
Work of renowned UK psychologist Hans Eysenck ruled ‘unsafe’ - idl3Y
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/oct/11/work-of-renowned-uk-psychologist-hans-eysenck-ruled-unsafe
======
mckirk
Well that's a pretty confusing article. As far as I can see all it points out
is that the guy had theories claiming cancer and heart-disease were caused in
part by certain mindsets. Then it goes on to mention how these theories were
apparently very successfully tested by him, by preventing people from falling
sick.

And so the claims he made are apparently supposed to sound "ridiculous" enough
to the reader to discredit his work? Strange.

------
hliyan
So not _all_ his work, but his work on "cancer-prone personalities", correct?
I recall reading one of his books (the title escapes me right now), but this
particular theory was never discussed in that book.

~~~
gyuserbti
Yeah this is a minor part of his work. I know people who specialize in
personality-health relationships and have never heard them base anything on
Eysencks work in that area. Conversely, I'm very familiar with Eysencks work
in general but have never heard of this.

Having said that, there are a couple of studies I've wondered about, and this
makes me think about a second look at them. They too aren't what he's most
known for though, which is more in the area of measurement.

------
karlh
It is the quality of the research methods used to support his ideas that are
coming under fire. The fact that somebody published a study (or studies), even
in well-respected journals, does not compensate for poor design. Likewise,
poor design and unsupported conclusions in some studies does not automatically
negate every other study a researcher has conducted. Designing, carrying out,
and interpreting science is not something that can be done in headlines.

------
mistrial9
Where I come from, the formal science of psychology, is often mocked by
intelligent people. This is scandal to those that put weight on it, to others,
simply more of the same.

~~~
biolurker1
psychology is a validated science. What you call intelligent people are
probably street smart that appear to you intelligent

~~~
mythrwy
What does "validated science" mean?

I don't think psychology is a "science" in the same sense that chemistry is.

Psychology is a pursuit of knowledge but in many ways is more akin to religion
or astrology than hard science. Or as Paul Lutus puts it "Psychology is not a
science, it's a belief system."

[https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=3199](https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=3199)

That is not to invalidate psychology (or religion, or for that matter
astrology). Belief systems are important. They just aren't "science".

~~~
johnisgood
That is a misconception of psychology. I am not surprised, because psychology
only relatively recently broke with philosophy. Until the 1940s few
universities had a separate department of psychology, and professors of
psychology were usually to be found in the philosophy department. Chemistry
broke with philosophy when it abandoned hidden inner essences as explanations
of chemical events, and as it became a science, physiology dropped the inner
vis viva or élan vital in favor of mechanistic explanations of the body's
workings. In any case, I recommend searching for "objective psychology" which
emphasizes observation and experimentation, and "comparative psychology" which
emphasizes the common origin of all species, including human beings, in
natural selection, and helps to promote purely natural accounts of human
behavior. Additionally, take a look at "radical behaviorism". It is known that
cognitive behavioral therapies are effective. They are based on radical
behaviorism. Whether or not behavior analysis is a part of psychology, the
same as psychology, or independent of psychology is still an ongoing debate.
Professional organizations such as the Association for Behavior Analysis, and
journals, such as The Behavior Analyst, Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, and Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, give the field an
identity.

For more information: [https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Behaviorism-
Behavior-Cu...](https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Behaviorism-Behavior-
Culture-Evolution/dp/1119143640)

To reiterate: no, psychology is not akin to religion or astrology:

> Psychologists use the scientific method to conduct their research. The
> scientific method is a standardized way of making observations, gathering
> data, forming theories, testing predictions, and interpreting results.[1]

[1]
[https://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/researchmetho...](https://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/researchmethods/section2/)

~~~
Viliam1234
> It is known that cognitive behavioral therapies are effective. They are
> based on radical behaviorism.

I thought a radical behaviorist would know that there is no such thing as
thinking, therefore you can't have anything "cognitive" in the therapy.

~~~
johnisgood
Not quite. Skinner calls the mind, will, ego, and the like explanatory
fictions, because they are supposed to explain something but fail to explain,
for at least two reasons (criticisms of mentalism): autonomy[1] and
superfluity[2].

He does not deny their existence, he just deems those explanatory fictions
impractical to focus on (see the two criticisms below) and that they are not a
necessity or a requirement when it comes to observing and modifying behavior.
Radical behaviorists take the pragmatic approach.

The definition of "cognition" in the context of behavior modification is "
_covert verbalizations and imagery_ ; frequently called believing, thinking,
expecting, and perceiving". Its existence is not denied by radical
behaviorists.

> An important aspect of Skinner's approach is that he rejected the
> distinction of a mental world that is separate from the physical world
> (which is mentalism, a form of dualism). Thus, although _he accepted that
> private speech and covert images exist_ , he regarded them as being no
> different in principle from public speech and overt acts of seeing.
> Moreover, like Watson, he emphasized the importance in a science of behavior
> of studying the effects of the external environment on overt behavior.

In any case, to clarify, I am not trying to say that cognitive-behavioral
therapy = radical behaviorism. What I am saying is that Skinner's conditioning
theories (along with Watson, and radical behaviorism in general) had a
foundational influence over the development of cognitive-behavioral therapy.
It greatly influenced both the development of behavior modification and
cognitive-behavioral therapy.

I really recommend the book I mentioned above, along with this one:
[https://www.amazon.com/Behavior-Modification-What-How-
Do/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Behavior-Modification-What-How-
Do/dp/0815366558)

You might want to check out the differences between the behavioral approach
and the psychodiagnostic approach. They have different goals, methods, and so
forth, but they are supposed to work together. :)

\---

I apologize if my comment raised more questions than provided answers, but
this subject is really really broad and I would even dare to say complicated.
If you are really curious then you should probably read the two books I
mentioned (at the very least).

\---

[1] The capacity of a thing, particularly an organism, to behave. When a
hypothetical entity, such as mind, inner self, or an inner homunculus, is said
to act so as to cause observed behavior, the supposed autonomy obstructs
inquiry by diverting study to the impossible task of explaining the behavior
of something that cannot be observed.

[2] Mental causes only restate the original observation in more obscure terms.
When mental causes are inferred from the behavior they are purported to
explain, the supposed "explanation" is purely circular, is superfluous, and
impedes efforts to find an explanation based on natural events.

~~~
Viliam1234
Not meant to attack you; I just wonder how Rational Therapy (the other root of
the cognitive behavioral therapy) is disappearing from the history of
psychology. I just found about it recently, and was surprised to see how big
thing it used to be decades ago, considering that these days one can study
psychology and never even hear about it.

Makes me wonder how much of the history of science is not about people who
actually invented things, but about those who popularized them successfully.
But this is not just in psychology; we have the Edison vs Tesla in physics,
etc. It's like some compression algorithm: if there are too many inventors
doing similar things, history will pick one of them and give him all the
credit. No bad intention is necessary in this process; it's just that people
don't care enough to remember all the details, and the simpler version is
easier to remember.

I wonder whether our descendants a few centuries later will remember this era
as one where Albert Einstein discovered relativity and quantum physics, and
sent the rockets to Mars.

