|
I'd like to wish my US readers a happy Columbus Day.
Feel free to reprint any of the items from this or
previous newsletters, provided you credit the source.
Psychology versus Religion
I had a strong religious upbringing. My parents sent me
to yeshiva (Orthodox Jewish school) from first grade
through high school. Had you asked me at the age of 9
what I want to be when I grow up, I would have
answered, "a rabbi."
As I grew up and learned more about science, my
appreciation of religion waned and I came to prefer the
scientific way of thinking. In college, after undergoing a
few changes in majors, I ultimately decided on studying
psychology so I could have a career as a
psychotherapist. I felt that the objective, non-
judgmental approach of "scientific" psychotherapy was
preferable to the moralistic, guilt inducing approach of
religion in helping people deal with life.
With twenty-five years of professional experience
behind me, I can see things I hadn't seen before. For
one, the "scientific" field of psychology is not nearly
as "non-judgmental" as I assumed it was. Especially in
recent years, with all our concern with "bullies"
and "abusers," I realize that the field makes some
pretty strong value judgments about people's behavior.
At a professional presentation on bullying, a pair of
psychologists said research shows it doesn't help when
teachers intervene in student bullying, "but teachers
should intervene anyway because it is the moral thing
to do." If an action isn't helpful, how can it be
called "moral"? And even worse, what if the
intervention actually exacerbates the problem (which it
does)? Is it still moral to intervene?
How many mental professionals do you know who had a
college or graduate course in morality? Unless they
were in divinity schools or minored in philosophy,
probably none. Morality is neither a simple nor an
obvious matter, yet the mental health fields make
decisions about right and wrong while having no
academic training in morality.
In comparison to religion, psychology's overall
contributions to human happiness aren't terribly
impressive. I have known many individuals who turned
their lives completely around thanks to religion. Many
people have implored me to join their religious groups so
I can get the kinds of benefits they did. But rarely has
anyone raved to me about their psychotherapy and
beseeched me to go, too. And recent research shows
that people who are involved in religious groups tend to
be happier, healthier, and longer-living than people who
don't. Some of the most successful therapeutic milieu,
like the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, are
based on belief in a higher power. So where has
psychology gone wrong?
|
|
Psychology Compared to Other Sciences |
 |
|
If we compare the accomplishments of psychology with
other branches of science, there is even less to write
home about. The physical sciences have made mind-
boggling advances, revealing the hidden worlds of outer
space, the depths of the sea, and the composition of
atoms. They have dramatically improved health,
transportation and communication. Technology has
brought us levels of luxury previously unknown even to
kings.
In contrast, what have the psychological sciences
contributed to overall human happiness? Despite the
objective advances in standard of living; despite the
growing legions of mental health professionals in all
types of settings; despite the laws forbidding various
forms of abuse and neglect; and despite the
entitlements granted individuals with disabilities, people
feel as miserable and abused as ever. Families are
falling apart faster than ever (the divorce rate in the
US is now well over 50% and is even higher in many
other developed countries). Depression and violence
are considered epidemics, and almost everyone is being
diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
|
|
|
Why Psychology Hasn't Fared as Well as Other Sciences |
|
|
The great advances in other sciences were made
possible by the invention of new tools like telescopes,
microscopes, and all types of electrical and electronic
devices, that gave access to information otherwise
beyond our grasp. On the other hand, the primary tools
of the psychological professions - talking, listening, and
observing - have always been around and used by
people seeking to understand and improve the human
condition. Thousands of years of observation by wise
people have yielded many universal or near-universal
principals that work to make life better. Sure, we've
made big advances in neurological understanding
thanks to the tools of the physical sciences. But our
current general understanding of psychological health is
not substantially different from that obtained by
philosophers thousands of years ago. In fact, if we had
to choose between ancient wisdom and modern
psychological teachings, I suspect we would often do
better betting on the ancient wisdom.
The psychological sciences, now in their second
century, set out with a new approach - using the
scientific method to learn about people. In a sense,
they threw away previous knowledge and set out to
reinvent the wheel. The problem is that the lens
through which they have studied people is a limited one
and has missed what the religions have taken for
granted.
What is that limited lens? The lens of the individual.
Psychology is essentially INDIVIDUAL psychology. We
study individuals in depth in the psychotherapy office,
we do psychological testing on individuals, we perform
experiments on individuals, and we survey individuals.
But the study of the individual is inadequate to
accurately understand human behavior. Why?
To read previous newsletters... »
|
|
|
Three Levels of Existence |
|
|
We ARE individuals, but we are not ONLY individuals.
Though we are not aware of it, we actually live at
three levels simultaneously, and I do not mean this in
any mystical sense.
Our simplest level of life is the cellular. We are each
comprised of approximately one hundred trillion cells!
Each cell is a complete living organism that performs all
the tasks that define life: they eat, eliminate,
reproduce, and try to stay alive and healthy while
avoiding harm. Each cell does two things at one time: it
maintains its own health while performing a service that
contributes to the health of the whole individual.
Yes, reader, you are literally a galaxy of active, living
cells working to keep you alive. But can you feel the
life of these individual cells? Of course not. You are
conscious of only one living entity. And none of your
individual cells are aware of you, either.
The third level of existence is as part of the larger
group of humans (which in turn is a subgroup of the
whole of life on the planet). We exist only by virtue of
the activity of other humans that form our species, and
of the countless generations of humans that preceded
us. The well-being of humanity is dependent upon the
activity of the individuals, and the well-being of the
individuals is dependent upon the well-being of
humanity. Like our cells, we are biologically programmed
to perform functions that benefit the larger group
without being aware of this programming. As it is
impossible to make sense of the individual behavior of
our cells without considering that they are part of a
larger body, it is impossible to comprehend individual
human behavior without considering its role within the
larger social group.
And this is where the limitation of psychology comes in.
With its overwhelming focus on the individual as the
unit of life, psychology has developed a skewed image.
We've sympathetically listened to the complaints of
individual clients and concluded that human misery is
caused by the abusive, neglectful, and traumatizing
events in their lives, or by inequities resulting in
handicapping conditions. In the belief that happiness
comes from a life free of such events, psychology has
lobbied for individual rights and entitlements - requiring
society to protect people from harmful experiences and
to level the playing field for those dealt a deficient
biological deck.
The problem with this is that our individual happiness
does not come from society guaranteeing us as
pleasant a life as possible. As we see so clearly with
children, the harder we try to prevent them from
experiencing frustration and deprivation, the more
spoiled they become. And instead of appreciating all we
do for them, they explode in anger when we don't give
them what they want.
The key to happiness lies not in the struggle to receive
your individual entitlements, but in acting for the
welfare of others. As President Kennedy said, "Ask not
what your country can do for you; ask what you can
do for your country." And this is what religions have
understood - that we are part of something bigger.
That is why religions encourage things like respecting
parents, giving charity, praying for others, helping the
sick, weak, and downtrodden, and loving thy neighbor
as thyself. The day that psychology recognizes this
fully is the day that psychology may be able to
compete with religion.
|
|
|
The "He or She" Grammar Matter |
|
|
In my September newsletter, I complained about being
considered sexist by some of my seminar participants
because of my use of the traditional "he" or "him" to
refer to persons of unspecified gender. I wrote that I
felt it was an excess of the feminist movement to have
made it unacceptable to use the masculine pronoun in
this way, resulting in greater difficulty to write
smoothly.
I have reconsidered. The brilliant psycholinguist
Suzette Haden Elgin, author of "The Gentle Art of
Verbal Self-Defense" series, responded to my
newsletter with some good points. She said that I was
wrong in my assumption that girls understand
when "he" is used to refer to someone who could be
either a male or female. Dr. Elgin told of exercises that
show girls tend to envision specifically males when "he"
is used in such a way.
I recognize the importance of females seeing
themselves as equal to males, and accept that the use
of "he" to refer to someone of either gender, even
though it has been conventional practice from time
immemorial, may be doing a disservice. I therefore
pledge from now on to make the extra effort to word
my sentences in a way that is more supportive of
female self-image.
|
|
|
The Thorny Nature of Humor |
|
|
Humor is a major subject in my seminar presentations. I
explain that most of us go through life laughing and we
don't even recognize the nature of what we're laughing
at. The great majority of humor is the portrayal of
people's faults. It is not funny when people look smart
and talented and happy. It is only funny when they
look stupid and clumsy and miserable. But we do not
readily let this enter our awareness because we believe
it is evil to enjoy other people's misery.
One seminar participant left me an evaluation that
disputed my definition of humor, saying that humor
doesn't have to be about people's shortcomings, it can
be about people being clever. But if you examine humor
in which someone is being clever, it is always at
someone else's expense: the clever person makes
someone else look stupid. Cleverness by itself is not
funny. The invention of the light bulb was clever. But
was it funny?
Another seminar participant thought she found a joke
that does not make anyone look bad. The joke: A
comedian was fired for sitting down at a stand-up
comedy club. Perhaps the participant thinks that being
fired is pleasant, but it would make most of us
miserable. And firing someone for "sitting" while
doing "stand up comedy" is the kind of thing we can
expect of Amelia Bedelia, the learning-disabled maid
who has made millions of kids laugh. And speaking of
Amelia Bedelia, why haven't those books been banned
by now, since it is not nice to make fun of the learning-
disabled?
|
| Quick Links... |
|
|
