Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Psychology
  5. / More Psychology

by Anonymous on November 15th, 2004

Anonymous

Question

Help answer this question below.

Where I can learn about the basics of psychology?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by Thommy on June 26th, 2005

    Thommy

    If you are willing to "look", then read on.

    First, just take a look at a point in history when a world view was changing. The first World War had just ended. It is the decade of the 1920's with "modernism" [Flapper girls, Picasso, dadaism, Einstein and also Quantum physics, Art deco, Jazz] Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin then Stalin were swiftly coming to power. There was American fear of the "new negro" with race riots, the Ku Klux Klan had about 2 million members in 1924 (very big in the north and both coasts). The "Red Scare" resulting from the new USSR and fear of foreign born citizens led to incredible injustices. The majority of city workers at that time were foreign born.
    In the 20's, these people were also popular: Madison Grant, Freud, Jung, and some other psychologists.

    Madison Grant Grant is most famously the author of the popular book The Passing of the Great Race in 1916, an elaborate work of racial hygiene detailing the "racial history" of the world. This early racialist work expositing Nordic theory was the first non-German book ordered to be reprinted by the Nazis when they took power in Germany, and Adolf Hitler wrote to Grant, "The book is my Bible".

    Grant also was an avid eugenicist, advocating the extermination of "undesirable" traits and "worthless race types" from the human gene pool.

    Grant became a part of popular culture in 1920's America.

    Grant advocated restricted immigration to the United States through limiting immigration from East Asia and Southern Europe; he also advocated efforts to purify the American population though selective breeding.
    He served as the vice president of the Immigration Restriction League from 1922 to his death. Acting as an expert on world racial data, Grant also provided doctored statistics for the Immigration Act of 1924 to set the quotas on immigrants from less-desirable countries. Even after passing the statute, Grant continued to be irked that even a smattering of non-Nordics were allowed to immigrate to the country each year.

    A quote from Grant “A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit — in other words social failures — would solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums. The individual himself can be nourished, educated and protected by the community during his lifetime, but the state through sterilization must see to it that his line stops with him, or else future generations will be cursed with an ever increasing load of misguided sentimentalism. This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.”
    EUGENICS is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through social intervention. Proposed means of achieving these goals most commonly include prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, selective breeding, In vitro fertilisation, and genetic engineering. Critics argue that eugenics is a pseudoscience. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination, and severe human rights violations, such as forced sterilization and even genocide.
    This practice of eugenics and sterilization in the US has continued very, very close to recent times in prisons and mental facilities.


    1920’s: Controversies and publications in psychology over Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung and Herman Rorschach (“inkblot” test). These fellows are popular in the 20’s. Ideas of other psychologists mixed with eugenics started to evolve and infiltrate as ideas into society. Freud, did bring home a point which was: “there is a part of the mind which affects a person adversely without the person being aware of exactly what it is that is affecting him.” Freud’s precept that ‘something unknown, hidden from view, adversely affects an individual’ is correct. But Freud (who liked his cocaine) digresses with an emphasis on sex and comes up with some weird ideas like “in love with your mother”. Freud saw the church as an enemy. Wilhelm Wundt had previously founded psychology in Germany prior to WWI. Ideas emanated from this school of thought which dehumanized man and viewed man as a soulless creature. This set the stage for later atrocities. Man was considered more of an animal, a beast without a spirit, that man did not have a higher consciousness. Man was considered a stimulus-response piece of meat. This made it more justifiable in the wholesale slaughter of peoples and “inferior races” as Hitler took control. Ivan Pavlov came out of this German school. [Pavlov is the guy who ‘rang the bell to make dogs salivate’. Man is an animal type approach.] In 1921, Lenin of the USSR gave Pavlov unlimited scope. From the infiltration of these dehumanizing ideas came many gross experiments at controlling people. It helped to “justify” man’s inhumanity to man in Stalin’s USSR. By the 50’s, the US was covertly using pain/drugs/hypnosis mind-control experiments for cold war military operations, ideas which had emanated from the earlier German and Russian concepts. From the inception of these early ideas came barbaric psychiatric practices such as electric shock treatments or prefrontal lobotomies (ice picks in the brain) or drugs. As recently as a few years ago, a Texas mental institution was administering strong, high-voltage electric shocks to a juvenile’s testicles “to prevent him from masturbating.” These insane psychiatric ideas have led to the development of LSD and Extacy. Currently, remnants of this false idea that man’s behavior is animalistic, all biological, is seen with the proliferation of psychiatric drugs in the marketplace – a billion dollar industry. Yet, even the FDA (which is often corrupted) discounts this biological/chemical aspect. The hoax of “mental disorders are caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain” is just a rumor...even the FDA won’t approve that lie. A “chemical imbalance in the brain” is a psychological / drug marketplace rumor.
    ...and the subject psychology/ psychiatry is still today loaded with weird theories and odd-ball ideas and made-up illnesses which change like “fads” every decade or so. Psychiatry has no true axioms. Actually, the subject is lists of observations and studies and experiments; complex lists of advice; thousands of different people’s ideas or odd-ball theories which come and go as “fads”; and a huge financial and vested interest backing. It is politically and socially incorrect to speak against the subject of psychiatry even though it is a bunch of bunk.

    Psychiatry and psychology has this “bent”, this underlying perspective which treats man as a beast or a stimulus-response creature. Here is one story of many. In 1970 the New York Times Magazine hailed Dr Jose Delgado, a Yale professor, in a cover story. Delgado had pioneered that most unnerving of technologies, the
    brain chip—an electronic device that can manipulate the mind by receiving signals from and transmitting them to neurons.

    “Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. We must electronically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain."

    Dr Delgado put this on record February 24, 1974.

    Our government thinks a lot of this kind of evil. He was honored by Representative Sam Farr (California) on July 25, 2005 in the House of Representatives Congressional Minutes.

    I feel for students having to take psychology courses. They are being duped.
    Let’s face it. If you take any psychology classes, you will be presented with countless pieces of advice. The subject lists thousands and thousands of tiny pieces of advice on “how to live”. Also, you will be presented with lots of studies. Many of the studies might have some interesting data. That is fine. But what often follows is somebody’s brain-child idea or theory. So, the subject ends up with countless theories and ideas.

    The Citizens Commission on Human Rights has great information about the basics of psychology. www.cchr.org

    Yes, this particular website has support from Scientologists. So what? There are other references and websites listed below.

    You have got to hand it to those Scientologists... ...they have the courage to disclose documented information about the charades of the largest government supported and funded institution [psychiatry], and they are also going up against one of the most influential, powerful and corrupt industries in the world [the drug companies]. It is no wonder that black PR from those camps comes about, even though the Scientologists heavily support education, substance abuse programs, religious freedom and equal rights, and they send out millions of pamphlets encouraging all people to improve their self-determinism, morality, and support their own religious faiths. Ha, they only help to make a better society...this puts more credibility to their supported website.

    It is true that psychiatry is only a bunch of different peoples opinions and ideas. There are no axioms and fundamental basics in psychiatry. That is why you have a continual shift of fad theories every decade. It is not really a science, but a bunch of people’s ideas. Some of those ideas are very sick, perverted, or corrupted and influenced. The hoax of “mental disorders are caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain” is just a rumor...even the FDA won’t approve that lie. It is not proven, but perpetuated by the drug companies.

    Here is the problem with "basics of psychology". There really are none. You will get hundreds of perspectives, opinions, and ideas about its basics, but no actual natural laws, axioms, or fundamental rules like one would find in a real science. There is not an answer to the question. Just confusions. If you go back every 10 years, you will see in each decade a fad. And you will see many barbaric treatments and tortures and perversions and rapes, etc. ...and many of these insane treatments continue today...although the drugging of society is now the most lucrative and supported.

    Drugs are in no way, shape or form the answer for mental illness.

    Here are some other articles and reports.

    References

    In the New York Times article, "Leading Drugs for Psychosis Come Under New Scrutiny," Erica Goode details why the new generation of anti-psychotic drugs, called atypicals, may have dangerous side effects and may not be as effective as was previously thought. Now some scientists are questioning the drugs’ effectiveness and say they can lead to serious side effects such as diabetes, which may lead to death.
    Patients may now be faced with the risk of diabetes (type 2 and type 1), hyperglycemia, and excessive weight gain, which have all been associated with the newer atypicals. The article includes a detailed look at the drugs’ potential side effects as well as their growth since 1990. New York Times May 20, 2003

    If you really believe that the FDA is uninfluenced, and you believe that the drug manufacturer honestly discloses all the information; then you can go to their "approved disclosure publication", the Physicians Desk Reference. And even there, side-effects can be quite intensive. http://www.pdr.net/pdrnet/librarian or http://www.healthsquare.com/drugmain.htm

    Regarding the FDA. Presently, safety officers are faced with a conflict of interest in the event they have to convince the Office of New Drugs that a drug is causing side effects. The conflict arises because the very group that approved the drug in the first place is also responsible for taking regulatory action against any post-marketing activities. If you are even a high ranking official with the FDA, you will find your job position changing suddenly if you blow the whistle on the harmful effects of drugs. Ask the former Dr. David Graham, associate director in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, who is now in another position. Ask the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley or Sen. Christopher Dodd.

    Whitaker, J.M., M.D. Citizen petition before the Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, November 24, 2002.
    http://www.danielchongnd.com

    You can go to http://www.merck.com for their drug information...if you really are going to believe that they will actually list all of the side-effects.
    • In 1991, nearly a decade before the first public disclosure, a memo from Merck showed senior executives were concerned that infants were getting an elevated dose of mercury in vaccinations containing the preservative thimerosal. The memo disclosed that 6-month-old children who received their shots on schedule would be receiving a mercury dose nearly 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish. In addition, it included the following recommendation: whenever possible, particularly among use in infants and young children, vaccines with mercury should be eliminated.
    • In September 1999, amidst concerns about the risks of mercury in childhood vaccines, Merck stated that the FDA had approved a preservative-free version of their vaccine. And, despite Merck's news release at that time, which stated, "Now Merck's infant vaccine line is free of all preservatives," the company continued to distribute vaccines containing thimerosal until October 2001.
    • Undisclosed company documents also show that Merck was in the process of beginning a major cardiovascular study of the drug Vioxx, which the public now knows can cause serious cardiovascular side effects, in 2002. However, Merck suddenly dropped the project just before it was set to start. The data from this study, which would have been released by March 2004, may have provided answers about Vioxx's risks even earlier. It was not until September 2004 that Merck put a stop to a separate study when patients in that trial experienced heart attacks and strokes at twice the rate of those receiving a placebo.

    You can go to:
    Los Angeles Times June 7, 2005

    Washington Post January 14, 2003; Page A01

    Psychiatric Drugs: The New Pharmacopoeia
    By Steven Schlozman, M.D. | Apr 25 '05 Newsweek

    Archives Pediatric Adolescent Medicine January 2003;157(1):17-25

    USA TODAY
    Popular ADHD drug comes under greater scrutiny from U.S. parents | Feb 14 '05

    "Since the late 1980s new antipsychotic agents with different mechanisms of action from conventional antipsychotics have been developed and widely adopted in the treatment of schizophrenia. The main advantage of these newer antipsychotics is a reduction of extrapyramidal side effects. Extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) are the various movement disorders.
    Common EPS are akathisia (restlessness), dystonia (muscular spasms of neck (torticollis), eyes (oculogyric crisis), tongue, or jaw), Drug-Induced Parkinsonian Syndrome (muscle stiffness, shuffling gait, drooling, tremour), and tardive dyskinesia (involuntary, irregular muscle movements, usually in the face).
    However, they are associated with a different spectrum of side effects, including:
    • Weight gain,
    • Diabetes,
    • High cholesterol,
    • Myocarditis, and
    • Cardiomyopathy.
    These metabolic effects may pose a burden as serious as the extrapyramidal effects.
    As Prozac sales dive in the face of competition Zyprexa, one of the newer schizophrenia treatments without the EPS side effects, has become the most important drug for its maker, Lilly. Zyprexa worries were fanned by the recent medical reports of diabetes incidence among Zyprexa patients. Researchers say that blood-sugar problems also accompany other schizophrenia drugs.
    Evidence to date convinces leading psychiatry researchers that Zyprexa does pose a greater risk of diabetes." British Medical Journal August 3, 2002;325(7358):243

    http://www.redflagsweekly.com
    Nicholas Regush was the most clued in health reporter in the entire traditional media industry when he was working for ABC News. ABC's policies started shifting and prevented him from doing the reporting that he knew needed to be done, so he ventured out on his own and now has his own terrific web site where he is able to write report the truth.

    The drug industry knows how to market their drugs. But to sell medicines that treat schizophrenia the companies focus on the state officials who oversee treatment for patients with mental illness. These patients make states among the largest buyers of antipsychotic drugs. Past evidence has shown, since the mid-1990s a group of major drug companies had campaigned to convince state officials that a new generation of drugs--with names like Risperdal, Zyprexa and Seroquel--was superior to older and much cheaper antipsychotics. The campaign has led a dozen states, including Texas, to adopt guidelines for treating schizophrenia, which in turn made it almost impossible for doctors to prescribe anything but the new drugs, which resulted in transforming the new medicines into blockbusters. New York Times February 1, 2004

    Los Angeles Times December 22, 2004The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is seen by many Americans as a group of neutral government experts who set out to provide the public with honest, reliable, unbiased health information. And as the group is supported by taxpayers at a cost of $28 billion a year, this is exactly what one would expect. According to records, at least 530 government scientists at the NIH have taken fees, stock or stock options from biomedical companies in the last five years. Other examples of conflict of interest at the NIH uncovered by The Los Angeles Times include: A senior psychiatric researcher who took $508,050 in fees from Pfizer while collaborating with the drug company regarding Alzheimer's disease. He later endorsed the use of an Alzheimer's drug marketed by Pfizer.

    Unfortunately, our society currently has this penchant for the magic "silver bullet", the overnight result of a magic pill. However, many good effects, both mental and physical, can be gained by a gradient, step-by-step approach to improvement. Also, many damaging effects often sneak up on a person in that same step-by-step, little-by-little gradient manner. Increasing one's understanding on a continual basis surely is key.

    Comments

    • Bizarre conspiracy theorists and Scientologists are a poor source of information on Medical issues.

      Anonymous

      by Anonymous on June 26th, 2005

    • It seems only fair to me that it be disclosed that the referenced site is run by the "Church" of Scientology.

      Seanette

      by Seanette on June 26th, 2005

    • The other two should reconsider their ratings. Information is useful because it allows people to make an informed decision.

      Max Power

      by Max Power on November 27th, 2005

    • Scientology is not a valid a religion nor are they psychologists.

      Answers101

      by Answers101 on March 19th, 2006

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Where I can learn about the basics of psychology?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company