Thank you so much, Gregg for your heart-felt congratulations. Barbara Ingram, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Pepperdine University Graduate School of Education and Psychology On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 8:10 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi TOK List, > > I thought I would post a note I just sent to the Society for the > Exploration of Psychotherapy list serve. Several comments were raised by > practitioners that were worried about trying to reduce or define the > practice of psychology in terms of the science. The way they were worded I > think it might have been a reference to my position that I believe we can > anchor the practice of psychotherapy to the science of human psychology. > This claim needs to be unpacked because on first read it sounds like I am > trying to reduce the practice to empirically supported treatments, which of > course is not the case at all. For those interested, I thought I would > share how I framed what I am trying to do. > > > > Also, let me note that, although it was a close election for SEPI > President, Barbara Ingram was the victor over me! Congrats to my dear > friend, who is also a TOK Society member! I am very happy for her. She will > make an excellent president I am sure. For the clinicians on the list, I > strongly recommend her work on integrative clinical case formulation. > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Clinical-2DFormulations-2DBarbara-2DLichner-2DIngram_dp_1118038223&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2Q9zhXY4AP-Q2IlsMm-idK1LsLKdXcTOcNkSVuDgeos&s=IKLJ0eEZyhRpDrjjXKj6mKbdBy7UBuuIYFToHhuhm08&e=> > > > Best, > Gregg > > > > *From:* Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx > *Sent:* Sunday, January 5, 2020 9:38 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* RE: [SEPI] SEPI Election Results > > > > Hi All, > > > > Interesting discussion re science and psychotherapy. > > > > I am not sure, Tom, but I think that you and I might agree much more that > is apparent. In terms of where the disagreement might be, I do advocate for > thinking deeply about the relationship between the science of human > psychology and psychotherapy. And I argue that there should be > “commensurability” between the science and practice to the extent possible > and that absent such commensurability is a sign of serious limitations in > our core knowledge. By commensurability I mean the language and concepts > that inform our understanding of human psychology should be in line with > the language we use in psychotherapy. I use biology and medicine and > physics and engineering as examples where the basic science (i.e., physics > and biology) have concepts and language systems that are generally in line > with the professional applications (i.e., engineering and medicine). > > > > It turns out that there is a deep problem with this view, however. The > problem is that the science of human psychology is unlike biology and > physics. Why? Because it lacks a coherent language system and subject > matter. This is what I call “the problem of psychology” and it has been > known by scholars since the beginning of the 20th century. Human > psychology is defined not by a subject matter in the world (i.e., it has no > clear “ontological reference”), but is rather defined by a method. It is an > approach to (mind, behavior, consciousness, experience, psyche, soul, human > relationships and cultures etc) that is grounded in scientific empirical > epistemology. In other words, it is about applying the assumptions and > methods of modern natural science to the (animal and?) human condition to > achieve knowledge. > > > > I DO NOT think that our psychotherapy practices should be dictated by > scientific empirical epistemology. That is why I am always disagreeing with > folks over on the Div 12 list serve. They think they can develop > “intervention recipes” for “psychological disorders” that are “empirically > supported/validated” by RCTs because this method represents the goal > standard of empirical epistemology. This is a big error because the nature > and philosophy of psychotherapeutic practice is fundamentally different > than the task of natural science. > > > > The kind of science-practice approach I advocate for can be thought of > as a meta-psychological/meta-philosophical approach. It is one that is both > scientific and humanistic, epistemologically and ontologically informed, > and grounded in both empirical findings and a coherent descriptive > metaphysics (see this article for more on this > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.researchgate.net_publication_326194591-5FMetatheory-5Fand-5Fthe-5FPrimacy-5Fof-5FConceptual-5FAnalysis-5Fin-5FDevelopmental-5FScience&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2Q9zhXY4AP-Q2IlsMm-idK1LsLKdXcTOcNkSVuDgeos&s=FUywtkRwKG7mBS_aTGFHhP-7Q3MrqsIQQSL9BXmRSHg&e=>). > It is one that seeks coherence and commensurability between the language > systems that inform our conception of the science of human psychology and > the actual, real world work we do in the clinic. Notice that the latter is > unique, particular and “real”, whereas the task of science is to develop > general models of truth that transcend local conditions. Science is about > theory; practice is about reality. This is one of the key reasons we need a > philosophy of practice that is very different than a philosophy of science. > I believe that practice should be guided by the philosophy of design > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mitpress.mit.edu_books_design-2Dway-2Dsecond-2Dedition&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2Q9zhXY4AP-Q2IlsMm-idK1LsLKdXcTOcNkSVuDgeos&s=k-Tio1d-IzxmnLG6yyr6dt4pufGEebmJaeuFoby-RuA&e=>, not the > philosophy of natural science. The reason is simple: The goals of therapy > and the talents required are very different than the goals of natural > science. This is why health service psychology as a profession is very > different than psychological science. This is another thing the folks over > at Div 12/”clinical science psychology” advocates fail to realize. > > > > My “unified framework” offers such a > metapsychological/metaphilosophical view. It zooms out and tries to provide > a more commonsense language that (a) includes the key insights from the > major paradigms (thus holds and respects them); (b) gives rise to a useful > way of bridging human psychology with psychology; and (c) gives us a common > language grounded in science to talk to each other and talk to our > patients/clients (who of course bring their own unique languages for making > sense of the world). > > > > To give an example, I developed Character Adaptation Systems Theory which > re-aligns the major individual psychotherapy paradigms in terms of human > systems of psychological adaptation. Here is the technical paper on it > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gregghenriques.com_uploads_2_4_3_6_24368778_cast.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2Q9zhXY4AP-Q2IlsMm-idK1LsLKdXcTOcNkSVuDgeos&s=AAgrnZRaVmfCYzPUzPPgp809lYA3dNimWr5Pi2BkPVE&e=>. Here > is the straightforward description: > > The behaviorists focus on habits (sleeping, eating, exercise, sex and > substance) and lifestyle patterns shaped by contingencies in the > environment. > > The emotion focused frame focuses on emotions and emotional functioning > that organize the core of our phenomenology. > > The psychodynamic frame focuses on core relational patterns and systems of > coping and defense that often reside in sub or unconscious portions of our > mental world. > > The cognitive frame focuses on (verbal) interpretations, attributions, and > explanations for the agent-arena relationship, whereas the existential > frame focuses on deeper/broader meaning making and core narrative and > identity functions. Both work with the language-based “justification > system” of character adaptation. > > > > Here is a diagram that depicts what I am getting at: > > > > Notice the left side captures the different systemic and developmental > angles that the individual paradigms often neglect. > > > > My bottom line is that I think we need to step back and try to develop > clarity for our terms and empathy for both our concerns and what we are > trying to advance. To follow Marv, if we can get consensus on these issues, > then perhaps we might achieve some real cumulative advance in both our > understanding and our practices. Currently, I see the field as fairly > stagnant. > > > > Sincerely, > Gregg > > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the > following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1