Here’s today’s quiz question, and it’s an easy one. Which field of professional study and practice gets the most interest and attention from the public? Nope, it’s not otorhinolaryngology, not even limnology or soteriology. As you probably guessed, it’s PSYCHOLOGY. (Although maybe it should be soteriology).
Why? Well, you don’t have to be a psychologist to figure out that we humans are very interested in ourselves. And psychology has a lot to say about ourselves. But as to how much of it is accurate and valuable, that is subject to debate. Nonetheless, there are lots of people out there who have taken some classes on the topic and have read-up on the literature, and just love to try out what they’ve learned on other people. That includes myself! Pop psychology is just another little tool we use in the great human task of getting along with each other. Or sometimes in sticking it to one another.
Whenever someone volunteers to psychoanalyze someone else, red lights should immediately start flashing and warning horns start beeping. DANGER! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON (for those of you old enough to remember “Lost In Space”). The voluntary analyst climbs a mount of claimed expertise and pseudo-objectivity, usually to mask his or her own agenda. The resulting analysis usually cites some line of fault, some theory of neurosis, some weakness stemming from the subject’s alleged unhealthy sub-conscious response to past frustrations and denials.
This is fine, if the subject has requested it and has worked closely with the analyst in developing the facts and the background of the problem. But when volunteered by another, it often reflects mean and obnoxious motives on the analyst’s part, craftily hidden behind a mantle of honest concern. I believe that the psychologists (or the pop-psychologists, anyway) call this “passive – aggressive” behavior.
An interesting example is an article published during last fall’s presidential election campaign by alternate-health guru Dr. Deepak Chopra. Dr. Chopra’s specialty is not psychiatry, but nonetheless he felt himself qualified to peer deep into the subconscious recesses of those who supported Sarah Palin. According to Dr. Chopra, to those who didn’t want Barack Obama as their President, Palin represents “the shadow . . . that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of ‘the other’.”
OK, so anyone who didn’t vote for Obama is neurotic. This is all quite interesting and even a bit amusing. But whenever an uninvited analysis of “the psyche” is on offer, be it the national psyche or the individual, my own recommendation would be: doctor, heal thyself.
(And yes, let me ‘fess up here – in writing this uninvited analysis of those who perform uninvited analysis, I’m playing the passive-aggressive game myself! Mea culpa.)
Jim,
One can always tell the person with just a little knowledge of psychology: That person is always right there to apply the info in the latest chapter of Psych 101 assigned for reading. And such individuals are ALWAYS so very sure they are right! Would that those who do know something of psychology might be so very sure as the person in Psych 101.
This phenomenon is of the same nature as the student in the classroom who falls out his his/her chair laughing at another student who doesn't know something. Having seen this phenomenon many, many times in my teaching life, I invariably noticed that person doing the laughing is almost certainly the "most stupid" student in the class–I say this with all due respect. That person seemed to me to always be astonished that someone else might not know something that he/she did know. That occasion of knowing something someone else did not know was so unique a situation as to be profound to the person. (Well, maybe this is only tangentially related.)
I would also like to split some hairs regarding the "study of people." There are two big groups into which the study of people is divided: psychology–the study of the individual; sociology–the study of groups of people.
Psychology then is broken down into psychiatry which has a starting point in medicine. The psychiatrist is a medical doctor first and then branches off into the speciality of the study of the person. (Exactly the same as an orthopedic surgeon branches off into the study of surgery on the bones of the body after having studied medicine.)
Psychologists start in academia, usually have a serious background in research and approach the study of the individual from that standpoint.
Psychoanalysts can be either psychiatrists or psychologists who branch off after their initial studies are finished into the "analysis" aspect, concentrating on Freud, Jung, etc. Each psychoanalyst MUST have undergone his/her own psychoanalysis before (or sometimes while interning) working with individuals who wish to pursue psychoanalysis.
There is also the Doctor of Psychology which is an academic approach that attempts to simulate a kind of "general practitioner" approach to the above distinctions.
These distinctions among the various approaches to "psychology" are seriously different from each other.
Many of the Psych 101 experts in others psyches often have no clue of the distinctions above.
As to voting habits labeling neurosis: There is hardly a connection between the two. Voting habits would be very far from any kind of link between the label "neurotic" and the actual voting "habits" of a person.
Furthermore, any person who truly has some knowledge of psychological processes is seldom interested in any kind of "random" labeling process. First, a real "analyst" would have to live in "professional mode" all the time, which they do not want to do. Second, often the person truly capable of "analyzing" another is simply not interested in any kind of "random" labeling of people. Third, having achieved one of the above kinds of education in the psychology of people, the person definitely would want to be paid for his/her evaluation of an individual and would definitely NOT offer advice free of charge. Thus, the person offering "free" psychological advice/analysis has to be either a person with very little knowledge of the subject or a fraud.
MCS
Comment by MCS — October 13, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Jim,
One can always tell the person with just a little knowledge of psychology: That person is always right there to apply the info in the latest chapter of Psych 101 assigned for reading. And such individuals are ALWAYS so very sure they are right! Would that those who do know something of psychology might be so very sure as the person in Psych 101.
This phenomenon is of the same nature as the student in the classroom who falls out his his/her chair laughing at another student who doesn't know something. Having seen this phenomenon many, many times in my teaching life, I invariably noticed that person doing the laughing is almost certainly the "most stupid" student in the class–I say this with all due respect. That person seemed to me to always be astonished that someone else might not know something that he/she did know. That occasion of knowing something someone else did not know was so unique a situation as to be profound to the person. (Well, maybe this is only tangentially related.)
I would also like to split some hairs regarding the "study of people." There are two big groups into which the study of people is divided: psychology–the study of the individual; sociology–the study of groups of people.
Psychology then is broken down into psychiatry which has a starting point in medicine. The psychiatrist is a medical doctor first and then branches off into the speciality of the study of the person. (Exactly the same as an orthopedic surgeon branches off into the study of surgery on the bones of the body after having studied medicine.)
Psychologists start in academia, usually have a serious background in research and approach the study of the individual from that standpoint.
Psychoanalysts can be either psychiatrists or psychologists who branch off after their initial studies are finished into the "analysis" aspect, concentrating on Freud, Jung, etc. Each psychoanalyst MUST have undergone his/her own psychoanalysis before (or sometimes while interning) working with individuals who wish to pursue psychoanalysis.
There is also the Doctor of Psychology which is an academic approach that attempts to simulate a kind of "general practitioner" approach to the above distinctions.
These distinctions among the various approaches to "psychology" are seriously different from each other.
Many of the Psych 101 experts in others psyches often have no clue of the distinctions above.
As to voting habits labeling neurosis: There is hardly a connection between the two. Voting habits would be very far from any kind of link between the label "neurotic" and the actual voting "habits" of a person.
Furthermore, any person who truly has some knowledge of psychological processes is seldom interested in any kind of "random" labeling process. First, a real "analyst" would have to live in "professional mode" all the time, which they do not want to do. Second, often the person truly capable of "analyzing" another is simply not interested in any kind of "random" labeling of people. Third, having achieved one of the above kinds of education in the psychology of people, the person definitely would want to be paid for his/her evaluation of an individual and would definitely NOT offer advice free of charge. Thus, the person offering "free" psychological advice/analysis has to be either a person with very little knowledge of the subject or a fraud.
MCS
Comment by MCS — October 13, 2009 @ 4:22 pm