“Seligmanian Dialectic on the Threshold of a New Transformation in Psychology” by Milad Mahmoudzadeh

In the course of the evolution of science, there are turning points that bring about a fundamental transformation in our understanding of the world and specific phenomena. The progress of science is the result of critical thinking regarding existing scientific theories, with the aim of replacing them with better and more precise perspectives. The American philosopher and sociologist Thomas Kuhn, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, enumerates four specific stages for transformation and development in science, the most crucial of which, for the emergence of new science, is the stage of moving beyond the current paradigm and the formation of new paradigms. A paradigm is a kind of coherent and fully accepted intellectual framework by the specialists of a specific scientific field, within which experts attempt to answer most of the questions of that field based on the assumptions of that paradigm. If scientists encounter questions and criticisms that cannot be answered using the current paradigm, then the need for the formation of a new paradigm will be felt. A clear example of this paradigm shift can be seen in physics, in the move beyond Newton's physics laws to describe and explain the microscopic world, because Newton's physics laws, unlike for the macro world, were not adequate for subatomic particles (electron, neutron, etc.) and led to the formation of the laws of quantum mechanics. After the end of World War II and the increasing visibility of the devastation and deadly consequences that humanity had faced, the American Psychiatric Association, in order to standardize the diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses, published the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1952.

This edition has been revised and reviewed many times, and currently, its latest revision was published in 2013 under the title (DSM-5). Concurrently with the publication of the DSM over many years, the World Health Organization (WHO) has also published a type of clinical guide for the classification and treatment of mental illnesses called the ICD, but the fame and credibility of the DSM is greater than the ICD. Over the past decades, this reference book has been the authoritative guide for the treatment and diagnosis of many illnesses and has, in a way, become the powerful paradigm of psychological science, emphasized and endorsed by many psychologists. However, over time, and especially from the 1990s onwards, the DSM has faced considerable criticism. Criticisms such as the subjectivity and arbitrariness of the criteria and insufficient attention to the role of culture in the recognition and treatment of mental illnesses have sparked much discussion and debate. A famous and concrete example of research that has damaged the credibility of the DSM and its resulting conclusions is the publication of an interesting study by an American psychologist named David Rosenhan, titled On Being Sane in Insane Places.

In this study, Rosenhan had eight of his assistants, who had no clinical symptoms of mental illness, go to different psychiatric hospitals in five different states and claim that they thought they needed to be hospitalized because they were hearing different voices! The interesting point of the matter was that, apart from the main profession of these individuals, who were all psychologists, and their use of pseudonyms, all the information they gave to the hospital staff was entirely true, and they even behaved completely normally. Yet, all of them, despite insisting that they no longer heard voices and behaving normally, were hospitalized, and all but one (who was labeled with bipolar disorder) were labeled with schizophrenia. Thus, all their behaviors and histories were interpreted in a way to be consistent with the illness of schizophrenia. The average hospitalization for these individuals was 19 days, with the longest even lasting 52 days. Rosenhan concluded that individuals are subject to the misunderstandings of professionals who, through labeling, sometimes destroy people's lives. This research by Rosenhan sparked many debates and controversies regarding the efficacy of the DSM and labeling. However, the most fundamental and serious criticisms in recent years have been leveled by another American psychologist named Martin Seligman.

During his tenure as president of the American Psychological Association (APA), Seligman founded a new approach in psychology known as positive psychology. In recent years, this approach has been enthusiastically received in prestigious scientific circles and has placed the science of psychology on the threshold of a new transformation and entry into a new paradigm. Seligman believed that psychology in the last half-century, influenced by the social conditions following World War II, had focused on human weaknesses, problems, and deficiencies, neglecting human strengths and positive attributes. For this reason, positive psychology offers a new perspective on human nature and mental illness, grounded in the philosophical perspective of dialectic. In fact, positive psychology holds that the bipolar view—that an individual is either mentally healthy or mentally ill—is incorrect. In other words, the new wave of positive psychology emphasizes the simultaneous presence of mental health and illness, and the dialectical interplay of the positive and negative aspects of the human being. For this reason, Martin Seligman undertook the development of a diagnostic manual called CSV as a counterpart to the DSM. Unlike the DSM, which is a classification of disorders, the CSV actually deals with classifying individuals' strengths into 6 general groups. One of the criticisms leveled against DSM-based psychology is the issue of deindividuation and the division of people in society, based on labels, into in-groups and out-groups. In other words, equating an individual's entire personality with their illness. In positive psychology, however, individuals are not equated with their illness; rather, like everyone else, they are graded on a spectrum of mental health and mental illness, and having a mental illness does not mean lacking mental health. Fundamentally, these two are separate from each other

and are considered distinct, yet together, through interaction and mutual influence, they form an integrated whole. These individuals are generally classified into 4 categories:

1- Complete Mental Health: These individuals exhibit high levels of mental health symptoms and few pathological symptoms.

2- Incomplete Mental Health: These individuals simultaneously exhibit low levels of mental health symptoms and few pathological symptoms.

3- Incomplete Mental Illness: These individuals exhibit few mental health symptoms and high levels of pathological symptoms.

4- Complete Mental Illness: These individuals lack mental health symptoms and exhibit full pathological symptoms.

Positive psychology does not mean neglecting life's problems and focusing solely on the positive aspects of life; on the contrary, according to this perspective, one must confront the negative aspects of life and interact with them for the growth of talents and abilities. In the words of the renowned psychoanalyst Karl Menninger, positive psychology is, in fact, a kind of vital balance and equilibrium in people's actions, behavior, and knowledge. In DSM-based psychology, however, the necessity of such balance has been largely ignored, and it is broadly based on the excessive magnification of individuals' problems and weaknesses while ignoring their abilities. An interesting example in the critique of the magnification and generalization of mental illnesses is the subject of "watchology," which Laura King describes in Jean L. Magyar's book on positive psychology. King posed a question to her students: if they were to become proficient in watchology and make judgments in this field, which of two watches—both having sustained an impact, but one still works while the other is broken and no longer ticks—would they choose, and which would be a better criterion for examining how watches work?

The answer is clear: a clock that works, because by examining a broken clock one cannot learn much about how clocks work. For this reason, King, criticizing negative approaches to human nature, including Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic approach and his perspective, explains that Freud examined the case that did not work in order to research and understand human behavior. That is, in fact, Freud generalized his results to all people based on the work he did with damaged individuals; in short, he used the exception to explain the rule, and not the other way around! For this reason, positive psychology, backed by numerous scientific studies and research, has demonstrated its efficacy as a comprehensive and new perspective on the realm of human nature and the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses. Although it is a nascent perspective, it has been widely welcomed in reputable scientific communities, including the American Psychological Association (APA), the health organizations of the European Union, and the World Health Organization (WHO). Hence, it is hoped that in our country, which is in dire need of these new scientific perspectives in terms of mental health, it will receive the attention of psychologists and independent scientific research and be utilized.

.

---

.

Seligmanian Dialectic on the Threshold of a New Transformation in Psychology

Author: Milad Mahmoudzadeh (Psychologist, Writer, and Philosophy Enthusiast)

.

---

.