To Jammieg:
Best we've got? I very much agree. Think of it this way- would astronomy have developed had it not been for astrologers like Kepler? Would chemistry have developed w/o alchemy? Possibly, but I doubt it. A science has to start somewhere. It seems to me that in order to arrive at a science you often have to go thru the phase of proto-science.
Psychiatry and psychology I see as still being in a proto-science phase.
Neither has developed a unified system of measurements yet.
Neither has developed a set of determinate equations.
Both predominately rely on postulating theories and then attempting to "prove" those theories by way of bolstering them with statistics. A mistaken approach imo.
There are, only fairly recently, some attempts at making less allegorical observations using mri's,
pet scans, and the like, as a brain performs various tasks.
But still, beneath far too much of what passes for psychology and psychiatry, even today, lies the terrible curse of Freudian thinking. Freud, and even Jung, imo, set the study of the mind back and anchored it in what amount to little more than a self supporting series of popularly accepted superstitions, myths, and unsupportable dogma.
I don't know about people being "conditioned" to fear creepy bugs like spiders. I suspect that those are instincts, default synaptic pathways, many brains are predisposed to develop due to genetics. Without medical attention, many insects can kill a Human being, long before it's likely to mate and successfully reproduce, so it's understandable that pathways like that would develop. (Though, again, I see even that idea as being currently no more than a good area for investigation. Until such "pathways" can be literally picked out, and their effects on behavior predicted by determinate equations that can be tested, they are still little more than an untested idea. Rigor is critical to science. Just because something makes sense as an idea means little imo. Ideas are useful starting points, but until they can be rigorously tested, they're good for little more than a topic for conversation like this one.)
Many "fears", fear of bugs, fear of heights, fear of enclosed spaces, I suspect are instincts that came into being as a result of brains predisposed to developing certain behavioral pathways being more likely to survive to reproduce.
What amazes me is that most instincts can apparently be overwritten.
Take the instinct to gasp and hold your breath when you fall into water. That's an instinct I personally had overwritten when I was trained as a scuba diver. The very same instinct that will save your life under normal conditions is VERY likely to KILL you if you're breathing air under unnaturally high pressure in a tank on your back. So I was trained to constantly blow a small amount of air out when I'm in the water. Trained to the point where when I fell off a dock about a year ago, I noticed that I never did hold my breath. I "instinctively" found myself blowing out air slowly from the moment I was in the water, though orienting myself and realizing that I'd fallen in, and making my way to the surface. Apparently a new "instinctive" behavioral pathway had been "burned in" over the original "instinct" to hold my breath. What would be interesting to see is if my children were similarly trained, as well as their children, and their children, if at one point the "default" wiring became the new instinct to always blow a small amount of air out when submerged without any further requirement for training.
To Vast:
I can see your point. But I still question the validity of things like psychoanalysis. That still impresses me as an activity more akin to reading tea leaves than anything else frankly. I also have quite profound reservations about things like allowing the testimony of psychiatrists or psychologists in court for example. That really shouldn't be allowed any more than allowing the testimony of astrologists or numerologists imo.