All In The Mind III: IndianCowboy sucks
Sorry it’s late. And sorry I haven’t been psychblogging more frequently. Been really busy both on the blogosphere (CAID, Homeland Stupidity, and Liberty Papers) and in real life (two jobs, conferences, geriatric dog, etc). I’ll step it up a bit. Anyway, because I suck, I’m reminding you that we are looking for hosts who don’t suck. If you’re interested, give me an email with what works. Next Carnival will be June 13 over here. But the 27th on is completely open.
Dave over at Dare To Dream takes a really comprehensive look at the prison system and recidivism. The piece covers elements in the equation all the way from cradle to grave. Highly recommended.
The esteemed Dr. Sanity discusses the Sanction of the Victim, in which the very forces that work to correct societal problems are the ones blamed for it:
Only by withdrawing the “sanction of the victim,” –i.e., refusing to be manipulated in this manner–refusing to give aid where there is scorn and not even grudging gratitude; refusing to shoulder the burden of all as they beat us upon the back and tell us to go faster, do it better, and jump higher; refusing to pay their debts; fix their problems; or protect them from their own, deliberate, suicidal behavior–only then will the looters and the parasites be forced to recognize reality.
In Recourse to Authority, ShrinkWrapped discusses how the internet has affected mental health in ways both good and bad.
The Good:
I consider it a major benefit that my patients must take responsibility for their decision and not simply rely on my authority in areas that affect their lives.
I’d have to agree, I’m not much for authority. And I think that the idea of an authoritarian mental health professional is kinda contradictory to the goal of helping your patients to reach self-fulfillment.
The Bad:
We used to be able to rely on our news gatherers to tell us what is going on in the world. We used to be able to rely on scientists to make sense of confusing information. We can’t do that anymore and it is unsettling, confusing, and disorienting.
Assistant Village Idiot brings us a conversation he had with a psychiatrist with Bush Derangement Syndrome. Normally, I don’t much go in for the ‘psychology of politics’ thing, but I thought this was a rather good example of how rationality in humans is highly context-dependent. While the basic position may or may not be irrational, the psychiatrist’s reasoning sure as heck is.
My own submission blurs the lines a bit as I talk about my own experience with chronic pain and injury and its relation to my empathic abilities in Schizoid Tendencies Are A Two-Way Street.
Dilys talks about why some people may prefer not to be happy, thinking that it’ll give them power over others. And discusses that while this may work in the short run, it’s a bad long-term strategy.
Joe Kissel brings us an entry about handheld machines that can aid in entering relaxed or meditative states using only blinking lights and simple tones. It highlights, among other things, the powerful animal ability to impute complex patterns onto relatively simple stimuli. I’d note that sitting out on the field watching fireflies and listening to the crickets chirp often has the same effect on me that these machines do for him.
Unicovia accuses the media of doing exactliy what Dilys was talking about. Namely, that their entire business model is based around only presenting the bad, no matter what good is happening.
Peter Kua of Radical Hop brings us an inciteful discussion about fear; when it is justified and when it’s just holding you back.
Dr. Sanity’s post is an illogical Political axe grinder that barely touches on Psych and should not have been submitted to this Carnival. So far, out of two pieces that I have read from her, both pieces have been political and not psych. Why are they being posted as such?
Comment by intellectimpure — June 30, 2006 @ 5:22 am
I’m an equal opportunity thingamabob. I think ‘psychology of [insert ideology here]‘ pieces are slightly more fluffy but still worthy of being posted, especially since the three or four major political ideologies are almost mutually exclusive in their foundations. If I’d had time, I was planning a look at the negative aspects of the psychology of libertarianism, just to keep things even. Maybe in two weeks.
Comment by IndianCowboy — June 30, 2006 @ 6:15 am
As I have expressed before with respect to Psych, how can researchers and clinicians to function with a reasonable expectation of objectivity if they are ideologically rigid? You have pointed out that problem with regard to Psych Dogma but I would extend it to Political leaning and philosophy as well.
I find it hard to believe that clinicians with an ideological axe to grind would be able to establish an effecacious(sp) relationship with patients of a differing ideology.
Comment by intellectimpure — June 30, 2006 @ 7:27 am
take some of the newer personality tests. They squeeze in questions about political affiliation, somehow deducing that you can figure out a personality from how they vote. If you don’t vote liberal, you are rigid, closed off, and uncomfortable with new experiences…
which describes me real well don’t it? Because I’ve never karaoked to the milkshake song in the most crowded bar in town, or slept out in central park just to say i did…
Comment by IndianCowboy — June 30, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Shoot! i’m out of town this week, and so I forgot ALL about this, and saw the last call too late . . . . Urk! Looks like some interesting reading in the mix; sorry I was not having frequent access to a computer, and so was not in the carnival this time!
Sara (maybe I can host sometime!)
Comment by sarebear — June 30, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
Well, that still leaves rigid and closed off…
Comment by Intellect Impure — June 30, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Actually, intellectimpure, if you went into Dr. Sanity’s site and really read her psych stuff, you’d see that her political pieces dovetail easily into them as examples of the topics she addresses. What exactly makes her site so illogical? And why do you think that a psych with a rigid belief system couldn’t connect with someone of a differing or opposite one? Impartiality, or the building and maintenance of an efficacious relationship with one’s patients has more to do with the clinician’s strength of character and humanity (ie. ability to look at things from someone else’s point of view). This skill is exclusive to neither side, although in my personal experience, folks on the Right were at least willing to hear me out.
Comment by Katje — June 30, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
I have read several of Dr. Sanity’s posts a couple by Assistant Village Idiot and of course the couple of posts on your own site Katje.
I do not find it at all surprising that folks on the Right would hear yhou out.
Here it is again, in plain language: Ideologues and those that rigidly adhere to a particular viewpoint are usually unable to allow themselves to even consider what someone of another ideology may say on it’s merits. This is true of Right, Left, and all points in between. It is true of Religions and, um, horticulture. When you encounter someone willing to say “the wrong party” or “stuck on stupid” or to claim that someone with a differing view is out to destroy America the expectation of objectivity is ridiculous.
Honestly, if Dr. Sanity and others did not use the cachet of their profession and mis-use their training trying to prove that people who disagree with them politically are in the throes of mental illness I would not bother to say anything in response.
IndianCowboy often in his attacks on the AMA as being Statist points out that it is dishonest for Leftist Doctors to pretend to be experts in public policy. If that is the case, shouldn’t it be applied to this mutual admiration society of Mental health professionals that pervert science to ‘prove’ things in the political sphere?
It is apparent that the internet and Blogging is rapidly devolving into a mutually exclusive set of ‘mutual admiration societies.’
Comment by Intellect Impure — July 1, 2006 @ 8:16 am
as a layman, (not a headshrinker) impure intellect’s argument makes no sense, either you are saying you are more tolerant than Dr. sanity and that’s why you think she has no place in this forum, or you are more objective than Dr. sanity, therefore you opinion carries more weight, and she has no place in this forum, or you are less idiologically rigid (so maybe you don’t believe in right and wrong, in which case, umm, what buisiness are you in? advising patients with emotional problems? what emotional problems? ) and Dr. sanity has no place in this forum, (’cause you’re so “tolerant” right?). of course I’m no expert, so excuse the imposition……
Comment by Mark Krauss — July 1, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
My point is that a Carnival on Psych should be about Psych rather than Politics.
Comment by Intellect Impure — July 1, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
[...] Brain Machines appeared in The Synapse, Issue 1 and All in the Mind III. [...]
Pingback by I Am Joe’s Blog » Blog Archive » A Plethora of Carnivals — July 1, 2006 @ 11:04 pm
All in the Mind III
The third bi-weekly PsychBloggers Carnival, All in the Mind III, is up at OK So I’m Not Really A Cowboy. It is a collection of some very interesting posts by various bloggers in the mental health field. While there, do
Trackback by ShrinkWrapped — July 2, 2006 @ 7:25 am
Blog Carnival index: All In The Mind III: IndianCowboy sucks
ALL IN THE MIND is now up at OK so I’m not really a cowboy.!
Trackback by Blog Carnival — July 2, 2006 @ 8:17 am
If you think Dr. Sanity is bad, you’ve got to read that idiot at One Cosmos who calls himself “Gagdad Bob.” He was named The Most Obnoxious Man in AmeriKKKa” by dailykos, and [f]rightfully so.
Comment by Petey — July 2, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
Intellect impure, way to shoot your own argument in the foot! #10: the carnival of psych shouldn’t be about politics. Okay. Why then the tone of your previous entries, if not political in another sense? (Pretty obvious).
I love the “Here it is again in plain language.” We understood you quite well the first time, you needn’t condescend. How we treat people who take on the role of victim you saw as more political than psychological, and thus out of place. I think the topic has obvious connections to psychology, so I disagree. I believe that thought is shared by others. You are free to disagree with us without sneering (lest you get sneering in return).
Nice guess on how professionally incompent we must be because we are ideologues. I believe word “rigid” came into play. The overwhelming number of psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers are leftist, often extremely and viciously so. I observe that some are able to keep their politics out, some are not. I don’t in fact note any correlation with degree of political intensity and empathy.
I am not interested in what your credentials are in the field, unless you find them germane to the discussion. I am interested in how much observation you do of professionals in practice. Your impressions may differ than mine on this, and you may have a good data set.
But somehow I doubt it. My guess is that you’re a liberal who calls himself a moderate, you have some connection with the field but not a lot of observation. And I’m going to guess young. You sound like me 30 years ago. I’m not sure if that’s a compliment or insult.
Comment by Assistant Village Idiot — July 2, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
Unless you are Seventy, I am not you 30 years ago.
I did take into account that some of you are probably reacting to the fact that many in your field are leftists. I get that.
As for professional credentials: absolutely none. Observation? Very little. Why does it bother you for me to comment on what I would draw from your blogs? Why your need to label me? Seems kind of dogmatic and, er, rigid.
As far as condescending goes, I think you are misunderstanding me: I am dissappointed to see people that are educated and hopefully intelligent just using a more sophisticated form of ad hom attack complete with pseudo diagnosis.
Comment by Intellect Impure — July 2, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
All In the Mind Blog Carnival is Up!
Go here!…
Trackback by Dare To Dream ... — July 3, 2006 @ 6:30 am