Disenchantment with science

Plenty of stuff to discuss in the world, with the focus on causes
brucew
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:01 am

Post by brucew »

Mojo,

I have the van der Hart paper as a Word document. I'll send it to you if you send me a note to brwilson@sympatico.ca.

Bruce

Mojo

Post by Mojo »

Thanks for the offer, Bruce. It seems I clicked on the link to the other van der Hart paper. The one you had in mind is actually avaible as a web page:

http://www.trauma-pages.com/a/vdhart-92.php

My apologies. Thanks.

* Mojo *

Mojo

Post by Mojo »

In the Conclusions to the "The Vietnam War and it's Wake" section the authors wrote:
Since Janet, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that in most cases of posttraumatic stress, particularly chronic disorders, treating the traumatic memories alone (whether by abreaction or by any other approach) is insufficient. It was only during the Vietnam era and its wake that well-developed stage-oriented treatment models were developed. Their common, overall goal, independent of the theoretical school, was the integration of the personality.
Is that the conclusion you've come to also?

* Mojo *

Guest

Post by Guest »

This paper which reviews abreactive therapies doesn't mention primal
therapy at all. At least I didn't see any mention after going over it very quickly. To me, that is a huge oversight.
My own conclusion is that the other abreactive therapies just do not go deep enough to resolve much or even to get the "primal process" started.

Phil

brucew
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:01 am

Post by brucew »

Phil is right. Other therapists (let's call them the left-brainers) don't understand the true meaning of "abreaction." They theorize about the importance of integration, but they don't understand what full reliving is all about.

Bruce
Last edited by brucew on Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

Bernard
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am

Post by Bernard »

In The Matrix, people who take The Red Pill see the true situation - and it ain't pretty. The movie is fiction of course - because an advanced intelligence wouldn't create such a hugely wasteful system (war, genocide, etc). It really does look to me as if something has gone very badly wrong in the evolution of the human brain. Contrary to what a lot of cognitive scientists seem to think, the human brain is not something to be proud of. I was reading through the "Religious Backlash" topic again.....
ian copeland wrote:It strikes me that the notion that modern society can't maintain psychological health and good conduct without the intervention of highly educated 'experts' is a totally crippling mindset in itself.
It's like people in the 16th-18th centuries being unable to decide if they were in the presence of a witch unless an appropriately qualified theologian came along with a copy of the Malleus Maleficarum (or DSM in today's parlance).

If you take The Red Pill you'll see that these experts are simply trying to bolster a sick system for the convenience of the sociopaths who run the whole show. Nobody, but nobody, should admire anyone in the psychology industry who fails to see that major social changes will be needed if the continuing rise in levels of mental illness is to be halted. The "decade of the brain" hasn't halted it. Fancy new patented medications haven't done it. And the spiralling output of licensed therapists hasn't done it.
Bernard

Cesar Tort

Post by Cesar Tort »

Bernard wrote:If you take The Red Pill you'll see that these experts are simply trying to bolster a sick system for the convenience of the sociopaths who run the whole show. Nobody, but nobody, should admire anyone in the psychology industry who fails to see that major social changes will be needed...
This is the best criticism of psychology, psychoanalysis and psychiatry I?ve seen in this forum. Actually I wrote a whole essay on this Matrix lines a while ago (in Spanish).

Academic psychology is a real shame. I have met Mario Bunge personally and it distresses me a lot that he and the skeptical community that debunk pseudosciences are totally blind about it. Take a look at this post of mine.

Bernard
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am

Post by Bernard »

Cesar:
Thanks for the positive remark. Regarding primal therapy.... Janov's explanation for the root cause of psychological problems sounds similar to Alice Miller's views.... but I don't buy the idea that Janov's techniques are a crucial element in healing.... techniques that no other empathic therapist has been able to match (except under Janov's supervision!!!). If a former Janov patient turns up who completed his therapy in the timespan that Arthur Janov originally promised, and who has a pleasant personality, and who is willing to share the specifics of his life history, not just generalized waffle, then I might become less skeptical. But when people say "It works because I say so" it's a reminder that cult members say exactly the same about the ideologies which guide their lives. In the topic "What makes a Forum popular?" I posted a link to an article about the limitations of primal therapy by the lady who started the AAaCworld website.
Bernard

Bernard
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am

Post by Bernard »

Forgive me for not getting fired up about Bunge.... an Argentinian philosopher and physicist! To go to sleep at night some people count sheep. I count the names of philosophers. So I didn't take a look at your second link until today, assuming it was more of the same. It turns out your friend John Modrow hit the nail on the head for virtually all skeptic websites on the net.... "a bunch of intellectual cowards who spend their time beating up fringe beliefs and marginal crackpots." Easy targets. I haven't seen skeptics look deeply into controversies between scientists about poor quality evidence for whatever theory is currently in vogue. Most skeptics seem to be the kind of fluffy-headed bimbos who say if it's orthodox among "real" scientists it must be correct. Anyone who's not ignorant of the history of science knows that orthodoxies come and go.... Don't tell me about Popper or Khun, I already know (Zzzzzzzzzzzz). Yeah, I've noticed brown nosed skeptics lambast Szasz, Breggin and others. In fact, skeptics are not really educated on the subject until they've read Thomas Szasz's The Manufacture of Madness.
Bernard

Cesar Tort

Post by Cesar Tort »

Yes: The Manufacture of Madness is my favorite Szasz book. However, he got soporific with The Myth of Mental Illness, which demonstrates that mankind is so stupid? (Fans of opaque prose are just transferring to cult-like figures.)

What infuriated me the most about that 2006 Skeptical Inquirer article is that before that year I sent lots of personal communications to the guys who run that magazine, whom I know personally, and they ignored my letters and even my scholarly paper. They just behaved as ?gullible skeptics? deferring like little children all judgment to ?experts? in shrink ?science?. To understand my frustration I had to explain how thanks to CSICOPers I became a skeptic after skepticism saved me from a cult. Long story to explain here. I?ve written an article about it though.

The level of stupidity in the academia is just amazing. Yesterday I was reviewing the wiki article on Kant and told to myself how on Earth is it possible that educated people got infatuated with The Critique of Pure Reason, with thousands of scholastic commentaries, when important books such as the XVI century The Conquest of New Spain, a fascinating account of the clash of infanticidal and non infanticidal psycho-classes, are seldom read.

My conclusion is that academics, and many non-academics but fairly educated people, are dissociated Mr. Spocks. They have been Vulcan-trained by their parents and in school and are panic-driven entities regarding emotions, even when the emotions of our true selves are the only way to salvation.

Cesar Tort

Post by Cesar Tort »

Oops! I posted above the link to the Spanish article about the cult, not the English one:

http://eschatology-the.blogspot.com/

Phil
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:31 am

Post by Phil »

Something continually confused is the idea that Janov or therapists at his center are the only ones who practice primal therapy.

Primal was actually independently discovered and is practiced by others. That can be seen in articles at the Primal Page website, which hardly has any literature by Janov or his trained therapists.
Unfortunately, views are often formed on primal, based upon "triggering" statements Janov has made, rather than the value of his therapy or theories, or the many valuable contributions of others.
I don't imagine I could convince anyone on primal, but there are just so many misconceptions. At least Miller speaks from her own experiences with a type of primal therapy, so her statements are certainly worth considering.

Phil

Cesar Tort

Post by Cesar Tort »

Hi Phil,

I have no objections about what Dennis explained a few days ago; it?s the therapeutic side of all sort of therapies, nor only primal, what concerns me. Have you read Jeffrey Masson?s Against Therapy?

Bernard
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am

Post by Bernard »

In the hard sciences, like physics, chemistry and physiology, there are areas of knowledge which can be reliably demonstrated by replicable experiments. Other fields of study labeled "science" aren't that solid. Psychological problems are a real phenomenon, but very few of them are legitimately the province of medicine. Proven neurological problems are treated by neurologists. Psychiatry is the dustbin. Psychs speculate about genetic causation without having any treatments to offer apart from pushing drugs.... "We have drugs, so we'll tell them it's chemical imbalances that cause the problems." It has been proven that a few psychological problems are caused by environmental toxins like mercury and lead.... that leaves the majority of psychological problems. Most psychological problems (apart from the ones treated by neurologists) are caused by unkind/deranged humans treating other humans badly. Physical torture is something done by highly trained military personnel in Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraib.... and sometimes by unkind/deranged parents too. It goes without saying that psychological abuse is more common.

It has been pointed out on this forum that Freudian psychoanalysis was the vogue among medically qualified psychiatrists until well into the second half of the 20th century.... with all the circular arguments that entailed. Genetic determinism has taken over, and Freud is now scorned. What better example could you ask for from recent times. Skeptics who say scientific orthodoxies shouldn't be questioned are treating science as a religion.... exhibiting the same mentality as followers of orthodox religions.
Bernard

Phil
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:31 am

Post by Phil »

Hi Cesar,

I read that book by Jeffrey Masson, but it was a long time ago. It didn't really strike a chord with me although I could agree with some of the ideas expressed. For example, I can agree that the credentials and training of many therapists do not indicate their ability to help anyone.
Yet I feel that there are therapists with skills and qualities which enable them to help people. And there is something useful about setting up a therapist - patient relationship. More can be done in such a relationship than friends can do for each other.
I know that I have been helped by therapists myself and have not had a bad experience. But I know that a person who was very helpful for me may be of no use to someone else.
After a while in the healing process, it is necessary to get beyond the use of therapists, and I wouldn't deny that some people might be able to do with out them altogether.


Phil

Locked