The Overwhelming, Overweening Therapeutic Avalanche In Modern Consciousness (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

I am fortunate I found a career that I love and in a way loves me back.

And you have us, all punctual on Sundays

It's from a poem, actually, that quote.

And as for visitors, why, I have you,
All cheerful, brisk and punctual every Sunday,
Like church, even if the aisles smell of phenol. - Anthony Hecht, "The Transparent Man"

 

[Ilov80s]

I am fortunate I found a career that I love and in a way loves me back.

And you have us, all punctual on Sundays

It's from a poem, actually, that quote.

And as for visitors, why, I have you,
All cheerful, brisk and punctual every Sunday,
Like church, even if the aisles smell of phenol. - Anthony Hecht, "The Transparent Man"

Love the reference there and it’s true that CFB and the NFL provides a lot of structure, conversation and community to my life in the fall.

 

[rockaction]

Love the reference there

Thanks. The poem is actually quite sad. It's about a woman that is dying of leukemia.

The poem touches on the individuality/community issue in its latter parts. It offers no answers, but is one of the greatest poems I've ever read. Haunting.

Worth a read.

The Transparent Man

I'm mighty glad to see you, Mrs. Curtis,

poets.org

 

[parasaurolophus]

I will say that it’s such a complex thing that you have to find someone qualified - it’s not as simple to diagnose and treat in many instances.

(Not really directed at you AAA with this reply)The ever increasing therapy seekers will inevitably lead to not being able to find qualified people.

Given psychology's/psychiatry's track record over the years, I dont see how greatly expanding the number of people seeking help is a net benefit for society.

I believe this also fuels all the bs pseudoscientific industries out there.

Not to mention all the bad behavior it excuses.

Nevermind the rising costs to everybody.

 

[rockaction]

This is purely anecdotal and singular, but it's also emblematic of an age. This is a really odd way of not just interjecting yourself into an article, but talking about undiagnosed mental health issues you think you might have. This is sort of what I'm getting at. How everybody's therapy is at the center of everything. This isn't even New Journalism; it's just a guy babbling about the ADHD he thinks he has to draw an analogy with a sports team. It's weird. I personally find nothing wrong with it, but really, at the center of an article about sports within a journalistic context where nobody really asked about your self and how your self is doing?
____________________________________________________________________________________

• Kevin Pulsifer, ESPN

Jan 4, 2024, 10:30 AM ET

It's fun to jump on the bandwagon. To board the hype train as it leaves the station, heading for greener pastures. Sometimes those pastures include some extra green in your pocket. Other times, it's a one-way ticket to disappointment along with the rest of the public.

In the sports betting world, it's essential to know the difference between a smart bet that the public is on, and a line that has taken on so much public steam that it's moved past the point of being good value. That's what I'm setting out to do for you this season -- help you spot those differences and think critically when you see something on TV, hear it again on a podcast, and then see it all over your social media feeds the rest of the week.

The hype​

I have ADHD.

Or at least, I'm pretty sure I do. I've spent the better part of the past year working with my therapist to try and find out why my brain works the way it does, and we've narrowed it down to ADHD. It's not the way it's portrayed in TV and movies for jokes, like the dog in "Up" being distracted by a squirrel. But the laundry list of items on my to-do list never gets checked off in the proper order.

My brain is constantly torn in different directions at the same time, remembering things from this morning, two days ago, or even last month that I wanted to accomplish or need to take care of. It makes me a lot less efficient, and I'm left with projects taking longer than expected, some long-term goals unfulfilled and general stress added to day-to-day tasks as I'm constantly reminded, at the worst possible times, of all the other things that I still want to do.

I say all this because it's a new year. We're four days into 2024 and I am, like many of you, trying to sort out my priorities and goals for the year. I'd like to start working out more and eating healthier, and I'd like to think that I can keep myself motivated enough to follow through on those goals.

But motivation is a fickle mistress. You can want to be healthier. You can want to be more successful at your job, you can want to achieve your goals. But that doesn't automatically mean it's going to happen. Week 18 of the NFL regular season is the perfect example of this. Come take a trip down memory lane for a minute.

Two years ago, the Indianapolis Colts were sitting pretty at 9-6, needing a win in either of their last two games to make the playoffs. A home loss to the Las Vegas Raiders set up a win-and-in scenario against the worst team in the league, the Jacksonville Jaguars. Trevor Lawrence's rookie season was an abject disaster, half-coached by Urban Meyer as the team stumbled to a 2-14 record entering the final week. Jacksonville had no motivation to play -- in fact, one could argue it had motivation to lose to ensure the No. 1 pick in the NFL draft.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is purely anecdotal and singular, but it's also emblematic of an age. This is a really odd way of not just interjecting yourself into an article, but talking about undiagnosed mental health issues you think you might have. This is sort of what I'm getting at. How everybody's therapy is at the center of everything. This isn't even New Journalism; it's just a guy babbling about the ADHD he thinks he has to draw an analogy with a sports team. It's weird. I personally find nothing wrong with it, but really, at the center of an article about sports within a journalistic context where nobody really asked about your self and how your self is doing?

• Kevin Pulsifer, ESPN

Jan 4, 2024, 10:30 AM ET

It's fun to jump on the bandwagon. To board the hype train as it leaves the station, heading for greener pastures. Sometimes those pastures include some extra green in your pocket. Other times, it's a one-way ticket to disappointment along with the rest of the public.

In the sports betting world, it's essential to know the difference between a smart bet that the public is on, and a line that has taken on so much public steam that it's moved past the point of being good value. That's what I'm setting out to do for you this season -- help you spot those differences and think critically when you see something on TV, hear it again on a podcast, and then see it all over your social media feeds the rest of the week.

The hype​

I have ADHD.

Or at least, I'm pretty sure I do. I've spent the better part of the past year working with my therapist to try and find out why my brain works the way it does, and we've narrowed it down to ADHD. It's not the way it's portrayed in TV and movies for jokes, like the dog in "Up" being distracted by a squirrel. But the laundry list of items on my to-do list never gets checked off in the proper order.

My brain is constantly torn in different directions at the same time, remembering things from this morning, two days ago, or even last month that I wanted to accomplish or need to take care of. It makes me a lot less efficient, and I'm left with projects taking longer than expected, some long-term goals unfulfilled and general stress added to day-to-day tasks as I'm constantly reminded, at the worst possible times, of all the other things that I still want to do.

I say all this because it's a new year. We're four days into 2024 and I am, like many of you, trying to sort out my priorities and goals for the year. I'd like to start working out more and eating healthier, and I'd like to think that I can keep myself motivated enough to follow through on those goals.

But motivation is a fickle mistress. You can want to be healthier. You can want to be more successful at your job, you can want to achieve your goals. But that doesn't automatically mean it's going to happen. Week 18 of the NFL regular season is the perfect example of this. Come take a trip down memory lane for a minute.

Two years ago, the Indianapolis Colts were sitting pretty at 9-6, needing a win in either of their last two games to make the playoffs. A home loss to the Las Vegas Raiders set up a win-and-in scenario against the worst team in the league, the Jacksonville Jaguars. Trevor Lawrence's rookie season was an abject disaster, half-coached by Urban Meyer as the team stumbled to a 2-14 record entering the final week. Jacksonville had no motivation to play -- in fact, one could argue it had motivation to lose to ensure the No. 1 pick in the NFL draft.

It also takes a massive amount of narcissism to assume that people reading an article about sports betting want to hear about the author's personal life. A lot of what we bemoan as over-sharing is really just an unhealthy dose of self-importance.

 

[rockaction]

It also takes a massive amount of narcissism to assume that people reading an article about sports betting want to hear about the author's personal life. A lot of what we bemoan as over-sharing is really just an unhealthy dose of self-importance.

Total agreement here. As I kept going, I wondered whether my problem was with the out-of-left-field use of therapy and mental health conditions or the author's belief that people actually sit down and want to read about his troubles. That is pretty narcissistic.

 

[Jayrod]

It also takes a massive amount of narcissism to assume that people reading an article about sports betting want to hear about the author's personal life. A lot of what we bemoan as over-sharing is really just an unhealthy dose of self-importance.

Total agreement here. As I kept going, I wondered whether my problem was with the out-of-left-field use of therapy and mental health conditions or the author's belief that people actually sit down and want to read about his troubles. That is pretty narcissistic.

So you are saying he has NPD?
I hope he is seeing someone for that.

 

[Ilov80s]

I guess like with anything else, it can be used to empower or remove power and responsibility. As a teacher, I’ve got a lot of thoughts. I am sure I will share at some point.

 

[McBokonon]

Are We Talking Too Much About Mental Health?
Recent studies cast doubt on whether large-scale mental health interventions are making young people better. Some even suggest they can have a negative effect.

Link to article - using a gift so you won’t get paywalled:

“ In a paper published last year, two research psychologists at the University of Oxford, Lucy Foulkes and Jack Andrews, coined the term “prevalence inflation” — driven by the reporting of mild or transient symptoms as mental health disorders — and suggested that awareness campaigns were contributing to it.

“It’s creating this message that teenagers are vulnerable, they’re likely to have problems, and the solution is to outsource them to a professional,” said Dr. Foulkes, a Prudence Trust Research Fellow in Oxford’s department of experimental psychology, who has written two books on mental health and adolescence.”

 

[rockaction]

Freddie DeBoer just wrote a relentless article on Substack. You can find it here.

Selfishness & Therapy Culture

I was on the Wisdom of Crowds podcast with Shadi Hamid and Damir Marusic recently.

freddiedeboer.substack.com

A sample from the latter paragraphs in the essay. This is edited for understanding the basic point he’s trying to make, which you will find out more fully if you read the piece. He laments that the mental health advocacy movement, both the cultural and the personal, is at the point in which therapeutic culture absolves us from issues of right and wrong and treating others as we would ourselves (Golden Rule). DeBoer posits that pursuing and adhering to modern therapeutic culture inevitably elevates the self, or individuals over our fellow man and also our pleasure over the rules and responsibilities or duties that we do indeed owe others. He is critiquing an article by the NYT about new work regarding “forgiveness,” and how forgiveness might not be a worthwhile thing if it makes you, the forgiver, feel bad in any way. He takes pains to explain and draw lines about abuse and physical violence or trauma and forgiveness, but he makes the point that the culture in which this arises is problematic. Herewith:

______________________________________________________________________

“[Because we might need therapy but not] therapeutic culture, [which is] the offloading of all of the human project into the domain of psychiatric care. The basic work of life, human interrelations that involve multiple people who all have their own legitimate points of view, is reduced to being an exercise in one person’s pursuit of self-actualization. We all become bit players in each other’s plays. The abstruse vocabulary lends self-interest the sheen of medical legitimacy, and it also carries with it a potent discursive cudgel: anyone who disagrees with or criticizes someone who invokes the therapeutic mode is an impediment to them healing from their trauma, perhaps even guilty of retraumatizing them. [But what] people want and what they need are not the same, and because everything that lives experiences trauma, exempting the traumatized from social rules simply removes social rules entirely.”

“And the real twist of the knife, from where I’m standing, is that a lot of people really could benefit a great deal from therapy. It’s not a tool that can address every problem; in fact, most human problems are not addressable via therapy. The way that the tool of therapy has become this all-purpose symbol of aspiring to live healthier and more authentic lives is very unfortunate. But that doesn’t undermine the fact that there are a lot of people who could use a regular and structured experience in self-exploration, addressing persistent emotional and personal problems, guided by a trained professional. (Unfortunately, the people who need it most are often the least likely to get it, while the most likely to get it are often the ones most likely to misuse its processes and insights.) I don’t want to be a therapy basher; I want to rescue therapy from therapeutic culture. And I also want people to think about how deeply dangerous it is, to create this [self-interest] excuse architecture for people to care only about themselves, to believe that what’s best for them and what’s medically necessary and what’s socially just are all and always the same."

 

[ghostguy123]

Do the therapists need therapy?

 

[rockaction]

Do the therapists need therapy?

Oh, I don’t doubt it one bit. I think it might part of the gig.

Ever see the show In Treatment on HBO? The therapist needed therapy, for sure.

 

[ghostguy123]

Id agree with the idea that people are made to think they need therapy when they don't.
The more people can accomplish with as little help as possible, the stronger they will be.

It's sort of like the idea of babies learning to self sooth from very early on.

Sometimes help is needed, but getting help when it's not needed is detrimental to growth IMO.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Do the therapists need therapy?

sometimes, sure

 

[Truebluey]

I think you have some good points Rock. Reiff anticipated this development a while back. Can't say I agree with all his arguments, but it's worth a read:

https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Therapeutic-Background-Essential-Conservative/dp/1932236805

 

[Mitchie]

Do the therapists need therapy?

Almost always, usually get into the profession because they have their own issues trying to figure out.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Do the therapists need therapy?

Almost always, usually get into the profession because they have their own issues trying to figure out.

Not sure that “usually” can really be applied here

 

[rockaction]

I believe there are 2 problems with our current approach to mental health services:

1. I think there is a law of diminishing returns to counseling and psychotherapy and that people get stuck hoping for someone else to fix things for them. It gets to the point that without the person moving themselves forward they will never get better. Therapists, counselors, psychiatrists, etc. have no incentive to actually get people fully recovered. Not saying most of them aren't trying, but I'd imagine a handful are content to just keep billing their clients week after week.
2. Having mental health problems is now an "in" thing. I believe this causes two problems in that people are actively looking for it in themselves so much that it causes conditions that weren't actually there before and people are embracing the victim mentality to generate excuses for lazy or selfish behavior. I've personally seen in myself that there is a fine line between laziness and depression and no one on the outside can probably tell the difference.

Stigmatizing mental health (especially severe depression and PTSD) was a bad problem in our society, but the pendulum has swung back too far, IMO.

DeBoer says exactly this in the essay I just posted. Both the cost model and the reaffirmation are serious problems according to him.

I don’t know how I missed your post the first time around. It is prescient, well thought-out, and in my opinion accurate.

After Chance died, I went to a couple therapy sessions with a grief counselor. It did not help me at all, and in fact made me feel worse. So I stopped and haven’t been back. Now, over ten years later, my wife still goes. It has helped her. I guess I offer this just to say that people suffering similar life challenges can experience different outcomes from therapy, and that we should be careful to avoid broad generalizations about this experience or that experience not requiring or benefiting from therapy. I’m not saying this to criticize the general premise of the thread, and must admit to harboring my own less than empathetic reactions to folks who have so many advantages and blessings when I see them complain about struggling mentally. But I do try my level best not to judge someone who is seeking help, as I lack the insight into their situation or clinical expertise to reach anything even close to an informed conclusion.

This was also a very thoughtful post. I’m sorry I didn’t quote it before. My intent was not to judge anybody for seeking therapy for whatever reason. My problem was with what the adoption of therapeutic goals for one’s self might mean for others. DeBoer nailed what I was getting at in his essay. It’s cultural winds more than personal ones that I had and have a problem with. It’s not that I’m diminishing anybody’s pain or saying that anybody needs or doesn’t need therapy (although I would not consider myself a full relativist in that sense, either). It’s that the message of modern therapy is often in conflict with a good and just society that attends to others as well as one’s self.

To wit: I don’t make a ton of moral judgments about acts that remain definitely consensual (I think various BDSM things go way too far and are soul-killing even if agreed upon), but I do make judgments about acts that harm others when done deliberately. So I don’t judge people for going or seeking help, but I do blame them for adopting an ideology that “centers” the self above all else, and goes further in stating that feeling good or right is the ultimate goal in life and should be pursued at all costs. You point this out so well in your next post from the one I just quoted, and I’ll take a look at the talks you’ve linked to.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

To wit: I don’t make a ton of moral judgments about acts that remain definitely consensual (I think various BDSM things go way too far and are soul-killing even if agreed upon), but I do make judgments about acts that harm others when done deliberately. So I don’t judge people for going or seeking help, but I do blame them for adopting an ideology that “centers” the self above all else, and goes further in stating that feeling good or right is the ultimate goal in life and should be pursued at all costs. You point this out so well in your next post from the one I just quoted, and I’ll take a look at the talks you’ve linked to.

What is the ultimate goal in life?

 

[bigbottom]

I believe there are 2 problems with our current approach to mental health services:

1. I think there is a law of diminishing returns to counseling and psychotherapy and that people get stuck hoping for someone else to fix things for them. It gets to the point that without the person moving themselves forward they will never get better. Therapists, counselors, psychiatrists, etc. have no incentive to actually get people fully recovered. Not saying most of them aren't trying, but I'd imagine a handful are content to just keep billing their clients week after week.
2. Having mental health problems is now an "in" thing. I believe this causes two problems in that people are actively looking for it in themselves so much that it causes conditions that weren't actually there before and people are embracing the victim mentality to generate excuses for lazy or selfish behavior. I've personally seen in myself that there is a fine line between laziness and depression and no one on the outside can probably tell the difference.

Stigmatizing mental health (especially severe depression and PTSD) was a bad problem in our society, but the pendulum has swung back too far, IMO.

DeBoer says exactly this in the essay I just posted. Both the cost model and the reaffirmation are serious problems according to him.

I don’t know how I missed your post the first time around. It is prescient, well thought-out, and in my opinion accurate.

After Chance died, I went to a couple therapy sessions with a grief counselor. It did not help me at all, and in fact made me feel worse. So I stopped and haven’t been back. Now, over ten years later, my wife still goes. It has helped her. I guess I offer this just to say that people suffering similar life challenges can experience different outcomes from therapy, and that we should be careful to avoid broad generalizations about this experience or that experience not requiring or benefiting from therapy. I’m not saying this to criticize the general premise of the thread, and must admit to harboring my own less than empathetic reactions to folks who have so many advantages and blessings when I see them complain about struggling mentally. But I do try my level best not to judge someone who is seeking help, as I lack the insight into their situation or clinical expertise to reach anything even close to an informed conclusion.

This was also a very thoughtful post. I’m sorry I didn’t quote it before. My intent was not to judge anybody for seeking therapy for whatever reason. My problem was with what the adoption of therapeutic goals for one’s self might mean for others. DeBoer nailed what I was getting at in his essay. It’s cultural winds more than personal ones that I had and have a problem with. It’s not that I’m diminishing anybody’s pain or saying that anybody needs or doesn’t need therapy (although I would not consider myself a full relativist in that sense, either). It’s that the message of modern therapy is often in conflict with a good and just society that attends to others as well as one’s self.

To wit: I don’t make a ton of moral judgments about acts that remain definitely consensual (I think various BDSM things go way too far and are soul-killing even if agreed upon), but I do make judgments about acts that harm others when done deliberately. So I don’t judge people for going or seeking help, but I do blame them for adopting an ideology that “centers” the self above all else, and goes further in stating that feeling good or right is the ultimate goal in life and should be pursued at all costs. You point this out so well in your next post from the one I just quoted, and I’ll take a look at the talks you’ve linked to.

Appreciate the thoughtful reply, and please do check out that video (the full talk is worth watching). It isn’t groundbreaking or anything, and actually comes across as common sense more than anything, but somehow the simple truth that is the thesis (we need to experience or even embrace the difficult feelings we are presented with in order to have a meaningful life) was impactful for me.

 

[rockaction]

What is the ultimate goal in life?

The pursuit of a bliss that is mindful of others, which will likely never be achieved by mortals like us?

Serious answer and I learned this from wikkid (sage). The ultimate goal in life is to do unto others as you would do unto yourself. I cannot think of a better maxim or decree that is also quite as impossibly aspirational. Yet it is a goal that is quite as good and infused with a plea for grace as any other maxim is.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

What is the ultimate goal in life?

The pursuit of a bliss that is mindful of others, which will likely never be achieved by mortals like us?

Serious answer and I learned this from wikkid (sage). The ultimate goal in life is to do unto others as you would do unto yourself. I cannot think of a better maxim or decree that is also quite as impossibly aspirational. Yet it is a goal that is quite as good and infused with a plea for grace as any other maxim is.

What if you can’t do unto others as you would to yourself because you can’t be kind to yourself in the first place? therapy is a really broad set of items, so it’s hard to talk about it as a monolith, but in general, I don’t think it’s ultimately about some narcissistic project. Being the best you can to other people first requires having your own identity and being the best version of yourself. Otherwise, you are just doing for the collective.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I have to admit I used to have a stigma about therapy but then heard somebody explain it simply. We have doctors or specialists for our eyes, ears, nose, knees, teeth, reproductive organs, brains, spines and I could go on. Why not for our mental health?

Had a crypto bro & his wife over for dinner last week, and I brought this up.

We have greater awareness of the importance of mental health. But the stigma remains. Like I know I'm just better off being highly selective who I disclose to that I am mentally ill.

If I had a bunion or a heart condition, I would have to be pretty self-absorbed to drop that info into conversations. But my immediate family would know about it. If I went to an extended family gathering, it might come up. "Hey, great news, my cardiologist said...." But I would never speak with the same kind of freedom about what my therapist and I were working on, or what my drug dealer psychiatrist is currently offering.

"It's OK to not be OK" is ubiquitous these days, but talking about it like you might talk about seeing any medical specialists simply does not happen. It is what it is, but it can feel like you're carrying this burden alone, nobody else is dealing with this. Which is absurd - one in five Americans has a treatable mental health condition.

My combat trauma induced the very common (for veterans) trifecta of anxiety, depression and PTSD. I have learned how to effectively manage my mental illness so I can lead a productive life. But there is no end game. It is treatable but not curable, which can put you on a quite a loop if you dwell on it. I just know if I take meds and do like 8 other things (talk therapy-hydrate-nutrition-exercise-meditate-relaxation activities-creative outlets-CBT/DBT e.g. use my tools when distressed) then things will go better for me.

But normalizing mental health treatment as a conversation topic....yeah, that ain't happening anytime soon.

---

Sorry for the diatribe....anyway, thought it was pretty cool that my friend (former D-1 athlete, manages FinTech group at a hedge fund), who has an alpha persona and is hyper competitive, felt comfortable enough in sharing - in vague talk around terms - his mental health struggles and how much therapy helped him function better. That's after a year of investing time with them through our small group at church and meeting up for dinners. It wasn't said but I knew that was a big step for him to decide to be vulnerable and disclose.

 

[BobbyLayne]

What is the ultimate goal in life?

The Westminster first catechism:

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Or as Augustine distilled it

Love God, and do as you please.

Spoiler: what's that supposed to mean

It sounds like a license to live a double life. However, Augustine made this point when preaching on 1 John 4:4-12, where John calls us to love, because love is of God, and because God first loved us. Augustine’s full quotation was,

“Love God and do whatever you please: for the soul trained in love to God will do nothing to offend the One who is Beloved.”

IOW, the person trained to love God will (try) not do anything that offends God.

His will for us? Love Him.

Alright lemme outta here....

edit word

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I have to admit I used to have a stigma about therapy but then heard somebody explain it simply. We have doctors or specialists for our eyes, ears, nose, knees, teeth, reproductive organs, brains, spines and I could go on. Why not for our mental health?

The answer to this is that we already do have specialists for our brains: neurologists.

Therapists and psychologists aren't scientists. They're more like clergy. Which is fine -- it's not as if I have anything against clergy -- but let's not make them out to be something that they're not.

 

[Captain Cranks]

The answer to this is that we already do have specialists for our brains: neurologists.

Therapists and psychologists aren't scientists. They're more like clergy. Which is fine -- it's not as if I have anything against clergy -- but let's not make them out to be something that they're not.

Neurology and psychology are different fields of study that are closely related and can overlap:

• Neurology
  Focuses on the nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, and nerve ganglia, and how it controls the body's functions. Neurologists diagnose, treat, and research nervous diseases like epilepsy, stroke, migraine, and dementia. They also study the structure, functioning, and dysfunction of the nervous system.
• Psychology
  Focuses on the human mind and behavior, including cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects. Psychologists study how people interact with others, develop, and adapt to the world, and how they think, feel, and behave. They also observe mental processes like perception, attention, memory, and motivation.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I have to admit I used to have a stigma about therapy but then heard somebody explain it simply. We have doctors or specialists for our eyes, ears, nose, knees, teeth, reproductive organs, brains, spines and I could go on. Why not for our mental health?

The answer to this is that we already do have specialists for our brains: neurologists.

Therapists and psychologists aren't scientists. They're more like clergy. Which is fine -- it's not as if I have anything against clergy -- but let's not make them out to be something that they're not.

Your post is disingenuous - nobody is claiming you should forego seeing a neurologist if you have a brain issue. That’s not what we are talking about and you know it.

*this is the exact kind of response you love to give now - would have been exact if I tossed in gaslighting

I know that's not what we're talking about. We're also not talking about ophthalmology, osteopathy, or other medical specialties. Neurology is the medical specialty that fits your analogy.

In other words, eyes are to ophthalmology as brains are to neurology. That's the analogy.

 

[Ilov80s]

The more people can accomplish with as little help as possible, the stronger they will be.

Stronger maybe but better? Happier? I really don’t know. We are social beings and that seems like a pretty anti-communal idea. I get where you are coming from in the sense that parents who do everything for their kids create dependent kids with no confidence and no skills. That said, that belief could also become harmful if taken to a certain level. Balance in everything is probably the right approach. Not sure just thinking aloud.

 

[kupcho1]

a supposed "white male guy" show

An older white male guy show.

 

[D_House]

I view mental health counselors/therapists similarly to physical therapists: they are part of the treatment team and their role is to help the patient develop tools to use at home/ in their day-to-day to help with addressing their mental/physical condition. Sometimes (often?) they are all that is needed, and the majority of the time for a short prescribed course.

In general I see better outcomes when the treatment plan is more specific and problem-focused and when the patient puts in the effort to use what they learn during their consultations.

 

[FBG Moderator]

Please keep this on the topic and not the little swipes at other posters. Thanks.

This can be a good thread. Please don't ruin it.

 

[ghostguy123]

The more people can accomplish with as little help as possible, the stronger they will be.

Stronger maybe but better? Happier? I really don’t know. We are social beings and that seems like a pretty anti-communal idea. I get where you are coming from in the sense that parents who do everything for their kids create dependent kids with no confidence and no skills. That said, that belief could also become harmful if taken to a certain level. Balance in everything is probably the right approach. Not sure just thinking aloud.

Yes, overall I would say both better and happier.
It's sort of like an investment where your initial happiness may not be as high but as time goes on it will be higher and higher.

I also didn't say don't be social or talk to people. Not sure what that has to do with what I said.

I also didn't mention anything about being extreme and never seeking assistance. I said don't seek assistance when you don't need to.

 

[Ilov80s]

The more people can accomplish with as little help as possible, the stronger they will be.

Stronger maybe but better? Happier? I really don’t know. We are social beings and that seems like a pretty anti-communal idea. I get where you are coming from in the sense that parents who do everything for their kids create dependent kids with no confidence and no skills. That said, that belief could also become harmful if taken to a certain level. Balance in everything is probably the right approach. Not sure just thinking aloud.

Yes, overall I would say both better and happier.
It's sort of like an investment where your initial happiness may not be as high but as time goes on it will be higher and higher.

I get the idea and certainly agree to an extent but there needs to be balance. I don’t think being raised to think you need to do things by yourself or you are weak is any healthier than being raised to depend on others.

 

[ghostguy123]

The more people can accomplish with as little help as possible, the stronger they will be.

Stronger maybe but better? Happier? I really don’t know. We are social beings and that seems like a pretty anti-communal idea. I get where you are coming from in the sense that parents who do everything for their kids create dependent kids with no confidence and no skills. That said, that belief could also become harmful if taken to a certain level. Balance in everything is probably the right approach. Not sure just thinking aloud.

Yes, overall I would say both better and happier.
It's sort of like an investment where your initial happiness may not be as high but as time goes on it will be higher and higher.

I get the idea and certainly agree to an extent but there needs to be balance. I don’t think being raised to think you need to do things by yourself or you are weak is any healthier than being raised to depend on others.

I never advocated for the idea to make people think they are weak if they seek help.
I'm advocating for people to seek help only when they actually NEED it, and over time you will be much stronger, better, happier.........and probably even in a place where you can actually help other people when THEY need it.

 

[Dezbelief]

psychologists aren't scientists

This is false.

 

[Ilov80s]

The more people can accomplish with as little help as possible, the stronger they will be.

Stronger maybe but better? Happier? I really don’t know. We are social beings and that seems like a pretty anti-communal idea. I get where you are coming from in the sense that parents who do everything for their kids create dependent kids with no confidence and no skills. That said, that belief could also become harmful if taken to a certain level. Balance in everything is probably the right approach. Not sure just thinking aloud.

Yes, overall I would say both better and happier.
It's sort of like an investment where your initial happiness may not be as high but as time goes on it will be higher and higher.

I get the idea and certainly agree to an extent but there needs to be balance. I don’t think being raised to think you need to do things by yourself or you are weak is any healthier than being raised to depend on others.

I never advocated for the idea to make people think they are weak if they seek help.
I'm advocating for people to seek help only when they actually NEED it, and over time you will be much stronger, better, happier.........and probably even in a place where you can actually help other people when THEY need it.

Absolutely doing things for people who are totally capable of those things themselves is bad practice. Conversely, people who don’t seek help when they need is bad practice. There are many cases where it’s obvious which situation something is. However, so much is within a grey area where we don’t know. Some people are quicker to ask for help, some are far more hesitant. Both can be helpful or detrimental depending on the scenario. I know you mentioned self soothing for babies but even with that, babies generally need help to learn how self soothing. There are all kinds of good practices to get babies there, it’s not something you just let them figure out on their own. I guess imo the real key is self knowledge so that you are aware of what you can handle on your own and what you can’t, plus the determination to follow through what needs to be done either way.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

psychologists aren't scientists

This is false.

There's a STEM corner of psychology, but that isn't the corner that produces counselors and therapists. That part of psychology is no more of a "science" than economics or sociology. In other words, if you consider the other behavioral sciences to be real science, then sure you should toss psychology in there too. I don't think any of them qualify.

 

[Captain Cranks]

There's a STEM corner of psychology, but that isn't the corner that produces counselors and therapists. That part of psychology is no more of a "science" than economics or sociology. In other words, if you consider the other behavioral sciences to be real science, then sure you should toss psychology in there too. I don't think any of them qualify.

Therapists and psychologists apply the science learned by researchers in psychology just like a medical doctor applies science learned by medical research.

 

[Dezbelief]

I don't think any of them qualify.

Regardless of your personal feelings psychologists are scientists.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think any of them qualify.

Regardless of your personal feelings psychologists are scientists.

I'll make sure to tell my psychology faculty that their understanding of their discipline is wrong.

Edit: I'll drop this one because I know I'm arguing with people about the color of the sky. But if anybody is curious, here is a browsable list of CIP codes, which is the system we use to catalog academic disciplines. Here is what I think is a current list of CIP codes designated as STEM by DHS for immigration purposes. As you can see, they define "STEM" very broadly. General psychology and nearly all counseling disciplines don't make the cut, and that's not at all controversial.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I'll make sure to tell my psychology faculty that their understanding of their discipline is wrong.

Actually, if you could take this to them and get them to point out where it's wrong, I'd appreciate it.

"Psychology is considered a science because it uses the scientific method and empirical data to study human behavior and mental processes. Psychologists use research findings to guide their professional practice and solve problems to improve lives. Psychological studies are designed similarly to other scientific fields, and psychologists use a variety of approaches to collect and analyze data, including experiments, surveys, observation, and statistical analysis. The scientific method used by psychologists includes: Formulating hypotheses, Conducting controlled experiments, Drawing conclusions based on collected data, Determining correlation and causation, and Manipulating the independent variable and measuring the effects on another."

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Please keep this on the topic and not the little swipes at other posters. Thanks.

This can be a good thread. Please don't ruin it.

What swipes?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I'll make sure to tell my psychology faculty that their understanding of their discipline is wrong.

Actually, if you could take this to them and get them to point out where it's wrong, I'd appreciate it.

"Psychology is considered a science because it uses the scientific method and empirical data to study human behavior and mental processes. Psychologists use research findings to guide their professional practice and solve problems to improve lives. Psychological studies are designed similarly to other scientific fields, and psychologists use a variety of approaches to collect and analyze data, including experiments, surveys, observation, and statistical analysis. The scientific method used by psychologists includes: Formulating hypotheses, Conducting controlled experiments, Drawing conclusions based on collected data, Determining correlation and causation, and Manipulating the independent variable and measuring the effects on another."

But a lot of therapist and counselors might not fit into this bucket. I agree that many are trying to follow researched approaches, but there’s also a very individualized component to therapy with a lot of trial and error. I would be interested in a separate discussion of what constitutes a science, but I feel like therapists are often as much artists as scientists. And I don’t say that to put them down at all.

I still come back to earlier point that the field of mental health is so broad that we really should be trying to break down what we are talking about a little more discretely in order to have a more productive discussion.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

As an ardent individualist, this is not the conclusion that I ever saw myself drawing, but I can't deny what's in front of my own two eyes.

This is going to sound really stupid, but my law school entrance essay was about autonomy and individuality vs. community and shared being. Given who I'd worked for and the record I'd left, I sort of had to explicitly state that I'd found the sort of radical individualism assumed proper in my previous circles was lacking something very serious, and that as radically individualist as I might seem from my record, there was a communitarian streak developing in me as I got older and watched things going the way they were both on a macro level and in my own life.

It could be a function of aging, IK. We are more vulnerable as we age and we're closer to death. We depend more on the status quo than those starting out. That might have something to do with it, too.

What is the ultimate goal in life?

The pursuit of a bliss that is mindful of others, which will likely never be achieved by mortals like us?

Serious answer and I learned this from wikkid (sage). The ultimate goal in life is to do unto others as you would do unto yourself. I cannot think of a better maxim or decree that is also quite as impossibly aspirational. Yet it is a goal that is quite as good and infused with a plea for grace as any other maxim is.

I was actually a little surprised that you gave the answer you did about the ultimate goal of life, knowing what little I do about you, but going back to the beginning of the thread and seeing the post about communitarianism, it makes more sense now.

 

[Dezbelief]

I don't think any of them qualify.

Regardless of your personal feelings psychologists are scientists.

I'll make sure to tell my psychology faculty that their understanding of their discipline is wrong.

Edit: I'll drop this one because I know I'm arguing with people about the color of the sky. But if anybody is curious, here is a browsable list of CIP codes, which is the system we use to catalog academic disciplines. Here is what I think is a current list of CIP codes designated as STEM by DHS for immigration purposes. As you can see, they define "STEM" very broadly. General psychology and nearly all counseling disciplines don't make the cut, and that's not at all controversial.

You need to view page 16 of your second link. Psychology is indeed included as a STEM.
42.2704 Experimental Psychology.
42 42.2705 Personality Psychology.
42 42.2706 Behavioral Neuroscience.
42 42.2707 Social Psychology.
42 42.2708 Psychometrics and Quantitative Psychology.
42 42.2709 Psychopharmacology.
42 42.2799 Research and Experimental Psychology, Other.
42 42.2804 Industrial and Organizational Psychology.





Also as a professor I'm sure you are familiar with the National Science Foundation that handles government grants? They also include psychology as STEM.

Regardless of anyone's personal feelings Psychology is indeed a science.

 

[Dezbelief]

Is a physicist not a scientist? Does a physicist stop being a scientist when they apply their studies in the real world? A psychologist is a scientist applying their field of study in the real world.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think any of them qualify.

Regardless of your personal feelings psychologists are scientists.

I'll make sure to tell my psychology faculty that their understanding of their discipline is wrong.

Edit: I'll drop this one because I know I'm arguing with people about the color of the sky. But if anybody is curious, here is a browsable list of CIP codes, which is the system we use to catalog academic disciplines. Here is what I think is a current list of CIP codes designated as STEM by DHS for immigration purposes. As you can see, they define "STEM" very broadly. General psychology and nearly all counseling disciplines don't make the cut, and that's not at all controversial.

You need to view page 16 of your second link. Psychology is indeed included as a STEM.
42.2704 Experimental Psychology.
42 42.2705 Personality Psychology.
42 42.2706 Behavioral Neuroscience.
42 42.2707 Social Psychology.
42 42.2708 Psychometrics and Quantitative Psychology.
42 42.2709 Psychopharmacology.
42 42.2799 Research and Experimental Psychology, Other.
42 42.2804 Industrial and Organizational Psychology.





Also as a professor I'm sure you are familiar with the National Science Foundation that handles government grants? They also include psychology as STEM.

Regardless of anyone's personal feelings Psychology is indeed a science.

I know. I said that in the very first clause of the very first sentence right here:

psychologists aren't scientists

This is false.

There's a STEM corner of psychology, but that isn't the corner that produces counselors and therapists. That part of psychology is no more of a "science" than economics or sociology. In other words, if you consider the other behavioral sciences to be real science, then sure you should toss psychology in there too. I don't think any of them qualify.

And then I linked to a couple of documents that show exactly that. I know what I'm talking about in this domain.

"Not a science" doesn't mean "bad" or "worthless." I don't consider my own discipline a science, and neither does DHS* -- that's fine, because economics isn't really a science. I'm a practicing Christian, so obviously I do not mean it as an insult when I point out that pastors aren't generally scientists, unless they just so happened to be one in a prior career. Same with therapists and counselors. You seem to be taking this as some sort of personal slight, and I don't have the slightest idea why. (Edit: To be 100% clear, it's not intended as a slight).

* Probably worth noting that econometrics gets classified as STEM, but that's M, not S.

 

[Dezbelief]

I don't think any of them qualify.

Regardless of your personal feelings psychologists are scientists.

I'll make sure to tell my psychology faculty that their understanding of their discipline is wrong.

Edit: I'll drop this one because I know I'm arguing with people about the color of the sky. But if anybody is curious, here is a browsable list of CIP codes, which is the system we use to catalog academic disciplines. Here is what I think is a current list of CIP codes designated as STEM by DHS for immigration purposes. As you can see, they define "STEM" very broadly. General psychology and nearly all counseling disciplines don't make the cut, and that's not at all controversial.

You need to view page 16 of your second link. Psychology is indeed included as a STEM.
42.2704 Experimental Psychology.
42 42.2705 Personality Psychology.
42 42.2706 Behavioral Neuroscience.
42 42.2707 Social Psychology.
42 42.2708 Psychometrics and Quantitative Psychology.
42 42.2709 Psychopharmacology.
42 42.2799 Research and Experimental Psychology, Other.
42 42.2804 Industrial and Organizational Psychology.





Also as a professor I'm sure you are familiar with the National Science Foundation that handles government grants? They also include psychology as STEM.

Regardless of anyone's personal feelings Psychology is indeed a science.

I know. I said that in the very first clause of the very first sentence right here:

psychologists aren't scientists

This is false.

There's a STEM corner of psychology, but that isn't the corner that produces counselors and therapists. That part of psychology is no more of a "science" than economics or sociology. In other words, if you consider the other behavioral sciences to be real science, then sure you should toss psychology in there too. I don't think any of them qualify.

And then I linked to a couple of documents that show exactly that. I know what I'm talking about in this domain.

"Not a science" doesn't mean "bad" or "worthless." I don't consider my own discipline a science, and neither does DHS* -- that's fine, because economics isn't really a science. I'm a practicing Christian, so obviously I do not mean it as an insult when I point out that pastors aren't generally scientists, unless they just so happened to be one in a prior career. Same with therapists and counselors. You seem to be taking this as some sort of personal slight, and I don't have the slightest idea why.

* Probably worth noting that econometrics gets classified as STEM, but that's M, not S.

The DHS not allowing in general psychologists is because we don't have a shortage of them.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I think it's helpful when people who have strong opinions about things actually have experience with said things. Otherwise we're stuck trying to reconcile real experiences and generally accepted principles with ideas in their head.