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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for that, Geoff, I do have the idea for The Ultimate Game (TM), but I'm not telling you what it is! Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.'
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, where was your evidentiary basis that the only reason the valedictorian got attention because of the "poor little persecuted Christian angle"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ..?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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!"]![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
