As an outsider to the field of psychology and even after years of working with Gregg, I remain entirely flummoxed by "the problem of psychology." I understand Gregg's views and proposed "solution," but the part I do not understand is the extent to which "(a) how well documented this problem is; (b) and how no one seems to care about it." Gregg then conveys "It just blows my mind." Well, if that's the case, can you imagine what we are missing or perhaps misunderstanding if we aren't even in a position to play psychology's version of insider baseball? And then the non-psychologists such as myself are left wondering even more confusedly what we should believe or think about psychology. Truth be told, I've always held psychology in much higher regard than sociology - my own discipline - mainly because I've viewed the vast majority of psychologists at least in academia as more committed to a scientific understanding of human behavior - whatever that might mean to people. In contrast, let me share a bit of sociology's "insider's baseball" so that those who are interested will understand where I'm coming from in questioning the reaction, as Gregg has advised (at least in terms of devoting four hours to the problem!). This will be a long post with an attachment, so please ignore or file away if not interested.

From my perspective, the "problem of psychology" is part of the larger problem of the "problem of the social sciences" more generally and, then, at the more philosophical level, the even more complex "problems of knowing" from an epistemological perspective (to say nothing of the ontological issues that led to an exchange at JMU - Gregg's institution - back in 1988 when a psychologist explained to me that nothing exists outside of our minds and what we construct, such that if I stood on a train track and did not believe a train was coming and no one else in that observational frame believed a train was coming, then I would not be harmed in any way by the impending arrival of the train...I'm not making that up!). But what confuses me from the outset is the claim that no one seems to be concerned with these issues in psychology. Is that truly the case? I'd find that remarkable. What do the intellectual leaders in the field have to say about these issues (meaning no disrespect to Gregg or his standing in the field, as he's gaining in reputation and status year by year - and yet no one I've spoken to in my university's department of psychology has ever heard of him or his work)? I ask this because the parallel issues have been long & vociferously debated in sociology, i.e., what is sociology, what is the nature of "social reality", what are our fundamental explanandums (explananda?), the role of individual agency in producing collective or group outcomes, and so forth. The biggest & highly public debates have been about the basic purpose of sociology and what we're supposed to be trying to accomplish as a discipline. As most of you likely know, the result has been the sociology has always been and continues to be even MORE fragmented than psychology, with multiple paradigms and different "language games" that lead to the metaphorical equivalence of one tribe speaking "English" and another speaking "Mandarin", for example. They do not communicate very well with each other and, in the extreme, hold the members or the other tribes in utter disdain.

But, it's even worse. Gregg has referenced some of Jordan Peterson's work & commentary in the past, including a short piece on Peterson's perspective on the new website. What he does not mention, though, is the absolute disgust that Peterson has toward sociology, which is driven by his belief that mainstream sociology is more oriented toward ideological inculcation than scientific investigation. And, to an extent, he's actually correct in that assessment. But it starts from his own disciplinary base, where he offers the following comments in one of his university lectures: “Measurement is everything. And so much of what psychologists publish and write about is incorrect. And the reason it is incorrect is that they do not have their measurements properly instantiated. It’s a massive problem, especially in social psychology. In fact, it’s probably a fatal problem in that most of the things that social psychologists measure don’t exist. Social psychology has been rife with scandals for the last four or five years and there’s good reason for it, but a big part of the problem is that the measurement, that people are not stringent and careful enough about their measurement.” (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEdBgRWkF-I).

Okay, but what about sociology and other cognate disciplines? Peterson is quite unapologetic, "advising freshman students to avoid subjects like sociology, anthropology, English literature, ethnic studies, and racial studies, as well as other fields of study that he believes are corrupted by the neo-Marxist ideology." His criticisms have been quite public, such as his claims about sociology as one of the many disciplinary "indoctrination cults" (see https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.4396970/u-of-t-profs-alarmed-by-jordan-peterson-s-plan-to-target-classes-he-calls-indoctrination-cults-1.4396974). These many wayward disciplines have been "corrupted" in Peterson's view (see https://torontosun.com/2017/06/29/jordan-peterson-certain-university-disciplines-corrupted/wcm/9189041e-131b-4fb7-a501-0136e86790f3

As you might imagine, I might be inclined to react somewhat defensively to such an attack on my own discipline, to say nothing of the many other fields he's attempting to delegitimize. As a Sociology Dept Chair and then as an Assoc Academic Dean until last year, I certainly have held different views about these fields and their contributions to our knowledge. And yet, as mentioned, there's a kernel of truth in some of his critique as well. But I was investigating these issues empirically even before Peterson rose to public stardom (and, quite frankly, before I'd ever even heard of the guy). What did I find?

At least in Canada, the clear majority of sociologists self-identified as "critical theorists" and/or as "feminist sociologists", largely questioning if not eschewing altogether the "positivist" and/or "scientific" (at least the "hegemonic" aspects) foundations of sociology. I've attached the article, if interested. If not, here's the summary info from the abstract worth noting: "The paper focuses on the extent of epistemological diversity in an effort to answer two key questions. First, what intellectual perspectives prevail among Canadian sociologists and, along these lines, does any particular perspective hold greater prominence? Second, what might explain the variation in the epistemological stances most commonly endorsed? The evidence reveals a preponderance of critical and feminist scholars, which can be explained in large measure by considering the social locations of sociological practitioners. The results of a logistic regression model confirm that gender, generation, geography, and disciplinary genre are significant predictors of critical and critical-feminist orientations." In short, I argue that people's "social locations" are strong predictors or determinants of their intellectual orientations - a sociological explanation for why sociologists tend to "do" certain types of sociology or hold the perspectives on the discipline that they do. And that explains a lot, even without delving into the psychological mechanisms. About 2 out of every 3 people teaching in sociology departments in Canada state that they hold some type of "critical perspective" and/or "feminist" perspective in their teaching & research, identifying their mission as committed to social change and social justice." One person stated that "I think my overall ‘mission’ has to do with helping citizens to see through the veil of mystification that, often powerful, others have erected and reproduced (albeit not always consciously) that is a powerful barrier to needed changes in Canadian society and beyond."

"Many respondents combined feminist and critical perspectives, often with interpretive or post-modernist orientations as well. For example, one participant described her approach as “feminist critical realism,” stressing the need to “link sociology to ideas about social justice.” Another identified the main purpose of research as “a means of questioning, challenging and resisting the dominant discourses in which we are always enmeshed.” With a commitment to feminism, constructivism, and post-structuralism, that person stressed the need to “critically understand the society in which you live (and) the position of your own ‘self’ within that society. That requires a life-long commitment to the search for ‘truth’ which opposes contemporary relations of power, situated in dominant discourses.”

Finally, the big debate in sociology in recent years has been the degree and extent to which we should be engaged in "public sociology" and more directly involved in advocacy, challenging the status quo with our facts and analyses, and engaging in different forms of "resistance." You can certainly discuss flaws in the system, who hold power and who's disadvantaged, and things late hate crimes in sociology courses. But you have to be quite careful NOT to sound like you're in any way supporting or justifying the "status quo," which is viewed as a code word for "oppression". But that's getting too far down in the weeds. The bigger point is that we have no consensus in sociology not only in regard to the subject matter or methods (we allegedly value having "a big epistemological tent"), but also in terms of the very raison d'etre for our existence. There's no common mission that I can identify, although a plurality of self-identified sociologists believe in some variant of what I've shared only briefly in the preceding paragraph.

So, back to psychology. Is it indeed the case that nearly everyone - including the thought leaders - either do not see "the problem of psychology" and/or "do not care"? I honestly just don't know what the serious alternativex are, if any, to Gregg's perspective. That's partly why I buy in so whole-heartedly. In other words, if I've only studied Catholicism and do not know that there are any other perspectives on religion, then why would I question the "fundamentals" of the Messiah explaining the nature and meaning of the Catholic religion? I'd have only the most limited of reference points or ability to question the fundamental "truth" of what's being promoted. So, in my narrow frame of reference, I gravitate toward Gregg's ToK perspective because: a) it makes a lot of "sense" to me; b) it deals effectively with the bigger issues in which I'm interested beyond my own discipline; c) it has a placeholder for the contribution of sociology; and d) it seems to be open to critique and refinement - unlike many other meta-perspectives or "paradigms" to which I've been exposed over the course of the roughly 35,000 books and articles I have read over the past 3 decades (that's not a boast, but more of an admission of frustration - imagine the pianist or guitarist I'd be today if I'd spent those tens of thousands of hours engaged in THOSE activities rather than reading everything I could get my hands on... By comparison, I've only published about 50 peer-reviewed books and articles in total - and almost none of the work particularly noteworthy!). Plus, Gregg's such a nice guy and fun to work with! But is he "right"? What are the limits of these views he and "we" are promoting, both in publications and in our social media communications - including this list serve? We've had the occasional dissenting or contrarian views presented, but, alas, the most aggressive of these have not always been, um, "civil" and a couple of folks have left the list. But should we not be inviting into the discussions those with different views and has these out in reasoned discussions here and elsewhere? I mean, I'd love it if just some of the psychologists from my own institution would weigh in on these matters, or the "problem of psychology." It'd be fascinating to hear what they have to say. Or maybe we should have people from other disciplines, myself included, weigh in more with other kinds of problems in addition to or to build upon "the problem of psychology."

Okay, I hope I've conveyed my thoughts in a reasonably coherent fashion. As some of you know, I've taken the last few months "off" from academia to focus on landscaping and deck-building and helping people move rather than on these "big questions." Whatever their politics or intellectual orientations, I can vouch that basically every single person I've helped or worked for has expressed a deep appreciation for the instrumental aid I have provided and for the "beauty" of the gift of helping them solve a practical, environmental or aesthetic problem they've been having. Plus, they seem to like to have someone kind in their lives to share their stories with... I can see why some psychologists might gravitate toward being "clinicians" and why many sociologists gravitate toward being "activists." Nice to see "positive" change" and to be helpful, I suppose. Enough said. Entropy always wins in the end and we all fade away. I may not have much more to contribute, but I hope I've highlighted some important concerns or alerted the group to some potential blind spots... Peace, -Joe

Dr. Joseph H. Michalski

Professor

King’s University College at Western University

266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3

Tel: (519) 433-3491

Email: [log in to unmask]

______________________

eⁱ^π + 1 = 0

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2020 10:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Videos on the Problem of Psychology and Its Solution

HI TOK List,

I completed my video series on the Problem of Psychology and Its Solution. It consists of the “long version,” which involves two parts. Part I is a two-hour overview of the Problem of Psychology, focusing on the history and the various paradigms (for the slide deck only of Part I, see here). Part II (slide deck only is here) is an hour and forty-minute description of how the Unified Theory solves the problem.

Of course, who has almost four hours to devote to this issue?

[From where I sit in the landscape of knowledge, I do encourage you to question that reaction. The reason is that the problem of psychology is diagnostic of the single most serious problem with Western (and especially Anglo-American) knowledge systems. It shows, with absolute certainty, that our system of thought does not know how to talk about mind, behavior, and science with coherence. That, folks, is truly remarkable. And what is even more remarkable is (a) how well documented this problem is; (b) and how no one seems to care about it. It just blows my mind. So, next time you find yourself mumbling about how it seems we are all confused, and nobody knows anything, then remember this post. The root of a huge amount of confusion is found in our inability to define science, mind, and behavior in the English language!]

Actually, I get that folks don’t have time for the deep dive. So, HERE is the shortened version; The Summary of the Problem and Its Solution. A focused 30 min romp through the issues. About the length of a sitcom 😊.

Best,
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