Criticism of Modern Psychology.


First of all, let me make it clear this is not a criticism of Freud, in all actuality it is a defense of Freud.  The psychological field has moved away from Sigmund’s model of the human as an animal motivated by sex.  That frame is unpleasant to the feminine perspective which doesn’t like to allow itself to be scrutinized or criticized and Freud’s model creates a disparate impact that favor’s men.  Which isn’t to say that it is invalid.  A meritocracy of reason creates a disparate impact as well because all people are not equally reasonable, or motivated to become reasonable, or even wanting to become reasonable.

The problem is that women don’t want to think negatively about themselves, so a meritocracy of pleasantness was instituted, which means if anybody is offended that people feel sympathetic too, you can’t say it even if it is true.  Which means that Modern Psychology has invoked the vagueness fallacy.  Instead of speaking about things in plain speech (parrhesia) you state them in such a way that they are completely veiled, impractical, not capable of being understood, and for all intents and purposes, useless.


Psychology, is the study of the soul, but it should instead be thought of as the science of mental health.  To state that someone is a psychologist is to confirm that they are an authority on mental health, and in order to possess that authority one would have to be mentally healthy.  The problem is that isn’t the case.  What often stimulates the need recognition of Modern Psychologists is a need to feel like an authority in someone else’s life because they don’t feel like an authority in their own life.  Being termed a psychologist they are apriorily branded as mentally healthy.  This creates an up down relationship instead of a horizontal relationship with a meritocracy of reason. Or as I refer to it in Rational Praxisism, “Aequalitatus sub ratio”  Equality under reason.


The other issue is that money is exchanged.  This confuses the issue.  Being mentally healthy should be something that we do for no other reason.  It should be a personal endeavor that all rational people take upon themselves.  To know themselves and others accurately.  The radical Atheists try to force the frame that people who are incorrect about facts are delusional, but the fact of the matter is that in order to be a psychological disorder you have to be putting yourself or others in danger.  While people are harmed by other people being incorrect about them and delusionally in relationship with them, I have never heard of a fact being harmed by somebody being wrong about it.


The exchange of money creates an incentive that tacitly re-frames the relationship.  I am not going to go into detail about how the incentive set affects the relationship, but ponder this, people presuppose that the more money you are spending on a psychologist the better they are and the more mentally healthy you are getting, we know that isn’t the case because tests have been done that show there are no specialists in the field of psychology.  Because of the homogenizing of the DSM there is no difference between the novice and the “expert”.


Psychology, in its original form, was known as the talking cure.  A group of fellows would gather around and discuss the nature of reality and the proper form of relationship between things.  All of them being familiar with all of the logical fallacies, and up to date with all of the known cognitive biases, the individuals in this relationship exerted an influence on themselves and each other to become as non deluded as possible, which is to say in relationship with reality.  This is a philosophical endeavor.  As this relationship unfolds, men allying themselves with their better angels and not their worser demons, all parties capable of staying in the relationship become more and more rational and mentally healthy.

As you can see, modern psychology doesn’t compare the patient to the RATIONAL MAN, they compare him to the NORMAL MAN.  This is the comparison set of modern psychology.  And as usual it doesn’t account for Creeping Normality which means that if society is becoming more psychopathic the the psychopath is becoming the norm.  Which means that the psychopath will appear sane when compared with the normative model and a sane person will appear to be a danger to society.  This pattern is increased and enabled by the meritocracy of pleasantness, which creates a camouflage for the psychopath to blend in and not be pointed out or confronted.


This is another issue I have with modern psychology.  Psychopaths were discovered before Sociopaths.  Even psychologists have trouble distinguishing between the two.  My psychological models and psychological technique compensates for this.  Every deviation from rational behavior is psychotic.  But people differ in why, when, and how they deviate from rational behavior. Psychopaths are over coddled children, and sociopaths are neglected children.  Two completely different animals with completely different mind sets and different approaches to reality and each one set off by different things.  But Sociopaths are considered a sub category of Psychopaths because they were found afterwards.

Psychopaths have female minds, and they use feminine strategies and techniques because as Fritz Perls said, “A person emulates whatever behavior they believe is dominant when they want to win.”  Some people believe that feminine strategies are dominant while others believe that masculine strategies are dominant.  Which means that as you put psychological pressure on either, they will respond differently and if you haven’t determined which you are dealing with you can’t correctly predict their response.


I am not a psychologist, I am a guru, I don’t want followers, I want compatriots.  I don’t want people underneath me.  I don’t want people Dependant on me.  I wan’t to be surrounded by people that take responsibility for themselves, and people that want to be mentally healthy and rational.  I am not interested in leading others, I want others to be lead by reason.  I want them to recognized the Authority of reason and Participate with it.


3 thoughts on “Criticism of Modern Psychology.”

  1. I disagree with your point about master and novice…I think it has taken time for me to know what to listen for and how to respond so that I don’t lead them into my philosophy of living. But, it’s been my experience that when many people learn to gain ground in mastering their emotions, their ability to reason about how they want to live their lives in their present reality seems to improve. Please let me know if I have misunderstood your point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s