• Wosret
    2.3k


    This is clearly only true if there is an imbalance between guilt and responsibility. I'd think that a narcissist, or megalomaniac needs to love and accept themselves less. As anyone that is wrong does.

    I'm highly skeptical of the idea that it all comes down to self-esteem anyway. It probably does if the goal is just to feel good all the time. Mine though, is to be healthy, and right.
  • Posty McPostface
    1.5k
    I'm highly skeptical of the idea that it call comes down to self-esteem anyway. It probably does if the goal is just to feel good all the time. My though, is to be healthy, and right.Wosret

    Is that a truism?
  • Wosret
    2.3k


    Why have you become senselessly critical?
  • Wosret
    2.3k
    I give actual substantive points, and reasons, and have been receiving personal asides, and vacuous dismissals. It's frustrating.
  • Posty McPostface
    1.5k
    Why have you become senseless critical?Wosret

    Well, if you want to think about this logically, then let's assume that the goal of every therapy is to increase self-esteem, something that is notoriously low in people with schizophrenia, psychotics, and major depression, barring some bipolar mania. Then, the efficacy of said therapy can only be increased by including the ones closest to you in an open dialogue therapy? Don't you think?

    Anyway, I'm deviating, I think.
  • Wosret
    2.3k


    That would depend on the goal of the therapy, to think about it logically... if one is going to treat low self-esteem, then for sure, but if one is going to treat schizophrenia and psychosis, then unless they are caused by low self-esteem, then clearly no. Obviously no.
  • Posty McPostface
    1.5k


    Then, how may I ask one treats schizophrenia and psychosis? And what does that even mean, 'to treat it'?
  • Wosret
    2.3k


    That ultimately doesn't matter to the logic of your suggestion without the entailment that low self-esteem is causal.

    I don't fucking know, ask an expert. The topic is about that. My position is that I put my faith in the experts, and am open to new and alternative angles as long as they support their claims with hard data, and not insinuation, wishful thinking, personal investment, or motivated reasoning.
  • Posty McPostface
    1.5k
    That ultimately doesn't matter to the logic of your suggestion without the entailment that low self-esteem is causal.Wosret

    Well, all people have to go about are the symptoms, that's just how the shit works in psychology and psychiatry. If self-esteem is a core issue for people with schizophrenia, psychosis, and major depression, then I think it's worth investing resources in trying to quell all the negative thoughts about having the label of each or in combination; 'schizophrenia, psychosis, and major depression' that are put down on you by a psychiatrist. One them becomes the diagnosis.
  • Wosret
    2.3k
    Yeah, and I dismissed them all out of hand when my sister came to stay with me. I didn't want her to be tied down to them (they also were learning towards a schizophrenia diagnosis), on the off change that they aren't true at such a young age. I could have been wrong and damaging, but childhood diagnoses are highly controversial across the board, I think that you gotta start owning what you've become, regardless of cause or reason, when you get old enough though.

    I'm don't think that categories are all motivated power games, or completely whimsically constructed, and even if they are, we still gotta live with others, so deal with it.
  • Posty McPostface
    1.5k
    Yeah, and I dismissed them all out of hand when my sister came to stay with me.Wosret

    That seems pretty reckless, don't you think?
  • Wosret
    2.3k


    Like I said, I'm not the only one that thinks that childhood diagnoses, particularly when not completely clear and undeniable is highly controversial, and may do more damage than good.

    Ultimately it was up to her to go or not though, and she didn't want to. Though I also didn't support, or couch my opinions and words about her various homosexual and trans identities either, as just phases. My position was that she indeed, did just have an extremely low self-esteem, and wanted to escape herself, and rebel against convention. So my goal indeed was to give her a lot of support and praise and space, but without any lying or lip biting.

    It didn't work... lol. She was just too high maintenance for me, and I didn't feel like it was my responsibility to take all that on, so when she made up with mom, I made her go home. She got to my house with schemes anyway, and was constantly lying, and extremely rebellious, and only filled with resentful confidence, and felt others were dumber than her because she could fool them... just the things she learned from my mom, that I couldn't break... and all the work. Couldn't deal man. Not my problem.

    I tried for a year.
  • Bitter Crank
    3.6k
    There was an experiment back in the 60s where some clearly crazy people were divided up into 3 groups. One group received what was at the time standard group-therapy. A second group received behavioral therapy (sorry, don't remember the details--this was a long time ago). But the interesting part of the study was the third group who were turned over to some lay people for whatever therapy they thought they could provide for their patients.

    None of the groups were worse off at the end of the experiment, but the group "treated" by the lay people felt better than the other two groups.

    My guess is that the laypeople just talked to the patients, maybe went for walks with them on the hospital grounds, spent time with them. Maybe ate with them in the hospital cafeteria. They were 'nice' to the patients. If psychiatric hospital staff are not cruel to their patients, they are often not "nice" to them. They keep their clean crisp distance.

    People who become psychotic by way of mania (bi-polar) or schizophrenia are likely to recover their sanity through medication and good psychiatric care (talk therapy)--and/or maybe by the passage of time.

    I don't have any reason to doubt that the Finnish patients liked the interaction they had, and benefitted from it. But the kind of fast fix that an American insurance company would love, I'm not so sure.
  • unenlightened
    1.4k
    Yes please.

    Individuals are not there (in any strict sense) before interaction; they are constituted, in important respects, in and through interaction. Intersubjectivity (partial sharedness) comes about on the basis of interactivity:
    • Persons, social beings, are partly constituted in/through self‐other relations.
    • A person (self) can embody ”dialogical” emotions: shame, guilt, pride, complacence, complaisance,
    conscience, consciousness, compassion, empathy/sympathy, morality (right/wrong), etc. are all emotions that would be impossible without direct or indirect relations to others (situationally but above all culturally).
    • The distinction between individual freedom (at the expense of others ́ subordination) and solidarity (actions in others ́ best interest) are based on dialogicality and interactivity. Searle (2008) discusses other related notions like the phenomenon of human civilization, and monologisation with the consent of others (e.g. in some democratic organisations).
    There are many other issues associated with intersubjectivity. I will mention a few here, and refer to Linell (2013e):
    • There are several levels of intersubjectivity, different in degree of awareness and other dimensions. One distinction, with intermediate degrees, concern taken‐for‐granted (unreflected) intersubjectivity vs. reflected intersubjectivity. Rommetveit (1974: 56; RETH: 81) says about this: “Intersubjectivity has to be taken for granted in order to be achieved.” That is, we must trust that there is some common ground to begin with, if we want to achieve more reflected types of intersubjectivity, e.g. through negotiations or through bringing something into language. This raises the issue of the relation between intersubjectivity and trust: everything that we cannot know for sure but must take for granted or shared (intersubjective). Trust is a phenomenon closely linked to dialogicality; it is at the same time elusive and ubiquitous (Linell & Marková, 2013a, b, and references there).
    — Linell
    from here

    I need to read some more, so this is a directed random fragment of fragments. Let me just remark that there seems to be a foundational, unreflective immediacy of intersubjectivity that is prior to language that can be exemplified by mother and child relations that are non-verbal in the first instance. And this bodily immediacy persists in dialogue generally as 'body language', and is only eliminated as a major factor in virtual worlds such as this.

    Here, I am my utterances and nothing else, except for the social world of dead white males and occasional others that I sometimes invoke by link or quote. This disembodiment weakens the connectedness of our relations here, and the freedom of expression that confers - at least you cannot interrupt and finish my sentence for me - only serves to amplify our disconnectedness. Nevertheless, there are, I think still, to a limited extent, possibilities of the most abstract coming together in a mutual understanding, of 'being of one mind' about something. This one-mindedness is still embodied, of course, and if circumstances permitted, might result in our clapping each other on the back and heading for the pub.
  • unenlightened
    1.4k
    My guess is that the laypeople just talked to the patients, maybe went for walks with them on the hospital grounds, spent time with them. Maybe ate with them in the hospital cafeteria. They were 'nice' to the patients. If psychiatric hospital staff are not cruel to their patients, they are often not "nice" to them. They keep their clean crisp distance.

    People who become psychotic by way of mania (bi-polar) or schizophrenia are likely to recover their sanity through medication and good psychiatric care (talk therapy)--and/or maybe by the passage of time.

    I don't have any reason to doubt that the Finnish patients liked the interaction they had, and benefitted from it. But the kind of fast fix that an American insurance company would love, I'm not so sure.
    Bitter Crank

    I guess the same. The way I would put it, that is closer to the intersubjective model, is that being treated humanely is humanising, and being treated as mad is maddening.
  • mcdoodle
    859
    Let me just remark that there seems to be a foundational, unreflective immediacy of intersubjectivity that is prior to language that can be exemplified by mother and child relations that are non-verbal in the first instance.unenlightened

    By an amazing coincidence (!) this relates to work I did on 'mood' last year. I partlyused the work of Edward Tronick (E Z Tronick in the academic world) who is a lifelong researcher into infant cognition, meaning-making and mood.

    I am thinking here of deep mood, of the way one is in the world, as well as of passing mood, the way the world currently moves use and those around us. There seems to be very little work on shared adult mood, because so much literature is focused on the individual, so writing about mood and emotion assumes we are talking about an individual's mood or emotion. To me mood is often a subtle intersubjective set of relations. One sulker, or zealot, or powerful person, or bully or clown, can make their mood permeate a group of people. Moods can feel like patterns in water, with ebbs and flows, undercurrents and stiff breezes.

    Anyway regarding infancy Tronick has this to say:

    I...believe that [infant] moods are cocreated by the interplay of active, self-organized biorhythmic affective control processes in the infant and the effect of the emotions expressed by others during routine social/emotional exchanges on mood-control processes. Thus, although we attribute moods to an individual - the infant is in a mood, and the mood is in her - I argue that moods are cocreated by the infant interacting with others and they organize the infant and communicate that organization to others. — Tronick
  • unenlightened
    1.4k
    Excellent! It's always reassuring to find that one is not alone in one's fanciful ideas. Ha! I'm almost saying that individuality is madness... Anyway here's an anecdote.

    My birth family was typical middle-class English cool, unexpressive, non-touchy-feely; 'not bad' is the highest accolade in our language. I remember, I must have been 4 or 5 yrs, going to my mother, as children do, for a reassuring cuddle. Nothing significant was said, but the cuddle was - it's hard to explain because it wasn't verbal - somehow exaggerated, almost sarcastic. "You're too old for this" was somehow conveyed to me, and I never went back for another. Ever since then, my blood has run cold, like a true Englishman. My traumatic initiation into the solitary cerebral self. I wonder how such a rejecting acceptance would be seen by @Metaphysician Undercover in relation to trust and honesty?
  • mcdoodle
    859
    I always attribute the notion that 'Not bad' is my highest accolade to inbuilt dour Yorkshireness :)
  • Cavacava
    1.6k


    Sorry, can't participate in conversation... Irma done me wrong.
    [jumping on plane Friday to Portugal get the hell out of Florida it's way too hot with no AC].

    The "I", "me" distinction is based on William James discussion namely ‘I’ (self-as-knower) and ‘Me’ (self-as-known)
  • unenlightened
    1.4k
    Gotcha. Stay safe.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.