The State of Modern Psychology

[Uruka]

I've created this thread to gain some insight on the current state of modern psychology. This may be a naive question as psychology is such a broad and complex field, but understand that I am just beginning my studies in the subject. I'm posing this question because I've noticed a disconnect between my perception of psychology and what is presently being taught in the class room.

Before I entered classes I had read material from Jung and Reich. I was captivated by their theories of the mind; Reich's dualistic sexual theory and Jung's theories of the unconscious and dream analysis in particular.

In the class room I was struck by the focus on materialism, the study of neurology. There is no real talk of the mind, just the brain. It's as if the course work is intended to establish a dogma in new students, that the solution to neurosis is the pharmaceutical.

Introductory courses may be very basic, but they make a great impression on fresh minds. Why is there such a focus on the brain and so little on the non-tangible psyche? Has the concept of the unconscious been abandoned to the pill?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

The unconscious is certainly not gone, but nor are Freud and Jung major players in today's field as "the unconscious" received a complete overhaul and the traditional theory you were likely reading is largely outdated. They laid the foundation for modern psych, but the field has since moved on. Your experience is not an uncommon one - classical psychoanalysis is the first thing that springs to mind for many people when they think of psychology. Its mostly a result of the media continuing to portray psychology that way, even though its not an accurate reflection of the current field. Dream analysis is not really something you can make a career out of today, the id and the ego largely displaced by cognitive theories and other means of tapping into the unconscious (e.g. implicit tasks, physiological measures) - though whether or not these things would meet the classical definition of the unconscious is up for debate. Much of this was informed by earlier work, but the field has come a long way since then.

It actually has little to do with pharmaceutics since VERY few psychologists can prescribe and most are far more interested in therapy then medication. Its a mistake to assume medication needs to be involved in the process...therapy induces biological changes as well, though its far from a well-understood process at this point.

This is not meant to disparage the folks you were reading, as I said, they laid the foundation and essentially built this field. However, they were essentially philosopher's - many of their theories did not stand the test of time, nor scientific scrutiny. That's true of pretty much every theory in every field The field didn't stop with them, it continued to evolve, and continues to do so at an exponential pace.

 

[2BeAProfessor]

When thinking about psychology, try and think, what's the best way to help a person? (if clinical psychology or therapy is your focus?)
The folks like Freud that started out questioning this stuff started out psychology and we are indebted to them - they worked long and hard hours and sacrificed a lot.

Think about this though - if you were in therapy and wanted to change a behavior be it as a client or a therapist
What would be the best way to influence change - Thinking about the "Whys? - why did I engage in such a behavior? or let's ponder over why you did that?" or would it be better to focus on changing various factors like the environment or a routine that could lead to a change in behavior and then adopting those patterns for keeping with the change?
If I've lost you, I apologize, but let me know what you think.

 

[Uruka]

Behaviorism produces results, but it seems to have a manipulative side to it that leaves me uneasy. In my own experience I have had great success implementing change through thought.

There are different methods for different situations I imagine.

 

[apumic]

A lot depends upon whose bx you are trying to change. You may do okay changing your own bx through thought to at least a limited degree; however, research has shown that behavior modification programs tend to be most effective using a behavioral model. Cognitive therapies can be helpful; however, from what I have seen, many clinical patients simply do not think the same way you or I do and have little desire to change their bx. In many cases only a behaviorally-based program that is well structured and consistently implemented is helpful in correcting bx to a socially-acceptable norm. No amount of thinking about their bx seems to help many of these individuals.

As far as the manipulative part goes, I would argue that when done with care, these methods are not necessarily manipulative so much as they intentionally show the person the consequences for his or her actions. Some people simply do not care about those consequences unless they directly effect the person. No amount of psychoanalysis or exploring "the unconscious" is going to help an O.D.D., C.D., or Antisocial PD kid or person to act appropriately.

 

[zenman]

In the class room I was struck by the focus on materialism, the study of neurology. There is no real talk of the mind, just the brain. It's as if the course work is intended to establish a dogma in new students, that the solution to neurosis is the pharmaceutical.

Yep, a little Ayahuasca in the jungle is good for what ails you, lol!

 

[Fat Black Dude]

Perhaps you should do become a physician and do Psychiatry