3 ms·
> It scared me when I found out such a high percentage of people are sociopaths. What, from psychologists? You do understand, don't you, that most of psycholog
by lutusp 13y ago
> It scared me when I found out such a high percentage of people are sociopaths.
What, from psychologists? You do understand, don't you, that most of psychology is based on anecdotes, yes? Consider the term "sociopath" itself -- is there a thermometer or a high-tech scanner that flashes a red warning when a sociopath is under the sensor? Or is the label a matter of opinion?
To give you a feel for how loose psychology is, for decades psychiatrists and psychologists treated a condition called "Asperger Syndrome", marked by a tendency to focus one's attention on very few things, even just one, and poor social skills. Eventually people complained that what was being described might be normal, even advantageous behavior, as a result of which a split took place -- half the psychologists begin making lists of famous, very successful people who were supposedly mentally ill with the condition (Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Gates and many more), and the other half petitioned to have the condition removed from the profession's diagnostic guidebook.
The critics won that battle, Asperger's has been removed, and in a delicious irony, there is now a new therapy meant to get people to focus more, show more intense dedication to a few pursuits, or even just one. Sound familiar? The new fad is called "Grit", and it extols the virtue of the same behaviors that the Asperger's people thought marked one as mentally ill and in need of treatment.
In short, until about five years ago, people paid psychologists to be treated for the defect of too much focus and concentration on too few activities. Now they pay psychologists to develop that very ability -- it's now fashionable to be focused.
To see how psychology works, all you need to do is read its history, see how many fads come and go without any serious science being done. But this era is drawing to a close -- people are beginning to abandon psychiatry and psychology, including some heavyweights like the sitting director of the NIMH:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-scientific-backlash-against-the-dsm.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-s...
- Houshalter 13y agoI'm relatively certain sociopath is a real thing. I don't know how accurate the tests/surveys are or whether it's more like a continuous spectrum rather than a binary on/off switch. But I know there are real full blown sociopaths with no empathy at all, and I have learned it's more common than I thought that it was. I don't know if there is a name for that fallacy but you seem to be disputing an entire field of science because of a single controversy over another unrelated issue.
- lutusp 13y ago> I'm relatively certain sociopath is a real thing. It's not a question of it being real, it's a matter of science and objectivity. If we can't reliably measure it, it doesn't matter that it exists, because anyone can claim to have, or not have, the condition. > ... you seem to be disputing an entire field of science because of a single controversy over another unrelated issue. I'm not doing that. The director of the NIMH is doing that. His reasons are excellent -- psychology is not a science and cannot be relied on to produce repeatable results. Article: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity." I couldn't have said it better myself -- the DSM, the "Bible" of mental health, is simply not valid, and cannot be used for scientific investigations. > I don't know if there is a name for that fallacy ... Paying attention to evidence, or the lack thereof, is not a logical fallacy. Ignoring an absence of evidence, and of scientific discipline, is. What's ironic about this exchange is that the linked article makes the same point. Its author was forced to the conclusion that even the high-tech scans that led to his conclusion, far removed from ordinary psychological practice, are very questionable and sometimes flat wrong.
- Houshalter 13y agoPsychology is certainly a science that has produced tons of repeatable results and discovered lots of things that were not previously known. Like any science it has provided insights that make sense of the world and it has useful applications in treating mentally ill people, for example. I'm not entirely certain what you are claiming or disputing here. >It's not a question of it being real, it's a matter of science and objectivity. If we can't reliably measure it, it doesn't matter that it exists, because anyone can claim to have, or not have, the condition. That's really misleading. Psychological symptoms are not that subjective. Behavior is directly observable. And even subjective measurements are still data points. Not to mention things like brain scans.