Posted by
Thrasymachus on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:22:38 AM
From what I know, psychology, as a discipline, claims to be able, in the broadest sense, to understand the human mind.
Psychology,
as much as any other organization of knowledge, makes claims to know
what the proper limitations of the good/safe/normal mind or person are.
Conversely, it names the problems of the mind with authority:
schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, manic-depression, etc.
As a human discipline, though, it is tether to that which it claims to study. It is what it studies.
A
thought project for clarification: a psychologist must be trained in
the ways of psychology. A degree is needed. So the psychologist uses
the human mind to study the human mind in order to gain knowledge on
the human mind. It looks to the extremes, at times, to determine what
the norm should look like and vice versa. Yet, the person doing this
studying has not been studied. The proto-psychologist has not been
deemed worthy by any one other than themselves. This person need only
pay some money and pass the tests. So the proto-psychologist is just a
normal person that takes classes to become an expert in those things of
the human mind. I say normal person, but I cannot yet determine what
normal is. I have to look to an expert who was also once normal and
also once paid money to get the degree after tests have been passed.
The problem is that no one is born a psychologist. Those that claim
they were seem to suffer from what they will later term a delusion. So
psychology is learned. It is learned from others. It is not natural,
but nurtured, as it were, by the student. Because it is learned it is
subject to the forces of bias, societal opinions, and politics. This is
important and I'll mention why a little later.
Psychology as a
science looks to turn the human mind into another force of nature. As a
force of nature it can then be predicted and conquered. People of a
type can then be understood and digested into nice little chapters or
paragraphs in future textbooks.
Having said that, do all people
who wish to become psychologists suffer from a disorder that makes them
think that they can come to know the human mind? Will the science of
psychology understand the people who wish to be psychologists?
Psychology
also claims to be able, again in some degree, to point to a subjective
norm. Not an absolute norm, of course, because that would mean that
there are absolutes, or Truths, and psychology can't bear that cross
just yet. I speak here of truths that hold well within a given context
for a given group of people.
So psychology looks to some form of
a norm to be able to judge the relative health of those that are being
examined in one way or another. Since truth is relative then the norms
are also relative. Usually the norms are relative to the society in
which the norms are being observed. So psychology must defer to a host
society. In other words, psychology must look to another (higher?)
standard outside of itself.
Society then sets the norms that
psychology looks to. Can there be leaders of social opinions that then
determine the norms? Yes, I believe they are called politicians,
musicians, artists, teachers and so on. So psychologists seem to be
enslaved by society even though they appear to be in charge of or at
least higher than (able to "fix") the members of the society they are
enslaved to.
Conclusion (for now): Psychology suffers from at
least two weaknesses. The first is the fact that there are not born any
natural psychologists. They must be made through education. This leaves
the door open for biases and poor communication of facts to the newer
generation of psychologists. If anyone can become psychologist then
they are the variable in the equation and the constant is the system of
psychology. This system cannot make claims to judgement because it is a
science. In the IS/OUGH dilemma, science concentrates on the IS and
tends to ignore the OUGHT. This means that the system must be cleared
of social bias which means the psychologist must also be cleaned of
social bias as they are educated. This is problematic to say the least.
Second, psychology, because it is so enamored with relativity,
is enslaved to the society in which it was either created or the
society it is presently studying. Psychologists cannot appear to make
judgements about entire societies if it is to seem like a real science,
that is, if it is to seem like a detached discipline that does not
interfere with its subjects, its white mice.
Lastly, a science
that claims to know, but comes closer to issuing dogma that evolves as
the years pass looks more like a religion to me than a science.
Please let me know where I am wrong as I am sure I may have assumed too much in certain areas...