Yeah I tend to support the evolutionary psychology line of thinking, although most social psychologists seem to have the opposite opinion. I'm sure it's incredibly entry-level for someone studying for a PhD in the subject, but Pinker's Blank Slate was pretty inspirational in shaping the way I think about the brain, and about human nature in general. My department for undergrad was far more social psych in nature, and had (in my opinion) a good amount of low quality studies which, surprise surprise, favoured a 'progressive' way of thinking.
On the subject of SSRIs and other antidepressants, my clinical psych professors were very much in favour of psychotherapy over pharmacology, although maybe that's because they're not legally allowed to prescribe drugs. But either way, I agree with them - doctors are way too quick to prescribe antidepressants and then just assume the person will be miraculously healed with no psychotherapy. On the other hand, I understand that the demand for psychotherapy far outweighs the supply, so this might just be a consequence of the mental health system receiving inadequate funding.
Christopher Martinez
>Yeah I tend to support the evolutionary psychology line of thinking, although most social psychologists seem to have the opposite opinion.
This is the insane thing about psychology: the majority of practitioners and academics seem to think that it is a choice whether one accepts the evolutionary basis of human behaviour or not.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that you most likely do not feel this way, as you have made clear, however it’s a striking phenomenon, especially considering that we’re talking about a field of biological science.
>I'm sure it's incredibly entry-level for someone studying for a PhD in the subject, but Pinker's Blank Slate was pretty inspirational in shaping the way I think about the brain, and about human nature in general.
Not at all; it is a great book and a much needed one given the current state of psychology.
We need to raise the consciousness of layman and academics alike, regarding the nature of our evolutionary history.
>My department for undergrad was far more social psych in nature, and had (in my opinion) a good amount of low quality studies which, surprise surprise, favoured a 'progressive' way of thinking.
Unfortunately, it’s not too surprising as the ‘standard social sciences model’, as it has become known has roots seemingly everywhere.
Julian Myers
>On the subject of SSRIs and other antidepressants…
I agree and to be perfectly honest the largest driving forces behind SSRIs and other antidepressants are industry funded studies, conferences, continued education programs, drug reps and a sea of publication bias, methodically flawed studies and dodgy statistics.
Psychotherapy can work wonders for individuals suffering from disorders involving identifiable triggers and associated irrational thoughts, which may also act as triggers (for example, in the case of health anxiety and certain cases of depression).
In other words, if the over-primed neural networks associated with anxiety/depression correlate with observable external triggers, then it is possible to prevent these networks from firing by reprogramming how one responds to triggers on a case by case basis, which can be achieved with cognitive behavioural therapy and personalised preventative procedures. Not to mention simple talk therapy, as this may provide individuals a platform on which to explore their experiences and personal grievances. Heck, sometimes just having somebody to talk to can make a world of difference, after all we are social animals living in an increasingly antisocial world. Listen OP, I’m currently drunk on cheap champagne however I’d love to talk more with you about these issues, so I’ll return when I’m in a more able cognitive state or perhaps make a new thread on evolutionary psychology.
Jayden Ward
>On the subject of SSRIs and other antidepressants…
I agree and to be perfectly honest the largest driving forces behind SSRIs and other antidepressants are industry funded studies, conferences, continued education programs, drug reps and a sea of publication bias, methodically flawed studies and dodgy statistics.
Psychotherapy can work wonders for individuals suffering from disorders involving identifiable triggers and associated irrational thoughts, which may also act as triggers (for example, in the case of health anxiety and certain cases of depression).
In other words, if the over-primed neural networks associated with anxiety/depression correlate with observable external triggers, then it is possible to prevent these networks from firing by reprogramming how one responds to triggers on a case by case basis, which can be achieved with cognitive behavioural therapy and personalised preventative procedures.
Not to mention simple talk therapy, as this may provide individuals a platform on which to explore their experiences and personal grievances.
Heck, sometimes just having somebody to talk to can make a world of difference, after all we are social animals living in an increasingly antisocial world.
Listen OP, I’m currently drunk on cheap champagne however I’d love to talk more with you about these issues, so I’ll return when I’m in a more able cognitive state or perhaps make a new thread on evolutionary psychology.
Joseph Russell
Are you unaware of the existence of Econometrics (and thus Econometricians)? Statistics and maths are a huge component of Economics -- one of the social sciences -- that everyone is rigorously taught (at my university at least) and if you really need to dive into some hardcore methodology there are specialists for it.
Cool that you got 98%, but it's a BSc. BSc means absolutely nothing. I'm guessing you didn't know of anything past OLS by the end, right? What kind of rubbish degree makes you work with made up data instead of actual datasets?
People need to stop being whiny bitches and just learn the maths and statistics to do proper research. Many Economics degrees seem to fuck this up (not at my uni, fortunately), but boy it sure seems like it's infinitely worse for fields like Psychology. Completely undermines an otherwise useful and interesting field of study.
Ayden White
In fairness I think most social psychologists would accept at least some degree of human nature, the question is just about how much of our behaviour is shaped by our evolutionary history - and both sides of the debate have a certain amount of merit. But I'd agree that most departments tend to ignore human nature, and that's for political rather than scientific reasons.
I still think antidepressants are useful in cases of severe depression/anxiety - people just won't commit to or respond to therapy otherwise. But yeah, as you say, it is far more useful to reverse these unhealthy neuroplastic changes which are associated with depression. There seems to be a narrative associated with depression that it develops by 'chance' and is purely physiological, like a physical disease. I understand that they want to stop people with depression blaming themselves, but it's bullshit all the same and harms the healing process because people think they just need pills to get better.
Daniel Roberts
98% was in the MSc, and the datasets were real but specifically chosen so they'd work nicely with each test. Actually I'd never heard of OLS and had to look it up on Wikipedia, which is sort of my point. I'd come across some of the terms before and have a vague idea of what they mean, but not really. In psychology we just learn the process for different parametric and non-parametric tests and when to use each one, without really learning the theory or jargon behind it.
That's not necessarily a criticism of the way we're taught though - with the amount of other modules we have from the various different disciplines within psychology, there's really no more room for extra statistics modules. Between 1-4 tests were taught each lecture, I don't think they could have reasonably taught it in any greater depth. It might be different in economics, I don't know. But for psychology, either the course needs to be extended and statistics needs to take a much greater part, or specialist statisticians need to be brought in. I'd personally be happy with the latter, there's nothing wrong with sharing expertise in my opinion.
Josiah Myers
Well the thing is, the evolutionary framework used to describe human nature is wholly interactionist by definition.
There's no 'nature vs nurture' and there never has been; it's a false dichotomy and this is obvious to anybody who understands evolutionary biology.
To briefly sum it up in a somewhat pedantic fashion:
We are animals whose behaviour is governed by genetic and environmental programming, stored in the form of particular nucleotide arrangements and neural networks which correspond to our genetic code and an array of psychological mechanisms crafted by the evolutionary processes of natural selection.
These psychological mechanisms govern an array of behavioural programs, which deal with the adaptive problems humans faced throughout their evolutionary history.
Cultures, societies and individual personalities are the manifestations of genetic programming interacting with a wide range of external environments over time.
Culture is essentially the biological equivalent of cloud storage.
From the roaming bands of prehistory, to the economically and technologically specialised civilisations of today, our societies are built upon the foundations of our evolutionary programming.
This of course does not imply genetic determinism, nor any form clearly discernible deterministic nature; there are an unimaginably large number of hidden and imperceptible variables that affect the development of the human mind.
However, largely indiscernible environmental determinism, bound to a genetic infrastructure, is implied
Samuel Perry
Also yes without a doubt antidepressants, including SSRIs, have shown to be somewhat effective in cases of severe depression and anxiety, as informed by the data.
However, the 'pop a pill', paternalistic and simplistic nature of modern medicine, combined with the profit incentive guiding big pharma has lead to SSRIs and other drugs being handed out like candy.
I think every undergraduate psychology degree should feature a detailed module on evolutionary biology and that many a psychology department is in desperate need of a evolutionary informed intellectual makeover.
Andrew Hughes
Also yes without a doubt antidepressants, including SSRIs, have shown to be somewhat effective in cases of severe depression and anxiety, as informed by the data.
However, the 'pop a pill', paternalistic and simplistic nature of modern medicine, combined with the profit incentive guiding big pharma has lead to SSRIs and other drugs being handed out like candy.
I think every undergraduate psychology degree should feature a detailed module on evolutionary biology and that many a psychology department is in desperate need of an evolutionarily informed intellectual makeover.
