Contents
Genetics is a science, and if we know which chromosome is responsible for causing diabetes, hereditary diabetes can be prevented. If we knew what is responsible for laziness, envy and lying to ourselves in our psyche, we could at least become decent people. Unfortunately, it is insanely difficult to create a psychology science that answers such questions, because how do you get into a person? And asking a person “Why are you lazy and lying to yourself?” it is seriously meaningless, because people themselves do not know this, but they invent and compose for you.
In physics, if there is a concept of energy, then there is a formula for determining kinetic energy (multiply the mass of a body by the square of its speed and divide in half), there is a formula for determining potential energy, there is Einstein’s formula E = mc2, and all this can be measured with instruments. As for psychologists, at women’s trainings, participants are engaged in practices to increase female energy. Unfortunately, it is difficult to measure the results of these practices, since there are no devices for measuring female energy and it is not clear how to connect these devices to women.
Or, here you take psychological literature and read: “Your irritation is caused by the fact that you do not accept yourself. What annoys you in others is what you cannot accept in yourself. You need to learn to accept yourself! — This is beautiful, it may be true, but, firstly, it is not verifiable, and secondly, the algorithm of actions for solving the problem with irritation is incomprehensible. To do what? It may be interesting literature, but it is not science.
Where does SCIENCE begin?
First of all, since we define concepts. We clarify what we are talking about. We’re talking about this, not that. This is what we mean, but this is not.
Define concepts!
Is a newborn an individual? If this is only the originality of his psychophysiological structure, then yes. But then both the peculiarly croaking frog and the peculiarly growling puppy at it are individuals. If we believe that individuality is inherent only in personality, then the newborn does not yet have individuality. Because a newborn may be loved and beautiful, but he is not yet a person.
“How is this not a person?! Every child is an individual from birth! – there is no need to be so categorical. In a legal sense: «Let’s go to the department, we need to establish your identity!» – yes, of course, the identity of the child is established from the moment the birth certificate is issued to him. If, however, some part of the scientific community of psychologists believes that one is not born a person, one becomes a person, then nothing personal: by the fact of birth, a child is not yet a person. Bottom line: do not argue in vain. Everything is determined by what you agree to invest in the concept of «personality».
And also, as soon as you agree on the definitions of other popular concepts of modern practical psychology: love, happiness, harmonious development, the unconscious, psychotrauma, extrovert, introvert, emotions, feelings, experiences …
Recall that your definitions must be clear and instrumentally verifiable: this can be seen, the presence or absence can really be verified. I recommend to practice, you are waiting for an interesting debate. Just don’t fight!
So, the second requirement of scientific character is data verifiability. Science is verification. How will we relate to the recommendation: “A family curse can be removed by sincerely asking for forgiveness from the deceased!”? — No way. We can neither confirm nor deny this. It is not verifiable, and unverifiable things are not science.
Discuss whether the following statements can be verified in some way:
- “The world gives us signs, we must be attentive to them!”
- «There are no accidents in the world!»
- “Everything that happens to us is given to us for something!”
You may have realized that I gave you this task for a reason. And they even guessed why: in order for us to remember well:
Unverifiable things are not science
The third requirement of science is experiment.
Only, of course, an honest experiment. In the Middle Ages, they also arranged an experimental test, this red-haired woman is a witch or not. You do know that red hair is the most common among witches, right? So, this red-haired witch was tied up and lowered into the river. If she somehow managed not to drown and escape, then she is definitely a witch. And they burned her.
Of course, modern science makes higher demands on experiments. Here, for example, is how a student-psychologist studied auditory analyzers from a grasshopper. When at the first stage of the experiment he gave him the command: “Jump!”, The grasshopper jumped. At the second stage of the experiment, the student-psychologist tore off the legs of the grasshopper and repeated the command «Jump!», but the grasshopper did not hear and did not jump. Thus, it was proved that the grasshopper’s auditory analyzers are on its legs …
The question is: how would you rate the reliability of an experimental test if the psychotherapist tested his method of work on his client and received confirmation of its effectiveness? Or: if your client feels better after working with you, does this prove that the technique you use is effective?
Psychoanalysts refer to the fact that, on average, after two years of psychoanalysis practice, neurosis is cured in two-thirds of their wards. Skeptics in response to this point out that, according to statistics, about two-thirds of all neurotic disorders disappear by themselves within 2 years after their appearance. That is, the same…
At least in medicine, experimental testing of the effectiveness of new drugs is carried out according to the double-blind method. Namely, those doctors who give drugs do not know which pill is real and which is an empty placebo, and doctors, those who investigate the consequences of taking drugs, should not know in which group those who took real pills and where those who took a placebo … Only in this case, you can count on objectivity. And it is a pity that in psychology such experiments are extremely difficult to conduct.
Take care of the objectivity of your experiments!
Next important point:
If you have developed your own method of psychotherapy and have been working with it for 20 years, helping hundreds and thousands of clients, do you have any reason to say that you have developed an effective method of psychotherapy?
Answer: There are no such reasons. At a minimum, you should check that your method is not personally tied to you, that it works not only in your hands. A scientifically developed method must be independent of the personality of its creator. It should be effective in the hands of every specialist, and not only in the performance of the author. Many talented specialists are convinced that their method works, although their personality, their rare, outstanding abilities actually work!
So, for example, it happened with Giordano Bruno. Giordano Bruno became famous in Europe long before the Holy Inquisition burned him. He became widely known in Europe for having a phenomenal memory, but more than that, he preached his amazing method of memorization and promised to teach all European monarchs his amazingly effective mnemonic system. Unfortunately, none of the European monarchs whom he taught improved their memory. What turned out? Giordano Bruno did develop a very efficient memorization system, the only problem was that his memorization system was very complex. Only he himself could remember this system of his, other people did not have enough memory for his mnemonic system. His system worked, but only with his excellent memory, only in his execution!
This is often the case in practical psychology. At pickup trainings, the trainers give a lot of effective preparations, how to quickly and cheerfully glue pretty girls on the street for young people. And what, you go, you see a pretty girl, you come up to her and with a smile you tell her: “Hello!”. She answers you: “Hello!”, You hand her a notebook and say: “Sign for Hello!”. A smile is guaranteed, everything is cool! And the phone will write! Is it really an effective method? Not this way. This method is not effective for everyone, it is effective only for those young people who are cheerful and confident. In the meantime, the participants of the training are not so confident and cheerful, nothing comes out of them! This method is inseparable from personality: a special personality, a bright and free personality.
Specify your choice
Let’s ask the same question again. Being engaged in psychotherapy, you have developed certain ideas about the psychological structure of personality. Based on your ideas about the structure of personality, you have developed your own method of psychotherapy, and now, with its help, you and your numerous followers have been successfully working for 20 years, helping hundreds and thousands of clients. Can we say that you have adequate ideas about the structure of personality?
Again, there is no good reason for this. The fact is that his ideas about the structure of personality were formed on the basis of those clients who went specifically to him, or who liked and suited his method. Freud was visited by those who got acquainted with his theory, those whom she attracted by the opportunity to confess what it was not customary to admit. They confessed terrible things to Sigmund Freud, and Freud became more and more convinced of his views on the destructive nature of man. And Carl Rogers, who believed in people and human kindness, went to clients who liked his views. And, surprisingly, Carl Rogers, with each successive client, became more and more convinced of his views on positive and constructive human nature!
Every psychotherapist has clients. And each psychotherapist, setting out his views on the structure of personality, actually describes not people in general, but his own sample: those who come to him personally.
It can be said in another way: I state my views on the structure of the personality, always make allowances for your professional deformation.
And further. Experts in experimental psychology know that experiments that are carried out on students of psychology departments are the least reliable. Psychology students are such a specific sample that it is dangerous to extend the data obtained to normal people …
Where else it is necessary to consider — and indicate! — your sample? in their recommendations. Where you describe the limits of applicability of your recommendations.
You came into practical psychology to help people. People will come to you in a difficult life situation, they will expect recommendations from you that will help them — and your task is to give them such recommendations! But our clients are different, with different characters and outlooks on life, and the best recommendations are those that are right for them. What is relevant for clients of psychotherapists is not at all relevant for successful businessmen. There are no universal, only correct recommendations — there are recommendations that are suitable for a specific category of clients.
What works well for many women only harms many men.
Does it help to calm down, if in a tense situation to express your feelings? — Yes, it helps: it helps most women. And most men, having spoken out their feelings, inflame their emotions even more.
It is known that the best psychotherapy is shopping. For money, too, for the same, but much more affordable and definitely faster. Everything is fine, but this is true only for women, shopping is more often annoying for men. However, women are also all different, and that the psychology of a young unmarried girl most often differs from the psychology of a woman with experience in family life. And so on: to each his own.
Your approach to psychology does not suit everyone, it suits your sample in the first place. See what your customers are. Rather rational people go to specialists in the cognitive-behavioral direction, and the transpersonal approach is closer to those who smoke weed. Cheerful and superstitious people go to Simoron, elderly and unhealthy people go to Norbekov, smart and sad people go to Gestalt. Guess if the recommendations are different in all these approaches? Yes, sometimes radically.
From a scientific point of view, any psychological recommendations always require clarification of who they are intended for, who they mean, and under what conditions they will work. Where are they ineffective? Or — downright harmful.
“I am a statement”, as a way of resolving conflict situations — a useful recommendation? Yes, only in a situation on an equal footing and in relations of close people. If you do not want to anger your boss, it is better not to use the “I statement” in relation to him.
Therefore, when formulating this or that law or regularity, formulating your recommendations, indicate as accurately as possible the sample for whom this is true, and do not rush to expand the boundaries of your statements to “all people”.
Connection of events and causality
Take a piece of paper, on the left side write “Health and life expectancy” (factor #1), and on the right side “Income level and professional status” (factor #2).
Now listen to the text and make notes, how are these factors, these life circumstances related to each other?
In the United States, life expectancy correlates with income (the life of the poor and people of low socioeconomic status is more likely to end prematurely).
In today’s UK, occupational status correlates with life expectancy. According to a 10-year study of 17 UK civil servants, the number of deaths among administrative workers is 350 times higher, and among office workers and workers 1,6 and 2,2 times respectively, than among senior managers (Adler et al., 2,7, 1993).
The highest life expectancy is observed in the regions of Scotland with the lowest population density and the lowest unemployment rate. (What are these areas?)
What do you think? Do you see that between health and the level at which people live, what social status they have — there is a certain connection between these circumstances? But — what? What influences what: the first influences the second? Does the second affect the first? What hypotheses do you have?
Do not rush to conclusions, based on these data, nothing can be said yet. Hypotheses explaining this correlation can be very different.
Hypothesis one: good health gives life activity, and activity — success in life. (Factor #1 affects factor #2).
Hypothesis two: those who have more money have better food and better doctors. (Factor #2 affects factor #1).
But there is a third hypothesis: maybe it’s all about upbringing? (Good manners: factor #3) Well-mannered people drink and smoke less, they are smarter, which is why they achieve more in life and live longer. (Factor #3 affects factor #1 and #2).
Another similar case:
The famous psychologist Carl Rogers, the leader of humanistic psychology, was convinced that self-esteem and a healthy «I-concept» of the child is the basis for his successful development. As support for this view, psychologists have discovered an interesting fact when observing children’s progress in school: children with a developed sense of self-esteem usually study better than children with low self-esteem. Checked — yes, it was an indisputable fact. In this regard, the administration of thirty US states has issued more than 170 pieces of legislation aimed at supporting self-esteem and a «healthy self-concept of the child», and has allocated the necessary funding. Unfortunately, the program did not produce the expected results: the children’s self-esteem increased, the tests showed their healthier self-concept, but their studies did not improve.
Can you explain this somehow?
Psychologists have forgotten the most important principle of scientific research: the connection between two circumstances does not mean that one is the cause of the other. Yes, there was a connection: children’s self-esteem was definitely correlated with their good academic performance. But it did not at all follow that the former was the cause and the latter the effect.
What other hypotheses can there be?
First, the opposite hypothesis is possible: it is not self-esteem that causes such children to study better, but that those children who study better have more self-respect. They have a lot to be proud of!
They began to think further, and the real reason turned out to be completely different. What do you think? What turned out to be factor #3?
Important was the family from which the children were. Children from a good family, where their parents had a good upbringing, high status and intelligence, and studied well and respected themselves. And if children were brought up in bad families, where parents were people of low culture, not particularly smart and were people of low status, then children from such families respected themselves less and studied worse …
So, we repeat the main conclusion once again: the connection between two circumstances, no matter how obvious it may be, does not yet say that one is the cause of the other.
However, things are much more complicated, so we will look at another important case that explored the consequences of child abuse. This case is not invented, it is, unfortunately, a real case. This is a case about children who were beaten by their parents in childhood. Not just once spanked, but beaten, beaten hard and often. And this has been happening for years. Unfortunately, such families do exist. And then the children grow up, and, like everyone else, go to school. But at school they are not quite like everyone else: they learn differently and behave differently. But as? Guess? Most likely, there is no discovery for you here: those children who were often beaten by their parents in childhood usually study worse and more often demonstrate antisocial behavior. This is understandable: children who were physically abused in childhood usually develop according to a neurotic scenario.
Stop: are we in a hurry? Stop: can you prove it?
So, there are two things being said here. First, there is a sample of children whose parents were beaten in childhood. Second, it is these children who do worse at school and more often demonstrate antisocial behavior. These are facts.
But the fact that one follows from the other is an assumption. This is the hypothesis that needs to be proven. It is required to prove that the beating of children in childhood is the reason for their poor academic performance and antisocial behavior.
We remember that the connection between two circumstances, no matter how obvious it may be, does not yet say that one is the cause of the other. But here the situation is a little different. Here is not just an obvious connection between the two circumstances, here one comes after the other. Billy — it was in childhood. They learn worse — it happens after that. Does one follow from the other? Beating children — the reason that children do not study well? Does one follow from the other? Is there a causal relationship between these events?
Think, think…
By the way, consider the following thesis: “Pickles are deadly. Why? Judge for yourself: everyone who ate pickles died! Evidence: they ate cucumbers — they died. Cause is a consequence. Yes? Or not?
No. This is the traditional fallacy where «after that» is equated with causality. And this is not so. After that does not mean because of this.
To understand, first try to formulate all possible hypotheses that are somehow reasonable … How many can you formulate?
According to the first hypothesis, parental abuse of children is the cause of their poor academic performance and their antisocial behavior.
According to the second hypothesis, the factors change places: the cause becomes the effect, the effect becomes the cause. In this case, an assumption is born: the beating of children by parents is a consequence of the fact that the children were stupid and harmful, from childhood they brought their parents to white heat. Which continued at school.
And there is some third hypothesis, where both of these factors are not related to each other, but there is some third reason that simultaneously generates both the first and second factors. For example, it can be assumed that child abuse, poor schooling and antisocial behavior are all the result of the fact that these children grew up in dysfunctional families.
Yes, subsequent studies have shown that it is this reason — dysfunctional families — that is the most significant. Parents in such families do not teach children, they bring her up, they do not prepare for school, and they present bad patterns of behavior. And the fact of beating in itself did not affect poor academic performance. It influenced antisocial behavior, but not academic performance. It also turned out that the second hypothesis also turned out to be true in some way: there are children who are difficult from childhood, children are stupid and aggressive, and ordinary parents cannot cope with them. And when such a child is ready to turn over the cradle of his sister, who has just been brought from the hospital, because now he gets less attention and does not understand any normal words, then not all parents are kept within the framework of normal words …
Everything turned out to be more difficult.
And for us, this is a lesson that we must repeat over and over again: after that does not mean that because of it.
Do you still have the strength to work out? If yes, then consider the following thesis:
Lack of warmth in childhood leads to stoop in adulthood. That is, many psychotherapists notice that if in childhood a child was deprived of love, warmth and attention, primarily maternal love and maternal attention, then such children rarely grow up with unfolded shoulders and normal posture. They slouch more often. How does this happen?
The daughter ran to her mother with joy, and the mother was busy or in a bad mood, and the daughter’s joy was rotten, the girl’s unfolded shoulders stooped. Mom rarely rejoiced, joy in the family was not very accepted, and the daughter, following her mother, weaned herself from rejoicing. More and more often she stopped herself when she wanted to be happy. And then she began to hide her feelings in her chest, and her stooped shoulders guarded her feelings.
What do you think about this?
I think this hypothesis is untenable. The link itself: “it was in childhood — we have it in adulthood” still does not prove anything, hypotheses about the development of stoop may be the sea. The wisest thing would be to contact a specialist in kyphosis, they will suggest the most effective exercises. And if you ask a stoop treatment specialist for his opinion where stoop comes from most often, you will get the expected answer: “Parents in childhood did not accustom the child to sports and did not follow the position in which the child does homework.” Yes, this explanation is not as romantic as the psychologists’ explanation, but it seems to be more realistic.
And I want to complete the topic of scientificity in psychology by designating entire areas in psychology that initially and consciously work outside of scientificity. These are magicians, sorcerers, psychics, esotericists and everyone who believes in paranormal phenomena: mind reading, skin vision, levitation, teleportation and travel through past lives. Here are tarot cards, astrology and numerology.
I must say that in Russia all this is very popular. For every 550 Russians, there is 1 psychic healer. A popular sorcerer, returning health and love, can earn more than 8-10 thousand USD. per month, an ordinary old witch without advertising rarely takes less than $200. And this is popular not only in Russia: at least our students living in France say that in bookstores in the “Practical Psychology” section, most of the books actually do not belong to psychology, but to various esotericism.
My colleagues and I conducted research, figured out: who are magicians, sorcerers and wizards? Is there something behind the magic? The results of studies have shown that for 100 people practicing magic, on average:
- 33 people are outright charlatans who deliberately take money from the population.
- 33 — specialists who do not believe in magic, but use it as a brand for qualified assistance to the corresponding population.
- 33 — professionals who believe that «there is something in it» and are looking for opportunities to help people along with them. They may well consciously or unconsciously use psychotherapy (up to hypnosis), the placebo effect, official or traditional medicine.
- 1 — a specialist whose abilities go beyond the usual explanations.
WARNING: HUGE REQUEST! If you know a specialist whose abilities really go beyond the usual explanations and speak of the presence of magical powers, write about it. If this turns out to be true, you will be rewarded with CU500. This is serious.
Yes, but where is the psychology? Firstly, we are forced colleagues with them. Clients turn to them for advice on the same requests as to us, and among the so-called «psychotherapists» there are many «hereditary magicians and sorcerers.» Makarov Viktor Viktorovich, president of the All-Russian Professional Psychotherapeutic League (5.500 participants), told me in a personal conversation a few years ago: “I recently found out that about a third of all my participants are professional sorcerers.” He was concerned about this and I believe the situation in the OPPL has changed since then.
So that you are aware of how sorcerers work, I quote the story of one of my clients. When her family relations went wrong, she first called a powerful sorceress on the ad and said on the phone: “We have family relations gone wrong.” In response, she heard: “Your husband will die soon. It’s cursed. The cost of the decision … «- and then, as you understand, a very serious amount was announced.
We will discuss the topic of magic, witchcraft, mysticism and esotericism in more detail later, in a separate webinar. Unfortunately, all this applies to the work of psychologists more closely than we would like to think.