SBK was a Facebook friend. I have long left Facebook. SBK was at Pennsylvania University where he lectured in Positive Psychology. He was also the founder of the Imagination Institute. So it is not surprising he is still firmly in the humanistic psychology tradition because Positive Psychology is the logical extension of many themes in humanistic psychology.
Scott Barry Kaufman is the dream psychologist for left wingers. Jordan Peterson is the dream psychologist for right wingers. Both have enjoyed huge popular support and are regarded by their respective fans are supremely intelligent and world leading psychologists. Fans are often stupid like that.
Neither has done any groundbreaking research. Both love to play the guru game. If I want to learn about human behavior, and for the most part I don't because human beings are boring phenomena, I'd rather read Elkhonen Goldberg, Steven Pinker, or Robert Sapolsky. They have done ground breaking work, they don't play guru, although if you over 60 and want to preserve the gray matter Goldberg's group Sharp Brains has some good practical advice.
Sapolsky isn't a psychologist, he is a specialist in primatology, neuroendocrinology and integrating the physiology to specific behaviors, especially in relation to the stress response axis. Long ago together with others he wrote a brilliant paper demonstrating the relationship between the endocrine, neurologic, and immune responses. You can read it at the below link. Fair warning: if you like SBK and JP and are not familiar with the relevant research literature, you will find this text heavy going.
I can't find any reviews on it but it is very widely cited.
Ideally psychology as a research enterprise should be about understanding human behavior. That is very much what Sapolsky's research is focused on but it isn't sexy or accessible to a wide audience. Nonetheless if you are interested some of his lectures are available on Youtube.
Scott Barry Kaufman and Jordan Peterson put forward their ideas under the banner of being academic and clinical psychologists. That's misleading, they both should be honest enough to have their books placed in the self-help section of bookshops and online stores. Their popular books are not about understanding human behavior but about providing advice to help people live. I have no doubt some people benefit from their ideas. I have no doubt some people benefit from Scientology.
Obviously I don't like the way both SBK and JP present themselves as professionals with a deep understanding of human behavior. They lie at opposite of the political and philosophical spectrum. SBK wants us to understand life as an opportunity for personal growth and happiness. At my age that is impossible. As Knut Hamsun wrote,
In old age we no longer live our lives; we merely keep on our feet with the aid of memories.
Hamsun, On Muted Strings.
Surely such optimism argued stupidity; there must be a certain lack of gray matter in a man who could go around in permanent contentment with life, and even expect something new and good from it.
Hamsun, On Muted Strings.
JP adopts a much more stoical "life is a struggle" attitude. That is the one thing I have in common with JP because I think stoicism is a good way to approach life. I have some sympathy with that disposition because when I was young I thought: if you stop fighting you're already dead. I've stopped fighting but strangely I'm still here. Who knows? "The future's uncertain and the end is always near. Let it roll baby!"(Roadhouse Blues, The Doors) What I can't stand about him is the conformist theme running through his work. Knuckle down, be a good citizen, don't try and change the world, tidy you F...ing room.
Two world famous psychologists at opposite ends of the spectrum. Is there an ideal psychology? I don't think so. While I'm not a fan of humanistic psychology it appears to help some people. So does psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, psychotropic drugs, behavior therapy, narrative therapy, behavior analysis, and cognitive behavioral therapy. I imagine that clinicians have their preferred style but also know that treatment must be tailored to the individual patient. I'm not a clinician which is a very good thing because I'm lousy at changing my own behavior let alone other people's behavior.
I'm wary of the underlying assumptions entertained by both SBK and JP. I'm more in the behaviorist camp because I believe behavior modification is about changing specific behaviors with specific interventions. However I also fascinated by the life changing qualities of some psychedelics. I've tried psychedelics but there was nothing life changing for me. Many people report transformative trips and there is a resemblance to their descriptions and those who experience near death experiences. Which brings me to Transcend.
At this link there is a series of tests to measure your self-actualisation. See the pretty flower at the top of the page, that is so SBK. If JP has a page to measure stoicism it would have a picture of a lobster. I tried one of the tests but unfortunately it stalled at the last page. I couldn't go back and redo the test because the questions were so facile and to obtain a high score the requisite answers appeared all too obvious. So much warm and fuzzy stuff on that test, the page, and others. Why should I have a loving attitude towards human beings in general? Some of them are assholes. It's pretentious to think like that. I care about humans to the extent I can potentially offer some benefit. For example the only smart phone I have purchased was a Nokia(all since then have been hand me downs from friends). I chose Nokia because it was the only manufacturer that made a public commitment to avoid sourcing rare earths from slave labour. When I buy milk it is the Farmer's brand because even though it is 50% more expensive than the supermarket brand I am helping prevent farmers being ripped off by multinational corporations. To me that is caring. Not about feelings, not about completing tests and questionnaires, but about practical action.
I haven't read Transcend and I certainly won't pay to buy it because that would be supporting shoddy science and a guru. Decades ago I read Maslow and Fromm. I liked where they were coming from and applauded their efforts. They wrote in the 1960's. I had hoped that modern psychology had transcended past frames of reference, hence my preference for Goldberg, Pinker, and Sapolsky. The sad truth however is that both Kaufman and Peterson will continue to reign in the popularity stakes. Perhaps I'll live long enough to see the day when the true pioneers in understanding human behavior will be applauded and honored in the same way as SBK and JP are today. The truth is people don't want intellectuals they need gurus. That is the best I can hope for in this crazy world.
No comments:
Post a Comment