what is the true working of the innermine? why did psychology split away from communications based meths and go for behavioral/pharm approach?
Because of dualistic thought and the ego.
It's also more profitable to put a bandaid on something and call it a day.
The truth is that your a little bitch
>the innermine
Is that where the secret dwarfs live?
>communications based meths
Oh, I see drugs are involved.
dude what if you blew a line of pixels
>>17008860
what about leftiez, the people with a one track mind and photographic memory? t h e y k n o w t h e | i n e
>>17008881
>what about leftiez
WTF are you even trying to babble about? Do you have brain damage and you think if you learn a little about psychology it will help you?
i did a backflip in my chair and wanted to write what it feels like.
>>17008908
id unlearn some psychology if it was even possible
it just says "down" now.
>>17008854
>why did psychology split away from communications based meths and go for behavioral/pharm approach
A whole number of factors play into this.
- Anglo-Saxon academy always secretly hated psychoanalysis because they thought it wasn't 'scientific' enough (i.e. wasn't immediately amenable to quantifcation and statistical analysis).
- Demands of the medical profession to produce measurable results. When psychiatry became part of medicine it had to meet clinical standards, and psychoanalysis, whose main effect is providing people some insight into their suffering but certainly not anything resembling a 'cure', does not meet that criteria.
- Economic corruption, pharmaceutical industry lobbying.
- Latent effects of individualism, the general selfishness and atomization prevalent in late 20th century culture, the desire to 'shut up' people who complicate our lives... Best example: Parents don't want to deal with problem kids? Dope 'em up, no big deal.
Overall it's a mix of factors both good and bad.
I think it's abundantly clear that psychoanalysis does not constitute a 'cure' in any sense that would be accepted in the physiological areas of medicine. The real question is whether the neurological-chemical paradigm that replaced it is preferable. I'm not sure it's better to prescribe people newly developed medicines with all sorts of unpredictable side effects than to tell them, "here let's have a talk about your issues." It's true the drugs produce a reduction of symptoms, but psychology isn't really comparable to endocrinology; the 'disorders' are never clearly distinguishable from ordinary human emotions and it seems like a lot of what goes on these days in psychiatry amounts to just wantonly handing out drugs to anyone who asks for them. I've been to shrinks before when I was a drug addict, I'm telling you, it's just a matter of chatting 5 minutes and they'll give you any drug you ask for. The whole thing is in desperate need of reform.
