Yes. Well said. It's truly perplexing how resistant and antagonistic others can be when it comes to thinking critically or Socratically about the social, political, or metaphysical realities we find ourselves in.
I agree it's definitely prone to these kinds of dogma. Since people are products of their environment (at least that' a tenat I hold) and pyschology is trying to teach you how to properly understand your environment via enhanced understanding of the self and it's reactions and even a bit of vice versa you could say. And when people hold dogma as truth of reality they're wholly and unequivocally convinced it applies to you and are bound to mislead you. You posed a very good idea. That psychology can only heal the sick if society itself isn't sick. Great video
Greatest understanding of mind imo was Osho. That guy understood the mind and the solution to suffering. The west can only get partially there but never fully healed. Even at your most healed, using psychology, you are still a mess. Healing is beyond the mind and this is unknown in western thought
Are the psychotherapists not supposed to help an individual cope with the (sick) society and reintegrating back into it? I'm really feeling for psychologists nowadays, with pressure from all sides... always under threat that the so called 'codes of conducts' will be used against them if necessary. Similar situation is with the doctors/GPs, at least very much so here in the UK under the NHS. They are not doctors anymore, just robots being told when to prescribe and how (only allowed to follow the guidelines, cost-effective, scared to not medicate because what if...) Can we or can we not rely on the latest research and guidelines within the field? And if we don't want to follow the guidelines and decide to think for ourselves, we might be a threat to our clients / patients (or at least not helpful).. so we are told.
Thank you for your comments. I think few psychologists will recognize a sick society (they are immersed in it themselves); the ones who do should help people cope if they are clearly suffering from it. This may involve a ‘partial’ reintegration or reconciliation of sorts. Unfortunately, 'reintegrating' will for most psychologists mean teaching people to succumb to aspects of the cultural hegemony that is sick - they cannot see it as such and may in fact regard it as psychologically healthy (we ourselves become part of the problem). I think following the latest research and guidelines has always been imperfect, since ‘data’ is always being filtered through various theoretical assumptions that remain unquestioned within the social scientific research (this is a complicated subject that I talk about here: th-cam.com/video/VS9W24kL31Q/w-d-xo.html); it becomes even more of an issue when the research and guidelines becomes increasingly ideological and politically motivated. In my opinion, there is no substitute for critical thinking, and in the end, trying to do right by our individual clients or patients.
Yes, these paradigms are silly, each person has a history but is also, should be regarded as, a functional member of society. The current trend is identity politics but my view is that the thing called "identity" is a more complex affair that requires an excercise of volition, I know that you know what I mean - we are largely self creating in our being in the world. Its all a very complex thing to unravell on a personal level and I wouldn't have clue on how to unravell on the social scale but to say that I think people should feel empowered, have faith in humanity. One thing that Becker wrote that always stuck with me was "A person cannot actualise for his own cause". I agree with and recognise that in my personal, inter-personal experience but how to steer society I don't know, I dislike individualism and think that people express their individuality in society with the causes they get behind. Here in the UK its all culture war, literally in the higher echelons of power - "blame the boat people !!" base level scapgoating.
Happy to see that you are still around. I think I mostly agree with you. I might emphasize ‘being principled’ more than ‘getting behind a cause,’ since the latter can so easily deceive itself, mislead the masses via irrational emotions and moods, get co-opted for other ends, or (in the case of rebellious causes) fail to recognize when it finally needs to turn against itself (see Camus, The Rebel). Unfortunately, in a time of irrational mass-movements, a sober-minded and principled person is likely to end up the social scapegoat (see Eric Hoffer’s ‘The True Believer’). There are many reasons to dislike (perhaps even fear) modern identity politics, though it is politically incorrect to point them out or try to talk about it; I hope that is slowly changing. I do not like how it reduces people to the level of a superficial social category (race, gender, sexuality), which seems to deny or minimize each person’s unique agency and individuality. For example, I have worked with gay therapy clients who have been told that they are not ‘gay’ enough to be recognized within the so-called ‘gay community.’ Same with modern-day race politics (a black person being told they are not ‘black enough’ to represent ‘the black community’). I think what saddens me most, is that we have seemingly abandoned the ‘ideal’ of moral universalism (I think Kenan Malik may have suggested this). It wasn’t perfect (no ideals are), but it was something we aspired toward - universal principles that we would try to apply to all, irrespective of social particulars. It seems that we have now become so despairing and cynical that we’ve discarded universalism for moral particularism. Many people are now convinced that the only way to fight discrimination is through exaltation based on belonging to a socially designated ‘victim’ category, while happily condoning discrimination, racism, and sexism, if directed toward appropriate social targets (e.g., white, heterosexual, men, presumed to be inherently ‘guilty’ within the logic of the intersectional ‘progressive stack’). When universal principles no longer seem to apply, I would imagine increased tribalism will be the end result. I also don’t like the bureaucratic side of it, which seems to be everywhere now (e.g., committees). It feels ‘Orwellian’ and brings to mind Zygmunt Bauman’s warnings about technocratic societies that model themselves as ‘social gardeners’ … i.e., ‘too much of this race/sex, not enough of that …’ [weeds and flowers]. Again, it seems to ‘de-humanize’ (or ‘de-person’?) us … reducing us to our ethnic-racial boxes, as Malik would say. If this is supposed to help social cohesion and trust, I don’t see how.
Yes. Well said.
It's truly perplexing how resistant and antagonistic others can be when it comes to thinking critically or Socratically about the social, political, or metaphysical realities we find ourselves in.
I agree it's definitely prone to these kinds of dogma. Since people are products of their environment (at least that' a tenat I hold) and pyschology is trying to teach you how to properly understand your environment via enhanced understanding of the self and it's reactions and even a bit of vice versa you could say. And when people hold dogma as truth of reality they're wholly and unequivocally convinced it applies to you and are bound to mislead you. You posed a very good idea. That psychology can only heal the sick if society itself isn't sick. Great video
Amazing video and I'm looking forward to more of your insights in this area. Great work!
Good point!
Greatest understanding of mind imo was Osho. That guy understood the mind and the solution to suffering. The west can only get partially there but never fully healed. Even at your most healed, using psychology, you are still a mess. Healing is beyond the mind and this is unknown in western thought
Are the psychotherapists not supposed to help an individual cope with the (sick) society and reintegrating back into it?
I'm really feeling for psychologists nowadays, with pressure from all sides... always under threat that the so called 'codes of conducts' will be used against them if necessary.
Similar situation is with the doctors/GPs, at least very much so here in the UK under the NHS. They are not doctors anymore, just robots being told when to prescribe and how (only allowed to follow the guidelines, cost-effective, scared to not medicate because what if...)
Can we or can we not rely on the latest research and guidelines within the field? And if we don't want to follow the guidelines and decide to think for ourselves, we might be a threat to our clients / patients (or at least not helpful).. so we are told.
Thank you for your comments. I think few psychologists will recognize a sick society (they are immersed in it themselves); the ones who do should help people cope if they are clearly suffering from it. This may involve a ‘partial’ reintegration or reconciliation of sorts. Unfortunately, 'reintegrating' will for most psychologists mean teaching people to succumb to aspects of the cultural hegemony that is sick - they cannot see it as such and may in fact regard it as psychologically healthy (we ourselves become part of the problem).
I think following the latest research and guidelines has always been imperfect, since ‘data’ is always being filtered through various theoretical assumptions that remain unquestioned within the social scientific research (this is a complicated subject that I talk about here: th-cam.com/video/VS9W24kL31Q/w-d-xo.html); it becomes even more of an issue when the research and guidelines becomes increasingly ideological and politically motivated. In my opinion, there is no substitute for critical thinking, and in the end, trying to do right by our individual clients or patients.
Yes, these paradigms are silly, each person has a history but is also, should be regarded as, a functional member of society. The current trend is identity politics but my view is that the thing called "identity" is a more complex affair that requires an excercise of volition, I know that you know what I mean - we are largely self creating in our being in the world. Its all a very complex thing to unravell on a personal level and I wouldn't have clue on how to unravell on the social scale but to say that I think people should feel empowered, have faith in humanity. One thing that Becker wrote that always stuck with me was "A person cannot actualise for his own cause". I agree with and recognise that in my personal, inter-personal experience but how to steer society I don't know, I dislike individualism and think that people express their individuality in society with the causes they get behind.
Here in the UK its all culture war, literally in the higher echelons of power - "blame the boat people !!" base level scapgoating.
Happy to see that you are still around. I think I mostly agree with you. I might emphasize ‘being principled’ more than ‘getting behind a cause,’ since the latter can so easily deceive itself, mislead the masses via irrational emotions and moods, get co-opted for other ends, or (in the case of rebellious causes) fail to recognize when it finally needs to turn against itself (see Camus, The Rebel). Unfortunately, in a time of irrational mass-movements, a sober-minded and principled person is likely to end up the social scapegoat (see Eric Hoffer’s ‘The True Believer’).
There are many reasons to dislike (perhaps even fear) modern identity politics, though it is politically incorrect to point them out or try to talk about it; I hope that is slowly changing. I do not like how it reduces people to the level of a superficial social category (race, gender, sexuality), which seems to deny or minimize each person’s unique agency and individuality. For example, I have worked with gay therapy clients who have been told that they are not ‘gay’ enough to be recognized within the so-called ‘gay community.’ Same with modern-day race politics (a black person being told they are not ‘black enough’ to represent ‘the black community’).
I think what saddens me most, is that we have seemingly abandoned the ‘ideal’ of moral universalism (I think Kenan Malik may have suggested this). It wasn’t perfect (no ideals are), but it was something we aspired toward - universal principles that we would try to apply to all, irrespective of social particulars. It seems that we have now become so despairing and cynical that we’ve discarded universalism for moral particularism. Many people are now convinced that the only way to fight discrimination is through exaltation based on belonging to a socially designated ‘victim’ category, while happily condoning discrimination, racism, and sexism, if directed toward appropriate social targets (e.g., white, heterosexual, men, presumed to be inherently ‘guilty’ within the logic of the intersectional ‘progressive stack’). When universal principles no longer seem to apply, I would imagine increased tribalism will be the end result.
I also don’t like the bureaucratic side of it, which seems to be everywhere now (e.g., committees). It feels ‘Orwellian’ and brings to mind Zygmunt Bauman’s warnings about technocratic societies that model themselves as ‘social gardeners’ … i.e., ‘too much of this race/sex, not enough of that …’ [weeds and flowers]. Again, it seems to ‘de-humanize’ (or ‘de-person’?) us … reducing us to our ethnic-racial boxes, as Malik would say. If this is supposed to help social cohesion and trust, I don’t see how.