Molyneux's psychology ideas are a jumbled mess. He wants to say everything derives from science and first principles but I believe--despite what he says--that the vast majority of his thinking comes from John Bradshaw, a shallow recovery-movement pop psychologist who was still popular when Molyneux was in therapy (I infer that his own therapist was a devotee and that's where it really all started for him). I'd also bet that after Christina got her Bachelor's Degree, she also read a few of Bradshaw's books and has based her practice, such as it is, on him. Christina doesn't seem to have a significant amount of training and, in the end, she's no different from anybody else who reads pop psychology books. Her "it all starts with the family" line is pure Bradshaw.
Unfortunately, Bradshaw's theories--like Molyneux's--aren't derived from any kind of real research. Worse, he calls himself a theologian and is fairly mystical. Molyneux's idea that virtually all families are abusive is absolutely from Bradshaw. So, the line that "1/3d of men and half of women report having been sexually abused as children"--which sounds preposterous to normal people--sounds natural to him.
It's easy to see why Molyneux searches for more credibly scientific sources to back him up. At some level he must understand that once you understand Bradshaw's shallow grasp on psychology, you also understand that Molyneux is in the same boat. Far more important, Molyneux would find it difficult to explain how and why he has been inspired by someone so thoroughly Christian!
Enter first Alice Miller, who is certainly a step or so up but who is still not given a lot of attention by either mainstream or academic psychology. It isn't that she's
wrong per se, but she doesn't seem to have a lot of research behind her and she tends to be on the strident side. I think this review of one of her books
(If Only Hitler's Father Had Been Nicer) by the New York Times is a fairly incisive critique.
You can also see in this review the intellectual (for want of a better word) connection between Miller and deMause. Molyneux, with his background in history, interest in psychology, and desire to encourage 20-year-olds to defoo, laps it all up. deMause is a crackpot, of course.
Molyneux's oft-quoted statement, "Deep down I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there," is based on deMause's
psychogenic modes in Psychohistory. What Molyneux is saying (in his usual apparent narcissistic delusions of grandeur) is that he has become the parenting futurist creating the next "mode" in history. Molyneux is doing that by teaching all of his FDR acolytes about parenting--just exactly as he got world philosophy back on track with UPB. And thank goodness for that!
Molyneux lives in that post-Freudian bubble that indicts parents for most of a person's ills. Since Freud, popular (and some mainstream) psychology has moved progressively further toward outright family hate (i.e., Bradshaw) If you're trying to create a group that is designed to pry people away from their families, then Bradshaw's theories are manna from heaven. Molyneux can't acknowledge Bradshaw directly, though. deMause makes it all sound very "scientific" and gives it the grand historical sweep that is irresistable to him. Molyneux's closest followers take it all in with awe and wonder, but it's all tripe.
Since a lot of modern thinking unquestioningly lives inside the we-are-victims-of-our-parents Freudian bubble,
we so often forget that the actual degree of impact a parent has on a child's personality--if any--isn't fully known. There may be very little.
I know that Molyneux is a very smart guy, but he makes the mistake of believing that being smart in one thing makes you smart in all things. Maybe he really should have focused on software sales and become a billionaire with interesting political views.
When it comes to psychology, however, there's no way around the brutal fact that he's just a dope.
Subject: Philosopher Molyneux interviews scientist deMause 
Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:05 pm
