Let me tell you about my latest visit to the shrink – or rather, to the Sherwood Institute which specializes in breeding shrinks.
It is an atmospheric place with lots of cozy couches, reminiscent of classical psychoanalysis. It houses a fireplace and it is located in an antique British building, which is in no way inferior to Freud’s eventual London residence. The natives of that place appear to blend in with the scenery, adding up to its distinctive and impressively familiar appeal. As a visitor you are welcomed by open faces, attentive and courteous, munificent with hospitality.
The intern library, situated in subterranean cellars, does not even shy away from presenting with specialist literature on spiritualism.
Training is offered in different forms of psychotherapy and counseling, including gestalt, person-centered, cognitive-behavioral and integrative psychotherapy, based on an assemblage of professional practice and academic research.
As is the case with other European countries, turning into a shrink comes at a cost in the UK. Inevitably this cost is not trivial. Apart from pecuniary costs, these costs extend to psychological costs and sacrifices on behalf of the future shrink.
Becoming a psychologist, becoming a therapist, is not merely a decision. It is a way of life. It is an ideology, which does not ask for a decision to adopt it, but for a fluid development to embrace it. How else could a person consent to listening empathically to a stranger pouring out his heart, disclosing his greatest fears and desires, dormant up to then, offering his absolute attention and giving away his professional and most humane aid?
The story does not end at realizing altruistic ideals. Potentially even more substantial is the innate need to understand how the human mind works. For a psychologist it is indispensable to uncover how his own mind works, why he thinks the way he thinks and why he feels what he feels. The psychologists’ altruism is nourished by his egoism. In fact, there may be a little narcissist hiding in a psychologist which becomes transferred to the person who seeks his professional help.
Ergo a shrink needs a shrink. Correspondingly, a therapists’ education in the UK entails seeing a therapist. As obvious as this may seem at first glance, it appears less so when compared to standard practice in Germany.
Apparently, only by better understanding himself can the psychologist progress towards understanding the other.
Psychology appears as a journey which necessitates the willingness to open up. The greatest challenge is self-reflection.
I think that your post is so self-emancipatory...But sticking to our discussion on holism please let me make some amiable comments:
AntwortenLöschenYour writing resembles to what you were decried in one of your past posts : ‘‘Don’t merely rely on your rhetorical skills in charming the pants off your audience. Charisma is indispensable, but it won’t necessarily do the job, particularly when you’re faced with an audience that you cannot really predict. Particularly when it’s an audience that doesn’t consist of males (lets change it to psychologists instead) only’’. It appears you try to subtract your trade guilt from others and interpetating it as different (not equal tho). Don’t know...I am just not a psychologist.
People become narcissists and mainly full of egoism not because of their profession per se but because of their unwillingness to offer something without getting any reward, which means their detestation to solidarity and their adoration to any kind of transaction as long as this will make their ego even bigger. A narcissist can only help people because of his/her greedy self-worship and he/she needs to get psychotherapy and not to consult others! Nobody asks for a psychologist to be perfect but it seems that you imply that narcissism is inevitable for psychologists and should belong amongst his/her professional characteristics. Its like trying to justify things in your mind and follow the easiest way. But it seems that psychologists, are used of justifying everything by saying that you need to be a bit psycho in order to become a psychologist:). Seriously now, don't think that psychologists are less or more crazy, paranoid, mad, good,mean,intelligent, sexy, desirable etc than any other human being. People try to be narcissists because they are just deliberately isolate themselves from others using the fictional excuse of their circumstantial superiority. But their only benchmark is at the end, with their self. And on the other hand, human minds do not work...they just live.
I strongly believe that psychology is just a decision and of course not an ideology. Nobody has ever been born as a psychologist. It is not an innate characteristic or a natural inclination which can be found in artists, athletes etc. It is just a cognitive task being taught under similar inculcation methods used for all other professions. Plagiarizing my self now, as far as I can understand the mainly focus of applied psychology is to resuscitate people to be acceptable from the concurrent political and societal system. And I have the impression that this is why psychologists name behaviours that are non-acceptable from the systemic context as a disorder...but do we really know about the order? If we cannot define order we cannot explain disorder as well. Can’t see why order is consider to be given. To that extent, any diagnosis of disorder is political biased and at the end perpetuates the current status quo of any social construction of a time, which we call ‘‘system’’. Allow me to say that people belonging to those accepting order as given, might have bigger ‘‘mental’’ problems than the alleged mental patients. Therefore psychology cannot be used to create political and social change and this makes mainstream practices of psychology anything else than an ideology.
And as you know I am very strict on etymology of definitions, cause I believe that nothing is more sincere and more close to the truth than the first ever need to define the until that time inexistent, have a look on who Narcissus was in the past, when people were more close to their nature origins and could interpret their mind by using myths, mutual understanding, solidarity, informal education, not depending on psychologists, economists or any other of subsequent professional construction...Philosophy is invaluable and this is the only ideology and way of life. Getting some grasps of it can reach us closer to holism. For anything else there’s...Mastercard :)
Once I talk about narcissistic psychologists or psychotherapist I mean narcissism not in a pathological sense per sé. Trust me, every psychologist has something going on in that brain. Otherwise he would choose a different profession.
AntwortenLöschenAnd I must correct you – psychology, particularly when viewed from the respective psychotherapeutic schools, is ideology, pure ideology. Once a psychologist has decided his métier, he will make sure to fight for it with whatever means necessary and he will aim for disseminating his view. That is not to say that psychologists are narrow-minded; it’s rather that they have a belief and are ready to go for it. And I do not think that this implies trying to avoid any potential criticisms that may come up with regards to their belief systems, or ideology, if I may so express myself.
By the way, research will tell you that psychologists are a group at risk for developing all sorts of disorders, among which their apparent suicidality in comparison to the rest of the population stands out. This is approximated to be two to four times higher, putting them at place one among any other professionals. Imagine an increase of committing suicide by 400% accounted for by your profession only! With this number in mind, I don’t think it’s necessary to mention other problems, such as personality disorders as well as burn-out, which appear to be relatively common relative to the normal population likewise.
Also, I agree with you that we cannot define order and draw a line between normality and pathology easily. Nevertheless, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders makes sure that significant impairment is THE criterion essential for diagnosis of any potential mental health problem. This demarcates people who merely appear peculiar from people who have serious issues, with good reason!
To end this monologue, you know that someone’s not sane when he claims to be.
With regards to holism, I need to add that the modern way psychology is taught is reductionist, deplorably so. Psychology education would clearly benefit from integrating what has been learned from the history of psychology, including Freudian psychoanalysis (anything except for penis envy, for that matter).
I could trust you if you would be able to know any profession as good as yours...Once you are only aware for yours you cannot make any comparison and ergo -:) you are highly biased. Any of human being has something going on in their brains! Psychologists just wanna feel the experience to work not only with but on their brain as well...That makes them vulnerable to self-destruction I suppose.
AntwortenLöschenI think you mix up ideology with obsessed professionalism or just obsession. The same you explained for psychologists can be applied to a soldier, to a priest, to an athlete or to a pop celebrity...why not? I could use some other sources - such as the book of Andrew Vincent for modern political ideologies which I skip read quite recently- but wikipedia seems the easiest and quite accurate for that: ''The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer either change in society, or adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process''...Can't see how psychologists aim for that. But to be honest can't see why something that cannot be considered as pure ideology is less important. I would dare to say that psychology could be more important than any ideology as any social change or adherence to maintain a social system presuppose a state of mind and certain behavioristic linguistic or actions that cannot be explained without the contribution of psychology.
Regarding holism...same things in any profession. So trying to capture holism within a profession is like reducing spiritualism to a certain dogmatic theology.
Why except for penis envy? I think its so bloody accurate and both sexes suffer as children...women as girls for not having it and men as boys for not having it ''big enough''...and this defile brains and create distortions.
Let me tell you this: In fact I am very much aware of a number of professions other than those in the realm of psychology. However, I would agree with the statement that I might be biased potentially; being educated in a specific domain inevitably carries along a certain amount of formation of thoughts and behavior of this discipline and its stance within the broader framework of professions.
AntwortenLöschenFrom what you’re saying it appears as if it is not the profession that potentially works hazardously on a psychologist’s mind, but it’s the vulnerable person who decides to become a psychologist? If so, I agree. The causality of this relationship is not proven, however, this way it makes quite a bit of sense. Nevertheless, I do believe that it may work the other way round likewise, to a certain extent at least.
And again I will try to explain in how far psychology can be ideology: Have a look at a particular psychological theory which underlies psychotherapeutic treatment, e.g. psychoanalysis. Those people who have been educated in applying psychoanalysis will become so much immersed in this school of thought and psychological practice, that they will uphold it in a way that is comparable to ideology. This may not hold true for all, but for an extensive amount of psychoanalysts. The way to getting there, to having secured this education, is long, steep and very costly. A person who decides to go all the way will not do it because it’s a profession, but because it’s vocation. In German it’s more impressive for we are talking not about a profession (Beruf), but we talk about a calling (Berufung). Although it is a fine gradation, the latter does exist and it does have an ideological underpinning. That is not to say that this does not occur in other professions. However, again, I speak of psychology because this is what I know. In this respect it is conform to your definition, for a psychoanalyst (sorry to bore you with the same example over again, but this one appears most appealing to me now in order to bring my point across) will adhere to a set of ideals which have been established previously. Thus, psychology can be an ideology.
Also, I don’t think I need to revert back to the ridiculous idea of penis envy since we’ve discussed this earlier already. Let me just bounce back this idea by introducing a new concept which I deem much more relevant and true than the obsolete Freudian notion of penis envy: womb envy. The only thing that really demarcates men from women is the fact that the former are not capable of giving birth to a child. Apart from that, there is nothing that differentiates us significantly from each other. Womb envy, in my view, exists (at least as a theoretical concept) because it’s logical, it is based on physiological potentialities. Penis envy, however, is ridiculous. What reason would a woman have to be envious of a skin lappet that is dangling between her legs? That’s just like a man being envious of a woman’s breasts. It doesn’t really make sense, does it?
Well, I ve said enough already about everything here...There is no point on arguing more... But starting for that pointless reason I could say the following:
AntwortenLöschenI never said that you came out of the psychology glass and didn’t work in other jobs. How could I? We ‘ve discussed some of these in person before I post that comment...I just told you that I cannot trust you cause you don’t know for every existent profession so you can’t tell for sure. You cannot tell whether an economist or a military marshal or a lawyer or a singer, a sculptor, a painter, a model or even a taxi driver or a plumber... Is more or less narcissist than a psychologist. Simple as that...You just can’t compare...
Cannot left unremarked some things you said at the end of your comment cause I think you are being a bid of disparager against men’s penis ‘‘utility’’. By penis envy I am not referring to its shape, its function or anything resemble to that. I was speaking about the myth around it and what men’s penis imply to both men’s and women’s minds. If I was not etymologically right to that definition I do offer my apologies.
However, you cannot empirically know what a penis stand for men-in general- so please try to respect it...It’s not a dangling lappet but the one and only part of men’s’ body which can stimulate his erotic pleasure til the end. Don’t wanna speak about tantra right now... Apart from that It shows an abhorrence from your part, instinctive or not...can’t tell... and cannot really see why...I am sure you have your personal reasons but I kindly advise you to try seeing things as an independent observer, as being in a tabula rasa state of mind and then you might get more intuitive insights of any actual fact, sentiment, instinct or ideal.
Now, my perspective as a human being and man is to praise/criticise women, among all other human beings, for a lot of things not because of their biological origin but because of their intellectual liberation/brainwashing. Those women who want to keep their given societal role and reproduce the joint ‘‘Barbie-Bitch Model’’ in their sexual and professional life respectively, consist of a big majority, thus making masculinity the most dominant way for men’s counter action. I do reckon however that this mainly works vice versa but the truth is that this vicious cycle of sex struggle is highly possible to create any kind of envy. YOU pick any name for that. Doesn’t make any difference at all! And my instinctive impression is that psychologists see penis envy as a ridiculous notion not because of its notional implications but because it sounds a bit sexist or even chauvinistic for our ‘‘civilised’’ world. Maybe out of the research fashion...why not? Look around you and see how women want to mimic the model of a successful man. They follow the same path. They want to drive big cars, to be tough and intimidate others, compete fatally, bla bla bla...And yes, the only thing that distinguish those women from their male like-minded counterparts is their breasts. However, its totally out of the question to compare breasts with penis as they do not symbolise same things.
So, allow me for the sake of simplicity to make the assumption of accepting penis as a societal symbol of men’s power and repression over women. I don’t think that this is far from truth. We can then argue that it does play a very important role in sex struggle. There is no war without discrete symbols and penis is men’s ensign of authority. In that ‘‘war’’, women decide not to fight in order to stop it – of course men proved themselves incompetent of stopping it- but to get the power and authority that men hold. They don’t care of giving men to understand the female version of power, of authority etc...if any. Women fight to castrate men’s power and a necessary precondition for that is to get men’s ensign of authority, and this is penis even if this is just a skin lappet dangling between legs...who cares for its biological shape and function?! The myth around it is that matters...
Dieser Kommentar wurde vom Autor entfernt.
AntwortenLöschenDieser Kommentar wurde vom Autor entfernt.
AntwortenLöschenDieser Kommentar wurde vom Autor entfernt.
AntwortenLöschenDieser Kommentar wurde vom Autor entfernt.
AntwortenLöschen. Women fight to castrate men’s power and a necessary precondition for that is to get men’s ensign of authority, and this is penis even if this is just a skin lappet dangling between legs...who cares for its biological shape and function?! The myth around it is that matters...
AntwortenLöschenThe female respond is womb envy and wow!!!Women finally gave their furious and sharp retort. A nice intellectual revenge which can’t do anything else but to bring the aforementioned distorted situation in a balance. But balanced or not it’s still a distortion. For me, both notions are accurate practically, but both imply our anomaly and our absolute intellectual destitution to free our mind and body as well the societal bareness to accept the ones who have already freed themselves from the intellectual guillotine of psychological or any kind of ridiculous societal clichi.
I adore women’s womb for its miraculous functions when creating a life but of course for hedonistic reasons- as vagina cause it stimulates my erotic urge- as well. I ‘ll never neglect the fact that I have been part of a women body even for just the then 9 months of my pro-life. Trust me, I feel a great respect for that...Maybe the greatest of all! Likewise, every men took that journey before taking their first ever breath and I feel that this biological nexus is hugely important on both sexes’ subsequent lives. At least for those, man and women, who managed to escape from the ‘‘neo-macho’’ and ‘‘neo Barbie-bitch lobotomy’’ respectively.
But please consider this: if science have already reached to that point where defrosted spermatozoon of artificial insemination can be used as an alternative breeding process instead of the ‘‘traditional’’ sexual intercourse and amphigony, then scientists can (or have already) possibly discover(ed) the techno-biological procedures that allow men to bear a child and let them give labour by a caesarian section...Why not?
For fuck’s sake-indeed- do we really need to transmutate each other to understand our nature? Woe betide our ignorant species... Males, Females or of any kind...
AntwortenLöschenAnd I think that when you refer to psychologists or to any other unisex group of people by the usage of he and not s/he or (sic), shows a disrespect to women...
On a different note let me quote something I found really philosophically sincere:
‘‘Dear Teachers:
I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no person should witness. Gas chambers built by learned engineers. Children poisoned by educated physicians. Infants killed by trained nurses. Women and babies shot and burned by high school and college graduates.
So I am suspicious of education. My request is: help your students become more human. Your efforts must never produce learned monsters, skilled psychopaths, or educated Eichmanns. Reading, writing, and arithmetic are important only if they serve to make our children more human.’’
Haim G. Ginott
Well, its f* worth fighting for that...