& psychiatry | Ubuntu | eye problems | Carlin and voting
This means that most anyone can help others with - let's say - psychological problems: it does not need a professional (psychologist, psychiatrist, priest, medical doctor) to help another human being.
The reasons - not necessarily good or fair - to appeal to professoionals are mostly four: (1) the problems are considerable or difficult to solve or (2) the person is or seems dangerous to others or (3) there is some need for medication or (4) there may be a fashion "to go into therapy", as there seems to have been in the 1970ies in the US, when therapists (of very many kinds) got part of the role priests or clergy had in earlier times: Someome who gave advice on how to deal with various problems of life, and was supposed to have some special qualification to do so.
Now while it seems to me that most psychiatry and psychology is pseudoscience, which many of its professional practitioners may not really know, just as many priests are true believers in a faith most men don't have and are prone to reject as nonsense or a matter of faith at best, or is bulllshit, which means they (more than not) know it but practice anyway for pay, this does not make psychotherapy necessarily a bad thing. Whatever its qualities and whatever the real motives of its practioners, those who partake of it may feel helped by it, and indeed also may be helped by it, if only because they can discuss their problems with someone who seems to care, and who gives them advice, social assistance, guidance or perhaps medicines that they find helpful, and that indeed also may be helpful.
All that is quite consistent wihat I said above: While many psychotherapists - to settle for a term meant to cover psychiatrists, psychologists, priests, social workers and counsellors, who provide some kind of psychological or social help professionally, for pay - have some form of training, quite often, as indeed with psychiatrists and psychologists, for a long time and in a university, what they do could usually be done just as well by persons who are not trained.
The point I want to make
present section is that especially psychiatrists and psychologists, who
are, in terms of years and level of education the highest trained a,ong
the psychotherapists, and who tend to pretend that they have a level of
expertise, knowledge and insight that ordinary people - "layman" -
lack, are almost all of them bulllshitting if
Here are some of my reasons - and as it happens my academic degrees are in philosophy and psychology, so indeed I am not speaking in ignorance:
NONE of the
professionals, and NONE of the psychiatrists is able to give anything
like rational, empirically supported, scientific answers to the
following questions (and there are quite a few more that are relevant
that they rarely can answer, about epistemology, statistics,
probability, logic and science, for example, but these are too
technical to consider here and now):
ALL of the psychotherapeutical professionals, and ALL of the psychiatrists presuppose SOME sort of answers to ALL of these questions, indeed like anyone else who can function in a human society without creating major problems for others - but ALL of the professionals mentioned bullshit you or delude themselves if they pretend to be able to answer these questions, other than by what is mostly faith or illusion, if indeed not intentional bullshit meant to make you pay.
And if indeed any of the psychotherapeutical professionals or psychiatrists do help their clients or patients, as indeed does happen, this is emphatically not because of the great amounts of rational knowledge they have, for this is not the case, but because they have some intuitive gift, possibly developed through a lot of experience, of helping others with psychological problems.
In sum: All of psychiatry, as a claimed body of rational science, is mostly pseudoscientific bulllshit, and cannot be anything else until there is much more knowledge of how the human brain generates human experience, personalities, selfs or the delusion thereof, predictable characters, consciousness, common sense experience that allows one to function socially, and the abilities to communicate with language and to perceive meanings in many kinds of things and situations.
as to dr. Thomas Szasz: I
found a book yesterday that - from a first glance - seems quite
interesting. It is by a Dutchman I don't know anything about, and you
can download the whole book in a good pdf or word file from his sise in
Myth and Power in the Work of Thomas S. Szasz
Jan Pols, M.D., Ph.D.
As I said, I
have only read a
little in it, but it seems an interesting and well written study
by a Dutch psychiatrist who also met Szasz personally and who seriously
discusses his views and seems to do so sensibly.
I am still on GNU/Linux-Ubuntu - as I think the best name is, if one wants to give fair credits - and stiil like it a lot, and indeed it also helped me with my present eye problems in at least three major ways:
as an option in
the System Settings, called "High Contrast Inverse",
that allows me to
have black backgrounds with white lettering, instead of the other way
around: Very pleasant for my eyes, such
All of this is very helpful
for me in my present condition.
It makes some things
on the internet more difficult or indeed impossible to view, and the "High
Inverse" is not without glitches (the Unity icons don't all
for example, e.g. those for the file explorer - Nautilus - and
System Settings and Trash don't).
But I couldn't use the computer for more than a few minutes at the time without these options, so I am quite pleased and relieved that I could tweak all this.
And indeed GNU/Linux Ubuntu is a lot nicer, more pleasant, easier to use than MS Windows, besides being a lot safer, and having very much better help.
While I am at it: Here are four programs I like a lot that you should check out if you can - and the first two also are available for MS Windows:
I had 2 1/2 better days,
but today is a bit worse again: I don't have much pain in my
eyes, but I do
get an itchiness in my head or on my scalp, that I also have had for
months, in conjunction with sore eyes, that may have positively
responded to Duratears: I definitely have less sore eyes.
That is a great step forward, but the itchiness, while not really painful - it is like the feeling one has when one's hand is asleep - is unpleasant, and indeed my vision also gets shimmering and more faint when I continue looking at a screen.
So...two steps forward, one step back. Cogent rational explanations I have not, but I have meanwhile been able to read the Wikipidia on my afflictions, and it is quite possible, it has been found, that symptoms increase or decrease, indeed without known cause, for the Sjoegren's Syndrome again is a mad psychiatrist's dream: No known etiology, hence fit to be appropriated under the aegis of the DSM-5, to enrich psychiatrists.
Then again, I don't know whether this has happened yet, and in my case it does seem that so far Duratears have contributed to considerably less pain in my eyes, which is a great relief.
Having written a nice bit about the Dutch elections in Dutch - a language I have mostly avoided since January 2010 - I just remembered a nice bit of George Carlin on the same topic, briefly before he died:
There will be elections soon in the United states, and I admit that personally I think Romney will very probably be considerably worse than Obama, but then I found Obama very disappointing as well.
won't counsel you
what to do with your vote if you are American. Being Dutch, the
last time I voted was in 1971, because I legally was forced to do so,
and for the sort
explained in 2008:
was no one to
vote for with any real
intelligence, indiviidual courage, honesty or proven morality - all
were obviously careerists of very minor talents and little
civilization, who evidently were in it for personal advancement and not
for what they publicly pretended.
Incidentally... one of the more devious or clever careerists in the UvA., prof.dr. Han van der Maas, told me repeatedly that his father was "just like your father" a Man Of The Resistance, namely because his father was a leftist activist in the 1960ies - in Dutch: "Mijn vader zat ook in het verzet" - which I led pass at the tiime because I found it contemptible, and after that told me three times in succession when I tried to talk to him, quite politely, as I usually do, and indeed better than he ever could, about Dutch politics, that "you may not talk with us, because you do not vote" - "Jij mag niet meepraten, want jij stemt niet".
I haven't spoken to him since, some 12 years ago. It's this kind, not mine, that make careers in Dutch universities, namely - one may assume - ever since his heroic father helped destroy them, for this started in the 1960ies, indeed perhaps not directly by the heroic Van der Maas sr. (I never asked what heroic acts he is supposed to have done) but by the generation of folks who where then between 20 and 50.
again, there is an excuse, in a way: My guess is that the
IQ between Carlin and Van der Maas - and indeed most professors I have
spoken in the UvA - is 30-50 points. Also, Carlin was an original, a
individual and a man of real courage, and the vast majority is not, not
out of choice, but out lack of abilities.
At least 99 out of a 100 Dutchmen will assure me that "you have No Resptect", "you must be something like a fascist", "you are elitarian!" - I only quote what I was regaled with, in the University of Amsterdam, indeed by folks all much less intelligent than I am - but then all of them believed that in Holland all geniuses are called Cruyff, and everybody else is of exactly the same value, apart from soccer, which is where all Dutch geniuses work and play.
Here it is, kindly, clearly and in excellent Dutch, explained to Dutchies: Over gelijkheid en gelijkwaardigheid which translates as "On equality and equivalence", the problem being that at least 99 out of a 100 Dutchmen systematically confuse the two concepts 'equal rights' and 'equality', while the Dutch also ove to confuse "equality" again with "equivalence" aka "being of equal value".
Thus, from ca. 1970
till 2002 or so almost
all Dutchmen pretended to anyone who would listen that "all human
beings are equivalent". During the same years, almost all students I
asked insisted - as they also had learned at school - that
"intelligence is a choice": To say it was innate was
(because "all human beings are
equivalent") - in Holland one was supposed to choose to be intelligent,
as one could choose to wear make-up or a red shirt, or choose soccer
rather than hockey.
I have asked some 30
students - mostly of
philosophy opr psychology - in
the 1980ies in the University of Amsterdam why
they or their parents had not done what Isaac Newton did. Answer:
Because they found other things more interesting. (And then they
called me "arrogant", because I indeed do not suffer all fools
equally gladly all of the time!)
At the time I asked, the average IQ of students in the University of Amsterdam was ... 115. Since then it must be even lower, but most Dutchmen believe this is not a problem but an advance, in democracy and equal rights.
Then again, the
times they are a'changing, and these days many Dutchmen
believe that if you don't have a proper Dutch famiiy name, with
descendants from parents and grandparents with proper Dutch family
names, you are hardly human, and may as
be stoned, in your own best interests of course.