Well written. The thing is that psychology is not a science, it does have science in it as a tool but it has always been manipulated by opinions and commonality.
Thank you for the post. I've been feeling uncomfortable that psychologists don't have enough training related to neurology. I wish it was more fact based. A good friend of mine (who has been seeing psychologists since she was a young child) told me he/she wished that her psychologists did brain related tests, because many problems (anxiety, depression, OCD...) must be there. His/Her words made me think a lot... And your post made me think even more...
Changing your opinion is difficult, specially if, like you said, your ego and money were involved... I have a doubt. Is ego related to our feelings or our accomplishments? Or is it just related in neurotypicals? Is it separate in psychopaths? From what I've understood from your posts, psychopaths have a rock solid self-confidence. Do you have a rock solid ego? How do you experience it? I'm not even sure if I have the correct definition of ego in my head... (I think it's our sense of self and self worth)
Ever since I started reading your posts, I started questioning which things are sepparate from emotions and which depend on emotions (from your previous post, fear is mainly emotional and the physical part can happen sepparately).
So couldn't hear the speaker good enough to listen to her presentation. I did however read the interview afterwards. Can I just say this woman has crossed the line. .. that imaginary line from genius to insanity. Or may I just say she's batshit crazy. I am appalled that they would ask her to speak at any school. Wow.
You know, this whole situation points to a larger problem that I'm not sure you fully noticed yet.
Context - as you know, humans are generally led around by their feelings that they use to navigate reality; those feelings condense into attitudes sink down and get converted in beliefs that then source their subsequent thoughts that spark emotions that create feelings and so on, and so forth.
My point - our beliefs dictate our thinking and shape our affects. Beliefs are deep-rooted and hard to change by design.
For a person who has a personality disorder or psychotic disorder, changing beliefs is particularly difficult, since it's some of their core beliefs actually sustain their disorders or psychoses.
Dogma is akin to crystallized beliefs in the shape of monkey wrenches stuck in the cogs of cognition. It's what keeps *most* people from being able to think, regardless of their intellectual level.
That is why many people feel personally attacked when their beliefs are challenged. Their cognition is hindered by dogma. And dogma is arguably a sign of psychopathology, some type of which must affect the majority of the population across all hierearquies from top to bottom.
Hello, thank you for the post. A question -- do you feel that, overall, psychology has gotten worse in the ways you're noting? Have you read a lot of the historical stuff about this field?
I'm not an expert on it by any means; I've been reading on the history of "autism" as a diagnosis, since seeking that diagnosis and getting it officially confirmed at age 52 a few years ago.
Re. that issue I don't feel that the "field" has devolved; it's had a lot of badly done science in it from the start! Science is supposed to evolve with new evidence, but it seems a lot of the folks in the autism field cannot shed their presuppositions.
Unfortunately I think neurologists do the same kind of thing in their own field... maybe most humans do... I often read stuff about, say, some cellular-level difference, and it's just labeled "deficient" immediately sometimes. No research into how that tiny difference affects the massively more complex neurology; just assumptions. No consideration that maybe the most average neurotypical version of whatever might have its own problems. I seem to find little to no research into strengths of alternative wirings; lots of assumptions -- not good science. But as you imply, which group has more PhDs and positions as head of peer reviewed journals?
Unfortunately these sorts of things really bother me emotionally; maybe not all neurotypes are bothered by that stuff? I believe I see how it's likely affecting many lives badly though. (I post some on Quora from an older, late-diagnosed female autistic perspective btw.)
Thank you for this post. I agree with the other commentator about psychology not being a science. It’s also that many people talk about how influenced psychology was say 50 years ago but they don’t realize that it is still so, just by different parties and ideas, those they find positive and therefore it’s somehow not the same. As for incompetence of many therapists, it seems to me that for many neurodivergent people finding the right specialist can be quite difficult. For most of my neurodivergent acquaintances, myself included being in therapy was either completely useless or even harmful. Many therapists are not educated about different mental health conditions, let alone different variants of the norm, and how to work with them.
I may be in the minority here, but I think that often people see therapists about problems that they are more than capable of sorting out themselves. Idk if it will sound ignorant or retrograde, but therapy focused on patriarchal trauma or exploring gender is..well..some people may need it but I think as much as we need a special cup to pour water on the carpet. ( Btw, you may enjoy reading this :
I don’t know. Cherishing this little thing in one’s psyche and cherishing that doesn’t really seem to strengthen people mentally, rather make them more dependent on the rituals and concepts learnt in therapy, I may be wrong, again, but I have observed that.
I also read up a lot about how Antisocial Personality Disorder, psychopathy, and sociopathy are defined, and it seems that their main qualifiers are patterns of rule-breaking behaviors, rather than a specific thought process that lacks typical emotions. While it is asserted in many definitions that lack of remorse is essential to the diagnosis, what it really refers to is a disorder that produces behavior that violates laws. It seems that it's not wrong that the criminals are what define the diagnosis, because the diagnosis was meant to be a study of their behavior. What you are, is different, and as far as I know, lacks diagnosis.
Regardless, the title of that virtual talk is perplexing. So is its learning objectives. I am confused why they focus so much on lack of empathy in defining psychopathy when it's a diagnosis meant for defining patterns of behavior. Lack of empathy is a correlated pattern among criminals perhaps, but it's not what causes it if not all un-empathic persons behave criminally. Haven't other professionals criticized this talk? How did we end up confusing the diagnosis?
Well written. The thing is that psychology is not a science, it does have science in it as a tool but it has always been manipulated by opinions and commonality.
Thank you for the post. I've been feeling uncomfortable that psychologists don't have enough training related to neurology. I wish it was more fact based. A good friend of mine (who has been seeing psychologists since she was a young child) told me he/she wished that her psychologists did brain related tests, because many problems (anxiety, depression, OCD...) must be there. His/Her words made me think a lot... And your post made me think even more...
Changing your opinion is difficult, specially if, like you said, your ego and money were involved... I have a doubt. Is ego related to our feelings or our accomplishments? Or is it just related in neurotypicals? Is it separate in psychopaths? From what I've understood from your posts, psychopaths have a rock solid self-confidence. Do you have a rock solid ego? How do you experience it? I'm not even sure if I have the correct definition of ego in my head... (I think it's our sense of self and self worth)
Ever since I started reading your posts, I started questioning which things are sepparate from emotions and which depend on emotions (from your previous post, fear is mainly emotional and the physical part can happen sepparately).
I'm afraid that the field of psychology is on the way to becoming akin to phrenology
Science At its core, is based on doubt.
Every time a theory is proven wrong, it creates an opening for deeper understanding of reality.
Thus, the experts are not doing science, but merely defending their own identity castle.
It may feel they have a rational basis in doing so, in their own self interest.
But it’s not science
So couldn't hear the speaker good enough to listen to her presentation. I did however read the interview afterwards. Can I just say this woman has crossed the line. .. that imaginary line from genius to insanity. Or may I just say she's batshit crazy. I am appalled that they would ask her to speak at any school. Wow.
A similar thing happens with politics. Words like ‘fascist’ have lost their meanings.
You know, this whole situation points to a larger problem that I'm not sure you fully noticed yet.
Context - as you know, humans are generally led around by their feelings that they use to navigate reality; those feelings condense into attitudes sink down and get converted in beliefs that then source their subsequent thoughts that spark emotions that create feelings and so on, and so forth.
My point - our beliefs dictate our thinking and shape our affects. Beliefs are deep-rooted and hard to change by design.
For a person who has a personality disorder or psychotic disorder, changing beliefs is particularly difficult, since it's some of their core beliefs actually sustain their disorders or psychoses.
Dogma is akin to crystallized beliefs in the shape of monkey wrenches stuck in the cogs of cognition. It's what keeps *most* people from being able to think, regardless of their intellectual level.
That is why many people feel personally attacked when their beliefs are challenged. Their cognition is hindered by dogma. And dogma is arguably a sign of psychopathology, some type of which must affect the majority of the population across all hierearquies from top to bottom.
Hello, thank you for the post. A question -- do you feel that, overall, psychology has gotten worse in the ways you're noting? Have you read a lot of the historical stuff about this field?
I'm not an expert on it by any means; I've been reading on the history of "autism" as a diagnosis, since seeking that diagnosis and getting it officially confirmed at age 52 a few years ago.
Re. that issue I don't feel that the "field" has devolved; it's had a lot of badly done science in it from the start! Science is supposed to evolve with new evidence, but it seems a lot of the folks in the autism field cannot shed their presuppositions.
Unfortunately I think neurologists do the same kind of thing in their own field... maybe most humans do... I often read stuff about, say, some cellular-level difference, and it's just labeled "deficient" immediately sometimes. No research into how that tiny difference affects the massively more complex neurology; just assumptions. No consideration that maybe the most average neurotypical version of whatever might have its own problems. I seem to find little to no research into strengths of alternative wirings; lots of assumptions -- not good science. But as you imply, which group has more PhDs and positions as head of peer reviewed journals?
Unfortunately these sorts of things really bother me emotionally; maybe not all neurotypes are bothered by that stuff? I believe I see how it's likely affecting many lives badly though. (I post some on Quora from an older, late-diagnosed female autistic perspective btw.)
Thank you for this post. I agree with the other commentator about psychology not being a science. It’s also that many people talk about how influenced psychology was say 50 years ago but they don’t realize that it is still so, just by different parties and ideas, those they find positive and therefore it’s somehow not the same. As for incompetence of many therapists, it seems to me that for many neurodivergent people finding the right specialist can be quite difficult. For most of my neurodivergent acquaintances, myself included being in therapy was either completely useless or even harmful. Many therapists are not educated about different mental health conditions, let alone different variants of the norm, and how to work with them.
I may be in the minority here, but I think that often people see therapists about problems that they are more than capable of sorting out themselves. Idk if it will sound ignorant or retrograde, but therapy focused on patriarchal trauma or exploring gender is..well..some people may need it but I think as much as we need a special cup to pour water on the carpet. ( Btw, you may enjoy reading this :
https://www.drvalerie.com/about-psd )
I don’t know. Cherishing this little thing in one’s psyche and cherishing that doesn’t really seem to strengthen people mentally, rather make them more dependent on the rituals and concepts learnt in therapy, I may be wrong, again, but I have observed that.
let’s make a movie together.
I also read up a lot about how Antisocial Personality Disorder, psychopathy, and sociopathy are defined, and it seems that their main qualifiers are patterns of rule-breaking behaviors, rather than a specific thought process that lacks typical emotions. While it is asserted in many definitions that lack of remorse is essential to the diagnosis, what it really refers to is a disorder that produces behavior that violates laws. It seems that it's not wrong that the criminals are what define the diagnosis, because the diagnosis was meant to be a study of their behavior. What you are, is different, and as far as I know, lacks diagnosis.
Regardless, the title of that virtual talk is perplexing. So is its learning objectives. I am confused why they focus so much on lack of empathy in defining psychopathy when it's a diagnosis meant for defining patterns of behavior. Lack of empathy is a correlated pattern among criminals perhaps, but it's not what causes it if not all un-empathic persons behave criminally. Haven't other professionals criticized this talk? How did we end up confusing the diagnosis?