Anyone else suffer from procrastination?

[emeraldfool]

*sigh*

I've also studied psychology in university.  Not enough to qualify for a minor, but more than just a casual look.  I have friends who are psychologists.  Friends who see psychologists.  An aunt who is a psychologist.  And I've read books and articles which are better sources of info than wiki.

Then you would know that schizophrenia, and other extremely obvious psychological disorders, are one of the very first things they teach you about in psych. In fact, I think it was the first.
And not only that, but the majority of people know what schizophrenia is, even if they have no interest in either medicine or psychology at all...

I know what seratonin is and how it works on the nervous system.

Well goodie. I'm glad we've established that...

1.  Serotonin reuptake inhibitors don't bring your seratonin levels up to normal so much as they regulate levels in the body, thus breaking any patterns of highs and lows.  They have a different effect on anxiety, on bipolar disorder, and on clinical depression.

2.  Addictions are not only common, but in the case of Paxil they are extremely common.  Paxil stays in the body for a much shorter period than Prozak, thus explaining why it's so addictive.  A person who has studied the effects of Paxil will tell you that Paxil is more addictive than heroin, and the addiction can be life long with withdrawl symptoms that last for years and possibly even life.

I find that hard to believe. You're just splicing together two facts into one: Yes, addiction is common, and yes, severe addiction is possible, but NO, severe addiction is NOT common.

Not only was that explicitly stated, but I know many people who have come off it with little bother - including my mother, who's taken it for over 3 years, and came off it in 2 weeks.

No, it's you who didn't understand my meaning when I said "rational".  I introduced the term to this conversation, so it's YOU who misunderstood the meaning of the word in its particular context.  By rational, I meant resulting from reason.  Not from a reason, but from reason itself - that process of the mind that tells you things like "Perhaps I should research my facts before I speak of things I know very little about".

Oh, my mistake, I thought your comment had something to do with the initial topic. I was talking about everything occuring in your mind having a traceable source, be it physical or emotional. Nothing to do with 'reason' or rationality.

Edited to add:  Drug therapy does nothing to address the social causes of depression.

I never said it did. In fact, I never suggested drug therapy for anything BUT a lack of serotonin, for which drugs are currently the only solution.

The entire POINT of psychology is to address the social causes of things like depression. If I had that much faith in drugs, I'd become a chemist - I'm just saying, there are some things that psychotherapy can't fix: chemical things.







Don't take this the wrong way, but I suggest you think about what is being said, rather than trying to out-do me in the one thing I'm actually knowledgable in

[bilbous]

I have been procrastinating posting in this thread but now I see it is too late as the topic has changed to some quibble about the merits of the pseudo-science known as Psychology so to procrastinate no longer here is my comment for what it is worth (not much). I took a first year psychology course, skipped all but the first two classes and passed the mid-term exam armed with nothing more than a ten-sided die. Don't you just love multiple guess?

[zanzibar]

I find that hard to believe. You're just splicing together two facts into one: Yes, addiction is common, and yes, severe addiction is possible, but NO, severe addiction is NOT common.

Not only was that explicitly stated, but I know many people who have come off it with little bother - including my mother, who's taken it for over 3 years, and came off it in 2 weeks.

I know people who have quit Paxil without bad side effects as well.  I also know people who have done heroin occasionally for decades and yet haven't turned into junkies.  However, Paxil DOES have a very high occurence of causing severe withdrawal symptoms after users quit usage.  Of course, "high" is a subjective term, but it is high compared to other medications.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=paxil+addiction&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=paxil+withdrawal&btnG=Search&meta=

Edited to add:  Drug therapy does nothing to address the social causes of depression.

I never said it did. In fact, I never suggested drug therapy for anything BUT a lack of serotonin, for which drugs are currently the only solution.

The entire POINT of psychology is to address the social causes of things like depression. If I had that much faith in drugs, I'd become a chemist - I'm just saying, there are some things that psychotherapy can't fix: chemical things.

Seratonin imbalances can be the result of social and environmental factors, not just biological or mental.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I suggest you think about what is being said, rather than trying to out-do me in the one thing I'm actually knowledgable in

I don't doubt that you're knowledgeable.

I have been procrastinating posting in this thread but now I see it is too late as the topic has changed to some quibble about the merits of the pseudo-science known as Psychology so to procrastinate no longer here is my comment for what it is worth (not much). I took a first year psychology course, skipped all but the first two classes and passed the mid-term exam armed with nothing more than a ten-sided die. Don't you just love multiple guess?

I agree that psychology isn't a science.  It works using theoretical models / abstractions which describe processes that cannot be directly observed or proven.

[lordraleigh]

I really procastrinated too much to post here!

Now as the topic shifted, well if psychology cannot be considered as a science, then what about *cough* Psychoanalysis?

And perhaps even worse, what about Jungian Psychology with "The Shadow", "Collective Unconscious" and so on?

Or *cough* the "Psychological Types" on cheap personality tests?

[zanzibar]

I really procastrinated too much to post here!

Now as the topic shifted, well if psychology cannot be considered as a science, then what about *cough* Psychoanalysis?

And perhaps even worse, what about Jungian Psychology with "The Shadow", "Collective Unconscious" and so on?

Or *cough* the "Psychological Types" on cheap personality tests?

Psychology is a humanity, just like philosophy, theology, and english literature.  The problem is that psychologists try to pass themselves off as scientists when they are not.  Freud's work was no more scientific than Marx's.  Modern theories suffer from the same fundamental epistemological and methodological failings.

[lordraleigh]

Freud's work was no more scientific than Marx's.

Or than Ayn Rand and all those ficticious economic models from right-winged economy as well.

Anyway economics the way they are since they were founded are based on supositions and biased theories to defend one or other mean of production, or to rant against one(Usually either pro or anti neoliberal/capitalist/etc), it cannot be considered as non-biased, neither as science. It is not based on empirical analysis. But on what the "ideal" economy of the ideology defended by the writer would look like.

Returning to topic. It seems psychology became very mundane nowadays. Any one makes a cheap interpretation of an already flawed stereotypical analysis of personality then puts it as either free or paid "Personality Test", and to increase the problem, self-aid books are common.

[Parallo]

Self help books are horrible. Them, dream interpretations, star sign books and all the other quasi-science books. Passing guess work as fact is never a good idea.

[emeraldfool]

...
I hate you guys... so... much.


Seriously though, I think there's a lot to be said for psychology. You can't deny it helps people. Helps a lot of people. It's pretty much THE answer for anything that drugs wont fix, so there has to be some merit.

As for psychology as a science... What the hell is a 'science'? I'll admit that some of the stuff Freud and Jung put forth is a bit outlandish, but after reading some of Stephen Hawkings' work... the idea of an anti-personality - or a part of your psyche that holds everything that you're not (i.e. Jung's 'shadow') - doesn't seem all that far-fetched.

I mean, if you can swallow that a star imploding to the point that its volume is 0, and gravity is infinite, will pull everything within its 'event horizon' into the single point of 0 volume, removing it all from space completely (i.e. a 'black hole'), then why not accept a few Freudisms?

[Parallo]

...
I hate you guys... so... much.


Seriously though, I think there's a lot to be said for psychology. You can't deny it helps people. Helps a lot of people. It's pretty much THE answer for anything that drugs wont fix, so there has to be some merit.

As for psychology as a science... What the hell is a 'science'? I'll admit that some of the stuff Freud and Jung put forth is a bit outlandish, but after reading some of Stephen Hawkings' work... the idea of an anti-personality - or a part of your psyche that holds everything that you're not (i.e. Jung's 'shadow') - doesn't seem all that far-fetched.

I mean, if you can swallow that a star imploding to the point that its volume is 0, and gravity is infinite, will pull everything within its 'event horizon' into the single point of 0 volume, removing it all from space completely (i.e. a 'black hole'), then why not accept a few Freudisms?

Just because you can't understand something fully does not mean that something else is true. Thats the argument from ignorance. Just because something helps people doesn't make it true either. Is the fact that people are comforted by religion proof of god's existance? <-(Not a religious attack but an example relating to his asertations.)

[zanzibar]

As for psychology as a science... What the hell is a 'science'? I'll admit that some of the stuff Freud and Jung put forth is a bit outlandish, but after reading some of Stephen Hawkings' work... the idea of an anti-personality - or a part of your psyche that holds everything that you're not (i.e. Jung's 'shadow') - doesn't seem all that far-fetched.

Perhaps you should reread Hawking's books.

I mean, if you can swallow that a star imploding to the point that its volume is 0, and gravity is infinite, will pull everything within its 'event horizon' into the single point of 0 volume, removing it all from space completely (i.e. a 'black hole'), then why not accept a few Freudisms?

Black holes make more sense than Freud.



Psychology is simply taking something we already think is true and describing it using a theoretical model.  We then point to the model as proof that what we thought was true is actually true.

[Atomica]

...
I hate you guys... so... much.


Seriously though, I think there's a lot to be said for psychology. You can't deny it helps people. Helps a lot of people. It's pretty much THE answer for anything that drugs wont fix, so there has to be some merit.

As for psychology as a science... What the hell is a 'science'? I'll admit that some of the stuff Freud and Jung put forth is a bit outlandish, but after reading some of Stephen Hawkings' work... the idea of an anti-personality - or a part of your psyche that holds everything that you're not (i.e. Jung's 'shadow') - doesn't seem all that far-fetched.

I mean, if you can swallow that a star imploding to the point that its volume is 0, and gravity is infinite, will pull everything within its 'event horizon' into the single point of 0 volume, removing it all from space completely (i.e. a 'black hole'), then why not accept a few Freudisms?

Just because you can't understand something fully does not mean that something else is true. Thats the argument from ignorance. Just because something helps people doesn't make it true either. Is the fact that people are comforted by religion proof of god's existance? <-(Not a religious attack but an example relating to his asertations.)

Has extensive knowledge of religion and theo-therapy techniques ever cured a mental illness? Even so, I'd reckon it happens a lot less frequently than in the world of psychiatry.

I mean, how much does your aunt make a year, Zanzibar? I bet it's a killing - that alone shows how much psychology is in demand... 'cause it works. Apparently. It's like, the done thing - if you're wacky in the head, you go to a shrink. Everybody knows that. Saying it's all bullsh-ugar is like saying that mathematics is a useless skill in life... ('Cause although you might not have to face much maths and/or psychology, it's one of those fundemental things that makes everything work.)

[emeraldfool]

Perhaps you should reread Hawking's books.

Psychology is simply taking something we already think is true and describing it using a theoretical model.  We then point to the model as proof that what we thought was true is actually true.

You have just defined the very meaning of 'science' in that sentence.


"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein.

Sir, I believe you have just been burned





Edit: And Atomica's right. So many things are based on psychology - advertisement (that's obvious), marketing (know why McDonald's colours are red & yellow? 'Cause it makes people uncomfortable - which means they get out faster, which means more people come in faster), set design (Ever noticed the terrible lighting and colour schemes in the Big Brother house? It's designed to induce stress), fashion (Ever wondered why the catwalk is so far above the audience? It's to create a sense of idolisation and confidence), warfare (Ever wondered why spec ops soldiers wear black? It's not to hide - it's the shock value of seeing a shadowy figure breaking down your door), law enforcement ('Psychological warfare', anyone? Not to mention criminal profiling), and so many more all employ psychologists for their expert opinions. It's very much in demand because it works very well.

[zanzibar]

I mean, how much does your aunt make a year, Zanzibar? I bet it's a killing - that alone shows how much psychology is in demand... 'cause it works.

I'm not saying it doesn't work.  I'm saying that it isn't a science.

Part of the reason why psychologists are so in demand is because the process to become a psychologist is very demanding, and they weed people out who have alternative theories.  To an extent, it's artificial scarcity.

You have just defined the very meaning of 'science' in that sentence.

Einstein's quote means that science isn't science.  He's saying that the way people do science isn't very scientific.

Also, in science, you're supposed to be able to test your theories.  Psychological theories are not as testable.

Edit: And Atomica's right. So many things are based on psychology - advertisement (that's obvious), marketing (know why McDonald's colours are red & yellow? 'Cause it makes people uncomfortable - which means they get out faster, which means more people come in faster), set design (Ever noticed the terrible lighting and colour schemes in the Big Brother house? It's designed to induce stress), fashion (Ever wondered why the catwalk is so far above the audience? It's to create a sense of idolisation and confidence), warfare (Ever wondered why spec ops soldiers wear black? It's not to hide - it's the shock value of seeing a shadowy figure breaking down your door), law enforcement ('Psychological warfare', anyone? Not to mention criminal profiling), and so many more all employ psychologists for their expert opinions. It's very much in demand because it works very well.

Those are all social in origin.

[bilbous]

Does anyone else have an image of Joey Tribiani (sp?) singing a song in regards to this discussion?

[derwoodly]

Procrastination--- I would say that I... hummm... Ill get back to that one.

Psychology as a science, back in my day it was listed in the cource cataloge as a science.  Wiki seems to say it could go either way.

"The philosophy of science seeks to understand the nature and justification of scientific knowledge and its ethical implications. It has proven difficult to provide a definitive account of the scientific method that can decisively serve to distinguish science from non-science. Thus there are legitimate arguments about exactly where the borders are." -- Wiki