Confused

What a masterpiece of confused thinking! Do they think that by doing this, the conflicts are thereby resolved? In one lecture the speaker whispered something about "the flaw in Eysenck's argument" (re Psychiatry being of proven value), immediately all the students pricked up their ears, but the speaker had said all he wanted to say, and an explanation of "the flaw" if it existed was not given.

If questioned in a tutorial the usual reaction is for the lecturer to say: "Well, you'll understand better when you do stage II (or stage III if you're already doing that)—I don't think the sceptics ever reach honours."

And the jargon, are you aware of the thousands of ill-defined words floating around the precincts of room C2. Words are tossed on the lecture-bench, cold and cooked like a leg of cold mutton. "The male shadow", the "female anima", and the "occult mandala"—new myths and symbols to replace those that have been destroyed. Here is a little test you can try on the next psychologist you meet: demand that he define "mental disease" and then listen very carefully to his reply.

The answer is inevitably in the form of a circular definition! If pressed he will refer you to books on the subject. There are grounds indeed for hoping that, with a little luck, Psychology will talk itself to death.

The trouble is, one sees such a titanic bulk of stupidity in this department, that one begins to suspect oneself of paranoia, but to admit that would be the end of all intellectual integrity.

So why is it that so many students are fooled by the subject? Is it lack of critical ability on their part or are they taken in by the apparent power of the subject; its ability to force an interpertation on all situations?

The real reason I think, lies in a particularly insidious technique