Grohol: Holy War!

John Grohol, on his World Of Psychology blog, takes great issue with a Holy War fueled by recent articles from Newsweek and Perspectives on Psychological Science.¹ First he offers healthy perspective - psychology is not like medicine and the mind is not like the body. Two obvious statements, yet important distinctions:

The crux of the argument hinges on whether it’s a fair comparison — is psychology like medicine? If so, then perhaps there’s some merit in looking at the medical model for its training. If not, then looking at how medicine trains doctors — while an interesting intellectual exercise — is engaging in a logical fallacy.

Grohol then seeks to frame the Baker et al. article as strongly influenced by the promotion of of the PCSAS organization:

Their entire article [Baker et al. (2009)] centers around how to make graduate school programs more elite, in order to grant them yet another new credential (to add to the existing credential soup that already confuses most consumers and even many professionals).

Indeed, when you see the article for what it is — a sales pitch for the brand-new PCSAS accreditation process — you understand why the argument was crafted in the manner it was. This isn’t about training psychologists to become better psychotherapists, it’s about offering a new credential to training programs that train psychologists to meet the authors’ definition of what makes a good clinician.

Left out of the article (or at least the version I have) was any conflict of interest statement. Two of the three researchers work for the PCSAS organization, and the person who wrote the accompanying editorial praising the study (Walter Mischel) is on the PCSAS advisory board. Is it any wonder that the article finds that the solution to the “problem” is an organization two of the three authors work for?

So herein lies his Holy War.

I took a view yesterday about the Newsweek article. My point is neurscience is a grounding force for the nurture art that is psychology. Begley implies that aspects of psychology lack the grounding typically found in medicine in general (and in her books specifically, though this point is only implied). Interestingly enough, many neuroscientists argue against her point about the plasticity of the brain.²

Scientific study of the brain and mind helps us understand what our subjective experience is. But how do we live with this experience? That is art. Artists are rarely ‘naturals.’ Instead, they grow from mentorship, study, practice and a long sequence of trial and error. Artists need nurturing.

---

1. Baker, T.B., McFall, R.M. & Shoham, V. (2009). Current Status and Future Prospects of Clinical Psychology Toward a Scientifically Principled Approach to Mental and Behavioral Health Care. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2). ↩

2. Gazzaniga is very lucid in his argument against plasticity and neural constructivism. See p 13-16 and p 42-54 from Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000).The Mind's Past. University of California Press.

   To Begley's credit, she has the Dalai Lama on her side. See the forward from Begley, S. (2009). The Plastic Mind: New science reveals our extraordinary potential to transform ourselves. Constable.

   It's been determined: Gazzaniga is always lucid. ↩