Traditionally, the field of psychology has come more to resemble a battlefield than a cumulative field of scientific knowledge. The contenders of that battle have been varying throughout its relatively short history. And I would say relative because psychology has always been, since the beginning of civilizations, although evidently, has not always been considered under that term.

Innatists, situationists, interactionists, behavioral, cognitive, humanistic, psychodynamic and the struggle between the fervent followers of one or the other paradigms of psychological knowledge has been diverse in terms of approach origins, but it has never been exempted from the conceptual mistrust that the followers of a certain paradigm arouse the affirmations or considerations of the followers of others.

A Theoretical And Practical Battlefield?

Currently, from our humble perspective as an eclectic impartial observer, We believe that we are witnessing the recent majority contest, between the so-called cognitive-behavioral approach against the heir approach of humanism, that is, positive psychology.

We may be hasty in such an observation, but We often encounter detractors of the positive approach advocated by the Seligman, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Dyer, or Davidson, among others, as opposed to the classic cognitive-behavioral approach of authors and researchers such as Skinner, Thorndike, Ellis, Beck, and among others.

As if it were a short circuit, there are many who are quick to point out the advantages and/or limitations of one approach over the other, trying to validate their firm convictions about the correct way of approaching the different objectives of the field of psychology.

Once again, it happens that we immerse ourselves in eternal internal disputes, over who is in possession of the absolute “truth”, as if this one was not willing to leave with those who, in the exercise of their profession, apply one or other techniques in favor of achieving certain types of results (health, welfare, performance, etc.). In the end, this kind of systematic disputes, far from being useful for producing knowledge, acts as a burden for the development of this exciting discipline.

The eclectic vision of Psychology

Even though We have learned a lot of things during the years, We have been practicing the profession of psychologists. And, that truth can take many forms, that psychology is a “living science”, that grows and evolves parallel to the rhythm in which the societies tried to offer answers about grow and evolve. In short, even truth comes to the background when the objective is limited to the development of a more practical sense of existence.

According to the Latin statement, attributed among others to Julius Cesár or to Napoleon himself, Divide et impera (Divide and conquer), and it is paradoxical that the very division among the scholars of the human mind, comes precisely from themselves.

It seems that participating in collective efforts to understand better how we think and feel does not necessarily translate into a greater capacity to apply these principles to the way in which, individually, we adopt a useful and constructive attitude towards the theories and methodological tools of others.

In short, apart neuropsychological data, as observers, scholars and auditors of the functioning of the mind, we have the moral responsibility to unite and remain steadfast in front of to the internal conceptual frictions and to the external interests of others that may destabilize the ultimate goal of our professional mission, which is nothing other than offering the society in which we live. And, they are necessary questions and answers to achieve their existential purposes.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here