Is clinical psychology mostly useless?

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY - MOSTLY USELESS?

Research by the APA (American Psychology Association), Medscape and Antioch University of Seattle found similar stats among psychologists, that approx. 80% of all respondents reported having mental health difficulties at some point, and 48% reported having a diagnosed mental illness. 63% were currently depressed and 40% + experienced suicidal ideation.

The general population stats for mental health disorders are around 20%.

So those doing the treating are 4x more likely to have a mental health concern. This isn’t really a surprise as people who go into psychology (or healing/therapy) often do so to explore/resolve their historical traumas, family dynamics etc.

The question this demands however is:

“Are people who have had mental health issues, family dynamic problems etc and become psychologists actually resolved by their own methods?”

Well, the answer is in the stats… and that answer would have to be a mostly no.

To clarify: these stats are for psychologists post 6 years of study and clinical placement.

I believe there is a saying “The proof in the pudding”.

……………………………….

I imagine many of you furiously searching google for stats at this point (you’re welcome)

………………………….

OK, now for the scientific scrutiny bit. Pens and paper ready!

Psychology formally became a science in and of itself in the late 1800’s. It separated itself from philosophy (it’s original home for over 2000 years) and thus began its study of the mind (ironically something psychology still can’t actually define, oops).

During this time psychology separated itself from areas such as as the soul and consciousness and became 100% empirical, basing itself (even if many don’t realise) almost exclusively on Classical and Operant Conditioning.

These are the conditioning of a response to an association with operant adding a reward/punishment. Even now methods such as CBT (the dubious darling of psychology) are operant conditioning based (reward rational thoughts over irrational thoughts). The neuroscience based work of self directed neuro- plasticity by Jeffrey Schwartz backs up this theory that conditioning really is at the heart of most successful change at the level of mind/brain.

To put it politely ‘the science’ almost universally says you are a mammal and you need to train your brain like one and for the most part I agree and indeed this is one of the fundamental teaching approaches on my course.

So, if I agree for the most part with the basic science why would I take issue with clinical psychology.

It’s simple, because they for the most part do not in anyway stick to this science.

If they did, emotions, meaning, long involved chats, listening to you rant on about your past etc would not be happening. It would be back to Puppy School for you and some operant based brain training to get you to change your thinking and behaviour.

They want to have their cake and eat it too and be a cross breed between empirical research and a humanities faculty. (which is it going to be?)

………………………….

Psychology attempts to define but still can’t truly explain concepts such as self, awareness, meaning, mind, consciousness and yet wants to have dominion over such areas. Silly, it’s the blind, leading the blind.

Add to this that billions of people (basically anyone religious or believes in life after death) does not fit in to the empirical mind/brain models of psychology.

In an attempt to try and mitigate the huge holes in it’s map of the mind, brain and life clinical psychology has become the cuckoo bird of the sciences, taking a pinch of eastern mysticism here (mindfulness and meditation etc) and a dash of coaching there etc as the majority of clinical psychologists move from ongoing development course after course (outside of their training) trying to find actual techniques that work because the ones provided in the 6 years of study so often fail.

This is like a heart surgeon searching for better techniques from a weekend workshop in reiki. One would hope that their original training sufficed and ongoing development occurred within the expertise of their field!

………………………..

So what do I suggest would make clinical psychology more useful?

Well I think that is simple.

Clinical Psychologists need to stick their flag in the sand, be 100% consistent and agree what their first principles approach actually is and use them. End the cuckoo bird rubber necking, be scientific and work from first principles.

The field needs to cease it’s arrogance that it is the sole domain of working with and treating the mind and brain as it is so far from this, pun intended it’s mind-blowing. It needs to present itself honesty as one option not ‘THE’ option.

There is so much more to this, such as psychologists learning how to not put their own meaning and experience into treatment sessions etc, but these things I cover all the time in my work.

Also including evolutional biology and psychology as foundational to clinical psychology sessions on mass would also be highly advantageous.

……………………….

As a start I would invite you to read Jeffrey Schwartz’s book ‘You are not your brain’ as this is extremely close to the science of actual clinical psychology, it is excellent and for a significant number of people will work.

Then I would leave the areas of self, mind, consciousness, meaning etc to the philosophers. They are better at it.

A