Skip to main content

View Diary: Army Psychologist Pleads 'Fifth' in Case of Prisoner 900 (250 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Is this Jeffry Mason? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    electric meatball, kathleen518

    hey psychology has its problems, like Rorhshach, and it is most assuredly a social science, not a natural one, but to deny that it helps a lot of people is untrue. period.We know a great deal about human behavior, largely due to psychology, and also sociology and anthropology. Come on, now. Be serious.

    •  Human Beings do not understand what they are. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eroded47095

      We know almost nothing about human behavior.

      If we did...we would understand that the world is half mad.

      All history is lies. Those lies are a part of the conciousness of human beings and in part the reasons why human beings are in general rather disturbed. Most cultures are disturbed.

      And you wonder why the American people have elected and allowed by hook or crook a person like Bush to continue for 8 years.

      And why the APA has not condemend torture. It's because the APA is filled with disturbed unprinicipled people who claim not to be distrubed and unprincipled.

      •  Among the dross, a nugget (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt

        of gold, even if unintentional.

        "We know almost nothing about human behavior."

        That may the the first sensible, factually accurate assertion you've made all thread.

        That's because we have only been studying human behavior and mental processes scientifically for a little over a hundred years. An awfully short time to spend on what is likely the most complex field science will ever encounter. To characterize the findings of psychology as 'knowledge' is inaccurate. Better to say that they reflect the most current state of our understanding, which is incomplete and likely to remain that way.

        Of course, scientific methodology is itself not much older than academic psychology, so in truth we know almost nothing about anything - at least not in proportion to what there is to know.

        Which makes your cocksure assertions even more laughable, ironically...  Certainty is the enemy of reason, always. It's no accident that those with the most certainty usually prove to be the most wrong in the end.

        "I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." --Marcus Aurelius

        by electric meatball on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:40:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree. (0+ / 0-)

        It is because we have learned so much about human behavior that the media can so successfully manipulate the electorate. chomsky makes this point over and over; the same people who sell us products are hired to run campaigns. They know that slick advertising and negative campaigning works. Propaganda works. This is because we know so much about how people will react...the wolves ad in 2004 was just one effective demonstration of this in action. Along with some theft in Ohio, which may have delivered the presidency to Bush, but honestly, had Kerry won Ohio, he might not have won the popular vote ( from what I've read ) which means massive numbers still voted for Bush, laregly as a reaction to fear. And swiftboating, which is again being done to the current candidate, by the same people...now whether that makes people, or half the world , Mad, well that depends i guess...

    •  Nothing wrong with Rorschach (0+ / 0-)

      They took the ink blots, showed them to tons of people, recorded their answers, then showed them to other people and then compared their answers to the original set, and inferred shit.

      What's wrong with that?

      "Only the PTA? You know what the PTA stands for? Three things I respect and fear: Parents, Teachers, and Associations." [Rob Petrie]

      by eroded47095 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:57:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well (0+ / 0-)

        because perfectly normal people come off looking pathological. It was anthropologists who first recognized that Rohrshach was kind of suspect, as they attmepted early on to use psychological methods to study cultures.There was one prominent folklorist, i forget his name, a giant in the field, who talked about how in Ukraine, I think it was, molten lead was dropped in water and the shapes that formed analyzed by local shamans ( for lack of a better term ). He thought this was just as valid as using Rohrshach to study a population, I mean, why not? This doesn't mean Rohrshach is totally useless, but it does have some problems; can youtrust the interpreter? Does he/she have a bias to look for certain problems? Does the subject give honest answers? The psychologists i work with don't like it and don't use it. Can't speak for anybody else, and as a social worker, ahem, I am not allowed to interpret test scores. Nor can a psychiatrist, only a psychologist is allowed to do that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site