Self Esteem

by larc 86 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  waiting

  Howdy Larc,

  I ran my knowing you by my professor this morning - he's also a Ph.D and pretty nice. His main focus of study was drug influence on the mind (he's of the 60's generation). I said you were a tad testy - he said most Psychologists were........goes with the territory. Passed on a *howdy* to you, btw.

  According to the book we're studying, and his lectures - both viewpoints is that Freud had some valid points - but neither buy into his whole school of thought, and teach that as a whole - it's not scientifically accepted. But it has some good points.

  So far........I've not seen any school of thought accepted wholly without qualifications - as they are all still considered theories.

  I am extremely interested in this thread - as I find it interesting. In class, there's so many names *dropped* that it boggles the mind - thanks for the interesting exchange of ideas.

  If no other - it has helped me, here and in class. And I would guess that there are some others reading this - both pro & con. But that's only a theory..........

  ((((((((((((((larc - and Zazu by association))))))))))))))

  waiting
• 

  Beans

  Being made fun of for being a JW gave me a good sense of humor and alot of patience.You could punch me in the head and I would laugh at ya,I was also called a WOP and Square Head in School.This didn`t bother me much after I got used to it and I think that having put up with all that made me a stronger person.I am full of confidence and good at whatever I do,playing sports contributes to being a winner because who wants to be a loser?

  Beans
• 

  larc

  Seeker,

  I am glad you took the time to do a search and get some recent information. I was about to do the same myself. One point of interest regarding Freud is that he never thought Psychoanalysis would work with Schizophrenics. Unfortunely, his disciples in America were over zealous and thought otherwise. Of course, they were wrong.

  Now, let me tell you about the work of Eyzenck. In the 1950's, he did a literature survey to find all the articles that reported the outcome of therapy. At that time there was no distinction between Psychiatrists and Clinical Psychologists, in terms of their treatment methods. They all were Freudians or Neofreudians. None of the studies had control groups, so he compared Psychoanalysis against Mileu Therapy. Mileu Therapy is a fancy term for putting people in a comfortable institution where all there needs were met. No actual talking therapy was involved. He found that with therapy the cure rate was about 55%. He found that without therapy, the cure rate was about 55%. This indicates that Freudian therapy with its extensive hours and huge cost, really doesn't make a different.

  I will tell you what happened next, but I have to take a break to get my pizza out of the oven. A man must have priorities, after all.
• 

  OUTLAW

  HA-HA!Hey larc,the story was just getting good.Now your leaving me on the hook for pizza?..LOL...OUTLAW
• 

  larc

  I'm back,

  Now, of course the therapists were up in arms over these conclusions. There charge was that the studies quoted are no damned good. Eyzenck responded that if that was the case, then they should do better research, which they did. Others believed the results and decided to come up with alternate treatment methods. One of the first was Wolpe. Rather than try to have a method that fits all, he concentrated on helping phobics. He developed a method called Systematic Desensitization. The idea is that if you have learned to fear something, you can unlearn that fear. He had an average cure rate of 90%, which took about three months, compared to Psychoanalysis that had a cure rate of 55% and took several years. Now, I would call that progress.

  The Freudians maintained that if you cured the phobia that you were not curing the underlying bull shit in your unconscious, therefore, symptom substitutuion would occur. That means that you would get another fear or phobia because you did not get at the root cause of the problem. Guess what my friends, symptom substitution did not occur. Ninety per cent were cured in short order and the was the end of their problem.

  Got to go once more. I ate some of my pizza, but the remainder got cold, so back to the oven I go.
• 

  GinnyTosken

  Larc,

  Twisted Ginny

  "Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis." Ralph Waldo Emerson
• 

  larc

  Back again,

  At about the time that Wolpe developed a very effective treatment for a particular kind of problem, Albert Ellis was dealing with his own concerns. He was a Clinical Psychologist trained in the traditional Psychoanalyitic Model. In his private practice, he discovered that the method did not work very well. So, he like Wolpe, wanted to come up with a better method. In the process, he developed a theory of emotions - what causes us to have negative emotions, and a method of treatment. Without going into detail at this point, his method of treatment is far more effective than Pyschoanalysis. His method works well for people with depression, low self esteem, and anxiety.

  By the way, these ideas were discussed on an earlier thread, started by Tina last August. It was entitled, "10 nutty beliefs", and it was her best contribution, ever, to this board, truely a fine piece of work. Strangely enough, Julie praised that work and attacks mine which are identical in content. Is there a bias working within our friend Julie?
• 

  Valentine

  Hi larc,
  I happened to have pulled some old notes from my bookcase regarding Eynseck(blows dust off).....
  Your post pre-supposes that he blew psychoanalysis out of the water. Of which it didn't.
  He was quite the provacative thinker,not considered at all profound.
  Those who have evaluated his theories and works actually found him to be dishonest by hiding ambiguous evidence and unsubstantiated opinions with his work. He couched these opinions in scientific verbiage,that made them sound quite legit in drawing unequivical conclusions.
  It's been found that he exagerated and misled in his evidence regarding crime and personality.
  Not all statisticians agree and approve of how he used factor analysis in his research.
  
  .Phenomonology and other qualitative methods are used and approved by psychologists(of which he didn't,not all phenomena can be reduced to simple numbers,not in the realm of the psyche.He was NOt a psychoanalyst,more in the behavioral realm of psychology).
  Some of his theories??
  here ya go;
  "Smoking does not cause lung cancer.
  All things have a physiological explanation
  There is a correlation between race and IQ-that blacks have a genetically transmitted handicap....
  and last but not least,his insidious effort to detach the conscious mind from human action....."
  I can go on,but i do think the little I shared brings some his theories into question.
  I know in the course of study I took,he only gets a minor mention on the introvert extrovert theory,nothing more.
  I did go thru several rather new texts here in my possession and it doesn't seem that he was any great threat to the more profound thinkers and honest researchers.
  I also have some notes on what he wrote about jews and intelligence,Unfortunately,like my postings,my notes on that part are unreadable lol. Quite into eugenics wasn't he?
  Thanks for the compliment on 10 nutty beliefs.I need to go thru the pile of notebooks one day here. maybe I can add something as good and relevant again :> I have mounds of writings and essays that i havent looked at in yonks ages lol.T

  Just from some old notes I had here.Tina

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

  larc

  Tina,

  You are dusting off notes from a college lecture. I read the original.

  You say he did not blow Freud out of the water? He most certainly did.

  You say he was "not profound". Research is research. Evidence is evidence. Profunity has nothing to do with it.

  You say he was hiding evidence. None of his critics ever accused him of that or ever found evidence in the achival literature that he had not presented.
  I did my own literature survey 20 years after Eyzenck's. I found 100 references and I found nothing contradictory to what he wrote.

  Factor Analysis in his research: What the hell are you talking about? He did not use factor analysis in the research. Your notes from class are messed up. He used factor analysis years later when he developed a personality test.

  By the way, I could not find your name among the members of Div. 39 of APA.
• 

  larc

  Tina,

  For the rest of your post regarding his crazy theories, a lot of people of people had crazy theories back in those days, so what. One for example was the Schizophrenogenic Mother - theory that your mother's treatment caused you to become schizophrenic later in life. Not accepted today, not in the textbooks.