Psychobabble 'r us

[heretic888]

From the previous thread:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18325

 

[heretic888]

When I was in college, Skinnerian psychology was brand new and thought to be a passing sub-set of psychology.

*shrugs* Not sure when or where you went to college, but Skinner's ideas most definately have not fallen to the wayside. Not at all.

Of course, as before, they were just building upon the behaviorism of the 19th century --- which, at present, has been modified into the "brain = mind" theories of modern neuropsychology and cognitive science.

The underlying ideas behind all of these is that the human mind and human behavior is somehow little more than a bunch of interneuronal synapses or crudely learned material functions. Pooh-pah, I say.

Want to explain when transpersonal came into being? And what, exactly, sets it apart from the other branches.

Maslow is generally credited with "founding" what would later be regarded as transpersonal psychology. Neo-Jungians like to claim Jung too, but no one else in the transpersonal crowd really does this.

One of the reasons that Wilber now disidentifies himself with transpersonal psyche is because, as he points out, there really is no defining feature among the lot of them. Some, like Grof, emphasize altered states of consciousness. The neo-Jungians have a tendency to emphasize archetypal mythic associations (generally with the notions that "the infant state = Buddhahood"). Quite a few have their "holistic body energy" therapies. Many are thinly veiled New Age pseudo-psychologists. Others are trying to turn quantum physics into some kind of philosophical psychology. And so on.

At present, transpersonal psychology seems to be a catch-all term for "weird stuff" psychology.

Piaget definitely belongs with Maslow, in my opinion. I always enjoyed their views, which my Psych of Personality (among other courses) prof used to expound upon in spite of Piaget being lumped with the other Child Psychologists at that time.

Personally, I view Piaget's views as something between a cross of Freud and Maslow. But, that's just me. :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Psst--dude...you're talking about psychotherapies, not psychologies.

If memory serves Maslow comes along a little later than Piaget, who is indeed a psychologist. ("Jean, will you watch the kids while I go to the store?") Skinner, him gone bye-bye by 1980 at the latest, except as the inspiration for certain contemporary therapeutic techniques.

The "transpersonal," psychologies might best be traced to Freud's "metapsychological," essays of 1914-1918, or to his studies in culture such as "Totem and Taboo."

What a very good title for this thread!

 

[kenpo tiger]

I attended the university where Freud first spoke in the US. And -- we were all Freudians there. Looked at other schools which were flirting with Skinnerian psych, which I didn't really buy into. You are who you are, and I don't believe your environment directs who you are. Otherwise, 'splain me gays. You believe that they are gay because of their environment?? Careful, Herrie.

As far as Maslovian principles are concerned, see Robertson's post in the old thread.

 

[heretic888]

Psst--dude...you're talking about psychotherapies, not psychologies.

Bah. Splittin' hairs.

If memory serves Maslow comes along a little later than Piaget, who is indeed a psychologist.

Yup.

Skinner, him gone bye-bye by 1980 at the latest, except as the inspiration for certain contemporary therapeutic techniques.

Yup.

The "transpersonal," psychologies might best be traced to Freud's "metapsychological," essays of 1914-1918, or to his studies in culture such as "Totem and Taboo."

Perhaps so, but Maslow (and, to a lesser degree, Jung) is the one generally recognized as having "started" transpersonal psych.

I mean, if you are referring to the writings of particular individuals as starting movements --- as opposed to the individuals themselves divesting efforts into said movements --- then I could go back even further and take a gander at Baldwin (who was very sympathetic with Huxley-esque perennial philosophy stuff), whom Freud borrowed heavily from.

The psych-disciplines are a lot older than most folks realize.

What a very good title for this thread!

You're welcome.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Piaget, who is indeed a psychologist. ("Jean, will you watch the kids while I go to the store?")

LOL!!!! I love it. His baby biographies are fun to read.

Interesting to hear (read) these discussions of psychologists and psychotherapists - my academic lineage has me in the behaviorism/ developmental psychobiology court, the latter field (or sub-field) founded mostly by Jewish German scientists who fled Germany during WWII. Obviously, their emphasis was on environmental effects on development and behavior and plasticity, rather (than, say, Lorenz, who was a great scientist, key ethologist, and sometime buddy or non-enemy of the SS) than genetic programming.

It's worked for me so far - especially now, in the new Age of the Gene, where people somehow think a single length of DNA can change complex behavioral traits. I was going to get a bumper sticker made that said "Genes make proteins", but now my car is covered in political bumper stickers.

Anyways. I don't know who Maslow is, so I'm guessing he's a psychotherapist.

Rock on.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, dude, the psychologist/psychiatrist distinction is fundamental. And a psychoanalyist is something else again.

 

[loki09789]

Sorry, dude, the psychologist/psychiatrist distinction is fundamental. And a psychoanalyist is something else again.

For the sake of disciplinary knowledge wouldn't all of these fall under the same general heading? From my limited ed psych days, it was basically the application/interp that created the different directions/labels and such. But, basically they were all under the field of Psychological study. Am I wrong?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Clearly they're related; but a psychologist studies the mind, a psychiatrist treats it...a p-analyist does Freudian analysis.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I learned that the basic dichotomy between psychologist and psychiatrist was that one used discussion therapy sessions to help patients cure themselves, while psychiatrists handled the more medicinal treatments--i.e. Prozak anybody? Psychoanalysis was just a subcategory of psychology. But the main point is that the professor didn't present psychology as a purely academic/research field--it's used for treatment. And yes, this was from a Gen. Psych. Intro. class. Honors, but as I've learned, that doesn't really mean a damn thing.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I learned that the basic dichotomy between psychologist and psychiatrist was that one used discussion therapy sessions to help patients cure themselves, while psychiatrists handled the more medicinal treatments--i.e. Prozak anybody? Psychoanalysis was just a subcategory of psychology. But the main point is that the professor didn't present psychology as a purely academic/research field--it's used for treatment. And yes, this was from a Gen. Psych. Intro. class. Honors, but as I've learned, that doesn't really mean a damn thing.

Yes that was my understanding also. I like the idea of Psychologists versus Psychiatrists who might be pushing some new Med.

Just my thoughts that are a littel off tpoc, and I apologize.

 

[heretic888]

Anyways. I don't know who Maslow is, so I'm guessing he's a psychotherapist.

Really?? Never heard of the hieararchy of needs, self-actualization, peak experiences, or any of that jazz?? That all comes from Maslow.

Anyways, I am well aware of the differences between psychiatrists and psychologists (the latter being my major). I just thought that, for the purposes of the discussion, its splitting hairs to get too wound up into terminology...

Laterz all. :asian:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Sorry, posters, for having to use this forum as a personal communication device, but heretic seems to have forgotten how to check messages, and time is of the essence.

*ahem*

HERETIC, CALL ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Really?? Never heard of the hieararchy of needs, self-actualization, peak experiences, or any of that jazz?? That all comes from Maslow.

Anyways, I am well aware of the differences between psychiatrists and psychologists (the latter being my major). I just thought that, for the purposes of the discussion, its splitting hairs to get too wound up into terminology...

Laterz all. :asian:

lol - no, but again, I focus on animal behavior, developmental psychology, and physiology. Sounds like Maslow is a human-adult-interested person, so it's not really on my radar.

 

[heretic888]

lol - no, but again, I focus on animal behavior, developmental psychology, and physiology. Sounds like Maslow is a human-adult-interested person, so it's not really on my radar.

Ah. I'd argue Maslow has a thing or two to do with developmental psych (but mostly in the adult years), but I see where you're comin' from.

Have a good 'un, mousy. :asian:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

lol - you too, Herry! I'll have to look into this guy.

 

[Flatlander]

Were all of these psychological disciplines borne out of epistemology?

 

[kenpo tiger]

I think Robertson's explanation of the three is a good one for our purposes. Some would consider those with the MDs the top of the heap. Depends upon what your needs are -- Maslovian or otherwise .

Feisty, I would think that, as Herrie pointed out, Maslow's hierarchy of needs would fit quite neatly with what you're doing.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I did some brief research on him - found out he worked with the (in)famous Harry Harlow, that would explain his hierarchy of needs. It's kind of reminiscent of some of the "hydraulics" explanations of drives. I like the physiological basis.

Interesting. He comes from the same background as a lot of developmental psychobiologists, but the people emphasis is probably where I missed reading him.

 

[heretic888]

Were all of these psychological disciplines borne out of epistemology?

Dude.... ALL academic disciplines are borne out of epistemology.