Sunday, November 24, 2013

Red, white and blue, Gloucester style and a rant on psychology

©2013 Steve Borichevsky
untitled-12 February 22, 2012-185I have had something on my mind since I had a conversation with my daughter about her college curriculum. It seems that in order for her to get here degree, she needs to take two semesters of psychology.

The price of a college education is at an all time high. Yet the quality of the education, in my opinion is not keeping pace with the expense. Compound that with being forced to endure the exposure to two semester completely useless data further demonstrates that the college and university systems in the United States are broken.

Let’s agree on one premise. When you go to the store and pay money for a product, you expect it to be what you paid for. Education should follow the same model. It is not that I think that there are useful subjects and useless subjects. No, folks should be able to study what interests them. Liberal arts, healing arts, engineering, biology, humanities. It’s all good stuff. Psychology, now that is where I draw the line.

Psychology advertises itself as a science. It is not. Psychology and psychiatry present themselves as subjects that help mankind. They have fallen way short of this to the point where they only exist today because of government subsidies.

Where am I coming from? When I was young, about 12 years old, I thought it would be a good idea to become a psychologist. I had a genuine interest in helping people. I started to get my first exposure in high school when I started to read psychology books. I began to smell a rat when I noticed that there were lots of names for classifications of disorders but the therapy sections were, well, missing.

Look at it this way. If you had a car that was was stalling in traffic, you would take it to a mechanic. Right? What would you think of the mechanic if he said that the car was suffering from Fuel Injector Fistula Disorder and handed you a bill without fixing the car? You would feel like you were taken for a fool. Why is it any different with a psychologist?

I had friends majoring in psychology who were learning how to run rats through mazes. Why? “Because we can learn about how man behaves by studying rats.” Which is another facet to my rant. Psychologist and psychiatrists believe that man is not only an animal, but that man can be understood by shocking rats in mazes.

If running animal experiments was the only problem then the solution would be to get them shut down on animal cruelty charges and we would be rid of them. No, that’s not really what the problem is. Starting in the 1950s they have managed to weasel their way into leaning institutions by promoting themselves as “the experts”. (I’m sorry, I really didn’t mean to insult weasels.) Now kids line up for Ritalin instead of milk.

Here is the word origin of psychology: (n.) 1650s, "study of the soul," from Modern Latin psychologia, probably coined mid-16c. in Germany by Melanchthon from Latinized form of Greek psykhe- "breath, spirit, soul" (see psyche) + logia "study of" (see -logy). Meaning "study of the mind" first recorded 1748, from Christian Wolff's "Psychologia empirica" (1732). It is no secret that psychology denies the spirituality side of man. Not only is the subject off the track, but it has fallen off a cliff and is still pulling cars off the track.

Psychologist do not study the spirit. To a psychologist, there is no spirit. A psychiatrists does not heal the soul. To them, there is no soul. Well, what the hell are they doing then?

No comments:

Related Posts with Thumbnails