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