Is Therapy a Crock?


Robert Baratheon

Recommended Posts

I'm suspicious of all such "studies" and "research," probably reported by people who don't know suspicious or how to be suspicious.

--Brant

Yes, question everything. But try stuff, see what works...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm enjoying this discussion, thank you Robert for starting it. My only experience with therapy was Nathaniel in 1977 when I was 28-29. I had a very positive life changing experience due to the insights gained. Nathaniel is a very kind man but he didn't sugar coat his observations in the group so I did have my feelings hurt at least once. But I learned an important lesson about how I come off to others and it has served me well since. My therapy of choice now is exercise which is better than any drug for anxiety. Amazing what a run or a walk in the woods will do if done regularly.

If you exert yourself to the point of exhaustion to avoid your inner self you've got yourself something of a temporary fix. If you exercise for and to the point of better mental clarity to get the thinking going, that's another kettle of fish.

--Brant

What do you mean by the term "inner self"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Mikee! Great bias confirmation for me.

I don't know about other sports, but there are plenty of examples of hockey players who demonstrated high intelligence and achievement after their playing days. Tim Horton sure got his name out there. Superstar goalie Ken Dryden became a lawyer and author, and his books are excellent. He also performed well in the impossible job of Leafs GM, then entered the easier field of politics where he is now a federal MP.Emile ("the Fox") Francis (inspiration for my Emilie Goalpost advice column) was in fact a goalie who became one of the chief architects of what is now the NHL.

Actually the goalies seem to outnumber other players in this category. Maybe because they git hit in the head less often.

Another factor is education. More and more players choose the college route over going pro at 18. This in itself is intelligent, since most players are not ready for the NHL until their 20s anyway. And unlike college football players, they actually get educated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me of the statement "everything that can be invented has been invented", supposedly by the guy running the patent office a hundred years ago. Obviously someone's imagination is limited and they probably shouldn't be in engineering. I think the law profession has plenty of room for limited imaginations and inflated egos.

That's not obvious at all. You're ignoring the possibility - nay, the plain reality - that most technological advancement occurs through stochastic tinkering - incremental improvements upon proven concepts through trial and error. No engineer sits down at a desk one day and dreams up the flux capacitor or free-energy perpetuum mobile. Engineers tend to be part of a much larger team and are charged with facilitating one piece of a much larger whole. Actually, the major reasons I prefer law to engineering are the creativity and individualism required by the work - attorneys are often responsible for crafting an entire argument from nothing, by themselves, and persuading a court of its validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law is nothing but "stochastic tinkering". The difference being in engineering first principles cannot be violated; they must be discovered and obeyed. (An idea works and can be demonstrated or it doesn't work). "Creativity" in the law I'm afraid too often consists of obfuscating principle or making up "principles" out of convenience. The attempt by the founding fathers to implement checks and balances in government and identify basic human rights in order to create an environment where people can predict the outcomes of their efforts in a rational environment has largely failed in my opinion. Due to "creativity" in the practice of law.

Nature judges engineers. This "tinkering" will be part of the human race for as long as the human race exists. The DNA of the human endeavor to tame nature. It is certainly not boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law is nothing but "stochastic tinkering". The difference being in engineering first principles cannot be violated; they must be discovered and obeyed. (An idea works and can be demonstrated or it doesn't work). "Creativity" in the law I'm afraid too often consists of obfuscating principle or making up "principles" out of convenience. The attempt by the founding fathers to implement checks and balances in government and identify basic human rights in order to create an environment where people can predict the outcomes of their efforts in a rational environment has largely failed in my opinion. Due to "creativity" in the practice of law.

Nature judges engineers. This "tinkering" will be part of the human race for as long as the human race exists. The DNA of the human endeavor to tame nature. It is certainly not boring.

None of what you describe is the fault of attorneys. It's the fault of legislators and activist judges.

I was never hating on engineers. "It is what it is," as my former boss would say. Both law and engineering have noble goals and principles - if referring to them sustains you and gives you purpose, then all the better. I simply prefer law because I think it requires a lot more creativity to perform the everyday tasks of the profession. I tried engineering - it required intelligence but very little imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law is nothing but "stochastic tinkering". The difference being in engineering first principles cannot be violated; they must be discovered and obeyed. (An idea works and can be demonstrated or it doesn't work). "Creativity" in the law I'm afraid too often consists of obfuscating principle or making up "principles" out of convenience. The attempt by the founding fathers to implement checks and balances in government and identify basic human rights in order to create an environment where people can predict the outcomes of their efforts in a rational environment has largely failed in my opinion. Due to "creativity" in the practice of law.

Nature judges engineers. This "tinkering" will be part of the human race for as long as the human race exists. The DNA of the human endeavor to tame nature. It is certainly not boring.

None of what you describe is the fault of attorneys. It's the fault of legislators and activist judges.

I was never hating on engineers. "It is what it is," as my former boss would say. Both law and engineering have noble goals and principles - if referring to them sustains you and gives you purpose, then all the better. I simply prefer law because I think it requires a lot more creativity to perform the everyday tasks of the profession. I tried engineering - it required intelligence but very little imagination.

Tell that to the guys who invented the transistor than figured out a way of making a lot of transistors cheaply and reliably. Tell that to the guys who invented 3-D printing.

Applied physics -demands- the highest levels of creativity that the human intellect is capable of.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law is nothing but "stochastic tinkering". The difference being in engineering first principles cannot be violated; they must be discovered and obeyed. (An idea works and can be demonstrated or it doesn't work). "Creativity" in the law I'm afraid too often consists of obfuscating principle or making up "principles" out of convenience. The attempt by the founding fathers to implement checks and balances in government and identify basic human rights in order to create an environment where people can predict the outcomes of their efforts in a rational environment has largely failed in my opinion. Due to "creativity" in the practice of law.

Nature judges engineers. This "tinkering" will be part of the human race for as long as the human race exists. The DNA of the human endeavor to tame nature. It is certainly not boring.

None of what you describe is the fault of attorneys. It's the fault of legislators and activist judges.

I was never hating on engineers. "It is what it is," as my former boss would say. Both law and engineering have noble goals and principles - if referring to them sustains you and gives you purpose, then all the better. I simply prefer law because I think it requires a lot more creativity to perform the everyday tasks of the profession. I tried engineering - it required intelligence but very little imagination.

What kind of law do you practice? What are your goals? (besides not being bored and making money) Can you give an example of the day to day creativity you're talking about? Surely there must be a lot of administrative overhead required that doesn't take a lot of creative thinking (perhaps in the avoidance of such I suppose).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of law do you practice? What are your goals? (besides not being bored and making money) Can you give an example of the day to day creativity you're talking about? Surely there must be a lot of administrative overhead required that doesn't take a lot of creative thinking (perhaps in the avoidance of such I suppose).

I practice federal administrative law, which means interpreting regulations. Most of the issues I handle are matters of first impression, so they require analogizing to comparable situations and using persuasive reasoning to convince others why my interpretation should control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of law do you practice? What are your goals? (besides not being bored and making money) Can you give an example of the day to day creativity you're talking about? Surely there must be a lot of administrative overhead required that doesn't take a lot of creative thinking (perhaps in the avoidance of such I suppose).

I practice federal administrative law, which means interpreting regulations. Most of the issues I handle are matters of first impression, so they require analogizing to comparable situations and using persuasive reasoning to convince others why my interpretation should control.

Convincing others you should do the work? How hard can that be? :smile:

--Brant

there are +272,000 federal regulations not considered in particular by Congress; they were just written after the legislation was passed

I won't be painting the fence; I was thinking about it, but look at Robert go writing regulations from regulations or maybe even regulations from regulations from regulations!:)

I really didn't know about this; I thought the regulations interpreted and enabled the law not that they were to be so treated in turn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should hook up RB with Mr Ben in his lonely crusade against the despotic architecture regulations of Ohio. That should be a creative enough challenge for two men. Mikee, you better help him. Between the two of you you should be able to customize Roark's speech and wow the jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should hook up RB with Mr Ben in his lonely crusade against the despotic architecture regulations of Ohio. That should be a creative enough challenge for two men. Mikee, you better help him. Between the two of you you should be able to customize Roark's speech and wow the jury.

Mr. Ben and his lonely crusade appear to have gone the way of the dodo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt concerned so I googled him up awhile back. While he was posting here, he was also online elsewhere and even put up a Linkediin profile. He seems to have been on the computer 24/7 for days at a time. Then, nothing. I conjecture that such a manic burst of sleepless energy would have been followed by a massive crashdown. I hope he is getting help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did group therapy in AA and NA.

I'm not on board with the entire 12 steps, but that therapy saved my life.

I'm pretty sure without it I would have gone on at least one of the paths of the addict's trifecta, if not all three: prison, insanity or death.

Michael

MSK: is the 12-step program actually considered group therapy, or was it more akin to de facto group therapy for you in your particular case?

I read recently that there is a direct connection between one of the founders of AA and Carl Jung. If so, that would further confirm that Jung is one of the more fascinating people to have lived in the last century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK: is the 12-step program actually considered group therapy, or was it more akin to de facto group therapy for you in your particular case?

I read recently that there is a direct connection between one of the founders of AA and Carl Jung. If so, that would further confirm that Jung is one of the more fascinating people to have lived in the last century.

David,

1. I have not been to any AA or NA meetings here in the USA, so I don't know how they do it here. But in Brazil, in both organizations, we called it therapy. Group therapy. This was stated so often, it became my predominant referent for the 12 step concept and I find it odd that people would not find it so.

2. About Jung and AA, I knew of this, but never looked into it. I just did and I uncovered some very interesting links.

Bill Wilson's Letter To Dr. Carl Jung , Jan 23, 1961

Here is a fascinating comment from that letter:

So to you, to Dr. Shoemaker of the Oxford Groups, to William James, and to my own physician, Dr. Silkworth, we of AA owe this tremendous benefaction. As you will now clearly see, this astonishing chain of events actually started long ago in your consulting room, and it was directly founded upon your own humility and deep perception.

Dr. Carl Jung's Letter To Bill Wilson, Jan 30, 1961

In the video following the quote below, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover (a prominent Jungian) makes a statement I am giving as context. He said, "We have to have an ecstatic dimension of our life."

Jung identified this as a primary need which will manifest itself one way or another. Religion and alcohol, for example, provide this ecstasy. That's one of the big reasons why people engage in these things. When he says spiritual experience or God or things like that, I understand him to mean the fulfillment of this need on a purely mental level (among other things). Now to the quote:

I am strongly convinced that the evil principle prevailing in this world, leads the unrecognized spiritual need into perdition, if it is not counteracted either by real religious insight or by the protective wall of human community. An ordinary man, not protected by an action from above and isolated in society, cannot resist the power of evil, which is called very aptly the Devil.

. . .

You see, Alcohol in Latin is "spiritus" and you use the same word for the highest religious experience as well as for the most depraving poison. The helpful formula therefore is: spiritus contra spiritum.

Here is the video:

This is the basis of AA's policy of admitting you have a problem larger than yourself, then seeking a solution larger than yourself. You later re-engage yourself, but that's for later. Apropos, there are other foundations, too, like one addict talking to another instead of a medical profession therapist, which is a characteristic of this kind of therapy.

Our small detour from the thread topic actually prompts a discussion I will continue later in the Addiction section. I find it fascinating, though. (After what I've done in life, I better... :) )

3. I said I was not on board with all of the 12 steps. I should clarify that briefly. I am not for the social structure that sometimes arises from 12 step group meetings. Instead of just becoming liberated from an addiction, you can inadvertently get ensnared in a closed-off structure that is almost cult-like where rules are more important than principles.

In this context, a rule means a standard of behavior someone else decides and you have to follow it, whereas a principle means a standard of behavior observable from reality that you use or not at your own will (and peril).

In my experiences, I saw the 12 steps and 12 traditions start becoming rules, with power-games, shunning of a sort (even when members were still allowed to attend meetings) and so on. That's why I stopped going to meetings after I got clean and became convinced I was on solid spiritual ground again. If they remain principles, I believe they are good ones.

I also do not believe addiction is an incurable disease. It may be for some--I've seen to much to deny that, but it is not for others who suffer and clean themselves up.

4. Just one more point. In Objectivism, Rand mentions man-worship. She is talking about an idealized form of man. This can be reflected in an actual man (or woman), but, as I understand her work, the worship goes to the ideal. That is what she serves body and soul, not the whims and wishes of an actual person. Not even Frank.

Her context is reality. As man fits within reality, it's reasonable to presume that reality-worship is part of man-worship. She also proposes ample opportunities for human ecstasy in work, art, romantic love and so on, So it is also reasonable to presume that this ecstasy comes as a normal part of reality just like any other existent.

That being the case, I find reality to be merely another name for God or Higher Power or whatever you want to call the context where man fits in and that gives meaning to human life. In religion, man is a child of God and must obey Him in order to have meaning, find lasting ecstasy, etc. In Rand's world, man springs from reality and must obey it in order to have meaning, find lasting ecstasy, etc.

Realizing this was part of my own spiritual awakening that helped me get sober and clean.

More later elsewhere.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I'd give a coupla reasons that it largely is:

1) Mental health is a pseudoscience. Given that the subject of their 'training' is largely nonsensical, one can hardly expect but to see failed solutions to nonexistent or misidentified problems.

2) The Pharmaceutical (aka Drug War) lobby are in bed with the socialized medical system and there is an incentive to throw drugs at people rather than to investigate behavioural and philosophical issues.

3) Most therapists have terrible philosophical and ethical outlooks, and thus give their parents bad advice.

4) The mental health industry is heavily financed and regulated by the State and generally just sucks because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd give a coupla reasons that it largely is:

1) Mental health is a pseudoscience. Given that the subject of their 'training' is largely nonsensical, one can hardly expect but to see failed solutions to nonexistent or misidentified problems.

2) The Pharmaceutical (aka Drug War) lobby are in bed with the socialized medical system and there is an incentive to throw drugs at people rather than to investigate behavioural and philosophical issues.

3) Most therapists have terrible philosophical and ethical outlooks, and thus give their parents bad advice.

4) The mental health industry is heavily financed and regulated by the State and generally just sucks because of this.

1) Please elaborate on how you've reached this conclusion. (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but would very much like to hear your thought process as I've been enjoying your other posts.)

2) This is not a mental health issue - it's a general health issue. If this supports the theory that therapy is a crock, then it follows that it would support the theory that all forms of medical care is a crock. Including those I would assume you don't consider to be pseudoscience.

3) Is this based on your personal experience or on some sort of statistics? If statistics, please provide some references.

4) Again, this is not specific to mental health. The entire healthcare industry is heavily financed and regulated by the State. So again, I would say that if this point supports the theory that therapy is a crock, then it must also support the theory that all healthcare is a crock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now