In the first scene of “Hitchcock Loves Bikinis”, a young mum is playing happily with her baby. Next comes a close-up shot of Alfred Hitchcock, the late movie director, smiling. Clearly, he is a man whose heart is warmed by this sweet glimpse of maternal love. In the next scene, we see a bikini-clad woman sunbathing followed by exactly the same shot of Hitchcock smiling. Instead of a benign grandfatherly figure, this time we see a lecherous old man. The moral of the story is simple: context is everything.
Mr. Kagan’s effort, “Psychology’s Ghosts,” consists of his assessment of four problems in psychological theory and clinical practice. The first problem is laid out in the chapter “Missing Contexts”: the fact that many researchers fail to consider that their measurements of brains, behaviour and self-reported experience are profoundly influenced by their subjects’ culture, time and experience, as well as by the situation in which the research is conducted. In his second essay, “Happiness Ascendant”, Mr. Kagan virtually demolishes the popular academic effort to measure “subjective well-being”, let alone to measure and compare the level of happiness of entire nations. No psychologist, he observes, would accept as reliable your own answer to the question: “How good is your memory?” Whether your answer is “great” or “terrible”, you have no way of knowing whether your memory of good or bad memories is accurate. But psychologists, Mr. Kagan argues, are willing to accept people’s answers to how happy they are as if “it is an accurate measure of a psychological state whose definition remains fuzzy.”
In the third and fourth essays, “Who Is Mentally Ill?” and “Helping the Mentally Ill”, Mr. Kagan turns to the intransigent problems of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) “regards every intense bout of sadness or worry, no matter what their origin, as a possible sign of mental disorder.” Mr. Kagan laments. But “most of these illness categories are analogous to complaints of headaches or cramps. Physicians can decide on the best treatment for a headache only after they have determined its cause. The symptom alone is an insufficient guide.”
Nonetheless, the DSM is primarily a collection of symptoms, overlooking the context in which a symptom such as anxiety or low sexual desire occurs and what it means to an individual. It might mean nothing at all. What it means to an American might mean nothing to a Japanese. The same one-size-fits-all approach plagues treatment: “Most drugs can be likened to a blow on the head,” Mr. Kagan observes, they are blunt instruments, not precisely-tailored remedies. Psychotherapy depends largely on the clients’ belief that it will be helpful, which is why all therapies help some people and some people are not helped by any. No experience affects everyone equally — including natural disasters, abuse, having a cruel parent, losing a job or having an illicit affair — though many therapists wish us to believe the opposite
The comprehension passage discusses Mr. Kagan's critique of psychological practices and the DSM's approach to diagnosing mental disorders. He argues that the DSM reduces mental disorders to a collection of standard symptoms without considering the context or the individual differences of the patients. This is evident in the passage where it states, “Nonetheless, the DSM is primarily a collection of symptoms, overlooking the context in which a symptom such as anxiety or low sexual desire occurs and what it means to an individual.” This supports the correct answer choice: “It reduces mental disorders to standard symptoms.” Other options do not align with the main argument presented in the passage. This choice reflects the idea that DSM simplifies mental disorders to a list of symptoms, ignoring the complexities and varying contexts that can influence these symptoms.
Based on the passage, the author expresses skepticism about the current state of psychiatric treatment, particularly regarding the role of drugs. The passage critiques the standard approach to psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, emphasizing a lack of context in diagnoses and treatments like those outlined in the DSM. It suggests that drugs are used to treat symptoms rather than addressing underlying causes, which aligns with the correct answer: "Drugs treat symptoms and they may or may not work." The author underscores the inefficacy of a universal approach, highlighting how symptoms and treatments can vary in effectiveness depending on individual contexts. Hence, the critique is mainly directed at how psychiatric treatments, particularly drug-based ones, often apply a general solution to context-specific problems.
The passage opens with a scenario from “Hitchcock Loves Bikinis”, illustrating the importance of context in shaping perceptions. This example is strategically placed at the beginning to effectively illustrate the broader issue discussed throughout the passage: the neglect of context in psychological research and clinical practices. The example of how Hitchcock's smile changes its meaning based on the preceding scene underscores the broader argument that context is crucial in understanding behaviors and perceptions. This aligns with the correct answer: the first paragraph cites a case that exemplifies a problem discussed more broadly in the text, specifically the oversight of contextual influences in psychological evaluations and treatments.
Read the sentence and infer the writer's tone: "The politician's speech was filled with lofty promises and little substance, a performance repeated every election season."