The discussion about porn addiction in the Video Game Politics thread (don't ask) has got me wondering ... how can a psychologist or a social scientist divorce idealogy from the study of human behavior?
Sure, there is a large amount of descriptive work that can be done without injecting any values into the system. But eventually, it seems, someone usually ends up having to make a call about which feelings and behaviors are desirable, normal, or healthy in a human being, and which are not.
How can such determinations be made without being overly dependent on the personal values of the researcher, or the broader values of his society?
Guilt, for example, is an unpleasant experience that most people would prefer to avoid. When a person suffers from irrational or inappropriate guilt, it can cause unnecessary pain that can worsen severely with time. But guilt also serves a valuable function in regulating human behavior relative to other humans, and keeping our society going. When guilt is warranted, it is essential.
So how does a psychologist determine when to treat guilt as a pathology, when the appropriateness of the guilt depends on the acceptability of the behavior that causes the guilt, which is an inherently value-based judgment?
(Heck, even my assertion, above, that guilt is ever essential is a value-based judgment )
Similarly, when does any sexual behavior cross over into the realm of addiction, pathology, obsession, compulsion, etc? Rather than being something harmless that people just like to do a lot? Much of that determination seems to stem from value-based decisions about which behaviors and experiences are desirable in a human, and which are not.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Fascinating. <warning, long floe of blather ahead only tangentially related to the question of the thread>
Just this morning I was starting Robert Millet's book "Alive in Christ" where he related counselling a young LDS woman who felt no guilt about engaging repeatedly in sexual activities. For weeks he worked with her (as a social counsellor, not as an ecclesiastical leader), each week trying to get her to feel guilt for what she'd done, and each week being unsuccessful. Finally, after three months, during a session the girl broke down and started sobbing. Then she progressed and returned to activity in the church.
So this brought some interesting feelings to me. He wasn't acting in a specifically religious setting, even though the girl had been referred to him by a Bishop. If the girl didn't feel there was something wrong with her sexual promiscuity, was his behavior ethical? Was he forcing a value system on her? Or was he trying to help her rediscover a value system that she'd lost? How and when should a counsellor allow their values to affect their counsel?
There is a related (albeit fictional) theme in "Good Will Hunting." Again, Will has a strong value system. It's not a value system that his counsellor (or the state, who has required Will to go to counselling) feels is appropriate. Does Will "discover" a new value system through the counselling, one that is more amenable to the counsellor and the state, or does he have a new value system foisted upon him?
To use another fictional work, there are the heroes of "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest." In this case the inmates resist the value system of the mental hospital. They reject the value system that is being foisted on them. Were they right? Or were they stupidly ignoring something that could have brought happiness and societal acceptance? Same theme in "Serenity." It seems to lie at the heart of, especially American, social consciousness. On the one hand there is the need for independance and individuality; on the other there is a need for common values and civility. The two needs are nearly always oppositional.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:he two needs are nearly always oppositional
I strongly disagree with this statement. It is a matter of degree, not of complete opposition.
Too much individuality and your life begins to sound like The Fountainhead. Not enough and you end up with nothing for yourself.
Too much of even a good thing is bad.
A lot of what psychologists do is determine the amount of harm that the patients behaviors and beliefs do, either to the patient themselves or to others around them. If a behavior is harmful or unhealthy then they try to change the patients behavior.
In the end it is up to the patient to believe in the new belief system and make changes in their behavior, which is why psychology is a soft science rather than a hard one. Cause and effect is still present, to be sure, but so much of it IS subjective that it is hard to quantify.
Also, a lot of this depends on which branch of psychology you are talking about. Clinical psychology is much more quantifiable than a lot of other disciplines.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: A lot of what psychologists do is determine the amount of harm that the patients behaviors and beliefs do, either to the patient themselves or to others around them. If a behavior is harmful or unhealthy then they try to change the patients behavior.
Yes, but in the spirit of Puppy's inquiry, what system does the psychologist use to define harm?
I don't have anything to contribute, I'm just watching this thread with interest.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, one rule of thumb I'm aware of that some psychologists use has to do with whether a specific behavior impedes an individual's ability to function in society.
When homosexuality was classified as a disease, it was widely thought that homosexuality was inherently linked to all manners of other psychological disorders like compulsive promiscuity, infantilism, depression, suicide, etc. When some psychologist began to demonstrate that homosexuality itself was not inherently associated with those negatives, in part by showing that many homosexual who were able to come out of the closet or had otherwised developed healthy ways of dealing with societal disapproval of homosexuality itself were free of these negatives, homosexuality was eventually de-classified as a disease or disorder.
Now, many "pro-cure" groups spin that ocurrance as evidence that some political pressure got the disease de-classified as such but it's still a disease, but very few legitimate psychologists agree with that spin.
Edited to fix an unclear sentence.
[ June 21, 2006, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: So this brought some interesting feelings to me. He wasn't acting in a specifically religious setting, even though the girl had been referred to him by a Bishop. If the girl didn't feel there was something wrong with her sexual promiscuity, was his behavior ethical? Was he forcing a value system on her? Or was he trying to help her rediscover a value system that she'd lost? How and when should a counsellor allow their values to affect their counsel?
My opinion on this is that it's up to a counsellor to help his patients (clients? subjects?) reconcile their behavior with their own beliefs and/or goals - to help them find happiness as best they can. In the case of the girl, did she believe in the church, but was acting inappropriately, or did she not believe in the church but was dogged about it until she caved in? If the former, I think the counsellor had an obligation to help her try to modify her behavior to fit her chosen society. If the latter, I'm not sure it's a problem that she didn't feel specifically guilty, depending exactly on to what degree her "promiscuity" was compulsive or otherwise unhealthy.
I'm not a psychologist, of course, but I don't think one needs to be one to give advice or to try to impart the understanding one has gained in life. One of the first things I do when I meet someone who is struggling with their homosexuality, and I find out that they have been brought up with a strong religious bias against it, is to advise them to work on their religious beliefs first. I don't think someone who accepts their homosexuality but truly believes it's wrong and they are going to hell for it is any better off than someone who struggles against it all their lives in order to fit in with their church. I'll also advise them to try to understand their own desires and goals and determine where/how their sexuality falls into their life. I have no problem even advising them to pray about their sexual desires. There are plenty of Christian gays who feel that God is OK with their orientation. The point is, the individual has to decide what their value system is for themselves. The duty of a counsellor (liscensed or otherwise) is to help people discover these things and help them to live up to them once they discover them. YMMV.
That said, I also have no problem with a counsellor ending a relationship with a client once it has been determined that the client has chosen a value system incompatible with the counsellors own, if he/she feels it would be against their own sense of ethics to continue.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: When some psychologist began to demonstrate that homosexuality itself was not inherently associated with those negatives, in part by showing that many homosexual who were able to come out of the closet or had otherwised developed healthy ways of dealing with societal disapproval of homosexuality itself, homosexuality was eventually de-classified as a disease or disorder.
Forgive my familial pride, but I'll note that my uncle, Dr. Jon Fryer, was instrumental in this change. The link is to his obituary from the British Medical Journal.
The story was covered in 81 Words, a 2002 segment from NPR's This American Life. Fascinating history.
----
Edited to add: And I'll second KarlEd regarding the general process of psychological counselling.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:he two needs are nearly always oppositional
I strongly disagree with this statement. It is a matter of degree, not of complete opposition.
Too much individuality and your life begins to sound like The Fountainhead. Not enough and you end up with nothing for yourself.
This is exactly what I meant by the two being in opposition. I think there's a continuum of behaviors with Collectivists on one end and Anarchists on the other. Choosing your operating point on that continuum is based off some value system. Is the point of psychological counselling to help an individual discover their own value system, or is it to get them to adopt the value system of the consellor, or both, or something else entirely? Should counsellors seek to change people?
I guess maybe what gets to the heart of my quandry is what makes a value system "mine"? Can I adopt my value system whole-sale from someone else? If so, has it become "mine"? And, if my value system changes, it's because I've been somehow convinced that my previous set of values were in some sense wrong or bad. What forms can that "convincing" take, ethically? Logical discourse? Emotional pleas? Threats?
<edit>I started before Karl and CT stated their opinions about the role of counsellors. I'm still not entirely convinced, though. Choice is a tricky thing; abused spouses often "choose" to stay in their relationships. Does a counsellor have a responsibility to respect and reinforce that value system? Or, could they say "I know that underneath all the hurt and pain is someone who wants out of this relationship. I'll help them 'discover' that value?" I don't know; it seems very relativistic to me, somehow.</edit>
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The line between disease and non-disease seems to be essentially subjective to the collective judgement of scientists. The only thing really defining it seems to be what scientists think ought to be treated, vs. what they think shouldn't be.
And that's not true just for psychological issues. There are thousands of sorts of bacteria that exist in your body at any given moment, many of which have effects on something or another. Which of these are diseases needing treatment, and which of these are not? If a certain bacteria gives you gas after eating on one particular day, is that a disease? If you have an isolated headache one afternoon for no apparent reason, does that require treatment? Doctors and scientists often treat these questions as if they are scientific, but ultimately they are questions of value judgement calls, not science. It is a disease if we think it is bad enough. If we don't think it is, we don't call it a disease.
Regardless of what homosexuality was thought to be inherently linked to, I think the decision to exclude homosexuality from the list of diseases is mostly related to political changes. Our values changed so that things that once seemed to require treatment were no longer deemed to need "curing". And if it doesn't need curing, it is not really a disease.
I think some scientists are often a little hostile to this sort of thinking, because it makes scientific issues into subjective, value-based matters. But the question of whether or not something SHOULD be treated is necessarily a value-based question - that is why the "should" is in there. Science needs to allow its findings to be interpreted in that way in order to be useful, so it can show us what SHOULD be done, rather than simply what we predict will happen if we do something. It doesn't damage the legitimacy of the original science behind the more subjective conclusions, so long as that original science was done according to proper scientific method. Science can't tell people what is a disease and what is not; that must be interpreted based on our values. But the need for human judgement in order to make that classification does not negate the objectivity of the scientific evidence being used to support that judgemetn.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote: My opinion on this is that it's up to a counsellor to help his patients (clients? subjects?) reconcile their behavior with their own beliefs and/or goals - to help them find happiness as best they can. In the case of the girl, did she believe in the church, but was acting inappropriately, or did she not believe in the church but was dogged about it until she caved in? If the former, I think the counsellor had an obligation to help her try to modify her behavior to fit her chosen society. If the latter, I'm not sure it's a problem that she didn't feel specifically guilty, depending exactly on to what degree her "promiscuity" was compulsive or otherwise unhealthy.
Well, I was typing out this long rambly response, but I'm glad I refreshed before I posted -- Karl said it much better than I was managing to. The only thing I'd add is that if the girl was referred by an LDS bishop, the counselor may have been working for LDS Social Services, with the understanding that he was helping clients work out issues within the framework of LDS beliefs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But eventually, it seems, someone usually ends up having to make a call about which feelings and behaviors are desirable, normal, or healthy in a human being, and which are not.
You are begging the question here. Why do you think this is true? In what areas do you think that people are making these value judgements?
Much of modern psychology is built off of a data-driven style of assessment. That is, something isn't considered healthy or unheathy based on some a priori value judgement, but rather on the effects that thing seems to have on a person. This does carry a certain amount of judgement in that there is a normative model of human behavior that the person affected by something is compared against.
To take the most popular example of this, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until the early 70s. At the time, psychological health was largely determined by how well someone fit the theories, primarily psycho-analytic (i.e. Freudian, sort of). However, there was both internal pressure by psychologists trying to move towards data-driven methods of assessment and external pressure by gay rights groups that brought things to a head. In this high profile clash of competing ways of defining what was unhealthy, the prevailing question was "Why do we say that this behavior is unhealthy?"
Extensive combing of the literature and ongoing research led to the realization that there didn't seem to be evidence of an impairment in psychological or social functioning that was intrinsically associated with homosexuality. The answer as to why homosexuality was unhealthy turned out to be because we assume that homosexuality is unhealthy. Since then, there has been a great deal of effort put into finding ways in which an intrinsic quality of homosexuality impairs people's functioning, but these efforts have had little success.
So, in good conscience, psychologists can't consider homosexuality per se as unhealthy.
The smae is true for other questions of unhealthiness. If you can answer the "Why do we consider this unhealthy?" not with "Because we do.", but rather with a how it takes people away from the normative model of functioning and negatiely impacts them, then you may have grounds for saying it is unhealthy. Otherwise, you don't.
What is healthy, in a superlative sense, is a different matter of course.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't really like the choice of the abused spouse because I think it is pretty clear that "choosing" to be beaten, etc, is a psychological negative, so I'd answer "Of course the counsellor should try to help her see the value in ending the relationship if it cannot be improved." It's pretty clear that, unlike homosexuality, devotion to an abusive relationship has inherent negatives. If those negatives were removed, the relationship would cease to be abusive. (Whereas, I can be as non-promiscuous as I want and I'll still be gay.)
However, I do see your point. I think the part of the counsellor's job is to know what is a psychological disorder and what is not, and guide the individual accordingly.
If you'd care to give a different example, I might come up with a better answer. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
BTW, good post, Tres.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The smae is true for other questions of unhealthiness. If you can answer the "Why do we consider this unhealthy?" not with "Because we do.", but rather with a how it takes people away from the normative model of functioning and negatiely impacts them, then you may have grounds for saying it is unhealthy. Otherwise, you don't.
If you want to phrase it this way, then Puppy's question can simply be recast as "how can a psychologist or a social scientist divorce idealogy from the identification of the normative model and definition of negative impacts?"
Both "normative" and "negative" require definition that cannot be merely data-driven.
I don't think that's a problem unless one doesn't acknowledge it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Good point, Dag, but I'll respond that I don't necessarily think that ideology has to be divorced from what is "normative" and "negative". I have no problem with a Catholic (or LDS) counsellor, for instance, helping members of their respective groups to live happily within those ideologies. However, I think the fact that a given counsellor has a specific ideological framework within which he/she is committed to operate should be fully and proactively disclosed to all prospective clients.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, and I admitted that a normative judgement, even on based on data derived from the population at large contains a degree of value judgement.
However, the level of judgement here is pretty similar to the judgement required in defining what is medically normal in a physical sense. Geoff's assumption was at a much higher level than this.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I agree, to a certain extent Karl, but there are definitely limits to this as well. The is room for leeway, but there are still lines that you can't cross.
A good eample, keeping with the gay theme, is the ex-gay movement. In their attempts to get their clients to conform to a certain value system, they've crossed far over their ethical lines. Some groups methods are basically torture dressed up as therapy. And none of them have been able to claim much of a success rate. Their "therapy" generally leaves their patients worse off.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:If you'd care to give a different example, I might come up with a better answer.
Not that I think your answer needs betterin', but...
What about transhumanism? Say someone "wants" to change into a catman? Or amputate a leg? Should a counsellor work with the individual to overcome those feelings, or not? Not to make it a litany of "Yeah, well, what about THIS?" I'm just wondering to what extent the normative model is in any sense objective or even useful. Should people's individualities be encouraged or suppressed? The answer seems to be it depends on how harmful the individuality is to the individual and society. But adjudicating that requires some value system. Whose value system should be used? In practice, I'm sure it's a little of both. But even that is a value judgement. I don't know; part of me thinks, "whatever, it works so go with it and don't analyze" but another part of me wants to understand what the underlying principles are, if any.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
There is also the fact that most of the "therapists" in ex-gay movements are not liscensed to provide therapy in any setting. Those cases are a bit fringe to my arguement because I'm assuming counsellors who have been liscensed if in a clinical setting, or counsellors in a religious setting who have been properly educated about their limits in counselling situations (but that's probably a whole different arguement).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Good point, Dag, but I'll respond that I don't necessarily think that ideology has to be divorced from what is "normative" and "negative".
Well, neither do I: "I don't think that's a problem unless one doesn't acknowledge it."
quote:Geoff's assumption was at a much higher level than this.
I don't think it was:
quote:But eventually, it seems, someone usually ends up having to make a call about which feelings and behaviors are desirable, normal, or healthy in a human being, and which are not.
vs.
quote:The smae is true for other questions of unhealthiness. If you can answer the "Why do we consider this unhealthy?" not with "Because we do.", but rather with a how it takes people away from the normative model of functioning and negatiely impacts them, then you may have grounds for saying it is unhealthy. Otherwise, you don't.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Karl, I agree. I was just trying to give a demonstration of a group that goes far over the lines in pursuit of their ideology, which would necessarily be an extreme. There are plenty of responsible, somewhat ideologically oriented therapists for Christianity, Marxism, and freaky-hippies too.
Dag, Those are two different things. Geoff was talking about judging behaviors on their face and I'm talking about judging the effects of behavior. There's a huge difference between saying "We judge homosexuality to be right or wrong." and "Homosexuality does/doesn't impair with people's funcitoning in these ways."
edit: Besides the level the judgement takes place at (one on the specific behavior and the other on comparison to a wider model referenced and backed up by many, many other things), there's the difference of saying something is right or wrong and acknowledging that the right or wrongness of something is beyond your scope and that you can only make a judgement on if it appears unhealthy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Those are two different things. Geoff was talking about judging behaviors on their face and I'm talking about judging the effects of behavior. There's a huge difference between saying "We judge homosexuality to be right or wrong." and "Homosexuality does/doesn't impair with people's funcitoning in these ways."
I don't see that. For example, heterosexuality impairs a person's sexual function with respect to same sex partners (and vice-versa). It's a trivial change to fit this new paradigm. The only reason the paradigm shift effected the outcome was because it was coupled with an implicit redefinition of impairing function.
Besides, is guilt considered a behavior? Even if it is, Puppy's biggest example focused on the effects of guilt in a way that can easily be classified as impairment of functioning.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Further, the difference between what Puppy says in his final sentence about experience and your description is your more "precise" definition of desirable as "not impairing function":
quote:Similarly, when does any sexual behavior cross over into the realm of addiction, pathology, obsession, compulsion, etc? Rather than being something harmless that people just like to do a lot? Much of that determination seems to stem from value-based decisions about which behaviors and experiences are desirable in a human, and which are not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...no, because sexual function with regards to specific partner type is a neutral. If you want to assert otherwise, you'd need to give a reason why.
When I'm talking about a normative model, I'm not talking about any normative model that you can come up with. You're just restating the exact sort of thinking that I spent a post explaining why and how we moved away from.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Just this morning I was starting Robert Millet's book "Alive in Christ" where he related counselling a young LDS woman who felt no guilt about engaging repeatedly in sexual activities. For weeks he worked with her (as a social counsellor, not as an ecclesiastical leader), each week trying to get her to feel guilt for what she'd done, and each week being unsuccessful. Finally, after three months, during a session the girl broke down and started sobbing. Then she progressed and returned to activity in the church.
Must say that this story is appalling. I feel like I very much want to give that "counselor" a smack.
Even in religious settings (what used to be called "confession" for example) I have never had a priest who was counselling me try to make me feel guilty. I think it would be counter-productive (along with pissing me off). I think that would be even more true if a secular counselor tried that tack.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When I'm talking about a normative model, I'm not talking about any normative model that you can come up with.
Is the "you" specific to me or general? Either way, it's not an answer.
quote:You're just restating the exact sort of thinking that I spent a post explaining why and how we moved away from.
Well, no, not really. Your explanation gives no criteria for establishing that normative model except "impairment of function" or "the effects that thing seems to have on a person."
Again, you've simply shifted it a level back.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Yes, you are restating this thinking. Basically, you're saying "But what if you're normative model is that homosexuality is wrong?"
I already dealt with that. Why is homosexuality wrong? And here we go to the data. Do homosexuals show any deficits if you don't assume that homosexuality is itself a deficit? If they do, you may have a case.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:our explanation gives no criteria for establishing that normative model except "impairment of function" or "the effects that thing seems to have on a person."
Here ya go. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Squick-
Who gets to determine what are "deficits" in the normative model? Aren't the things included inherently values driven? I mean, let's say being homosexual decreases your capability for having children biologically (at least naturally). Is that a deficit? Why or why not? Isn't something a deficit if we (as a society) or I (as an individual) value it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I already dealt with that.
No, you didn't. All you dealt with was saying there was a huge difference in the "level" between the introduction of values as Puppy phrased it and the introduction of values as you phrased it.
quote:I already dealt with that. Why is homosexuality wrong? And here we go to the data. Do homosexuals show any deficits if you don't assume that homosexuality is itself a deficit? If they do, you may have a case.
Even then, you have to decide if what the data shows is an impairment. For one, homosexuality certainly impairs the ability and chances to produce children. Is this an impairment?
Saying no is as much a value judgment as saying yes.
(Note: I don't think homosexuality is a psychological disorder. I'm trying to pin down why rewording the value judgment to "impairment of function" means that individual values aren't affecting treatment and study.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:our explanation gives no criteria for establishing that normative model except "impairment of function" or "the effects that thing seems to have on a person."
I'll note that previous versions of that book had homosexuality listed.
The question isn't "what is the normative model." It's "what are the criteria used to establish that model."
And if you say that what's listed in the DSM-IV is the criteria, then I'll simply ask and how were those criteria selected.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
kmb-
Guilt, in this sense, is more a recognition that the behavior you're engaging in is self-destructive. Furthermore, I think that Uprooted is probably right and Millet was working for LDS social services, so the relationship was not as secular as if she had just chosen to start going to a counsellor.
But, I'm interested, wouldn't a Catholic (you are Catholic, right?) Priest try to convince you of the gravity of your sin during a confession if you were treating it flippantly? Isn't that an attempt to make you feel guilty?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: I mean, let's say being homosexual decreases your capability for having children biologically (at least naturally).
Do you have a reason why having children naturally is non-neutral, psychologically speaking, such that it would intrinsically significantly interfere with other forms of functioning? Furthermore, can you show how having children naturually would be possible for this population, anyway, as we've no way of making them straight? You may as well say that barreness is a psychological disorder under that logic.
Look, I'm not making this up. This is the clear, stated logic behind the change both in the homosexuality diagnosis and in the move from the DSM-II to the DSM-III.
Most of you don't really know anything about this, which is fine, but understand that I do. If you don't trust me, go read up on the shift.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, You're not listening to a thing I say other than to find a way to attack it. I can't make you listen. If you want to know the rationale behind the change in the DSM, go read a book on it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not that we don't recognize the shift. It's that even after the shift serious and extensive value judgments are in play. Even if the "level" of these judgments is lower than previously, it doesn't change the fact that they are still very high.
And failure to acknowledge that - and to acknowledge that a set of serious value judgments has been societally delegated to one particular profession - is both misleading and potentially destructive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, You're not listening to a thing I say other than to find a way to attack it.
Wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you want to know the rationale behind the change in the DSM, go read a book on it.
You see, I haven't questioned the rationale behind the change. Not at all. I've simply questioned the assertion that somehow significant value judgments are not still used in developing that rationale.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But, I'm interested, wouldn't a Catholic (you are Catholic, right?) Priest try to convince you of the gravity of your sin during a confession if you were treating it flippantly? Isn't that an attempt to make you feel guilty?
Guilt is a pretty damaging motivational tool. Even if you do change a person's behavior using guilt, generally what you've accomplished is to get them to repress it, which usually means that it's going to pop up in other forms and other bad elements are going to crop up. Feeling bad about what you have done, by itself, seldom leads to effective behavioral change.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Do you have a reason why having children naturally is non-neutral, psychologically speaking, such that it would intrinsically significantly interfere with other forms of functioning?
I'm not sure what that means. Since I don't really know anything about this, and you do, could you couch it in phraseology that I would understand?
I'd parse it like this: intrinsically- inherently, without outside influence significantly- above a threshold on some metric. What metric and what threshold seem to me to, of necessity, be value driven. other forms of functioning- can you give an example of what these are? Does it mean other aspects of your life that you might value, or that someone might find valuable, or what? Like, say, other forms of functioning would be my interaction with other people? Which could be inhibited because they (by-in-large) have the experience of being a natural parent and I don't? Not that I'm asserting that, I'm just trying to clarify.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I've simply questioned the assertion that somehow significant value judgments are not still used in developing that rationale.
And I haven't denied that.
Seriously, you have personal problems with me and you are not listening. If you are actually interested in this, as opposed to it just being a way to take jabs at me, I suggest looking for another source of information.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Feeling bad about what you have done, by itself, seldom leads to effective behavioral change.
Wow. I'd say it's a necessary pre-condition for any behavioral change. If you don't feel bad about doing something, why stop doing it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Senoj, To take it on a simplistic level, consider a comparion to the "average" person. Would not having your own biological children make you less mentally stable than the average person?
Taking a population of people who don't have their own biological children, would this population differ in a statistically significant way on measures of mental, psychological, and inter-personal fitness from that of the average population?
This is by no means complete and is highly simplified, but maybe it's a productive way to explain it.
---
You may have missed a "by itself" in there. It is common to try to get people to change by just making them feel bad about what they have done, but this seldom leads to good results.
Edit: For a fictional treatment of the problems with guilt versus a more complete way of dealing with things, I'd recommend Speaker for the Dead.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Even then, you have to decide if what the data shows is an impairment. For one, homosexuality certainly impairs the ability and chances to produce children. Is this an impairment?
Technology will one day render this point moot. Already there is research into making artificial sperm. (I read an article about it several years ago. When the reporter suggested to the researcher that lesbians could use her invention to have kids, she (the researcher) flipped.)
Although the odds of having a "happy accident" will still be 0.
Pix
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:To take it on a simplistic level, consider a comparion to the "average" person. Would not having your own biological children make you less mentally stable than the average person?
I'm not sure what you mean by mentally stable. How is mental stability quantified? What are the metrics? If I'm sad is that a decrease in mental stability? What about if I'm angry? Emotionally numb? Furthermore, is it sufficient to just be less mentally stable or does something need to lead to significantly less mental stability? And how do you quantify how much decrease is "significant"?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tests for statistic significance are purely mathematical. That's the way we determine if the means of one population can be said to differ from that of another population with a certain degree of confidence.
Again, speaking simplistically and pruning out a whole lot, consider tests of mental stability ways of gauging how competently they are able to deal with situations. Generally, you'd look at common situations, especially if we're trying to determine psychopathology, but you could use a range of situations as well.
Another metric would be to look at the incidence rates of other established psychopathologies, especially if you can demonstrate a causal relationship.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
MrSquicky, I don't think Dag's responses have much to do with wanting to take jabs at you, I think he's just honestly disagreeing, dude. It's kinda the same problem as when people think Dag is just being "legalistic" when he disagrees, or Tresopax is cynically playing devil's advocate all the time; why isn't it possible that Dag read and understood and still honestly disagrees for reasons that have nothing to do with his personal opinion of you? I imagine he'd respond to anyone who wrote what you did pretty similarly to how he responded to you.
[ June 21, 2006, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Karl Ed has it pretty well covered regarding how psychology is generally supposed to work.
I'd like to make a few minor corrections and comments regarding things that have been said or implied in other spots.
1) If you really want to get a practicing psychologist angry assert that they are "making value judgments." This is a real hot button issue folks, and I dare say that the definition of terms is going to become REALLY important if you want to be understood and not just be classified as someone who has bought into a particular brand of criticism people think scores points against the "secular" treatment of mental disorders.
I'll amplify a bit. People in the "helping professions" (counselors, psychologists, social workers, clergy acting in a counseling role) are trained and take great pains to avoid imposing their value systems upon a therapeutic session. Now, before you assert things like "well, that's impossible, they're human!" and so forth, allow me to explain that this is a trained behavior on their part and one that they succeed in to greater or lesser extent depending on their own personality, the issues being addressed, and, yes, their own values.
It is generally accepted that therapy is for the patient's benefit and that their needs come first. For most therapists, but not all, that translates into a requirement to engage the person on their own terms, to explore areas that the patient identifies as THE PROBLEM and work within the framework that the patient understands, and can make progress in.
At the very least, this means hiding ones value judgements, but it can mean even sublimating them for the good of the patient. At least for a portion of the time that one might work with an individual.
It is a real deal, something people work and strive to achieve, and so I caution against bald assertions of it's impossibility.
I'm just sayin' -- it's a point of professional pride for many of the people in this field or taking on the role of therapist or counselor -- even many of those who come at it from a religious background (such as clergy called upon to counsel troubled parishioners).
2) Therapists ARE human. The good ones know their limitations. Some just will not work with sex offenders, for example, because they cannot sufficiently "remove" themselves from the interaction. Some will not work with people who have certain types of disorders for similar reasons. Bottom line, one hopes, is that the therapist knows their limitations -- where they cannot be truly effective or helpful to a patient -- and they make a referral or beg off.
We all carry baggage in our lives. If my sister was killed by a drunk driver, it might spur me to work in a field where I could help people kick the alcohol problem forever, or it might mean that I have such a hatred for such people that I could never be good for them as a therapist because I'd be projecting my anger onto the patient.
It all revolves extensively on the therapists self-awareness, honesty, and even their courage. Most programs I know of require people entering these professions to undergo therapy themselves. And it can be quite grueling and extensive.
3) Subjectivity is another sore point. To be frank, comments about whether something should be treated is a value-based judgement really begs the core issue, which is what does the patient think or believe? Most therapists are going to explore the areas of a person's life that the PERSON thinks is causing problems. If they blame their failures on some aspect of their personality, for example, the therapist is going to help them come to terms with that in some way.
The real criterion that needs to be applied is does it work?
If patients coming in expressing feelings of depression are helped by a combination of talking therapies, behavior modification, and drug treatments, will society take that away, or eliminate one or more components because some aspects of it are subjective?
The disease model of mental processes comes out of the medical tradition. It's not the only model. It works well for some things, and not as well for others.
And as we understand more how the brain and mind interact (or even what they are...) we get better at both diagnosing problems and at treating them.
That much is fact.
... ...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: kmb-
Guilt, in this sense, is more a recognition that the behavior you're engaging in is self-destructive. Furthermore, I think that Uprooted is probably right and Millet was working for LDS social services, so the relationship was not as secular as if she had just chosen to start going to a counsellor.
But, I'm interested, wouldn't a Catholic (you are Catholic, right?) Priest try to convince you of the gravity of your sin during a confession if you were treating it flippantly? Isn't that an attempt to make you feel guilty?
This has not been my experience. Of course, I am unlikely to confess "flippantly" and I am extraordinarily fortunate to have access to truly wonderful priests. As a matter of fact, I have been so "spoiled" that I can't imagine tolerating counseling from a less than wonderful priest.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:But, I'm interested, wouldn't a Catholic (you are Catholic, right?) Priest try to convince you of the gravity of your sin during a confession if you were treating it flippantly? Isn't that an attempt to make you feel guilty?
Guilt is a pretty damaging motivational tool. Even if you do change a person's behavior using guilt, generally what you've accomplished is to get them to repress it, which usually means that it's going to pop up in other forms and other bad elements are going to crop up. Feeling bad about what you have done, by itself, seldom leads to effective behavioral change.
I think it's a bit of a leap to say that the counsellor in the original post was "using guilt as a motivational tool". It's entirely possible that over the three months he was simply able to show to her how her actions were impairing her ability to achieve her own chosen goals. Perhaps the three months were spent getting her to assess herself in those terms, and when she realized how far off her own mark she was, she broke down and cried. Sure that was probably largely because of feelings of guilt, but in this scenario I'd say it was natural guilt and not imposed guilt used to browbeat her back onto the path.
Now I'm not saying the darker scenario isn't possible. I just don't think there's any indication from the quote that is was anything as likely as the scenario I give above.
I've been through counselling with a therapist connected with LDS social services. I was never made to feel guilty about having transgressed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To be frank, comments about whether something should be treated is a value-based judgement really begs the core issue, which is what does the patient think or believe?
Aren't a patient's beliefs about what should be treated shaped (possibly in a large part) by the norms of the psychological profession? For example, prior to publicity about SAD, a lot of people "just got blue in winter." Now it's something that's treated.
So even though individual treatment happens as you describe to deal with what the patient wants dealt with, don't the judgments of the profession actually effect what that is?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Most of you don't really know anything about this, which is fine, but understand that I do. If you don't trust me, go read up on the shift.
Squick, do you realize that when you say things like this, you come across looking as though you are insulted to be discussing this issue with people who are clearly your inferiors? Is that the impression you are trying to give?
The other day, my colleagues and I were discussing a feature of my game that wasn't working as well as we'd hoped, and needed to change. We had almost settled on a certain solution when the most junior member of the team, who had almost no experience, started to look a little doubtful. We stopped short of finalizing our decision, and asked him what he was thinking. He brought up some concerns, made some arguments for different solutions, most of which were not remotely workable. BUT, in dealing with his concerns, and discussing them with him, we ended up, together, finding a solution that was much better than the one we were about to run with twenty minutes earlier. Despite his inexperience, the concerns he raised were perfectly valid, and discussing the issue with him led to much better solutions than we would have found if he hadn't spoken up.
Perhaps if you thought of the rest of us in the same way — as people who, despite our lack of knowledge, are still worth discussing these issues with for the additional insights that the discussion might generate, perhaps we all could gain a lot more from this process.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:To be frank, comments about whether something should be treated is a value-based judgement really begs the core issue, which is what does the patient think or believe?
Aren't a patient's beliefs about what should be treated shaped (possibly in a large part) by the norms of the psychological profession? For example, prior to publicity about SAD, a lot of people "just got blue in winter." Now it's something that's treated.
So even though individual treatment happens as you describe to deal with what the patient wants dealt with, don't the judgments of the profession actually effect what that is?
Well...in the same sense that publicizing any new understanding will encourage people to change their viewpoint, sure. Before van Leeuwenhoek the germ theory of disease was considered improbable and unprovable -- people believed in bodily humors. Suddenly we had a microscope with which to look at the little animalcules and voila -- some of them are disease agents. And, by the way, we coincidentally invented the "germ phobe."
(just didn't call it that because someone had to invent the term "phobia"...
It's still down to the interaction of the patient and therapist in the details though. A person who comes in saying they are run down and can't seem to get motivated... the therapist is going to start asking questions about time cooped up indoors, exposure to light, etc. But they are also going to listen carefully and see if there aren't other factors present.
The terminology is helpful, of course, as helpful as anything where you can put a label on the problem and thus not waste time looking at it de novo in every single patient.
But there's still this patient, this diagnosis, the differences between what a patient is describing and the "reference symptoms" are often just as important as pegging the person into one or more known classifications.
But, I don't want to over-claim here. A patient may well come in and assert "I've got Seasonal Affective Disorder and I want Prozac." Does that mean this patient is different from the one 50 years ago who might've suffered through every winter wanting to kill herself and her family?
Sure...this one knew enough to come in, and is living in a time where there are possible treatments.
I don't think that's the same as value judgements by therapists -- at least not the way I have understood that phrase to be applied as a criticism of the therapeutic process.
edit: But your point about "norms of the profession" seems valid to me. An educated populace treats things differently from those who are ignorant of the terminology.
If there exists a standard terminology, people will use it, and terminology comes laden with its own expectations in terms of adequacy of the descriptions and categories.
What happens after the patient comes in is important though. Unlikely though it is, it's possible that the person complaining of SAD really has a brain tumor. A good therapist isn't going to just take the patient's word for the self-assigned label.
I did know one therapist who would treat her savvy clientele differently from everyone else. She'd just ask things like "do you think you might have Attention Deficit Disorder?" I kind of appreciated her approach, really. Cut to the chase and discuss the possibilities based on y/n answers to a set of diagnostic criteria.
Sometimes she missed, but it was effective most of the time as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sure...this one knew enough to come in, and is living in a time where there are possible treatments. I don't think that's the same as value judgments by therapists -- at least not the way I have understood that phrase to be applied as a criticism of the therapeutic process.
I have absolutely not meant any criticism of the profession when I state that value judgments are involved. I think they are necessary, and the more they can be left to the patient, the better.
Edit: and I believe that most therapists operate as you described (or very near to how you described) on the preceding page - the value judgments I'm speaking of are applied to more general situations, not specific patients.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I totally agree.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Yay! Agreement!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think we've made some real progress here today.
But...our time is up. See you next week.
Don't forget your co-pay.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh, I forgot to mention one of my favorite things that I heard of a therapist requiring of patients. That they get a complete physical before starting with her. Basically, her point was that a lot of depression and some other mental problems can be triggered or exacerbated by poor physical health. If a person isn't exercising, has been dieting too strenuously, has become diabetic, etc., there are mental correlates of those physical changes. And, it's much better to work to improve those things at the same time as the mental picture.
Actually, now that I think of it, she'd see people once, and make them have a physical before the 2nd visit.
Something like that anyway.
I'm a little fuzzy on the details.
But I remember it being a pretty logical way to progress.
I'm not sure whether everyone does that sort of thing, or at least does a physical health inventory before proceeding very far with a counseling session, but I suspect that most probably do something along those lines.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Squick, do you realize that when you say things like this, you come across looking as though you are insulted to be discussing this issue with people who are clearly your inferiors?
I don't believe I do. The only way I think that makes me look like I think I'm superior to people here is in my knowledge of psychology, which I do believe is hundreds of times that of the average person on this thread. I have no problem explaining how psychologists do things, but I don't really care to argue with people with a vague impression of the field who are saying I don't know what I'm talking about.
I think your video game analogy is pretty flawed. See, the avoidance of purely value-based judgements has been a primary focus of psychological assessment for around 30 years. Let me propose a different analogy. You're working on a game for 30 years. One of the elements of the game your making a main focus is the physics system. As part of this, you've got Stephen Hawking consulting. Then someone with a 8th grade education comes to you with complaints about how your physics model is unrealistic.
You started out with some questions:
quote:Similarly, when does any sexual behavior cross over into the realm of addiction, pathology, obsession, compulsion, etc? Rather than being something harmless that people just like to do a lot? Much of that determination seems to stem from value-based decisions about which behaviors and experiences are desirable in a human, and which are not.
However, in the thread you first posted that, some 15 or so posts above it, we had already discussed specifically a proposed way of diagnosing addiction, based not on the behavior the person engages in, but rather the way they engage in it. To wit:
quote: * Recurrent failure to resist impulses to engage in a specified behavior. * Increasing sense of tension immediately prior to initiating the behavior. * Pleasure or relief at the time of engaging in the behavior. * At least five of the following: o Frequent preoccupation with the behavior or with activity that is preparatory to the behavior. o Frequent engaging in the behavior to a greater extent or over a longer period than intended. o Repeated efforts to reduce, control, or stop the behavior. o A great deal of time spent in activities necessary for the behavior, engaging in the behavior, or recovering from its effects. o Frequent engaging in the behavior when expected to fulfill occupational, academic, domestic or social obligations. o Important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of the behavior. o Continuation of the behavior despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent social, financial, psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by the behavior. o Tolerance: need to increase the intensity or frequency of the behavior in order to achieve the desired effect, or diminished effect with continued behavior of the same intensity. o Restlessness or irritability if unable to engage in the behavior. * Some symptoms of the disturbance have persisted for at least one month, or have occurred repeatedly over a longer period of time.
Similarly, although somewhat later in that thread than your questions, I've given the definition of repression, which I have posted on previous threads, at least once specifically in response to you. I'll repost it here:
quote:Repression, in the sense I'm using it, isn't about end behavior at all. You can't point to a behavior and say "this is repression". Rather, it's the way in which that behavior is motivated and carried out. Repression is a way of doing things that relies on strong, irrational negative emotion, generally fear, to prevent people from doing things.
I can do the same thing for obessive-compulsiveness too.
From my perspective, I'm posting things like, "Here's how addiction is based, not off of the specific behavior, but rather how one approaches that behavior." and pretty soon afterwards, you're posting "See, psychologists have to judge things like addiction based on whether they think a specific behavior is right or wrong."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
One thing that I've touched on, but haven't fully expanded that may help explain things is the analog to medical judgement.
As I've said, judgement of psychopathogy is pretty analogous to medical pathology (although in many cases it is somewhat fuzzier and less precise). Labeling something as a medical pathology relies on value judgements too. Why do we consider cancer a bad thing? Follow that down and eventually you are making value judgements, many of which are pretty much the same as underlie psychopathological labeling.
As part of this, I throw out something that I also haven't really addressed, the limited nature of what is considered psychopathology. For example, biting your nails doesn't show up as a disorder in the DSM. Nor does rudeness. These things may be considered in some ways bad, but they don't meet the requirements to be labeled psychopathological. A therapist will, however, at your request, try to help you stop doing them. Also, if you are in treatment for a wider problem in which these things may figure, handling them may also become part of your treatment.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And there's a whole heck of value judgements in that list of what qualifies as an addiction.
For example, "Recurrent failure to resist impulses to engage in a specified behavior." is bad.
"Frequent engaging in the behavior to a greater extent or over a longer period than intended." also kinda bad.
"fulfill[ing] occupational, academic, domestic or social obligations" is good.
"Continuation of the behavior despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent social, financial, psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by the behavior." is bad.
A rest state in which you are not restless or irritable is good.
This is the level of value judgements (well, actually, many of these judgements are actually developed from lower level value judgements, but you get the point).
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I don't believe I do. The only way I think that makes me look like I think I'm superior to people here is in my knowledge of psychology, which I do believe is hundreds of times that of the average person on this thread. I have no problem explaining how psychologists do things, but I don't really care to argue with people with a vague impression of the field who are saying I don't know what I'm talking about.
If anyone in this thread or the thread that preceded it has accused Squicky of not knowing what he is talking about, please raise your hand.
[crickets chirp]
quote:I think your video game analogy is pretty flawed. See, the avoidance of purely value-based judgements has been a primary focus of psychological assessment for around 30 years. Let me propose a different analogy. You're working on a game for 30 years. One of the elements of the game your making a main focus is the physics system. As part of this, you've got Stephen Hawking consulting. Then someone with a 8th grade education comes to you with complaints about how your physics model is unrealistic.
A couple of quick clarifications to the analogy:
1. Working on a single game for 30 years is analogous to working with a single client as a psychologist for 30 years. It might be more analogous to simply refer to a problem that the game industry has spent decades addressing. Such as save/load systems.
2. In the analogy you created, would it be fair to say that you are equivalent to Stephen Hawking (or one of his close colleagues), and I am a person with an eighth-grade education? Can you see why you come across as feeling superior to everyone else? [Has memories of the episode of The Simpsons in which we see into Ralph Wiggum's mind, in which he is a conjurer with "a million hit points and maximum charisma!"]
In any case, I can tell you that I have this experience a lot. A surprising number of people tell me, upon hearing what I do for a living, that they've got an idea for "the ultimate game!" (Which is almost always totally unworkable or unsellable.) Others will rant about things that games do wrong, being totally unaware of many of the factors that play into the problem.
This happens to everyone, in every profession. Still, I don't feel the need to say, "I'm a professional in the game inudstry, and this is how it is. You should have at least studied the issue more before you tried to discuss it with me." If they're missing information, then I try to fill them in where I can, and discuss the issue with them on their terms.
I think it's good that you brought up Stephen Hawking. Imagine that I have a chance to sit down with Stephen Hawking, and ask him this question:
"Much of the work you do as a theoretical physicist will not or cannot be verifed through experimentation, at least any time soon. How do you address that inherent uncertainty in your work?"
Do you think that this would be his response:
"I've been working in this field for decades, I know a thousand times more than you on this subject, and can tell you that the kind of uncertainty you're talking about isn't a problem for us anymore. We know what we're talking about, and here is a list of a hundred theoretical physicists who agree with me. You should have done your homework before asking me that question."
Would he say that, and would you consider that a satisfactory answer? Or do you think that Stephen Hawking, who spends much of his life trying to elucidate his work for non-professionals, might treat the question as a valid concern and treat the questioner as an equal in his response?
And even if his position was that theoretical physics does not have a serious problem with lack of experimentation and uncertainty, do you think he would be offended and become defensive if the questioner was not immediately convinced, and continued to pursue the question, even after his first answer?
From the little I know of the man, I suspect that he would not.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
By the way, I am in the middle of a crunch, which is sapping a lot fo my attention, and I did accidentally skim by your description of addiction in the previous thread.
Still, I'm not sure how that description does not describe the feelings many people have (at least anecdotally) about internet porn ... Are there particular points on that list that you feel do not fit with porn addiction?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, of course I'm not Stephen Hawking in my analogy. I'm one of the game developers. You, however, are the person with the 8th grade education. Tell me, how much do you actually know about psychology, and specifically about how psychopathological assessment is done?
Geoff, I don't have a problem with people asking me questions about how stuff I'm an expert in work. You may notice, I've been doing that in this thread and in the other one.
Some things I do have a problem with:
Giving an explanation of how people in my field do something and then having someone a few posts later who doesn't seem to know much about my field says "Here's how people in that field do things." while presenting something that directly contradicts what I just laid out. (edit: To be honest, I also have a problem with someone describing how we do things in my field when they don't really know anything about my field, even when it doesn't directly contradict something I just said.)
Having someone make claims that I know are false based on the research and then show that experts disagree with, and having them brush it off by saying "Well, I don't know their methodology and am not got to make any effort to find out, so I'm not going to let that impact my opinion."
Having someone say "I really would like to see a study that does X." but then completely ignore when I present to them a way to find studies that do X.
Having the same conversation of the form that they make assertions and I counter with valid, peer-reviewed research with the same person, where that person doesn't even acknowledge the previous conversation that they are repeating.
---
From the research I know, pornography is not addictive in a wide scale. This is especially true in the case of non-sexually explicit nudity, such as we were talking about. If you want to make the claim that it is and to build a whole argument around this claim, I think you should give more support than "It seems that way to me."
Experts from the APA, AMA, and AAP have spent years studying the effects of violence on children and find it something to be pretty concerned about. If you are going to disagree, I believe you should do so from an informed opinion and not "Well, I not ever going to read any of the research they've done, so I can just ignore what they say."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Just for that, Geoff, I do have the idea for The Ultimate Game (TM), but I'm not telling you what it is! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, this is not to pick on spelling.
In the Civil procedure bar lectures (9 hours over three days), I think I heard "Judgment has only one 'e'" about 60 times.
So now all the "judgements" are almost glowing on my screen.
Is there a study to be done in changes to perception based on repetition of instruction?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It may ease your mind to know that the OED lists both spellings.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Blindly ignoring most of the posts here...
I don't think it's anything new that the definition of a disease involves some judgements about what's bad for humans. That's just as true in the case of physiological disorders like the common cold as it is in psychiatric medicine. A cold is a disease partly because it harms me. This rests on the no duh assumption that pain and discomfort are bad. Natural E. coli in my stomach is not a disease because it helps me go on living.
So this isn't really a special problem for psych. Nor is it really a problem at all. It's just a feature of how we ought to define a disease.
(Interestingly, I tutored a student working in the philosophy of medicine who was trying to come up with a value-independent definition of a disease. He ended up with something like 'a physiological condition that lessens evolutionary fitness.' It was a good paper, but not very persuasive in my opinion.)
quote:In the Civil procedure bar lectures (9 hours over three days), I think I heard "Judgment has only one 'e'" about 60 times.
Those holier-than-thou bastards! As any modern dictionary will inform them, they're just wrong.
And 'judgement' is, in my opinion, a much better-looking word on the page than 'judgment.'
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Ah, I see that Tresopax already made most of my point. My bad for skipping over stuff.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It may ease your mind to know that the OED lists both spellings.
The power of the OED pales in comparison to the power of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners.
At least to me, for the next month. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:If you are going to disagree, I believe you should do so from an informed opinion and not "Well, I not ever going to read any of the research they've done, so I can just ignore what they say."
Is that what I said I intended to do? Did I deny that violent media can have an effect on people's dispositions toward violence? As I recall, the point I was trying to make was simply that violent and sexual imagery are not equivalent. That's it. We can quibble about which is worse, what their effects are, and what should be done about it all day, and that's when the studies you cited will be relevant and important to the discussion. In the end, though, studies that say "violence is a problem; we're concerned about it" doesn't immediately go to "violence is at least as important to restrict in media aimed at children as sex is". That is a prescriptive determination that is rooted in one or more value judgments, and is outside the scope of the studies you cited (as they themselves state).
I let myself get sidetracked, and I questioned those studies' methodologies, not because I wanted to dismiss them out of hand without reading them, but because I WANTED TO READ THEM. I wanted to understand them before incorporating them into understanding of the media. The post in which you quoted them gave me the impression that you thought I should make an about-face after reading that consensus statement, and my reaction was, "No, I don't yet know what they prove and why. The consensus statement isn't enough; I need more."
Also, if I recall, when I said that I wanted to see a study that compared violent media to older forms of violent play, your response was, "More than one of these studies exist." Oh. Okay, cool. Where are they? What did they conclude? Do they support my suspicions or refute them? I don't see how you can claim that I'm willfully blinding myself to studies you provide when you don't provide any studies.
I'm sorry if some of our past animosities (most of which you seem to remember much better than I do) have made it harder for us to communicate effectively without getting defensive, but this is how I saw our discussion.
But anyway, it seems that what initially bugged you about my statements was the fact that to counter twink's implication that violence and sex should be treated the same in ratings systems, rather than citing studies, I made my shark analogy. It looks like it seemed to you that I thought people should be making public policy based on stuff I made up off the top of my head, rather than basing in on scientific research.
The truth is, I've been aware of studies on both sides of the issue. I know there are studies that indicate an increase in "violent behavior", though I have never found a way to get close enough to them to see how they define and categorize the behavior. I've also been aware of studies cited by the other side in the debate, such as the Asheron's Call study I referred to. It seemed to me that by choosing a boring, but violent game, the Asheron's Call study inadvertently revealed a possible factor in why the studies diverge from one another. Studies that use exciting, well-designed violent games may have a noticeable effect because of factors outside the actual quantitative violent content.
My shark analogy was a means of explaining my thoughts, but it wasn't intended as a sole justification for my opinion on the matter. I do take studies seriously, I don't search for excuses to dismiss them, and I suspect that your belief that I do so is based more on frustration with past conversations, which has led to a willingness to believe the worst about me, than it is on any actual practice of mine. (Note that as the discussion became more heated, one of the first things you did was refer to "past conversations" in which I "did the same thing" — conversations that I do not remember, and in which I have trouble imagining myself saying the things that you claim I have said.)
And I think that my defensive reaction to some of your statements is based on the fact that I am annoyed by people who needlessly adopt a position of superiority in a discussion that could be handled in an egalitarian way, which you appear to do with less provocation than most.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Okay, Squick, going back to your original post after writing mine, I want to address the early part (while my last post focused mostly on your final paragraph).
quote:Some things I do have a problem with:
Giving an explanation of how people in my field do something and then having someone a few posts later who doesn't seem to know much about my field says "Here's how people in that field do things." while presenting something that directly contradicts what I just laid out. (edit: To be honest, I also have a problem with someone describing how we do things in my field when they don't really know anything about my field, even when it doesn't directly contradict something I just said.)
If you're referring to the events in this thread, you'll be relieved to note that I am not the culprit here I merely asked a question at the beginning, whose main point you have conceded is valid, though you disputed my specific examples.
quote:Having someone make claims that I know are false based on the research and then show that experts disagree with, and having them brush it off by saying "Well, I don't know their methodology and am not got to make any effort to find out, so I'm not going to let that impact my opinion."
As I stated in my last post, you are misunderstanding or mischaracterizing my intent.
quote:Having someone say "I really would like to see a study that does X." but then completely ignore when I present to them a way to find studies that do X.
As I stated, I missed where you gave me a way to find those specific studies.
quote:Having the same conversation of the form that they make assertions and I counter with valid, peer-reviewed research with the same person, where that person doesn't even acknowledge the previous conversation that they are repeating.
I can't acknowledge things I don't remember. I know I've had impassioned discussions about violence in media in the past, and my views have shifted over time as I've examined more evidence. I do acknowledge that it is possible I've annoyed you before by disagreeing with you in the face of evidence you have provided. But I don't remember the specific instance, and given that the second instance you cited involved me claiming that religious people were the only people in the world that cared about marriage, I have cause to doubt the accuracy of your memory (since that has never been my position in any argument).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you're referring to the events in this thread, you'll be relieved to note that I am not the culprit here
There was no "culprit" who did that in this thread here at all, and Squick has conveniently proved this for us on this very page:
quote:And there's a whole heck of value judgements in that list of what qualifies as an addiction.
For example, "Recurrent failure to resist impulses to engage in a specified behavior." is bad.
"Frequent engaging in the behavior to a greater extent or over a longer period than intended." also kinda bad.
"fulfill[ing] occupational, academic, domestic or social obligations" is good.
"Continuation of the behavior despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent social, financial, psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by the behavior." is bad.
A rest state in which you are not restless or irritable is good.
This is the level of value judgements (well, actually, many of these judgements are actually developed from lower level value judgements, but you get the point).
Emphasis mine.
For all his insistence that this is really, really different, the point is that there are a heck of a lot of value judgments in the relating conditions to the norms of behavior, which is the ONLY point of similarity I was making.
Maybe we should add "being told one isn't understanding something by a poster, only for that poster to post a perfect example of one's original statement on the subject the next day" to Squick's list.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, You started a thread talking about how psychologists do things, which, besides not being true was also directly contradicted by something I posted just a little bit before you.
If you didn't read my description, you still described a field I don't think you' knowmuch about using a perjorative and false prejudice.
You made claims about 1) the addictive nature of pornography and 2) the reaction of children to violent media and non-violent but stimulating media that are not born up by the literature or by the experts on these subjects.
I've provided you with a whole list of references that the experts used to make these determinations. As to the specific study you said you'd like to see, Sterling asked for where he could find that and I told him. You may have missed that, but it's in the other thread.
---
As an aside, here's what I was referring to before (and I did misquote you somewhat, for which I appologize):
quote:There ARE still subcultures in America that take marriage seriously for the purposes I've described — treating it as an honorable adult responsibility geared towards raising healthy and civilized families. The problem (for you) is the fact that most of these subcultures have managed to hold onto these values because it was a part of their faith. Where members of other subcultures might be more promiscuous, or might break up their marriages with less provocation, these people AREN'T and DON'T, and society benefits because of it.
and
quote:So the problem with the gay marriage issue is, it basically repudiates some of the only subcultures left in America that still value marriage and family the way I've described.
Of course, as had come out in previous thread and as came out it that thread, the research shows that religious people of the types you were talking about are actually more likely to get divorced than non-religious people. I don't believe you had any more evidendiary basis for that false claim than you do for the false claims you're making here about psychology or the effect of violence in media.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Squick, where was your evidentiary basis that the only reason the valedictorian got attention because of the "poor little persecuted Christian angle"?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As I stated, I missed where you gave me a way to find those specific studies.
Here you go again.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick, I don't know what opening post you read, but mine was a question, not an assertion about the way psychologists do things. My only assumption was that any study of human behavior that is intended to lead to diagnoses of problems and prescriptions of solutions will, by necessity, involve some subjective value judgments.
I tried to give specific examples to illustrate my point, which you disputed. Fine, obviously, pretty much anything I assert on this subject will be insufficient for you. But the main thrust of my question was perfectly respectable and did not assert anything beyond the existence of value judgments, which you acknowledge in the post that Dagonee just quoted.
quote:You made claims about 1) the addictive nature of pornography and 2) the reaction of children to violent media and non-violent but stimulating media that are not born up by the literature or by the experts on these subjects.
As I pointed out in my last post, I did have a reason to suspect #2 based on studies that I had seen up to that point. And you'll notice that throughout this discussion, I have filled my language with the words "think" and "suspect" to avoid giving the impression that I was making a well-founded claim. You have accused me of speaking "authoritatively" in situations where I was pretty sure I was speaking "tentatively", and you have yet to support this accusation.
quote:Of course, as had come out in previous thread and as came out it that thread, the research shows that religious people of the types you were talking about are actually more likely to get divorced than non-religious people. I don't believe you had any more evidendiary basis for that false claim than you do for the false claims you're making here about psychology or the effect of violence in media.
I have been led to understand that statistics showed that the divorce rate among Mormons has lagged behind the rest of the country over the past half-century, and has only recently caught up. Was I misled?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But eventually, it seems, someone usually ends up having to make a call about which feelings and behaviors are desirable, normal, or healthy in a human being, and which are not.
quote:Much of that determination seems to stem from value-based decisions about which behaviors and experiences are desirable in a human, and which are not.
These are questions?
edit:
I was reading you as saying that psychologists make value decisions on the level of "Homosexuality is wrong/not wrong." as opposed to "Being able to get out of bed in the morning is better than not being able to get out of bed." or "Committing suicide is worse than not committing suicide." I could be wrong, in which case, I proffer a strong apology.
To me, the first judgement would be relevant to ideology, while the second type would not and is on the same level as saying "Dying of cancer is worse than not dying of cancer." If you were using ideology to refer to this second type of decision, I think that would be where I misread you.
[ June 22, 2006, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
In your edit, I think you've caught onto what I was trying to say. Sorry it was unclear. No, I was definitely NOT trying to refer to broad statements of what lifestyles are right or wrong. I didn't even anticipate homosexuality coming up in this thread until someone else mentioned it.
What I had in mind was things like:
"Being completely dependent on others for X is bad."
"N degree of inconvenience or distress is within the normal range for a human to function in society, which 'function' is defined as A, B, and C (where someone might dispute the relative importance of A, B, and C relative to D, E, and F.)"
"The ability to do Y without remorse indicates a problematic lack of empathy for the feelings of people distressed by Y" versus "Experiencing distress as a result of Y is a non-essential reaction that the person doing Y should not be concerned with."
"In a conflict of interest between two people, in which any solution results in one person making a sacrifice, sacrifice A is preferable to sacrifice B."
Or whatever. You might have problems with these, too, I don't know. Certainly, the ones you cited were the most obvious possible cases
My question is important because although most examples we could give seem obvious, there are value judgments on the edge of obviousness that could be different in different societies, and I want to understand why our assumptions are the way they are, and why some might change.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Most of what I was taught (yes, I was studying psychology at the time) about basic diagnosis was that value judgments, while invariably present, were to be avoided when possible.
We used the mean of behaviors to determine what was and wasn't "normal", with the realization of normal being highly subjective.
The further something deviated from "normal" behavior the more it needed to be looked at closely. Just because something was out of the norm didn't mean it was harmful.
As I stated before, a lot depends on which branch of psychology you are talking about. By it's very nature applied psychology is far more subjective in nature than clinical psychology.
One of the things I found fascinating about psychology was how close parts of it were to sociology, and how the two fields interacted. Cultural bias is clearly accounted for in modern psychology AND sociology. Cultural values affect most of human behavior, and THAT is what has always interested me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Are we talking primarily about psycho-pathology or are we discussing the much wider field of heathier/un-healthier behavior? That's a very important distinction.
As I've come back to many times, one of the main measures of the heathiness of something is how it affects someone's functioning. There are many methods used to partially assess functioning, some of which I've already mentioned.
One of the primary ones is a comparision against the general population and performance on common tasks.
Another is analysis of already established pathologies co-incident with the thing up for analysis. This works best when you can demonstrate a causal relationship between the two.
A third is clearness of thinking. Many psychological disorders encourage distorted thinking and perception. If someone exhibits these distortions in association with something, it's a pretty clear sign that their approach to it could be healthier.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
What kinds of distortions do you mean? Can you give specific examples?
I heard a rumor once, for instance, that someone developed a psychological test which classified all Mormons as schizoprenic because they believed they communicated with God Obviously, that's an extreme case, but I'm curious if the distortions you're talking about ever cross paths with religious beliefs ..?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Puppy, I’ve heard the argument that since the standard test asks about communication with God it’s biased against religion. I don’t think it’s so. Every candidate for ordination in the United Methodist Church takes the MMPI test. (The most commonly used psychological assesment tool.) It contains a question about whether you believe God has communicated with you. Every clergyperson I know answered that question in the affirmative, and none of us were considered “unstable” in our results.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That's what I was trying to get at MrSquicky.
There are many ways to determine what is and is not normal. Then there are other ways to determine if the specific behavior is abnormal enough to warrant concern.
Most of that is where the subjectiveness can become a problem, which is why psychologists are trained to make those sorts of judgments as impartially as possible, with all sorts of definitions and limitations.
I am not fully aware of HOW diagnosis are made, as I never became a psychologist myself, but I have a better-than-average view of the profession.
A lot of psychology is arbitrary at times, or it can seem to be, which is why it is a soft science rather than a hard one. However, you can't equate ALL fields of psychology with applied psychology, because most of them are FAR more scientific in methodology.
Applied psychology is messier, and more arbitrary, but that is because there are no control groups, no preset boundaries. Also, if a patient doesn't WANT help there really is very little the psychologists can do other than offer to help anyway.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Obviously, that's an extreme case, but I'm curious if the distortions you're talking about ever cross paths with religious beliefs ..?
At that point it would be a matter of degree again.
If a religious person claims to talk to God, that's fine. If God is telling him to kill his son, it is not. Nor should it be, because that is not an acceptable norm these days.
If he thinks he is Jesus, he probably can't function in normal society....therefore it is causing him harm.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I would just like to point out that not all psychology is classified as "soft science." My field of experimental psych is about as scientific and empirically based as it comes.
And yet, we do deal with mental phenomena.
I'd like to point out that what you all are dealing with in this discussion is personality and emotion and their outward expression: behavior. And, to be fair, you are also talking about the least understood portions of personality and emotion -- that covered by "abnormal psychology" and its expression in behavior.
My degree (which is taught in psychology programs the world over) has to do with mental phenomena like learning and memory (and to a much lesser extent, emotion).
I just wanted to clarify that since psychology is a very broad field. If an organism has at least one neuron, there's a psychologist somewhere who has studied how its "mind" works.
I think it's importatn to realize that so the the impression of psychology or the social sciences is not colored by popular ideas of counseling or therapy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
A lot of the distortions are classic, as in going back to Freud. So I'm talking about things like consistent Freudian slips, faults in memory, detrimental selective attention/ignoring (the person either pays much more attention to something than anything else or pays no attention or even doesn't acknowledge the existence of something), irrational obessions, etc. There's tons of them.
There are also what are called projective tests that are set up to reveal perceptual and conceptual biases and hang-ups that can demonstrate that someone's perceptions are far removed from actual reality.
---
Regarding "talking to God", it's possible that such diagnoses where made prior to the DSM-III revisions, but that's not true anymore.
For one thing, the DSM is set up in what's known as a multi-axial approach with five axes (I took these from wikipedia): * Axis I: major mental disorders, developmental disorders and learning disabilities * Axis II: underlying pervasive or personality conditions, as well as mental retardation * Axis III: any nonpsychiatric medical condition ("somatic") * Axis IV: social functioning and impact of symptoms * Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning (on a scale from 100 to 0)
If you don't demonstrate impairment in axis IV and V, you can't really be properly diagnosed with a disorder.
Second, I don't know of any disorder in the DSM in which one symptom is sufficient for diagnosis. It relies on clusters of symptoms. For example, look at the DSM-derived suggested definition of addiction.
The thing is "Client believes he talks to God." is a recognized part of some of the clusters for a diagnosis for schizophrenia. That's because it's a very common thing with some types of schizophrenia. However, it has to present itself along with a bunch of other symptoms (which, I can assure you, most LDS do not exhibit) before it would form part of a diagnosis for schizophrenia.
edit: I should also point out that as far as I know, no one just believes they are Jesus or Napolean or whoever. Mental illness doesn't work that way, except in fiction. There are always other symptoms which accompany these delusions.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
As a side note, how common is it for someone to actually believe that they are a figure from history, like Napoleon? That seems like it would have to be vanishingly rare.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: As a side note, how common is it for someone to actually believe that they are a figure from history, like Napoleon? That seems like it would have to be vanishingly rare.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: edit: I should also point out that as far as I know, no one just believes they are Jesus or Napolean or whoever. Mental illness doesn't work that way, except in fiction. There are always other symptoms which accompany these delusions.
Puppy, you may be interested in eMedicine's article on delusional disorder* and Wikipedia on Jerusalem syndrome. These are the two things that first come to my mind for the situation you describe.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: For example, look at the DSM-derived suggested definition of addiction.
Just checking -- you are referring to diagnostic criteria for "addiction" (not in the DSM) derived from the criteria for "substance abuse" and/or "substance dependence" (which are in the DSM), yes? (I'm just trying to keep up to date. )
------
*edited to add for clarification: Delusional disorder only covers non-bizarre delusions, and believing one is, say, Napolean would be a "bizarre" one. But the article has a good differentiating table for delusional problems, and I thought you might find something referenced in the text or bibliography.
As for belief that one is, say, Jesus, I've always been fascinated by "Jerusalem syndrome," although the definition is not quite clear. There is also some serious controversy over whether that sort of delusion is isolated or imposed on underlying mental health issues.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
CT, You got it right about the addiction thing. I presented it in the other thread. It's not part of the DSM, but it's derived from the substance dependence criteria that is.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)