Self Esteem

by larc 86 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Seeker

  Classic studies are right by definition, that is why they are referred to as classic.

  Which is why the cigarette companies keep pointing to their classic studies...

  That is my point, if you have an agenda you can view a study as classic, while others may view it as idealogy. I am not familiar with your specific study, but I am familiar with competing agendas producing contradictory classic studies. Citing something as a classic study isn't very meaningful. Produce actual arguments that we can discuss here, and then we will have something to talk about. Argument by authority doesn't go over very well in this group, and I'm sure you are aware.
• 

  Julie

  Morning Larc,

  Interesting that the *only* part of my post you address is the little jab. Absolutely not one point that I tried to make was addressed. Very telling. As is the way you presented your Expert. Go and re-read what you wrote Larc. Was it designed to back up your simplistic nonsese approach to the matter of self esteem or was it designed to make me look foolish for disagreeing with your methods?

  Your Freudian slip was showing there friend, sorry. And no, I am not partial to WT methods of misquoting sources or not naming their source for partial or twisted quotes (nice inferrence though--keep on villianizing those critics--works for others, why not you?). A simple "this is an established method by an established expert named...." would have sufficed. Like I said, go re-read it and then, honestly, tell my why you chose the method you did to establish the credibility of your methods. Not that I really care, just figured I'd show you the error of your ways if you were expecting some sort of "oh your so right Larc, I beg forgiveness for disagreeing with you". You will seldom get such graciousness when going to any length to try to make someone look/feel foolish for voicing their opinions. But, being the expert that you are, I am sure you already knew that didn't you?

  As Seeker Said:

  :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.

  Yes, I thought it a "more harm than good" thing too. Regardless of *whose* methods you applied. Just my view.

  Regards,
  Julie
• 

  larc

  Julie,

  If you read my post made at 1:05, you will see the reason why I did not write a detailed post. Interesting, that you would miss this point. I have taken detailed notes of your comments and will present my view at my earliest opportunity, which probably will be sometime this evening.

  Seeker,

  A classic study in a peer reviewed academic journal is different than a study sponsored by a corporation. The study met the challenges made against it, and proved upon replication to be accurate. Now, you made a very bold assertion regarding Psychoanalysis. Can you prove it, or even tell me where you got such an outlandish idea?
• 

  Valentine

  Hi larc,
  You are misinformed about the efficacy of psychoanalysis.
  If i may direct you to a few publications:

  "Empirical perspectives in the psychoanalytic Unconscious"

  "Empirical Studies of the Theraputic Hour"(studies testing the efficacy of psychoanalytic treament,confirming the value of psychoanalytical treatment for various psych disorders.)

  "Psychoanalysis,behavior Therapy and the Rational World"

  There are many many more pubs that show you aren't aware of the clinical effictiveness and aspects of what's going on in this domain of psychology. You can also get Journals from the APA,Div 39(which I belong too regarding this topic. T

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

  Seeker

  A classic study in a peer reviewed academic journal is different than a study sponsored by a corporation.

  Not necessarily; it depends on the peers involved. If you have rival groups, each saying the other group is flawed, you can get biased results that pass whatever peer review you submit it to. After all, you are all in the same club. It's like asking the WTS to peer review circuit overseers. They might come up with a different conclusion than a Catholic peer review.

  I'm curious as to your thinking that Freudian psychoanalysis is not effective. This is the first time I've heard such a blanket statement. I've heard of analysts that think one type is more effective than another, but to reject utterly something is new to me.
• 

  larc

  Tina,

  Thank you for the references, and thank you for the calm, level headed response you made. Could you provide a little more detail? Are this books you are referencing, or journal articles? If they are journal articles, could you provide the necessary detail for me to find them. In either case, I will take a look at these sources. This afternoon, I will be on the campus of Wright State University. While there, I will visit the Wright State Proffesional School of Pshychology, and ask a friend, the assistant Dean, what she would recomend that I read, that is current.

  Seeker, the study I wrote showed findings that were against the Zeitgeist, so there was not a bias in favor of these conclusions. In fact, the study created a fire storm of contraversy. This classic work prompted psychologists to (1) create better research and (2) invent better treatment methods.

  I do have to go now, but will be back this evening, as I said before.
• 

  Valentine

  Hi again larc,
  oops forgive me for not referencing those!
  'Empirical perspectives.....and "empirical STudies are books.Editors Bornstein and Masling,1998

  The third I mentioned is also a book,and I must correct myself here,it's 'relational world'(not rational) This is Dr. Wachtels seminal work!

  Of course the psych abstracts are to numerous to mention.I'm sure the Uni database will spit out more than enough to whet your appetite.
  And there is always Horney(one of my favs) and Fromm.
  I don't know if you are familiar with object-relations theory/ the Kleinian school of thought? it's being used in this domain as well.
  happy reading! T

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

  Seeker

  Seeker, the study I wrote showed findings that were against the Zeitgeist, so there was not a bias in favor of these conclusions. In fact, the study created a fire storm of contraversy. This classic work prompted psychologists to (1) create better research and (2) invent better treatment methods.

  I'm not talking about psychology, but psychoanalysis. There are psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychoanalysts. I have only been talking about the last, not psychologists at all. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find psychologists arguing against Freud.
• 

  Julie

  Hi Larc,

  Write away my friend--have at it. Yes I saw your post where you claimed you'd written a detailed reponse but couldn't post it because you had hit your limit. So you couldn't post your detailed response but you posted your explanation for not doing so and then another for whatever reason. Now *that* is interesting.

  Frankly Larc, I am not all that interested. I stand by my views of your post and my subsequent words. As to the namedropping thing that so irritated you, have a look at your last post in this thread. LOL Oooooooh, I am *so* impressed......not really. Frankly, it's a thing with me, I steadfastly refuse to EVER be inpressed when someone is intentionally trying to do so. Therefore I am singularly UNimpressed with pretty much all you have said in order to sound impressive.

  Save your breath, I couldn't be less interested (or likely less impressed) with what you may have to say to me at this point.

  Regards,
  Julie
• 

  Seeker

  Larc,

  Your statement so surprise me, I did a quick web search. Indeed, some people are saying psychoanalysis is not scientically accurate. I see what they are saying. In the early days, before we understood more modern medical diagnosis and treatment for disorders such as schizophrenia, Freud thought that everything could be analzyed and cured. As medical understanding of the chemical nature of the brain has grown, analysis has cut back to what it is good at, and left the medical stuff to the psychiatrists to handle.

  I agree with that. If you have a chemical disorder, you need a chemical correction.

  However, I was not talking about chemical disorders of the brain, but issues relating to self-esteem (the subject of this thread). If this low self-esteem was instilled in childhood by our parents, this is a classic example of something that analysis can help.

  I understand better what you were saying, but Freud is not discredited, unless there are analysts that are still trying to treat chemical disorders through therapy. As medicine has grown with knowledge, so has psychoanalysis. As long as you get a competent analyst, much good can be found.