Could the conspiraloons sink any lower?

[Blagsta]

 

[In Bloom]

What I mean is, you keep telling people what psychoanalysis isn't, what is it all about? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[pembrokestephen]

What I mean is, you keep telling people what psychoanalysis isn't, what is it all about? I'm genuinely curious.

I, too, found your remark rather confusing. This thread isn't actually ABOUT psychoanalysis - it was brought up as a comparative to Scientology, so it's pretty natural that most of what is going to be said in that context is going to be about the ways in which psychoanalysis (and I'd stretch that to psychotherapy in general, because one thing that Scientology "tech" is not about is anything resembling psychoanalysis) isn't like Scientology, not what it is about in and of itself.

Perhaps your question warrants a thread of its own, since even the psychotherapy/Scientology thing is a fairly big derail from the original line of the thread?

 

[Blagsta]

What I mean is, you keep telling people what psychoanalysis isn't, what is it all about? I'm genuinely curious.

Start a thread.

 

[rorymac]

!

I have met a small sample of counsellors who were all incorrect with their analysis of two very simple situations neither of which gave me cause to seek therapy as I already knew the correct solution. I was very dissappointed with the advice I may have acted upon had I been completely dim. However I thanked all in my survey for telling me every incorrect little piece of wisdom they fuckin gave me in good faith and I think they would have been over the moon if I told them they had stopped me from attacking the staff at Tesco's bakery counter who try to poison us all with putrid stale bread with incorrect dates, no buttermilk .. what the fucking hell good is the European Union was the real problem .. I knew that fucking plain and simple.
I was also very aware that I did not have any sexual hang ups and that I was a very lucky guy to ejaculate prematurely as you like a good 86% of the time .. while bonking and what have you. I had no fuckin problem with the other 14% where I only got a semi on and a little micky sick over many many hours with little or no climax at all. Not a single therapist said 'well done mate' but asked me embarrassing stuff about feelings and that .. fuckin hell
My own GP told me he was a psychic and I swear to God he asked me if I liked Thin Lizzy .. when I said I hadn't heard their work but Eric Bell was a fine fine guitarist ..well my favourite one .. he said I know .. he comes here too. I can't say what else he sais but his partner told a medical student that my ketamin cramps were as a result of me being Irish and a drinker .. it was a cultural thing ,, he was a little jewish tight cunt wih a cap on him.
Fuck sake they're all shit .. fucking useless as are most herbalists and all healers .. every fucker everywhere is a wrongun and that's just how it is.
You can't pretend you're not a wrongun yourself just by trying to heal other wrongun. You'll never be any less worthy of entering the fuckin gates of Jesus just because you are a wrongun because that'd mean there's no cunt there at all.
I went to a house of scientologists in Edmonton and they tried to get me to join by telling me stuff and asking questions .. and to be fair they answered anything I asked too and when it came to either getting involved or not I chose not to as they had no ketamine for starters .. ok that bit is made up!! .. but there was no problem and all they said was that if I changed my mind that I knew where they were and I do to be fair. It is a small sample but still a 100% positive score for the showbiz folks. I didn't recognise any of them except maybe Tom Hanks .. he looked like Forrest Gump anyway and he ran really quickly too. He could jump right over a 6 foot garden fence could ol Forrest to be fair and he never ever went on about God or fuckall. You'd never have known except for his inner calm. Folks didn't trust him in real life because he used to rock backwards and forwards all the time. He didn't even realise he was doing it and so he needed no therapy for it did he no he didn't is what I thopught at the time and I was correct again. Sure he made mistakes .. we all do. There is no one that isn't a mook in some way and that's all about that. There's no need for therapy and if you were impotent you'd wish you could get a semi. If you're striving for excellence between the sheets we need to push on a touch from the semi .. easy does it like or you will be climaxing in your slacks prematurely again. I only told the Jewish doctor I drank about 3 pints a day and I could tell he wasn't a drinker. He collected money that fucker and thought he was the donkey's bollocks saying that to the student medic. She was really embarrassed was Theresa and I could only grimace in pain. I wasn't going to cry out in front of her .. indeed she gave my habd a little squeeze for being such a brave soldier. She didn't squeeze Dr Bernsteins hand I noted. His was like a little rat claw so I was glad he wasn't my friend anyway.

 

[pembrokestephen]

I have met a small sample of counsellors who were all incorrect with their analysis of two very simple situations neither of which gave me cause to seek therapy as I already knew the correct solution. I was very dissappointed with the advice I may have acted upon had I been completely dim.

Most reputable counsellors will go out of their way to avoid giving advice. Far better to help the client find his way through to his own answers with some helpful insights, reflection, etc. than to start bombarding him with "Wot YOU wanna do is..."

Just a small point.

Excellent rorymac stream of...can I say "consciousness?"...though.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazzz, you were making the comparison with psychoanalysis and Scientology, in terms of the costs.

Yes, it is true that some people can be in analysis for a very long time, and hourly costs are high. But nobody's misleading anybody. In Scientology, if you decide you've had enough and want to leave, they won't make it easy. Nor is there any ethical standards to which Scientology is bound to adhere in terms of the way it treats its "patients", and there is serious doubt about the benefits of the "tech" that Scientology is getting people to pay an awful lot of money for (not to mention the techniques they use to get people to pay the money in the first place - a psychoanalyst wouldn't reduce a patient to a dissociative dream state then get him to sign a bank mandate to pay for his treatment, which has happened in Scientology, and appears to be part of policy).

I also think that comparing psychoanalysis with Scientology is to grant a respectability to Scientology's claims to having sound credentials for its "treatments". It is considered normal in most civilised countries to submit processed claimed to deliver medical benefits to some kind of review process: the mainstream therapies, in general, have this built in to their structure, and research, peer reviewed work, case studies and critiques are a major part of the academic underpinnings of these modalities. Scientology, on the other hand, has steadfastly refused to co-operate with, or participate in, any kind of independent study of its claims. Their response ranges from a flat refusal, through grandiose explanations of how LRH already did all that, to questioning the motives - and criminal past - of the person making the suggestion, until, finally, when they've run out of delaying and distraction tactics, they play their ace card and say "Well, we're a religion, and it's all about faith, anyway, so you can't do a clinical study on faith. So ner."

If Scientology "tech" worked, it could be proved to work. It can't, and therefore their taking of sums of money, no matter how large, off people to do things they claim to be able to, but can't prove they can, is fraud, pure and simple, regardless of how much other psychotherapies might charge. At least they can point at some (though perhaps there's never enough) research to support their claims for efficacy.

I'm not disputing any of that. Whatever beefs I have with psychoanalysis I don't think any analyst would push to get their patient to remortgage their house. There's no comparison with Scientology.

And in fairness, I'm probably a bit harsher on psychoanalysis than it deserves. This is mainly due to my family personally than the thing itself. What I can promise people is that being a psychoanalyst will not make someone a good parent - and indeed my mother was pretty terrible. And psychoanalysts can very carried away with their thing and use it as a way of feeling superior and impervious to self-examination, when in reality it's complete nonsense. Some fun anecdotes about my mother might include the time she was insisting that a friend of hers should be invited to my sister's wedding, even after I'd just told her that this woman sexually abused me as a child (she never thought to ask why I avoided her). Or claiming that after I'd been poisoned by being made to clean desks with chlorinated solvents in a room with no ventilation, I collapsed 'because I was feeling rotten that day'. Oh, and managing to ensure that I could never express any kind of problem without being made to feel psychologically inadequate for having it in the first place. And completely failing to support me when I was having a very physical chronic fatigue syndrome crash, because that was 'all in the mind'. Hopeless!

 

[Blagsta]

Ahhhh...I get it why you're so nuts now.

 

[teqniq]

To be fair, I think he's talking about this thread, not the killings. And, to be even fairer, the existence of this thread is only tangential to the killings - check out the title.

I'd be prepared to cut him some slack on this, if only because maybe he's found some of my posts entertaining, and that's always gratifying...

This is exactly the case. I find nothing whatsoever entertaining about the killings, indeed it's totally depressing and likely to occur again unless the U.S. does something about it's gun laws (fat chance).

 

[8den]

This is exactly the case. I find nothing whatsoever entertaining about the killings, indeed it's totally depressing and likely to occur again unless the U.S. does something about it's gun laws (fat chance).

My apologises.

 

[pembrokestephen]

And in fairness, I'm probably a bit harsher on psychoanalysis than it deserves.

Jazzz, this is the bit that makes you different from the hardcore conspiraloons - I think most of them would find it impossible to critically re-evaluate anything they'd said and put it in perspective.

As a therapist, living with a therapist, I can imagine why you might be a bit harsher on the whole thing than someone else, or even than it deserves! We're not all totally sorted people, and we can fuck up our private lives (and probably have) as much as the next person.

This is mainly due to my family personally than the thing itself. What I can promise people is that being a psychoanalyst will not make someone a good parent - and indeed my mother was pretty terrible. And psychoanalysts can very carried away with their thing and use it as a way of feeling superior and impervious to self-examination, when in reality it's complete nonsense.

*nods* I find myself falling into the same traps, occasionally, though I think that the rigidity of the pure psychoanalytic approach probably makes its practitioners more susceptible: we person-centred psychodynamic existentialists (well, I was integratively trained! ) are perhaps a bit less locked into our modality, and have a few chinks through which reality and a pragmatic thought or two can occasionally obtrude.

Oh, and managing to ensure that I could never express any kind of problem without being made to feel psychologically inadequate for having it in the first place. And completely failing to support me when I was having a very physical chronic fatigue syndrome crash, because that was 'all in the mind'. Hopeless!

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." - possibly my favourite all-purpose quote, but appropriate here, I think.

A cautionary tale for all us therapists and wannabe therapists here!

Hmm, of which there seem to be quite a few. Maybe a poll's in order...

 

[Teepee]

No it isn't, this is a forum where people are free to state their opinions, right or wrong.

No it's not.

 

[teqniq]

My apologises.

No need, no worries.

 

[Wilf]

In case anyone's still interested, the CIA assassin theory was gleaned from a couple of David Icke books I read in the late 90's; he claimed that the killers of Robert Kennedy and John Lennon were both CIA controlled agents, also that Timothy McVeigh had a psychiatric assessment with Louis Jolyon West. And yes, we do know that the CIA paid psychiatrists such as West and Ewen Cameron to research mind control.

The problem with something like this is not really in the specifics. In the 40s and 50s i gather the cia dabbled with all kinds of pseudo- scientific nonsense - on the back of the emerging discipline of psychology. We've also heard that they dabbled in outright gibbersih, testing psychics and 'far seeing' (? was it called that?)techniques and other such hokum. From this its just possible that individual assassinations might have used some kind of 'brain washing' to get the fall guy to do their bidding (if very unlikely). However we have to remember that experiments in 'mind control' were just that - experiments. Along with all the other crap it involved an agency flush with cash merely testing out bits of new age pseudo science. More importantly:

1. They abandonded all this - it didn't work!
2. If the state - then and now - wanted to kill people, it has much more predictableand reliable means to do that. What contemporary evidence is there that the state or its agencies employs large numbers of people 'programming' agents?

From all this, you've got to apply occcam's razor: is it reasonable to assume that oklahoma or the recent campus shooting were organised conspiracies, using utterly unreliable techniques (mind control), involving agencies who's role was bound to come out at some time - and for completely odd reasons (why would the cia want to kill students and provoke gun contro?? ). Why is it not more reasonable to go with the plausible, evidenced accounts of these events?

Problem gets bigger though if you go beyond the specifics - and into a mind frame that follows from 'Kennedy might have been killed by mind control zombie assassins' to 'zombie black ops are the probable cause of every dodgy murder'. Aren't there plenty of other 'non-sheeplike' theories that explain how the world is - class, power inequalities, the actual, visible actions of the state/cops/military/business/rich?

<p.s. in the cold light of sobriety, i was out of order taking the piss out of your username a few post back. sorry>

 

[pembrokestephen]

and 'far seeing' (? was it called that?)techniques

Remote viewing.

A mate of Hubbard's was involved, I believe. Complete crock, failed every test they put it to, but of course Hubbard & Co thought they just didn't BELIEVE hard enough...

 

[In Bloom]

Ahhhh...I get it why you're so nuts now.

That was completely necessary, and very clever

 

[Jazzz]

Jazzz, this is the bit that makes you different from the hardcore conspiraloons - I think most of them would find it impossible to critically re-evaluate anything they'd said and put it in perspective.

As a therapist, living with a therapist, I can imagine why you might be a bit harsher on the whole thing than someone else, or even than it deserves! We're not all totally sorted people, and we can fuck up our private lives (and probably have) as much as the next person.


*nods* I find myself falling into the same traps, occasionally, though I think that the rigidity of the pure psychoanalytic approach probably makes its practitioners more susceptible: we person-centred psychodynamic existentialists (well, I was integratively trained! ) are perhaps a bit less locked into our modality, and have a few chinks through which reality and a pragmatic thought or two can occasionally obtrude.

hmm quite possibly. And I guess I was lucky anyway - at least my folks weren't Kleinian!

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." - possibly my favourite all-purpose quote, but appropriate here, I think.

Nice quote, can apply to conspiracy theories too...

 

[William of Walworth]

you've got to apply occcam's razor: is it reasonable to assume that oklahoma or the recent campus shooting were organised conspiracies, using utterly unreliable techniques (mind control), involving agencies who's role was bound to come out at some time - and for completely odd reasons (why would the cia want to kill students and provoke gun contro?? ). Why is it not more reasonable to go with the plausible, evidenced accounts of these events?

Problem gets bigger though if you go beyond the specifics - and into a mind frame that follows from 'Kennedy might have been killed by mind control zombie assassins' to 'zombie black ops are the probable cause of every dodgy murder'. Aren't there plenty of other 'non-sheeplike' theories that explain how the world is - class, power inequalities, the actual, visible actions of the state/cops/military/business/rich?

Voice of sense!

As I was suggesting earlier, but Meltingpot completely refused to accept, most conspiracy theorists NEVER apply Occams Razor or a proper degree of scepticism towards their own theories.

If they genuiinely believe that there's a strong case for some of the more outlandish-sounding explanations, then testing those theories with an independent, sceptical eye, applying rationality/common sense/Occam's Razor against them, asking equally sceptical questions against them that they say they want to ask of the 'mainstream'/'establishment' explanations ... if they did all that, the process would help to prove those theories.

But most conspiracy theorists neither know how to, not want to, do this.