RoR: Forum

Orion Reasoner,

Great article and subsequent follow-up posts. This might perhaps be a slight tangent, but I was curious if you or other members of this forum have heard, read or stumbled across the nascent field of "positive psychology"? My limited understanding of this very new field is that instead of studying people with "non-normative" psychologies, the focus is on healthy people who are happy, successful and efficacious. In my humble opinion this new approach intuitively makes more sense to me as opposed to studying those who have the misfortune of being mentally unstable. If the end goal is happiness, or human flourshing, etc., and like Objectivist ethics, couldn't this or shouldn't this also be the standard by which psychology is measured?

Matt Ashby

Post 21

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 8:53pm

Coalton,

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out...

====================================

Daniel,

I like that analogy... Too many people don't understand the concept of the metaphysical, logical context, and just how much difference it makes in terms of really appreciating things to their fullest.

=====================================

Matt,

You know, surprisingly enough, now that I've heard you mention it, I'm kind of outraged that I haven't heard it presented before. But then again, that doesn't surprise me that much, considering what I've observed about the ulterior motives of many of those who go into MHI... the rush of superiority, even if it means that the patient malingers.

By the way, there's also another theme of therapy out there that's been written about, called "philosophical psychology", where the therapist and patient explore philosophical possibilities for adaptive perspectives and approaches to living, as they compare to what the patient has been so far employing.

Post 22

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 2:44pm

Orion Reasoner,

Your article (with your supplement on "normative psychology") has been published at http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/FDA_Warnings.html.

Thank you once again.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 23

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 5:47pm

Matt wrote:

>This might perhaps be a slight tangent, but I was curious if you or other members of this forum have heard, read or stumbled across the nascent field of "positive psychology"?� My limited understanding of this very new field is that instead of studying people with "non-normative" psychologies, the focus is on healthy people who are happy, successful and efficacious.�

Hi Matt,

This field was pioneered by Abraham Maslow in the 1950s. Most people only know about his famous "heirachy of needs", but there is more to it than that. You can find summaries here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bhmasl.html

and more in depth here:

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html

I think Maslow is important, and is more worth studying than say, Freud (though I have a soft spot for Freud too). I think he will turn out to be an early contributor to the "missing science of consciousness".

While he died in 1970, people like Daniel Goleman are continuing to investigate this area. I would also recommend you check him out, particularly "Vital Lies, Simple Truths" about how human psychological patterning works.

- Daniel

Post 24

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:35pm

As someone who has had some mental health problems, and extensive involvement in the mental health industry as a result (which I may write about in an article sometime), I agree completely with Orion's points. Drugs ("meds," as any shrink will insist on calling them), while probably necessary for some patients, have been elevated to the status of panaceas in the MHI. My own experience suggests that they not only lack most of the healing properties ascribed to them, but are also often a barrier to true mental health.

Of all the various influential figures in psychology, I find Maslow's ideas most appealing, since they acknowledge to a much greater degree than other theories the importance of free will and self-definition and -realization. Since psychology is a relatively young field that has focused mostly on disorders, there is still much to be learned about what goes right for people who are psychologically healthy. Then again, there are inherent limits to the gains to be had from "positive psychology." One can never discover a cure for melanoma by examining and working with healthy skin cells, or fix a clock without discovering which piece is broken.

Post 25

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 12:29pm

Daniel,

Thank you for sharing the information regarding Maslow. I found both or your web links to be informative and interesting. Moreover, I was unaware that Maslow was the "father" of the American humanism movement, but I can certainly see how his concepts of metaneeds (truth, beauty, justice, self-sufficiency, etc.) is very similar to the "virtues" discussed in talks I have heard regarding "positive psychology".

Matt

Post 26

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 6:53pm

G. Stolyarov,

I just read it; it looks great. Thanks again for posting it... I hope it gives rational people a metaphysical yet concrete argument with which they can arm themselves against the MHI.

==========================

Daniel,

I love Maslow. Have you also heard of Kohlberg's morality development stages? I think it's brilliant... Also, Carl Jung's focus on the synchronicitous? and emergent balance of opposites between and within one's own personality is also very compelling to me. Finally, in terms of therapy practice, I think that my favorite is probably Aaron Beck, who truly pioneered and formalized a scientific and logical dialogue process that he called "cognitive therapy". Oh yeah, there is also a recent therapist who has written a book on what he calls "philosophical psychotherapy", whereby the teachings of various historical philosophers are used to help clients find a most adaptive perspective on life.

==========================

Andrew,

I'm glade to hear that you liked it. As I said, I've been on all three corners of the issue, as a neuroscience student, a clinical psychology student, and just like so many people nowadays, a "patient" of the system. And quite honestly, the only thing that really got my head truly straight at last, was Ayn Rand's principles of Objectivism... I can't say enough about her sheer courage and devotion to absolute clarity of mind. While it may not mean much to other readers of her books, the one thing that has probably been of the most useful value to me in all aspects of my life, was the statement that Francisco d'Anconia spoke to Dagney: "Contradictions do not exist; whenever you think you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong". That one notion, that idea of sacrificing even sacred cows, is what I'll call "heretical thinking", and I don't think I can fully express how useful it has been to me... kind of a blade of truth, for cutting all the worst stuff out of my head and my life.

Post 27

Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 3:17pm

Daniel,

There's one other thing that I wanted to add to what you'd said:

It does not surprise me, that as an Objectivist, you have had "mental health" problems... This is because most human societies promote blind obedience and conformity as the supreme virtue, not objectivity or logical, free thinking; were it based on objectivity and the lot, you would be the therapist and these voodoo priests would be your patients. So, you have my sympathies and whatever assurance I can give you, that by my standards, there is nothing mentally "ill" about you.

But I want to address another question... How do societies get like this? I think that these so-called "virtues" that most societies follow, are really there because religion has introduced them to begin with. That is, they come from religions.

Religion followed from the domestication of crops; logically, the domestication of human beings must be next... and to do that, as in the domestication of crops and animals, you need a special, large-scale way of isolating, breaking, and re-forming your "crop"... in this case, people.

Religion is clever enough to realize that in order to control human beings, you have to frame their fundamental frame of reference in just a certain way, as soon as possible, and while your audience is as vulnerable and dependent as possible. That's why religion particularly targets children for engulfment, where they have no moral frame of reference already, but need one desperately as a foundation for movement in the world.

And where religions cannot find children, they then target other vulnerable people of other ages. And where they do not find vulnerable people, they work to shatter psyches and re-infantilize those who do not conform, using, quite objectively, torture and brainwashing techniques. Once the subject is thus rendered, religion then extends a desperately-needed hand of "friendship", and the desperate, blubbering subject cannot help to see his/her torturer as the most supremely enviable entity imaginable.  The respect for that sort of black power is nothing short of, well, religious. But keeping our heads about us, it's supremely evil.

And if you focus an uncompromising eye on the mental health industry as well, you will find that it routinely depends upon exactly these sorts of techniques to "deal" with "problem clients"; in other words, those people of true objectivity and independence who simply loathe following blindly.

And thus, by all honest and comprehensive meausres of what makes a religion, the "mental health" industry is a religion. No doubt about it.

Post 28

Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 3:47pm

Orion wrote:
>Daniel,
There's one other thing that I wanted to add to what you'd said:
It does not surprise me, that as an Objectivist, you have had "mental health" problems...

I think you have me confused with another poster - Andrew perhaps? Glad you like Maslow. I will look up Kohlberg, as I am unfamiliar with him and get back to you.

- Daniel

Post 29

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:23pm

Daniel,

Yes, you are right... I did mean to address Daniel in my last post.
=============================================

Andrew, my previous post was for you.

Post 30

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 10:01pm

Orion wrote:
>And if you focus an uncompromising�eye on the mental health industry as well, you will find that it routinely depends upon exactly these sorts of techniques to "deal" with "problem clients"; in other words, those people of true objectivity and�independence who simply�loathe�following blindly.....And thus, by all honest and comprehensive measures of what makes a religion,�the�"mental health" industry is a religion.�

While I agree with much of the thrust of your argument, you can't really call the "clients" of the mental health system "people of true objectivity and independence who simply loathe following blindly".

It's not like psychologists grab people off the street at random and chuck them in asylums because they happen to be independent-minded - which is rather how you're making it sound! Fact is, these people are already heavily problem-dominated well before the doctors get to them. Ask the family and friends who've had to put up with their problem behaviour, and they'll tell you. So you've got to be careful not to put the cart before the horse here.

The criticism is really that the system doesn't cure them, and often makes the problem worse. (Studies like the famous David Rosehan one shows that institutions can't even tell when someone has recovered, or is even normal in the first place). That the system can unintentionally become a kind of "life support system" for the problem. But that doesn't, on the other hand, mean that simply crying "Set them free!" will somehow fix the problem.

In my view, the roots of most of these problems are located in the social background rather than in the individual themselves. They're often the result of ancient, subtle social patterns that people conform to without realising. Once the individual realises this - that she's not the problem, the *problem* is the problem - they can formulate individual and original responses to it. This stage of 1) externalisation and 2) individual formulation of response is the key to a lot of the new thinking in this field over the past 20 years.

And this idea also neatly explains why institutions don't really solve problems - because they're part of the social background too.

- Daniel

Post 31

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 1:08pm

Daniel,

Well, to some degree, I do stand corrected. The MHI does indeed not pull people off the street... BUT, they do lure people into MHI offices with all their highly seductive, mass-distributed propaganda directed at all the marginalized people who are having a rough time of things. Surely you've seen the drug ads and the "compassionate treatment center ads"...

And yes, you can talk about the effects of society, but no individual within that society can really ignore for long that things aren't working. I mean, I know that I can, and I have a hard time believing that all these other human-looking creatures around me are really a different species or something. They certainly seem to be able to summon up the capacity for logic whenever it suits them.

Post 32

Friday, May 7, 2004 - 7:16pm

Speaking as one who has taken mood stabilizers and is currently taking antidepressants, I'd like to state that the FDA's warning on psychiatric drugs is misinformed. It is not that the drugs themselves induce suicidal behaviors, but that the individuals taking the drugs were suicidal prior to taking them and the drugs have not, in fact, resolved the issue. That said, I do not think that psychiatric drugs are inherently evil; while the science behind them has not been studied nearly enough, there is no denying that in some cases, they work. I would rather see a "depressed" (I do not, however, like the term) individual take medication and lead a more productive life (isn't that, in fact, the essence of objectivism?) than remain in a state of lethargy and unsuccessfulness because the psychiatric drug he is taking has not been entirely studied. As a victim of the mental health system myself, I have known numbers of individuals whose lives have changed from the use of psychiatric drugs. Of course, drugs are only part of the solution; a person must have the will to change. There is no doubt in my mind that the drugs are useful in select cases, but I strongly believe that their use has become a rampant, hasty "quick-fix" solution. Just my two cents on the matter.

Raven

Post 33

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 2:27am

Raven,

There's a number of books on the problems with the mental health care system's use of drugs as "therapy".

One of the most important of these is written by Peter Breggin, M.D., called Your Drug May Be Your Problem.

In many cases, two things work much better than these chemicals they call "drugs". One is cognitive therapy using Objectivist, cognitive therapy principles (it was the only thing that worked for me and many of the others that I know).

The other thing that worked for me was learning about something called an alkaline diet, and reading a book by a maverick chemist named Robert Barefoot (yes, the supposed "coral calcium quack" that the medical establishment has spared no expense to bankrupt and smear).

He points out that most disease is caused by FDA-institutionalized RDA's of vitamins and minerals which actually cause diseases such as heart disease and cancer, by not promoting a much higher intake of minerals like calcium citrate and magnesium, and higher doses of vitamin D, which have falsely been labeled as "toxic".

His book, for anyone who's interested (probably not you, from the tone of your essay), is called "The Calcium Factor".

Another, third, amazing book for healing the body and mind is by Tiffany Field, Ph.D., of the Dept. of Pediatrics at the University of Miami, in Florida. She works closely with researchers from all sorts of reputable places like Duke, Princeton, and such, and has discovered that human touch is the mystery variable that sends a feedback loop to the brain, to both increase health-increasing human growth hormone from the pituitary gland, as well as shifting the body's arousal mode from sympathetic to parasympathetic, where such functions as digestion, growth, fertility, and immunity (which fights such things as cancer) can properly happen.

If I thought you were more of a medical heretic, I would advocate that you put down Dumbo's magic black feather (the drugs), and find more rational and ethically profitable ways to promote real and lasting human health.

Post 34

Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 12:34pm

Orion,

I'm somewhat of an expert in nutritional biochemistry. As I read your mention above on Mr. Barefoot and his "amazing" Coral Calcium, I couldn't help but post this critical retort. I'm sorry that it's a tangent, and I'd like to add that I'm not inspired merely by the fact that it's a negative criticism (that hideous criticism of envy attacking the values that others have produced).

First of all, let's give some credit where some is due. An alkaline diet appears to be beneficial. The excellent data would be that which indicate that acid-producing food leads to increased urinary calcium excretion - ie. osteoporosis. So what's the issue?

The issue as it relates to Barefoot is that (like most advertisers) he propagates deception via promulgating half-truths - ie. his "stance" is fraudulent. Can I name one of these supposed "half-truths" that "line his pockets" while providing little relative benefit to consumers? Well, I could name over a dozen, but let's focus on a few key ones:

Half-truth: Barefoot downplays fruits & veggies in order to make room for his coral calcium product - which he overrates as a solution to the Standard American Diet (SAD).

Truth: The alkalinizing effect of food/products is mainly related to a combinatorial function of calcium, magnesium, and potassium content. In other words, there are validated equations that reliably predict acid/alkaline from food, by focusing on the minerals above along with a few others. AS IT TURNS OUT, compared to fruits and veggies, his product is about as weak as you can get with regard to the known equations that predict acidity [a simple salad would be more potent than his (by industry standards) 300% overcharged product].

Half-truth: Barefoot claims he at least has a wonderful calcium product (ie. everyone should still benefit from taking it). I will leave the "Fallacy of the Calcium Emergency" for another time. Let's proceed as if more calcium WOULD be a good thing for everyone.

Truth: The calcium in coral is in what's called the "calcium carbonate" form (this is dictated by the identity of coral in nature - it's the way that coral incorporates calcium). This form is one of the most poorly absorbed, and especially so for the elderly.

Like I said, I could say much more - but I think that misconceptions have been adequately met and that readers are empowered with the appropriate information to make an informed decision regarding their purchases.

Again, I'm not just trying to be a pain, Orion (although my last 2 replies to you may lead you to think this).

Ed

Post 35

Monday, May 24, 2004 - 1:35pm

Ed,

I just read your post, and don't disagree with you a bit. I'm glad you said what you did...

I was actually skeptical about Barefoot and his focus on coral... It struck me as odd why his dietary protocol would include both coral calcium AND calcium citrate... especially if, as he says, coral is the "superior" form of calcium. If so, why is the citrate form used?

It seems as if he has a kind of "logic rictus" or something... He has this forgone conclusion, and he must bend everything to support that conclusion.

After calling several university nutritionists and biochemists (before you had mentioned it here), they all said what you've said, that carbonate is likely one of the poorest forms of calcium in terms of absorbability, and that that is precisely the form of calcium in coral.

But the reason that I do like Barefoot, is that he is one of the first to really talk about alkalinity and how certain minerals like calcium are determinative with regards to that, and how they bolster a healthy human physiology, whereas acidosis does not... And I'm more than a little upset that the acidosis/severe disease connection has never been properly communicated to the public by the medical establishment, while instead all they seem to care to do is keep the public running on a wild goose chase, chasing seemingly unconnected symptoms with flakey, frustrating dietary fads and expensive, unreliable, and even toxic "treatments" that promise no real release from the grasp of disease.

Mind you, there might not always BE the possibility of release from disease, but to not pursue that possibility, or even conceal one, is reprehensible.

So yes, Barefoot does not give a more vegetarian diet its due, especially with regard to fruits... he goes on too much about how important protein is, and this is where I start to get confused, because I hear contradictory things...

One camp says meat metabolism creates acidity, the other side says nothing about this. While I do avoid red meats (mostly, I just don't like the taste of them, unless they are very tender due to fatty marbling), I still do eat stuff like chicken, fish, and the lot, and I do like them a bit fatty.

So, thanks for the feedback, it did clarify a lot.

Post 36

Monday, May 24, 2004 - 3:30pm

Orion,

Thanks for letting me rant about my "pet subject" without taking it personal (sensing the passion in your words earlier in this thread gave me a worried prejudice that you may not take criticism well - and as it always does, experience has now eradicated my prejudice!).

By the way, meat DOES provide an acid load to the kidneys (mostly from sulfur-containing amino acids), but veggies can entirely cancel this load out!

Ed

Post 37

Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:18pm

Ed,

*L* Oh no, I was more than grateful for you to "rant" on about biochemistry... I was a premedical student as an undergrad, and I still have a passion for the stuff.

And while you did attentively note that I do have a passion for my subject, my deepest passion is for objective truth, be it even that I turn out to be totally wrong about whatever I feel passionate about. I believe that in the interest of objectivity, I have to evaporate my passion the instant I realize that it is not promoting truth. And more importantly, I have to give credit where credit it due...

A major part of that is that I try to incorporate the actual phrase "I was wrong, you were right", whenever applicable. In the interest of real human progress and happiness, I wish more people I see from day to day would take pride in using some phrase like that in their daily conversation, instead of simply the usual, "You were wrong, I was right".

While the second phrase may apply in certain cases, it's the additional use of the second phrase which improves one's credibility and, again, the overall quality of our lives.

And back to meat and veggies, I'm wondering which vegetables or foods in general offer the most intense alkalization in the body? And also, what if anything do you know of this recent "alkaline water" that's being sold... products such as Evamore and whathaveyou...

O.

Post 38

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 8:22am

Orion! Shame on you! You have hijacked your own post! :-O

I prefer general advice and a positive-oriented "add this" approach, rather than negative-oriented "take away this" approach (e.g. 2-4 fruits & 4-8 veggies for everyone, everywhere, & all the time).

But you want details. Like "Johnny-5" - in the movie Short Ciruit? - you proclaim "need MORE input, need more INPUT!" Well fine then, here are some excerpts for you to "munch on" to feed a brain that's curious for more scientific details (rather than the mere good advice above - which would fix this "problem" for nearly everyone, everywhere, and for all time).

First an excerpt to outline the scope of the issue ...
"It is well established that diet and certain food components have a clear impact on acid-base balance. For adults, the following factors are involved: 1) the chemical composition of foods (i.e., their content of protein, chloride, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium), 2) the different intestinal absorption rates of the relevant nutrients, 3) the metabolic generation of sulfate from sulfur-containing amino acids, 4) the grade of dissociation of phosphorus at the physiologic pH of 7.4, and 5) the ionic valence of calcium and magnesium. All these factors allow us to estimate the potential renal acid load (PRAL) of any given food or diet."

[To view the abstract online: Bring up the PubMed web-site (search first for "PubMed") and type the following in the search box: 10923348]

... and a group-average rating for 3 groups of foods ...
"... the calculation model yielded PRAL values that ranged from an average maximum of 23.6 mEq/100 g for certain hard cheeses over 0 mEq/100 g for fats and oils to an average minimum of approximately -3 mEq/100 g for fruits and fruit juices and vegetables."

[To view the abstract online: 7797810]

... and some general advice not found in the online abstracts ...
Orion, for practical purposes, the potassium/protein ratio of whole foods reliably predicts acid load (an increase in this ratio will DECREASE acid load) . A reasonable goal is to arrange meals so that you approach 40mg of food-source potassium for every gram of protein contained in that meal. You may have to search online for potassium content of foods. More than 40mg potassium (per gram protein) should make you alkaline -and you can also get too alkaline, so don't get crazy with it (100mg potassium per gram protein is too much - and may harm you)!

A note on "precision" ...
Including magnesium in the prediction equation [(potassium+magnesium)/protein] may result in a statistically (but not necessarily "practically") significant increase in precision.

And a final note on the idea of fixing a "bad diet" with a "good pill" ...
I mentioned food-source potassium for a reason. Single food items have AT LEAST hundreds (and more likely thousands!) of unique "ingredients." Whole diets have AT LEAST thousands (and possibly millions!) of unique "ingredients." No pill does.

P.S. Regarding the mineral (alkaline) water issue. Keeping in mind that water is only part of your nutrition (not a quick fix), it may help too. With regard to "new. improved!" products, I suggest buying some cheap Litmus paper at the drugstore (or health-food store) and checking alkalinity directly. A good standard to beat is Evian (which was the market leader - in mineral content - the last time I checked).

Ed

Post 39

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 11:23am