Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

Ticket to Heaven Daily Dose

<< < (12/20) > >>

Hrvatski Noahid:
However, psychoanalysis was soon disputed by behaviorists like Ivan Pavlov and Alexander Luria, who were concerned primarily with brain activity and the resulting behaviors that were driven by them. The incompatibilities between these schools of thought, as well as some of the existing problems within psychology in the early twentieth century, catalyzed the development of third force psychology or positive psychology, an attempt by luminaries like Abraham Maslow, Erik and Joan Erikson, and Carl Rogers to reform and humanize the field by focusing on human well-being instead of traumas or reflexes.

As the twentieth century progressed and computing technology was invented, scientists and researchers began drawing many connections between the brain and their new machines. Both processed and stored information; both could make decisions, albeit the computers required instruction; both used electricity to function. In addition to many exciting research opportunities, this also created many metaphysical problems for psychologists and philosophers, as some began wondering if computers could become conscious. This catalyzed new questions in psychology, largely intertwined with philosophy and metaphysics, which sought to understand the causes and functions of human consciousness, develop an understanding of the human self, and determine the nature of human decision-making.

Despite the many genuine contributions it has made to the West’s understanding of the human condition and its improvement, the subjective nature of psychology’s research methodologies have not only laid the groundwork for endless amounts of fraud, but allowed for the corruption and misuse of otherwise-useful discoveries.

Psychoanalysis, for example, is rooted in and focused on the role of trauma in human life, a historical reality that has cascaded into the use of trauma, a clinical term, for things that do not fit the definition. Much of Western life, at least in North America, is focused on the discovery and healing of trauma or the alleviation of negative feelings – for example, it is estimated that almost thirty percent of Americans saw a therapist during the pandemic and that about one in ten Americans engage with a mental health professional within any given year. Unbeknownst to many laypeople, however, the psychological literature on trauma indicates that most people grow from traumatic events and become stronger.

This detail seems to have escaped notice from general social discourse, where traumas are used as justification for reparations and apologies, and rarely if ever framed as growth opportunities. Aside from questions of justice, which are entirely salient, the general trend began by Freud and Breuer following their collaboration with O. is a dangerous and subtle usurpation of human autonomy and robs unsuspecting laypeople of growth opportunities. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 66-67)

Hrvatski Noahid:
Whereas the psychoanalysts favored introspective methods and subject interviews, the behaviorists discarded those techniques and focused strictly on observable material outcomes of brain activity. Although this is generally not known, Pavlov and many other behaviorists were skilled surgeons, and often obtained their discoveries by way of subtle or drastic alterations to the bodies of their animal subjects. Their discovery that much of the mind’s activity could be attributed to the brain’s functioning very quickly led to what is known as the “mind-body problem”, a central dispute within psychology which, taken alone, disqualifies it from being a paradigmatic science.

Essentially, people in the behaviorist camp believed that there is nothing in the universe aside from matter, and that what people experienced as the “mind” was largely irrelevant to the study of human behavior. This is known as monism, or the belief that the universe only has one kind of stuff. Their opponents, which include almost all religious people, believe in dualism, which holds that “mind” is something separate from matter and should be studied and treated differently. This issue has never been resolved in psychology and many researchers have stepped past it, adopting elements of both depending on their context and focus.

The development of third force psychology, in some respects, can be seen as a successful attempt to correct for some of the worst excesses of the problems of earlier schools and a movement away from a trauma focus. In a 1968 memorandum to the Salk Institute of Biological Studies, Abraham Maslow shared his experience with psychological problems that were impossible to resolve within the values-free domain of traditional scientific inquiry. He expressed a level of frustration and disappointment that psychology was predominantly focused on the sick and unwell, rather than on the thriving and fulfilled. This memorandum, and the work of people like Maslow, Rogers, and the Eriksons, gave birth to what is now the positive psychology movement and a focus on becoming one’s best self.

However, there is a problem here – what is the self? Much like the mind-body problem, which led some psychologists to logically conclude that there is no such thing as mind in the universe, the self is a nebulous concept in psychology, with several definitions competing for dominance in the field. Even more problematically, neuroscientists engaging with Buddhist ideas have put forth the idea that there is no such thing as a “self”, citing resonances between Buddhist no-self doctrine and some discoveries in their domain. This is another problem that has been largely stepped over, with many therapeutic workers implicitly assuming that there must be a self – otherwise, their work to improve others would make no sense.

The advent of possibly-conscious computers created many difficult questions for psychologists and philosophers. In some respects, the machines served as a mirror with which humanity could examine its own consciousness – and largely come away with no real answers. Indeed, psychologists do not know how we are conscious, why we are conscious, what consciousness is for, or even how to define consciousness and differentiate between “conscious” and “unconscious” brain activity. Put simply, anything to do with consciousness is wrapped up in complicated philosophy, and some of the brightest minds consider at least one of the problems unsolvable. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 67-68)

Hrvatski Noahid:
The final conceptual problem of psychology is the deepest and lies with the inappropriate fusion of methods used to obtain information by psychological researchers. Historically and currently, psychology has been a mixture of introspective methods and observational methods yielding two different kinds of data. However, these subjective and objective findings will remain incompatible unless a brain-scanning device is invented which can confirm, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the self-report of a subject or patient is indeed reflective of the activity going on in their brain or “mind”. Without that, the discoveries from these two types of inquiry will remain, at some level, disjointed, meaning that even if the mind-body problem, the self problem, the consciousness problems, and the issues identified by Abraham Maslow are solved, psychology will never have a hope of being a truly objective science.

Given psychology’s competing and contradictory schools of thought, combined with its history of barbaric practices and “failures to replicate” famous findings, it is probably unsurprising that psychology is a field rife with all kinds of fraud, from individual research fraud to extensive institutional deception on important matters.

One area of reasonable suspicion includes the close relationship between pharmaceutical companies, hungry for lifetime customers, and the psychological industry. Concerns have been raised, for example, over the fact that ADHD-like “disorders” have been skyrocketing in young boys over the past couple of decades, demonstrably because of psychology-aware teachers who notice “symptoms” in their classroom like fidgeting, excessive talking, and impulsivity.

While folkloric common sense would hold that these behaviors are quite common in young boys full of energy, the helping professions, concerned with academic compliance and good behavior, push these boys into lifetime subscription to Ritalin or Adderall. Only in recent years have the actual experts in child psychology concluded that ADHD is over-diagnosed, and that these children’s “symptoms” are being treated unnecessarily with pharmaceuticals. Because the demographics most affected by the medicalization of childhood are predominantly lower-class and without the kinds of influence needed to question or challenge these diagnoses, some Afrocentric thinkers now assert that special education systems, with their plans and their pills, are destroying black American children for systemic efficiency. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 68-69)

Hrvatski Noahid:
In terms of outright research fraud, some of psychology’s biggest names have been incriminated in outlandish schemes, sometimes only after decades of successfully perpetrating their lies. Philip Zimbardo’s famous Stanford Prison Experiment, which seemed to suggest that human beings were naturally prone to mistreating each other, has been found to be the result of undisclosed manipulations that created the famous outcomes. The Implicit Association Test, which purports to measure levels of subconscious bias towards people of different demographics, does not meet any of the standard definitions for diagnostic reliability in psychology, and even one of its founders has retracted the bold claims made about the test. Even the popular and seemingly intuitive concept of power poses, taught to young people everywhere as a confidence hack, becomes a placebo when the data is rigorously analyzed and replicated.

Perhaps the most unfortunate kinds of deception within psychology are the lies perpetrated over decades by governing bodies, which make claims about human nature that are then cascaded down into law and therapeutic practice. If a psychological lie makes its way into a professional relationship, it can have catastrophic outcomes for patients and clients, and may even be dangerous, as neither the client nor practitioner will be aware of the deception perpetrated by the governing body. This is, sadly, the case with homosexuality, considered since 1973 to be a positive and healthy expression of human sexuality to be treasured and protected in the same way as heterosexual relationships.

The story of homosexuality begins in the 1950s, with early research on the psychological nature of homosexuality conducted by people like Evelyn Hooker and Alfred Kinsey which formed the foundation for later discussions. Around this time, a psychiatrist named Robert Spitzer was involved in developing the third edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, a document published by the American Psychiatric Association that provides a centralized list of all known mental disorders and the symptoms most commonly associated with them.

People working with Spitzer on the project relate that it was largely driven by his singular vision, with a process that was often opaque and autocratic, although the DSM-III was an undeniable success that provided professionals with coherent language for describing many psychological maladies. However, these problems of subjectivity, and others like them, eventually led some researchers to advocate for different ways of classifying disorders, like the Power Threat Meaning Framework.

Spitzer’s leading role within the DSM made him an idea figure to weigh in on the issue of homosexuality, an urgent topic in the 1950s and 1960s which erupted into marches and riots after the Stonewall incident of 1969. At this time, homosexuality was classified in the DSM as a mental disorder, which created systemic barriers for queer people as well as tremendous prejudice. Indeed, at this time, some of the barbaric methods within psychology, such as morphine-induced nausea treatment and electroshock therapy, were being trialed as potential cures for homosexuality, making it a burning-platform issue for the then-nascent gay pride movement. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 69-70)

Hrvatski Noahid:
As a result, the gay pride activists at the time began engaging in highly aggressive protest tactics at psychological conferences, shouting down speakers, being generally disruptive, and delivering the ultimatum that their lifestyle be removed as a mental disorder in the DSM. In response, Robert Spitzer proposed a revision to the DSM-II in 1973 which was not a scientific proposal, but another opaque and autocratic move guided by his personal vision for the document. As is documented plainly by the proceedings of the American Psychiatric Association, Spitzer elegantly defined “mental disorder” as a psychological condition that impairs general function or is unwanted by the patient, thus removing homosexuality from consideration as a mental disorder and removing it by fiat from the DSM-II. Many professionals at the time disagreed with the decision.

In all fairness to the gay pride movement, many of their concerns regarding the treatment of homosexuals at work and in society were quite valid. There are many stories of brutality and violence, countless stories of rejection at the hands of friends and family, and the kinds of invisible tragedies and hardships only made known to the mainstream through brilliant queer artistic works like RENT or Sense8. Indeed, although it is not well-known, the author of The Ugly Duckling, Hans Christian Andersen, was himself bisexual and wrote the parable as a kind of autobiographical tale.

Yet, a deeper look into the lives of Hans Christian Andersen, Robert Spitzer, Alfred Kinsey, and many others part of the poorly-defined “LGBTQ movement” reveal a number of troublesome patterns in childhood, which are reflected in a body of scientific literature that has been systematically hidden, discredited, and outright denied by the psychological mainstream since Spitzer’s 1973 redefinition of mental disorder.

Hans Christian Andersen, as related by popular sources, was born in Danish slums to humble parents and may have been dealing with alcoholism, the prostitution of family members, and potentially even sexual abuse as part of his childhood. In nonfictional autobiographical accounts, Andersen relates that he was abused at school for purposes of character improvement and was discouraged from pursuing creative outlets by the faculty. This mixture of experiences, juxtaposed with his relative success later on in life as a weaver of tales and imaginations, is roughly the narrative espoused in The Ugly Duckling. Sadly, Andersen’s love life remained unfulfilled, with persistent problems in finding a female mate as well as same-sex attractions that remained mostly unexplored.

However, there are resonances between Andersen’s childhood and the experiences carried by Alfred Spitzer. During Spitzer’s childhood, he reportedly dealt with a “professional patient” for a mother and a “cold, remote” father. He attended therapy as a teenager for these issues, as well as an outlet to talk about his fascination with women.

In fact, as noted by Sexual Personae author and lesbian dissident Camille Paglia, there is consistently a pattern of childhood disturbance present in the male homosexual community, and in one of her public opinions offered on the subject went so far as to say this was ubiquitous across all gay men she had ever known. Juxtaposed against these allegations, which would likely be decried as genocidally homophobic in the post-Trump era, is the American Psychological Association’s website, which states that there is “no consensus about the exact reasons” and that “most people experience little or no choice” in their sexual orientation. The LGBTQ movement has since rallied around these ideas, expressed succinctly in Lady Gaga’s smash hit Born This Way, and claim that their orientations are innate, biologically determined, a fundamental part of who they are, and therefore inviolable. (Ticket to Heaven by Zachary R.J. Strong, PDF version, p 70-71)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page