Archive for ‘The Schools of Psychology (Part IV-B)’

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’m noticing a trend as the semester goes on, and it’s probably not just limited to Humanism and Behaviorism.  Ever since the Empiricism (experience) versus Rationalism (reason) debate was brought up, it seems like it continues to show up in some form another throughout history. Even before Behaviorism was Mechanism, a precursor of sorts that assumed man was like a machine (something Behaviorism might agree with in how man is capable of “being programmed” through conditioning), both of which falling on the side of experience. When you breakdown the common Behaviorist’s position, it seems to suggest that man is kind of blank slate that is either operates or is operated on the environment. Nothing about this seems to imply there is anything to man prior to these “operations,” and seems to argue that whatever substance mankind has behind it is a result of consequences or the events that occurred through an individuals life, shaping them to behave the way in which they do.

The counter to this seems to be Humanism for the moment (though Pscyhoanalysis fits as well). The line that caught my attention the most was Abraham Maslow’s comment that “anyone who had a baby couldn’t be a behaviorist,” a comment that would stand in direct opposition to the Behaviorist/Empiricist position. It instead insists that people aren’t born with a blank slate just waiting to be filled with experience or be conditioned, that we are instead born with something already instilled within us. Psychoanalysis most certainly would be in line with this sort of thinking in its emphasis on the unconscious, a force that nigh constantly demands instant gratification (that doesn’t appear to be learned, but latent). Overall, the schools of thought, unlike Behaviorism, stress an emphasis on a sort of consciousness or reasoning to supersedes experience alone.

It would probably be less interesting if the theories were as ancient as the ideas they represent, but it provides only further evidence that the Experience/Rational debate is far from over, and continues to thrive even to this day. I can’t say if there will ever be an obvious answer to this question, but with all the technology and progress that has been made, I would expect to be closer to some sort of resolution. The fact that this argument continues to exists only makes me all the more skeptical.

For this last post I knew I wanted to talk more about the whole “ego vs id” idea. So, of course I decided to be really scientific and youtube it. After searching through some ridiculous results, lucky for you, I found this jewel of a video. This vintage video (it’s the link at the bottom of the post) from who knows how long ago is not only hilarious, but I think actually does a great job in describing Freud’s basic beliefs. According to Freud’s model, the ego is the organized, realistic part of us, the id is more of the primal pleasure part that tells us what we want and when we want it (usually NOW), and the super ego is the reasonable voice in our head telling us what not to do.

I think this model is really interesting, and describes what I have always grown up with calling my “conscience” or Jiminy Cricket. Instead of one voice telling you what is right, there are two battling voices trying and pulling you two different ways. I have really only known this as my conscience and the Devil trying to tempt me. Freud instead calls it the id and superego.

But clearly this is not what Freud believes. You can thank this video for giving such a creepy picture of this model and the two different voices that can be heard from them- one reason driven and one soley pleasure driven.

Click on the link below, leave your favorite quotes in the comment section, and enjoy. For example, get excited to hear this-“David, what are you doing with your sister in the basement?”

Id, Ego, & Superego Video