It must be terrible

[Nurse Duckett]

It must be terrible to be a Psychologist. To have studied what makes people tick at length, in depth, extensively, and then survey with clinical cool detachment other people floundering about with their emotions and know why (though they do not) and what will happen next (though they do not). These academic observations about human nature will be dressed up with terms like Cognitive Dissonance*, of course.

It makes me wonder how they cope with their own emotions, or do they get analysed to death too, resulting in no emotional response in their own lives? I read part of a book recently - I saw the cover posted here so picked it up in the bookshop and read some of it - which firmly stated that (for instance) falling in love is a chemical state. Something which happens inside the brain and therefore not to be relied upon or trusted. Who would rearrange their lives, the author asked, upon the basis of a chemical reaction which is doomed to be short-lived?

So. Psychologists don't fall in love then, it seems. They are above such lack of control no matter how much joy may be offered/available. The clinical depression statistics must be terrible in this profession of choice.

On the other hand, I see that Psychology A Level is now one of the "easy" ones.

*this means that you know something/believe something, and then some other person/event comes along to make you doubt your original knowledge or belief. So wouldn't Self Doubt be easier to cognit?

[Pooka]

Wow, deep discussion, Nursie D. If I'm understanding correctly, here's my two-cents worth...


I'd say that detached behaviour is a choice, resulting from feeling like a victim too many times. The affected doesn't want to feel vulnerable... life becomes flat. It's a deliberate "wall" basically, composed of ice - and given stubborn personalities, not much can melt it.

There's not much one can do with a flat life, in my opinion, if there's nothing to inspire. But I believe it's important to listen to intuition - if something calls, answer it; if nothing calls, wait, and eventually there will be a change.


Also, I don't believe that avoiding 'love' is a means of self-control. Perhaps, in our teenage years, we don't know what people are really all about - our companions are as unstable as we, and this may cause some unfortunate experiences. But as we gain experience, we realize what is truly essential in life. And if we resist building those walls, we realize there are many more doors that can open to us than we thought possible.


Did I git it, or did I just jumble up the meaning of your thread?

[Nurse Duckett]

Not really, I was pondering on how ghastly it must be to be a psychologist. If, having studied human behaviour at length, then all likely actions and reactions will have been analysed to such an extent as to make them predictable. So the psychologist knows that his/her own reactions are predictable; and those of his/her partner/spouse. So therefore, it must be equally ghastly to have a psychologist as a partner. Especially if the psychologist goes along with the line that falling in love is just a chemical reaction in the brain.

It's a pity there isn't a psychologist on board to gainsay me or clarify this. Oh, I've since learned that Cognitive Dissonance is the holding of two opposing views at the same time. (I think)

Regarding "There's not much one can do with a flat life, in my opinion, if there's nothing to inspire. But I believe it's important to listen to intuition - if something calls, answer it; if nothing calls, wait, and eventually there will be a change."

Supposing the something-that-calls is at variance with what one has always believed? Here comes the Cognitive Dissonance. To go with the inspiration for a more exciting (apparently) life, or to look the something-that-calls in the eye with clinical detachment and say you're a predictable chemical reaction?

Or even both?

[Captain Nudnick]

Since everything, including ourselves, is perceived via the brain, then surely any and every reaction is chemical - that's how the thing works. Nothing special about 'love' in that context, and since the idea of 'romantic' love as we are taught to expect it only really goes back as far as the time of the troubadours, it's not some kind of Great Shining Cosmic Truth, however much some of us would like it to be...

[Captain Nudnick]

PS: Why are you fretting over this? - it's not as though being a psychologist is compulsory!

[Luxury Yacht]

"Fretting" - why not "fret" over it? It's an interesting question. Perhaps less interesting if one ever had been the partner of a psychologist, since then one would know.

It is a bit worrying sometimes when you come across someone who obviously knows something about this kind of stuff, and who pinpoints why you behave the way you do in some particular circumstance - but by gum, it can be helpful.

As for whether it must be awful being a psychologist oneself, and knowing that "love" is just a chemical reaction .... hmm. We've all fallen in love with unsuitable people, and when we've come out the other end and looked at why it happened, with a clinical eye, and we've said to ourselves "I'm not making THAT mistake again" - well, we DO make that mistake again, don't we? So I don't see why psychologists should be any different.

"Yes, I know s/he's a bum etc. and my mother wouldn't like her/him and s/he mucks me about, but it feels SOOOO good. And we do have a lot in common and I do admire er/his ability to X and interest in Y". Would a psychologist rationalise their choice of unsuitable partner any less than non-psychologists?

Is a psychologist really less human than the rest of us who decide that the pleasure is worth the pain?

Anyway, human beings don't all react the same way in given situations, so even psychologists must find some variety in their companions.

And if you were the partner of a psychologist who appeared to be analysing your every thought and action, and it made you feel paranoid, you'd ditch them pretty quick, wouldn't you? (And hope they didn't tell everyone else about your paranoia).

I wonder what the statistics are for psychologists' ability to maintain stable relationships, compared with non-psychologists? Is a psychologist more likely to be stabbed to death for saying the wrong thing than, for example, someone who says "Honey, you're only angry with me because it's that time of the month and naturally you're being irrational".

[Nurse Duckett]

luxuryyacht said:

Is a psychologist really less human than the rest of us who decide that the pleasure is worth the pain?

Great reply, Lux. The bit I've picked out hits the nail on the head.

And if you were the partner of a psychologist who appeared to be analysing your every thought and action, and it made you feel paranoid, you'd ditch them pretty quick, wouldn't you? (And hope they didn't tell everyone else about your paranoia).

Or start analysing them right back?

I wonder what the statistics are for psychologists' ability to maintain stable relationships, compared with non-psychologists? Is a psychologist more likely to be stabbed to death for saying the wrong thing than, for example, someone who says "Honey, you're only angry with me because it's that time of the month and naturally you're being irrational".

LOL. I suppose us non-psychologists could reply with "mid-life crisis? It's all in the books on your shelf"

[moonbeam]

I wouldn't mind if I was married to a psychologist - provided she was good at other things too. I suppose if you were married to a bad psychologist, it wouldn't be too clever.

Who else? Actually, it reminded me of the reader's dilemma in The Sun Times this weekend.

''I met a gorgeous woman at a party and we got on well. I’d like to ask her out but I’m put off by her job: she’s a photographer in the porn industry. What should I do?''

Both pieces of advice seem to suggest that the guy shouldn't judge the woman on her chosen occupation, but I wonder if he was concerned whether he would be the one judged on his performance by her.

[sea horse]

Although I like the witty subtitle ('I can't picture us together'), I'm glad the first 'adviser' didn't continue this line of 'wit' by saying he had a 'negative' view of Ms Gorgeous' profession - which he seemingly does.
By suggesting she will only be photographing "unusual sexual behaviour" and "the peculiarities of other people’s sexual behaviour", he's simply ignorant or, worse, trying to influence the attitudes of his readers, so loses credibility with me. (Is he a psychologist?)

You're probably right, moonbeam, in what's bothering the guy, but maybe he should instead think of all the tips she's learnt and is dying to try out on someone. That may be stupid fantasy, but perhaps better than a worried pessimism.

[Nurse Duckett]

A graceful reply, sea horse. Looks like you read the Sun Times last weekend too, then.

I'm beginning to wonder why I started this thread and find myself seeing what Captain means. Everything which happens in the brain is a chemical action - and thus this includes love as well as pain. If the nerves sending "I'm HURTING" messages to the brain didn't get there, we'd feel no physical pain I suppose.

So this also applies to emotional distress like grieving, anxiety, an aching sense of loss; as well as a great joy which can fill one's life and alter perceptions about humdrum daily living. It's all chemistry. I just find the professional psychologist angle very cold and clinical. Which made me think, are they cold and clinical all the time, or do they get swept away by passion occasionally no matter how much they may coldly and clinically regret the slipping of the professional mask afterwards?

"You can put your clothes back on now darling, you are only a chemical reaction in my brain." Yeah right, and so is what happened in the dark, huh?

[Captain Nudnick]

If you didn't have a brain, none of it would happen -- QED!

[Upsetter]

I don't have a great deal of knowledge about psychologists having met very few of them.

Of those very few at least 50 per cent (1) was as mad as a box of frogs and the other a kind of glorified counsellor flailing around all over the place. I had 2 psychology teachers and even they were very odd people.

In fact so odd they made the Art Dept. look normal and boy, Salford Grammar Art.Dept was way out there. A teacher who wore the same shirt day in, day out and would change it by turning it inside out 'Sniffer' Derbyshire..sniffer because the frequents snorts of phlegm every few minutes that shattered the silence of the classroom.

His colleague was the exact opposite and was ALWAYS dressed in a bright cream three-peice suit with a florid psychadelic tie..one of those kipper ties with a huge knot. The fact that they didn't get on was legendary and we'd frequently hear them arguing over whose turn it was to make the tea/toast/crumpets usually accompanied by a burning smell and shouting.

..yeah for some reason they had a seperate room from the staff room where they'd retire and make toast.

As the cream-suited one said to me sagely one day 'y'know Young..now lets say you spell Derbyshire backwards..it really does sound like 'crispy bread!' - and thats the problem, I just dont like burnt toast!

..on 2nd thoughts..they were in a class of eccentricity all of their own - the difference being they were funny and entertaining whilst the scientists were as always (yes it IS a stereotype) very tedious, arrogant and on the whole miserable and uninspiring.