- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
I got to thinking about this from the other thread about the term "shrink".
Psychology and Psychiatry both start with what is essentially the same premise; namely that a person's thoughts, feelings, and behaviours have discoverable causes and that those causes can either be removed, or the reactions to those causes can be modified in such a way as to alter the resultant thought, feeling, or behaviour. Psychology chooses to investigate those causes and their negation or the alteration of the reactions to them within an individual's psyche, whereas Psychiatry seeks to understand the physiological and physiochemical process that underly certain reactions.
Same basic theory, differing approaches (each legitimate in its own way).
So why then are we as a nation (in general) drawn so much more towards Psychiatry's approach rather than Psychology's? Is it simply another manifestation of the classic Western/Easter dichotomy where most western thought patterns suggest that the things which cannot be quantified or fully explained must somehow be suspect? That seems to me as though it must be an oversimplification of the issue.
Is it simply that we are looking to find results faster and so we choose drugs rather than taking the slower approach even though drugs are a treatment while Psychology can sometimes offer a cure?
Or is it that we don't like the idea of not being in control of our own minds? Psychology contains an implicit assumption that there are things within our minds that we don't get to touch or understand and can only work with our reactions thereto. Psychiatry is friendlier in that it suggest that we can take control through the alteration of our chemical make-up and in so doing seems to give us the control that Psychology implies is forbidden.
Then again, there's my own personal stumbling stone; the idea that we can be deconstructed and predicted within a certain broad spectrum as a psychological type. The idea of being "merely human" and therefore predictable (which can be seen by our own minds as being synonomous with controllable) is frightening to a nation that prides itself on individuality and so we resist the idea. Our own cognitive dissonance throws us into the side in support of Psychiatry since it doesn't seem to typecast people, even in the very broad way that Psychology does. The interesting thing about this, though, is that Psychiatry is vastly more restrictive and imposing of prediction and typology than Psychology because the very nature of Psychiatry rests on the idea that who and what we are is dependant upon chemicals and neurological pathways. We resist being lumped into large groups by Psychology even though Psychology allows one to retain his individual distinguishing characteristics, and embrace Psychiatry which not only says "You are so predictable that we know that X milligrams of chemical Y will have this effect upon you.", but also implicitly tells us that we're no different at all from the thousands of other people who are also taking x milligrams of chemical Y in order to gain that same effect. The only difference is that Psychology is up front with its classification and grouping, while all of the grouping in Psychiatry occurs on a functional level that is more difficult to see. And so our fear of being predictable drives us away from the things that are in reality less predictive and more open and understanding of new data.
Thoughts? Comments? I'd love to get some other random musings on this.
ZV
Psychology and Psychiatry both start with what is essentially the same premise; namely that a person's thoughts, feelings, and behaviours have discoverable causes and that those causes can either be removed, or the reactions to those causes can be modified in such a way as to alter the resultant thought, feeling, or behaviour. Psychology chooses to investigate those causes and their negation or the alteration of the reactions to them within an individual's psyche, whereas Psychiatry seeks to understand the physiological and physiochemical process that underly certain reactions.
Same basic theory, differing approaches (each legitimate in its own way).
So why then are we as a nation (in general) drawn so much more towards Psychiatry's approach rather than Psychology's? Is it simply another manifestation of the classic Western/Easter dichotomy where most western thought patterns suggest that the things which cannot be quantified or fully explained must somehow be suspect? That seems to me as though it must be an oversimplification of the issue.
Is it simply that we are looking to find results faster and so we choose drugs rather than taking the slower approach even though drugs are a treatment while Psychology can sometimes offer a cure?
Or is it that we don't like the idea of not being in control of our own minds? Psychology contains an implicit assumption that there are things within our minds that we don't get to touch or understand and can only work with our reactions thereto. Psychiatry is friendlier in that it suggest that we can take control through the alteration of our chemical make-up and in so doing seems to give us the control that Psychology implies is forbidden.
Then again, there's my own personal stumbling stone; the idea that we can be deconstructed and predicted within a certain broad spectrum as a psychological type. The idea of being "merely human" and therefore predictable (which can be seen by our own minds as being synonomous with controllable) is frightening to a nation that prides itself on individuality and so we resist the idea. Our own cognitive dissonance throws us into the side in support of Psychiatry since it doesn't seem to typecast people, even in the very broad way that Psychology does. The interesting thing about this, though, is that Psychiatry is vastly more restrictive and imposing of prediction and typology than Psychology because the very nature of Psychiatry rests on the idea that who and what we are is dependant upon chemicals and neurological pathways. We resist being lumped into large groups by Psychology even though Psychology allows one to retain his individual distinguishing characteristics, and embrace Psychiatry which not only says "You are so predictable that we know that X milligrams of chemical Y will have this effect upon you.", but also implicitly tells us that we're no different at all from the thousands of other people who are also taking x milligrams of chemical Y in order to gain that same effect. The only difference is that Psychology is up front with its classification and grouping, while all of the grouping in Psychiatry occurs on a functional level that is more difficult to see. And so our fear of being predictable drives us away from the things that are in reality less predictive and more open and understanding of new data.
Thoughts? Comments? I'd love to get some other random musings on this.
ZV
Facebook
Twitter