|
|
Post by Dragoondachemist on May 4, 2008 22:51:07 GMT -8
It's kinda like a Doctor and a Docduuuuurrrrr. They sound the same, yet are so very, very different. So which doctor will I be? The regular one or the sarcastic one? Either way we need doctorates of psychology. So that will make three future doctors on this board, although you will be a MD. I will also be able to prescribe drugs, even without an MD in psychological medicine now that California changed the law. That is with a 300 hour course for certification. Although I really don't think psychologists (the ones with MDs) should be relying on pills as much as they do right now. On that note how close are you to your MD Kuat and will the release of Starcraft 2 hold you back for completion? Lady V what is going to be your concentration? Abnormal, cognitive, developmental, social, ect. Personally I love social psychology with the group effects, mob mentality and free rider effects are pretty interesting. You might be interesting in UCSC's excelerated doctorate program. I am will be trying to get into it next year. With it you can skip getting a Masters and get a doctorate in one extra year. Saving 2 to 3 years depending on how long it would have taken to get a masters. |
|
|
|
Post by Inaaca on May 4, 2008 23:10:26 GMT -8
Well, she'll be a therapist, not a theripist like you. So which doctor will I be? The regular one or the sarcastic one? Now look at your signature. Answer your question? |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on May 4, 2008 23:35:15 GMT -8
I hate psychology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on May 5, 2008 4:34:43 GMT -8
It's kinda like a Doctor and a Docduuuuurrrrr. They sound the same, yet are so very, very different. So which doctor will I be? The regular one or the sarcastic one? Either way we need doctorates of psychology. So that will make three future doctors on this board, although you will be a MD. I will also be able to prescribe drugs, even without an MD in psychological medicine now that California changed the law. That is with a 300 hour course for certification. Although I really don't think psychologists (the ones with MDs) should be relying on pills as much as they do right now. On that note how close are you to your MD Kuat and will the release of Starcraft 2 hold you back for completion? Lady V what is going to be your concentration? Abnormal, cognitive, developmental, social, ect. Personally I love social psychology with the group effects, mob mentality and free rider effects are pretty interesting. You might be interesting in UCSC's excelerated doctorate program. I am will be trying to get into it next year. With it you can skip getting a Masters and get a doctorate in one extra year. Saving 2 to 3 years depending on how long it would have taken to get a masters. Oh man, this has gone too far. Val's actually going to be majoring in Environmental Engineering. She ain't going to be doing none of that psychological doctor stuff, she's going to be saving trees. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragoondachemist on May 5, 2008 9:17:46 GMT -8
Typos bring out the worst in all of you. Sheesh, such grammar elitists. Speaking of all the college stuff, what is everyone going to school for and what you graduating with googly?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kuat on May 5, 2008 16:30:57 GMT -8
So which doctor will I be? The regular one or the sarcastic one? Now look at your signature. Answer your question? Thank you, Vivi. Although I really don't think psychologists (the ones with MDs) should be relying on pills as much as they do right now. Psychiatrists may have MDs, but it's a cold day in hell before I call those glorified quacks actual physicians. Personally, I loath them and their "specialty", that lies somewhere between psychologists and neurologists, that succeeds at neither. Their medications all have shitty side effect profiles and horrible drug interactions, and they seem to lack a degree of compassion that psychologists have and at the same time the medical knowledge of neurologists. Six weeks of hell that I'll never forget. Trying to convince deathly ill people that they were irrationally depressed BECAUSE THEY WERE FUCKING DYING, and then sticking them on a laundry list of meds. Or worse yet, treating them against their will. I fucking hate that field with a passion. However, that said, neurologists aren't all that great either, and as far as I'm concerned the only real specialty for an MD with an interest in the brain is neurosurgery or interventional radiology. So do I, so do I. |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on May 5, 2008 17:04:16 GMT -8
what you graduating with googly? Philosophy. Currently with an interest in ontology. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragoondachemist on May 5, 2008 22:17:04 GMT -8
Psychiatrists may have MDs, but it's a cold day in hell before I call those glorified quacks actual physicians. I agree with you about pretty much all of what you said. The thing is most mental conditions, except those that are cause by an actually imbalance of neurological receptors and in no way seriously screwed up like you explained, can be alleviated by exercise and better eating. In the long run I really think that the prescription of some drugs is just the cause of drug companies pushing a new prescription onto doctors who have been given exaggerated possible effects. They end up prescribing new drugs to patients to put more money into the big drug companies coffers. With the way that patients work, generics replace old drug, and Americas stupid notion that pills will fix you, things have become a bit screwed up in the name of R+D money. It almost makes a good argument for socialized medicine when drug companies aren't after profits they are trying to make better medicine. Whats the problem of psychology when it directly pulls from many of the philosophies of philosophy? I mean the philosophy doctrines of rationalism and empiricism have contributed to all forms of science. |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on May 6, 2008 0:32:43 GMT -8
Yes, psychology used to be Philosophy at one time. So was science (i.e. natural philosophy). In fact, everything that has theory is under the domain of Philosophy. A Ph.D. is a Ph.D. for a reason.
However psychology passes itself off as a science when either the patient actually needs philosophical counsel or neurological medical care. Psychiatrists treat mental illness mostly by symptoms alone, just prescribing pills to patients to deaden the symptoms usually at the cost of side effects which are more harmful than helpful. The Psychologists however employ psychotherapeutic methods that have the psychologist doing more damage on the patient by interpreting their psychology according to themselves. High subjective and often annoying to the interpretations of the patient his/her self.
Ultimately Psychology does not have the single foundational theory that the sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, etc) need. One could suggest that cognitive science has a foundation but Functionalism itself is under heavy scrutiny. It is best to leave that to Biology before considering it Psychology.
I personally trust in a self-psychoanalytical approach (there is no worry of subjectivity when I am the one interpreting myself) that seeks to understand my own world views and biases as they shift. This approach is ultimately Philosophical as I employ many different views (existentialism, phenomenology, structuralism, etc) to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragoondachemist on May 6, 2008 14:35:01 GMT -8
Psychiatrists treat mental illness mostly by symptoms alone, just prescribing pills to patients to deaden the symptoms usually at the cost of side effects which are more harmful than helpful. Ultimately Psychology does not have the single foundational theory that the sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, etc) need. I personally trust in a self-psychoanalytical approach (there is no worry of subjectivity when I am the one interpreting myself) that seeks to understand my own world views and biases as they shift. I agree with you about the overuse of drugs, but there are many people that need them, so your use of a blanket statements is a bit short sited. The thing is psychology is the study of mind, brain, and behavior. Psychology is the only scientific study that measures and interprets the thoughts and behaviors of living things. Psychology contributes to the understanding of patient behavior and how to interpret the results of living subjects. As with all scientific fields, psychology contributes to the overall body of scientific knowledge as much as it need help from other bodies of knowledge. Googly, both you and Kuat seem to have have bad experiences with the negative stereotype of a psychiatrist. I could make an assumption of the negative stereotypes of a philosophy having made zero contribution to the world beyond theories and a doctor having a god complex, but these are negative stereotypes that are only propagated by a lack of knowledge. Its through experience that I know that Kuat is someone who cares. I really don't know you personally Googly, but I know that the contributions of philosophy are many of the contributing factors toward society. I just cannot agree with you about self assessment. The talk of other people cannot judge because they are biased, what make you think that someone is not biased toward themselves. It is part of a normal human nature to think your are better than your piers, its called a self-serving bias. Its part of human nature to think this way. Its the brains coping mechanism to keep people happy. It is interesting to know that the only people that can accurately assess themselves are the clinically depressed, since they have a realistic view of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on May 6, 2008 17:40:46 GMT -8
Psychology is one of the branches that I would say encourages the idea that Philosophy is impractical. When people have crises of conscience, existence, etc, they go to a therapist instead of picking up a Philosophical text.
But yes, of course my post is full of blanket statements! You are asking me to critique the whole Psychology in a message board post! I would need a dissertation for an adequate job of arguing my point and outlining my self psychoanalytical approach (which you obviously misunderstood entirely by assuming this approach was suitable for everyone). I can give you philosophers that have suggested similar reasoning but I'd rather just drop this. I have a final paper to write so I'm already juggling names. Thomas Kuhn on the valaidity of Psychology as a science and as for the self psychoanalytical approach, the phenomenological work of Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragoondachemist on May 7, 2008 10:52:54 GMT -8
Psychology is one of the branches that I would say encourages the idea that Philosophy is impractical. When people have crises of conscience, existence, etc, they go to a therapist instead of picking up a Philosophical text. You may be a smart, well educated person, but you got to remember that those traits are not the norm of the American people. You are giving a lot of credit to the overall populations of America. Humans are smart, but people are stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Kuat on May 7, 2008 16:11:56 GMT -8
The thing is most mental conditions, except those that are cause by an actually imbalance of neurological receptors and in no way seriously screwed up like you explained, can be alleviated by exercise and better eating. While exercise has been shown to help certain issues (well, mainly depression), it's far from singular therapy. My point was a bit broad, but it lies in the problem that in psychiatry it can be very hard to determine the difference between a "pathological" (i.e. 'diseased') state of mind, versus one that is fit for the situation. My complaint is that what happened in practice is we assumed pathology where there was none, because it was the less dangerous assumption to make (like treating a possible pneumonia with antibiotics instead of watching and waiting). With this in mind, I strongly disagree with the statement that most 'mental conditions' can be solved by simple lifestyle changes. Patrick has stated what I feel would be more appropriate treatment for the majority of patients, with some modification on the idea. In the long run I really think that the prescription of some drugs is just the cause of drug companies pushing a new prescription onto doctors who have been given exaggerated possible effects.Sorry buddy, but you're treading in waters that aren't familiar to you. The effects are not exaggerated, they are very real. In addition, there are drug interactions to worry about, and with some the list isn't small. They end up prescribing new drugs to patients to put more money into the big drug companies coffers. With the way that patients work, generics replace old drug, and Americas stupid notion that pills will fix you, things have become a bit screwed up in the name of R+D money. It almost makes a good argument for socialized medicine when drug companies aren't after profits they are trying to make better medicine. We'll save the socialized medicine bit for another time (as that discussion is very, very lengthy), and apart from the fact that socialized medicine does not mean socialized pharmaceuticals, I do agree with you on one point. Americans, well, people in general, look for quick solutions. It's understandable. I feel bad, I don't want to get out of bed, and I'm eating less than I should. Either I can spend a great deal of time and effort trying to understand why I feel this way, and how I can overcome it, or I can take a pill. For a person with a full time job and real worries, you can't just "pause" life in order to spend some quality time studying your own psyche. I wouldn't call it stupid or fundamentally erroneous, but a reflection of our society. As for the evil of drug companies, I think it is a bit overstated. Personally there are a lot of details that I'm shaky on, but what physicians are taught is to give the best proven medication for the illness, and this comes from data pooled worldwide. The drug companies can push all they want, but when a drug is proven to be harmful or made of bullox, they aren't viable anymore, end of story. And if they do work, you can't 'break' them so as to be supplanted by a new drug Psychology is one of the branches that I would say encourages the idea that Philosophy is impractical. When people have crises of conscience, existence, etc, they go to a therapist instead of picking up a Philosophical text. I'm gonna have to ask you to clarify on this point. From what I've always understood, the difference between the two was the difference between the scientist and the engineer. Psychology was the science, in that people feel X way because Y, and do A action because X feeling, etc, based on studies done with the scientific method. Philosophy was applied humanity, in a way. "Ok, we have this toolkit of humanity, now how should it work, how does it work, and how can we improve it." In other words, psychology is impersonal (just facts with no interpretation), and philosophy was the 'way to think' (we have these traits, so what? or, how does this all relate?). In other words, one does not supplant the other, but work together. Or, to put it more simply, psychology is the stand-in for neurology until we finally understand how a thought or feeling is generated on a molecular level. Philosophy will still be there, just with a different partner. |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on May 7, 2008 17:50:51 GMT -8
I'm saying that Psychology is not a pure natural science, it is a social science with an edge in applied science. The question is whether Psychology is close enough to Biology to warrant a recognition as a Natural Science. Is social conditions (i.e. relationships with others) relevant to a person's psychological make-up? Some cases yes and some cases no, right? Do we know enough about schizophrenia to say it is independent of social environment? What about depression? Eating disorders? You'll get Psychologist that will bitterly debate over whether "yes" or "no" to these questions, it lacks theoretical unity and unity is what a science needs. To use Kuhn's terms, there is no "normal science" for paradigmatic revolutions to shift. But I am overextending myself, finals are next week and I've been getting little sleep. Don't ask me any more questions, I retract my criticism of Psychology for logistical reasons.
Philosophy supplants all fields. "Philosophy" is just another term for theory. All fields are defined by their theory (in which they find the how's to provide a better answer to why) and to critique the theory is to engage in Philosophy. Philosophy looks at the theory of all fields as well as theory that unites all theories such as Metaphysics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kuat on May 7, 2008 19:05:59 GMT -8
I'm saying that Psychology is not a pure natural science, it is a social science with an edge in applied science. The question is whether Psychology is close enough to Biology to warrant a recognition as a Natural Science. Is social conditions (i.e. relationships with others) relevant to a person's psychological make-up? Some cases yes and some cases no, right? Do we know enough about schizophrenia to say it is independent of social environment? What about depression? Eating disorders? You'll get Psychologist that will bitterly debate over whether "yes" or "no" to these questions, it lacks theoretical unity and unity is what a science needs. To use Kuhn's terms, there is no "normal science" for paradigmatic revolutions to shift. But I am overextending myself, finals are next week and I've been getting little sleep. Don't ask me any more questions, I retract my criticism of Psychology for logistical reasons. Philosophy supplants all fields. "Philosophy" is just another term for theory. All fields are defined by their theory (in which they find the how's to provide a better answer to why) and to critique the theory is to engage in Philosophy. Philosophy looks at the theory of all fields as well as theory that unites all theories such as Metaphysics. Finals: The cause of and... well, no, the cause of all life's problems ages 14-28. We'll continue this later, then. |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on May 8, 2008 10:35:00 GMT -8
It doesn't help that one of my papers is directly about Bruno Latour's criticism of the philosophy of science's dichotomical reasoning of social factors versus natural factors as to the success of science. Also another paper on Philosophy that presupposes that objective interpretation is impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on May 8, 2008 10:53:51 GMT -8
Oh, Mike, to answer your previous question, I'm majoring in Film, and hope to be transferring to USC soon to get a Bachelor's Degree of the Arts in Cinema and Television, god I love how that sounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kuat on May 8, 2008 14:19:01 GMT -8
It doesn't help that one of my papers is directly about Bruno Latour's criticism of the philosophy of science's dichotomical reasoning of social factors versus natural factors as to the success of science. Also another paper on Philosophy that presupposes that objective interpretation is impossible. It's funny that when you get in your field, you start to use the language a bit too fluently. It's like today I had a 36 year old female with raised erythematous macular lesions demonstrating central clearings confluencing into plaques on her extensor surfaces in addition to bilateral cervical lymphadenopathy. Translation: a lady who had bull's eye rashes with some bumps on her neck. In short: I had to read your post twice to understand it  |
|
|
|
Post by The Dankness on May 8, 2008 14:57:40 GMT -8
In short: I had to read your post twice to understand it I read it once and gave up. Then again, I gave up trying to follow this thread a long time ago. |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on May 8, 2008 16:15:16 GMT -8
It doesn't help that one of my papers is directly about Bruno Latour's criticism of the philosophy of science's dichotomical reasoning of social factors versus natural factors as to the success of science. Also another paper on Philosophy that presupposes that objective interpretation is impossible. It's funny that when you get in your field, you start to use the language a bit too fluently. It's like today I had a 36 year old female with raised erythematous macular lesions demonstrating central clearings confluencing into plaques on her extensor surfaces in addition to bilateral cervical lymphadenopathy. Translation: a lady who had bull's eye rashes with some bumps on her neck. In short: I had to read your post twice to understand it Translation of my post: The shit I'm writing about both pretty much deny the idea that science is the objective study of the natural world. Which undermines any attempt on my part to argue psychology as either natural science, social science, or neither (Philosophy). Sorry for the jargon. Natural science: the idea that science is simply progressing, according to truth, in understanding the world social science: the scientific view of the world changes radically according to social conditions |
|
