Some Random Thoughts on Weaknesses in Foundational Psychology

Sigmund Freud

I am far from an expert in psychology.

In fact, I would say that I know very little about the various schools of thought in the science but I have been having an extended email discussion on the topic with Dr. Michael Edelstein and Thomas Bateman, LPC.

To the degree I can get a sense of what goes on in the field, it appears that there is no strong foundational methodology in psychology along the lines that has developed in economics.

My inclination is to think that all of the psychology could be developed in a manner similar to the way Ludwig von Mises developed economics. That is a few basic principles that include very broad empirical observations followed by spinning out theory by deduction.

Most of what I see in psychology seems to take the empirical route through studies that tend to mimic the physical sciences. The very thing F.A. Hayek warned about in The Counter-Revolution of Science when he discussed the proper methodology for the social sciences. On top of it all, many of the popular empirical studies are extremely shallow and poorly constructed.

It seems to me you could draw out the entire foundation of psychology using the Misesian style with such basic principles as

1. Man has emotions

2. Man's emotions are triggered by

 a. things in the real world a person observes

or

b. things a person thinks he observes.

3. All people have emotions that they would want to live with and other emotions that they would like to stop feeling/experiencing.

I haven't thought enough about the subject to consider this an exhaustive foundational list. It is just to provide a sense for the type of foundation that could be used, from which all psychology could be developed.

Since Edelstein and Bateman are practitioners of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy which is anti the treatment methods of Sigmund Freud, I want to comment briefly on what I consider to be the differences between the two methods.

To best understand the difference between the two schools of thought, it can be useful to think of a house on fire.

The house is blazing away. In terms of treatment methods, Edelstein and Bateman upon arriving at the fire would want to start putting out the fire immediately and not care where the fire started.

Freud would arrive on the scene with the house blazing and want to determine where the fire started. He would then discover, say, it was the basement and want to start putting out the fire from that location.

That is, Freud would want to delve into a patient's full childhood and relationship with parents and start from there.

In other words, Edelstein and Bateman would not find value in studying a person's childhood and would rather tweak current thinking.

So looking at it from this perspective, I consider the Edelstein and Bateman method of treatment is in most cases more efficient.

Although, to the degree that Edelstein and Bateman hold the view that childhood doesn't have a significant impact (and they both may have different views on this) it is probably incorrect. It is just not necessary for proper treatment to delve into childhood in most cases.

Freud's insistence on delving into a patient's childhood may not be necessary but it may be ok treatment in some cases. (Though it appears that in addition to going back to childhood, he did hold a number of wacky theories as to how childhood and emotional development occurs)

To bring this back to the house on fire example,  Edelstein and Bateman are essentially saying, "Let's just put this fire out" and not care about where it started. Freud is saying, "No we must find out where the fire started and begin by putting the fire out at that location."

Clearly, Edelstein and Bateman have a much sounder approach if the goal is to solve a person's current emotional problems rapidly and efficiently. The  Freudian method would get there in some cases, but it will be a much longer route. And it would have to be only certain types of Freudian techniques which may not be currently used by all Freudian psychologists.

Neither school of thought, though, appears to begin with the foundational themes I have mentioned above.

And I do hasten to add that there probably is more room for some empirical studies in psychology that go far beyond the value of empirical studies in economics but the Misesian approach needs to be developed first at the foundational level. The empirical studies would be significantly different from most of the studies that occur today because of methodological weaknesses in current studies.

 -RW