Post by ck4829 on Jan 19, 2017 18:42:13 GMT
Beyond binary thinking: making sense of our place in the world
The complex relationship between individuals and our social world has been discussed in science and philosophy for millennia. And it’s been reflected in some responses on social media to blogs and news items published by the British Psychological Society over the past week.
One of the fascinating aspects of psychology is how it sits at the interface not only of the humanities, science and medicine, but also of the person and the world.
But some recent comments rather suggest that some people resolve this complexity into binary choices. For example, some colleagues appear to see a choice between social (our psychological wellbeing as a consequence of circumstances), and psychological (for example, the focus on thinking styles inherent to CBT) accounts of emotional distress.
When I commented last week the idea that our wellbeing at work is largely determined by social and environmental issues, this was contrasted by some colleagues both with my comments about CBT the week before, and also with my own published research work.
The arguments seemed almost to be that an appreciation of social factors was incompatible with an emphasis on cognition. This binary thinking reflects similar – mistaken, in my opinion – views that set ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ in opposition.
beta.bps.org.uk/blogs/presidential-blog/beyond-binary-thinking-making-sense-our-place-world
The complex relationship between individuals and our social world has been discussed in science and philosophy for millennia. And it’s been reflected in some responses on social media to blogs and news items published by the British Psychological Society over the past week.
One of the fascinating aspects of psychology is how it sits at the interface not only of the humanities, science and medicine, but also of the person and the world.
But some recent comments rather suggest that some people resolve this complexity into binary choices. For example, some colleagues appear to see a choice between social (our psychological wellbeing as a consequence of circumstances), and psychological (for example, the focus on thinking styles inherent to CBT) accounts of emotional distress.
When I commented last week the idea that our wellbeing at work is largely determined by social and environmental issues, this was contrasted by some colleagues both with my comments about CBT the week before, and also with my own published research work.
The arguments seemed almost to be that an appreciation of social factors was incompatible with an emphasis on cognition. This binary thinking reflects similar – mistaken, in my opinion – views that set ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ in opposition.
beta.bps.org.uk/blogs/presidential-blog/beyond-binary-thinking-making-sense-our-place-world
