There’s a good article here about the biases we all hold. I mean bias in the psychological sense.
I learned a lot about bias as an undergraduate, and tried to root out as many as I could over the years. I can’t say that I’m perfect (who is?), but I think I’ve gotten better.
I thought this related interestingly to my work on schizophrenia because I want to take seriously people’s narratives about what they think caused their psychosis, and what happened when they went psychotic. But I also want to take into account that we are imperfect when it comes to these things. We tend to overestimate bad things that happen to us, for example. Still, I think it’s important to take the agent seriously.
In practicing the biopsychosocial model, interviews with the client are paramount. However, other data is collected, such as interviews with other people, school records, and so forth. This, I think, is good. It takes into account the individual, and also refers to other data so we can glean a picture of what possibly caused the illness in this particular case, and what treatments we should apply for health. This is a strength for the biopsychosocial model.
After reading about bias, you should be skeptical about yourself. If you aren’t you didn’t take the data seriously. But there are ways to reduce bias, and it’s good to apply them. This could make a better place for all of us. This means you don’t have to remain skeptical of yourself. But it does mean you need to constantly work on yourself.
If you live in a constant state of skepticism about yourself, that’s probably not healthy. But a light dose of skepticism is good.
One may think that feral children can teach us a lot about, especially, psychology. In fact, I turned to feral children today in order to think about what happens to a person devoid of the social. I was thinking about this in order to think about the -psycho- in the biopsychosocial.
Here’s what I thought. It’s hard to glean a whole lot from studying feral children. For one, these children aren’t randomly feral. That is, they aren’t randomly assigned to being feral. We can’t do that. It’s unethical.
Which brings me to my point: It would be a major form of abuse to create a feral child. Why would it be an abuse? Not just because they need to be “socialized” and taught “social skills.” It would be an abuse because it fundamentally alters a child for life in a way that pretty much seems unjustifiable.
Being a feral child is, automatically, being traumatized and neglected. So what we can glean from studies of feral children can’t be pulled apart from studying trauma, abuse, and neglect.
This means they don’t provide the perfect case study for looking at the human-being-minus-the-social. The social is already interacting with the child by neglecting it.
There may be some things we can learn, anyway. Scholars think that many feral children fail to learn to speak because they miss a key point for language development.
If these children lack language, they may lack concepts that make them able to strive for things in life. They may have a basic need for survival, so they eat, but they may lack ‘thick concepts’. That is, they may not be able to strive toward being a doctor because they lack language; they lack the concepts involved in being a person who wants to grow up, go to college, and be a doctor.
Now, I know that, from studying what people say about schizophrenia, that I should be careful about what I say about people who have experiences I know nothing about. But, still, I think this may actually help me develop a theory.
On the view I developed while at the store today thinking about the psychosocial, language hooks one into the social. It brings one in to the social community as a full member. In this way, concepts can lead one, make one strive for things. But, also, when reflecting one these things, we can question, develop, make new concepts, and so forth.