RoR: Forum

Rich,

Where, oh where is all that coming from? Since when is psychotherapy disreputable?

When hasn't it been? Tell me what psychotherapy accomplishes and I'll tell you what old-fashioned commonsense, bootstrapping, and discipline can do. I'll tell you what the honest counsel of a good friend or a loved one can do. I'll tell you what hard work, hardheadedness, and sometimes hard-heartedness can do. Most of all I'll tell you what becomes obvious to you once you stop feeling sorry for yourself and realize only you can solve your own problems.

(And yes, I don't mean "you" personally.)

Andy

Post 81

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 2:01pm

My, my, my,

Touchy aren't we, Andy?

Well we certainly disagree about the value of an entire area of human endeavor. What type of doctor would you have treat mental illness? And what would you call the area since you consider psychology and psychiatry to be an area for "witch doctors"?

LOLOLOLOL...

(Sorry - it is funny. This is the twenty-first century...)

But to be clear, there are good psychologists and psychiatrists and bad ones. It is a field that is still in its infancy. You claim (or at least imply) that there are only charlatans. The temptation to make a snide remark is great, but I will resist. I hate snide anyway.

Where on earth did I insult you, by the way? By claiming that you do not have certain experience due to age - since you belittle it so much? You obviously have not had much contact with such experience. That is very clear to those who have (myself, for one). By offering Scientology as an alternative? I remember that they just engaged in a huge media thing ranting against psychology.

But since you let me know you think I am an ass, let's let 'er fly. You sound an awful lot like a Randroid on stilts to me - one who argues merely as if it were a contest. I sure hope this is only an impression.

Michael

Edit - It occurs to me that another false dichotomy is cropping up. Self-responsibility versus therapy. Completely false. One does not negate the other, nor is it an opposite.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/26, 2:05pm)

Post 82

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 2:53pm

MSK: How does Nathaniel Branden function as a psychiatrist in his work? "Mental illness" is only a metaphor until they find real pathology and causative agents. As a psychiatrist is a doctor, his profession is a lie. As he is an agent of the state he is dangerous to human liberty and individual autonomy. Sure there are some good and even great psychiatrists who help some people some of the time. No contradiction there. As a whole, I despise the profession as it is and certainly for what it has been. It helped destroy both a sister and an aunt of mine.

--Brant

Post 83

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 3:26pm

Michael, dear heart�you wrote:

My, my, my,

Touchy aren't we, Andy?

For "touchy" I think your post 61 wins the prize, Michael! :-)

Coupla things: I do not loudly proclaim I'm not an alcoholic. I said it in my previous post because it was a propos given the subject of this thread & the recent outrage that was Drooling Beast. You, by contrast, loudly proclaim that you are an alcoholic, repeatedly. That's part of what this therapy culture seems to encourage. Whereas my point is: Why go on about it? You had a problem, you've got it licked ... great! We got that, the first time. Now let's get on with achieving SOLO's goal of world domination by 2008! :-) This is not to make light of what you went through & if something bad happened again I'd be there, as a friend, in a flash.

Contrary to what you say, I don't claim to be an expert in alcoholism & I'm not interested in becoming one. Better things to do. Uncorking a Shiraz, for instance. :-)

I daresay the cliche is true�we all have our demons. The culture of therapy seems to have folk obsessing about them, though, privately & publicly. Especially publicly. It has unleashed an epidemic of addiction to addiction. If demons didn't exist folk'd find it necessary to invent some just to be "cool." Often they can lay claim to "victim" status & sue the ass off some poor bastard whose only sin lay in doing something productive. And they even get to go on television.

Re psychologists & psychotherapists. Again I'm no expert, but I recall from my time at university that the psychology students were conspicuously crazy. And whenever I encounter the writings of anyone in that profession I become certain he's a witch-doctor uttering mumbo-jumbo. Psychobabble. Call it what you will. Psychologists & psychotherapists are definitely part of the problem of the therapy culture�they make a living from it, after all!

My suspicion is that Andy is absolutely right�genuine mental illness has a biochemical basis & has to be sorted with medicine, not therapy. And the best "therapy" to be had when troubled is from supportive friends with common sense, & one's own powers of reasoning.

Re the Branden quote that triggered this whole discussion: the problem is with the words "hero" & "enemy." Maybe the apparent meaning is softened by the context, as several have argued; on its face, however, it remains a terrible quote.

Linz

Post 84

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 4:34pm

Linz,

To help keep on the same wave length, here is a quote from my first post on this thread (about the Talmud quote):

"As a definition (of hero), it is horrible."

Yup. I wrote that.

Frankly, on the alcoholic proclaiming business, maybe we both are proclaiming a little too loudly and a little too repeatedly. There is a reason I have done so, however.

There is a tendency to see this problem as merely a moral failing. It isn't. It is vastly more complex than just getting a job and stopping the bitching and feeling sorry for yourself. But I already have dealt with that a bit and I'll save other thoughts for another time.

My reason for mentioning it here has nothing to do with you (or Andy or practically anyone else posting on this thread). There is a personal procedure I adopt that did not come from the "therapy culture." (But boy, did I ever need those therapy groups to survive! I almost died - literally.) It comes from my own reasoned decision. I only recommend it to those who feel the same, not as a moral commitment.

I don't know how to repay those who helped me when I needed it. What do you give to a person who has already recovered his life for helping you to recover yours? If you take morality seriously, which I do, that is a very heavy question.

One who is embroiled in an addiction problem usually tries to hide it. Those who do not understand usually brand it with a stigma (like what is now starting to fly around a bit here on Solo), and that is one of the main reasons for the secrecy, to not be the butt of a stigma. What is the practical result? He/she, who so desperately needs help, does not seek help.

The only way to stop serious addiction is to get help. That is a fact. This is so important that I will repeat it. The only way to stop serious addiction is to get help. In most cases, it is near impossible to do it alone.

So what do I do to try to repay those who helped me? Those whom I cannot repay personally?

I pass it on to those who need this kind of help.

I let them know that one can overcome addiction/alcoholism, come back to the land of the living and still hold his head up and reach for the stars. I merely let them know that I have been where they are and getting out of it can be done. That their situation is not hopeless. You have no idea what seeing this gesture in public means to one who cannot think straight because of an addiction/alcoholism problem. But I do.

I have e-mails from others (which I will not discuss other than to say that they exist) who have approached me stating that my stance has given them courage to seek and/or maintain the help they need because they are trying to fight this problem themselves. That makes me feel fucking great, to tell you the truth. Really, really good inside. I am helping defeat something that hurt me terribly. I am helping to impede the destruction.

And do you know what I want them to do for me later down the road? Nothing. I merely want them to pass it on in their own manner. That, and only that, is my sincere wish for repayment.

Is this sappy? To an outsider, maybe. So what? To an insider, it is often the difference between life and death. I do not expect the outsider to understand. The insiders know who they are. And I am one of them.

btw - This is not something you do, then forget about. You have to be careful to avoid relapsing, but that is a whole other can of worms for another time.

Let me also stress that my attitude is not the philosophical equivalent of Altruism. This is merely one way of dealing with an issue that is very real and tragic to some and laughable to others. I deal with it this way precisely because it is so laughable to others. To those in hiding, let me be loud and clear. There is no shame in needing help. I was one who needed it and I got out of the mess and grew because I got it and used it.

And to those who laugh and scorn, I still say that I prefer their attitude to seeing them discover what this is all about on their own hide. So I proudly bear the title of sappy if need be. It is not those who scorn whom I am trying to reach. A good mind that recovers from addiction/alcoholism is a good mind. And that is a value.

Now, on to psychology. Did I understand you correctly? "And whenever I encounter the writings of anyone in that profession I become certain he's a witch-doctor uttering mumbo-jumbo. Psychobabble."

Are you also talking about Nathaniel Branden's books on self-esteem?

Dayaamm!

My impression all up to now is that you considered his work valuable. I dearly hope that this was an excess of rhetoric.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/26, 4:42pm)

Post 85

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 4:56pm

No, Michael, I'm not talking about Nathaniel's books on self-esteem. I've never read them. Never felt the need to. That's not meant to sound arrogant; I'm just not interested. None of my remarks here has been directed at him apart from those explicitly so, i.e. about the quote. Nothing should be read into my comments to the effect that I've joined the Branden-bashers or some such. My limited dealings with him have been cordial & beneficial, to me if not to him. I've published him in the FreeRad, & of course, the very interview by Alec Mouhibian from which that quote came was first published in the FreeRad.

I do think NB's Benefits & Hazards sounds very important alarm bells, especially about Objectivist repression. Every newbie Objectivist in particular should read it.

And Michael, I'm not gainsaying anything you've said here about alcoholism. I'm arguing against this culture that says you're obligated to make such things public & the public has a right to know & one's demons are the most important thing in life. That's a drooling beast for you!

Linz

Post 86

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:23pm

Lindsay:

"I'm arguing against this culture that says you're obligated to make such things public & the public has a right to know & one's demons are the most important thing in life. That's a drooling beast for you!"

Damn straight!

If there's one trait I applaud my fellow New Zealanders for, it's our ability to *take some* without bemoaning the fact. Psycho-babbling PC practitioners aside, we still think it's best to just get on with it and bite down hard. We got *that* from the Scots and that's what makes my chest swell with pride every time I wear my kilt :-)

And, no, it's not about "men don't cry" or any other such silliness. It's about morphing that hardship into rational aggression. Not against others as the socialists do, but against the hardship itself.

Ross

Post 87

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:24pm

Linz,

We agree fully.

(Except to say that I have read many books by Nathaniel Branden and that they are very interesting in and of themselves. The man is definitely a giant - in theory and practice. May I recommend them?)

Michael

Post 88

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 6:03pm

Michael Stuart Kelley recommends Nathaniel Branden's books on self-esteem, and I heartily second that recommendation.

Brant Gaede, just to clarify: Nathaniel is Branden not a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist is an M.D. who specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, and who is able to write prescriptions for medications. NB is not an M.D., and he is not able to write prescriptions. He is a Ph.D., a psychologist, and a licensed psychotherapist.

Also, contra Thomas Szasz, the concept of "mental illness" is not just a "metaphor." It refers to disorders and illnesses of the mind, i.e., with the conscious functioning of the brain (thoughts, emotions, etc.). NB has written very lucidly on this matter and devotes a chapter to it in his earliest psychology book, The Psychology of Self-Esteem.

And Lindsay Perigo, I'm astonished that you have never read any of NB's books. For heavens sake, you are the founder of SOLO -- Sense of Life Objectivists -- and you are not familiar with NB's wonderful discussion of sense of life and romantic love??? AAAAAGGGGGHHHH!

REB

Post 89

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 6:17pm

Roger B: I did not say NB is a psychiatrist. I was asking MSK how he functioned as one, as MSK said he did. BTW MSK: How does he?

I am contra contra Szasz.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 8/26, 6:22pm)

Post 90

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 6:35pm

Brant,

On the difference between psychiatrist and practicing psychotherapist, I stand corrected. Thank you, Roger. My confusion in the heat of battle.

I guess you might have noticed, I am no longer a fan of mind-altering drugs, not even the ones prescribed by psychiatrists (with extremely rare exceptions for emergencies or physical pathologies).

(btw - Just as an aside, let those who think consciousness is not physical take some of those mind-altering drugs and see what happens to their own consciousness.)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/26, 6:36pm)

Post 91

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 7:06pm

A shocked Roger Bissell gasped:

And Lindsay Perigo, I'm astonished that you have never read any of NB's books. For heavens sake, you are the founder of SOLO -- Sense of Life Objectivists -- and you are not familiar with NB's wonderful discussion of sense of life and romantic love??? AAAAAGGGGGHHHH!

It gets worse. Roger, please be sure you are sitting down. When I first met NB 20 years or so ago, it was to record a radio interview with him. He kindly invited me to his home to do it. At its conclusion, he even more kindly gifted me a couple of his romantic love books. They remain unopened to this day.

You OK Roger? :-)

See, Roger & Michael, it's nothing against NB. I'm just not interested in books on subjects like self-esteem, romantic love, etc.. I prefer to encounter these matters directly, in real life. I prefer to write my own book of life, as it were. Burn me for heresy if you will, but I think my sense of life has survived intact, & I have the odd romantic tale to tell that books could be written about! :-)

Linz

Oh, & a hearty "Hear! Hear!" to my compatriot Ross Elliot's post above.

Post 92

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 6:12pm

HONORING THE SELF is a must read!
CD..

The psychology of individualism. Explores the relation between self-esteem, autonomy, and an ethics of enlightened selfishness.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 8/27, 12:21pm)

Post 93

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 10:08pm

Actually, Linz, the history of romantic love he wrote is quite an interesting social study - much different than his other work. Not psychology, but social study from an historical standpoint. It might interest you. I read it years ago. It was the title essay of his book on romantic love.

Michael

Post 94

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 11:01pm

I thought of making a long post explaining why psychotherapy can be of value. But I just don't have the patience.

Post 95

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 5:26am

Phil Coates wrote:

I thought of making a long post explaining why psychotherapy can be of value. But I just don't have the patience.

Nor the patients!

Post 96

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 7:09am

This is what kills me when you run into it in O'ist circles- Jody and Andy are displaying a nearly encylopedic non-knowledge of psychology. Normally, this is referred to as evasion, or dishonesty, but it looks like that door doesn't swing both ways for them. What does their blanket statement mean, by extension? For one thing, it means eliminating the work of every major heavyweight writer that ever existed in that field. You know, the big boys. A lot of heavy lifting. Fun projects, like refuting Carl Jung's entire body of work on the unconscious. I'm not going to go deeper right now with that piece of it, but it is easily done. It is either ignorance, or denying and disowning reality. Both are forgivable (which, incidentally, speaks to the root topic of this thread). You can cast souls into the void (or entire branches of study), but it doesn't mean by exercising that right you are correct.

Here is a major piece of news: psychology is not a pseudo-science. Being a psychologist does not automatically invoke "witch doctor" status. I think I know where all this came from, it has that dogma to it. It is a malignant misconception. Even Rand later modified her views on this, not that she is the ultimate measure of the issue anyway.

Jody, Andy, I will play to your rules on this question, why don't we do it the old-fashioned way? Can you please state your premises? At this point, I am not even sure that you understand the differences between psychiatry and psychology, much less the various disciplines and areas of study that lie inside of each one. It also seems clear that you don't understand Branden's work on self-esteem even at the cursory level- what the significance of his definition of self-esteem is, for instance.

If I had to guess, the main problem seems to be confusing pop psychology, what it is all about, and everything else. Your blanket statement literally puts Dr. Phil and Dr. Branden on the same boat, and that alone is something very easy to take apart. Hell, you're putting Dr. Phil and Sigmund Freud on the same boat!

rde
Nothing a little old-fashioned bootstrapping along with creative use of rudimentary flash cards can't cure.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/27, 7:28am)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/27, 7:29am)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/27, 7:31am)

Post 97

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 8:30am

Rich-
I do know the difference between psychology and psychiatry. That's why I put emphasis on the word psychology. Someone basically asked Andy to prove that psychology does not work. I simply stated the obvious, which is that the burden of proof is not on Andy, but instead those making positive claims as to the efficacy of psychology. Just as if I told you I was psychic and rather than proving it to you, I instead asked you to prove me wrong. Doesn't work that way. I can't disprove psychology, but I can tell you that where I've seen it present and pass testable hypothesis', they have been mundane almost to the point of being useless. What significant theories of psychology pass the test of being able to predict? What treatments of psychology achieve greater results in double-blind studies than placebos?

Post 98

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 8:40am

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but don't N.B.'s credentials leave a lot to be desired? I'm like Lindsay, I haven't read him, don't care to read him, and certainly haven't done any background checks into his CV so I could be wrong.

Post 99

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 9:22am