posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| 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.
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
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?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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"?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| 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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
