Re: Was Tom Cruise right about psychology?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Is it really just a pseudoscience?
No. Of course it isnt.
Psychology is dependant on science. In order to study psychology of a mind you NEED to know the biology and structure of brain, from then you have a starting point on how to analyse particular things.
Its one of the reasons I didnt really enjoy Psychology at University, because it clashed with the way Sociology worked - and sociology is a social science.
The idea of pseudoscience assumes that there is no scientific back up - the fact that there are drugs such as Prozac and numerous other antidepressants suggests differently. Depression is a psychological disorder.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
It falls under the loose definition of science, which is essentially the study of "natural phenomena." I could categorize many types of belief systems as sciences using this definition.Keep in mind that Astrology, Graphology, Phrenolgy, and many other fields of study claim themselves to be sciences using this definition as well.
Let's look at your definition of science again.
Definition of ScienceThe observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Does psychology observe and identify? Yes. Does it describe a phenomena? Yes. Does it do it through experimental investigation? Yes. Does it explain through forming theories? Yes. Is it a study of natural phenomena? Yes. Would something studied through psychology be considered an object of inquiry or study? Yes.
Sorry, but your shot your argument in the foot by bringing out that definition.
Broad generalizations and techniques that don't rely on the scientific method. Like most forms of psychoanalysis, hypnosis, and other psychotherapies.In addition to this it has been found that active placebos given to many having "chemical imbalances", are just as effective as the standard medications given to them to treat such imbalances.
You don't know much about psychology, do you. Everything is found out through either research or active experimentation. Experiments that are indeed carried out using the scientific method. When a psychologist wants to do an experiment, he or she follows the scientific method: they first decide what it is they want to research, they form a hypothesis based on what they think will happen, they detail out how they will carry out the experiment, they then actually DO the experiment, they record their findings as data, and then they draw a conclusion based on these findings and either validate or invalidate their hypothesis. That IS following the scientific method.
Psychoanalysis, hypnosis, and psychotherapy have nothing to do with the scientific method as they are not experimental methods used to gather information; they are methods that are used that UTILIZE this information. There's a large difference.
Yes, placebos have been known to work for people. They've also been known to NOT work for people. Why? Some people simply have stronger willpower than others. If someone THINKS they are indeed taking the medication, it kick-starts their brain into making the chemicals that they may be short on -- or making less if they have too many. It doesn't mean that there are no such things as chemical imbalances. People take placebos thinking they're taking cold medicine and get better -- does this mean that viruses don't exist? No. It simply means that the power of the mind is greater than that of the body.
A bit innaccurate. Theories are never completely discarded. The initial hypothesis behind a theory may change, however, the fundamentals which make up a theory usually remain the same.The conclusion is generally the fundemental element still thought to exist, however, a different hypothesis is produced that gives a better explination as to why it exists.
Completely discarded, no, I guess I shouldn't have said it that way. But there are many theories/hyphotheses that are thrown away, and years later someone may find it and build on it/completely rework it. That's how ALL sciences work.
Personally I think the whole scientology theology is kookoo, but the man did raise some valid points. Many automatically assume that everything they learn from science class or read from a science book to be the "absolute truth", which is a very dogmatic/close minded POV.
Valid point? What would that be? That he doesn't know what he's talking about?
Attempting to get a degree in a particular field of study doesn't automatically equate your opinion as being valid.
Actually, it does. As BackFire said, it means that it's a field that I have studied (and will be studying for quite a while longer), and therefore I know more about it than the average person, and therefore my opinion is far more educated than the average person.
Why don't you go read up about psychology a bit. Take a look at a textbook or two. Familiarize yourself with the topic a bit.
Its one of the reasons I didnt really enjoy Psychology at University, because it clashed with the way Sociology worked - and sociology is a social science.
Actually, lil, psychology and sociology are fairly intertwined each other, as sociology is the study of how people behave within a society....I've taken courses in both and will be taking many more.
Originally posted by BackFire
Is Tom Cruise right about anything?The answer - No.
What the shit does Tom Cruise know about psychology or science in general?
The answer - Nothing.
What's Tom Cruise good for?
The answer - Making a moron out of himself for comedians to exploit.
Well, at least he was good in 'Collateral' 😛
Originally posted by Lana
Let's look at your definition of science again.
Okay..
Definition of ScienceThe observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Does psychology observe and identify? Yes. Does it describe a phenomena? Yes. Does it do it through experimental investigation? Yes. Does it explain through forming theories? Yes. Is it a study of natural phenomena? Yes. Would something studied through psychology be considered an object of inquiry or study? Yes.Sorry, but your shot your argument in the foot by bringing out that definition.
Really brought some smoking guns with you to this discussion huh Lana? You must still be a bit angry over our evolution debate. 😆 😆
Anyway..I never stated that psychology was not a "science", so there's no argument for you to shoot down.
What I did state, however, is that many fields of study can be defined as "science" by the definition given in above.
You don't know much about psychology, do you. Everything is found out through either research or active experimentation. Experiments that are indeed carried out using the scientific method. When a psychologist wants to do an experiment, he or she follows the scientific method: they first decide what it is they want to research, they form a hypothesis based on what they think will happen, they detail out how they will carry out the experiment, they then actually DO the experiment, they record their findings as data, and then they draw a conclusion based on these findings and either validate or invalidate their hypothesis. That IS following the scientific method.Psychoanalysis, hypnosis, and psychotherapy have nothing to do with the scientific method as they are not experimental methods used to gather information; they are methods that are used that UTILIZE this information. There's a large difference.
Gathering information using the method you describe is scientific, however, stating that "experimental methods" with no scientific basis should be able utilize this information is "unscientific."
Explain to me how psychoanalysis, hypnosis, and psychotherapy are credible "scientific" techniques in treating mental ailments, and what scientific hypothesi were used to derive such techniques?
Yes, placebos have been known to work for people. They've also been known to NOT work for people. Why? Some people simply have stronger willpower than others. If someone THINKS they are indeed taking the medication, it kick-starts their brain into making the chemicals that they may be short on -- or making less if they have too many. It doesn't mean that there are no such things as chemical imbalances. People take placebos thinking they're taking cold medicine and get better -- does this mean that viruses don't exist? No. It simply means that the power of the mind is greater than that of the body.
Your misrepresenting what I've posted sweety. I never stated that chemical imbalances do not exist. What I believe is that the assumption that these imbalances are the direct causes of many psychological disorders is a very bad one. As you stated above, active placebos have been given to individuals suffering from these "chemical imbalances", and many times they have the same effect on an individual as a drug used to treat the imbalance.
Your point on "willpower" only supports the argument that an individuals "emotional state" is the main cause of the "imbalance", rather than the "imbalance" being the cause of the "emotional state".
That's the problem with much of psychology, the cause and effect are at many times reversed, making people believe their bodies are responsable for the ways they behave, rather than their own attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs.
Completely discarded, no, I guess I shouldn't have said it that way. But there are many theories/hyphotheses that are thrown away, and years later someone may find it and build on it/completely rework it. That's how ALL sciences work.
Thrown away. No. Reinterpreted. Yes. Regardless there are always fundamental principals to every theory. Without fundamentals, science would in itself have no basis to it.
Valid point? What would that be? That he doesn't know what he's talking about?
That psychiatry, psychology, and other sciences that study human behavior have little more than assumption to validate them.
Actually, it does. As BackFire said, it means that it's a field that I have studied (and will be studying for quite a while longer), and therefore I know more about it than the average person, and therefore my opinion is far more educated than the average person.Why don't you go read up about psychology a bit. Take a look at a textbook or two. Familiarize yourself with the topic a bit.
Actually I have, and sad to say..even with the 1 semester I took regarding the subject, I seem to have an equal if not "greater" grasp on understanding many of it principles than yourself....lol...but keep studying sweety..I'm sure you'll make a great "psuedoscientist" someday...😆😆
An example. Parkinson's is considered a neuropsychological disorder. The symptoms of Parkinson's disease and Parkinsonian conditions are well established to be primarily due to loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta. Chemical imbalance is the direct cause of the symptoms of the condition.
If neurochemical imbalances are not the underlying cause of psychological disorders then what are you proposing is the cause? Do you think Cruise is right and everything can be cured by vitamins and exercise.
tom cruise claims to be an expert on pyschiatry...he recieved his degree in pyschiatry in between his films. he knows all about psychiatry and anti-depressants and insists that mothers on anti-depressants cut off their babies arms...
and tom cruise also is an expert on people that are "glib"...he called Matt Lauer "glib"
that is a very big word for tom to say. I wonder if he knows how to spell that word.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
An example. Parkinson's is considered a neuropsychological disorder. The symptoms of Parkinson's disease and Parkinsonian conditions are well established to be primarily due to loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta. Chemical imbalance is the direct cause of the symptoms of the condition.
If neurochemical imbalances are not the underlying cause of psychological disorders then what are you proposing is the cause? Do you think Cruise is right and everything can be cured by vitamins and exercise.
My dad had Parkinson's Disease, same as Michael J.Fox, Janet Reno, Ali, and Rev Billy Graham. The loss of Dopamine is due to brain cells dying. It is a chemical imbalance and he needed Dopamine(Sinemet) which stimulated production of Dopamine.
tom cruise had no right to speak out against mothers on anti-depressants nor tell the public that pyschaitry is wrong, and the medications that people take for their depression is wrong.
he is a scientologist. he is brainwashed.
Really brought some smoking guns with you to this discussion huh Lana? You must still be a bit angry over our evolution debate.
Yet, you're the one that's bringing it up in a completely unrelated discussion...
Actually I have, and sad to say..even with the 1 semester I took regarding the subject, I seem to have an equal if not "greater" grasp on understanding many of it principles than yourself
Only to you, my friend. Only to you.
but keep studying sweety..I'm sure you'll make a great "psuedoscientist" someday
Just like oh so many of them creationism "scientists".
the problem with psychology isn't that its not a science its that there is a problem with measuring psychological experiments
when studying human behaviour there are 2 problems with getting true scientific results...one is that if you conduct it in a totally controlled and scientific enviroment as is neccessary with most of biology, chemistry and physics based sciences...is that the thing you are studying(people) are usually aware of the situation and cannot be measured as acting like they would in a normal everyday setting
the second problem is that if you measure whatever it is you are looking for in a normal everyday situation then you cannot account for all the variables and therefor can never give an unrefutable conclusion
obviously there are areas of psychology which can be easily measured such as biological psychology and how certain areas of the brain physically respond to certain stimuli be they sensory inputs or drug induced changes...these can be measured in a controlled enviroment with reliable results
and for the record...i've studied forensic psychobiology and forensic science...so have both traditional science and psychological science in my education...personally i prefer my chemistry and biology
There really isn't such a thing as a perfectly controlled experiment. Quantum physics enacts variability on everything, doesn't it?
There really isn't any more precise manner to studying human psychology short of cloning a group of people and raising them in exactly controlled environments, and even then there are still many variables.
My studies are in neuroscience, though I am doing some psychology. Tom Cruise is an idiot.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
An example. Parkinson's is considered a neuropsychological disorder. The symptoms of Parkinson's disease and Parkinsonian conditions are well established to be primarily due to loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta. Chemical imbalance is the direct cause of the symptoms of the condition.
If neurochemical imbalances are not the underlying cause of psychological disorders then what are you proposing is the cause? Do you think Cruise is right and everything can be cured by vitamins and exercise.
Chemical imbalances aren't always the cause of various emotional disorders, but rather the effect of various choices that individuals make. That's essentially what I was stating. I believe a lot of psychologists automatically equate a particular problem being caused by chemical imbalance, rather than the chemical imbalance being the direct result of various environmental factors in a person's life, such as an individual's attitude, beliefs, family history, job, social activities..etc..etc..
For example, I've seen children who live in households where there environment is a complete mess, and disorganized. In addition to this the parent uses no form of discipline on the child, the child rarely engages in activities with the parent, and the parent rarely takes the child out to engage in activities with other children.
The kid goes to school, not knowing how to interact with others..and starts acting out of control, is screaming for atttention, and is completely disorganized. The school then recomends that the child be taken to a psychologist, who automatically equates the child as being an ADHD/Autistic child...without taking into account the "eviornmental issues" that the child is dealing with.
The psychologist then prescribes a medication that does nothing but change the mood of the child, which will have no effect on the problems within the child's environment. Thus..the kid still has problems in school, albeit..they aren't as out of control, however, they still can't focus...still have difficulty making friends, etc...and now, they're all "doped up" on a mood altering drug. Sad really, I've seen so many kids suffering in situations like this.
This is not to say the chemical imbalances are not the cause of some neurological and emotional disorders, however, I do believe that many shrinks are in too much of a hurry to prescribe medications and make money, instead of analyzing the various environmental factors that could be causing the problems.
Medication should be the last step, not the first when dealing with psyche disorders such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, bi polar etc. All of which are generally related to a whole host of environmental factors. Even in cases like these, mood altering drugs should only be used in extreme cases, when all enviornmental factors have been taken into account, and changing them has had no effect on an individual's condition.
Originally posted by jaden101
the problem with psychology isn't that its not a science its that there is a problem with measuring psychological experiments
Exactly..as well as the techniques used as remedies for various effects found from the experiments...where is the science in psychotherapy or hypnosis? I have yet to have any psychologist explain to me how these techniques were in anyway derived from scientific studies...
when studying human behaviour there are 2 problems with getting true scientific results...one is that if you conduct it in a totally controlled and scientific enviroment as is neccessary with most of biology, chemistry and physics based sciences...is that the thing you are studying(people) are usually aware of the situation and cannot be measured as acting like they would in a normal everyday settingthe second problem is that if you measure whatever it is you are looking for in a normal everyday situation then you cannot account for all the variables and therefor can never give an unrefutable conclusion
Which is why I tend to question the results of a lot of studies, particulary since the environment that the studies are conducted with as you have stated, are not "everyday settings." In addition to this..Many studies that I've read about are just plain ridiculous, biased, and many outside factors are manipulated to get the desired results from the psychologists.
obviously there are areas of psychology which can be easily measured such as biological psychology and how certain areas of the brain physically respond to certain stimuli be they sensory inputs or drug induced changes...these can be measured in a controlled enviroment with reliable results
Well said. Just wanted to add that these experiments don't automatically point to drugs being the solution to treating various psychological problems.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Chemical imbalances aren't always the cause of various emotional disorders, but rather the effect of various choices that individuals make. That's essentially what I was stating. I believe a lot of psychologists automatically equate a particular problem being caused by chemical imbalance, rather than the chemical imbalance being the direct result of various environmental factors in a person's life, such as an individual's attitude, beliefs, family history, job, social activities..etc..etc..
For example, I've seen children who live in households where there environment is a complete mess, and disorganized. In addition to this the parent uses no form of discipline on the child, the child rarely engages in activities with the parent, and the parent rarely takes the child out to engage in activities with other children.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The kid goes to school, not knowing how to interact with others..and starts acting out of control, is screaming for atttention, and is completely disorganized. The school then recomends that the child be taken to a psychologist, who automatically equates the child as being an ADHD/Autistic child...without taking into account the "eviornmental issues" that the child is dealing with.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The psychologist then prescribes a medication that does nothing but change the mood of the child, which will have no effect on the problems within the child's environment. Thus..the kid still has problems in school, albeit..they aren't as out of control, however, they still can't focus...still have difficulty making friends, etc...and now, they're all "doped up" on a mood altering drug. Sad really, I've seen so many kids suffering in situations like this.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
This is not to say the chemical imbalances are not the cause of some neurological and emotional disorders, however, I do believe that many shrinks are in too much of a hurry to prescribe medications and make money, instead of analyzing the various environmental factors that could be causing the problems.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Medication should be the last step, not the first when dealing with psyche disorders such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, bi polar etc. All of which are generally related to a whole host of environmental factors. Even in cases like these, mood altering drugs should only be used in extreme cases, when all enviornmental factors have been taken into account, and changing them has had no effect on an individual's condition.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Chemical imbalances aren't always the cause of various emotional disorders, but rather the effect of various choices that individuals make. That's essentially what I was stating. I believe a lot of psychologists automatically equate a particular problem being caused by chemical imbalance, rather than the chemical imbalance being the direct result of various environmental factors in a person's life, such as an individual's attitude, beliefs, family history, job, social activities..etc..etc..For example, I've seen children who live in households where there environment is a complete mess, and disorganized. In addition to this the parent uses no form of discipline on the child, the child rarely engages in activities with the parent, and the parent rarely takes the child out to engage in activities with other children.
The kid goes to school, not knowing how to interact with others..and starts acting out of control, is screaming for atttention, and is completely disorganized. The school then recomends that the child be taken to a psychologist, who automatically equates the child as being an ADHD/Autistic child...without taking into account the "eviornmental issues" that the child is dealing with.
The psychologist then prescribes a medication that does nothing but change the mood of the child, which will have no effect on the problems within the child's environment. Thus..the kid still has problems in school, albeit..they aren't as out of control, however, they still can't focus...still have difficulty making friends, etc...and now, they're all "doped up" on a mood altering drug. Sad really, I've seen so many kids suffering in situations like this.
This is not to say the chemical imbalances are not the cause of some neurological and emotional disorders, however, I do believe that many shrinks are in too much of a hurry to prescribe medications and make money, instead of analyzing the various environmental factors that could be causing the problems.
Medication should be the last step, not the first when dealing with psyche disorders such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, bi polar etc. All of which are generally related to a whole host of environmental factors. Even in cases like these, mood altering drugs should only be used in extreme cases, when all enviornmental factors have been taken into account, and changing them has had no effect on an individual's condition.
I agree that medication should be the last step taken regarding any psyche disorder but sometimes it has to be the first step in order to save a live or lives. Sometimes there is not enough time to work on the issues surrounding the individual that perpetuate the mental anquish and disorders.
I went through all the proper channels of therapy, consultation, physical exams, evaluations before I was put on an anti-depressant. I suffered from extreme anxiety, panic disorder and post partum depression after having 4 children in 5 years.
Having 4 children was MY CHOICE. Both me and my husband wanted a large family. The anxiety and depression was there but not evident until I had a series of stressors that put me on the brink of despair. I knew enough to see my doctor and I worked with my doctor and therapist faithfully and it was decided that I needed anti-depressants. There was never a threat of me harming myself or my children but I can't say that it never would have come to that point.
I may need the medication for the rest of my life and I have accepted that. But I have a great outlook on life and myself, and the bottom line is that I love myself.
I am enjoying my family and doing things that I love again. I am not hiding in the house, afraid to leave my home. If you have never been through this, you will never know what it is like.
I hate tom cruise for taking it upon himself to represent all the mothers of post partum depression. he hasn't a clue what it is like nor does nicole. The both of them have so many nannys to take care of their children that they will never have the anxiety and saddness that comes along with having children.
As for the ADHD children? I am a co-director of rel. ed at my church and I see over 400 children each year come through our program. We have over 100 kids with disabilities and we have to work with each child. We have ADHD children on medication and they are doing wonderful. We have children that are not on medication and they too are doing just fine.
We also have children that are not on meds coming from wonderful backgrounds and homes, and those children come in and bounce off the walls, and disrupt the class. We have no control over these children except to remove that child from the classroom, and have a one on one session. Much to the parents dislike.
One 9th grader threatened to come into the building and kill everyone. This was taking seriously as the child does have emotional problems but is not on any medication. He is no longer allowed in our program but will be home taught.
If my child was in a class where another child was disrupting the lessons? You better believe I would be down the throats of all the teachers and staff as my child has every right to a proper education and in a safe environment. I don't care what they do to that child to get him or her under control as long as MY child's concerns are taken care of.
Schools cannot give out meds to kids. Psychologists here in the US cannot write out scripts either unless you meant to write pyschiatrists.
Sure, money is involved with the scripts. It's a big business and we could debate all the conspiracies of the drug companies but that isn't what this is about.
If a person or child needs medications to control his/her behavior, then it must be done.
tom cruise is a scientologist. he is brainwashed by a dead ron l. hubbard who was a pyschiatrict patient for a few years and was on medications. I do not understand how hubbard professed anti medications since he needed them to control his obsessions.
scientologists are allowed to drink and get drunk but medications are evil. Go figure???
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm generally of the opinion that most if not all disorders, have at least some level of genetic basis. Few (if any) are completely due to environmental factors, maybe smoking-induced lung cancer (however Christopher Reeve's wife was recently diagnosed with lung cancer and she's never smoked before, and she's not alone) and obesity-induced Type II diabetes (however non-obese people develop this too).
It's definately possible for individuals to be genetically predisposed to particular types of disorders, however, even with an individual's genetic predisposition to a disorder, it doesn't take away from the impact one's environment/lifestyle/choices/attitudes has on their physical/mental well being.
The Dana Reeves example you gave is a good example that some problems do have genetic factors which cause them, however, it doesn't necessarily mean that genetics be automatically assumed to be the cause of problems in most situations. "Lifestyle choices" such as smoking or hanging around individuals who smoke should also be heavily considered when attempting to determine the causes of particular ailments as well.
For example...I've seen individuals who come from families where everyone is an alcoholic, not grow up to be an alcoholic themselves. I've also seen the reverse of this situation occur(no alcoholics in family, an individual becomes an alcoholic)
Many are of the idea that genetic composition, somehow negates human choice/responsabilities. This is a very bad assumption. Don't get me wrong, genetics do play a part in what shapes us, but not as great a part as many would like to believe.
Autism and ADHD aren't really comparable. I'm not a psychologist but I'd assume they'd do a bit more than what you described.
Autism and ADHD are different types of disorders, sorry if it seemed as if I was trying to equate the too. What I was attempting to demonstrate in the example I gave, however, was that there are other factors that the individuals go through which manifest themselves in the same way, as those who are really suffering from these disorders. Not all children who are introverts should be considered "autistic." Particularly when they'r are a multitude of other environmental factors that the child has to go through each day. The same goes for children with ADHD, depression, bi polar, etc...
Methylphenidate passed through the same Phase I, II and III trials that every other pharmaceutical from AZT to paracetamol did. It may not be perfect but what alternative do you offer if a child genuinely has ADHD.
What I believe that there should be better diagnoses by practicioners. They shouldn't automatically assume that a child has a disorder that medicants will fix. Drugs should be the last option.
That's a bit of a generalisation don't you think?
Yes it is..however..it's a factual one. Doctor's Offices are businesses. They need repeat customers to keep their businesses going. If you keep a person on meds..you get repeat business. If you cure a person and tell them that they're problem can be fixed by changing various things within their lifestyle, then guess what? You loose a customer..sad but true.
Whether or not it's the last or first step is really up to the clinicians. If a patient has Huntington's and has psychotic symptoms and risperidone is known to alleviate psychotic symptoms I don't see why it shouldn't be prescribed.
I'm not saying that clinicians shouldn't decide on what medications to prescribe when a legitimate problem arises. Again..I just don't believe their first diagnosis should be "med's will fix it" for all psychological ailments, particularly those that are known to be linked to environmental factors, and I definately feel that the general public should be able scrutinize their motives/methods/diagnosis in these situations.