"Unscientificness", affront to Psychology.....how to deal?

[scienceisbeauty]

How do you guys deal with people who just ........ believe in things that are so .... floosy? Like for instance, those people who read books and profess that plants have feelings. They say the plants have feelings because in the book they are reading some author said that he played music to plants and the plants that heard loud music died and the ones that heard soft music flourished.
They believe all that kind of crap...

There's lots of people like that..but some of these types of people are in MY FAMILY!
Now I'm not asking how you do therapy on them but I mean, is there a lay way to explain that those books are crap? Do you guys have to deal with listening to that? How do you explain the scientific theory in lay terms?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

Well, you can't really talk someone out of their belief... nor would you want to since I'm sure it would damage the relationship. I think it might be best to adopt a "live and let live" policy. You can pursue a life of scientific research and critical thinking, but they don't necessarily have to. I'm sure from your point of view it's annoying, but they're not really hurting anyone by thinking that plants have feelings.

As an aside, you'd really think I was a fruitloop. I ask plants if I can take flowers from them before I cut them.

 

[Ollie123]

How do you guys deal with people who just ........ believe in things that are so .... floosy? Like for instance, those people who read books and profess that plants have feelings. They say the plants have feelings because in the book they are reading some author said that he played music to plants and the plants that heard loud music died and the ones that heard soft music flourished.
They believe all that kind of crap...

There's lots of people like that..but some of these types of people are in MY FAMILY!
Now I'm not asking how you do therapy on them but I mean, is there a lay way to explain that those books are crap? Do you guys have to deal with listening to that? How do you explain the scientific theory in lay terms?

Depending on my relationship with the person, I regularly warn friends I will soon be officially qualified to inform them they are bat-@#$% insane

If they're keeping it to themselves, people can believe whatever demented thing they want. When they try and use their demented logic to tell me I'm wrong, than I like to point out flaws in their reasoning. I handle it the same way I handle religious folks (I don't plan to do this in a therapy setting, mind you). If someone wants to be religious I have no problem with it, but if anyone tries to convert me they better be ready to hear someone ridicule them and their beliefs until they go away. There's a buttload of scientologists around here, so that has come in handy more than once

With family its harder. Usually I just calmly explain to them exactly why the logic is flawed. Remind them that there are rarely "fact-checkers" for those kind of books. Sometimes I tell them what a good way to answer the question would be, and tell them that when someone does a study in that manner and gets results, they should come tell me about it. That shows I'm open to changing, but just have a higher threshold for being convinced - which usually makes them content.

 

[scienceisbeauty]

Those people that vehemently believe in psychics and go consult them for their "life decisions"

UGHHHHHHH

 

[erg923]

I would just add that a good scientist is skeptical, yet open minded, about the possibilties that are yet unproven.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

I know a ton of Psychologists (academic, private practice, or otherwise) who believe that psychic ability is possible.

As Erg said, being "scientific" doesn't mean you can't be openminded. The people you're talking about can't prove that what they believe in exists, but you can't prove it doesn't.

 

[Ollie123]

I know a ton of Psychologists (academic, private practice, or otherwise) who believe that psychic ability is possible.

I'd like to point out there is a big difference between believing psychic ability in some form is possible versus believing Miss Cleo knows who you're going to marry I personally haven't come across any psychologists who believe psychic ability is possible, though I don't doubt they are out there, but I can't imagine any remotely educated person taking the latter seriously. Unless you consider the Jungian "Collective unconscious" stuff to be some distant relative of what people more traditionally consider psychics to be. Though to be honest I'm not sure I've ever actually met a psychologist who believed strongly in Jung's theories either. If they did they kept quiet about it

That said, I still agree with you its important to keep an open mind about these things - always being willing to allow for experimentation and analysis of new evidence as it comes in is pretty much the crux of what science IS.

 

[JockNerd]

Ollie-- you can find some people who put some stock in people like Rupert Sheldrake, who himself was Harvard and Cambridge educated.

I have some friends who go in for all that Reiki and crystals and such. I've never encountered anyone who was as militant about that as are people who are strongly religious, though. And it seems unfair to me to ridicule or try to change the followers of small, unpopular religions unless you're also haranguing people as they come out of church.

 

[The2abraxis]

wait a minute, plants don't have feelings???

 

[Ollie123]

Ollie-- you can find some people who put some stock in people like Rupert Sheldrake, who himself was Harvard and Cambridge educated.

And it seems unfair to me to ridicule or try to change the followers of small, unpopular religions unless you're also haranguing people as they come out of church.

Hmm - I'll have to look into Rupert Sheldrake a bit, I haven't even heard the name before, but it might be an interesting read.

Not sure exactly what you meant by the second part, but I want to make sure I'm being perfectly clear when I say I'm not the type to sit outside a church or anyplace else and harangue anyone. However if people start haranguing ME than they better be prepared for me to point out all the flaws in whatever religion they have decided I need to convert to in order to avoid x, y or z. Seems fair to me.

I swear I'm not nearly as big a jerk as half my posts make me sound....

 

[JockNerd]

Hmm - I'll have to look into Rupert Sheldrake a bit, I haven't even heard the name before, but it might be an interesting read.

Not sure exactly what you meant by the second part, but I want to make sure I'm being perfectly clear when I say I'm not the type to sit outside a church or anyplace else and harangue anyone. However if people start haranguing ME than they better be prepared for me to point out all the flaws in whatever religion they have decided I need to convert to in order to avoid x, y or z. Seems fair to me.

I swear I'm not nearly as big a jerk as half my posts make me sound....

Only the first half of my post was in reference you what you said, the rest was about the topic in general. I just meant that if I'm not going to get antzy about people believing in transubstantiation and such, then I'm not going to overly concern myself with people who want to believe in crystals and magic magnetic bracelets and whatever.

Sheldrake's stuff is sort of interesting. Morphogenic fields, hundred-monkey hypothesis. I don't buy it, but the world would be pretty fun if it were true

 

[PsyChris]

The mark of an intelligent person is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it.

You should not blow people off who have these outlandish ideas and at the same time you should not blindly accept what you are told. We must all depend on others to give us information. It is difficult for us to listen and then judge. We normally start judging as soon as the person walks up!

 

[PsyDr]

the hallmark of a scientist is commitment to the scientific method.


when an idea is presented, a scientist weighs the evidence before making a judgment.


in these cases i would ask the person what evidence they base these beliefs upon. this may cause some cognitive dissonance, which they will either resolve by looking at the relevant research and making an informed decision or cognitively distorting until the dissonance is resolved.


in regards to these ideas being an "affront" to psychology: i beg to differ. these ideas are simply alternative explanations that have no scientific evidence. IMHO, the acceptance of nonscientific beliefs tells one more about the individual holding the belief than the world.

in short: you are not going to change these people's minds. however, their beliefs in no way take anything away from the growing body of evidence from the scientific world.

 

[sunlioness]

I'd like to point out there is a big difference between believing psychic ability in some form is possible versus believing Miss Cleo knows who you're going to marry I personally haven't come across any psychologists who believe psychic ability is possible, though I don't doubt they are out there, but I can't imagine any remotely educated person taking the latter seriously.

I know several and none of them are referring patients to Miss Cleo.

the hallmark of a scientist is commitment to the scientific method.


when an idea is presented, a scientist weighs the evidence before making a judgment.

This is true. And likewise an open minded scientist would read the relevant research on reiki, crystals, talking plants, whatever before making the knee-jerk assumption that such things are without merit. And well, if there isn't any research, then you don't know if there's merit or not.

 

[PsyDr]

sunlioness,

i would agree that we simply do not know about many, many things. i also agree that one needs to maintain an open mindset when examining new data.

however, the OP is referring to a group who are not abiding by formal rules of logic when presenting his/her beliefs. while we are required to abide by this manner of presentation, lay individuals are not. these individuals are utilizing a formal fallacy in their arguments, which is incongruent with modern ontology.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

So now I have a question, since the line has been drawn between "us" and "lay people."

I believe it's possible that someone could believe something like plants have feelings, crystals can heal people, or fairies exist... but still be perfectly capable of a) being an excellent clinician and b) utilizing the scientific method to advance the field of Psychology.

Am I alone here?

 

[scienceisbeauty]

Keith Stanovich - How to Think Straight about Psychology; absolutely an excellent read, and criticizes extensively the mistaken thoughts about Psychology, the ridiculousness of 'psychics/psi phenonmenon' etc

Maybe that person could be a good therapist, but then ...therapy is about using therapies that have been developed using research that has used the scientific method. (does that ...sound ok?)

I dunno - I would be very skeptical if I were to talk to a therapist/psychologist who told me that they were going to give me some crystals to hold and they'd help cure me...

 

[scienceisbeauty]

This is true. And likewise an open minded scientist would read the relevant research on reiki, crystals, talking plants, whatever before making the knee-jerk assumption that such things are without merit. And well, if there isn't any research, then you don't know if there's merit or not.

There is several such research - but a good book, which knocks and gives reasons for knocking, all forms of talking plants, feeling plants, psychics etc - is the one I just recommended : How to Think Straight About Psychology , author Stanovitch

 

[WannaBeDrMe]

So now I have a question, since the line has been drawn between "us" and "lay people."

I believe it's possible that someone could believe something like plants have feelings, crystals can heal people, or fairies exist... but still be perfectly capable of a) being an excellent clinician and b) utilizing the scientific method to advance the field of Psychology.

Am I alone here?

Not at all, just today I was remembering one of my grad school lectures on the "memory of water" and how excited this prof had been about the book/idea. I was holding my water bottle wondering if it was angrily dancing like Ghostbusters slime since I was in a foul mood.

I had 2 (tenured) professors, doctoral level, 20+ years of practice under their belt, recently published on "normal" topics who were slightly wheeee---woooooow----whoa. In fact, they freaked us out more than once w/crystals, dead people in the radio, etc. I had a classmate walk out of class one day when the prof began her discussion on how she communicates with people who are no longer with us.

While I agree w/my friend that walked that it probably wasn't the best use of our time... I also believe that there is a place for it. A lot of clients are in the same mindset and just like clients should have a right to choose a clinician who is black, white, purple, gay, straight, paraplegic, etc... they should have the right to choose someone w/similar spiritual beliefs. Just because they think their energies are influenced by things other than most people consider "sane" doesn't make them inept at the task of applying knowledge to practice.

I love to consider similar ideas though I'm pretty skeptical and frequently cynical. I love to consider how energies might linger and affect the environment and vice versa. I even bought a Body Medicine text and little kit w/cards and a crystal. Granted, I bought them 2 years ago and haven't even removed the plastic... but I figured there might come a time when that tool works for someone in my practice even if it might not work for me.

Personally, I think my beliefs are a little off.

I don't adhere to traditional western medicine. I have a fairly serious autoimmune condition (killed my grandmother when she was only 25) and I choose to ignore almost all medication except over the counter ibuprofen. I know how to make myself feel better, how to de-escalate from even the biggest freak out, how to lower my blood pressure, how to recover from serious over-exertion, etc, etc... and none of that would be something a typical medical professional would share... but it all works for me. Similarly, typical interventions won't work for all clients, right? Maybe? Does it mean I'm responsible for the collapse of allopathic medicine as a discipline? No... and in fact, myself and others like me might have something to offer the field since we are responding to self-imposed interventions that have nothing to do with herbs, chemicals, radiation, etc. I believe the two co-exist, however, and I believe strongly in medicine as a lifesaver and an irreplaceable tool and if I get to a point where I can no longer manage on my own, I will go in that direction. I just believe that there's a middle ground that needs to be explored.

Same with mental health... and addictions work... more self-designed treatment. Less, "this worked for 162 people out of 175 in 1994 who demonstrated your exact symptom profile, so we are gonna force it on you for 12 weeks and see how it goes even though you say you are totally uninterested, can't afford it, and aren't likely to participate... just give it a shot, ok? trust me..."

On a side note, one of my very best friends in the world popped up at dinner one night and said she didn't believe in dinosaurs. Her other best friend was present (has known her for 12 years) and had no idea and looked at her in disbelief when asking for elaboration on her dino-knowledge. The explanation was that dinosaur bones were put in the ground by God to "make us think." While I think that is the most naive statement I've heard concerning tangible science, I still love her and respect her as an intelligent (though clearly differently oriented) gal.

 

[scienceisbeauty]

And say belief in God. I never ever ever ridicule or knock that -- a) it's way too personal, and b) it just leads to circular arguments, and c) there is research that shows -- the belief in God -- has and can help people

I profess nothing about His (Her?) existence ...just that ... believing that they are going to be helped and that someone is watching over them, can helps heal (maybe there is a God/maybe is a self-fulfilling helpfulness)

 

[WannaBeDrMe]

And say belief in God. I never ever ever ridicule or knock that -- a) it's way too personal, and b) it just leads to circular arguments, and c) there is research that shows -- the belief in God -- has and can help people

I profess nothing about His (Her?) existence ...just that ... believing that they are going to be helped and that someone is watching over them, can helps heal (maybe there is a God/maybe is a self-fulfilling helpfulness)

Research has shown belief in "anything" helps people. No, I don't remember it and no, I'm not going to look it up b/c I'm already stressed and NC live is not the place for me to be at 4 am...

In general, it was just talking about faith and the idea that people who have faith in themselves are no less successful than people who have faith in God or faith in trees or faith in whatever it is that guides their principles. It was the idea that people who are fatalistic, and just really place their entire fate in the hands of an unknown variable, are generally faced w/poor outcomes. The faith in self thing actually showed more positive results than faith in extrinsic stuff.

Someone else probably knows better what I'm talking about... there wasn't just one study, it was a lot of stuff that I learned in a behavioral health class, motivators and such, different sets of scales, maybe from a prof @ Vanderbilt I think?

 

[sunlioness]

So now I have a question, since the line has been drawn between "us" and "lay people."

I believe it's possible that someone could believe something like plants have feelings, crystals can heal people, or fairies exist... but still be perfectly capable of a) being an excellent clinician and b) utilizing the scientific method to advance the field of Psychology.

Am I alone here?

No.

 

[Ollie123]

So now I have a question, since the line has been drawn between "us" and "lay people."

I believe it's possible that someone could believe something like plants have feelings, crystals can heal people, or fairies exist... but still be perfectly capable of a) being an excellent clinician and b) utilizing the scientific method to advance the field of Psychology.

Am I alone here?

You aren't alone at all.

However I'd think that would be contingent upon their ability to seperate their personal beliefs from their worklife. If they incorporate crystal healing into their practice given the current state of evidence for it (none I'm aware of), than not only do I feel they are a shoddy clinician, I feel they should lose their license to practice as a psychologist because that isn't what they are doing. However I firmly believe ones personal life does not need to reflect their work behavior, and that people have a right to believe whatever they choose as long as they acknowledge that their beliefs are personal.

Their personal life is their personal life and if they want to crystal-heal their own cold, I've got no problem with that whatsoever. If they have those beliefs but acknowledge its not yet established via the scientific method, and not reasonable to use with clients, good for them.

Despite what some seem to be saying, I actually feel beliefs like these are very similar to religion in nearly all respects, and should be treated the same. Is it a problem for a therapist to be christian? Not at all. Is it a problem if the prominent feature of their therapy involves convincing every client to accept jesus so they can be saved? Absolutely if they are calling themselves a psychologist.

 

[JockNerd]

And say belief in God. I never ever ever ridicule or knock that -- a) it's way too personal, and b) it just leads to circular arguments, and c) there is research that shows -- the belief in God -- has and can help people

I profess nothing about His (Her?) existence ...just that ... believing that they are going to be helped and that someone is watching over them, can helps heal (maybe there is a God/maybe is a self-fulfilling helpfulness)

This is *exactly* what I meant before.

I think it's unfair, illogical, and strange to have a low opinion of certain small, unpopular faiths to the point of ridicule, but then be perfectly fine with mainstream religions. I think knocking the other things has the exact same effect as what you mentioned the consequences of knocking mainsteam religion are. I put as much stock in gods as I do in magic crystals, but I don't begrudge people who choose to believe in either (though I think they're all equally incorrect). I've also got no doubt that some people have been helped medically by non-mainstream faiths in the same way people have been helped by mainstream ones (belonging to a faith community, etc.).

 

[RayneeDeigh]

Maybe that person could be a good therapist, but then ...therapy is about using therapies that have been developed using research that has used the scientific method. (does that ...sound ok?)

I dunno - I would be very skeptical if I were to talk to a therapist/psychologist who told me that they were going to give me some crystals to hold and they'd help cure me...

Well yes, but I think it's possible to do what Ollie said in his last post, and separate one's own beliefs from one's professional life.

For instance, I have used crystals for everything from health problems to court cases. Maybe that means I'm a little odd. However, I would never dream of suggesting it to clients (in fact it never crossed my mind until I read this thread which has been really thought-provoking).

In fact, I'm one of those people like the ones you mentioned in your original post. Half of my family thought I was so weird that they haven't spoken to me for 10 years. I just think that the world could do with a little bit more open-mindedness, though not so open that your brains fall out. Of course I can still relate to your frustration though, there are always going to be people who seem more illogical than you, even if you believe in weird things like me.

A few years ago I was watching the news with my dad and I told him that I think there are probably completely different elements (think periodic table) on different planets. He looked at me like I was nuts and asked where I come up with these ideas. A week later we're watching the news and a blurb comes on about how there might be a never-before-seen element on Mars.

The scientific method is well-respected, it won't go anywhere anytime soon. It can handle a little bit of out-of-the-box thinking now and then.

 

[sparkleflower]

I dunno - I would be very skeptical if I were to talk to a therapist/psychologist who told me that they were going to give me some crystals to hold and they'd help cure me...

And I would be very skeptical if my therapist/psychologist told me they were going to pray with me to help cure me.

And say belief in God. I never ever ever ridicule or knock that -- a) it's way too personal, and b) it just leads to circular arguments, and c) there is research that shows -- the belief in God -- has and can help people

I profess nothing about His (Her?) existence ...just that ... believing that they are going to be helped and that someone is watching over them, can helps heal (maybe there is a God/maybe is a self-fulfilling helpfulness)

I'm 100% with Jocknerd. If you think believing in God can help people and is therefore okay, how is believing in crystals or energy work or anything else any different?

 

[Ollie123]

I'm 100% with Jocknerd. If you think believing in God can help people and is therefore okay, how is believing in crystals or energy work or anything else any different?

Because of the pervasive belief that how true something is has to be strongly correlates with how many people believe in it

That's not intended to pick on anyone here, though I really do think a LOT of people are heavily swayed by the number of believers something has, regardless of whether those people have any rationale whatsoever for their beliefs..

My real reason for posting is that readers of this thread may also be interested in the following thread on naturopathic medicine going on in the pre-med forum. Not exactly parallel to this discussion, but similar enough to be of interest.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=466632

 

[PsyDr]

there is a big difference between belief and science.

when a professional decides to let his/her beliefs trump science while treating a patient, then he/she is no longer acting in a professional role. Rather he/she is acting in a personal role to achieve some form of support from their patients. this is exploitative.


in regards to one's personal beliefs affecting one's work: i believe that one can have many flaws and still be an adequate professional. there are many professionals out there with substance abuse problems (see the front page of SDN), marital difficulties, odd beliefs, etc. who are able to practice adequately. i would contend that when individuals allow these personal issues to affect their work, they are impaired. APA and AMA ethical guidelines and state law state that working in our professions while impaired is a no no.

personally, ,i could not care less if my physician /psychologist/podiatrist/dentist believes he is cleansed by crystals, does not believe in dinosaurs, or whatever. however, the second he/she offers this instead of empirically validated treatments i am out the door. if he/she offered this without stating it is experimental, then i am reporting him/her to the board.

i would also submit that while all individuals have found help in unusual places, this is simply an n=1, and not generalizable to anyone else. large n's are what science is based upon.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

in regards to one's personal beliefs affecting one's work: i believe that one can have many flaws and still be an adequate professional. there are many professionals out there with substance abuse problems (see the front page of SDN), marital difficulties, odd beliefs, etc. who are able to practice adequately.

I don't believe that "odd beliefs" are flaws. They're just that, odd beliefs.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

when a professional decides to let his/her beliefs trump science while treating a patient, then he/she is no longer acting in a professional role. Rather he/she is acting in a personal role.....

Agreed.

I take issue with quite a few 'fringe' things out there in psych, things like EMDR, some of the more eccentric 'hypnosis*' techniques, etc. The research disappears on the edges, but people still practice......that is what the profession needs to watch out for, as people will cite that stuff and try and disqualify the more supported and scientific work.

*I believe some hypnosis can be worthwhile, though there are many hacks out there that 'guide/lead' and that is just irresponsible.

 

[scienceisbeauty]

RD: I didn't mean to be mean to you about your belief in crystals and the like -- I was rereading my posts, and perhaps I came off that way.

And actually, what irritates me about the people who believe in psychics, are those people who use psychic foretellings to make major life decisions, or trust their fate to that yet-to-be verified scientifically stuff. This belief could have severe negative implications....believing in crystals wouldn't at all have this negative effect (not so far as I can see) and might (people who have pointed out) too even help.

I would still think a therapist skilled if they believed in crystals (maybe not talking plants) as long as they didn't impose their belief in crystals on my therapy. If they did it for themselves, I think that'd be okay with me.

But yeah, mainly I was upset about belief in psi to the pt of using it as absolute truth...

 

[RayneeDeigh]

RD: I didn't mean to be mean to you about your belief in crystals and the like -- I was rereading my posts, and perhaps I came off that way.

I didn't think you were mean about it, that's not how I was taking it don't worry.

Plus, people have the right to believe stuff is crap just as much as I have the right to believe it isn't. That doesn't bother me.

All in all I've found this thread to be really interesting. It's given me something to think about during my otherwise boring weekend, haha.

 

[scienceisbeauty]

So I was thinking about it...and ya know people are asking how is belief in crystals different than belief in God?
In a way, they aren't and in a way, they are.

I'm not even saying that God is real / not real/ I believe / I don't believe...that's not...what I want to get into.

But see, with crystals (I'm not saying they are real/not real) - they are more easily scientifically tested ...I think?
There is no operational definition of God per say. But crystals can (I think?) be more easily operationally defined.

So then we good take a crystal and rock. Tell people they do X (heal, help, whatever) and see if there is a difference.

But with God...there are just so many of them that people subscribe to that... what can you say? And even with one God there are different conceptions of what he/she/it is.... so it'd be harder...

Anyway....again, no critic of anything.....just thinking

 

[Cosmo75]

Agreed.

I take issue with quite a few 'fringe' things out there in psych, things like EMDR, some of the more eccentric 'hypnosis*' techniques, etc. The research disappears on the edges, but people still practice......that is what the profession needs to watch out for, as people will cite that stuff and try and disqualify the more supported and scientific work.

*I believe some hypnosis can be worthwhile, though there are many hacks out there that 'guide/lead' and that is just irresponsible.

I agree with you about the hypnosis. I'm trained in medical hypnosis and have seen it work. But this area of psych can get way *out there*.

Speaking of out there, has anyone seen that movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?"

 

[WannaBeDrMe]

yes, re; what the bleep...

same prof that had us read memory of water had us watch that film as a class...

the dancing cells or neurons or whatever are really the only parts I remember...

 

[scienceisbeauty]

I agree with you about the hypnosis. I'm trained in medical hypnosis and have seen it work. But this area of psych can get way *out there*.

Speaking of out there, has anyone seen that movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?"

*Barf* That movie was the most bull thing anyone has ever produced. One of our profs made us watch it. When we told the dept chair, he went on about all the flaws and the MANY mistakes in the movie. Did you know some of the "PhD" people in the movie got their doctorate via correspondance or via internet degree. Also a M.D. on there got his M.D. from online.
This is fully true , as the prof who told us interviewed the movie director ...or something to that effect.

 

[erg923]

I would highly recommend reading:
Dawes, R.M. (1994). House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth. New York: The Free Press.

This is great book that was mandatory reading in our program. Really helps a new graduate student think critically about what state this part of our science is in, and what we are really doing with clients. Alot of us expected our professor to challenge alot of it. However, we spent most of our time actually praising it. I found no "untruths" in it at all, although the implications of what it uncovers and discusses is debatable depending on your views. It's a great read for new grad students.

 

[BellaPsyD]

i believe in fairies

 

[zoezaga21]

I listen politely and then casually hand them Bateson's "Steps to an Ecology of Mind."