A times is cause for harsh criticism on the idea that professional psychologists can have personal problems. "If you can not handle their children not to give me advice on how to educate mine" and other similar content are the same or different arguments I have heard in some other occasion. In other words, if a psychologist is a child dies, theoretically should not affect you. Or, if a psychologist has children, is without doubt an exceptional father and his children never ever have personal problems. These and other misconceptions about the issue must be urgently dismantled. The idea that psychologists should be immune to the problems strikes me as absurd for the following reason. In the same way that doctors are not invulnerable to disease by the mere fact that doctors and know much about them, and psychologists are not invulnerable to personal problems by the mere fact that psychologists and know a lot about human thought. And trust in doctors. In my opinion, psychologists simply due course, will mean more resources to handle the situation, to address the problem, increasing the odds to overcome more or less efficiently. And like doctors in their field, greater knowledge of the areas under study, may better predict and prevent potential problems most commonly occur in these areas. Resources all these men, because it must be said, does not necessarily have to possess exclusively psychologists. And in this sense, the figure of the friend-psychologist is not inconsistent, and that also goes with the personality. Simply, in my view, psychology is the most efficient way to access knowledge or to be able to develop some personal skills, but, of course, is not unique. Moreover, the fact that people with these skills are specialized in dealing with people with personal problems, also let them know, if only by sheer statistics, how things usually work and what not.
state otherwise of the arguments above imply that doctors and psychologists have full control over the circumstances that may move them to suffer an illness or personal problems, which is impossible. But it can be extrapolated to any field: a computer will never have trouble handling a computer? "A mathematician is never wrong doing accounts? Do not confuse the words counseling and omniscience.
I think it also influences a little personality on this issue. There are so conceited or obtuse that directly reject any comment on, to follow the same example, the education of their children unless they are from parents who have no problems with theirs. I think it's a double package error. On one side is an error of intent, because I think of what it is to build together a good position to do things, and in this respect may be very valid ideas where it comes from. Good advice is good advice whether you give the pope as if he gives the baker or a beggar. To agree with these people almost equivalent to consider that parents are, for the mere fact of being, infallible, and that those who are not parents can never have good ideas on the subject, as all parents know that There are good and very bad, with all intermediate possibilities. Do not act without some logic, however in its reasoning to assume that only people who are in the same situation, or as close as possible, are the only ones who can understand them completely. But not necessarily have to be so and that too is a mistake of knowledge (or rather ignorance). It has to do with the established belief that only personal experience on a particular subject can be taken as an accreditation only on the validity of the arguments put forward in this regard. In other words, the talk has to do always "experience" and if not should shut up because then "do not know what he's talking." Beliefs, in my opinion, as common as stupid. All People are different, their abilities and skills may well be different, and not all do the same in the same situations, so then the real difference is not in the act of passing or not the experience in question, but the fact to be a different person. I agree that "experience is a degree", as I hear, but personally I think you have to analyze is the possible validity of the idea offered, without judging, without filtering it through a sieve of prejudice, without the obscured the executioner beheads feeling: "You do not know what I'm going, so shut up." Because your skin is. But never will be. Can not is a different person. In this context, "experience is the mother of science" is being misinterpreted. In this wise saying, the word science refers to knowledge of a person and not the science of the scientists and their experiments to validate their theories. It is a philosophical, not scientific. It simply means that the situations we are going to the length and breadth of life we \u200b\u200bare shaping in one way or the other, determining what we think and know things, something that I think modern psychology is, in general, strongly agree.
In a interview with the psychologist Pilar Varela few years ago, was asked if psychologists also go to the psychologist, to which he replied simply with a sincere and resounding "Yes, of course." Although the sheer spontaneity of the response and says enough, the truth is I miss the professionals themselves, or at least engaged in the publication, is given more to learn about themselves as human beings with problems like everyone world, helping to demystify a little mental supermen image many people have about them. Because neither are supermen or have supernatural powers or extrasensory whatsoever. Are poor mortals like everyone else, doctors included, simple people who ask for advice in a given time, exactly as would a computer if we want to buy a computer, or a butcher if you hesitate between lamb chops or veal. And there's more.
Of course, all this is just my humble opinion, one of the many possible.
0 comments:
Post a Comment