The fight of paradigms in Psychology

Traditionally, the field of psychology has come to resemble more of a battlefield than to a cumulative field of scientific knowledge. The contenders in this battle have varied throughout its relatively short history. And I say relative, because there has always been psychology, since the beginning of civilizations, although obviously, it has not always been considered under that term.

Innatists, situationists, interactionists, behaviorists, cognitive, humanists, psychodynamic... the struggle between the fervent followers of one and the other paradigms of psychological knowledge has been diverse in terms of sources of focus refers, but it has never been exempt from the conceptual suspicion that the followers of a certain paradigm arouse in the affirmations or considerations of the followers of another. others.

• Related article: "The 7 main currents of Psychology"

A theoretical and practical battlefield

Currently, from my humble perspective as an eclectic impartial observer, I consider that we are witnessing the recent majority contest,

between the approach of the so-called cognitive-behavioral against the heir approach of humanism, that is, from the positive psychology. Perhaps I am rushing into such an observation, but it is common for me to find detractors of the positive approach defended by the Seligman, Csikszentmihalyi, Dyer or Davidson among others, compared to the classic cognitive-behavioral approach of authors and researchers as skinner, Thorndike, Ellis, and Beck among others.

As if it were a short circuit, there are many who are quick to point out the advantages and/or limitations of an approach on the another, trying to validate his firm convictions about the correct way to approach the different objectives of the field of psychology.

Once again it happens that we plunge into eternal internal disputes, about who is in possession of the absolute "truth", as if it were not willing to go with those, who in the exercise of their profession, apply one technique or another in favor of achieving certain types of results (health, well-being, performance, etc.). In the end, this kind of systematic disputes, far from being useful for producing knowledge, acts as a drag on the development of this exciting discipline.

The eclectic vision of Psychology

If I have learned anything during the years that I have been practicing as a psychologist, it is that truths can take multiple forms, that Psychology is a "living science" that grows and evolves parallel to the pace at which the societies to which it tries to offer answers grow and evolve and which, ultimately, even the truth fades into the background when the goal is limited to developing a more practical sense of truth. existence.

Says the Latin affirmation, attributed among others to Julius Caesar or Napoleon himself, Divide et impera (Divide and conquer) and it is paradoxical that the very division among students of the human mind, comes precisely from themselves. It seems that the fact of participating in collective efforts to better understand how we think and feel does not necessarily translate into a greater ability to apply those principles to the way in which, individually, we adopt a useful and constructive attitude towards the theories and methodological tools of others.

Definitely, neuropsychological data aside (who seem to appease any type of dispute regarding the functioning of the brain at a stroke), as observers, scholars and auditors of the functioning of the mind, we have a moral responsibility to unite and stay strong against our own internal conceptual frictions and against the external interests of others, which may destabilize the ultimate goal of our mission professional, which is none other than offering the society in which we live, the questions and answers necessary to achieve its purposes existential.

• You may be interested in: "Eclecticism in Psychology: 6 advantages and disadvantages of this form of intervention"