Blog
The Problem of Theoretical Abstraction in Psychology
2009-02-21 21:06:33
A quick thought on the underlying problem with the contemporary practice of psychological therapies:
The practice of psychotherapy is, by its very nature, a highly theoretical activity. As such, it relies on cognitive frameworks, diagnostic guides, theoretical axioms, hypotheses and a multitude of theories belonging to one of a plethora of perspectives. Unfortunately, the training given to psychologists is highly discursive, and very little emphasis is placed on mathematical reasoning, let alone formal logic. This results in many errors of simplification, reduction and abstraction.
In order for psychological frameworks to develop, a set of axioms or core theoretical principals need to be established and agreed upon. It is upon these axioms that further theories are extrapolated, and even further hypotheses are suggested. The problem arises with the axioms being assumed as being universally applicable and fundamentally abstracted. In a mathematical analogy, this would be akin to factorization. One could simplify (2/2)x^2 - 4/1 as x^2 - 4, and a very small degree of clarity is reached. However, it is only once we factorize it to (x + 2)(x - 2) that we start having a deeper and essentially fundamental understanding of the initial equation. So too with psychological theory; it is only once we simplify and abstract down to universally relevant principals do we find something which is useful on which to base theory.
The reasons for this flaw are many, the foremost being the choice of sample populations for psychological research. Contemporary psychological understanding is the product of many decades of research, primarily conducted in Western society. As with a child, the macrocosm of society is egocentric, in that it cannot, as a whole, understand positions and view points other than its own. This problem of egocentration resonates downward into many facets of society, psychological research not excluded. For example, the consequences of individuals developing in a social environment in which interpersonal competition and ideologies of atomism are not often considered, and thus are implicitly assumed as universally constant when conducting research. This can be disastrous, as any such findings, hypotheses or theories derived from such research become nullified when an attempt is made to apply such research to cultures which encourage a conception of self as being part of a whole, instead of in competition with contemporaries.
One cannot blame the researchers, as they have no choice but to be deeply affected by the mindset(s) of the surrounding macrocosm. Also, it is important to remember that one cannot easily remove psychological elements of socialization from individuals used in research, thus, social contamination will always exist. This is where the importance of the sample populations becomes evident. As it is not possible to test the totality of the population, a perfect result will never exist. However, logic dictates that the larger the sample, the closer to perfection the result will be. This, though, still is not a very useful statement, as 100% (or "perfection") would equate to ~7 billion individual tests, and to get even a fraction of the way to such accuracy is completely unfeasible with current technology. Therefore, to compensate, one would have to administer the test, observation or other such instrument to individuals from a diverse cultural base, not only from varying socio-economic backgrounds. This becomes problematic, as it might mean administration in different geological areas which are far apart. Though, is this one hurdle not worth overcoming for a potentially deeper and more fundamental insight into the human mind?
