THR the rise of pop-psychology

Motion: THR the rise of pop-psychology

Proposition:

• When people turn to pop-psychology content, they tend to establish diagnoses about themselves based on scientifically groundless claims. This can be mainly put down to the superficial nature of, for example, pop-psychology books that offer surface-level understanding of their subjects. TikTok videos about OCD or anxiety are no better. This leads to a distorted understanding of psychology.
• Psychologically speaking, people are prone to hold to their pre-established beliefs about themselves and their environment. They can inadvertently cling to irrelevant beliefs related to specific cases, which don’t lead to overall improvement in their mental health. Thus, they cannot make informed decisions on how to move forward from one point to another.
• Pop-psychology content doesn’t offer them scientifically plausible explanations for certain psychological phenomena or behaviour, and thus, they overrely on information. They don’t necessarily take it with a pinch of salt.
• Some posts on social media and other exploitative services are primarily targeted at mentally unstable people who are vulnerable to these. When they encounter a pop-psychology post on Instagram / X, they don’t have the mental capacity to evaluate content. Algorithms reward engaging content and content creators usually lack accountability. These creators can reach millions online.
• In certain cases, by blending pseudo-psychology with implicit ideological messaging, some content creators aim to promote harmful narratives. See Andrew Tate when he amalgamates misogyny with toxic masculinity. Or see Jordan Peterson’s book 12 Rules for Life offering a chaotic mixture of patriarchy, white supremacy, and a bit of pop-psychology.
• Stakeholders, i.e. people seeking mental health assistance, don’t get individualised help from pop-psychology, based on which they could become active agents in their lives. What works for one person might not work for the next. Pop-psychology gives one-size-fits-all advice which can be ineffective.
• Skipping real therapy actually does a disservice to mental health patients. Visiting a mental health professional can be a lot more helpful and effective, as therapists have the necessary methodology to offer guidance to lay people. Obviously, they won’t solve their problems. Instead, they help them find a solution for their own problems. This is a lot more inviting for patients in the long run.

Opposition:

• Books sold in bookshops are written by knowledgeable professionals. See Noémi Orvos Tóth’s book Inherited Fate, discussing transgenerational traumas. In the vast majority of instances of pop-psychology content, consumers can distinguish credible sources.
• It is a lot easier to understand these books as opposed to those books promoting academic rigour and technical terminology (c.f. books published by Osiris…). So, pop-psychology books are a lot more digestible for the layman. This would make psychology more accessible and facilitate discussions about emotions. This could eventually decrease stigma associated with mental health issues, which is why people are less open to talking about them.
• With the help of these books, people are allowed to reflect on their shortcomings and develop their personality. It doesn’t necessarily replace professional therapy, instead, people can become actively involved in shaping their own lives, which gives them agency to potentially visit a psychologist.
• Pop-psychology offers an alternative for the stakeholders, as they can choose from a wide range of books in a psychology book section separated from other books. Based on this, they are very likely to find something which might be of great help to them.
• Generally speaking, these books are a lot more affordable (~5000 Ft) than actually going to a clinical psychologist (~20000 Ft/45 minutes).
• Pop-psychology not only offers a cheaper alternative, but readers, should they want, can optionally delve deeper into certain topics once they have got to grips with them. This is an opportunity to invest in oneself in the long run.
• One doesn’t have to go to public health care to seek help. There are long waiting lists for patients to get an appointment with a professional. Instead, those patients can get help faster as people with less serious problems manage to sort out their problems (e.g., procrastination)
• You don’t have to rely on the people close to you in your environment. As is usually the case, mothers, for example, are a lot more biased towards their sons when it comes to dating. The advice they get from people from different generations is irrelevant to their problem (generation gap). Pop-psychology content is usually focused on certain generations and outlines typical problems offering ways to sort them out.
• As opposed to this, pop-psychology is a lot more effective, not only because they receive relevant advice, but also because pop-psychology books and even social media posts (credible content only!) provide them with flexibility. They can engage whenever they have a gap in their schedule.
• Usually, they put special emphasis on giving the reader the chance to internalise relevant content and find similar patterns. Publishers are not only driven by financial incentives, but customer needs (better mental health) can also be satisfied.
• This is a win-win to the government and patients because people are a lot more likely to live a mentally more balanced lifestyle, which increases their employability, which is in the interest of the government.
• Obviously, we don’t talk about those people who grapple with serious mental health conditions (e.g., NSSI, suicidal ideations, etc.) Pop-psychology is not designed to treat severe disorders, but that is fine because its purpose is education and early recognition and support.