of my psych classes had a lesson on how psychologists are the good ones and psychiatrists are useless and over medicate horrible drugs.

So I guess to say, to what extent do you think psychology is perpetuating the stigma of it being a pseudoscience and any ideas on what to do about it?

At least during my horrible undergrad education they were just promoting more socialistic and bleeding heart liberal political philosophies and I was able to get a few professors that actually taught the science of psychology.

As far as the professor talking about love, that is a construct that is not really amenable to scientific study without an operational definition which would necessarily be limiting. Psychologists can study various aspects of love and I deal with attachment and internalized object relations every day. The first is better studied than the latter, but each can be looked at through a scientific lens. Religion and spiritual beliefs and their affects on psychology can also be studied and one of my favorite professors who was a straight up old-school behaviorist in most ways looked at those factors in his research lab on PTSD.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

We all know that pseudoscience is prevalent in many many fields (especially healthcare) but to what extent is psychology itself perpetuating that it isn't a science and what can we do about it?

For instance, my (state) university's department is entirely soft psychology. No neuroscience offered and very very rarely any biological or physiological classes offered (physio psych and perception are the only two available).

For instance, there's a developmental psych class that only focuses on the 'cultural' significance of dev psych but no biological or cognitive perspectives (teaching things like autism can be caused by an unloving mother [refrigerator mother hypothesis])

More recently, I had a professor who constantly talked about the importance of 'religious psychology' and that we need more Buddhism and other religious values in the field. She also described that within our lifetimes diagnoses will be gone, we will stop looking at the biological and physical basis for mental health and instead practice mindfulness as a therapy. She even had an exam question that said asked what the most powerful psychological tool is and one of the multiple choices was cognitive behavioral therapy but the right answer was actually 'love.'

It also seems like the majority of my classes the professors have a psychiatrist vs psychologist mentality. Almost all of my psych classes had a lesson on how psychologists are the good ones and psychiatrists are useless and over medicate horrible drugs.

So I guess to say, to what extent do you think psychology is perpetuating the stigma of it being a pseudoscience and any ideas on what to do about it?

In my experience, there are a good number of scientifically-minded practicing clinicians in the field but--all else being equal--they tend to be 'low profile.' In my own practice, I try to run any and all requests for 'services' (from clients, administrators, patient advocates, peers, and even supervisors) through the following filter:

Is what I'm being asked to do as a professional service consistent with established standards of care and/or standards of practice in professional clinical psychology? You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at the disconnect between the ACTUAL practice of professional psychology (in terms of best practices) and what a lot of folks expect you to do. Boundaries, boundaries, boundaries. I figure that if someone tries to take action against me for NOT providing a service that clearly is not standard of care/practice in clinical psychology, I should be on solid ground. I guess we'll see when it actually comes to blows.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Forgot to add in there that your professors are absolutely right that psychologists rock and psychiatrists are totally lame. 😎
The truth is that mental health treatment is a relatively new field and we have a lot to learn and the good psychiatrists and psychologists that are in the real world treating real patients learn from each other.

 

[PsyDr]

We had to memorize mathematical psych stuff from learning models and cognitive psych in undergrad. Love was never discussed. Sexual attraction, attachment, were. I also have the phrase "80% of free feeding body weight" memorized from undergrad.

The most effective defense against pseudoscience are the questions:

1) What is the evidence for (your assertion)?
2) What is the evidence against your assertion?

A true professional will be able to describe the literature, authors, some statistics, and the limits of the knowledge base. It's difficult to do that, and it requires a lot of work. Those that are crap at their job will start throwing feeling words out, and get angry.

 

[Diirez]

I do understand this is representative just to my university, although I have heard horror stories elsewhere, it just makes me uneasy knowing there are hundreds if not thousands of people leaving these classes thinking this is what psychology is. Which especially doesn't help when I try to explain why psychology (or most of it) is scientific.

 

[WisNeuro]

I see people in every healthcare discipline spouting unscientific nonsense on a daily basis. I wouldn't worry too much about psychology.

 

[singasongofjoy]

For instance, there's a developmental psych class that only focuses on the 'cultural' significance of dev psych but no biological or cognitive perspectives (teaching things like autism can be caused by an unloving mother [refrigerator mother hypothesis])

😱😱😡
I'm sorry you are missing out on what should be the opportunity to get a good education, seeing as you're paying to take classes and all. Seems like I recall something in the APA ethics code about teaching and how you're supposed to stay reasonably apprised of current research in your area, and also teach both sides of a controversial issue using the research (I've been studying for the EPPP recently)- although the falseness of the above statement about autism shouldn't be even a little controversial by this point I would think. Moreover, thinking statistically about the prevalence of ASD, there certainly are or have been students who have immediate family members with ASD in that class and making such blanket statements - especially without discussing bio/cog aspects/more context, could be harmful. Your program is most certainly an outlier, especially if you have more than one professor who is taking such a narrow view of their respective course topics.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I always thought the refrigerator mother was the flawed theory of causing schizophrenia? Didn't they use to think that autism and schizophrenia were related in some way? Anyway it sounds like stuff from the 1970s that they are teaching there. I won't complain about my undergrad anymore because no matter how bad it is somebody always has it worse. Naw, just kidding, I'll still probably complain from time to time. 😀

 

[deleted343839]

She also described that within our lifetimes diagnoses will be gone, we will stop looking at the biological and physical basis for mental health and instead practice mindfulness as a therapy. She even had an exam question that said asked what the most powerful psychological tool is and one of the multiple choices was cognitive behavioral therapy but the right answer was actually 'love.'

Given that sample of response choices, the actual correct answer was probably "none of the above."

So I guess to say, to what extent do you think psychology is perpetuating the stigma of it being a pseudoscience and any ideas on what to do about it?

If your stories are representative of more than one professor at your institution, I have bad news for you: it's unlikely that much will change until those professors retire or die. So, if you really want to contribute to the field, your best option is to demand a higher standard for yourself and move on to an institution that will push you to grow as a scientist. Pseudoscience will always find a hungry audience, but focusing too much of your energy on it leaves you with less to devote to real problems that need solving.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I always thought the refrigerator mother was the flawed theory of causing schizophrenia? Didn't they use to think that autism and schizophrenia were related in some way? Anyway it sounds like stuff from the 1970s that they are teaching there. I won't complain about my undergrad anymore because no matter how bad it is somebody always has it worse. Naw, just kidding, I'll still probably complain from time to time. 😀

Yep. Autism was actually originally called "childhood schizophrenia," possibly because some of the symptoms of severe autism can seem sort of kind of possibly similar to the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

 

[psych.meout]

We all know that pseudoscience is prevalent in many many fields (especially healthcare) but to what extent is psychology itself perpetuating that it isn't a science and what can we do about it?

For instance, my (state) university's department is entirely soft psychology. No neuroscience offered and very very rarely any biological or physiological classes offered (physio psych and perception are the only two available).

For instance, there's a developmental psych class that only focuses on the 'cultural' significance of dev psych but no biological or cognitive perspectives (teaching things like autism can be caused by an unloving mother [refrigerator mother hypothesis])

More recently, I had a professor who constantly talked about the importance of 'religious psychology' and that we need more Buddhism and other religious values in the field. She also described that within our lifetimes diagnoses will be gone, we will stop looking at the biological and physical basis for mental health and instead practice mindfulness as a therapy. She even had an exam question that said asked what the most powerful psychological tool is and one of the multiple choices was cognitive behavioral therapy but the right answer was actually 'love.'

It also seems like the majority of my classes the professors have a psychiatrist vs psychologist mentality. Almost all of my psych classes had a lesson on how psychologists are the good ones and psychiatrists are useless and over medicate horrible drugs.

So I guess to say, to what extent do you think psychology is perpetuating the stigma of it being a pseudoscience and any ideas on what to do about it?

You present quite a few valid complaints and your program does seem somewhat worrisome, but you should also cast that skeptical eye back towards yourself a bit.

Yes, your department should be offering courses in neuroscience, biopsych, physiology, etc., but that doesn't inherently mean that the courses outside of these (e.g. social psych, learning, memory, cog, personality, etc.) are "soft science" or that one needs to focus on neurology, medicine, or biology to be doing "hard science." It's more about the methodology, stats, and rigor of the courses and research than the particular perspective they take.

Yes, it is obtuse for your professor to assert that "we will stop looking at the biological and physical basis for mental health," but that does not make their assertion of the value of mindfulness to also be folly or wrong. There a wealth of empirical literature and research on mindfulness-based practices and mindfulness-based therapies, and quite a bit of it actually involves the neuroscience and physiological perspectives you seem to value (e.g. look at Richard Davidson's work). But again, it's less about the particular perspective taken and more about the rigor, methodology, and empiricism involved. All that should matter is that someone is supporting their assertions with rigorous, empirical research. The "hard" vs. "soft" science dichotomy is a pissing match where no one really wins and we are just distracted from having the best, most advanced science possible.

Similarly, you correctly note the idiocy of the psychologist vs. psychiatrist rivalry, but there is a kernel of truth there in the realities of healthcare economics and evidence-based practices. Based on current compensation practices, psychiatrists make more money focusing on medication management than on other forms of therapy, causing them to focus their efforts in this area. This has left much of the other therapy to psychologists and mid-level practitioners. Psychotropic medications are important and necessary parts of mental health treatment, but there is a healthy debate necessary about the extent of current pharmaceutical treatment. And we must always bring it back to what the research and evidence say about what the best practices are in assessment and intervention, whether it's pharmaceutical treatment or other forms of therapy. We must be dispassionate about the results and focus on evidence, validity, and reliability as much as possible.

 

[EmotRegulation]

I too have some issues with the idea that cognitive and neuroscience are required for psychology to be seen as not "soft." Social psychologists are often crackerjack methodologoists doing strong experimental science (so are clinical scientists, developmental psychologists, and so on). Science is about using the scientific method, not studying the brain.

Sounds like the OP's department doesn't have good scientists who can accurately explain the science of psychology, which is definitely a problem, but has nothing to do with the lack of neuroscience courses.

 

[DrTisMe]

We all know that pseudoscience is prevalent in many many fields (especially healthcare) but to what extent is psychology itself perpetuating that it isn't a science and what can we do about it?

For instance, my (state) university's department is entirely soft psychology. No neuroscience offered and very very rarely any biological or physiological classes offered (physio psych and perception are the only two available).

For instance, there's a developmental psych class that only focuses on the 'cultural' significance of dev psych but no biological or cognitive perspectives (teaching things like autism can be caused by an unloving mother [refrigerator mother hypothesis])

More recently, I had a professor who constantly talked about the importance of 'religious psychology' and that we need more Buddhism and other religious values in the field. She also described that within our lifetimes diagnoses will be gone, we will stop looking at the biological and physical basis for mental health and instead practice mindfulness as a therapy. She even had an exam question that said asked what the most powerful psychological tool is and one of the multiple choices was cognitive behavioral therapy but the right answer was actually 'love.'

It also seems like the majority of my classes the professors have a psychiatrist vs psychologist mentality. Almost all of my psych classes had a lesson on how psychologists are the good ones and psychiatrists are useless and over medicate horrible drugs.

So I guess to say, to what extent do you think psychology is perpetuating the stigma of it being a pseudoscience and any ideas on what to do about it?

Most powerful in what sense? The statistical sense? Then CBT, being the most frequently empirically validated therapeutic approach, would be the correct choice. Most powerful in the "effectiveness" sense? That's quite debatable. Not much we can do about the poor teaching of psychology, especially if the prof has tenure!

 

[jadedphysiotherapist]

We all know that pseudoscience is prevalent in many many fields (especially healthcare) but to what extent is psychology itself perpetuating that it isn't a science and what can we do about it?

For instance, my (state) university's department is entirely soft psychology. No neuroscience offered and very very rarely any biological or physiological classes offered (physio psych and perception are the only two available).

For instance, there's a developmental psych class that only focuses on the 'cultural' significance of dev psych but no biological or cognitive perspectives (teaching things like autism can be caused by an unloving mother [refrigerator mother hypothesis])

More recently, I had a professor who constantly talked about the importance of 'religious psychology' and that we need more Buddhism and other religious values in the field. She also described that within our lifetimes diagnoses will be gone, we will stop looking at the biological and physical basis for mental health and instead practice mindfulness as a therapy. She even had an exam question that said asked what the most powerful psychological tool is and one of the multiple choices was cognitive behavioral therapy but the right answer was actually 'love.'

It also seems like the majority of my classes the professors have a psychiatrist vs psychologist mentality. Almost all of my psych classes had a lesson on how psychologists are the good ones and psychiatrists are useless and over medicate horrible drugs.

So I guess to say, to what extent do you think psychology is perpetuating the stigma of it being a pseudoscience and any ideas on what to do about it?

Your education is absolute whack

 

[Cigar]

I imagine a conversation will ensue, but wanted to mention that you might enjoy this book:
Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Second Edition: 9781462517893: Medicine & Health Science Books @ Amazon.com

Bump. Scott Lilienfeld has written several good pieces on pseudoscience and good scientific practice in psychology. He's also a hilarious guy.

Like others have mentioned, it's important to remember that what defines science is its method. Neuroscience and biology are not necessary for a scientific psychology, although they are necessary to have a more complete understanding of the field. You want multiple levels of analysis in the end, but every step doesn't need to contain neurons. "Hard science" disciplines can also be pseudoscientific if one doesn't practice the scientific method correctly. Think alchemy for chemists, astrology for astronomers, or homeopathy/chiropractic/acupuncture and god knows what else for physicians. Those posters above are right about how many garbage claims get mixed into healthcare.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile