cactusflower

@presentprocess.bsky.social

378 Followers 503 Following

editorial and clinical and political. I'm mad!

Comment on a post on a newsletter hosted on Substack: I think this series is directionally incorrect. By proclaiming that SE is a “fiction” perpetuated by “unverified claims”, you are making the very same jump to certainty that you profess to be opposing. “Unverified” does not mean “disproven”… We don’t have much research on things like SE and IFS precisely because our scientific paradigm does not have the tools to operationalize and test them. This is not so much the fault of our scientific paradigm or of SE - but more a testament to how psychological science is bound to be in its infancy until we can develop better tools to study it. You seem to be trapped in the positivist tradition, one that throws away any insight that is not “scientific”. This is a dangerous game to play, especially in the domain of psychology: Psychology research is in its infancy, and many, many findings cannot be replicated, but that doesn’t mean we throw it all away and label it “fiction”. It means we remain epistemically open and humble. Psychology is complex, and so is trauma. It’s best not to interpret SE and IFS as approaches trying to approximate hard science. Psychology will never be hard science, as it deals with things beyond our capacity to empirically perceive. We are in a pre-paradigmatic understanding of trauma, and so I’d encourage you to be weary of letting what you deem to be “science” dictate what claims you let yourself consider.
Congressional Democrats who voted "Yea" on #HR719 to "[Honor] the Life and Legacy of Charlie Kirk"
Congressional Democrats who voted "Nay" on the resolution to "[Honor] the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk"