Is All Psychology Evil?

 

Is all psychology evil? I think this is a good question to ask. Because there are definitely those within the broad range of the psychology world who are not evil, and who are making genuine scientific observations about human behaviour. Though those observations have been used for great evil by the more nefarious people in this field. For instance, it was revealed a few years ago that the British government, and surely many others, were using psychological techniques to control their populations during the covid restrictions. This points to their being some utility for this kind of knowledge, but also that it can be used for evil, as much as good. 

Dave Hunt is asked whether all psychology is bad in his book, and I think his answer is very helpful,

“QUESTION: Although I agree with you that psychology has created more problems for the church than anyone could number, I think there are some areas of the field that can be helpful. What do you think?

RESPONSE:—First of all, when the term “psychology” is used, most people think of psychotherapy. That’s understandable because psychotherapy is the best-known field of psychology. There are, however, about fifty divisions of the American Psychological Association, and they run the gamut from mostly objective to extremely subjective. The most scientifically legitimate would be the former, and that would include those fields of research or experimental psychology that use the scientific method as they collect and evaluate tangible, observable, and predictable behavior.

The study of man/machine interface, e.g., the placement of knobs or keys on a machine or the choice of letter size or color for optimum use, would be a good example of a psychological field with varying degrees of objectivity. To the degree that researchers stick to quantifiable facts, evaluation, measurement, and verifiable statistics, that much of psychology has a chance of being a legitimate science. The testing of skills or abilities for placement (typing, math, hand/eye coordination, finger dexterity, etc.), where the information gleaned and reported is objective and quantitative, would be valid as a psychological endeavor.

However, testing that deals with personality types, personal feelings, or subjective views lacks the necessary statistical validity to be considered seriously. When evaluation mixes the objective “what has taken place” with the interpretive “why it has taken place,” it has moved out of science and into subjective speculation.

Therefore, regarding whatever calls itself a psychological enterprise, we would consider it to be legitimate to the degree that it can demonstrate objectivity and verifiable and repeatable results. Clinical psychology (psychotherapy) is subjective, emotional, and relies upon the very wisdom of man that God warns us against (1 Corinthians 2:5). It is often harmful, and all of the evaluation tests declare that it either doesn’t work or is no more effective than the talk-therapy of untrained nonprofessionals. After fifteen years of investigating his own profession, clinical psychologist Bernie Zilbergeld declared:

One of the most consistent and important effects of counseling is a desire for more counseling … it is no longer unusual to meet people who are looking for … a therapist to resolve problems caused in a previous therapy. …

 There is absolutely no evidence that professional therapists have any special knowledge of how to change behavior, or that they obtain better results—with any type of client or problem—than those with little or no formal training. In other words, most people can probably get the same kind of help from friends, relatives, or others that they get from therapists.2”[1]

This response gives us a helpful bit of insight about what kinds of psychology, if any, we can place any stock in. That which is dealing with quantifiable facts and data, can be of some use, “To the degree that researchers stick to quantifiable facts, evaluation, measurement, and verifiable statistics, that much of psychology has a chance of being a legitimate science.”[2] A good example of this is an article you can find here on my own blog about how childcare leads to angrier, more aggressive and less well adjusted children. This blog refers to research from psychologists and others who have collated data over time about the impacts of things like childcare on children. However, if you read that blog you will see why psychologists are also largely untrustworthy, because many women in that field understood these impacts and chose to hide them from other women so as to not make them feel bad about abandoning their kids into an unnatural environment. What does that say about their psychology? 

The reason we can trust research of this kind more is because it is based on the collation of observations over time. However, we have to recognize that psychology is not overall a good profession, and it is not something you should risk placing your heart and mind under the care of.

When it comes to trying to understand the human psyche, and why people act in certain ways, this is where this profession veers off into the pseudo-science, “When evaluation mixes the objective “what has taken place” with the interpretive “why it has taken place,” it has moved out of science and into subjective speculation.”[3] The Lord alone understands the hearts and minds of man, this is not something you can learn from a degree in a humanistic course based on man’s philosophy. It is actually quite arrogant for anyone to think that they can understand the inner workings of man. This is the Lord’s domain alone. 

This is also why I believe we will one day see the entire profession of psychology put away and completely replaced by neuroscience, which will have branches dealing with human behaviourology. Neuroscience, the study of the brain, deals with the physical. It deals in what can be observed. Psychology seeks to place itself in the position of God and lays claim to a sphere of human existence it has no right to. Also the observation of human behaviour is not something you need a psyche degree to do, and in fact, such a degree can prove a road block to gathering good insights because it can cloud the minds of the one making the observations. Everyone from an army general to a stay at home mum, through to a lawyer or a shop clerk is equipped to make observations about human behaviour. 

---

[1] Hunt, Dave; McMahon, T. A.. Psychology and the Church: Critical Questions, Crucial Answers (pp. 299-301). The Berean Call. Kindle Edition.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.