Short risk of unintended surface in psychological field identity
It seems that the psychological discourse sometimes falls between the anxiety hammer of charitable outreach and the insatiability of fame on the one hand and the anvil of stress and sometimes the impossibility of offering awareness material (Scientific by its complex nature) On the other hand, this area must be strained by the nature of the impossibility of having a zone for the middle, The effort to be simple is easy in my speech for those I want to sensitize about something so stretchy, complicated and uncertain. This conflict between these two sides may have forced the psychological rhetoric into something superficial on them. As we know, everything that has been flattened is unpalatable and health is dangerous and has many implications.
How can you provide simplified and accessible awareness material for the public about something that cannot be perceived and confined to its pre-scientific human nature?
This has made those on the front of the awareness in a situation of having to have their outreach material revolve around simple, easy-to-understand matters of psychology and psychiatry – which are not necessarily representative of the truth – and thus an inevitable kind of flattening of what is offered to people.
Also, whoever offers awareness material will have to flatten his language and his good desire to understand all people to repeat what is consistent with their culture. This will make him take place in superficial matters or in the froth of the pop-psychological culture traded on sites without scientific roots or reserves for the magnitude of the uncertainty space in our psychological field.
What results from this flatness?
The result is a kind of General Assembly idea of our field that bears not so little superficial ideas, debates, analysis, treatments, etc. These messages, tips and general language become our identity and what we know, here the psychological field and its language – and we as people and schools behind it – may be transformed into something of a combination of energy courses, coaching and preachy, as well as a beating of a violator. (Which is the scene of any populist gathering full of surfactants), one recent example not long ago I read about a segment of a psychological scientific conference in our region. The main message of the scientific lecture was that “Your happiness is your personal responsibility”, which I think is a superficial message with excellence and you can imagine that it is in a scientific conference and not in a public place or a Twitter account.
I was thinking about the narrative of the stick and the carrot instead of the narrative of the hammer and the anvil, but in fact I couldn’t because the idea of the stick in this example bears the fear of the taste of the carrot and it seems to me that whoever dived into the surface of his psychological awareness is often not interested in sticking his scientific excesses into his thesis.
This short post is also a kind of rhetoric and it also just keeps falling between the hammer of what I’ve said and the anvil of what I’m afraid of, thinking that it’s trying to analyze from a different place and not necessarily from the top.
The sketchy rhetoric is shattered by criticism and support for its reflections in awareness and the scientific spirit between this and this in the health wards’ papers and the Dahalez conferences
