Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
is that…...how does a Psychologist know whether the thoughts offered by another person are actual and genuine thoughts, and the ideas offered back by the Psychologist are just what the patient needs to hear to correct the thoughts that the Psychologist does not know are genuine to begin with?
Whew!
Is Psychology telling people what you think they want or need to hear, or is it figuring out what they are telling you is is authentic?
is that…...how does a Psychologist know whether the thoughts offered by another person are actual and genuine thoughts, and the ideas offered back by the Psychologist are just what the patient needs to hear to correct the thoughts that the Psychologist does not know are genuine to begin with?
Whew!
Is Psychology telling people what you think they want or need to hear, or is it figuring out what they are telling you is is authentic?
Double whew!
Eud, if you knew what the shit you were talking about, besides blathering, I’d respond to you. But you do not.
Dennis, I’d say that over the years you’ve gradually become a creep except that as far as I know, you’ve always been one. How’s that for a mildly insulting bit of honesty?
is that…...how does a Psychologist know whether the thoughts offered by another person are actual and genuine thoughts, and the ideas offered back by the Psychologist are just what the patient needs to hear to correct the thoughts that the Psychologist does not know are genuine to begin with?
Whew!
Is Psychology telling people what you think they want or need to hear, or is it figuring out what they are telling you is is authentic?
Double whew!
WHEW is right! I understand why Dennis responded to your post the way he did. I don’t know if Dennis would agree with this but it is my understanding that all thoughts are Actual thoughts.
As for the rest of your question(s), and again I would defer to Dennis, the answer is “context”. This is as simple as I could put it. I think you might need a whole thread’s worth of discussion to answer you completely.
WHEW is right! I understand why Dennis responded to your post the way he did. I don’t know if Dennis would agree with this but it is my understanding that all thoughts are Actual thoughts
.
Someone says “I think.” I know what they said. Assume there’s some “thought” underlying. What they say may have something to do with whatever we’re dealing with, as in therapy, an that’s the challenge. “Actual” makes no sense.
WHEW is right! I understand why Dennis responded to your post the way he did. I don’t know if Dennis would agree with this but it is my understanding that all thoughts are Actual thoughts
.
Someone says “I think.” I know what they said. Assume there’s some “thought” underlying. What they say may have something to do with whatever we’re dealing with, as in therapy, an that’s the challenge.
WHEW is right! I understand why Dennis responded to your post the way he did. I don’t know if Dennis would agree with this but it is my understanding that all thoughts are Actual thoughts
.
Someone says “I think.” I know what they said. Assume there’s some “thought” underlying. What they say may have something to do with whatever we’re dealing with, as in therapy, an that’s the challenge.
Context?
Pretty much.
May have reacted too harshly to Eud, just get tired of inane comments. Should have just not “viewed” his post in the first place and left it alone.
I don’t know if Dennis would agree with this but it is my understanding that all thoughts are Actual thoughts.
It’s a question of or closely related to qualia. We may attempt to communicate our “actual” thoughts, but what we actually communicate may not be those thoughts once the words we use reach the other party and the receiver processes them. So I think Eud’s question is entirely valid (it’s not so much psychology, though he is asking how psychology manages the issue—the underlying issue, though, is pretty much universal), ironically I’m just not sure he was able to communicate his “actual” thoughts well enough to ensure that what most of us got from what we read is actually quite what he meant to communicate to us.
Oh come on Dennis. Of all people here I would think you would be the one with a little bit of thick skin.
Your Illustrious career is done and your life is near over, why care so much about what is said, partly in jest, on a internet forum.
All I can think is that I must have struck a chord, eh? What else would warrant such a response from you, other than maybe a few too many drinks on Saturday night?
Seriously though, how do you think you know when someone is telling you how they feel is really how they feel?
Do you take the position that nobody with a Phd in Psychology can possibly, or has ever been hoodwinked?
Really now.
And FWIW, of course all thoughts are actual thoughts, but are they authentic thoughts? Can’t somebody mislead somebody, even a Psychologist, on what they really feel. Come on, you are the one who interviewed Jeff Dahmer.
Oh come on Dennis. Of all people here I would think you would be the one with a little bit of thick skin.
Your Illustrious career is done and your life is near over, why care so much about what is said, partly in jest, on a internet forum.
All I can think is that I must have struck a chord, eh? What else would warrant such a response from you, other than maybe a few too many drinks on Saturday night?
Seriously though, how do you think you know when someone is telling you how they feel is really how they feel?
Do you take the position that nobody with a Phd in Psychology can possibly, or has ever been hoodwinked?
Really now.
And FWIW, of course all thoughts are actual thoughts, but are they authentic thoughts? Can’t somebody mislead somebody, even a Psychologist, on what they really feel. Come on, you are the one who interviewed Jeff Dahmer.
Give us some insight.
Eudomonia,
Clinical psychology is not about determing if someone is telling the truth. I don’t really know how to begin to explain…
Maybe a better way of describing how a clinical psychologist might interact with a patient would be to say that:
they listen to the patient,
learn about the patient,
and then point out discrepancies about what they say and what they do, or descepancies between they’re body language and the words they’re using.
Psychologists act like a mirror. In order for someone to get something out of psychotherapy, they need to have some intelligence, some insight.
for example:
Your my therapist, and I say to you (in a mean voice), “I love my patients”, while saying it, I fold my arms across my chest (defensive posture), and I turn my body away from you sideways.
And you say to me “Jeff, you say you love your patients, but you say it in a gruff voice, you fold your arms across your body and you turn away, whats with that”...
in other words, there is a descrepancy between what I say and what I do. The psychologist, you in this case, learned a little about me and mirrored it back. Now that this descepancy has been pointed out to me, I have to determine what I am going to do about it… maybe I don’t really want to be a doctor. Alternatively, maybe I do, but certain types of people make me angry (and I need to overcome that to continue to function as a doctor). But most importantly, once I recognize what I’m doing, its up to me to decide whether I want to change or not.
In my interactions with my psychologist, I might knowingly lie, I might distort the truth, I might actually believe the lie I am saying (e.g. I love my patients), as the clinical psychologist interacts with me over time these anomalies come to the surface and its the psychologists job to point them out.
Your initial question is one dimensional, and Dennis’s initial reply to you about your level of understanding, although admittedly indelicate, is in many ways accurate.
I’m declaring FAIR BALL here and not just because I enjoyed Mr. & Mrs. Campbell’s warm and filling hospitality Friday night.
I found Dennis to be a swell and thoughtful guy and if pressed to point to his weakness here, I would say that it is to “slow down and see the tangent” and not be so quick to see common folk talking over their professional level. There. I said it.
We had a fun time talking forum-related stuff and beyond. I know I’ll read his post better now and perhaps, he’ll have better luck wading through mine.
By way of apology, I was rude and insensitive. I should’ve just ignored Eud’s post. By not doing so, I gave it more weight than it deserved. Posts that ask questions about an admittedly popular but complex area can be sometimes addressed; posts that express conclusions absent factual basis and w/o being apparently open to questioning that basis, should be ignored. “And when did you stop beating your wife?” implies more than a question.
Posts that ask questions about an admittedly popular but complex area can be sometimes addressed; posts that express conclusions absent factual basis and w/o being apparently open to questioning that basis, should be ignored. “And when did you stop beating your wife?” implies more than a question.
I think the impression you got from Eud’s post was more an artifact of the difficulty he had in articulating his point, and, I suspect, some worn patience with lay pop psychology (similar to my worn patience with buelshite tactical “arguments” re gun control, though you’re far more of an expert on psychology than I am on tactics).
Posts that ask questions about an admittedly popular but complex area can be sometimes addressed; posts that express conclusions absent factual basis and w/o being apparently open to questioning that basis, should be ignored. “And when did you stop beating your wife?” implies more than a question.
I think the impression you got from Eud’s post was more an artifact of the difficulty he had in articulating his point, and, I suspect, some worn patience with lay pop psychology (similar to my worn patience with buelshite tactical “arguments” re gun control, though you’re far more of an expert on psychology than I am on tactics).
Could well be. Nevertheless, this is basically my fault and error, as I should know better. Eud does not.
. . . Dennis’s initial reply to you about your level of understanding, although admittedly indelicate, is in many ways accurate.
Indelicate? What about rude and inappropriate? Have you crossed over to the other side, Jeff? You used to take issue with rudeness on this forum.
But Dennis didn’t use any magically offensive words.
Byron,
I agree Dennis didn’t use, foul language… but Dave is right we should keep the conversation civil. If we represent reason (whoever “WE” is), we should interact reasonably.
I agree Dennis didn’t use, foul language… but Dave is right we should keep the conversation civil. If we represent reason (whoever “WE” is), we should interact reasonably.
I was, in fact, being facetious—mocking your position on the matter of “magically” offensive words by pointing it out in a situation that illuminates why it’s misguided.
I agree Dennis didn’t use, foul language… but Dave is right we should keep the conversation civil. If we represent reason (whoever “WE” is), we should interact reasonably.
I was, in fact, being facetious—mocking your position on the matter of “magically” offensive words by pointing it out in a situation that illuminates why it’s misguided.
... if you really wanted to know.
Byron,
The term “magically offensive” is your phrase. and I don’t have a position on words that are “magically” offensive because I don’t believe in magic… but before this all escalates…
