On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 12:35:16AM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 03:14:59PM -0400, Isaiah Weiner wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 03:22:22AM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > > Ah, this is wonderful for the fields of psychiatry and psychology! More
> > > and more and more money!
> >
> > If you choose to go to one, perhaps. There are lots of types of
> > therapists -- family members, friends, registered therapists without
> > degrees. I think you'll find the last group doesn't charge anywhere near
> > as much as a psychologist or psychiatrist would.
> >
>
> Ooo, I'll bet there are a helluva lot of psychs who'd slap you silly for
> suggesting that family members and friends could be "therapists" of any
> kind! And if a "registered therapist without degrees" can affect the same
The psychiatrists would, but the psychologists would recognize the good
in it. ;)
> results, then why pay a psychiatrist? And if they can't produce the same
> effect, what are they doing muddying up the field of psychiatry? They
The approach psychiatry implements is different. These are basic
concepts.
> could be giving bad advice and giving the field a bad name! (Oh that's
> right-- it already has one. Don't believe me? Look at the way
> psychiatry/psychology is portrayed in films and on television.)
I don't watch television.
> > > Does everyone have troubles? Hell yes! Life's a bitch. But to say that
> > > everyone needs treatment is a way of saying that everyone is incapable of
> > > handling their own problems. Great for the psychs. Not so great for
> > > everyone else.
> >
> > The syllogism could be presented that by our very evolutionary nature,
> > humans are pack animals and dependant on the rest of our group _anyway_.
> > So what's wrong with admitting it?
> >
>
> That's not the point. The point is that if we presume that "everyone
> needs therapy" and then we set up the psychs as the guys who know all the
> answers, it's a ready-made mechanism for making billions of dollars.
> Which is exactly the point.
NOW that's the point. You keep changing your point. ;)
There are many approaches to therapy inside of psychology. Psychiatry,
too, but not as many to choose from. You should AGAIN spell out "psychs"
depending on which one you're speaking toward. Also, it's silly to not
recognize this REALLY BASIC IDEA. Heck, even "real science" has
fundamentally different approaches to solving problems. A prime example
would be the ever-growing field of cosmology.
> Besides which, we've developed into a society of victims who believe
> that we need help in every facet of our lives to make it. But
> "victim-ism" only serves to shift responsibility for our own lives to
> someone else or some other entity. Your views about therapy only serve
> to reinforce this unfortunate viewpoint.
> > > Here's a field that's been studying humans for decades and been given
> > > scads of money. Yet the morals of this society have taken a nose dive for
> > > those same decades. Oh that's right. Psychiatry and psychology don't
> > > concern themselves with morals. Thus they study human behavior in the
> > > absence of one of the most important factors which influence it. This is
> > > science?
> >
> > That's a pretty good point. On the other hand, you could apply the
> > same thought processes to nuclear physics or any other science. At least
> > psychiatry and not-so-much psychology (there are enough areas of study to
> > include morals in psychology, in many cases) have the decency to scope out
> > what they know they can observe and what they can not.
> >
>
> Okay, applying the same thought processes to nuclear physics, they study
> the physical universe in the absence of ____________ which is one of the
> most important factors influencing it. I don't know what to put in that
> blank, and I therefore don't see the analogy to psychology/psychiatry.
> And psychology/psychiatry can't observe morals and ethics? I can, so I'm
> not sure what's keeping them from doing it.
The word you're looking for to fill in the blank is "certainty". Their
governing laws change at various points throughout the physical universe.
Observing ethics and morals and factoring them into your treatments are
very different ideas. Which do you want them to do? They're going off
publications of the past. I believe you will need to start publishing
works related to their field to be paid attention to. ;)
> As a matter of fact, psychology/psychiatry are anti-moral. Go back to (I
> believe) the first president of the APA (I'm a little fuzzy on the
> details here), Brock Chisholm. He publicly stated that the role of
> psychology/psychiatry was to eliminate morals, ethics and religion, and
> substitute instead the judgment of psychologists and psychiatrists. A
> chilling viewpoint.
By that logic, every member of the NRA supports every thing its
representatives say. How naive.
> Actually, this whole process of verbal fencing is fairly pointless. I
> gather your father was a psychiatrist/psychologist, and you yourself are
> steeped in that tradition. The chances are excellent that no matter what
> I or anyone else says, nothing is going to persuade you that
> psychology/psychiatry are a bad thing and that you should be against it.
Actually, I believe your logic to be slightly flawed on that point. I
myself am greatly biased against both fields, and have only later learned
the error of my ways. ;)
> By the same token, I've observed and read a great deal about the field,
> from the outside (some of it told from the viewpoint of an insider).
> Nothing you have said, and nothing you could say will dissuade me from
> the conclusion that psychology and psychiatry are the worst kind of junk
> science, and that the field itself (if not many of the people in it), has
> no desire to actually help anyone.
So, the root of the problem here is that you don't actually have any
feelings. ;)
> And a final word about "closed mindedness", since I know this will come
> up. I had this discussion with Norb earlier, a great proponent of "open
> mindedness". As far as I'm concerned, open-mindedness is equivalent to an
> inability or unwillingness to decide. What is commonly known of as
> "closed-mindedness" is primarily the acknowledgment that one has examined
> the relevant facts and drawn a conclusion. No additional facts are
> needed. This does not mean that additional facts can't be heard. But they
> weigh only lightly against the already drawn conclusion. The assumption
> is that the important facts have already been examined and that the
> conclusion is a logical extension of them. Unfortunately, it has become
> fashionable to describe anyone who has already drawn a conclusion as
> "closed-minded", thus somehow denigrating their ability to think and
> reason. The claim serves to make the "open-minded" feel better and allows
> them to discount the conclusions of those who have truly decided.
Ah, I see. I've run into your type before (while we're generalizing).
They think if you're not "standing up for one side" you're a pushover. How
decidedly lame. There's this wonderful concept called "duality" that's
existed in many other cultures for at least the last 5000 years. And
that's just how long its been recorded!
> Paul
--
- Isaiah
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:13:37 EDT