Untreatable? How so? C-PTSD can be successfully treated (see http://www.traumacenter.org/products/pdf_files/Complex_PTSD.pdf). Narcissistic Personality Disorder can be successfully treated via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_Therapy. The only personality disorder you have listed that does not have a well-researched means of treatment options is Antisocial Personality Disorder, and current research is evaluating the use of schema therapy to try and treat those with ASPD - but other studies (Duggan, 2009) have reported that a combination of group-based cognitive and behavioral therapy can help reduce criminal offenses.

Also, your notion of the "failure" of psychology is a little off-kilter - people who suffer from ASPD and other personality disorders tend to avoid seeking treatment and they also (in the case of ASPD) break the law at an early age, which puts them into the criminal justice system where it is difficult to foster an environment that promotes successful treatment of mental disorders.

Reference:
Duggan, C. (2009). A treatment guideline for people with antisocial personality disorder: overcoming attitudinal barriers and evidential limitations. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 19(4), 219-223.

Well, this certainly went off topic.

I still only have 2 replies (conflicting at that).

No, its just a mental disorder. Schizoid PD and Schizotypal PD are personality disorders with some similarities to it. Schizoaffective disorder is kind of a cross between schizophrenia and a mood disorder .

Yeah. Typo. I knew that. I have a family member who is a psychiatrist.

Oh, I see. Sorry if I jumped down your throat or anything there.

Could you confirm that you are interested in psychology, not psychiatry? If so, chemistry would have some benefits for you (might help you understand the effects of various medications) but definitely wouldn't be worth sacrificing other grades for (you don't need to understand the effects of any medications).

Psychology, not psychiatry.

People do realise that a Psychiatrist is a doctor that chose Psychiatry as their specialisation? Like an Oncologist or Proctologist etc...

Psychology doesn't have many special requirements here in Australia. If i remember correctly, an arts degree requires a UAI of around 65, medicine requires high 90s, and Psychology mid 70s. Clinical Psychology requires a masters degree, plus a few years training.

And i'm not Tom Cruise in disguise, although i do like Battlefield Earth.

Judging a course based on its entry requirements is flawed. Its in an institutes's interests to take on as many students as possible (for money), and the scores they ask for depend on the demand for the course and their ability to supply it; only if demand outstrips supply do they have reason to increase requirements/make it harder to get into whatever course. Most importantly, remember that getting into a course doesn't mean you'll be able to pass it, and doesn't mean its of a level you can even keep up with (a uni is under no obligation to pass students -- there's some loss of money if they drop out rather than repeating subjects, but that can be planned for).

Becoming a clinical psychologist here in Aus requires a minimum of six years of study/training, which includes supervised work and "a substantial research thesis" (http://www.psychology.org.au/community/specialist/clinical/#s5). Psychiatrists spend at least five years post-graduate on specialist post-graduate study, which includes supervised work (http://www.ranzcp.org/about-us/how-psychiatrists-train.html). While it does take longer to become a psychiatrist, psychologists spend a similar amount of time on mental stuff (a year more, apparently), and given that psychiatrists have to learn about medications and things, I'd say psychologists are actually more qualified in the field of mental health.


A large chunk of psychology is statistics, so it'd be better for you to improve your maths than add chemistry to your workload.

EDIT: fixed a link.

Well licenses for a practicing clinical psychologist in the United States requires a Ph.D / Psy.D (5-6 years) plus two to four years of clinical residency program at a hospital / mental health institution setting.

Regardless, however, you seem to be switching your argument. As I and others have pointed out, psychology is perfectly capable of dealing with all types of mental health disorders - from depression to personality disorders. To say otherwise - and have people believe you - requires that you bring forth some facts rather than simple opinions. And to try and compare entrance requirements between wildly different programs is baseless - simply because a program has different minimum requirements for entry does not mean that even a highly-qualified individual won't drop out.

A PhD is a doctorate in philosophy, different from a masters thesis (at least in Aus anyway).

I'm not switching my argument, it's just that the study of the human mind dwarfs every other science by such an unimaginable degree, that Psychology is at best a philosophy, not a science. You'll have not trouble getting people to attack something very simple like the idea of Homeopathy, but very few seem to have the inclination to attack Psychology, it's just too massive a subject.

Double post

... :facepalm:

A Ph.D requires more work and time than a Master's. In order to get a Ph.D in X discipline (yes, you can get a Ph.D in psychology, computer science or history) you need to first complete a Master's, which requires a Master's thesis.

Psychology, broadly, is the study, diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. It is not a philosophy as such - it may utilize philosophy (Jung's archetypes and collective unconscious ideas) but certain subgroups of the field (such as cognitive psychology or behavioral psychology) use the scientific method heavily in their research and the theories derived from that research has been proven to help people with mental disorders - cognitive psychology in particular has influenced the entire field of psychology dramatically.

So, no, psychology is not a philosophy. It is a science. It may not be as "hard" as chemistry, but it still adheres to the scientific method and scientific principles.

Psychology requires a good sound knowledge of chemistry. Especially bio-chemistry. It's important to be able to understand the chemical processes that take place in one's brain and body. It's all interconnected.

Actually, all sciences are technically philosophy. The natural sciences -biology, chemistry, physics, etc.- are directly descended from philosophy, and were once within its umbrella (before wandering off to do its own thing). The scientific method correlates with the philosophical method(s).

I don't disagree with you from a technical standpoint, but that wasn't the distinction Vault_13 was making. It is quite true that most sciences descended from the thinking of philosophers, but philosophy does not require use of the scientific method in order to theorize about the meaning of life and humanity's role within it (commonly expressed as 42).

It depends a little on which background of philosophy you're talking about, but the European stuff is based on a "Hypothesis -> proof -> theory" process similar to that of science. The major difference is that philosophy uses only logic, while the natural sciences uses both logic and tests in the real world (in philosophy's defence there, it does test things in it's world -- the world of thought).

But my post (and this one) was tangential. Though my point is connected; if all sciences are philosophy, saying that psychology is a form of philosophy and thus not a science is wrong -- one of its premises is incorrect .

What i meant was you might getting confused between a PhD and a masters degree. You don't need a PhD to practice clinical Psychology in Aus.

The human brain is like a galaxy of brain cells that absorbs everything from it's environment, it not only reacts to it's environment, but reacts to it's own reactions. Add to that the brain reacts differently to stimuli from other brains, it's to massive to comprehend, there isn't anything to compare it to, and traditional sciences only scratch the surface of it.

Even medicine has had a few challenges, finding out that certain surgical procedures for arthritis sufferers where the surgery seems to be meaningless, it's the act of going to a place of modern rituals, and having people with special knowledge take away the pain. People's symptoms easing once they feel that they are being tended to by a doctor, before anything happens.

The apparent recent improvements with Personality Disorders and such may very little to do with new treatments, it's more that therapists are viewing clients with PDs as something worth treating, coupled with the therapist feeling confident and optimistic with a treatment (just having a plan is half the battle), which a client will pick up on, and it seems that SOME sufferers will show improvement.

Big problem i have with the recent improvements with Psychotherapy, is that it can cause more harm than good for the people therapy DOESN'T work for, which might be the vast majority of mental illness sufferers. These people get the blame for not responding to therapy like others do, that they aren't believing hard enough, or just like being in pain

Ahhhh. Now I see. You provide no evidence, no statistics, nothing, except for accusations against psychology - again with nothing to back you up except your words - and it seems that you have a bit of an issue with doctors / psychologists (no, I'm not trying to anolyze you, just repeating what you are saying). So, in a nutshell, you have a beef with psychologists because you believe that their treatments don't work well enough. So all I have to say to you in response to that is this: at least they are trying and doing their best to help people with mental disorders, instead of simply throwing them down a hole / into a padded room and throwing away the key.

What would you have psychologists do instead?

So, essentially, you're saying psychotherapy only has a placebo effect?

The critics of Psychology are there, just that they, like me, don't have any alternatives to put to the table, so status quo remains. One example would be to look at CBT on wiki, scroll down to criticisms, and you'll find that there are opinions that say that CBT could be virtually meaningless. The statistics are there, just no one place seems to house them, you have to look at certain isolated articles, they offer valid criticisms, but as i said, no alternatives, so they get ignored.

And sending people TO therapists might be little different form of throwing them in a padded cell, just like sending people to Alcoholics Anonymous, they supposedly know how to deal with these people, let them worry about it.



Probably just have to wait for the technology and other sciences to give Psychology a push into scientific relevancy, could be centuries away. Some things could be virtually impossible to understand fully.

Why is Psychology immune to criticism? What could Psychology be doing and answering? And what is it doing instead?

"Oh Galileo! Why waste your time studying the stars? We should just wait until we have the technology to get to them."

Just because we don't understand it fully doesn't mean we should abandon practice until we do. If that was the case then we'd still be in the stone age. Besides, how do you propose we learn more about the brain without fields like psychology?



So you're saying you don't like it but there's no alternative?



It's not immune to criticism. It's immune, like any other field, to misinformed arguments without basis.

Locked by request.