so, i reject the psychobabble presented by philosophers masquerading as scientists (freud, jung, derrida....and foucault, too) and i reject the bulk of modern practical psychology. what's the right way to do psychology?

i stated previously that what i have time for is the application of empirical science in the field of biology to questions of the mind. the mind and the body are the same thing, everybody agrees with that nowadays. so, you alter your brain by feeding it drugs (or by training it with stimuli). that's all very clear, and that basis is what psychology needs to build itself on.

the problem, however, is that modern psychiatry actually doesn't do that. so, the freudians and lacanians alike come up with these strawman arguments that they use to try to tear down "biopsychology" as pseudoscience, while upholding their own nonsense. the frustrating part is that if what the psychoanalysts said about "biopsychology"was actually true, it would actually be an empirical science, and i'd be in favour of it. but, it's not...

the right way to do psychology, then, is what the psychoanalysts accuse the "biopsychologists" of doing, and what they actually aren't doing - they need to actually test for hormonal conditions before they prescribe. and, if they can't test, they shouldn't prescribe.