I have a big dilemma. I've applied and been accepted to both a history PhD and a psychology undergraduate degree. I'm really not sure which to do. My head tells me I should pursue history; it's what I know and I could probably make a good career out of teaching. But my heart tells me to pursue my interest [and 'dream', if you like] of psychology, with the aim of ultimately becoming a cognitive behavioral therapist. But I am bombarded with all kinds of contradictory thoughts; that the reality of being a therapist wouldn't match my glamorized impression of it, for example, or that I could have a nice career in history teaching, and that my 45 year old self would thank my 28 year old self for going down that route instead.

What decision would you advise me to take? It sounds dry, stated like this, but I must confess I have become somewhat obsessional about it.

Thanks,

John

ANSWER:

Dear John,

Unfortunately, you have fallen into the trap of turning your situation into a dilemma.  First thing to notice is that a true dilemma is one where you really have only two alternatives, and where each of these alternatives have certain bad results, thereby leaving you to choose your poison.

As a result of painting a dilemma for yourself, you have become "obsessional" about your situation, which apparently means that you keep ruminating over the negative horns of your dilemma without coming to any conclusion. 

But what's negative in the first place about pursuing a psychology degree rather than getting your Ph.D. in history? Is part of your "big dilemma" the perception that in pursuing the former you will have wasted your time, having already gotten a master's degree in history?

If you are making this assumption, then you may want to look more carefully at it.  This is because knowledge is never wasted.  Thus, your historical training, including you training in the German language, can help you in your psychological studies; and indeed, an historical perspective can inform your practice as a psychologist and give you valuable insight in your private life.

So what your so-called "big dilemma" really amounts to is a choice you think you must now make between taking a course of study in history or in psychology.  The first will prepare you further to teach history at the college level; the second will prepare, or begin to prepare you for a career as a psychologist.  The history training may take fewer years to complete since you've already obtained your master's degree in history.  However, while you find history to be "interesting," you are very passionate indeed about psychology.   Other things being equal, is the time you may save in getting your Ph.D. in history truly an overriding consideration, given you like psychology so much better?

Are these alternatives mutually exclusive so that if you choose the one, you have indelibly excluded the other?  Insofar as it may be practically impossible or extremely difficult to enroll in both courses of study at once, the one alternative excludes the other.  However, you are young and you could still complete the other alternative at a later time.  In other words, you can keep your options open regardless of what you decide to do at this juncture in your life.

Are you idealizing your view of being a psychologist?  Well you probably are because everything in this imperfect world has its less than ideal aspects.  Thus you might not like some of the paperwork that comes with being a therapist.  You might also dislike having to deal with managed care organizations in setting up treatment plans and getting paid. 

On the other hand, you might find that the life of a history professor also has its down side.  Thus you might not like having to be on faculty committees that take you away from your teaching and research.   You might find it difficult to find a tenure track or permanent position; and even if you do, the road to tenure can often be a bumpy one. 

Still there is nothing wrong with idealizing a possible career goal.  This simply means that you are extracting the desirable aspects of the practice, those about which you are passionate, from their mundane context.  In taking this idealized perspective, you can get a sense of what is really special about the practice of psychology (or history) for you.

When I was an undergraduate student in philosophy, I thought that the world of academia was a very special world that was very different from the dog-eat-dog universe of the business world.  After living in the academic world for many years, I now know otherwise.  But, while my idealized vision of what it would be like to be a philosophy professor has changed (and expanded to include philosophical practice outside the academy), I have been guided over the years by this ideal.  It has given me something to aim at, and I am still quite idealistic about what I do, and aspire to do.  Keep your idealism!

What will, in the end, make you happiest?  Herein lies the crux of the matter.  According to Aristotle, true happiness is self-realization.  This is an end in itself, which means it is that which is desirable for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else. This end, for Aristotle, includes cultivating your intellectual talents.  Accordingly, on this way of thinking, if you believe you will be more self-realized or happy as a psychologist, then you should choose this option.  

On the other hand, the time you save attaining one degree rather than another is only an extrinsic value, a mere expedient, not itself part of the end of happiness itself. So, according to Aristotle, you would be confusing an extrinsic value with an intrinsic one, that is, the value of happiness itself with a mere expedient, if you chose history because you could attain a degree in it sooner.

So what should you do?  One very rational, philosophically defensible choice is to follow your dream and see where it leads. 

That's what Aristotle would do!

If you have a life problem and want a philosophical perspective on it, let me know.  Write a comment or send me an email at Elliot.D.Cohen@instituteofcriticalthinking.com