Shame On Me

BEYOND ANNIE’S MAILBOX

“For a minute there I believed the words you wrote. Why? Because I trusted you. Unfortunately my trust was misplaced.” Gullible No More

Well, here’s another “he done me wrong” bitch. Can anything usefully be said about it? Judging by the predictable comments which come in at the level of Annie’s Mailbox, it seems very little. “Gullible” is advised to view the experience as “a valuable lesson learned,” that she must “always listen to your intuition,” that she must “try to see the good,” that if she feels “deep down” that it will go wrong, it likely will, and so on. All such fatuous pop-psychological advice can be found daily, in the columns of “Annie’s Mailbox.” It’s a wonder that no one suggested that she seek professional counseling!

So what can philosophy say about all this? The short answer is, “Nothing.” Why? Because Gullible is irrational. She is unable to coherently account for her actions. She believed the words he wrote because she trusted him. But why did Gullible trust him? She has no answer. She doesn’t know why she trusted him. She had no rational grounds to support her decision. So philosophy, that pre-eminently rational pursuit which requires reasons to support actions, has nothing to offer Gullible. But that does not mean that it has nothing to say at all. On the contrary what it has to say, unlike the fatuous advice arriving in Annie’s Mailbox, has a great deal of significance. In the present context, it relates more broadly to the fatuity of psychology itself. It is time to go beyond Annie’s Mailbox.

So what is psychology, or more properly, what does it bill itself as being? Well, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, psychology is “The science of the nature, functions and phenomena of the human soul or mind.” Well okay, but what is to be understood by “science”? Well, according to the COD, science consists of “systematic and formulated knowledge.” Well okay, so just what does that systematic and formulated knowledge of psychology look like? Well, it’s hard to say.

Indeed, it’s impossible to say because – wait for it – there exists no such systematic and formulated knowledge of psychology if by “knowledge” one is to understand that which has explanatory power in respect to the nature, functions and phenomena of the human soul or mind. But psychology possesses no such explanatory powers beyond the accumulated empirical observations of human behaviour. Schemed across a scale of such behaviours ranging between the extremes of mental disorder, “normal” behaviour is little more than a statistical norm, itself without substantive content. “Normal,” in other words, is simply that which is not “abnormal.”

Of course, the practice of psychology itself is dishonest. Note that the observing psychologist never includes himself in that range of observed behaviours but rather he remains on the outside, patiently recording the deviations from the norm for which he will then prescribe the appropriate therapeutic measures. One must remember that he is exempt from the strictures of his own observations. He is the observer only. He excuses himself from inclusion in his own empty “systematic and formulated knowledge.” He is a quack.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. For those seeking psychological therapy for their pathological behaviours, my office hours are from 10:00AM to 11:00AM daily.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!