Frum…..:
Not sure where you took your courses. I will share what I know about mine and those to which I had exposure. There are several dozen personality theories, and these appear in every textbook used on the subject. Those professors that have their heads screwed on straight (yes, there are some that do) do NOT impose anything on anyone, and allow the students to develop their own path in the understanding of human personality. In fact, there is a grain of truth to every single one, even if there is zero research to support any of its contentions. I found many of them laughable, but interesting nevertheless. If that would not have been the case, even the goyishe kepp that allowed them into academic discussion would have excluded them as eccentric. I bet there are professors that push an agenda, and academia has been accused of that in the past. But that was not my experience, and my discussions with mental health professionals suggests that this agenda driven academia was not their experiences either.
As for free choice or free will, I never saw that anyone minimized it. What is obvious is that the field of psychology sought to understand human behavior enough to be able to predict it. Free will renders that ability less than 100% by definition. But in the real world, one may need to increase the determinant of behavior enough to yield an increase in it, and thus be able to produce changes that are statistically significant. Let’s use a real world example. One wishes to create advertising that produces greater sales and thus profit. In that field, it is known that those elements that draw attention and leave behind memory traces that are stronger will result in positive outcomes. This has been repeated in research countless times. Such application of research findings recognizes that one can influence behavior quite successfully. If these ads do not entice you, the advertiser couldn’t quite care – there are plenty more customers to pad his bottom line. This does not challenge free choice.
In practice, a therapist should not be pushing clients to make specific choices (with the exceptions of where education is needed or where there are issues of safety). It is about helping others make their choices, not pushing an agenda.
Lastly, your last statement to me, “The idea that people can determine their own choices is part of the 13 principles (schar v’onesh) and is the reason the world exists.” is not completely accurate. Yes, people ultimately make their own choices, Torah or psychology notwithstanding. But the Torah itself has an agenda, and we are instructed clearly “Uvochartoh bachayim”. WE are also told what to choose, although we possess the capacity at every juncture to ch”v go the other direction. When the therapist guides a client in making choices, it is truly about helping them in the process. That is what professionals are taught. And maybe there are some that choose to not follow that path. Ultimately, the client chooses the behavior.
You wrote, “I’d also say that psychologists are not – as a group – particularly well studied on the functions and disorders of the soul.” I disagree. Just as with any other group of people, there are those who believe in soul and a spiritual dimension and those who do not. In my personal experience, my interaction with mental health professionals is primarily with frum ones, and I find them to be believers of soul and neshomah. This may be less common among those dedicated to research and other non-applied psychology fields. Just an observation. Personally, I prefer to get my education and guidance on matters of the soul from Torah sources, not secular. I think I’ve done okay. But I do not think the field is set back by ignorance about the soul.
Your concluding line, “Bottom line: Only a fool would completely discount the observations of social scientists and only a fool thinks that socials scientists have all the answers.” is excellent and true.