Resilientbibliophile
Silver Member
Hi,
Notwithstanding the poor relationships shown up and illuminated for the better (good!), sometimes too it's good to maintain perspective to the extent that textbook anything is derived from the assemblage of fallible people who penned the text. Authority is afforded to those we choose to regard as authorities. Psychology is still a young field, evolving in relation to much, whereas stranger still it is to read much older materials where the authority of a Freudian would demonstrably deny the validity of any other view. Yes - it takes time to recognize the outlines of select influences, the overlap of the same, affirmation of some values, the strict discounting of others. No T. emerges out of the bottom of a vending machine in a sealed bag. A boring truism this, but the only certainty in life is uncertainty...
As a short example of a field in flux and meshed to cultural norms likewise shifting, sample works that speak of the worth or advisability of administering psych. drugs to children. This is a hot and heady debate, whereas who might define what constitutes the threshold of illness? Is a conception of difference too difficult to register on the part of the larger society, while what currents so visible now will recede to be replaced with other concerns destined to be regarded as both essential and vital? One can shop for an authority, but perhaps better it is to take an ownership stake in the nuances of what is a complex debate.
All I'm saying is that inquisitive engagement in the process of therapy including the maintenance of a reasoned capacity for criticism towards select underlying assumptions is typically wise to maintain. A T. might (and hopefully does) know much, but they don't know all. The resources and training T's receive constitutes a snapshot of where the theory and practice of psychology is and was, whereas for example it wasn't so terribly long ago that the DSM itself didn't strictly exist. To the terrific embarrassment of many, homosexuality was pathologized within the equally authoritative words of the first volume, whereas I doubt so many here would be nearly as harsh as that. As general guidance to all, please maintain some even very modest capacity to question in the face of any authority, for time and the evolution of knowledge does not stop. Thanks...
M.
Notwithstanding the poor relationships shown up and illuminated for the better (good!), sometimes too it's good to maintain perspective to the extent that textbook anything is derived from the assemblage of fallible people who penned the text. Authority is afforded to those we choose to regard as authorities. Psychology is still a young field, evolving in relation to much, whereas stranger still it is to read much older materials where the authority of a Freudian would demonstrably deny the validity of any other view. Yes - it takes time to recognize the outlines of select influences, the overlap of the same, affirmation of some values, the strict discounting of others. No T. emerges out of the bottom of a vending machine in a sealed bag. A boring truism this, but the only certainty in life is uncertainty...
As a short example of a field in flux and meshed to cultural norms likewise shifting, sample works that speak of the worth or advisability of administering psych. drugs to children. This is a hot and heady debate, whereas who might define what constitutes the threshold of illness? Is a conception of difference too difficult to register on the part of the larger society, while what currents so visible now will recede to be replaced with other concerns destined to be regarded as both essential and vital? One can shop for an authority, but perhaps better it is to take an ownership stake in the nuances of what is a complex debate.
All I'm saying is that inquisitive engagement in the process of therapy including the maintenance of a reasoned capacity for criticism towards select underlying assumptions is typically wise to maintain. A T. might (and hopefully does) know much, but they don't know all. The resources and training T's receive constitutes a snapshot of where the theory and practice of psychology is and was, whereas for example it wasn't so terribly long ago that the DSM itself didn't strictly exist. To the terrific embarrassment of many, homosexuality was pathologized within the equally authoritative words of the first volume, whereas I doubt so many here would be nearly as harsh as that. As general guidance to all, please maintain some even very modest capacity to question in the face of any authority, for time and the evolution of knowledge does not stop. Thanks...
M.