• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Psychology / Psychiatry: Science? Pseudoscience? Quackery?

Hospitaller

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Aug 29, 2001
Messages
427
Location
Ireland
Graylien's post on another thread, particularly the phrase "the pseudo-science of psychology" reminded me of a text by Israel Regardie (pupil of the Great Beast himself, Mr Crowley) on how psychology is really the modernised scientificated (my own neologism!) version of ritual magick. The text is called The Middle Pillar: The Balance between Mind & Magic http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1567181406/104-1289562-6255166?v=glance. Has anyone read it? Is it total nonsense :?:
 
I haven't read that particular book. And it does indeed look particularily nonsensical.

As to whether psychology is a science or a pseudo-science, I suppose it all comes down to how you define science and scientific method. Personally, I would suggest that science is concerned with demonstrating repeatable and consistent results which prove - or disprove - theories. I do not believe that this is what psychology actually does. Like Astrology - or my own pet enthusiasm, Ufology - psychology co-opts scientific language, and has it's own highly specialist vocabulary - but there is little of substance beneath the rhetoric. Even the most fundamental tenet of psychology - the existence of the unconscious mind - is simply an unproven theory. It is a metaphor, rather than a fact. It is - to use Karl Popper's term - unfalsifiable.

From this metaphor arise a whole parcel of subsidiary metaphors - the id, the ego, the superego, etc, etc. Unfortunately, Freud - who invented these metaphors in the first place - lied in his published works about the level of success he had in treating his patients - and indeed, does not seem to have actually cured any of them. (see the essayHow Fabrications Differ From A Lie for more on this - together with an ingenious cop-out in the final paragraph). And his successor, Jung - though at least rather more honest, is better described as a mystic rather than a scientist. Since the early days of Freud and Jung, psychology has split off into a host of competing ideologies - in much the same way that Christianity has divided itself into a variety of sects - yet it still insists on describing itself as a coherent science.

The question is, of course, if psychology is nothing more than an unprovable set of competing ideologies, why does it play such a major role in our society? If it doesn't work, why do people think it works? And if people find it helpful, why criticise it?

As I hinted earlier, I believe that one can draw an illuminating - if controversial - parallel between psychology and another pseudo-science which functions in much the same way: namely, Astrology. Like psychology, Astrology uses pseudo-scientific terminology and has its own highly specialised vocabulary which is all but incomprehensible to the layman. Like psychology, it is unfalsifiable. And like psychology, it was once taught in universities, and its practitioners were highly respected professionals. Like psychology, it was viewed as an adjunct of medicine, and medical students were obliged to study it as part of their degree. And, despite the complete lack of evidence to support it, people were convinced that it worked. Indeed, some people still are.

None of this is to deny that people may find some comfort in undergoing therapy, or that it cannot be of benefit. People who have been recently bereaved often find comfort in visiting a spiritualist medium who claims to contact their deceased loved one. People in times of crisis may find comfort in visiting a tarot card reader who promises them that good times are just around the corner. Similarily, people undergoing mental distress may find comfort in visiting a psychologist. Just let's not kid ourselves that there's anything scientific about it.
 
Just a couple of points really.

Regardie's Middle Pillar is a great if rather dense run through of the basics of modern western hermetics, which I personally do not consider nonsense, although a lot of people do so I'll concede that one.

The parallels between magic(k) and psychology seem fairly clear to me, in that both involve a good deal of identifying and changing patterns of thinking. I personally undertook a course of cognitive behavioural therapy and personal study of magic(k) simultaneously and found them to be very compatible and enlightening. Much successful occult practise also leads to effects which are very similar to and which and in my own opinion are too frequently mistaken for mental illness.

I do know more about magic(k) than I do about psychology, but I recall that even fifteen years ago when I knew psychology students at university, Freud and Jung were considered distinctly old hat and I'm not sure that, while the the unconscious/subconscious/superconscious/id/ego etc are now familiar enough concepts that many laymen have a vague awareness and understanding of them, they actually form any part of the current psychological models.

I think a great deal of distrust of psychology comes from people's own brushes with depression and other mild forms of 'mental illness' which tends to lead the doling out of the latest wonder-drug anti-depressant by an uninterested but sadly not disinterested GP (I am personally aware of one doctor who is actually in trouble at the moment for not prescribing enough ssri medication to his patients) and possibly to counselling, which invariably involves weekly sessions of crying in front of a completely unqualified and doubtless well-intentioned idiot.

I do disagree with the medicalisation of grief and mild forms of behavioural oddness and I do feel that our society does not deal well with those who find it difficult to pursue our pointless ratrace life by sticking them on potentially damaging medication and breadline benefits and calling them ill, when, properly supported, their different perspective might be of huge benefit in many areas - the tortured artist and insane genius are dangerous cliches but the odd just-about-functional depressive and the institutionalised but harmless schizophrenic might, in another time, or another place, have been a great writer, painter, magician or even scientist .... or at the very least much happier - and still might be, but for the stigma and mistreatment of 'mental illness'.

But I have no beef against psychology as such.
I do not feel qualified to judge if it is a 'science'. Much of what is usually considered science seems to lack the rigour, intelligence and imagination I would have included in a fundamental definition of the term.
 
Wow. Feel privileged to have read the two posts above.

Very impressed.
 
That's really funny, I agree completely with again 6. I was thinking 'crumbs! after that I don't feel qualified to comment anymore!!!!' :shock:

I read a book somewhere that said it all really took off with the first world war and the Americans took IQ's of their enlisters and were shocked at the results and categorized them and all this information was monitored and contributed to until Psychiatry really took off in the fifties and sixties with all the new drugs (legal and illegal) flooding the field. I think it was written by Ken Kesey. Anyone else read it? It made you see psychiatry as alchemy.

In the end its so unstable. There are always more theories, all clouded by profiteering drugs companies throwing more 'cures' into the fray. If there's a drug to affect something I'm sure they invent an illness for it these days.

Sigh. So cynical :?
 
again6 said:
Wow. Feel privileged to have read the two posts above.

Very impressed.

Er, yeah, what he said. Very erudite stuff, indeed.

Or, to put it in my own words - psychiatry is bollocks. :D


I once read a study that 1st year psychiatry students had as much 'success' in helping psychiatric patients as fully qualified practioners with years of experience.

Which just shows that a degree of human interest in someone's problems is helpful in itself - which similarly explains the 'success' of newspaper Agony Aunts (and Uncles).

I exclude psychology and studies of human perception, etc, from my above remarks, which are aimed at psychiatry.

So I disagree with the title of this thread - psychology is a reasonably scientific discipline, but psychiatry is not.
 
I dunno, there's abit of Science in all of the 'ologies,' and the 'iatries.' Psychiatry's problem is that it takes itself to seriously. It is not and has never been an expert science...
:(
 
I also think a distinction needs to be made as to whether this thread is discussing whether psychology or psychoanalysis is a pseudo-science.

At university many years ago Freud was the subject of many jokes and was actually used as an example of how not to psychoanalyse and treat people; iirc Freud prescribed his best friend cocaine, which led to an addiction that eventually killed him.

Psychology employs the same methods of experimentation and hypothetical deductive reasoning that are used in other scientific disciplines. It covers a wide range of subjects, many have nothing to do with counselling and psychoanalysis.

Important discoveries in psychology have sometimes been made by scientists from other fields, for example Pavlov was a physiologist studying the digestive system of dogs, which led to his accidental discovery of classical conditioning.

My course covered a range of modules in the first year to give everyone a good grounding in the basics. In second and third year I concentrated on the cognitive neuropsychology route- studying the nervous system, visual system, artificial intelligence, brain structure and function, trauma and rehabilitation, and drugs (both prescribed and the illegal types).

My point is that areas of psychology are as scientific as chemistry, physics and biology, and it frequently draws on research from these other disciplines. I would say, for example, measuring reaction time in milliseconds using a computer program designed specifically for that purpose is quantifiable, can be replicated, and so meets the criteria for a true scientific experiment.

Psychoanalysis however is a different matter; I don’t believe it is quantifiable enough to be a science.

My personal pet hate is pop psych books that tell you how to improve your life ten easy steps etc. I have never bought one, but have friends who have, they are often just money spinners for the author and about as useful as the latest fad diet books.


Any chance the thread title can be changed please ?
 
MagikBug said:
At university many years ago Freud was the subject of many jokes and was actually used as an example of how not to psychoanalyse and treat people; iirc Freud prescribed his best friend cocaine, which led to an addiction that eventually killed him.

Surely that's a pharmacological error and not a psychoanalytic one?

Psychology employs the same methods of experimentation and hypothetical deductive reasoning that are used in other scientific disciplines. It covers a wide range of subjects, many have nothing to do with counselling and psychoanalysis.

Ok, it can manage the explanatory side of business but how does it fare when held up to the predictive aspect of the traditional sciences?
 
As a poster who has nearly got a degree in psychology (no therapy stuff - genetics, brain and behaviour, forensic, perception courses etc - indeed, mainly cognitive neuroscience) I can tell you there is a lot of uninformed mythology re: psychology and the medical psychiatry stuff. A lot of the latter is based around looking at 'mental problems' from a medical perspective - and has come up with some half baked theories (and some notable successes too - e.g. the workings of neurotransmitters and how to affect them). However, psychology is somewhat tarred by social psychology (which is unfairly lumped in with the ludicrous assertions of sociologists). All that aside, psychology is probably trying too hard to be taken as a proper science, and though the cognitive aspects are able to tested quite well, there are arguments regarding qualitative results from naturalistic settings. I personally believe that psychology will soon be split as a discipline into the harder and softer scientific sides it currently tries to hold together. I think this is sad because a good psychology course is (as of this era) the closes thing one can study to the 18th century idea(l) of natural philosophy and I will be sad when the split occurs.
 
... I have never, ever, not once in 60 years, found any technique to help me sleep that was any use at all. I sleep, or I don't. Sleep aids like antihistimines, valerian, or melatonin make me fuzzy and thick-headed the next day without putting me to sleep any faster. Cognitive behavioral therapy just makes me angry, as the assumption behind it is that insomnia is a learned behavior, that there's no base reason for not sleeping, you've just convinced yourself you're not going. If a doctor suggests CBT I know he's not taking me seriously and dismissing three-quarters of what I've told him, if he was even listening. ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cognitive behavioral therapy just makes me angry, as the assumption behind it is that insomnia is a learned behavior, that there's no base reason for not sleeping, you've just convinced yourself you're not going. If a doctor suggests CBT I know he's not taking me seriously and dismissing three-quarters of what I've told him, if he was even listening.

CBT is a means of turning people's authentic feelings into, well, lies. It treats people like machines. Your anger is a perfectly natural reaction, so it is interesting to hear about your experience of CBT. I was discussing it today with my insomniac sister who also was treated with CBT, but for schizophrenia. It was equally useless.
 
CBT probably works just fine in situations where its assumptions actually apply. If someone who has never had a sleep disorder goes through a period of sleep disruption (new baby, illness, whatever) and continues to have trouble sleeping after the conditions creating the sleep disruption are corrected, the techniques in CBT probably do help people readapt. I'd like to believe, certainly, that if it never worked it wouldn't be so widely applied. But it is absolutely useless in cases like mine, and I can't even imagine the level of incompetence involved in attempting to apply it to schizophrenia!

The thing we, as imperfect and idiosyncratic bodies, need to bear in mind, and insist on our doctors bearing in mind, is that any given tool in a toolbox is ideal in some situations, a makeshift in others, and destructive in others. If you identify a problem and apply the appropriate therapy, you are using a hammer to drive a nail and will have good results as long as you aim true and apply the right amount of force. If you think you probably know what the problem is and apply a broad therapy that is appropriate in similar cases, you're using a hammer to crack nuts and have a good chance of making progress if you pay attention and make adjustments as you go, but risk a misjudgment smashing the nut into useless smithereens. If you can't make sense of the symptoms, don't take the time to examine the circumstances, and apply a random therapy that is sometimes effective for the symptoms but is inappropriate to the circumstances, you're using a hammer to drive a screw, will not improve anything, and stand a good chance of making everything much worse.

The ideal, of course, is to have doctors who can tell nails from nuts from screws and either have, or know how to obtain, the correct tool for the job. The reality of medicine - especially in neuroscience, which is where sleep disorders cluster - is that this is impossible without lots of experimentation. Even in the case of well-known, well-studied disorders, individual variation and the complexity of all the life factors that go into health make telling nails from nuts from screws difficult. But nobody wants to believe that - we want our magic bullets that will always work on everybody. We're not going to get them. I accept that. Why can't the doctors?
 
The following is a means of dealing with your insomnia. It will not happen overnight. But by degrees your situation will improve.

First, do not cling to your identity as an insomniac because that just clings to the insomnia. If you believe you suffer from insomnia, then you will suffer from insomnia. So, you must detach yourself from it. Do not “own” the condition in any way whatsoever.

You must develop a strong sense of pride. You must take pride in your failures as well as your successes. Failures teach you more about life, make you stronger and strengthen your character. People to whom success has come easily all their lives just end up as weak and foolish. People who have had to deal with failure and hardship learn a lot about life and about themselves and as a result become strong and wise.

So, take pride in dealing with a lack of sleep for so long. Take pride in your refusal to be treated with CBT. Did you like or dislike your job (assuming you were in paid employment)? If you did, then take pride in how you dealt with that. If you had a bad boss, take pride in how you dealt with him. Take pride in your work, in your family, take pride in how you have dealt with the failures, and successes, whatever those may be.

Deliberately work on your pride by setting aside some time daily to work up your pride and to find forgotten experiences that you can take pride in.

This advice is not just for insomnia. It can be used by anyone for whatever condition they have, be it a specific anxiety, an illness such as cancer or asthma etc, etc. I have used this method to alleviate my bronchitis and asthma. I do not get them anymore.

If you have any questions, then do please ask.

I'm perplexed by the point you made that I highlighted and other posts above regarding CBT. I've seen CBT work for people and the fact that it is now on offer via a referral from your doctor is a million times better than him writing you a prescription and sending you on your way.

I'd be interested in why neither you or Pen felt it worked and why you thought it didn't work as a lot of people have benefited from it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You obviously didn't pay attention to the part where I didn't sleep as a baby.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy assumes that a problem is not a physical one, but a matter of maladaptive learning, and I'm sure it works fine when the cause is maladaptive learning. But that's not my life. All CBT did was focus me so much on tracking my sleep or lack thereof that I became hyperaware and frustrated and in the exact wrong state of mind to go to sleep even if my body felt like cooperating.There is some physical, probably neurological, cause at the root of my sleep problems, and nobody knows what it is, and no doctor I've ever encountered was interested enough to go all the way and find out. Being fobbed off on CBT is like being told to get counseling for a peanut allergy. Like being patted on the head and told that I don't know as much about my 60 years of lived experience as someone who's seen me for half an hour. Like being punched in the face and told to sit down and shut up and stop inconsiderately bleeding on the carpet. Like being told that if I must have a problem the doctors don't understand, can't I at least be a decent human being and not whine about it and pretend that treatments work when they don't? ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... By the way, CBT was my route to sobriety.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... I'm perplexed by the point you made that I highlighted and other posts above regarding CBT. I've seen CBT work for people and the fact that it is now on offer via a referral from your doctor is a million times better than him writing you a prescription and sending you on your way.
I'd be interested in why neither you or Pen felt it worked and why you thought it didn't work as a lot of people have benefited from it.

As to your question about CBT, you first need to know a little about my background with respect to doctors. I have not seen a doctor for approaching 20 years (I am in my mid-60s). Before I stopped seeking medical advice, my health, both physical and mental, was getting gradually worse. On one particularly memorable occasion when I was in my late 20s, I did not merely ignore medical advice (for a bad back that was threatening to become chronic), but I went against that advice. Having previously had 6 weeks off work (while receiving various treatments and drugs) without my condition improving, my back then healed very quickly and I have not had a problem with it since. In the end, in fact, I actually advised my doctor how to cure his own bad back, not vice versa.

In addition, I have not taken prescription or over-the-counter drugs for over 15 years. The only drug I consume, not for insomnia, is alcohol. It helps me to relax. As I said, my physical and mental health have only improved since last seeing a doctor and giving up drugs. No more bad backs, no more asthma, no more bronchitis, no more headaches, no more anger problem. (The anger problem is particularly relevant to what follows.)

My sister has taken a similar path. She has cured e.g. her PTSD, on her own without any medical/psychiatric etc., intervention.


As to CBT: I have not received any CBT. However, my sister received CBT many years ago, just before she gave up doctors and drugs (except alcohol) for good. Further, it is important to know here that science does not know what a human being is. It does not know what a mind is. Therefore, it is administering treatments such as CBT without the least idea of whether or not they work. CBT does not work. Further, it is extremely harmful.

In CBT, bad thoughts and feelings are replaced by positive thoughts and feelings. I will use an incident that happened to me to illustrate my point about the harmful effects of CBT.

I was formerly a teacher. I used to live in a very small community. I knew, or knew by sight, the parents of most of my pupils. They knew me. Out and about in the village, when I met them, we would often have a friendly chat in passing. One day, a parent who normally would have stopped for a chat, as she had done many times before, walked straight past, totally ignoring me. I felt as if I had been snubbed. I felt angry.

Had I been receiving CBT at that time, I would have recorded the above incident for discussion during a therapy session. The therapist would have suggested some explanations for her behaviour, these always with a positive spin. He might have suggested that she simply hadn’t seen me because she had something on her mind that was distracting her. I would then have been told to work on replacing feelings of being snubbed with a positive explanation such as the aforementioned suggestion.

Now, as it happened, a few years later I discovered why this parent, and others as it turned out, were snubbing me where previously they had seemed friendly. The reason for this snubbing was that I was no longer the teacher of their child. Their child might have left school, might have discontinued my subject etc., but whatever the reason, I was no longer that child’s teacher. Thus, I realized that when these parents were being “friendly” toward me, they were actually brown-nosing me, keeping me “sweet” (because I was their child’s teacher.) And as soon as they no longer needed to keep me sweet, then they simply dropped their pretence and snubbed me.

It follows, therefore, that my original feelings of having been snubbed and of anger at that treatment, were authentic. They revealed the truth. Yet CBT would have sought to replace that truth with a lie. How on earth can CBT be said to work when it replaces truth with lies?

Further, my feelings were communicating something to me. The parent snubbing me was also a form of communication. My feelings/emotions were doing their job, they were telling me that something was going on, and that I really was being snubbed. If CBT gets me to ignore my feelings, it is actually preventing me communicating with my environment and with other people. It is disabling the use of my senses. It is isolating me from other people. That, to put it bluntly, is extremely harmful and cruel.

Another example from this same time in my life. As I said, people in the village knew I was a teacher. As the end of the summer holiday approached, they would ask questions such as: “When does school start, again?”, or say something like “I bet you’re looking forward to going back to work, then”. (Of course, I was not looking forward to going back to work.) Sometimes these people’s comments made me furious and I would stew over them for days, yet sometimes they did not. And this was all down to intention. When the person’s intention was to tease me, to taunt me about going back to work (knowing perfectly well that I was not looking forward to the start of term), those were the times I got angry. In other words, my feelings were authentic, were revealing the truth about the other person’s intentions. On the other hand, when the remark or question did not anger me, then the person’s remark or question was genuine i.e. they were not playing games. Again, CBT therapy would have had me replacing truth with lies with appalling consequences for me.


As to my anger problem, it has vanished. I have never had anger management treatment. The biggest release for me was when my sister justified my anger. She told me that it is perfectly natural in this world to get angry because this is a world which generates vast amounts of anger (e.g. those people teasing me about going back to work). Her justification was the way forward for me and now, although I know that this world is even worse than I had thought back then, I am no longer angered by it or by anyone. My anger has vanished.

(As an aside, one of my pupils had an “anger management problem”. He received treatment for it at school. When he left my class to attend a session, he usually left in a good enough mood. On his return, however, he was generally absolutely furious, and spent the rest of the lesson fighting down his anger. I assume that anger management sessions, like CBT, were replacing his authentic feelings with lies. That would have made me angry.)

So, CBT replaces truth with lies. It disables people’s ability to communicate. In fact, what CBT reminds me of is those inspirational speakers so common in the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hope you got your sleep in the end!



I was formerly a teacher. I used to live in a very small community. I knew, or knew by sight, the parents of most of my pupils. They knew me. Out and about in the village, when I met them, we would often have a friendly chat in passing. One day, a parent who normally would have stopped for a chat, as she had done many times before, walked straight past, totally ignoring me. I felt as if I had been snubbed. I felt angry.

Had I been receiving CBT at that time, I would have recorded the above incident for discussion during a therapy session. The therapist would have suggested some explanations for her behaviour, these always with a positive spin. He might have suggested that she simply hadn’t seen me because she had something on her mind that was distracting her. I would then have been told to work on replacing feelings of being snubbed with a positive explanation such as the aforementioned suggestion.

Now, as it happened, a few years later I discovered why this parent, and others as it turned out, were snubbing me where previously they had seemed friendly. The reason for this snubbing was that I was no longer the teacher of their child. Their child might have left school, might have discontinued my subject etc., but whatever the reason, I was no longer that child’s teacher. Thus, I realized that when these parents were being “friendly” toward me, they were actually brown-nosing me, keeping me “sweet” (because I was their child’s teacher.) And as soon as they no longer needed to keep me sweet, then they simply dropped their pretence and snubbed me.

It follows, therefore, that my original feelings of having been snubbed and of anger at that treatment, were authentic. They revealed the truth. Yet CBT would have sought to replace that truth with a lie. How on earth can CBT be said to work when it replaces truth with lies?

Actually, the assumption that people were no longer interested in saying hello as you were not teaching their children anymore seems like a pretty reasonable explanation and would have been proposed by any decent CBT therapist.

CBT isn't about sugar-coating the world, it's partly about acknowledging life isn't always fair and nice. People as you point out can often be too self-interested to care about anyone else.

CBT isn't about replacing the truth with lies.
 
Last edited:
CBT, to my understanding (I did an 16 week course for managing anxiety) is, at its most basic, cogntion (our own internal thoughts) follows with behaviour (our response to the thought). I am going to use feelings of anxiety and how to manage the anxiety using CBT in my explanation as that is how I have used CBT for myself. We continually have random thoughts and running dialogues in our heads. These random thoughts can intrude without our awareness to how we respond to often innocous situations. To become fully aware of a thought and thus to be fully aware of why you have reacted in a situation can help to modify your own response/behaviour (in my example the goal is to lessen anxiety). There are certain steps and learning tools or techniques, such as journalling that are used in CBT. These practices help you to become more aware of, and in control of your behavour. CBT is not something that you learn with one try, it does require people to pratice and learn how to use the techniques.

So, for me, the one example of using CBT leading me to an "AHA" moment was that when I was starting to feel anxious for an apparently unknown reason, I learned to stop and to review what I had just been doing and what thoughts were running through my head. Because I am anxious, I respond by becoming more physically tense and wondering "what is wrong?" and becoming more anxious. A horrible circle. When I had to intentionally stop to take stock of why I was feeling anxious, I found (to my surprise) that if I am slightly cold or hungry, but it has not registered with me, my body becomes tense, Because I am hyper aware (because of anxiety) of any small ache or pain in my body, I would think that I was tensing because something unknown was wrong. Then I would be in a state of watchfulness and worry because I felt that something was wrong. Once I became aware that my body was tensing because I was hungry/cold, I did not become anxious and simply got some food or a blanket. This is obviously a very simplified example of the use of CBT, but it does work for some things. CBT is not used to change the truth of a situation, it is used to help people recognize their own patterns of behaviours or reponses that are not useful to them.

Sleep deprivation in itself can have multiple causes and possible fixes. CBT may be useful in some situations of sleep deprevation, of which I don't have any first hand knowledge.
 
I'd missed this last time around, so just to add..
So, CBT replaces truth with lies. It disables people’s ability to communicate.
My own experience suggests that this is untrue, in my case and that of many others. My communicative ability was completely untouched by the process. I think what it becoming clear from your posts is that you find it hard to distinguish between subjective experiences and truths and objective, general ones. Whilst I have no issue with you voicing your own truth, this does not automatically mean that everyone else's is invalid. Facts are objective. Truth is subjective.
 
Last edited:
It follows, therefore, that my original feelings of having been snubbed and of anger at that treatment, were authentic. They revealed the truth. Yet CBT would have sought to replace that truth with a lie. How on earth can CBT be said to work when it replaces truth with lies?
I haven't done CBT but the thought processes you describe about being snubbed in the street are similar to what you describe. It is a good thing for a couple of reasons.

Firstly because 99% of the time it is true. I have done it myself when I have been distracted or that person has been wearing a padded coat, a hat and a balaclava when I have only ever seen them in a swimming costume and I just didn't recognise them. How awful if everyone assumed malice each time this happened.

Secondly it is good because you can't control other peoples thoughts and actions but you can control your own. What is best for you? Dismissing someone who inexplicably ignoring you ( eg. probably needs glasses but too vain to wear them hehe) or stewing angrily over it for years?
 
First use, though a friend had used it to similar, good effect.

It is too easy to make wrong connections between treatment and its supposed effects. To automatically assume that CBT brought about your recovery, is one of those all-too-easy-to-make, but facile, conclusions typical of science. An example from my own medical history: I have cured myself of asthma. Part of this cure involved breaking one of these facile conclusions.

I had made a connection between my asthma and dusting i.e. whenever I dusted, I had an asthma attack. Had I gone to a doctor for treatment, s/he would have taken my explanation as to the cause of my asthma at face value and put me on an inhaler. My asthma would have persisted. It would never have been cured. (My sister also had asthma, worse than mine, and that was how doctors treated her.)

Part of my cure for asthma was, as I said, to break this connection. I stopped wearing a mask whenever I dusted even though sometimes my asthma got so bad that I had to sleep that night with my head and chest elevated to ease the wheezing. I also refused to let the asthma stop me from going out, no matter how bad it got. Slowly, over the weeks, the asthma attacks got weaker and weaker. The more I ignored the asthma, the weaker the attacks became until they disappeared altogether. I no longer have asthma.

So, breaking bad connections is part of the cure. The following illustrates the second crucial aspect of the cure:

Some years ago, the US actor Dirk Benedict was diagnosed with cancer. (I heard him talking about this on a tv programme.) Instead of attending the doctor and getting treatment for his condition, he decided instead to spend a year exploring the US. By the end of the year, his cancer was gone. The reason for this, unbeknownst to Benedict, was that his year travelling exposed him to new experiences. New experiences are crucial to health and wellbeing.

In my account of my medical history to Naughty_Field, I mentioned that when I had a bad back, it was cured by going against medical advice. I had booked a holiday to West Africa before my bad back had set in. When my back showed no improvement after 6 weeks off work, my doctor warned me not to go abroad. He told me that there was a serious risk that I would be returned home in a stretcher. Mustering my courage (I was in my late 20s), I went to The Gambia anyway. Three weeks later, when I returned home, my back was cured. Like Benedict, new experiences were the route to the cure. Although I am an experienced traveller, I had only ever been to north Africa before. The Gambia was an entirely new experience for me. (My life has been full of new experiences, good and bad. But, importantly, NEW experiences.)


You said that you had never had CBT before. That was a new experience for you. During that period and maybe immediately before and after, if you reflect on that time, you will likely discover other new experiences. It is these new experiences, experiences that fed and enriched your mind that cured you, not CBT itself.
 
How awful if everyone assumed malice each time this happened.

When I was snubbed in the street, I did not assume malice. My senses told me what was going on. I felt snubbed and I felt angry. The feedback from my senses is the crucial point here. Had I not felt snubbed, then that would have meant the person was not snubbing me. But I did feel snubbed. Therefore I was being snubbed.
 
..again, though, it's ultimately a personal judgement as to what it factual and what is not.
Is it? I thought facts were just facts... largely immutable (unless new scientific data becomes available).
 
When I was snubbed in the street, I did not assume malice. My senses told me what was going on. I felt snubbed and I felt angry. The feedback from my senses is the crucial point here. Had I not felt snubbed, then that would have meant the person was not snubbing me. But I did feel snubbed. Therefore I was being snubbed.

But that doesn't change why you were "snubbed". As I have said I think you were right, you were no longer useful to those people who had previously held you in some esteem.

We all know when we are being snubbed.

You became angry at this as you thought, (rightly so you were/are a teacher), that you were no longer given the respect you thought you deserved.

You suffered from the "fallacy of fairness" until you realized that these people were selfish and probably not worth your time either.

I absolutely don't think there was malice involved. Some people are just manipulative and probably moved on to the next teacher. This isn't a reflection on you it's a reflection on people. People can be shallow.

"just because you think something does not always mean it is true"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top