Moderator TrueFreedom Posted September 27, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2012 As I did when I was a Christian when it came to psychology, I subscribe to the "spoiling the Egyptians" approach to Eastern and Western thought. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. There's a difference between throwing Western culture under the bus and understanding Eastern thought and adopting certain practices. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Can you be more specific? This is so general that it's hard to know exactly what's wearing at you. I suppose I am having trouble seeing how the relative value of Eastern spiritual disciplines is in any way related to Western achievements you mentioned. The fundamental problem here is that you're using one measuring stick on two totally different categories. Looking at the the East vs. West problem within the proper category, you will see that for all of its progress in other areas, the West has largely ignored inner well-being until recently. Western thinkers within the positive psychology movement have proved that certain meditative disciplines are very valuable indeed. I think the positive thinking movement is as delusional as religion. As for meditation, it does help with certain problems, but with others I wouldn't advise it. It depends on the problem. The positive thinking movement suffers from what some eastern ideologies and the homeopathic healing ideologies suffer from, "feel good" remedies that really do nothing to help you or improve your life in any substantial real way. Just the placebo effect. I'd rather go back to praying. In fact, I think the West's internal poverty is highlighted by the very progresses you listed. After only a few hundred years, we have been to the moon and have sent our toys to Mars, and yet most of us cling to Christianity. Christianity is a blistering stupidity, yet most people believe it to one degree or another. Why is that? What's going on? Blaming Christianity gives it too much credit. I think Christianity and other religions fulfill some fundamental need that is wholly unrelated to Western progress. By now I think the positive psychologists have made it clear that at least part of a good solution can be found in certain Eastern practices that have generally been absent from Western traditions. Eastern traditions are far different animals, painting them all with one brush can make for a difficult to understand thing. (yes, I was being as vague so as to get my point acrossed). The western traditions/tradition Florduh refers to is secularism. The christian western tradition has only given us the crusades and colonialism, slavery and poverty. The western traditions include everything under the sun from Christianity and Secularism, to Libertarianism, Capitalism, Communism, to Socialism. The eastern traditions include everything from Hinduism and Sufi Islam, to Buddhism, Daoism, Shinto, and Confucianism. Many are interrelated and compatable, others mutually exclusive and conflicting with others. Comparing them en masse the way Florduh and you do, I think makes for difficulty understanding do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 You've said in the past to me, that anecedotal evidence doesn't count. Someone had to point that out. And I stand by that statement. Does that mean humans can't use anecdotes in conversations with one another and that anecdotes are taboo? They just aren't very useful for drawing conclusions. O no doubt, but mine was for how helpful the state is for those who are homeless and in need of help. I've since heard the same complaint from just about everyone I encountered at the shelter. one person said that they had to lie to get into the shelter. I had to go get a worker to go with me until they let me get any help. I'm not saying they aren't useful. I'm just saying you do it in the same exact way. I can tell you if I had to be homeless, I'd far, far, far rather be homeless in India than anywhere in the US. Life there isn't as bad as you imagine it. It's shit being homeless here. I was that. Some places don't have laws about you living in the woods, I'd rather be homeless in those countries. It would make my life easier. Far easier. It's hard for me to deal with people in the workplace, so its always been a struggle. You should be allowed to just bug out. (as in, go in the woods and live, not using it as in go insane). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Can you be more specific? This is so general that it's hard to know exactly what's wearing at you. I suppose I am having trouble seeing how the relative value of Eastern spiritual disciplines is in any way related to Western achievements you mentioned. The fundamental problem here is that you're using one measuring stick on two totally different categories. Looking at the the East vs. West problem within the proper category, you will see that for all of its progress in other areas, the West has largely ignored inner well-being until recently. Western thinkers within the positive psychology movement have proved that certain meditative disciplines are very valuable indeed. I think the positive thinking movement is as delusional as religion. As for meditation, it does help with certain problems, but with others I wouldn't advise it. It depends on the problem. The positive thinking movement suffers from what some eastern ideologies and the homeopathic healing ideologies suffer from, "feel good" remedies that really do nothing to help you or improve your life in any substantial real way. Just the placebo effect. I'd rather go back to praying. I'm talking about positive psychology, not positive thinking. They are two very different things. http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/faqs.htm, #3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 It's shit being homeless here. I was that. Some places don't have laws about you living in the woods, I'd rather be homeless in those countries. It would make my life easier. Far easier. It's hard for me to deal with people in the workplace, so its always been a struggle. You should be allowed to just bug out. (as in, go in the woods and live, not using it as in go insane). I saw a lot of people in India we would consider homeless in the US. However, there, they are allowed to build a hut or a shack in pretty much any public area and live not all that different from their more traditionally homed counterparts. The homeless live as families, work, own scooters, cell phones. They just have to shit out back and cook out front and they aren't, as far as I can tell, ostracized by their neighbors or the police. People lived in hella worse conditions for most of human history and they live in worse conditions on the streets of Washington DC today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Can you be more specific? This is so general that it's hard to know exactly what's wearing at you. Many Americans these days are eager to damn the ways of the West while praising anything that originates in the East. It's like the myth of the noble savage. My point is not that other philosophies and cultures have nothing to offer, but rather that so many Americans adopt an inferior attitude and tend to ignore the accomplishments the West has achieved. I mean, if India has addressed the "inner" person for thousands of years and all they have to show is a cruel caste system and poverty and disease, how is that culture/religion in a position to eclipse the Western mindset? Are we really worse off in the West because we use science to create better lives? No doubt, we have our problems, but how about a little perspective? Of course, not everyone worships anything that is decidedly not American, but so many do. I just don't get it. I'm just old and cranky. I think I understand what you're saying. I've never seen the point in valuing something solely because it's different or "exotic." Still, I think your using one measuring stick on two different categories and that's problematic. And of course it's good to note BD's point that "Western" and "Eastern" are categories that encompass so much that it is difficult to meaningfully compare them in the first place. But yeah, I do get it. I haven't spoken to such a person in quite a while, but I can see how that would be very annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted September 27, 2012 Author Super Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2012 It's shit being homeless here. I was that. Some places don't have laws about you living in the woods, I'd rather be homeless in those countries. It would make my life easier. Far easier. It's hard for me to deal with people in the workplace, so its always been a struggle. You should be allowed to just bug out. (as in, go in the woods and live, not using it as in go insane). I saw a lot of people in India we would consider homeless in the US. However, there, they are allowed to build a hut or a shack in pretty much any public area and live not all that different from their more traditionally homed counterparts. The homeless live as families, work, own scooters, cell phones. They just have to shit out back and cook out front and they aren't, as far as I can tell, ostracized by their neighbors or the police. People lived in hella worse conditions for most of human history and they live in worse conditions on the streets of Washington DC today. So the measure of success for a society is based on the homeless? Based on the fact that the cave man had it worse? I can't believe anyone would try to make the case that living in America is worse than living in India. Why do they all come here if they have it so good back home? This is the anti-American bias I'm addressing. For thousands of years some societies just never advanced (enough food, sanitation, basic medical care, education) while the West made tremendous strides over a few hundred years. Now, many of us seem ashamed of our success and feel guilty because our society isn't perfect. I'm still not getting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 The homeless live as families, work, own scooters, cell phones. They just have to shit out back and cook out front and they aren't, as far as I can tell, ostracized by their neighbors or the police. If anyone did the shit out back cook out front shanty crap in my neighborhood, I'd have a serious problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 So the measure of success for a society is based on the homeless? Based on the fact that the cave man had it worse? I can't believe anyone would try to make the case that living in America is worse than living in India. Why do they all come here if they have it so good back home? This is the anti-American bias I'm addressing. For thousands of years some societies just never advanced (enough food, sanitation, basic medical care, education) while the West made tremendous strides over a few hundred years. Now, many of us seem ashamed of our success and feel guilty because our society isn't perfect. I'm still not getting it. You read way more into what I wrote than what is there. I was simply pointing out that India isn't the shit hole you seem to think it is. As to measuring success, we took ours with a gun and they had theirs taken with a gun, so I'm not sure we can derive much from cultural beliefs here unless those beliefs also include taking things from others by force. But I don't typically attribute that to men on the street as they don't make those decisions. Not sure what your point is regarding education. There are 300 million college graduates in India. That's the same number of people that live in the US. And, they come where the work is, where they get paid the most. If you wish to talk about how colonialism upended societies and robbed them of their former ways of existence making them dependent on an entirely new type of economy, we can go there too, but that's a highly involved conversation. Nevertheless, they aren't coming in the same numbers they used to because the global protections that isolated the US no longer exist and the jobs are actually in India now. I'm not going to argue with you and tell you that India and Asia are somehow better than the US. But I will argue that they are just different and are not the failures your portray them as. You need to just go spend time there yourself in order to see. Measuring with stats simply won't give you an accurate picture. If stats worked, they could play that game too and America would be a crime-ridden land full of ignoramuses with bad taste in food. Using stereotypes and measuring with the same sticks we think are important based on our own cultural experience doesn't give you an accurate picture of another society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 The homeless live as families, work, own scooters, cell phones. They just have to shit out back and cook out front and they aren't, as far as I can tell, ostracized by their neighbors or the police. If anyone did the shit out back cook out front shanty crap in my neighborhood, I'd have a serious problem with it. Different culture. It would devalue your property for one. You'd probably have a problem with cows sharing the same street you drive in too, but it happens there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I'm talking about positive psychology, not positive thinking. They are two very different things. http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/faqs.htm, #3. Not quite. Positive psychology came out of the positive thinking movement. I not long ago finished reading a book on the subject, which you may be interested in: http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Bright-Sided-Barbara-Ehrenreich/9780312658854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 The people in India (I think that's where it started) were a lot more interested in exploring the "inner" world of the self. There is still some of this in some of the western religions - Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. However, it is not so undercover in the east. By the way, Hindu and Buddhist philosophy is not just one school, but many. We could certainly talk about how Protestantism influenced the development of Western so-called civilization with its "work ethic" which has gotten completely crazy IMO. In fact, in the west many people are very unhappy who are far better off with their living standard. I think the west could learn more from the eastern philosophy and be the better for it. Western thinking: Earn more money, buy more shit. Work till you die. We have so many fantastic inventions that we don't have to stand up...so we are fat. Is having lots of stuff and being fat better than say, being a self-realized eastern sage with no possessions? I dunno. :-) Time to get off this high tech net connection and go watch my giant friggin tv. :-) I don't know either, because I am not a "self realized eastern sage." I admit I like what stuff I do have, which is probably a lot more than the average person in India or China has. But stuff doesn't really buy happiness, which is totally obvious to me when I look around and see so many miserable folks here who have far more than I do but can't seem to do anything but complain. The more stuff you have, the more worried you get you are going to lose it. Got to buy more insurance to cover the stuff, more storage space, problems, on and on. Life is not problematic for the "self-realized." Someone who is self-realized is fine anywhere, under any circumstances. Self-realization is certainly not limited to eastern people. We all have a "mind" and consciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I saw a lot of people in India we would consider homeless in the US. However, there, they are allowed to build a hut or a shack in pretty much any public area and live not all that different from their more traditionally homed counterparts. The homeless live as families, work, own scooters, cell phones. They just have to shit out back and cook out front and they aren't, as far as I can tell, ostracized by their neighbors or the police. People lived in hella worse conditions for most of human history and they live in worse conditions on the streets of Washington DC today. That would solve the worst of my problems, finding shelter and a place for my stuff. Different culture. It would devalue your property for one. You'd probably have a problem with cows sharing the same street you drive in too, but it happens there. Not only that, but where else would you live? And what is worse, a bunch of people walking around the city carrying all their possessions sleeping on park benches, being harassed by the police for being homeless ,or people building a shanty out from the rain and being able to have a base from which they can possibly try to work their way up out of the hole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I'm talking about positive psychology, not positive thinking. They are two very different things. http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/faqs.htm, #3. Not quite. Positive psychology came out of the positive thinking movement. I not long ago finished reading a book on the subject, which you may be interested in: http://www.bookdepos...h/9780312658854 Hi Pudd. I don't think that you are correct here. I think the major differences are outlined in the original link I provided. I also researched the book you cited and while it was certainly interesting it is definitely not an authority on positive psychology. This was the most helpful of the reviews I found, I think it would interest you: http://positivepsychologynews.com/news/louisa-jewell/2010081713039. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Hi Pudd. I don't think that you are correct here. I think the major differences are outlined in the original link I provided. I also researched the book you cited and while it was certainly interesting it is definitely not an authority on positive psychology. This was the most helpful of the reviews I found, I think it would interest you: http://positivepsych...l/2010081713039. I think this highlights the crux of the problem: The idea is that it will somehow help you to think positive when dying of cancer, but that positive thinking isn't going to save your life, The rebuttal of the article even admits this! It's the main thing they actually broke down to addressing. A little anecedotal evidence shall we? I was thinking there wasn't a silver lining to my situation, so I rode my bike 50 miles to make that silver lining in my miserable life. And despite everything that's happened since in my life, I'm anything but as miserable as I was. Actually, look at my posts from 2010, you can see it yourself. I felt hopeless. I actually posted what was going on on here. I got myself out of that. I also got myself out of being homeless, not by trying to see the positive in being homeless, but by accepting that I'm in a shitty situation, then answering the question, "what am I going to do to conquer this?" As for positive thinking. I tried that. I was working at a job that was making me miserable and dragging me downhill mentally, but I kept thinking positive, "at least I have a job. At least that part's going right. Let's stick it through!" Well... how did that end? It didn't quite work. I ended up for the first time in my life walking off a job. Now, I'm trying to fix the situation, going back to my prior mindset, ignoring my naive therapist. And going to get a new one. One that doesn't follow the naive idealism that is the positive thinking movement. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Optimism is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable. VOLTAIRE, Candide 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Optimism is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable. VOLTAIRE, Candide It's funny you post this. I was thinking it for my next post. I just couldn't remember who said the quote. Another thing is, if you think positive, you're less likely to want to change things, even if subconsciously. If you hate your situation bad enough, you're going to want it to change. That's to be said of the negative if used constructively, not the positive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I have to side with Florduh on this one. Having grown up in a multicultural setting, the Asian folk mostly Hindu and even the Muslims assimilated to the western mindset and values. While culturally they tend to stick together and also as a result somewhat of the colonial apartheid mindset, I never once saw them proselyting their beliefs or any "westerner" adopting them either. Whatever temples and mosques they had/have is very much cultural rather than spiritual. Actually some of the nicest people I have met on occasion. Many of these folk were probably like your Mexicans and sent home huge amounts of money to parents and family. In the last years of the Rhodesian war, they fought alongside us even though technically they did not have a vote. They also had the finest in the way of haberdashery shops and clothing shops and their biggest customers were whites. Back then they followed the xian calendar and were closed 1:00pm Saturday through to Monday unless it was a cafe (7/11 type) shop. This colonial relationship between Asians and the Brits goes back a long way and never was there any restrictions on their religion or evangelising by xians towards them. Back then Jesus was pretty much for the white folk only and the black folk to a lesser extent but all tidily separate with own churches/sanctuaries. If there was any true merit in eastern culture/spirituality, I am sure there would have been less assimilation to the western culture. As it turned out, only the women dressed traditionally and the Muslim men occasionally, no burqas either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I think this highlights the crux of the problem: The idea is that it will somehow help you to think positive when dying of cancer, but that positive thinking isn't going to save your life, The rebuttal of the article even admits this! It's the main thing they actually broke down to addressing. BD, again, positive psychology is completely different from positive thinking. http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/faqs.htm, #3. If the author of the aritcle I linked admits something that you think contradicts her starting position, maybe you don't fully apprehend where she is coming from. Optimism is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable.VOLTAIRE, Candide Perception is reality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Hmm... I consider myself an optimist, but I don't define optimism the way volataire does. I consider optimism as making the best of a situation and not dwelling on things out of my control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I'm talking about positive psychology, not positive thinking. They are two very different things. http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/faqs.htm, #3. Not quite. Positive psychology came out of the positive thinking movement. I not long ago finished reading a book on the subject, which you may be interested in: http://www.bookdepos...h/9780312658854 Hi Pudd. I don't think that you are correct here. I think the major differences are outlined in the original link I provided. I also researched the book you cited and while it was certainly interesting it is definitely not an authority on positive psychology. This was the most helpful of the reviews I found, I think it would interest you: http://positivepsych...l/2010081713039. Okay, the chronological order goes like this: Positive psychology arose out of the positive thinking movement, which itself arose as a response to Calvinist negativity. Christian Science actually arose in the early days of the positive thinking movement. I would quote from my own copy of the book, except that I've just loaned it to a friend of mine. The problem with positive thinking and positive psychology is, as others have mentioned, that there is a lack of desire to change a bad situation, because the person apparently need only be positive and everything will sort itself out. I think most people would agree that bad situations don't just sort themselves out if nothing is done. Claiming that positive psychology is different from the positive thinking movement simply because it has some psychologists supporting it, practising it, and learning it is no more than an argument from authority, I believe is the correct name of the logical fallacy. Here is a clip by barbara Ehrenreich, explaining her issues with the positive thinking movement: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Hmm... I consider myself an optimist, but I don't define optimism the way volataire does. I consider optimism as making the best of a situation and not dwelling on things out of my control. I can live with that. Generally, I think it's a good idea to view life as a glass half full. Trying to force yourself to always smile in the face of adversity, however, is what Voltaire is referring to. Sometimes life just fucking sucks and telling yourself it doesn't isn't going to fix that or make it better. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Okay, the chronological order goes like this: Positive psychology arose out of the positive thinking movement, which itself arose as a response to Calvinist negativity. Christian Science actually arose in the early days of the positive thinking movement. I would quote from my own copy of the book, except that I've just loaned it to a friend of mine. Ehrenreich is not a credible source. I admit I am interested in the origins of positive psychology, but I wouldn't trust this author to give me directions to the bank much less about anything important. For crying out loud, she thinks positive thinking caused the financial meltdown of 2008. The problem with positive thinking and positive psychology is, as others have mentioned, that there is a lack of desire to change a bad situation, because the person apparently need only be positive and everything will sort itself out. I think most people would agree that bad situations don't just sort themselves out if nothing is done. Have you read anything else about positive psychology? If you have, you should know that this is a complete and total misrepresentation. Claiming that positive psychology is different from the positive thinking movement simply because it has some psychologists supporting it, practising it, and learning it is no more than an argument from authority, I believe is the correct name of the logical fallacy. You're misrepresenting me now, too. As far as I can tell, no one has actually bothered to visit any of the links I provided. This is actually somewhat frustrating as I diverted about an hour of my time this morning looking into the book you linked. So, I'll just quote it directly into the thread: 3. Is positive psychology the same as positive thinking? Positive psychology is different from positive thinking in three significant ways. First, positive psychology is grounded in empirical and replicable scientific study. Second, positive thinking urges positivity on us for all times and places, but positive psychology does not. Positive psychology recognizes that in spite of the advantages of positive thinking, there are times when negative or realistic thinking is appropriate. Studies find that optimism is associated with better health, performance, longevity, and social success (Seligman, 1991; Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005), but there is evidence that in some situations negative thinking leads to more accuracy and being accurate can have important consequences (Alloy, Abramson, & Chiara, 2000). Optimistic thinking can be associated with an underestimation of risks (Peterson & Vaidya, 2003). For example, we do not necessarily want a pilot or air traffic controller to be an optimist when deciding whether to take off during a storm. The third distinction between positive thinking and positive psychology is that many scholars of positive psychology have spent decades working on the “negative” side of things – depression, anxiety, trauma, etc. We do not view positive psychology as a replacement for traditional psychology, but merely as a supplement to the hard-won gains of traditional psychology. http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/faqs.htm *found something else, on the same page, on the origins of positive psych: 8. Is positive psychology a new field? No, it is not. Positive psychology has many distinguished ancestors. Since at least the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the “good life” has been the subject of philosophical and religious inquiry. Psychologists have been working in positive psychology for decades. It just hasn’t been called positive psychology. To name just a few: Rogers (1951) and Maslow (1970) who are founders of the field of humanistic psychology, prevention programs based on wellness by Albee (1982) and Cowen (1994), work by Bandura (1989) and others on self-efficacy, research on gifted individuals (e.g., Winner, 2000), broader conceptions of intelligence (e.g., Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1985), among many others. Marie Jahoda (1958) made the case for understanding well being in its own right, not simply as the absence of disorder or distress. Positive psychology acknowledges a debt to humanistic psychology, which was popular in the 1960s and 1970s and has many followers to this day. Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers (among others) proposed that people strive to make the most of their potential in a process called self-actualization, which can be thwarted or enabled by a variety of conditions. Humanistic psychology emphasizes the goals for which people strive, their awareness of this striving, and the importance of rational choice in this process. Today’s positive psychologists have not invented the study of happiness, well being, or strengths. The contribution of contemporary positive psychology has been to make the explicit argument that what makes life most worth living deserves its own empirically based field of study, to provide an umbrella term that brings together isolated lines of theory and research, to promote the cross-fertilization of ideas in related fields through conferences, summer institutes and research grants, to develop a comprehensive conceptual view of broad notions of happiness, to bring this field to the attention of various foundations and funding agencies, to help raise money for research, and to firmly ground assertions on the scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Snipped for brevity. Look, I'm not going to debate you on this topic, simply because I don't have time. I've been up all night the last two nights catching up on university studies. I'm only checking in here when I take breaks from my studies. That is the reason I didn't check out your links, and I'm sorry if that offended you, but this subject is not the most pressing priority in my life right now. I still have at least another week's work to do before I can start on an assignment which is due in a week. And for the record, I was not trying to misrepresent you, either. Critical thinking is actually what I am studying at the moment. I was incorporating what I was learning into the post. Now this post probably sounds short, and I'm guessing the last one did, too. I apologise for that. You could say that I shouldn't have posted at all if I was so pressed for time and had other things on my mind. I didn't realise that it was going to become such a serious topic, or else I wouldn't have posted in the first place. Now, I live with bipolar, and generally, when it comes to psychologists themselves, in my experience I have found good psychologists few and far between, regardless of what school of thought they come from. And I've seen enough of them. They tend to be enamoured with fads and like to go about diagnosing people out of their textbooks. Personally, I'll take a psych nurse over a psychologist or a psychiatrist any day, simply because I find psych nurses have a more practical approach to helping someone over psychologists. Plus they come from the hospitals, so they see every disorder at its worse and are much better at picking up what's going on with someone. Psychiatrists often don't spend enough time with their patients to really help them, in my opinion. So does that make me sound biased? Probably. Just speaking from experience. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Eastern thinking is useful for when Western thinking isn't working. Western thinking is useful for when Eastern thinking isn't working. In reality, it's all just thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts