Psychology's Scorecard

Share thoughts and ideas regarding what can be done to meet contemporary humanity's need for rites of initiation and passage.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked

Has modern psychology, since 1890, contributed to the improvement or the corruption of society and of individual’s lives?

A:) Yes, modern psychology has improved society
4
33%
B:) modern psychology has had a small positive effect
1
8%
C:) It's about even
2
17%
D:) modern psychology has had a small negative effect
0
No votes
E:) we've had a hundred-twenty years of modern psychology - and the world is getting worse.
5
42%
 
Total votes: 12

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Psychology's Scorecard

Post by noman »

Hello Everyone,

In 1750 a thirty-eight-year old man from Geneva, whose life thus far had been inconsequential, responded to an essay contest sponsored by the Academy of Dijon. The question was posed in the periodical Mercure de France “Do the Sciences and the Arts contribute to the corrupting or to improving morals?" His answer titled “A Discourse on the Moral Effects of the Arts and Sciences" won him first prize, launched his career that would make his subsequent works popular to this day, and gave him a permanent place as a major voice in the Age of Enlightenment.

His name was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And what made such a stir was his assertion that the sciences and arts have had a corrupting affect on society. The phrase, ‘the noble savage’ has been associated with his name, (although he never used it) and, in fact, he grew less enthusiastic about the ideas in The Discourse later in his career.

The reason I bring this up is that I doubt anyone expected the arts and sciences to go anyway in Rousseau’s time. And I don’t think any sane person expects the discipline of psychology to go away. Still, I think it’s worthwhile to ask whether psychology over the last 120 years has had a net positive affect on civilization. James Hillman and Michael Ventura considered the effect of psychotherapy 20 years ago in this published dialogue

We’ve had a hundred years of psychotherapy – And the World is Getting Worse

In 1972 Joseph Campbell considers the role of psychology for the modern crisis; the problem of the loss of myth in an age of scientific truth:

P11 It is my considered belief that the best answer to this critical problem will come from the findings of psychology, and specifically those findings having to do with the sources and nature of myth. For since it has always been on myths that the moral orders of societies have been founded, the myths canonized as religion, and since the impact of science on myths results – apparently inevitably – in moral disequilibration, we must now ask whether it is not possible to arrive scientifically at such an understanding of the life-supporting nature of myths that, in criticizing their archaic features, we do not misrepresent and disqualify their necessity – throwing out, so to say, the baby (whole generations of babies) with the bath.


- Joseph Campbell, Myths to Live By, 1972
This sounds all well and good. But I have to wonder now 37 years after this was written, how we're doing, and just what the net affect of psychology has been. Are we better off as a people for having in our language such meaningful words as the anima, the shadow, and the integration of personality; the superego, libido, transference and projection; identity crisis, self-actualization , and [some adjective] complexes?

William James once said that the first lecture he heard in psychology was one that he gave. He was a professor of philosophy. Now I’m wondering if psychology has ever made it out of the realm of philosophy to become a discipline in its own right as did economics and physics. Or are psychologists more like philosophers circling around the same questions again and again, developing new terms, defining those terms, criticizing each others presuppositions, and becoming famous for the force of their arguments without any measurable progress?

There are a couple of things I accept in asking this question. First, I enjoy philosophy as much as anyone. Something doesn’t have to have a practical application to be enjoyable. For me anything enjoyable is worthwhile. It’s fun to speculate on the mind. Secondly, I’m not talking about clinical psychiatry. I’m well aware of the many advances in the hard science of psychophysiology. But has psychology, the study of mind, the conclusions drawn and advice given; has this branch of psychology delivered for the vast majority of people in the West who are generally well, but who are often, shall I say, in need of healing?

I tend to agree with JJ’s Mythblog that the Buddha was a psychologist. But this begs a question: Is modern psychology necessary? Is it anything more than traditional religion and philosophy masquerading as modern science, drawing on the clout of the modern hard sciences, including neuroscience, for all of their marvelous discoveries, but offering little substance of its own?

Or to phrase the question in the same way as the famous essay question that Rousseau answered in 1750: Has modern psychology, since 1890, contributed to the improvement or the corruption of society and of individual’s lives?

- NoMan

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

We’ve had a hundred years of psychotherapy – And the World is Getting Worse
Noman... Line up the folks who have made it so and poll them on who's been in therapy. Seems to me, everyone in power, or who desires power, should have their head examined. :lol:

I didn't vote in your poll. My answer requires 'probably' in it. Negatives being impossible to prove, I will assume psychotherapy has probably made the world a better place from the point of view of x number of individuals, many of whom live in California.

Hillman's book, at least from the review on the linked page, seems based on glittering generalities that don't, from personal experience, resonate.
Last edited by Clemsy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

True, there's no denying, noman, that the myriad fields of psychology have deep roots in philosophy, religion, and science. Personally I don't have a problem with this since every contemporary field of knowledge or practice has similar roots and current ties in some way or other. Also, to speak of modern psychology as if it were a monolithic field about which generalizations can be made isn't an accurate reflection of the many disciplines that consitute "psychology," so for this reason alone neither did I vote in your poll; shoot, an inclusive definition of "psychology" doesn't even exist and is discipline-dependent. As for "psychotherapy" specifically, which psychotherapy did you have in mind? :wink: Anyway, it's nothing new that psychology, like every other field of human endeavor, has had its share of strong proponents as well as strong opponents, both from within and without, and as with all forms of human knowledge and practice, nothing's ever cut and dried and acceptable to all people.

Cindy


P.S. to Clemsy: Hillman's psychology has never resonated with me either.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

I tend to agree with JJ’s Mythblog that the Buddha was a psychologist. But this begs a question: Is modern psychology necessary? Is it anything more than traditional religion and philosophy masquerading as modern science, drawing on the clout of the modern hard sciences, including neuroscience, for all of their marvelous discoveries, but offering little substance of its own?
we've had a hundred-twenty years of modern psychology - and the world is getting worse.
Now I answered the above quote because overall I think that psychology “took a wrong turn” by focusing too much on Freud and behaviorism. Find the cause and focus on correcting the behavior. “Cognitive psychology” got treated as the forsaken step-child. However, if you want to correct a behavior, then what better way is there then to "heal the mind".

Fortunately, through the emergence of Buddhism in western culture, cognitive psychology has gotten a second chance. The Dalai Lama and the cognitive psychology community have been cooperating in the research of the “Mind” vs. “Brain” thing. I’m now listening to a CD that documents scientific findings discussed at the 2004 Mind and Life Conference.

If our thoughts shape our brain, then “right thinking” is the psychology the human race needs. :D

Unfortunately, “right” is a subjective term. :(
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

I tend to agree with JJ’s Mythblog that the Buddha was a psychologist. But this begs a question: Is modern psychology necessary? Is it anything more than traditional religion and philosophy masquerading as modern science, drawing on the clout of the modern hard sciences, including neuroscience, for all of their marvelous discoveries, but offering little substance of its own?
How's this for a twist: Some, myself included, who give primacy to the psyche would argue that each of these areas is in fact grounded in and an expression of the human psyche. To suggest that the study of psychology can offer "little substance of its own" fails to recognize that the very substance of religion, philosophy, science, politics, etc., etc. is a product of the psyche and fundamentally indebted to the psychological...

...in my opinion, of course. :wink:

Cindy
Last edited by Cindy B. on Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

I think that psychology “took a wrong turn” by focusing too much on Freud and behaviorism.

Fortunately, through the emergence of Buddhism in western culture, cognitive psychology has gotten a second chance. The Dalai Lama and the cognitive psychology community have been cooperating in the research of the “Mind” vs. “Brain” thing.

- Neo
Neo, Clemsy, and Cindy – it’s a big question. A philosophical question. It’s like speculating on the net effect of communism in the 20th century, or whether TV has had a net positive effect. You can say ‘well it depends…’ about any sufficiently large question. As a generalization – I concluded that the net effect of psychology is about even. In terms of science – I consider it philosophy by another name. In terms of therapy it’s religious counseling by another name.

Cindy – the reason psychology and psychotherapy aren’t monolithic fields is precisely because nothing definitive can be claimed - no concensus drawn. Behaviorism became all the rage in the early part of the 20th century, in part, because the German philosophers had speculated ‘theories of mind’ to death in the late 19th century. Behaviorism was fueled by those logical positivists, and pragmatic Americans who were satisfied to consider the mind a ‘black box’ and therefore not worthy of direct investigation and speculation. But, surprise, surprise; in the 70s ‘theory of mind’ comes back with a fury with the name of ‘cognitive psychology’.

The 90s has been called ‘the decade of the brain’. Neuroscience has made more progress in this decade they say than the previous history of neuroscience. And the discoveries have kept pace in our current decade. But the 90s was not, in my opinion, the decade of the mind (as I once called it in these forums). All these theories of mind dance around the same problems as is evidenced by the amount of philosophy. David Chalmers coined the term ‘the hard problem’ – another called it ‘the explanatory gap’. But it’s the same problem Nagel referred to in 1974, that James referred to at the beginning of the century, and that Descartes proposed in the 17th century. Antonio Demasio titled a book ‘Descartes Error’. But he may as well have titled it ‘Spinoza’s Correction’, since Spinoza came to the same conclusion Demasio came up with that the brain and mind are two aspects of one thing. (So there is no ghost in a machine.)

Then there is Freud. An article titled ‘Freud Returns’ appeared in April/May 2006 Scientific American Mind. In it the author stresses the far reaching theories of mind that Freud developed are gaining support from modern neuroscience. In the 70s dream and dream interpretation lost some status as neuroscience explained dreams as part of a chemical cycle of REM sleep. I recall reading back then that dreams were believed by many to be ‘white noise’ of the brain. So Freud was wrong on this. But now, according to this article psychological conceptions of dreams are respectable again because neuroscience has shown that dreams are generated by ‘the forebrain’s instinctual-motivational circuitry’. Dreaming stops completely they say when ‘certain fibers deep in the frontal lobe have been severed – a symptom that coincides with a general reduction in motivated behavior.’ Ramachandran mentions Freud in his book Phantoms of the Brain saying that many of Freud’s theories about repression are made glaringly obvious in his research.

However, the same article ‘Freud Returns’ has a counterpoint section by J. Allan Hobson of Harvard Medical School titled Freud Returns? Like a bad Dream. Here is how he concludes:
…Psychoanalysis is in big trouble, and no amount of neurobiological tinkering can fix it. So radical an overhaul is necessary that many neuroscientists would prefer to start over and create a neurocognitive model of the mind. Psychoanalytic theory is indeed comprehensive, but if it is terribly in error, then its comprehensiveness is hardly a virtue. The scientists who share this view stump for more biologically-based models of dreams, of mental illness, and of normal conscious experience than those offered by psychoanalysis.

The entire article in pdf format >>> http://www.neuro-psa.org.uk/download/SAorig.pdf
Whether you call them ‘theories of mind’, ‘theory of ideas’, or ‘consciousness studies’, I see them churning the same ideas over and over. I was shocked in reading through a very large volume titled Philosophy in the Flesh that the UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff has scarcely a word to say about David Hume! This prompted me to find another small book titled Hume Variations:
P134 Hume’s Treatise is the foundational document of cognitive science; it made explicit, for the first time, the project of constructing an empirical psychology on the basis of a representational theory of mind; in effect, on the basis of the Theory of Ideas. Saving only some retrospectively embarrassing behaviorist interludes, the pursuit of this program has been the main work of the last two hundred years of research on cognition.

- Jerry A. Fodor, Hume Variations, 2003
There is no consensus on this stuff, frankly, because there is no scientific truth to be found. There are plenty of philosophical truths. I find the debates on consciousness dazzling.

But what about the practical application of psychotherapy? My gut feeling (that is, if guts can feel) is that psychotherapy has a zero-sum effect. I’m reminded of a saying that in order for God to work in your life you must first believe in Him (or Her). A person going into therapy has a tremendous advantage if he or she believes in the scientific project, and believes in the authority of the person they are consulting. My impression is that the authority has changed – but the most profitable techniques remain about the same.

This is from The Scarlett Letter published in 1850:
P125 So Roger Chillingworth—the man of skill, the kind and friendly physician—strove to go deep into his patient’s bosom, delving among his principles, prying into his recollections, and probing everything with a cautious touch, like a treasure-seeker in a dark cavern. Few secrets can escape an investigator, who has opportunity and license to undertake such a quest, and skill to follow it up. A man burdened with a secret should especially avoid the intimacy of his physician.

If the latter possess native sagacity, and a nameless something more, - let us call it intuition; if he show no intrusive egotism, nor disagreeably prominent characteristics of his own; if he have the power, which must be born with him, to bring his mind into such affinity with his patient’s, that this last shall unawares have spoken what he imagines himself only to have thought; if such revelations be received without tumult, and acknowledged not so often by an utter sympathy as by silence, and inarticulate breath, and here and there a word, to indicate that all is understood; if to these qualifications of a confidant be joined the advantages afforded by his recognized character as a physician, - then, at some inevitable moment, will the soul of the sufferer be dissolved, and flow forth in a dark, but transparent stream, bringing all its mysteries into the daylight.

- Nathanial Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter, 1850
But Nathanial Hawthorne wasn’t a psychoanalyst. They didn’t exist, in name anyway, in his time. Nor in Shakespeare’s time. Yet few people have understood the mind as well as Shakespeare methinks. And few disciplines have offered as profitable an answer to the human condition as have Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, Christianity, Islam, Indian and Greek philosophies. Does Psychotherapy belong in this company?

As a native Californian, I understand the mythological rootlessness of the west coast, and the ease with which new mythologies are embraced. I can only say of Psychotherapy, “I believe - help thou my unbelief”.

- NoMan
Last edited by noman on Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

noman wrote: Cindy – the reason psychology and psychotherapy aren’t monolithic fields is precisely because nothing definitive can be claimed - no concensus drawn.
I hear what you're saying, noman, but this is case with each and every field. Why hold psychology to a different standard? A rhetorical question, by the way. :wink:

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

It took me about 30 seconds to realize you’re right Cindy. Especially with the ‘soft’ sciences. An economics professor once said that Economics is the only discipline where two people can win Nobel prizes for coming to exact opposite conclusions. Debates rage on in every field. The difference, in my prejudiced opinion, is that other disciplines are going somewhere. There are new vistas and discoveries. Psychology, like philosophy, art, and religion – just is. It’s valuable - but hardly progressive.

- NoMan

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Yow NoMan! That hurt! :D

What came first, the mind of the brain? Let's consider this:

Life doesn't need a brain to live. (Flowers).
A brain is required for high level motor functions. (Animals)
A mind is required for self-awareness. (Humans)

So to me, the mind is a higher form of consciousness than what the brain has ever acheived.
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Here's my issue with the question: Who ever said psychotherapy, of whatever flavor, was around to solve the world's problems?

Today, everyone can shop around for the flavor that resonates with them so they can try to "straighten out their own lives." I like to think that those who do have the courage to admit that talking to someone about what they can't talk to anyone else about is of significant value, have a step up on those who haven't.

This isn't about straightening out the world.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Clemsy,

Two hundred and sixty years ago the question was asked whether the arts and sciences improved or corrupted morals. I think we can all agree that a more moral society is a better society. I'm simply asking the same question about psychology's overall effect.

One of Campbell's ideas that made me think of it is on page 11 of Myths to Live By that I quoted in my opening post. Joseph Campbell says psychology’s findings are the ‘best answer’ to the ‘critical problem’. This doesn’t mean those findings need necessarily lead to psychotherapy. But it does give psychology in general, in Campbell’s opinion, a certain authority on this issue. (now that hurts) And I don’t know if his idea would go over as well today.

- NoMan

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Joseph Campbell says psychology’s findings are the ‘best answer’ to the ‘critical problem’.
To the critical problem of what?
Two hundred and sixty years ago the question was asked whether the arts and sciences improved or corrupted morals.
One could have asked the same thing of religion, the printing press, the piano, the steam engine or the telegraph.

Noman I'm not faulting you at all for posting the question. I'm just questioning the validity of the question. I'm like that. 8)

There's a questionable assumption here that one had anything at all to do with the other to begin with.

Campbell compared shrinks to shamans. Shamans didn't improve the world. Shrinks and therapists don't improve the world. Campbell stated, in one of his most oft repeated quotes, that you can't improve the world. You can only improve yourself. If everyone gave that a go, maybe the world would improve.

But I'm not worryin' 'bout that one!

One believes morals are either static or fluid. If one believes them static than any change is corruption. If one considers them fluid, well then that leaves us room to do things like, say, hope that one day women will get equal pay for the same men's work. I could come up with a gizillion other examples.

You get my point.

Again, the glittering generality in the question invalidates it, in my perhaps not so humble opinion.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Alright, I assume too much, and try to be concise with my quotes:
P10 Now the peoples of all the great civilizations everywhere have been prone to interpret their own symbolic figures literally, and so to regard themselves as favored in a special way, in direct contact with the Absolute. Even the polytheistic Greeks and Romans, Hindus and Chinese, all of whom were able to view the gods and customs of others sympathetically, thought of their own as supreme or, at the very least, superior; and among the monotheistic Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans, of course, the gods of others are regarded as no gods at all, but devils, and their worshipers as godless. Mecca, Rome, Jerusalem, and less emphatically) Benares and Peking have been for centuries, therefore, each in its own way, the navel of the universe, connected directly – as by a hot line – with the Kingdom of Light or of God.

However, today such claims can no longer be taken seriously by anyone with even a kindergarten education. And in this there is serious danger. For not only has it always been the way of multitudes to interpret their own symbols literally, but such literally read symbolic forms have always been – and still are, in fact – the supports of their civilizations, the supports of their moral orders, their cohesion, vitality, and creative powers. With the loss of them there follows uncertainty, and with uncertainty, disequilibrium, since life, as both Nietzsche and Ibsen knew, requires life-supporting illusions; and where these have been dispelled, there is nothing secure to hold on to, no moral law, nothing firm. We have seen what has happened, for example, to primitive communities unsettled, they immediately go to pieces, disintegrate, and become resorts of vice and disease.

Today the same thing is happening to us. With our old mythological founded taboos unsettled by our own modern sciences., there is everywhere in the civilized world a rapidly rising incidence of vice and crime, mental disorders, suicides and dope addictions, shattered homes, impudent children, violence, murder, and despair. These are facts; I am not inventing them. They give point to the cries of the preachers for repentance, conversion, and return to the old religion. And they challenge, too, the modern educator with respect to his own faith and ultimate loyalty. Is the conscientious teacher – concerned for the moral character as well as for the book-learning of his students – to be loyal first to the supporting myths of our civilization or to the “factualized” truths of his science? Are the two, on every level, at odds? Or is there not some point of wisdom beyond the conflicts of illusion and truth by which lives can be put back together again?

That is a prime question, I would say, of this hour in the bringing up of children….

It is my considered belief that the best answer to this critical problem will come from the findings of psychology, and specifically those finding having to do with the source and nature of myth.

- Joseph Campbell, Myths to Live By, 1972
But I do see my question as a philosophical one. And I see Hillman's and Ventura's dialogue as philosophical discourse assessing the value of psychotherapy. And if your answer on psychology is the Way of Tao, that only the 'sealed mouth of heaven' knows what is best in the good / evil polarity of all things - then the net effect of psychology might be irrelevant. I decided psychology has had a net zero value. But I would not arrive at the same conclusion on the invention of the pianoforte, the printing press, the steam engine, and the telegraph. These are definitely net positive inventions for the improvement of society, as is representational democracy with universal suffrage. On the other hand, communism, fascism, and Euro-American elitism, exploitation, and genocide has lead to a corruption of society.

We can, we do, make judgements about such things.

- NoMan

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

noman wrote: Joseph Campbell says psychology’s findings are the ‘best answer’ to the ‘critical problem’. This doesn’t mean those findings need necessarily lead to psychotherapy. But it does give psychology in general, in Campbell’s opinion, a certain authority on this issue. (now that hurts) And I don’t know if his idea would go over as well today.
Just offering food for thought here, noman. And yes, in my opinion, this idea still goes over as well today.

First, Campbell wasn't speaking of all psychological disciplines but primarily about those that help to fill the void left in many peoples' lives given the erosion of religion's influence and ability to fulfill personal needs. For example, among other things, we therapists and counselors hear confessions, offer unconditional acceptance to whomever walks through the door, provide support and education to address problems in everyday living, encourage and help any person before us to discover meaning and purpose in life, etc., all functions that religious institutions once provided for everyone but no longer can for many modern folks; instead these functions have fallen to us so-called "professional helpers."

Most specific, though, to the issue you raise, I think, is that Campbell was primarily interested those depth psychologies, e.g., Jung's analytical psychology, that focus on the spiritual dimension in our cultural and personal lives, and that potentially can lead us back to rediscovering and reanimating the mythic dimension of the human psyche that's essential to a sense of meaningfulness and purpose in our lives. Also, certain depth psychologies are the best suited for now (Yep, change is inevitable. And I'm also excluding traditional Freudian-based psychologies.) when it comes to the expansion of consciousness on a personal level and to consciousness-raising on a social level. The focus of depth psychology on both conscious and unconscious functioning and on pursuit of the transcendent (Again, not Freud; he never transcended the genital region. :lol: )--whether we're talking about an individual, group, or culture--elucidates both the best and the worst when it comes to the human psyche, and offers insight into ways of strengthening the positive, dealing with the negative, and accepting what cannot be changed about human nature.

And a personal note, noman. You do know, I hope, that my intention is not to be critical of you in any way or to try to bring you over to the "dark side" :P since I recognize that all things can never speak to all people; my intention is merely to share information. At the same time, I admit my bias and that I invariably view myself and others through a psychological lens...and this includes you. Ha!

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

I decided psychology has had a net zero value.
As far as can be evidenced, anyway. I'm quite sure someone's therapy somewhere made the world a bit of a better place in the only place that really matters.... the one between the ears.
And if your answer on psychology is the Way of Tao, that only the 'sealed mouth of heaven' knows what is best in the good / evil polarity of all things - then the net effect of psychology might be irrelevant.
Don't know about all things, but yes, the net effect of psychology on the state of the world is negligible to the point of irrelevance.

My point in listing that other stuff is that an argument can be constructed either way for anything, especially today in our sophistry laden age. But, personally, I prefer to blame people's behavior on people, not things. Something comes along that upsets the balance, one finds a new balance.

Holding on to the tried and no longer true does the real damage, seems to me.

This is the terra firma of sociology, not psychology which may refer back to my recommendation of having those in power having their heads examined. No one puts much thought into the social ramifications of technological development. "Reforms" tend to benefit one vested interest or another while society goes careening headlong, perhaps toward that "Bridge Out" sign, with no one at the wheel.

The most common reaction is to get, well, all reactionary.

So if we associate all of this with the sociological function of myth, when the old myths lay in interesting ruins across the culture, then the answer Campbell would suggest is to get Creative about it and get your own act together and not be overly concerned about the larger state of the world which will always be a perfect mess.
A vital person vitalizes. ~Campbell
...we therapists and counselors hear confessions, offer unconditional acceptance to whomever walks through the door, provide support and education to address problems in everyday living, encourage and help any person before us to discover meaning and purpose in life, etc., all functions that religious institutions once provided for everyone but no longer can for many modern folks; instead these functions have fallen to us so-called "professional helpers."
And before religious institutions, shamans. May I venture that this role is archetypal?
Personally I think that Obama should establish a Cabinet post for either a Jungian or a post-Jungian analyst. What do you think? Are you willing to give it a go?
At least a staff position. Every king should have a confessor, at least someone who whispers "Thou art only human" in their ear once in a while.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Locked