I don’t know of any publications that clearly state that there are no universal psychological truths across cultures, but I am yet to find any reputable evidence that there are universal psychological truths across cultures. Hence it’s the null hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven. If it can be disproven, I’d gladly change my assertion, but it’s impossible to prove a negative like this because it is the null hypothesis - it can only be disproven.
Nothing can really be properly proved in psychology anyway because of how soft the science is but also because of the changing nature of the influence of culture on psychology. Even within the same nation or peoples, culture also varies over time and so psychology is always playing catch-up. Social media related mental health issues are a great example - a psychologist who’s been plucked from 1970 and dropped into 2023 would have no idea how to counsel someone on that issue because it’s an entirely foreign concept to them.
Psychologists can absolutely learn and become experts in other cultures, but I think it’s beyond the scope of a single human being to become an expert in every single cultural context that exists. They often become experts in the cultures relevant to them - for example, trying to learn the differences between city/regional/rural issues, trying to understand the needs of LGBTQIA+ people, or learning to better understand CALD communities they’re based in/near.
It may be universal, I’m not sure. I’ve not read any information able to establish that. There are indigenous tribes of people who are not integrated into the global world - we can’t know their psychology as we can’t study them.
Sure, but someone who lives in Addis Ababa probably doesn’t have the cultural knowledge to give adequate therapy to someone in Pyongyang, despite them both being located in cities.
Could someone in London counsel someone in New York? Probably, because the cultures are quite similar and share a root ethnicity and language. But that Londonian probably won’t have as much luck counselling someone in Ho Chi Minh.
I am out of my depth to add anything meaningful. I personally believe that the human experience is universal. E. g. soldiers suffer on both sides of all wars. For sure it is more difficult to gain trust and openness if there are cultural differences. But the emotional conflicts that come with war will be the same.
Will the experience of war victims resonate with the victors of that war? Will the victors understand the oppressed and be able to prove their position with adequate psychology? Does the psychology of an occupied people differ from the psychology from the oppressors? Does a person whose culture has been stripped from them require the same counsel as those who believes that illegally occupied territories are their’s?
Many confounding variables exist here that may interact with being militarily oppressed, and therefore comparisons between the two sides are incomparable. I don’t have the answers to these questions. I wish I did, because then I’d be able to secure facts. In this situation the only secure facts are that both sides have committed atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Most countries win a war and lose a war, so experiences can be shared. But among all the countries it could also be possible to pair the winners with the winners and the losers with the losers. But I would expect that it would only be needed to avoid direct conflicting parties.
I don’t know of any publications that clearly state that there are no universal psychological truths across cultures, but I am yet to find any reputable evidence that there are universal psychological truths across cultures. Hence it’s the null hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven. If it can be disproven, I’d gladly change my assertion, but it’s impossible to prove a negative like this because it is the null hypothesis - it can only be disproven.
Nothing can really be properly proved in psychology anyway because of how soft the science is but also because of the changing nature of the influence of culture on psychology. Even within the same nation or peoples, culture also varies over time and so psychology is always playing catch-up. Social media related mental health issues are a great example - a psychologist who’s been plucked from 1970 and dropped into 2023 would have no idea how to counsel someone on that issue because it’s an entirely foreign concept to them.
Psychologists can absolutely learn and become experts in other cultures, but I think it’s beyond the scope of a single human being to become an expert in every single cultural context that exists. They often become experts in the cultures relevant to them - for example, trying to learn the differences between city/regional/rural issues, trying to understand the needs of LGBTQIA+ people, or learning to better understand CALD communities they’re based in/near.
Thanks for your long answer.
How about repetition compulsion?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetition_compulsion
Isn’t that universal?
For the service to work, the psychologists don’t have to learn all cultures. They can split the necessary specialization among themselves.
It may be universal, I’m not sure. I’ve not read any information able to establish that. There are indigenous tribes of people who are not integrated into the global world - we can’t know their psychology as we can’t study them.
Right. For the service to work it would be enough if people who live in cities have comparable mental structures.
Sure, but someone who lives in Addis Ababa probably doesn’t have the cultural knowledge to give adequate therapy to someone in Pyongyang, despite them both being located in cities.
Could someone in London counsel someone in New York? Probably, because the cultures are quite similar and share a root ethnicity and language. But that Londonian probably won’t have as much luck counselling someone in Ho Chi Minh.
I am out of my depth to add anything meaningful. I personally believe that the human experience is universal. E. g. soldiers suffer on both sides of all wars. For sure it is more difficult to gain trust and openness if there are cultural differences. But the emotional conflicts that come with war will be the same.
Will the experience of war victims resonate with the victors of that war? Will the victors understand the oppressed and be able to prove their position with adequate psychology? Does the psychology of an occupied people differ from the psychology from the oppressors? Does a person whose culture has been stripped from them require the same counsel as those who believes that illegally occupied territories are their’s?
Many confounding variables exist here that may interact with being militarily oppressed, and therefore comparisons between the two sides are incomparable. I don’t have the answers to these questions. I wish I did, because then I’d be able to secure facts. In this situation the only secure facts are that both sides have committed atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Most countries win a war and lose a war, so experiences can be shared. But among all the countries it could also be possible to pair the winners with the winners and the losers with the losers. But I would expect that it would only be needed to avoid direct conflicting parties.