Do you have to kno History to be good at Psychology?

I don't believe that you have to be good at history to be good at psychology.

It could be said that a knowledge of history is useful in terms of being able to study historic individuals and try to understand why they did certain things or made particular decisions.

However I would consider it to be far more important to have a knowledge and understanding of people in general, the conditions that they may have and the empathy to listen to them and try to help them - applying your theoretical knowledge of the field to the particular case.

I dont think you need to be good at history but what you have described would make yo a good listener or a good councillor but I think psychology is alot more than that.

There is a lot of trends and science involved in it. Nuture and nature, you have to understnad how people work as a mass as well as an individual.

But if I had to chose a winner in your argument it would definately be you and your friend is talking crap.

Ok I understand having psychology courses, even philosphy, or sociology, as well as some basic health courses, maybe even some science courses, but I don't get why you would need history courses to become a psychologist, that just doesn't make sense, I can see if perhaps it is a history of the field of psychology.

That is an interesting idea. I think you might be a bit more correct than your friend. I think that personal history of the person in question is much more important than the general history of the world....

My brother started out with the idea that he wanted to be a psychologist - he's a CPA now....

If you mean history as in the history of the subject, I suppose you don't need it to be good at psychology. It would be helpful though, when talking to your colleagues to be able to say "according to so-and-so's theory of something" and you would know what each other is talking about instantly.

If you mean history as in the personal history of the client, it really depends on your approach. Traditional psychotherapy and psychodynamic place a lot of emphasis on personal history, whereas things like cognitive behavioral theory and existential theory focus more on the present.

I don't think you necessarily have to have an intelligent historian mind to excel in psychology either. I think sometimes, it is necessary to know the history of an individual's life to get down to the root of their problem, but I would say very little of psychology pertains to history in general.

I do believe that in a sense, everyone makes up their own part of history and that the history of this world can't be attributed to any one person or any specific group of people, and that it effects every one of is indirectly if not directly in one way or another. However, I don't think most psychological problems can be linked to, say, a national tragedy that took place ten years before the patient was even born... unless of course said event had serious consequences over the long term that basically had them fated towards a more difficult life than they'd have had otherwise. But those types of events will effect a general population rather than single out certain individuals.

I think psychology is usually about the individual, their behavior and their relationship to their environment and the people around them. Individual personality qualities, genetics, and environment, as well as experiences in their past all play a part, but I have never heard of an instance in which you could link someone's psychological condition directly to history. I see it more as something internal and specific to the patient in question and trying to understand that person's feelings, emotions, and behaviors. History is more objective and based upon external and measurable facts and is applicable to people in general - through time - rather than a specific person or person(s).

I have seen people make stereotypes on certain ethnic groups, political and religious affiliations based on how they have been portrayed throughout history, but I really don't think that's fair usually. One must be very careful never to stereotype in psychology. I have always found that counterproductive (at least from personal observation).