Ian Robertson's Archive

Third-force psychology reresents to me an interesting mix of useful change and hypocrisy.  It’s usefulness comes in it’s challenge to the other schools of psychology in focusing in on the patient more (for example, psychiatry is trending towords more medication management and spends less and less time with patients).  Third-force psychology brings a more humane focus to psychology, which is good.  Yet, where it excels, it also fails.  Because, I then feel that it goes to far in how much it focuses on humans, and alienates the other fields of psychology.  Without using emprical data or any terms of labeling third-force psychology leaves itself in a rut.  And because it rejects a lot of the testing other fields of psychology use, they pass up many chances for collaboration  or cooperation.

And again, third-force psychology runs into a problem.  It rejects labeling, yet it tells us that there is something wrong in the way we think that must be rejected or changed.  Third-force criticizes other branches of psychology for “diagnosing” problems, yet it does the very same thing.  I know that realistically, a lot of third force psychologists probably don’t hold this extreme view, yet it seems too big a flaw to overlook.

 I also think third-force psychology fails in it’s inability to explain more than a small section of psychological problems.    It definitely has is uses however.  I really like Maslowe’s hiearchy of needs, which I believe has a lot of uses outside of psychology (mission work, business, rebuilding in disaster zones ect).  And I enjoy the more holistic approach that third force psychology offers to mental health couselors.

I believe third force psychology has a lot to offer, but at the same time I find that a lot of what it does offer is too subjective and unscientific.  Third-force psychology really is a product of the “post-modern” age.  It embodies a lot of the humanistic philosophies (which I disagree with to an extent).  Perhaps it’s a matter of opinion.  But I believe that like Gestalt Psychology, third-force will eventually fade to the background as post-modernism begins to pass.

I believe that it is very interesting that many of the Schools of Psychology, when they first emerge, claim that they are attempting to shape Psychology as a science, and look at those schools before them as inadequately unscientific.  Behaviorism stands out though, among the schools of psychology in the zeal it showed in proclaiming itself as a “pure” science.  Watson especially was considered excessive in reducing everything to behavior.  I remember how in the book, it tells that when Watson attempted to explain thought and speech as a behavior, he met with criticism from all sides.  And that, though Watson could not explain either thought or speech in terms of behavior  satisfactorily, he remained adamant in keeping behavior as the only way to explain humans psychologically.

I question as to whether or not behaviorism will continue to be a major school of psychology in the future.  Or, if like  gestalt psychology, it will simply become a supporting wing of psychology to the increasingly popular biological model.  Neurology/psychiatry and neuropsychology are becoming increasingly intertwined, and despite Watson’s prediction, are becoming increasingly more able to explain psychology in terms of biological processes.  However, even the biological model cannot explain everything.  As far, behaviorism has its niche and can explain many but not all psychological aspects of humans, and as it cannot explain the mind, has become more and more connected with cognitive psychology

So, I wonder in the future whether psychology, like physics, will search for a unifying theory.  Or will it remain a fractured science, in which collaboration between the branches in the only way to explain human beings?

I think the case of Phineas Gage raises some very hairy questions about metaphysics and Christian idea of the soul.  There is a lot of debate within Christianity about who a person is, what makes us human, do we have a soul, are we our soul, and does a person exist outside their body.  The idea of a transcendent soul is not even Judaic, but more Greek in origin.  A lot of ancient Hebrews did not even believe in another realm of “Heaven” where the faithful would go after death, the Sadduccees followed this tradition very heavily.

In fact, the Greek/Roman idea of the after life was a sort of noncorporeal world that punished a few people, but otherwise was a sort of boring nothingness in which we would float around forever.  In fact, if one scans the New Testament and tries to see how Jesus describes Heaven, it is much more like a recreation of Earth then the “other dimension” feel that many preach about today.  In fact, afterlife is described as believers getting new bodies and the Earth being renewed.

Also, saying that humans cannot exist outside our bodies and that the soul is in fact a part of the body, solves the problem Descartes and many other dualists (believing body and soul are separate) run into when trying to find a way for a noncorporeal soul to interact with a physical body.

It was interesting to hear that eugenics was brought up in class this week.  You almost never hear about eugenics and the eugenics movement of the 20th century brought up in a science class, much less at Abilene Christian University.  I’m not sure how many people are even aware that the eugenics movement existed, or that it still exists today.

I think that it would be important for us to start bringing eugenics into modern day discussions of science, we are fast approaching a day where we may be able to manipulate human DNA and craft “perfect” humans.  The whole eugenics movement was all about removing trash and faulty genetic material from the human race so that it would no longer plague human society.  It led to the casting out of and sterilization of many people considered mentally unfit or genetically unsuitable to reproduce.

Not to mention eugenics inspired the practices of Nazi Germany and its racial genocide against European Jewish people.  A lesser know fact is that eugenics inspired Margaret Sanger, the founder of Family Planning Clinics in the United States, there is still an undertone of eugenics there even today.

I think that eugenics is an important topic to discuss in modern science.  We currently do not possess the ability to manipulate DNA on a scale to allow genetic screening, and we may never reach that level, but the possibility exists.  Movies like Gattica are a good reminder of this possibility and raise the question about who will be the one to decide what passes and normal/desired genetic traits and which will not.  Perhaps we will never reach the level that eugenics did in the 20th century, but some how negative social trends always find a way to creep back into the social conscious.

In light that science has its roots in philosophy, a lot of Medieval Philosophy and later philosophy is a reaction to religion, I think it is interesting the amount of dogma that accompanies philosophy.  Often times, philosophy reacts to religion by accusing it of being dogmatic and close minded.  However, a lot of philosophy is just as bad.  The empiricist and rationalist movements are great examples.  One emphasizes experience and the other rational thinking, yet many leaders of both movements rejected the other side as wrong.

Science and religion continue to do the same thing today.  Science rejects religion as being based in myth, and religion attacks science saying that what science teaches is incompatible with God’s truth.  The most famous example being Galileo’s support of the heliocentric model of the solar system, and the Church persecuting him for it.  Galileo was a member of the Church, but because of what he said he ended up under house arrest and eventually died of sickness.  The funny thing is that he wasn’t rejecting God’s truth, but merely the influence of Aristotle’s thinking of how the Universe worked, it seems the Church cared more about it’s authority then what is the actual truth.

And so my question is, is this problem rooted in the disagreements of philosophy, religion, and science as based in the Renaissance, or is it a problem that has always existed between these different but still (with some exceptions) compatible views of the truth?

I just wanted to expand a little more on what Dr. McAnulty touched upon in class.  He spoke a little bit about Plato’s beliefs in the “forms” and how Christianity adopted a lot of Platonic thoughts.

I had learned in a philosophy class, that Plato determined that of all the possible forms that existed in the world, there are three on which all other forms were based.  The three highest forms are that of Beauty, Truth, and the most important and basis of all other forms, is the form of Good.  It is important to note that Plato beliefs in three higher forms, for that is one of the original concepts that early Christians were attracted to in Platonic philosophy.  They drew a line between the three forms and the Holy Trinity.

I think it is interesting, that the early Christians latched so much onto Platonic philosophy and incorporated it into their interpretation of Christianity.  Its is easy to see why.  A lot of early Christians were in fact Greeks, the earliest Christian texts ever discovered are written in Greek.  Plato played a very important part in Greek education at the time.

It’s also important to note, that the idea of forms goes well in an idea of otherworldly realms, such as heaven.  And I can see how the early Christians picked up on the idea of the three highest forms and matched that up with the Holy Trinity.  The thing I find most interesting, however, is the fact that even after most of Plato’s influence faded away from Christianity, modern Christians still latch onto ideas and fads that seem to satisfy our worldview.

I did not grow up in the Church of Christ, but I know that the Church of Christ started in a movement to get back to the basics of Christianity.  But even CoC has let outside trends influence how they do Church.  So, what do you guys think?  Do you think its okay to incorporate non-Christian ideas as long as they do not conflict with mainstays of the Christian faith?

Probably the best example of this, is the tendency of Church’s to run like businesses.  The Church adopts business terms such as Executive Pastor and budgets its money with the propensity of an accountant.

This is random, but I found this comic and thought it was hilarious.