Self Esteem

by larc 86 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Seeker

  His method of therapy was a major breakthough at a time when it became clear the Freud's method of treatment was very ineffective, per a classic study by Hans Eyzenck, a British Psychologist.

  Ah, no wonder you feel the way you do, larc! Believe it or not, even classic studies can be wrong. Sometimes studies are funded simply to prove a predetermined point. And Freud's method of treatment was and is extremely effective for many psychoanalytical disorders. Not everybody wants to put in the work this method requires, so some professionals went in different directions to find "quick fixes" that would be more popular to the masses. And the result of that is there are many different types of therapy in use today, and many very bad therapists. No study can invalidate something that has proven itself so well over the decades. Even if some people very much want to invalidate it.
• 

  waiting

  Julie,

  I remember about 6 months ago, there was a somewhat heated, long, average for here, discussion going on. I was in it - along with some others, including Mommie Dark & Kent.

  Larc suddenly posted - rather upset with us. It seems that another poster had been posting for a concurrent period about suicide worries & threats. Larc, along with Maximus and others were upset, and wondered why we could go on with the thread we were on - as they were addressing the suicide concerns. I think Larc said something about "Other people needing our help."

  Mommie Dark quoted something very interesting, yelling it to Larc:

  "THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM - NOT THERAPY!!!!!!!!" I'm pretty sure I got that quote right.

  I thanked Larc for his reminder - and then Kent interestingly posted to me......of the important background that Mommie Dark had in the past in conjunction with WTBTS aftermath. I thanked him also, wondering why he was asserting Mommie Dark's background......as if she were some sort of authority I should be aware of.

  Soooooooooo, is Larc starting a discussion - similar to Norm & JanH's style (start by quasi-insults & if we don't like it, we're too sensitive - and you've accepted this style from JanH currently) and in keeping to discussion, is he keeping with Mommie Dark's yelling: THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM!......

  Or are you proposing that now we are a quasi-type of therapy - which is opposed to what Mommie Dark & Kent said? Larc really seems to be following Norm, JanH, and Mommie Dark's style, imho. He just doesn't continue to berate and insult - he goes on to discuss with several different posters their opinions.

  No one seems overly offended (or offended at all) by Larc's opening comments except you. I think a rather good discussion was started by it - which is what a DISCUSSION GROUP does, not therapy.

  waiting
• 

  Julie

  Hi Waiting,

  Believe you me I have never mistaken this place for therapy, but thanks anyway for the reminder. Frankly you are mistaken regarding opinion of this thread. Yes, those who have participated have not been too offended (openly), though there has been disagreement and it looks like there will be a theory disagreement possible but personally, I know of some serious disagreement with Larc's post and don't consider him/it worth the effort to get into disagreement discussion.

  I mostly took issue with an apparent lack of sensitivity toward those not so healthy and the assumption that is is by their own choosing. This is false and an unjust, albeit subtle, assertion I strongly disagree with. I felt so strongly enough about it Waiting I didn't just make a slam and disappear. I have stuck around to explain WHY. You know, like in discussions.

  And please, spare me the he-was-merely-following-the-methods-of-others business. I think if I hear one more person give this lame excuse for the sake of another (or themselves) I will feel ill. Besides, those you speak of are talking politics and foreign policy. Hardly the sensitive subject matter we have here.

  Larc seems like a caring fellow and yet to see such a post from him, well frankly I was (still am) disappointed. Sorry. Stupid me, thought I was free to voice my views here on a Discussion Board and to praise or take issue as I personally saw fit. My mistake.

  On the other hand, I am certainly being more diplomatic than our beloved Mommie Dark generally is, why are you taking such issue with me on Larc's behalf? Also, was there anything in my post you actually wanted to address? Like any points you agree or disagree with? Just the point I am bothering to try to make any is enough for you to address me about? I'm not sure what the bottom line is here Waiting. Are you trying to diplomatically serving me up a glass of STFU or what? *knit brow-uncertainty*

  Regardless, I've had my say on the matter, figured I'd let Larc's reply be his final answer too and just let others go from here. I've said my piece, explained my piece, been chided for contributing my piece and will now move on. Peace.

  Regards,
  Julie
• 

  waiting

  Hello Seeker,
  

  And Freud's method of treatment was and is extremely effective for many psychoanalytical disorders.

  Exactly what was Freud's method of treatment which was so effective? Which psychoanalytical disorders were so positively affected by this type of treatment?
  

  Not everybody wants to put in the work this method requires, so some professionals went in different directions to find "quick fixes" that would be more popular to the masses.

  What "quick fixes"? Which professionals and which schools of theory are you referring to?

  I know a little about Freud, basically, he's considered the founder of psychoanalysis, MD, in the Victorian era, and also a high percentage of his patients were female. He believed strongly in the analysis of dreams - where real truths of the person could be found, if one interpreted the symbols of dreams correctly. He also felt he could do that.

  He believed the unconscious was vastly more important than the "tip of the iceburg" - our conscious. And in the unconscious was our childhood, infanthood, and all our sexual urges which were surpressed (and might have been in the Victorian time.)

  However, his studies and findings are called into question on several major points - one point was that they weren't controlled studies. Agreed - he's had much influence upon us, his theories in some areas stand the test of time.

  But so have other theories.

  Perhaps there is no completely one right way - or wrong way. Interestingly, professionally, all these schools of thought are still referred to as "theories." Which can - or cannot - be proven scientifically. As is taught - the scientific study of the mind is still a young "science" trying to establish itself. Afterall, how do you study something which can't be measured, seen, felt, etc - the thought process.

  Quote: Cognitive Therapies Treatments designed to remove irrational beliefs and negative thoughts that are presumed to be responsible for psychological disorders.

  One technique is to challenge the beliefs directly, through active and aggressive confrontation. In rational-emotive therapy, developed by Albert Ellis,the therapist acts as a kind of cross-examiner, verbally assaulting the client's irrational thought processes.

  The important part of rational-emotive therapy is the therapist's attack on the rationality of the client's beliefs. The therapist points out the irrationality of the client's thought processes, often in a confrontation manner, in the hope that his or her beliefs will ultimately be rejected lessening their emotional consequences. The therapist tries initially to pinpoint which of these beliefs characterize a particular client's thought processes, so they can be changed accordingly.

  What makes these beliefs irrational is their inflexibility an absoluteness. I must be loved and approved; I mustbe thoroughly competent; I need someone sronger than myself. The client firmly believes that things must be a particular way or something awful or catastrophic will happen.

  Creator of rational-emotive therapy, Albert Ellis (1962)
  Psychology, The Adaptive Mind, p 595

  Interestingly, Ginny Toskins has written much about this type of therapy within the recent months. Some good points were made, as most people hold some - or many - irrational thoughts. ie: I'm no good because I'm 20 lbs overweight.

  waiting
• 

  ashitaka

  Well, I had a real crappy childhood and I think pretty highly of myself. I think it's genetic, as well as environmental. Perhaps some of us just grow thicker skins as to insults.

  The thing is, people don't need therapy for everything. Humans have been around for awhile, and a good cup of tea and a friend have been around a lot longer than people you don't know taking 100 per hour away from you to listen emotionlessly as you gab on about the time your father called you a horses' ass.....I think we as humans wouldn't be soft if we learned to deal with our problems and histories ourselves first.

  Mi2Scents
• 

  Seeker

  No one seems overly offended (or offended at all) by Larc's opening comments except you.

  Well, I was too, actually, which is why I commented, though I chose to take a diplomatic approach in my comment. I thought the opening comment in this thread to be hurtful to those who are too damaged to just "get over it," and such a comment would do more harm than good to such ones. It was for the benefit of such ones that might be lurking in this thread that I said what I did.
• 

  teejay

  One would be how ignorant *so many* are of how incredibly important those formative years of children are and how deep the damage goes for those who suffer much. Your post with its Get-over-it-you-crybaby tone was absurd and only helps to fuel such misconceptions that many already hold.

  Hello, Jules.

  I went back to read Larc's post that started this thread. I don't think he meant it the way you read it—"Get over it, already!"—but reaching that conclusion from the way its written is surely possible.

  Larc made good points, offering in layman's terms the solution for low self-esteem. Many similar topics cross this discussion board... some important, others less so. Self-esteem, therapy, etc. are serious issues relevant to many JWs (and folks who never were). While we may pass along our viewpoints in discussion, real and effective resolution of these issues will never be settled here for those who need it.

  I liked what you said.
• 

  waiting

  Julie,
  If this is a DISCUSSION FORUM - then you can post, I can post, etc., etc. *knitting my brow*......I thought that's what we're doing? This is one of the paragraphs I thought was interesting in your post (bold added):
  

  Well Larc *pretending to be impressed with name-dropping*, I am quite sure that this "most influential Clinical Psychologist" would never have applied such an incredibly insensitive approach to a huge, broad group of people, suffering from various issues at various depths, including the one you addressed. Would the good doctor have been so flippant if he'd known he were addressing some who are severly emotionally/pschologically damaged (have you caught any of the suicide talk lately??)? I would sure like to think not.

  
  We are a large group - but remarkably similar because of our jw backgrounds in particular. Agreed - we have many issues. Not all of us are suffering at various depths about all issues, including self-esteem, however. "Suffering" is a subjective term - some of us might just be uncomfortable. Some of us might not have a problem with self-esteem at all. Some of us seem to have gotten along with our lives quite nicely after the WTBTS - and stay to help others.

  The second part of your quote would respond back to Larc's concerns about suicide threats earlier - and Mommie Dark's THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM!!!!!!!!!

  Some people are severly emotionally/psychologically damaged, as you've said - and they should seek professional help. This forum is not a substitute in any way. In fact, I am in contact with one poster privately who used to post here - their therapist (after reading our forum several weeks ago) strongly urged them to stop posting and lurking here - completely & forever. It was considered an unhealthy environment. Go figure!

  Opinions are just that - opinions. Theories of psychology are just that - theories. Open to discussion. I'm not faulting you in particular - I just posted to you. I am trying to discuss this subject without it turning into a typical flame thread.

  waiting

  ps: Perhaps peoples of the Unites States are a tad too sensitive?
• 

  Valentine

  Cognitive theraputic techniques such as Ellis' or Becks are used more for the 'worried well'.
  That would entail esteem issues,in chronic anxiety,anger and depression. In a nutshell your therapist helps you to confront irrational thoughts by re-examining them.

  This technique is used with the biomedical or biopsychological approach,using meds that address and alleviate some of the severer symptomology in order to even start at any 'rational approach. behavioral techniques are also used.
  From my personal and prefessional experiences,even esteem issues are approached eclectically and multi-modally.
  Ellis was originally trained in the psychodynamic but was disatisified with it's slow rate of progress,not that there was no progress or use for the psychodynamic,or benefits therein.
  Freud actually combined a biomedical view w/ the psychodynamic.He recognized the interplay.

  Psychodynamic therapy is an approach in which the unconscious aspects of mental life are explored and brought to the conscious level. patients develop insight from this as they make connections between repressed psych info(painful childhood memories and experiences for example) and present moods and actions. It is still used effectively today. The major difference between these 2 modalities is the approach.One is directive,the other non-directive w/ the pt. That's the beauty of having many techniques to work from.mot all benefit from the confrontational schema.

  I'm just putting forth the notion that as much as I like Ellis,beck bandura etc,the other psych approaches shouldn't be discounted.They need to be seen as having useful tools for wellness as much as RET.

  And then, for those w/ students of psych and interested ones,you
  could always get your mind blown by reading Szaz lol. The 'anti-psychiatrist' and what he thinks about all this lol. Entertaining as well as educational.
  Tina just throwing some thoughts around.

  Todays Affirmation:
  The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.
• 

  Julie

  You are right Waiting, we were just replying to each other and that does meet the criteria for Discussion. I was a bit puzzled at you taking issue with me regarding not so much with what I said but that I said it. I tried to make valid points but you merely took issue with the fact I took issue with Larc, thought that odd.

  Nevertheless, I have to agree with you on the term suffering, I think the term "difficulties to overcome" or something may have been more accurate.

  And you said this:

  :Perhaps peoples of the Unites States are a tad too sensitive?

  LOL! Point taken.

  Besides, this merely confirms my suspicions that you are really Jan.

  Warm regards,
  Julie