RoR: Forum

And yes, Self-help books do provide nice stories and anecdotes about those who succeeded. They do provide fuel and motivation. Know what else does?
ART!

In the next two weeks, I have a couple of book reviews planned on two books that serve as REAL self-help, that do provide the fuel because they were written by two people who's idea of self-help involve actually doing the work of creating (or recreating) a self. They weren't written to "help" others in the altruistic sense, they were written as memoirs of the work and sweat that goes into self-ownership.

Post 41

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 5:35pm

Dynamic visualization ?
Rich, is it like when you think about sex lolol?
I started doing D.V.since I was five years old. lololol

Post 42

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 6:32pm

Phil: "Freud made an important contribution toward making psychology a science. He discovered the existence, importance, (and quirkiness) of the subconscious. His specific conclusions about its content (inherent war between id and ego and superego, various strange sexual and defecatory conclusions) were false and, to use an advanced psychotherapeutic term, 'whacked.'"

Andy: "My disdain for the self-help industry is the same as for psychology.� They offer counseling (whether good or bad) on false pretenses, emotionalism and science respectively.� Neither provide help that a person cannot get from himself or trusted friends and family.� I don't begrudge the good a person gets out of either self-help or psychology.� I do hope that the good is more than ephemeral because of the lack of solid grounding in reality either approach has."

THIS is the tricky area of psychology where it's necessary to define terms. Psychology, "study of the mind," is only a valid discipline if we can define what "mind" is ( what is mind, no matter; what is matter, never mind.) The concept of mind grew out of "spirit" (psyche) which grew out of "soul."
But what is the mind? Freud tried to medicalize it, with Skinner right behind him, and Szasz calls it a metaphor. Freud tried to medicalize behavior because of his disdain towards religion, Jung tried to restore the spirit back into medicine. (The irony being that Jung was actually trained medically and spent more time in the asylums with schizophrenics than armchair theorist Freud.) Szasz notes Jung's honesty when his defiance of Freud had him say that what they were doing was closer to religion than science.
Rand would have agreed with him, and was close to Jung's sentiment when she gave a nod to religion as an early form of philosophy. Philosophy, for her, was the proper successor to the care of the "soul," problems with living. If Szasz is right about mental illnesses as metaphors, then rational thinking is the solution, not drugs. (The issue of the mind-brain connection is further split by the disdain of neuroscientists to psychologists and psychiatry being the in-between.)
So we went from "soul" to "mind", but mind is still not clearly understood. Psychology's legitimate role is to study "the mind", but as she said, it is still in the anteroom of science and philosophy. Any truly rational self-help book at this stage has to realize this and limit its scope to being a guide for living rationally according to reality. (If one has actual brain impairment, this is not the role of psychology but of neuroscience. Again, the relation between the brain and mind are still being explored.) The problem is that many self-help books have not advanced the secular version of soul, but have regressed into the "spiritual" goals of old religion in the form of New Age thinking. The more dishonest among them play into the goals of those with an agenda to "cure" society.

Post 43

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 6:33pm

Ciro-

Rich, is it like when you think about sex lolol?

So you've also been hanging out at the Suicide Girls website that someone here linked to.

Post 44

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 6:52pm

"Scott, why would I equate information meant to help people as poison? I wouldn't, that's not what I said. That's like saying if you don't support socialism you want to hurt people."

No, Joe, that's EXACTLY what you did when you wrote :

"Scott, would YOU like to swallow the poison without just a little big of sugar?"

The clear implication is that self-help is poison with a little bit of sugar to get you to wash it down--and then you proceeded to the 'antifreeze is sweet but it'll kill you" comment. Your words, not mine.

I do not think it is accurate to classify information offered to hel people wiht poison. The caveat is probably anything that appears on Oprah or Dr. Phil.

Post 45

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 7:20pm

> as [Rand] said, [psychology] is still in the anteroom of science and philosophy. [Joe]

What she meant is that it is not yet an integrated, systematic, integrated-without-contradiction science in the full sense. And there are still quarreling "schools", many of which are full of nonsense. But that doesn't mean that men have not been able to accumulate useful information about how their minds and emotions and attitudes work and don't work across the centuries.

All this means is you have to be selective in consuming the ideas of psychologists...so stop generalizing about all 'self-help' or 'psychology', please!

(Unless, of course, you've read all of it. In which case, can I pay you to tutor me?)

> Psychology, "study of the mind," is only a valid discipline if we can define what "mind" is [Joe]

I can learn a great deal about how to move things and how fast things travel and how heat operates, and men did for thousands of years, without yet having a good definition of energy.

Again, the practical knowledge in any science often precedes the theoretical integrations and precise definitions, often by hundreds ... or in the case of psychology, thousands ... of years.

> the relation between the brain and mind are still being explored

Very true, but see above point.

Phil

Post 46

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 7:29pm

> poison. ... probably anything that appears on Oprah or Dr. Phil. [Scott]

By the way, each of the two or three times I was channel flipping and watched Dr. Phil for a portion of his hour, he was either giving quite sound, no nonsense, take personal responsibility advice -or- he had managed to cut thru all the bullshit and make a quarreling couple see who was doing what inappropriately and what needed to change.

I was quite impressed with him in my random sampling. No religion, no altruism, no floating abstractions, no b.s.

Enormously intelligent in an aw shucks, folksy, downhome way.
.
.
.
...And of course the fact of his exceptionally rational choice of a first name. And the fact that he looks like me. Except not quite so slender or so devilishly good looking...

Post 47

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:09pm

Scott, you are right technically. But again, I am distinguishing true self-help (i.e. ideas that help an individual cope with reality through reality-based principles)from "self-help" which is really nothing but teaching either to claim victim status or to further a social agenda or false empowerment.
I thought I made clear,I am suspicious of the "industry" and extend that caveat beyond Dr. Phil.

Post 48

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:41pm

Phil, I don't have to have read ALL of them. You just have to know the principles behind them. ( But do I know ALL the principles? mumble, grumble...)...

"I can learn a great deal about how to move things and how fast things travel and how heat operates, and men did for thousands of years, without yet having a good definition of energy."

This, you got me thinking about. My rebuttal is similar to Rand's idea about proving the existance of atoms. You can't actually SEE an atom with the naked eye, but we can infer its existence through reason. But it will have a definite identity with limits to its existence. The same can be said about the mind. We can't SEE the mind, let alone locate it (is it in the brain? The heart? The pituitary gland? The loins?). We can see the results of behavior, the "Floydian Slips" (sorry, thinking Pink), the man of two minds, etc. We know "something's" happening, but we are still learning. And the atom, we don't have the benefit of being able to look at it externally (at least not our own) without reason, inference, and introspection. We can observe mind in others, but we tend to project our own frames of mind onto theirs, muddling objectivity. Energy is a lot easier in this regards...that is why man has made great strides in the physical sciences, but still struggling in the humanities, the arts, ethics, etc. (if that tyrannical, judgemental, given-to-hyperbole Rand is to be believed.)

"Again, the practical knowledge in any science often precedes the theoretical integrations and precise definitions, often by hundreds ... or in the case of psychology, thousands ... of years."

Given that it wasn't that long ago that mind was associated with other body organs besides the brain, or even being a ghost in the machine, it's no wonder that we're still in the anteroom! When the primacy of consciousness still exists in the culture at large, when Sylvia Brown's next book on the afterlife is destined for the bestseller list, and Nathaniel Branden, Objectivism's star self-help therapist is hobnobbing with Ken Wilbur, it may be 1000's of years! (Hyperbole, sue me.)

Regardin Dr. Phil: He may have good things to say that appeal to Objectivist thought. Again, that's not the problem. The problem is if he is doing the thinking for the "patient", it's not self-help, is it? If he is teaching them the principles to straighten themselves out, great. The REAL problem with therapists of his ilk, like Dr. Laura, is that they are guilty of the same thing Rand was accused of: Hammering the message over the head accompanied by strong moral indignation and condemnation, intimidating people into understanding. There is a whole chapter on this in the book (this was a book review, remember? ).
It's kinda like the flaw in the recent slew of home improvement and life improvement shows such as Queer Eye and the renovation shows. People are in need of help, the Queer Guys show up, give a few helpful hints that justify their agendas (Queer Guys: men need to be more like gay guys. Hell, don't you watch SOUTH PARK? THEY'RE PUSSIFYING THE NATION TO PREPARE FOR THE INVASION OF THE CRAB PEOPLE!). The home improvement shows used to be Bob Villa showing you how to fix your home. Now the crew comes in, spouts a few tips, even gets the people to do some work! But the principles aren't being taught, the people are just following instructions. Let's see these people in a few years. I bet you none of the new metrosexuals of Queer Eye's touch remain that way, and the beneficiaries of the makeover shows probably let the house lapse back into the former mess that it was.

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 9/28, 9:00pm)

Post 49

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:49pm

"All this means is you have to be selective in consuming the ideas of psychologists...so stop generalizing about all 'self-help' or 'psychology', please!"

(in H.A.L. monotone) PHIL...you seem stressed...may I suggest that you take a stress pill so we can talk this over?"

Seriously, it's a book review, it's supposed to get you riled up to spark the debate. (And hopefully read the book.)

But so my own position is clear (it should be after the umpteeth post!), I want to point out that yes, a nuanced, Sciabarrian scalpel approach is needed here. And so I don't get lynched for marinating babies in bathwater, I will clarify my own position. But after the umpteenth post, my back teeth are marinating. So I've turning it over to Lisa Simpson, Springfield's answer to a question no one asked:

Lisa: Ever since that self-help guy came into town, you've lost your identity. You've fallen through the cracks of our quick-fix, one-hour photo, instant oatmeal society.

Homer: Aw, boy: if only Bart had been a better role model for everyone.

Marge: That's not fair. The lesson here is that self-improvement is
better left to people who live in big cities.

Lisa: No! Self-improvement can be achieved, but not with a quick fix:
it's a long, arduous journey of personal and spiritual discovery.

Homer: That's what I've been saying! We're all fine the way we are!

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 9/28, 8:58pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 9/28, 8:59pm)

Post 50

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:28pm

> Dr. Phil...If he is teaching them the principles to straighten themselves out, great

Joe, I did watch him do that.

Post 51

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:30pm

> So [I'm] turning it over to Lisa Simpson

Dammit, you know that's not fair! You're trumping me with a true intellectual.

Post 52

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:50pm

It's her hair, all those sharp points.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 9/28, 10:55pm)

Post 53

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 5:59am

Phil,

You make this complaint about the self-help skeptics ...

And why people need to read self-help books instead of pooh-poohing them wholesale and/or need to explore other resources for untangling their psychology and the hidden premises and attitudes acquired early on.

Chop off the first half of your statement and you've got it right. Unmotivated people don't need so-called self-help. They need philosophy! None other than Ayn Rand eloquently explained who needs it: All of us.

Andy

Post 54

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 6:06am

Joe,

You are correct that it is important to define terms, because the disdain I expressed regarding psychology had to do with so-called psychological counseling. In the process of defining the terrain of this discussion, I thought this point of yours was the most salient:

Rand would have agreed with him, and was close to Jung's sentiment when she gave a nod to religion as an early form of philosophy. Philosophy, for her, was the proper successor to the care of the "soul," problems with living.

We're on the same page. (Note my preceding post.) Self-help is gimmickery that obscures the need for philosophy even when the gimmickery has a sound philosophical foundation.

Andy

P.S. You briefly touched upon the power of art to put one's mind right. You on to something important here.

[Edited to add postscript.]

(Edited by Andy Postema on 9/29, 6:11am)

Post 55

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 8:44am

It would be blanket to say that all personal development material obscures a need for philosophy. But they exist, mainly in the form of cults, I think. In any event, the proposed solution, of course, is that they stop wasting their time on all that, and become Objectivists. All will be well after that.

It would be more accurate to say that there are many methodologies, and the people who promote them, that are amalgams of all different kinds of things, including philosophy and religion (think Eastern religion, it will make you less agitated). That that can be so easily done accounts for the viability of the industry- its recombinant and regenerative powers. Results vary, and I'm pretty sure they are, its more by pure luck that any useful, real associations are made. More disturbing, of course, is that very often, the people who create these hybrid derivative things do not understand any of the elements they are playing with.

More disturbing is when they do. Again, this is where cults come from.

The commercial aspect of all this is as I said- it's just all the different kinds of kung fu that people teach and sell off of. No matter how much or how many you study, knowing that you can poke someone in the eye is not enough- you have to know that the eyes are the primary target.

So, Andy, in that respect I fully agree with you.

Post 56

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 12:23pm

Rich,

It would be more accurate to say that there are many methodologies, and the people who promote them, that are amalgams of all different kinds of things, including philosophy and religion (think Eastern religion, it will make you less agitated).

Excellent point. I agree that a self-help gimmick is better understood as a method than a principle. Of course, a method is useless unless properly grounded. For instance, logic is only as good as the premises employing it. That's the biggest problem with the self-help gimmicks. What good are they without recognition of the philosophy behind them? And if what we actually need is the philosophy, what good is the gimmick?

By the way, what makes you think religion agitates me? Who have I criticized or ridiculed on the basis of religion? I find it more fruitful to identify the common principles between me and theists than denounce people as irrational dimwits for seeing the world through the lens of religious faith and custom. The truth is a wonderful thing. It's there for all to see, even if from a wacky angle sometimes. Granted many religious beliefs and practices can have the qualities of self-help gimmicks and are noxious when not grounded in reality. Many others just need to have the crust of custom removed to reveal the sound philosophy underlying them.

So I cut the theists a lot more slack than the self-helpers if only because their religion is not so ersatz.

Andy

Post 57

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 4:10pm

Andy, thank you. Regarding art, I think Rand said it best in ROMANTIC MANIFESTO, that art is a need, fuel for the soul, but also that it is no substitute for philosophy. But I would like to see the topic explored more in depth as well.

Phil, your post regarding electricity continues to zap around my brain, based on a book that influenced another thread that will appear shortly.
"These days, just about everybody knows that the state of one's physical health is connected to the state of one's mental health. The whole scientific/medical community knows all too well there's some kind of link between body and mind, they're just not sure that it is...yet. Won't they be surprised when they find out it's nothing but our own energy."

Another post that stuck with me is Scott's post: "Why a group of individualists would bad-mouth a category of books/courses which purport to help people become more effective and happy is beyond me." Is it really that beyond, Scott?
C'mon, remember Roark's comment to Keating: In order to help people, you got to love the doing? What are self help therapists really doing? What are social workers doing? Socialists want to "help people," religions want to "help people"...why do they want to "help" people? Are they really qualified to help?). What was it that Rand wrote about people who's job revolves around "helping" others? For example, doctors help people, sure, but in order to help them, don't they have to have a primary interest in medicine, the workings of the body, etc? Writers have to like the writing, and no one should become a writer simply to help a cause. And on and on. Is the primary interest of a self-help writer/therapist the study of the mind and the effective functioning of man or to "help people?".

"Helpful people are a nuisance. Don't be helpful, be available."

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 9/29, 4:54pm)

Post 58

Friday, September 30, 2005 - 9:36am

Andy-

No, man, I wasn't going that way-

It was a general statement, which included myself. I guess I just find the applications ported in for this kind of thing that were taken from eastern thought to be generally more useful, less volatile, and definitely less annoying than when Western religion takes a stab at it. Not always, but usually. My take on it is that the eastern thought is a little harder to mangle up. But you can definitely do it.

I appreciate your comments on the subject in general. You don't hear that kind of thing too often where I travel. I consider it to be an issue that gets in the way of
peaceful progress. There's enough division and poor relations out there already without creating more.

Post 59

Friday, September 30, 2005 - 10:12am