COMMENT After reading the Bernama report ‘ Dog event folk ‘crave attention’, says psychologist ’, I feel a professional obligation to respond to some of the claims of psychologists Dr Rozmi Ismail and Dr Muhammad Muhsin.
When an academic gives his opinion to the media, he has a duty to ensure that his opinion is informed by the standards of his discipline – in this case, psychological science.
While I do not expect Dr Rozmi or Dr Muhammad to cite specific research studies or psychological theories in a short interview, their opinions should be consistent with accepted and contemporary findings within the field.
The ‘diagnoses’ they offer are nothing more than ideological posturing dressed up with psychological/scientific language. I have identified two of their claims, and will comment on each in turn.
Unsubstantiated diagnosis
Dr Rozmi said: "Organisers of events like ‘I Want to Touch a Dog’ and Oktoberfest are doing so to gain recognition and support by introducing cultural change."
The organisers would deny that those are their reasons for organising the events. Dr Rozmi’s underlying argument in response to this is: whatever the organisers say or even think their reasons are, they’re false and their true motivations are hidden to them.
This ‘diagnosis’ is built on Sigmund Freud’s idea of the unconscious – that we have unconscious desires (e.g. a need for recognition) driving our behaviour and it takes a psychologist to understand their true motivations.
Freud’s theory (developed in the 1920’s) has little to no empirical support and is not viewed as a credible theory of psychological explanation today (even among first year psychology students).
At its core, it is not a scientific theory because it cannot be properly tested or falsified - whatever motives or reasons one claims to have for a behaviour, the psychologist can simply say, “You only think you are doing X for reason Y, the true reason is Z”.
But then, how can we likewise trust Dr Rozmi’s explanation?
The true reasons for his argument may be hidden to him, for according to Freud’s theory, every person is subject to these unconscious motivations. It’s easy to see why this mode of ‘psychological’ explanation is unscientific.
As a ‘psychological expert’, the onus is on Dr Rozmi to provide evidence for his claims, and I would welcome any response of his that can cite published peer-reviewed studies that would give us reason to believe that people introduce this sort of ‘cultural change’ to gain recognition and support.
Otherwise, his statement misleads the public about the proper psychological explanation for the organiser’s motives.
Minority view 'anti-social'?
Dr Muhammad said: "The organisers are trying to show they are different…they are anti-social, and are against the public’s beliefs."
In addition to the criticism I have above of psychologists making broad explanations of behaviour without evidence, Dr Muhammad goes one step further by labelling them anti-social and against the public’s beliefs.
Within psychology, the label ‘anti-social’ is often associated with a clinical condition involving aggression and behaviour that is harmful to others.
The psychological literature imposes precise definitions for what it means to be anti-social. A simple difference in beliefs from the mainstream is not a sufficient criterion for using that label – though this seems to be what he implies by linking the label to such people being against ‘the public’s beliefs’.
The way he uses the label, a Malaysian who thinks nasi lemak is a terrible dish does not only hold a minority belief, but is potentially anti-social too.
Determining whether ‘I Want to Touch a Dog’ or ‘Oktoberfest’ are anti-social causes requires investigating the nature of the values they espouse - i.e. do they lead to harm, and if so, who is harmed? This is a debate that I am unqualified to enter.
All I will say is that according to the psychological literature, labelling someone ‘anti-social’ requires much more than the claim that one’s values are contrary to the majority. Something is not automatically harmful by being different from others.
Ideology vs science
Every society needs scientists who can communicate current and established findings from their disciplines.
However, because members of the public are not experts, it is too easy to mislead them by dressing up ideology in the language of science – especially coming from those with academic qualifications.
Dr Rozmi and Dr Muhammad are either out of touch with contemporary psychological science, or worse, they are deliberately misleading the public.
Scientists need integrity in dealing with the knowledge they claim to be experts in. This is especially true for Dr Rozmi – as the president of PSIMA, he is a representative of the discipline to the Malaysian public. He has done a massive disservice to Malaysian psychologists and academics.
If psychologists are to have credibility in Malaysian society, they need to deal in science that is backed up by evidence, and not in ideological pseudo-science that is mere opinion hiding behind the mask of a scientist.
KEVIN SOO is a former lecturer and is currently pursuing a PhD in psychology overseas.