I have repeatedly come across complaints against psychologists, well-founded complaints. Many psychologists dogmatically follow the guidelines of the psychological school, adherents of which they are and drive a person into the Procrustean bed of already prepared labels. Many psychologists themselves need psychological help, and this is so obvious that it is noticeable even to clients - i.e. these "psychologists" do not even know how to communicate humanly! But what is there - many psychologists are not much different from various near-sectarian gurus and actively use manipulative techniques. And how confident they are - my God! They directly stare in the eyes with their own ostentatious emancipation - look at me, what an inner relaxed I am, having outlived all my complexes and seeing right through you! They seem to hint that they have a secret,which makes them type like energetic, uninhibited and successful. Perhaps, if they did not demonstrate such overconfident behavior, then many would not buy into their unreasonable chatter.
They also ooze with ostentatious positives. Fans of positive thinking. "Thoughts are material, blah blah blah, you have to be positive, blah blah blah." In especially difficult cases, they offer to watch the film "The Secret." Usually people from the same cohort like to chat about energy, about happiness in themselves and the genius of EVERY child, yeah. After all, if your child is mediocre, then you, gentlemen, are to blame for this, you are carrying your money now, we will heal non-existent psychological trauma that prevent the child from revealing his non-existent talents. As a result: unhappy, guilty parents, an unhappy child from whom all talents are squeezed out and a contented psychologist filled with a sense of self-importance. Beauty!
And they also have a man - a spherical horse in a vacuum. And happiness is inside them. In this spherical horse. What's going on outside, do not care, you have to look for the problem in yourself. In general, you just have to LIVE. What does it mean to just live, gentlemen psychologists? Walking and oozing positive, seeing the good side in everything, just like you? Well, for you, that is a reason, you earn money from this, but ordinary Vasya Pupkin does not get any easier from this.
And yes - you are all for freedom, for tolerance and other values of the "civilized" world. Individualists and free individuals. Tolerant to insanity. Well, yes, of course - since you are so liberated, then there should be appropriate tolerance. Accept everyone for who they are. You can always blame the responsibility for any problems (whether clients or your own) on a totalitarian past, a slave mentality, authoritarian / insufficiently loving parents, intolerant neighbors, various sexists and racists, a society without a culture of visiting a psychologist, etc. Well settled, there is nothing to say - a win-win! It is very profitable to look for all problems in the distant past - in a long-ended era, long-ended childhood, and even in general - in past lives, as transpersonalists do. It is very beneficial to endlessly delve into not only the distant past, but also into the client's unconscious, as psychoanalysts do. They've been doing it for years - damn what a profitable business! There won't be much benefit to the client, but why not? If a person is provided for, then he can afford such a whim as a personal psychoanalyst. Someone goes to the hippodrome, someone goes to the small arms club, and someone prefers to lie on the couch on weekends and tell their dreams to an uncle who is listening intently - whoever likes anything, any whim for your money!Someone goes to the hippodrome, someone goes to the small arms club, and someone prefers to lie on the couch on weekends and tell their dreams to an uncle who is listening intently - whoever likes anything, any whim for your money!Someone goes to the hippodrome, someone goes to the small arms club, and someone prefers to lie on the couch on weekends and tell their dreams to an uncle who is listening intently - whoever likes anything, any whim for your money!
Psychology is still a very young science, which has not recovered from the illnesses of youth, has not become detached from pseudoscience, and most importantly, it is a very politicized science, although it does not admit it itself. But psychology cannot be outside politics and ideology, because each psychological school broadcasts its own idea of a person and society. And the interpretation of a person by different schools can be VERY different. Now liberal ideology dominates with aggressive individualism, priority of the personal over the public, etc. Within its framework, a person is a spherical horse in a vacuum, i.e. a separate unit, a self-sufficient free personality and so on blah-blah. In line with this ideology, the individual should strive for the greatest independence from everything and everyone, and all problems stem from social suppression and a lack of freedom. And I would be the first to sign up as a liberalif this ideology corresponded to the real state of affairs. But personality is not a spherical horse in a vacuum. And a person can be realized only in society, and not by himself. And more often the general determines the particular, and not vice versa. And any upbringing includes suppression … In general, the desired does not coincide with the reality.
Is it possible, while dealing with personality problems, not to touch upon the problems of society? Of course not. Soviet psychology, now half-forgotten, this was obvious. She looked at a person as a participant in social relations, realizing himself in activities. Yes, in Soviet psychology, a person is primarily the one who realizes himself in deeds, and not in feelings / thoughts / desires. It was somehow obvious to Soviet psychologists that it was necessary to judge by deeds and that without embodiment, neither thought nor feeling was worth absolutely nothing. There were smart people in the west too. Horney pointed to the connection between neurosis and social relations, linking the problems of the individual with the problems of society. Fromm went further and bluntly stated that in order for people to gain psychological health on a massive scale, a healthy society must be built. Fromm was one of the few Western psychologistswho understood this fully and had the courage to write about it - about a sick consumer society, about the emptiness of a market-oriented personality and other delights of modernity that he foresaw. But the trick of liberal ideology is that it is presented as the absence of ideology. Therefore, modern mainstream psychology proudly declares that it is free from any ideology, yeah. How many dogmatic, narrow-minded and ideologically stamped statements of all these psychologists about this or that have I heard - for example, that ALL problems from childhood and EVERYTHING are treated with unconditional love. I am already silent about the "positive thinking" which has set the teeth on edge - this is when even American experts speak of "the tyranny of positive thinking and the dominance of optimism." I am close to Yalom's postulate that everyone needs to create their own therapy,your technique and your recipes, in other words - an individual approach. And therefore, not everyone desperately needs exclusively unconditional love, and not every person has problems from childhood. No dogmatism, gentlemen. Not dogma is needed, but specifics. In terms of specifics, cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy is good, of which I am a follower.
Promotional video:
I do not take psychology seriously if it is divorced from biology and philosophy. Do psychologists know biology and philosophy? Someone knows. But for the most part, the heads of psychologists are stuffed with dubious postulates as ignorant as themselves. Psychology without biology is a muddy nonsense divorced from reality. Psychology without philosophy is vulgar nonsense, unable to answer the basic questions of life. I will dwell on this in more detail.
I am not a biologist, i.e. not one who seeks to explain human nature exclusively through biological determinants and innate qualities. Man is fundamentally different from animals, and not only biological, but also social laws act on him. There are no feelings, desires and thoughts in a person, in the nature of which there would be no social influence at all. Man is reasonable - and reason is also a social phenomenon to a greater extent than an individual … But at the same time, one should not forget that all social laws are based on the foundation of biology, just as biology itself is on the foundation of chemistry … And how bad a biologist is without basic knowledge of chemistry and a psychologist without basic knowledge of biological laws will not be able to form an adequate idea of human nature. Man is a being and social, and rational, and moral, but first of all alive. Psychologist,who does not understand the laws of biology, runs the risk of making an overly abstract and unrealistic idea of human nature, forgetting that a person is not a heavenly angel who fell to earth, but an earthly creature of flesh and blood with a completely earthly origin. Oh, how many "psychologists" I have seen, whose heads were filled with various esotericism and outright obscurantism! Biology and medicine should be a defense against this hassle - as a kind of root that does not allow the tree of a holistic idea of human nature to break away from solid soil.whose heads were filled with various esotericism and outright obscurantism! Biology and medicine should be a defense against this hassle - as a kind of root that does not allow the tree of a holistic idea of human nature to break away from solid soil.whose heads were filled with various esotericism and outright obscurantism! Biology and medicine should be a defense against this hassle - as a kind of root that does not allow the tree of a holistic idea of human nature to break away from solid soil.
Philosophy is no less important for a psychologist. It is needed not only as a theoretical basis, but also as a working tool. Philosophy is sometimes defined as the science of truth. I like to call philosophy the science of meaning. And the meaning is something that appears only with a person and something without which a person cannot live and develop fully. Sometimes a person loses his usual, old meanings and is faced with what is called an existential crisis - a state that is sometimes very difficult and painful to experience. As an answer to this problem, there is existential psychotherapy, which can rightfully be called philosophical. Every full-fledged psychologist must also be a philosopher, because without philosophy, psychology simply turns into a set of recommendations and general information. If biology does not allow us to forget that man is a living being,then philosophy reminds us that in addition to the body, a person also has a consciousness that needs goals and meanings just like the body needs food and water.
I believe that being a psychologist is a calling. A psychologist is inevitably an authority and an example for a person who decides to trust him, and this is very responsible. Practical psychology is essentially not much different from education, but what can be responsible education? It is criminal for a psychologist to maintain the image of a "positive and successful person." You need to be yourself - because it is your own personality (not a mask!) That acts as a working tool. You need to be, not seem - this is one of the main requirements for a psychologist. I am convinced that the psychologist should strive for maximum sincerity with the client - only then will the maximum therapeutic effect be achieved. This must be no less (and even more) important than the level of professional training of a psychologist.
In conclusion, I will say one more argument in favor of the thesis that a psychologist is a vocation. Psychologists are crutches for people in a sick, neurotic society. Unfortunately, in the conditions of current economic relations, psychologists have a direct economic benefit from the fact that there are so many neurotics in society. Many psychologists do not at all strive for the recovery of their client, because then he will stop visiting and will not pay. Therefore, the presence of a culture of visiting a psychologist in a society is not a sign of a healthy society, on the contrary! In a truly healthy society, psychologists will be engaged in the upbringing of children and scientific activities, and the overwhelming majority of today's "specialists" will be completely unnecessary. A psychologist by vocation also works for the sake of this time - the time of a truly healthy society - to come as soon as possible.
Be careful when choosing a specialist.
B. Medinsky