Immaturity and bad judgment? Why on earth are you immediately assuming that ? Just because some guy got involved with someone below the age of 18 ?
That’s almost embarrassing coming from a psychologist.
Nice little ego stroking…moving on…
What if the kid’s family disapproved of the relationship and tried to have the teacher arrested despite the relationship being absolutely consensual ?
That’s why approval from the parents should be utterly irrelevant when looking at this cases.
Psychological testing, Socratic questioning and so forth…
That was a weird brain hiccup on my part because, as mentioned, the age restriction is for 12-15; I thus meant to make the person’s age 21 years old–hence 1 year past the 5-year window. As for the point I was making, if a 21 year old is dating a 15 year old, in most cases that shows immaturity because there is usually a difference in one’s mentality and psychological state among 15 and 21 year olds, hence only the latter group can drink, can vote, can drive, etc. If you disagree with this point, I would have to question your own maturity and intelligence. If you were questioning my original point with the 17 year old, then I understand and apologize for the confusion. Also, if someone knows that he/she could go to jail for dating a 15 year old–regardless of whether he/she agrees with the law–then that is showing poor judgment. I trust you understand my point now.
Not ego stroking. I’m stating a fact. Given that I have taught over 11,000 students, that is a relatively high number, especially since each of these students could potentially pass on the information to others, thus spreading the knowledge of this little-known but very important fact. It is not ego stroking to state that one does not merely complain about the state of affairs but instead takes action, either directly in some of the work I do, or indirectly by conveying information as I do.
Now, taking together some of your statements and “tone” in this post (that I am inferring), I am wondering whether you have an aversion to psychologists or to authority in general. Having said that, I do acknowledge that your initial comment regarding my example of the 23 year old dating a 17 year old could have been due to my mistake. I guess time will tell…
Tough call. By Canadian law, a person in authority cannot have a sexual relationship with anyone under 18 so that they do not exploit the person’s age and “inferior status.” In other contexts, people in a position of authority cannot use their status to procure sexual acts from the other person but in most cases it would not be a criminal matter but rather a civil one. The point is, these laws are supposed to prevent exploitations of “vulnerable” people. So I guess in the case I mentioned, if there was such a risk–which would have to be determined through investigation–then legal action might be appropriate.
I’m curious, Volchok: How old are you?
In theory, yes. But that is not very practical. For instance, if we had no age limit on sexual acts–only "capacity for consent–then anyone who thought someone was taking advantage of someone else’s lack of capacity could call the police for an investigation. Do you know how many people would do that? Many. How do I know? Because, for instance, when it comes to child protection cases, 40-60% of all calls made are “nuisance calls” or “spite calls” with no merit. So if someone was pissed at someone else, they could easily call the police or other relevant agency and make the victim’s life miserable and cost the taxpayers far too much money.
Conversely, having a set age limit prevents such malfeasance, at least in this particular context. That is not why the age laws are as they are. I’m just saying that such a concrete criterion–whether you or I agree with it–is far more practical than what you suggest. The question of capacity to consent is more of an adjunct to that age law in certain cases.
It’s not that straightforward. Culture has to be taken into account for instance. Also, you mean to tell me that only a 21 year old is mature enough to drink ?
You do know that in the states 18 year old kids can serve their country right ? They can literally die defending their country but they are not allowed to drink.
Let’s not pretend like the laws in place ( in the states) are backed up by scientific knowledge about human development.
I think it’s great that you do more then merely complain. It’s just that you always make it a point to say that most people don’t know X but you do and so do your students.
An aversion to psychologists and to authority ? Good lord. I sure hope that’s the not the kind of analysis you do in your private practise. I’m a psychology undergraduate.
I sense an ad hominem coming. I turn 23 this month.
I do think there should be an age limit. But I also think that other factors must be taken into account and that other factors may, sometimes, override the age factor.
If you notice, I’ve said several times that the ages are arbitrary. So of course I am making no such claim. Nevertheless, for most people, a 21 year old is quite different in his/her psychological development than a 15 year old. Having said that, it seems that the last generation is pretty stunted, so I see, e.g., today’s 25-30 year olds acting more like 18-20 year olds from just a few generations ago. So once again, age limits are arbitrary.
That has a dual purpose, one of which I explained to dfetc in another post:
Because I make these statements publicly–not just in my lectures but on each major TV station in Canada and on various radio stations–they are seen widely by, among others, my colleagues. Therefore, if anything I say is wrong, I should be challenged by them (they know where to reach me and trust me, they will do so); this is not ego stroking but rather asserting that there is credibility to what I say (which dfetc claimed was an “appeal to authority”). The same can’t necessarily be said of someone online just anonymously spouting stuff out of various orifices (I’m not saying you do that; it’s a general statement).
The second reason is more of an indictment against my field. I discuss this further in the next point.
Why would your status as a psych undergrad negate an aversion to psychologists or authority? Heck, even among psychologists, many in the “experimental/research” stream have an aversion to their colleagues in the more highly esteemed “clinical” stream. And if you’ve had the kinds of professors I had from undergrad all the way up to PhD–and those who now comprise my colleagues–you should have a healthy aversion to at least some psychologists. That is why I frequently mention that I tell my students things they don’t hear from others; I encourage my students to challenge their other profs with the information I give them, just like I encourage them to challenge me or to present me with things that I may not be aware of. Every term I say that I’m very lucky to come in contact with many bright minds who send me links or other materials to things that I might not have heard of, and who also provide answers to questions I ask that I may not have thought of or heard despite asking the same question dozens of times over the years. In short, I am embarrassed of many of my colleagues in academia and make sure I emulate those who inspired me coming up through the ranks and eschew everything about the majority of my profs. So you may call it ego stroking but I call it declaring my stance and exhorting students (or anyone else) to question everything they hear/see and to not trust those who tell it to them just because of the position they hold. Again, that is why I mention that I say these things in the media: I go on the public record with my beliefs/opinions/knowledge and literally millions of people have the opportunity to check it out and challenge me. I don’t expect everyone to do that but, if I didn’t know what I was talking about, at least one psychologist or other professional would have called me on it by now, given that I have been interviewed publicly well over 100 times.
Conversely, most profs are used to saying things to a bunch of students only, most of who will never challenge them. And many of them present their opinions, agendas or biased/limited knowledge as “facts.” If you are an astute psych student, you will have likely experienced this very many times. I know I did. And I made a vow to be different when I became a prof and am now very vocal about this difference–much to the resentment of some of my colleagues. It’s not about praising myself but about stressing that what I–and more and more others–do is, unfortunately, not the norm. The more that students realize that some of us profs have the right perspective, the more they might expect the same from other profs.
On a side note, I hold the same disdainful attitude toward my clinical colleagues who adhere rigidly to only one orientation, be it psychodynamic, CBT, humanistic, etc. They train or try to teach others to adopt the same rigid, cult-like belief in their orientation without recognizing the limitations of each orientation and technique. They also blindly accept any research that suggests their orientation or technique is sound, without properly reviewing the research to see whether such conclusions are warranted. So when I get the chance to discuss the merits of being trained in many different orientations/techniques–namely that it allows one to understand what might work or not work for various people/problems, and to recognize the common underlying factors among different approaches–I do it so that my students or trainees might become better therapists or better mental health “consumers”. But some people will infer that I am “ego stroking” or bragging about my diverse training.
Don’t be so “paranoid.” I was curious as to your age so I could have a better understanding of your own “personal position” vis a vis this particular discussion.
You’re not going to get a disagreement from me on that. I think I’ve been pretty clear about that.
My apologies for the rant in the previous post. I am very proud of the good that psychologists and psychology profs can do for society. But I am equally miffed at my many colleagues who do our field a huge disservice through incompetence or lack of ethics, so once I get started on the topic…
Do you really have to ask that question ? Come on. What is the sheer probability of that being true ?
That’s not my case. In fact, the “clinical stream” is the area I’m most interested in.
I don’t have an aversion. I simply recognize that there are many psychologists out there who are awful. Specially where I live.
I think that’s great. I really do.
I guess that begs the question, who are you ?
Yes, some profs don’t expect to be challenged. And some profs are not the greatest thinkers. But I haven´t seen any sort of agenda so far but then again I live in a very small country where almost no research is done so…
But I also have one prof that is constantly telling us to think critically about everything, even about what she’s saying so, they are not all bad.
I would actually love to see a well thought out critique of all the main “orientations”, strengths, limitations and so forth…
Have you published anything ?
You know what? I honestly cannot tell whether your answer implies an aversion or not. Looking at the rest of your post, I still cannot make such an inference because, on one hand, you have experienced the kinds of profs I mentioned in a negative light; yet, on the other hand, you do not seem overly critical of the field/your profs. If you were to say it in person with all of the verbal and non-verbal cues that go along with such statements, I’m sure it would be much more obvious.
That is good. As you progress through academia, I’m sure you will see the camps forming. I was part of a committee that started a new graduate program and that was the one thing I stressed to my colleagues: Let’s make sure the experimental and clinical streams do not work at odds with each other but let’s make courses and requirements such that people from each stream have several opportunities to experience profs/labs/classes/students from the other stream.
To quote Dr. Ali G, “potato, tomato…”
I don’t believe in anonymity and always put my name behind anything I write, even if it’s an online response to a newspaper article. On this site, however, I had a lot of “silly fun” a number of years ago (it’s even weirder than anyone who “knew” me back then realized) and, with my jobs being what they are, I do not need to have certain statements from this site attributed to me. Anyone who knows who I really am can easily tell it is I, based on my posts; I don’t mind that. I just cannot admit to who I am on this forum so I can always claim plausible deniability if anyone should ever try to hold statements made here against me. Yes, I appreciate how silly or “paranoid” that may seem but trust me, worse has happened already.
Every prof should be pushing critical thinking. In my experiences, most of my colleagues do in fact claim to promote critical thinking but, when students actually try to do so with respect to what they say in class, they hypocritically get offended. As for agendas, I am surprised that you have not seen that. Some of them are subtle and require some digging, whereas others are extremely blatant. For example, I have had literally hundreds of students tell me that their various profs stress that we know that homosexuality is biologically caused. We know no such thing. Anyone who makes such an assertion is ignorant and/or biased. I tell students what I believe, based on all of the readings I’ve done and based on my clinical and personal experiences; but I make sure they know this is only my informed opinion, not fact. And I make sure to present information that both supports and contradicts my beliefs. I also show how some of the research on both sides is flawed. Then I tell students to make their own inferences based on this and other evidence. And if they aren’t going to take the time to do the necessary exploration, then at least admit that it’s their uninformed and likely biased opinion.
Sticking with homosexuality, any prof who says you must accept this or that about LGBTetc is promoting their own personal or professional agenda. I tell students they can think whatever the heck they want. But I always tell them that I will come to the problem through science and clinical experience. If they’re going to present only their uninformed opinions, it’s going to be a very short conversation. And again, they must have enough integrity to admit that it’s only their beliefs, not fact or not beliefs based on proper research. And I also let them know my background so they can try to infer what is my own possible bias, what is my personal experience, and what is my expert opinion. Anything less than this is unprofessional or sub-par teaching, IMO.
On a side note, I don’t want to be hypocritical so I understand if you don’t answer. But where are you from that you described it as you did?
Not on this topic. I lecture on it all the time and train therapists to understand these issues but I haven’t written about it because I don’t think I could bring anything really new to the table beyond what others have already written. Plus, I’ve got two other books that have been waiting for me to complete…
No, I don’t have an aversion to psychologists. And would think it would be very strange if you did. That does not mean that I think all psychologists are good at what they do.
Actually, I think it’s a very important distinction. But let’s move on.
You could always pm me your name. I don’t really care that much, it’s just that it would crazy if I was talking to someone I admire. lol. It would be kinda funny. And since you have talked in the media so much maybe I have heard your name.
I couldn’t agree more.
I have never been told that by any prof. And as far as I’m aware right now, homosexuality is seen as the product of the interaction between genetic, biological, psychological and social factors.
Well, an aversion to such psychologists can motivate you to do everything in your power to not be like them. It worked for me. Here’s something you may notice over the next while: Many of your classmates complain about a TA or prof. They say “If that were me, I would/wouldn’t _____.” Most of them will never become TAs or profs but, among the minority who do, the majority of them end up being as bad as the TA or, more likely, prof–if they ever get that far. Among TAs, it’s often a simple arrogance that comes along with having the illusion of some “power”–although there are many TAs who try very hard (sometimes pathologically so) to do a great job.
Among actual profs, however, the most common thing I’ve heard my colleagues say–and it’s been quite a few–is “If I had to go through this when I was a student, why should it be any different for my students?” It is, IMO, healthy to develop a strong aversion to anyone who says that when discussing a policy or approach that is clearly unfair, silly, wasteful, irrational, unhelpful etc etc." Those who are in a position to do something about something that is “wrong” should do something about it. I do. And when I say this, I’m not patting myself on the back or stroking my ego b/c to me it is not anything special; it should be the norm.
No offence, Volchok, but I don’t know you and so I cannot take such a chance. But if you’re in Portugal (thank you for sharing), I can pretty much guarantee that you’ve never heard of me. I will say, however, I was surprised to learn from students in South Korea, India and Germany that they saw me while over in those respective countries b/c I was once on six episodes of a show that got exported to those countries. It’s funny b/c I’m really embarrassed about those six episodes (at least a few of them) b/c I had to read prepared lines and I ain’t no actor. I also didn’t have enough time to prepare beforehand b/c I was too busy with my other work so I had to try to memorize the lines on the spot, and many of the things I said were quite long sentences. So I look really unnatural/fake/phony speaking on those programs as a “talking head.” But I digress…The point is, I’m sure you’ve never heard of me…
First, I’m glad you’ve never been told that. Second, there is no solid evidence for that interactionist model, especially the genetic component. That is just another “agenda-driven” model because it’s the typical cop-out: claim that it’s an interaction of all these different factors, which we can apply to virtually any human phenomenon; it may be true in many of these phenomena but, so far, there is no real evidence for it with respect to sexual orientation.
I am the worst when it comes to recommending books/authors, sorry. I believe J. Frank wrote about it in 1961 in his book, “Persuasion and healing.” You can also try S. Garfield’s 2000 article in the Journal of Psychotherapy Integration (Vol. 10, pp. 341-356), “Eclecticism and integration: A personal retrospective view.” Finally, S.B. Messer has written about this as well. But I cannot recall if these writings are good or not, it’s been a while…
That’s childish. Once you realize that free will is an illusion you tend to not feel aversion to people. And when you do, it fades away quickly once you start thinking about how the mind works. You don’t need to feel aversion to those who are poor professionals in order to be highly motivated to do better and to change the system.
As a side note, there is no such thing as a TA in the Portuguese educational system.
That is pretty stupid, I have to say.
I really don’t know how you can reach such a conclusion like that. But whatever.
I’m not sure which part you were calling “childish.” However, I disagree that “free will” is an illusion; it depends on your definition of it. Mine is more of a practical definition rather than a philosophical one, which IMO is a far more useful, healthy, adaptive, meaningful and productive perspective. There is nothing wrong to having an aversion to people or things if it helps motivate you to act in a proactive, meaningful, productive, healthy, adaptive manner–yes, I recognize the repetition of word choice but, as a psychologist and as a citizen, these are the types of choices/behaviours I strive toward and encourage others to do as well.
I’ve often stated that philosophy on its own is nothing more than mental masturbation. Philosophy grounded in practicality/reality, however, is meaningful. Some esoteric arguments about “free will” is, IMO, mental masturbation. Taking a more practical/realistic approach, however, enables one to make decisions that can benefit both oneself and those around the person–and, in some cases, a broader range of people. From what I know of, e.g., Eckhart Tolle, some of his philosophy makes sense and is something I encourage my patients to adopt. However, he also writes about things that very few people will ever be able to achieve in real life or don’t really need to achieve. If someone were to try to literally aspire to such levels of enlightenment, it could lead to great frustration b/c they will never get there and may waste a lot of their resources in trying to attain such a state of being. I’m more practical than that. I see people for the very flawed creatures that we are and I try to foster a sense of acceptance of that fact; but acceptance is only the first part. It’s acceptance with a desire to constantly improve on oneself, while remaining true to who/what one is. If certain aspects “need” to be changed for whatever reason, then so be it. But on the path to change, one must accept that he/she is as they are in the present and try to develop from that state, rather than fantasizing about some quantum leap into another state of being.
So, feeling an aversion to certain people is perfectly normal and healthy, just like an aversion to certain foods. If the aversion is too strong and depletes one’s inner resources–as happens when someone always carries around hatred/resentment for instance–or if the person frequently obsesses over the target person to the point that it detracts from more productive living or causes some internal turmoil, then it needs to be addressed. But the actual aversion to someone–which appears to be a natural/biological/adaptive feeling–is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a reason we have certain feelings held over from our ancient ancestors; as mentioned, this appears to be adaptive/evolutionary. To deny that we have these is to deny what it is to be human. And denial is antithetical to healthy/adaptive living or growth/self-actualization. As alluded to above, it’s all about degree of our feelings/behaviours and making sure they do not “hurt” us or “stunt our growth/development.”
Absolute, black/white statements such as “free will is an illusion” may sound good in philosophy or as a bumper sticker. But they are entirely impractical and useless aside from as an exercise in thought exploration or debate, IMO. If you want to go into clinical psychology, you will need to bridge the distance between such/your philosophy and actually helping people help themselves.
On a related note, I tell my patients that much of what we do in therapy is a kind of “philosophy,” so I see the value in it–again, as long as it’s practical. To reiterate, my philosophy is about accepting who/what one is at this point in their life, trying not to aspire to impossible ideals, and trying to grow/improve as a person where possible; where growth/change is not possible in oneself or one’s circumstances, then we return to the acceptance and look practically at what can be done in such situations/states. That is my “practical philosophy.” Maybe you are able to apply “Free will is an illusion” to such an approach. Or maybe you are making that statement on a purely esoteric level and will take other approaches to helping people help themselves if you ever get to that point in your career. Maybe you see that statement as correlating with the concept of “acceptance,” which I know it can/does.
But I’ve seen too many people who are not able to bridge the gap between the philosophical/spiritual and the practical. And those people have all deteriorated in their mental health trying to pursue goals they will never reach. It’s like giving the power of nuclear fission to a layperson: It is a potentially great/powerful process but useless to the person and, in fact, can destroy them. And no matter how hard you try, you’re not going to be able to train 99%+ of the population to become nuclear physicists. Just like 99%+ of the population (okay, I have no idea what the actual stat is) will never reach the level of “enlightenment” that might somehow make pure philosophy relevant to them. It doesn’t mean that 99% of the population is stupid or cannot reach a better state of being. But one just needs to know which tools/methodology is needed to work with them.
Don’t take this as an ad hominem : As a 23 year-old student, I don’t know how much genuine real-life experience you’ve had to help you see how humans really are/function versus what you might read about them in a textbook or someone’s philosophical musings. That’s the difference between theory and reality. It’s good to have a strong theoretical background but then you need to see how much of that theory actually plays out in real life or makes any sense with most people. I know some very wise psychologists who can quote every great psychologist or philosopher and know the history of this and that, etc etc. Yet, they are the worst therapists in the world because they don’t understand and cannot truly relate to people.
As an example, I was trained by someone who is now one of the top people in his field, at least academically; he was trained by the top dog in his orientation. He is now conducting so much research on this orientation and his career will only keep progressing. But I can tell you, he is a horrible therapist and the great irony is that, the area of mental health that is his expertise is exactly the same problem that he himself has to a very severe degree. And he still has it. It is one of the oldest cliches. And it is quite common. Conversely, two other people who trained me are not famous at all, although each did reach a pretty good level within our field. They taught me more as a psychologist and as a person than the other person ever could because they taught me how to have an open mind and how to relate to people. It was all “real.” The first person knew only theory and technique and thus is very ineffective as a therapist. (On a side note, the other three people who’ve trained me fall somewhere in between these extremes).
A verbose digression, yes. But I hope that anyone who reads this can see how crucial it is to understand, relate to and work with real people as opposed to seeking solace in pure philosophy or who are unable to apply such philosophy to real people/situations in a practical and effective manner.
Right but I have a hard time believing that you explain what that definition consists of, in detail, when you are with your clients, talking about free will.
Actually there is something wrong. First, it stems from cognitive errors about causation. Second, if you want society as a whole to become more adaptive and compassionate, then aversion is not something you want to push. At no point does this imply that you will feel less motivated to do something or changing something.
Did I ever denied it ? No.
That statement isn’t useless at all. You just need to know what you’re talking about. You need to understand the implications. You need to think it over and so forth.
Yes it can. But more importantly, you can strive to be better and to self-actualize all the while knowing that free will is an illusion. Accepting that free will is an illusion doesn’t negate desire, effort and work. And if you really accept that fact, a lot of negative feelings associated with that constant struggle of trying to be a better person, a happier and more fulfilled person, will disappear.
I’m only saying that free will is an illusion. I’m not exactly recommending that people start dropping their sense of selves or that they shut themselves inside a Buddhist temple. Take it easy.
Trust me, nothing makes it easier to relate to people as accepting the fact that contra causal free will is an illusion. I would go even further. Accepting that contra causal free will is an illusion is the only way of relating to some people. Like say a serial killer who raped and tortured every single one of his victims. I’d like to see just how much would be able to relate to him.
How utterly closed-minded, defensive and “verbally aggressive.” Not very consistent with the kind of philosophy and way of being you are discussing in this thread. I wonder why that would be…
I don’t need to define it with my clients; its meaning is inherent in the work we do and the way we look at and approach things. Again, it’s all about the practical and living in line with an adaptive belief system that is relatively easy to understand and is doable. And that belief system is being conveyed in a “safe,” non-judgmental and encouraging manner, hence virtually all research shows that the working alliance in therapy is far more important than any orientation or technique. (A slight digression but important for anyone who might read this and who is thinking of entering “the helping profession.”)
I understand what you’re saying. But I doubt that you can actually explain it in a way that will be applicable to the vast majority of the people on the planet–at least in “western civilization,” since I do not claim to know the psychology of people in every culture/country. In other words, you’re reciting a philosophical position that has little merit/use for most people.
For instance, it is not adaptive to have an unrealistic view on humanity. Compassion is great but so is self-preservation and recognizing that one’s emotional/physiological/natural reactions to someone/something might in fact be “normal,” “correct” and appropriate. Conversely, forcing oneself to think a certain way about other people or the world that may not in fact be true but is a product of some philosopher’s belief system is not a natural response and may, in fact, be detrimental. Again, I am trying to stress the difference between theory and reality. And to be clear, none of what I am saying negates the reality of the impact of cognitive attributions, as you are alluding to. I work with those as well. But again, the kinds of thinking you/others advocate may in fact be a distortion of reality, hence it is not adaptive.
And I never said to push aversion. That is either your own inability to understand what I’ve stated or some form of “projection” in that you are ascribing meaning or intention to my words that I have not conveyed. Given how I have framed aversion and how I have clearly stated that it is healthy to accept that one may have such feelings, I do not know why you would misinterpret what I have stated, hence it would not be unwarranted to infer that something else is going on here that is causing you to interpret things as you are. However, I could be wrong. If I am, please feel free to elucidate where I have misunderstood you.
And? Please feel free to show how you can actually make those statements of yours applicable in a practical sense. Otherwise, they are utterly meaningless beyond an exercise in thought exploration or debate, as mentioned.
In line with my previous challenge, please feel free in your own words to explain how this will occur for the vast majority of people, and how the effort to reach that state of enlightenment is any more adaptive than the practical/realistic approach I take, which begins right in the moment. That is, I don’t focus on esoteric ideas such as “free will” but rather take a practical approach to understanding oneself, others and one’s circumstances.
Here’s another challenge: Take any real-life situation where you think that your approach is beneficial and I will show you how my approach makes far more sense and is far more attainable for virtually anyone; remember, the ideals you promote–which are beautiful ideals–are not going to be achieved by most people. Heck, if you read your own posts and see the underlying negativity in some of your responses, you will recognize that you are nowhere near reaching the kind of state of being or thinking that you are discussing. And your responses are simply in response to some dialogue about a few topics with someone you don’t even know, so how do you react in face-to-face encounters with real people who mean something to you or who have an impact on you and who say/do things that could provoke a much stronger emotional/psychological/physiological reaction?
And I’m only saying that the statement re. free will is entirely useless in a practical sense. Yet, such a philosophy gets conveyed by people such as Eckhart Tolle and millions of people see it and try to live in accord with it; in most of their cases, this will be a fruitless, frustrating and sometimes destructive exercise.
In fact, I’m dealing with one patient whose lawyer is trying to get him to adopt a similar approach with respect to a particular situation but it is in fact literally ruining his life and his health because it does not make any sense in his current circumstances. And I’ve met with the lawyer and spoken with him a number of times so I know what his approach is; in other words, my patient is not distorting the lawyer’s words or intentions.
As mentioned in my previous message, this is the advantage of having real-life experience with lots of real people and seeing how things might look good on paper but, in real life, make little sense or can be destructive.
Great statements in theory. Now back it up with an example or an actual concrete/specific explication of your claim. Otherwise, they are meaningless/useless statements in a practical sense–ergo, mental masturbation.
I may have a healthy aversion to him, depending on what my role was with him. In most cases, that would be a practical response. Give me a few specific capacities in which I would be relating with him and I’ll tell you my practical response. However, tell me how your philosophy would help you relate to him; I can see how it would–similarly to how I understand what some hardcore evolutionists or sociobiologists mean when they argue that, e.g., rape is a “natural” behaviour for certain people–but a) I may not agree with it and, more importantly, b) I would like to see you apply your philosophy rather than merely reciting it. I am not saying you cannot do it. I am saying I would like to see you do it.
Otherwise, you come across the same way that most people who join A.A. do at first–which is why the success rate is miserably low and why 50% drop out within one month. Namely, they learn to repeat certain phrases from “The Big Book,” which, in fact, make a lot of sense philosophically and practically. However, because they do not truly understand what they are reading/hearing and/or are not able to internalize the messages, they are merely citing words without gaining anything from them. Conversely, I have worked with a number of people who do genuinely get The Big Book’s messages and they are living very adaptive lives. I hope you or anyone else who may read this thread can see the parallels here.
Thank you, phyllo. I do hope that volchek responds to my challenge because I am curious to see how people who hold his views re. “free will” bridge the theoretical/practical divide. I don’t think it’s impossible but I have yet to see it done well thus far; then again, I have by no means read extensively on any such attempts.
Please, you know better than to do that sort of pop psychology analysis.
If you were to talk about free will, directly, then yes, you should define if you want to be intellectually honest. If you think that knowing that free will is an illusion will actually “hurt” the client, then you shouldn’t even mention that subject, obviously.
This so called “position” is probably the position that has the most potential to change society and human interaction for the better, that I know of. If people are ready or not to accept it and how we should go about this are a completely separate issue.
Compassion in no way implies a unrealistic view of humanity.
Accepting that free will is an illusion doesn’t make you a robot. You still have emotions. The fact that you understand that a killer is not really responsible for his actions does not mean that you don’t feel anger or sadness if one of his victims happens to be someone you know.
This is about facts, not belief systems. Having said that, trust me when I say that I don’t want to get in a debate about free will.
See my point above.
Freudian projection ? Really …
It’s much healthier to not have those feelings. But the great thing is that if you accept that free will is an illusion you also accept that you are not responsible for whatever emerges into your consciousness so, if you do have those feelings and most of us do, we won’t torture ourselves for things we don’t control.
Or you could read a few books on the subject written by people who are able to express themselves much more clearly and eloquently than I could ever dream of.
This isn’t an approach. I’m not suggesting a new form of therapy nor I’m implying that you should talk about free will with your clients. In fact, you probably shouldn’t talk about free will with your clients at all because most of them will be at a point in their lives when they are vulnerable. I’m simply talking about free will in response to something that you said earlier which I thought was extremely childish and incompatible with what we know today. Or “what is known in science”, I should say.
First, let’s try to avoid ad hominem’s shall we ? Second, English is not my native language so don’t be so quick to assume that I’m angry or defensive. My use of the language is obviously, slightly different, then how a native speaker would use it.
And that is nonsense.
I have never read Tolle. From the little I have heard he seems to be a slightly more “reputable” version of Deepak Chopra so I´m not really that interested in what he has to say.
It’s simple really. Like pretty much everyone else, I would probably feel uncomfortable having contact with someone like that. But, accepting the fact that he or she is not truly responsible for his actions would make my work much easier. If you really believe that someone is a “bad” person, truly bad, and that that person stands outside of causation, that is to say that he’s completely self-caused then you have no reason to help that person in anyway. This is absolutely indisputable. Having said that, most of us recognize, while at the same time clinging to free will, that free will isn’t really there. Upbringing may have an impact, psychological trauma may have an impact, mental illness may have an impact and so forth…
No. That is a terrible example. The reason why A.A. has a horribly low success rate is because there is no program. There’s no substance there. You’re supposed to accept god (don’t get me started on that) and relinquish any control that you have and hand it over to him. You have to accept that you are flawed and a sinner and that the only way you can reach salvation is trough him. This is exactly the opposite of what should be done. What should be done is empowerment.
Volchok, your responses are unfortunately evasive and not very useful/helpful. This is why I do not like to engage in philosophical discussions: many people who do so take the “coward’s way out” and avoid or dance around the issues they cannot handle, while trying to pick away at a few points they think they can discuss reasonably well. It becomes an exercise in futility. I had hoped that your being a psychology student would have enabled you to understand that such defensive maneuvers are not fruitful. Sigh…
I’ll address a few things you stated and see if you can respond appropriately. If not, I’ll respectfully withdraw from what will continue to be two conversations that are running in parallel to each other but which have two very different forms:
Mine = trying to use real cases or even fictitious examples–as per my challenges to you–to make concrete points about somewhat abstract concepts.
Yours = repeating superficial statements and abstract concepts that do not apply to real life except for in your own (and others with similar belief systems) conceptualizations; when asked to move beyond cliches or recitation of philosophical positions, you avoid the challenge. You do not even show how your assumptions of humanity or the world are valid or can be applied in any practical manner. You almost seemed like you were beginning to do so with the rapist/murderer example but then stopped at the “fluff” level. You also make statements or assertions that presume that what you are saying is valid and, I infer, expect me to share in your assumptions. I’ll give you an example:
You responded to my statement, “I disagree that “free will” is an illusion,” with “Sorry but I couldn’t care less.”
I called that “utterly closed-minded, defensive and "verbally aggressive.”
You then came back with, “Please, you know better than to do that sort of pop psychology analysis.”
My comment was not “pop psychology analysis.” Show me how your statement is not closed-minded and defensive. And, in couple’s/family/interpersonal therapy–which I do as well–such abrupt dismissal of someone’s opinions can technically be an act of “verbal aggression” or at least fall within the spectrum. Calling someone’s statements “childish” is also obviously a very poor communication strategy. I know you said English is not your first language but, to your credit, one would not know that based on your writings in this thread. So I give you enough credit to believe that you know the meaning of the words you choose. Again, do not be so evasive; explain to me how your words above are not closed-minded, defensive and dismissive/verbally aggressive.
If you wish to challenge any of the words I’ve used, go ahead. I’ll explain my intention with any of them. I am not a hypocrite and I do not avoid such responsibility. I would hate to think I was alone in that regard.
No they are not separate issues. Saying that misses the entire point of this discussion. I’m genuinely surprised that you would say that, unless I am misinterpreting your words. Namely, the whole point is that “waxing philosophical” about things such as “free will” is mental masturbation if it cannot be applied to real life. I do not lead my life through a series of “what if” thought experiments.
To wit, I could just as easily say that the greatest way to improve human interactions is for the most rich and powerful among us to give up all of their possessions and to volunteer all of their time for one year to bettering the rest of the 99% of the world (or 90% or whatever). I could then come up with a bunch of reasons for why this would be the best way for humanity to improve and my arguments would be sound and compelling to many. But that does not make them true and, more importantly, it does not necessarily make them feasible.
Show me how your arguments regarding free will are any different from the facetious analogy I’ve just offered. I hope you are not going to do what you’ve done thus far, which is to avoid the challenge.
I never said it did. I’ll take responsibility for that misunderstanding because my first statement about being unrealistic was followed by the example of compassion versus self-preservation, which I’ll address below.
In this particular example, it’s not about the context or emotions you mentioned. It’s about instinct and primal emotional/physiological responses, which science shows we have largely lost over the past while. For example, we are so externally driven that we often ignore, suppress or misinterpret our “gut reactions.” If I were around such a person as you mentioned, even if I did not know his history, I would hope that my instincts would tip me off that something was “off” with him. My “spidey sense” should “tingle.” I should feel some apprehension or tension or something else that causes me to be on my guard, even if he is smiling at me and being very friendly and charming. As you’ll see directly below and then much farther down below, the whole “let’s pretend that people aren’t really responsible for their actions” game detracts from such adaptive reactions.
Let’s take this a bit further: They say that psychopaths can fool even many psychologists or psychiatrists with their “mask of sanity” and charming and extremely skilfully manipulative demeanour. I have had to assess or work with quite a few psychopaths and my “spidey sense” has tingled each time because I have learned to become attuned to my internal sensations. Clouding these reactions with some philosophical musings about whether or not these psychopaths or other “bad” people are truly responsible for their actions would have made me far less effective than I was with them. Fortunately, my testing was also able to help confirm my “gut reaction” afterward, as was a thorough forensic investigation in each case.
In several of these cases, the individuals sought out other psychologists or psychiatrists who may have held your philosophy (or were just incompetent) and completely mis-read the clients during their interviews with them. I want to be clear that, in each case, there was objective evidence (either before or afterward) to support my impressions/conclusions. Whether they were ultimately responsible for their actions on a cosmic scale is irrelevant. The fact is, I made the right call and prevented further harm to others. This is an example of practical applications of what I am saying. Nothing you have written thus far has similarly come close to showing how your belief system is practical and feasible for most people.
And although I’m using a professional example, it applies to all people: Ignoring our “gut reactions” in lieu of taking an artificial/man-made perspective on human functioning is not healthy. Show me how it is. You have yet to do so, other than making grand proclamations of how it can change the world. Give one real example and I’ll likely counter it easily. And I challenge you to try to do the same with my examples as well. Have you?
Show me the “facts” behind your assertions about “free will.” You haven’t so far. And I don’t want to get into a debate about free will either. But I will use examples to make my points and I have yet to see you do the same, at least not effectively.
Nope. “Projection” as it is applied more broadly in today’s world of psychology. Look it up.
Nope. See my example above. And give me any other example/situation and I’ll show you why you are wrong, unless you are discussing maladaptive feelings, which I dealt with in my previous message. Please feel free to read it again. Once you do, you may understand that my “degree” approach–i.e., that certain reactions are adaptive or “normal” or “natural” but, if they become too strong or if they occur at the “wrong time,” they can be maladaptive–is far more realistic, practical, useful and attainable than what you are proposing. Show me otherwise; you have not even come close to doing that–not even close to beginning to traverse the path toward doing that.
This part is the kind of parallel to “acceptance” I mentioned in my previous post. Aside from the unprovable “free will is an illusion” aspect, of course I agree with the rest of it because it is consistent with what I’ve been saying.
You do realize that this is the ultimate cop out, don’t you? Do you not think such blatant evasiveness is beneath you?
For the record, I did read such writings long ago. At the time, I thought the various arguments for/against were very interesting–not very practical but interesting.
But let’s get back to you. To quote the great philosopher, Nickolas Diaz, “Don’t be scared, homie.” Or at the very least, please have the integrity to concede that you cannot meet my challenge.
See above. Also, show me how, in your own words, science supports the absence of “free will.” Or at the very least, please let me know how you are defining the concept. I get the feeling that I’m going to have a recurrence of the kind of language play that dfetc engaged in, except that you are using the definition accepted by philosophers for a long time. So you are in good stead, at least when it comes to a mental masturbation circle jerk.
I, however, have been thinking of “free will” in the sense of a more grounded and practical notion. In the end, it involves the notion that, although we can understand a person’s proclivity or susceptibility to doing certain things if we understand their genetics, biology, temperament, early experiences and other environmental forces etc., these factors do not guarantee that the person will in fact act a certain way–they only increase the person’s probability of doing so. Anything less grounded and realistic than that verges on thought exercises and mental masturbation among those who enjoy such pursuits.
And more modern philosophers may have the benefit of greater technology than their predecessors, and can use our more recent findings about genetics, atoms, the universe etc. to bolster their positions. In the end, however, they are still speaking of things that cannot be proved, mixed in with some scientific knowledge; they are connecting dots in one way, while their opponents may connect the same dots in different ways or provide their own sets of dots. Once we get into such endeavours, you might as well be arguing about religion.
But hey, offer me one shred of evidence that supports your claims. Just one. Otherwise, you are merely name-calling when you label my original statement “childish.” I’m not sure if calling someone’s statement “childish” in Portugese is any less distasteful.
But at least it’s not an “ad hominem” because you are attacking my idea–even though you offer absolutely no evidence to support your position–rather than attacking me. Of course, those of us who deal in reality understand that, by calling a statement “childish,” you are in fact implying something about the person who uttered the statement, as in “What kind of a person would make such a childish statement?” I know, it doesn’t technically constitute an ad hominem but, as you’ll see below, it is actually more egregious than what you are referring to when you claim “ad hominem” below. Let’s take a look, shall we?
As mentioned, I have not seen anything in your writings thus far that would give credence to your claim about language. Feel free to give me an example. As for your complaint against “ad hominem,” I am using a real-life example to show you that your own conduct would appear to contradict your assertions about using the notion of “free will is an illusion” to somehow improve your emotional and social/interpersonal functioning.
You do see the theme here, don’t you? I deal with practical, real-life issues and examples–including your own words and “tone” in this thread–while you resort to name calling, dismissing of ideas and grand proclamations without one shred of evidence or compelling examples; the one example you gave of the rapist/murderer was weak and you did not even take it anywhere meaningful.
This is why I said at the beginning that, if you cannot evolve beyond superficial or trite declarations and parroting of unproved belief systems, there really is no reason to continue a discussion. Again, look at the examples I give and the way I hang my assertions on reality. They are there for you to try to challenge. And there are several challenges for you to try–but you’ve avoided them. Again, a running theme unfortunately.
So who are you parroting? I would like to know which “science” that person or those people are using to convince you that their philosophy/belief systems are actually “facts.”
If you were wondering why I kept saying you were not providing real-life examples or accepting my challenges, I have to say unfortunately that your response does not cut it for several reasons:
First, “most of us recognize, while at the same time clinging to free will, that free will isn’t really there.” Really? Can you show me a stat that shows that at least 51% of people do not believe in free will? Maybe you can find one. Otherwise, you’re just throwing around unfounded claims.
Second, “accepting the fact that he or she is not truly responsible for his actions would make my work much easier.” What work would that be? What kind of help would you be thinking of? And how would seeing him as not being responsible for his actions make things easier for you? Be more specific. This is vague and meaningless so far.
Third, “If you really believe that someone is a “bad” person, truly bad, and that that person stands outside of causation, that is to say that he’s completely self-caused then you have no reason to help that person in anyway. This is absolutely indisputable.” Okay. But that is only if you believe that there are only two alternatives: 1) Free will does not exist, hence he is not responsible for his actions; and 2) Free will exists, he is responsible for his actions and thus he is “truly bad,” therefore I have no reason to help him. Let me move away from your black and white thinking to be more practical/realistic:
I can believe he was responsible for his actions–possibly due to his genetics, biology, early environment, etc–without thinking he is “bad” and beyond help. I might see that there is some glimmer of hope for him during our interactions. It does not have to be an “all or nothing” proposition as you frame it. If that’s how you see things, I can understand why you hold such a rigid belief system. Again, recall what I said about probability of doing something versus some hardcore determinism. I am taking the more realistic and practical perspective and you seem to be taking the latter one: hard determinism or something to that effect; or at least I think you are. I would really like to see your stance on probability as I’ve presented it. Then I can understand how rigid and extreme your position really is.
Returning to your example, as long as I enter into the dynamic with an open mind–while still being attuned to my internal states–I have a chance of determining whether there is hope for this person. If I force myself to say, “Well, he really isn’t responsible for his actions because of genetics etc.,” how would that help me? How would that be any better than entering into the situation with an open mind and trying to see what can be done with this person, if anything at all? This is critical, as you’ll see below.
If, however, I have an open mind and examine/work with the person in a competent fashion, I have a better chance of being able to see how best to work with him and whether there is any hope that he can make any form of progress. This does not require “fantasizing” about whether he has free will or not. And because I am not wasting my internal resources on such an impractical exercise, I have a better chance of seeing him and his potential for what he/it really are, rather than, for instance, seeing/hearing what I want to see/hear.
In fact, that is what happened in the real-life examples I gave above: The other doctors did not use proper testing or interviewing techniques and thus the clients in each case were able to answer their questions in ways that made them seem much “better” (for lack of a better word) than they really were. I would have hoped that these doctors would have at least felt their “spidey sense” tingling when each client said something that was not true or was otherwise deceptive. Then they could have explored matters better. But they did not. And if you think my “spidey sense” is irrelevant, please read the next paragraph very carefully.
You want fact? Here’s a fact backed by science–check out research on “ego depletion” or “decision fatigue.” (“Ego depletion” is a Freudian term but today is usually referred to as a kind of broader application of the more specific “decision fatigue.”) In any given situation, we have a finite level of internal resources available. This refers to our perception, cognitive capacity, psychological processes, emotional functioning, coping abilities, etc. If we waste some of those resources on things that are not necessary or are maladaptive, the rest of our internal operations do not function as effectively as they could. This is science. It is fact.
Therefore, people who experience excessive anxiety, who employ unconscious defence mechanisms to distort their experiences–in order to avoid anxiety–who are hyper-vigilant, who are overly ideational, who suffer from physical pain, etc, do more poorly on various tests of their mental (and other) processes than would otherwise be predicted by their overall capacities. With such people, if you address the thing that is depleting their resources, their performance on the same tests of mental (or other) processes can improve dramatically.
Show me how forcing oneself to expend energy trying to see and relate to people in what appears to be an unnatural manner–unless you can show me that humans are biologically predisposed to see others as being entirely bereft of free will–does not deplete limited internal resources. The only way this would be beneficial would be if a) the person were consumed by feelings such as anger, lust, resentment, jealousy etc, and b) adopting the “free will is an illusion” perspective helped them to reduce these unhealthy feelings/internal states.
However, returning to what I’ve been saying, I can help facilitate the same process in a much easier and more practical manner. So why would it be advantageous to tax this person’s internal system pursuing some ideal that may not even be true and which can take a lifetime to achieve, when there are more practical and attainable ways of living life that can be adopted much faster and more effectively? Feel free to avoid such a simple and direct question…
And therein lies the rub. Those who truly get “The Big Book” have all told me that they don’t necessarily relinquish all power/control to god. Rather, they submit to a “higher power,” which for each of these people is in fact a process of empowerment. I won’t explicate their descriptions here but the process inherent in the program–yes, there is a program if you truly understand it as these people apparently do–involves taking personal responsibility for one’s actions and trying to live the most adaptive life possible. It really is a “how to” book on how to self-actualize–as long as you truly understand it on a deeper level than most people do.
I admit that I used to be very critical of A.A. and slagged it in my lectures for probably the same reasons you did; it didn’t help that most people I saw who attended 12-step programs would merely parrot the words like a robot or cult member. Also, I disliked some of the “The Big Book’s” implications–again, likely for the same reasons you do. But like I said, I then met a number of people who really “got it” and turned their lives around. Maybe they have all coincidentally misunderstood “The Big Book” in the same healthy/adaptive manner as each other. Or maybe they were all able to take from it the productive messages and internalized them, and in the process they have learned to truly take full responsibility for themselves and their actions and are now the embodiment of “empowerment.”
Having said all that, I still believe the A.A. example applies perfectly to the discussion we’re having. I hope you can become more like the people who really get “The Big Book” and less like the people who merely chant the writings like a slogan or a mantra…The first path to such enlightenment would be to take me up on any of my challenges in this and the previous message. Or answer some of my simple questions directly. Anything less will bore me.
Of course, those of us who deal in reality understand that, by calling a statement “childish,” you are in fact implying something about the person who uttered the statement, as in “What kind of a person would make such a childish statement?” I know, it doesn’t technically constitute an