What is so bad about FDR?

Conrad · Subject: Re: What is so bad about FDR? Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:25 pm

I just read the backgrounds to my banning on the Cult Map and I also wonder what 'Brandenizing' means in this context

Alex · Subject: Re: What is so bad about FDR? Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:07 pm

madvillain wrote:

Is Branden all bad, by the way, or just partly bad? What are some good alternatives to Branden and Brandenizing?

thanks

I know you asked Kira, but I'll say that Branden is by no means 'all bad'. The term 'Brandenizing' I think is just a reference to a rigid Objectivist position wrt self concept. Also, it slurs to the Randian Cult days. Its just easier to say than "Randian-Cult-of-Personality-and-weird-relational-thing-izing".

I do think doc Kira has some counter - Branden ideas of self esteem, but I think the main point is to get away from saying "Branden sez people are this way or that, and everything can be determined by looking through his glasses", and get into a broader understanding of psychology from multiple viewpoints.

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

madvillain · Number of posts: 139 Registration date: 2008-01-25

Alex,

The cultism you are describing was an aspect of the youthful Branden and a part of his life as a younger self, wasn't it? I thought he was excommunicated from the Randians and the Ayn Rand Institute and did what he could to separate himself from them following that situation? Hadn't he made attempts to sever his ties and level some criticisms at the very dogmatism and cultism he had once been a part of?

You all seem to be referring to specific events or writings but I don't know which these are or when they took place.

Wouldn't it be easier to use a word like "Randian" or "Randroid" which is more common in other libertarian circles when people are speaking of rabid dogmatism and cult mentalities? I rarely even hear of Branden as a libertarian figure anymore, though his role as a psychologist is obviously relevant to this psychology related discussion.

I'd be interested to hear more detail on this subject, and Branden in particular, as I am not sure I fully understand yet.

Alex · Subject: Re: What is so bad about FDR? Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:47 am

Well, I do think Kira is being more specific r/e Branden-izing. I agree with you that Randroid is more apt for the culty aspects, but in the case of Stef's weilding of psychology I do think Branden is closer than (my limited understanding of) Rand.

[insert personal understanding of the Molyneux synthesis of Branden, Miller, et al, and how this underlies his parallel of family and state. Too long to write now!]

Maybe "Brandenizing" is just another newer way of saying "psychoanalyzing"

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

doctorkira · Subject: Re: What is so bad about FDR? Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:59 pm

madvillain wrote:

doctorkira,

Thanks for the explanation. Now, can you please explain why this is "Brandenizing" in the sense of what has Nathaniel Branden have to do with this? Can you give examples of things Branden has done/does do that make the actions you've described "Brandenizing?"

Is Branden all bad, by the way, or just partly bad? What are some good alternatives to Branden and Brandenizing?

thanks

in an attempt not to have to expose individual incidents for the protection of those involved, I was deliberately vague, but YES, all of those things have happened around a certain former objectivist self-labeled psychologist
Do read "The Ayn Rand Cult" for elaboration.
Branden has made some decent contributions to the field of rational psychology, but truth be told, he was not terribly innovative and had a habit of not crediting his sources. His early books are striking to read and I found those (which may be impossible to obtain these days--Breaking Free, The Disowned Self) the most helpful personally. Much of what is in the later ones I have not been impressed with. I love his take on personal visibility which I do not think anyone else has done as well and his hypothesis that marriage should be done stepwise due to us living longer than folks did when the thing was invented.
BUT the idea that one can have a social event at one's home or give a lecture and end up psychologizing those present with impunity is COMPLETELY unacceptable and unethical. Tis idea did NOT die with Rand. One might suspect it did not originate with her......she had her flaws, but perhaps this one she was taught.
If you folks come to a party at my house or even a philosophical discussion meeting, we will talk, watch movies, or play games and EAT. No one will analyze the psychological make up of anyone present.
Does this clarify?

madvillain · Number of posts: 139 Registration date: 2008-01-25

Good enough for now, thanks

Conrad · Subject: Re: What is so bad about FDR? Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:15 am

doctorkira wrote:

BUT the idea that one can have a social event at one's home or give a lecture and end up psychologizing those present with impunity is COMPLETELY unacceptable and unethical. Tis idea did NOT die with Rand. One might suspect it did not originate with her......she had her flaws, but perhaps this one she was taught.
If you folks come to a party at my house or even a philosophical discussion meeting, we will talk, watch movies, or play games and EAT. No one will analyze the psychological make up of anyone present.
Does this clarify?

excellent points, although I would add that psychologizing lies on a continuum and not all forms need be bad or inappropriate. If you do think this need be so, you obviously have an anal fixation. argh, seriously though, there can be helpful, non-insulting and friendly ways of psychologizing somebody's actions. it's hard to give objective criteria where to draw the line though. I mean, I can say that things get sketchy when psychologizing is used as a weapon, but then the next question is what the criteria for identifying such a situation would be.

doctorkira · Subject: Re: What is so bad about FDR? Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:59 pm

there can be appropriate times to offer psychological guidance to a friend--BUT NOT in a social gathering when the risk for humiliation is great and especially when there is an implied difference in power like with someone who is a revered figure like NB.

lostlogic · Subject: Re: What is so bad about FDR? Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:49 pm

doctorkira wrote:

there can be appropriate times to offer psychological guidance to a friend--BUT NOT in a social gathering when the risk for humiliation is great and especially when there is an implied difference in power like with someone who is a revered figure like NB.

I think that there are a couple of important distinctions to make. The first is atmosphere.

Friends psychologizing friends in a atmosphere of safety and support (ie. one where humiliation is impossible or very nearly so) strikes me as completely acceptable. This is how my friends and I have developed ourselves into adults over the years, the safe environment in which to psychologize is one of the important properties of an intimate group of friends, IMO.

The second distinction I'd like to draw out is the power imbalance. In a situation where one member of a group is a leader, or is 'the doctor' or any other such implied power structure exists, psychologizing is dangerous. Now you have a situation where rather than self exploration and reflection, you are receiving a download of what the powerful person or persons want you to believe.

So, I think that I'd say that psychologizing among a group of equals who have an intimate enough friendship not to feel humiliated around each other is fine. If either of those two qualifiers are absent it starts to have a foul smell.

Alex · Subject: Re: What is so bad about FDR? Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:57 pm

lostlogic wrote:

Friends psychologizing friends in a atmosphere of safety and support (ie. one where humiliation is impossible or very nearly so) strikes me as completely acceptable. This is how my friends and I have developed ourselves into adults over the years, the safe environment in which to psychologize is one of the important properties of an intimate group of friends, IMO.

[...]

So, I think that I'd say that psychologizing among a group of equals who have an intimate enough friendship not to feel humiliated around each other is fine. If either of those two qualifiers are absent it starts to have a foul smell.

To nuance this a bit: I'd suggest that if the friendships are truly intimate, that humiliation is always possible, and never impossible as you suggest (may just be a syntax thing, I don't know). That is, intimacy and vulnerability go hand in hand. So the deeper the relationship, the greater the potential humiliation, not lesser. This doesn't mean its not a good thing of course; quite the opposite. But the nuance is important.

As to groups of close friends psychologizing each other or the group, I cynically take the position that power is always an undercurrent of such conversations. Power, status, leadership, direction, definition, roles, etc.. For, nobody can put into words the experience of the other in the true sense (Buber tries though!), and when we do, we necessarily expose ourselves to our limited ability to conceptualize the raw, rather than just experience it. IE, such psychologizing is often in the service of another, unexpressed agenda, and it may necessarily be so due to the nature of social communication, esp. through language (Chomtastic, social biology).

2 more pence on the plate. Good discussion I think. Reflecting on FDR and the under-conversation going on there (and here) is pretty impressive.

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

lostlogic · Subject: Re: What is so bad about FDR? Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:15 pm

Hmm, interesting point of view Alex.

I really find that among my closest friends, there is simply nothing that could come up that would be humiliating. They know all of my secrets, moreso than my family even, so what could come up in conversation that could be humiliating? I suppose that if they were to be malicious they would have the ammunition to humiliate me, but they wouldn't be such close friends if they were inclined to do that.

With regard to the power struggles among friends, that I will grant. To some degree, there is always a flow of power within a conversation. However, among close friends there are safe roles to fall back on if the conversation is not productive and there is trust that if hurt is caused to a member of the group that that line of conversation will be dropped.

Oh yeah, and good job returning to the original topic. The Real Time Relationship (RTR) thing that Stef and Christina do with members of FDR, trying to psychologize away conflicts between relative strangers struck me as horribly toxic to the personalities involved. Here you have an environment without even the intimacy of face-to-face communication to provide feedback on emotion and offer reassurance of intent. Then you pile on an extant conflict and add in a defined power structure and you have a recipe for *shudder*...

madvillain · Number of posts: 139 Registration date: 2008-01-25

I remember a podcast where SM had this guy read a deeply personal letter he had written to SM about himself and his "issues" and then SM had the guy and his girlfriend come on and he made jokes the entire time. It was really inappropriate and distracting in what was supposed to be a serious situation. But the worst part was that he tried to figure these people out and "cure" them within the space of one podcast, and I got the feeling that he kind of kept saying things until they started believing that what he said was how they thought and felt and then he just RAN with it and wove this incredible story about the people without really knowing them or their history and all I could think was "This can't be helping these people."

I think it's bs that you need a "certified, qualified" person to practice therapy or something (where certified, qualified means they have a state-granted license to practice medicine) but at the same time I think people like SM who obviously haven't studied the subject and proper practices long enough to be helping anyone attempt to do so anyway.

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

madvillain wrote:

I think it's bs that you need a "certified, qualified" person to practice therapy or something (where certified, qualified means they have a state-granted license to practice medicine) but at the same time I think people like SM who obviously haven't studied the subject and proper practices long enough to be helping anyone attempt to do so anyway.

I remember the podcast you spoke of. I recall having roughly the same feelings you express.

As to the "certified, qualified" thing, I totally agree with you. I would suggest that in all matters at all times, "caveat emptor" applies. Einstein was not certified. And there are a LOT of certified people I would not touch with a ten foot pole. The problem lies in our desire for certainty. We want it, but it is not possible to have. That is why we buy into the concept of government and end up getting XXX in the XXX every time. Those who really are competent and humane are not power seekers, and so must be sought out on their own terms, terms like respect, curiosity, humanity, love and such.

This sort of ties in with my comments about "roles." Only if we approach each other as equals can an healthy relationship attain, I think. And by equals, I don't mean that I as a plumber* approach you as a psychologist expecting that I understand psychology as well as you. Rather, I mean that we each must have respect for the autonomy and value of the other.

- NonE

* I'm NOT a plumber, although I've done my share of that and lots of other things along the path of this life.

madvillain · Number of posts: 139 Registration date: 2008-01-25

I think I mentioned this before, but SM, despite many of the valid points he makes and the effort he is putting forth to create his own niche in the liberty world, may be a power-seeker deep down. I was most awakened to this reality when he had a podcast that was a conversation between him and what sounded like 2-3 other teenage/early twenties young men, and it was kind of this treehouse/clubhouse kind of frustrated chat where they all kind of "circle-jerked" about how great it would be when the whole world was free in the future and the free people of this world found recordings such as that podcast and just basically sat around being amazed at the strong, independent minds of people like SM and his cohort.

It was so odd to hear them all putting so much importance in this idea and being so excited about it, when I thought seeking liberty was about seeking liberty, not about being recognized for seeking liberty. Is that really an individualist inkling to have? Not that individualists must be 100% purely individualist in thought and action all the time, but it sure shocked me to listen to this.

I'll introduce my favorite phrase at this point, in regards to NonE's comment about not touching many certified people with a ten-foot pole, as I believe it's relevant now: "You may be an expert, but you're still an idiot."

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

LOVE IT!!!

- NonE