Radical Psychology and the MBTI

[Philosophyking87]

What do you guys think of psychology as a scientific discipline, even if a "soft" (or semi-soft) one? Is the field of psychology truly empirical, or is our current technological ability limited to such an extent that the mind remains a fuzzy subject matter, as with all the other social sciences, such that we can only ultimately reach rather broad "scientific approximations"? And if indeed we can only reach broad scientific approximations -- not to mention the fact that the entire enterprise of psychology (like many other sciences) seems to have become part of a super political enterprise (with corporations, governments, and others of power) using psychology as a means of controlling and regulating society -- must we ultimately be skeptical of our advancements of psychological knowledge, from the perspective that there are perhaps cultural and social biases present in mainstream psychology, and also perhaps because, as with most sciences, we run the risk of presuming the overall veracity of our advancements, given the limitations of our very ability to know anything about the brain?

Do you guys also think that psychology is used as a means of suppressing deviant behavior (i.e., "undesirable behavior in culture X") and as a means of both a) maintaining the status quo and authoritarian control and b) promoting values and beliefs particular to any given society? I know Foucault focused much on critiquing many social institutions (such as the penal system and the use of psychiatry), and that his thought has given rise to many "critical psychologists," with a loose field of psychology opening up, known as "radical psychology." So I just wonder if you guys also have any critical concerns with regard to psychology as a scientific discipline.

Are some views discouraged, while others are promoted, due more to this power structure in which psychology has been immersed? Is our understanding of the distinctions of sanity and insanity as clear-cut as some psychologists seem to believe? Where do social deviants fit into all of this? Also, when some people clearly seem to operate in a much more logical and less emotional fashion, rather consistently, while others seem to operate in a much more emotional and less logical fashion rather consistently, should such psychological notions be discarded merely because they do not easily fit modern, mainstream psychology, due to perhaps a limitation of empirical support? Should psychological theory follow strictly from our limited empirical data, or should the possibility of a flawed and biased psychological mainstream perhaps lead us to be a bit more open-minded about what may or may not be true of the operation of the human mind (especially with regard to personality)?

I've yet to take a course on personality psychology (which I may soon enough), so I'm wondering if you guys have any thoughts on the matter. I'm really intrigued by the notion that people really do seem to operate differently (like some being more obsessed with ideas, while others aren't), while modern psychology seems to say nothing substantial of such things. The closest we get to this is the Big 5, which relies on no theory, but merely attempts to empirically map out (as best we can) certain traits people have. Given I care more for a meaningful theory that explains humans in a coherent fashion, modern psychology seems a bit lacking. Do you consider this MBTI stuff to be a bit more akin to a system in which people merely “see what they want,” and in which the Forer effect may play a role? Or is there something to the idea that people operate according to certain psychological patterns which exist all throughout humanity? Why do some people seem more alike than others, with highly similar ways of looking at the world, while one guy may not understand another at all? What accounts for this "similarity" and "dissimilarity"? Hmm... Any thoughts? lol

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

What do you guys think of psychology as a scientific discipline, even if a "soft" (or semi-soft) one? Is the field of psychology truly empirical, or is our current technological ability limited to such an extent that the mind remains a fuzzy subject matter, as with all the other social sciences, such that we can only ultimately reach rather broad "scientific approximations"?

Psychology, like many social sciences, gets a bad rap from the "hard science" types because of its soft empiricism. Of course, a physicist only has to study one universe (with apologies to Shrodinger) while psychologists--in a sense--study a new one with every human being.

Psychology is still relatively young though, at least as a research science. It is still in the infancy. With personality typing, we have just the broad outlines of something that may yield much greater depth as research progresses. As we learn more, I don't think the simple notions we hold today may necessarily be thrown out. After all, Einstein expanded our conception of the universe, but in day to day matters we still operate in Newton's world.

must we ultimately be skeptical of our advancements of psychological knowledge, from the perspective that there are perhaps cultural and social biases present in mainstream psychology, and also perhaps because, as with most sciences, we run the risk of presuming the overall veracity of our advancements, given the limitations of our very ability to know anything about the brain?

I think that is an incredibly perceptive question. I think Thomas Kuhn showed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that no field is immune from bias--cultural, social or otherwise. Certainly medicine has had some incredibly embarrassing episodes. It could be that psychology may be MORE prone to bias because of reasons you mentioned, but it would be far down the ladder from economics, which is plagued by bias for a host of reasons.

You might find the Adam Curtis documentary Century of the Self to be of interest. I believe it is still available online somewhere.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Psychology, like many social sciences, gets a bad rap from the "hard science" types because of its soft empiricism. Of course, a physicist only has to study one universe (with apologies to Shrodinger) while psychologists--in a sense--study a new one with every human being.

Agreed: the hard sciences are less difficult to study in that we can actually go out and really test theories. The mind, on the other hand, is clearly a difficult subject to study.

As we learn more, I don't think the simple notions we hold today may necessarily be thrown out.

Perhaps. Then again, psychology is a young field not too similar to physics, so our understanding of the mind years from now may be entirely different.

I think that is an incredibly perceptive question. I think Thomas Kuhn showed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that no field is immune from bias--cultural, social or otherwise. Certainly medicine has had some incredibly embarrassing episodes. It could be that psychology may be MORE prone to bias because of reasons you mentioned, but it would be far down the ladder from economics, which is plagued by bias for a host of reasons.

You might find the Adam Curtis documentary Century of the Self to be of interest. I believe it is still available online somewhere.

1. I'm always hearing about Kuhn, but have yet to read his work. If indeed his work supports my suspicions, then that is very interesting.

2. I'll definiteky check that out.