Brief Politico-Therapies: A Tour Of The Psychblogs

Once again gentle readers, it is time for a tour of the Psych-bloggers, that intrepid bunch of mental health professionals as we take a look at their take on politics, the human condition and anything else that catches my eye. Our usual bunch of suspects include: Dr. Helen, Dr. Sanity, Shrinkwrapped, neo-neocon, Assistant Village Idiot, One Cosmos (Gagdad Bob), Sigmund, Carl and Alfred and last, but never leastIron Shrink.

First up is the intrepid triparte blogger Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, who posted "Of Mountains And Miracles," a treatise on the power of prayer learned from his beloved grandfather:

He wanted to talk about miracles.

The miracles he had seen in his life, he said, had robbed people of the ability to pray. He went on to say that he feared that the miracles I will see in my life will rob me of the need to pray.

“I will lift mine eyes up to the hills; from whence shall come my help?”

“Why,” my grandfather asked, “did the Psalmist refer to our eyes and not out hearts, as we reached out to God? Surely God wants us to see with our hearts!”

If that doesn't touch you where you live, nothing will.

Assistant Village Idiot hasn't been idle either. This post "Beginning Slowly On The Emerging Church" is typical of AVI's writing, thoughtful, candid and well crafted:

The Emerging Church likes to have narratives instead of dogmas, so I will start with some stories.

There is an apocryphal story of a woman who had seven demons who came to Jesus. "Daughter," he said, "what would you have me do?" "Cast out six." she replied. "Or maybe five..."

I'm thinking on this one two days after I read it. Thanks AVI!

Dr. Helen takes on her profession in "Toxic Pschology" with an all too brief post:

psychologists who profess to be knowledgeable about telling others how to change their cognitive distortions have yet to change their own. They continue to believe they are omnipotent, capable of interfering in political issues that have nothing to do with psychology or stress political correctness and a creeping socialism ahead of an actual knowledge base.

Wow Dr. Helen, I wish you were the entire board of the APA!

Researching through IornShrink's older posts, I came across this "Am I Destined to be Attracted to my Daughter? (from 2005). Now, ordinarily this recurring post is about current writings, but IronShrink has some really interesting stuff and nothing new in the past month. So,

...you may be pre-programmed not to be attracted to your daughter, in the icky way, if biology has anything to say about the matter. Here’s why:

Evolution doesn’t like incest because it tends to advance dangerous genes. Let’s say, for example, that you carry a recessive gene for hemophilia, a life-threatening disorder that slows the clotting of blood. Since it is recessive, you can carry the gene without the unpleasant effects. You can even pass the gene to your offspring and it will remain recessive as long as the other parent doesn’t also pass it on.

However, if both parents carry the recessive gene, chances are greatly increased that the offspring will develop hemophilia, become European royalty, and die before he or she can reproduce.

Evolutionary psychologists believe when that particular offspring dies, along with others like him, so does the tendency toward the behavior of incest. What we are ultimately left with, many generations down the road, is a widespread genetic aversion to mating with relatives."

It is a very thought provoking read, on a very difficult subject, but one well worth reading and thinking about.

ShrinkWrapped has, as usual posted a really excellent post on the War in Iraq, it's aftermath if the Democrats get their way and the real meaning of what happens if we withdraw. This "The Accelerating Clash,"post is part III, Part I and Part II are here and here (respectively) taking on the Iraq war and those who would withdraw. As I've said before, ShrinkWrapped is one of the most thoughtful of all the Psych-Bloggers and always worth visiting regularly. A tidbit from Part III:

The Democratic opposition has taken an approach best described as neo-isolationist appeasement. Buoyed by the support of a growing number of Americans who want nothing more than for Iraq to just "go away", they are attempting both to appease, by "talking" to Bashar Assad and proposing to talk to Ahmadinejad, and committed to neo-isolationism in their efforts to bring about the abandonment of the fight in Iraq.

In part this is based on the well worn meme that it is our behavior that is accelerating the clash and only by correcting our misbehavior can we defuse the conflict.

Worth a read, and for sure worth putting on your favorites/bookmarks, or, just go to my Highly Recommended Reading blogroll and click on ShrinkWrapped.

Come now over to the ultimate political-therapy clinic, Dr. Sanity's place. This bit of therapy is entitled "SELFLESS" NARCISSISM, THE POLITICAL LEFT, AND THE BETRAYAL OF THE GOOD" and wow, what a posting it is. Doc Sanity uses the theme of The Bridge on The River Kwai as an example of "... narcissism of the extreme 'selfless' variety". Attend oh dear readers:

He was so caught up in maintaining his own and the other prisoners' self esteem, he became willing to sell out his country.

It is even more interesting to note that the "selfish" and cynical Commander Shears (portrayed by William Holden) who repeatedly states that he's in it for himself, ends up exemplifying the very values that Nicholson has betrayed.

This story may remind you of the pathetic behavioral display of the recent British hostages in Iran; but actually, they were simply frightened and poorly trained soldiers. Nicholoson's "selfless narcissism" is far more relevant to the behavior of certain high-ranking American politicians.

The Democrats and their glorious leaders, who have become so narcissistically invested in this country's defeat as a political strategy to accumulate power and "restore American honor", that they have--wittingly or unwittingly--decided to sell their countrymen out to the very enemy they are currently fighting. They mean well, of course. They do it for those wonderful 'selfless' reasons--like "peace" and "social justice" and all. They really support the troops .

Let's just ignore the fact that they bear considerable responsibility for the ongoing violence and death of our troops as they enable and encourage the priorities of the enemy. Why should the terrorists alter their homicidal behavior? It is working! People like Nancy Pelosi are living proof of the effectiveness of their strategy."

Doc Sanity has a way about her that love her or hate her, she can't help but make you think.

Now we turn to one of my favorites, Our Lady of the Green Apple: neo-neocon. In the selected post, "Pelosi, Santos: love that “dialogue” with Iran!" neo-neocon takes a hard look at the drive of Pelosi and Lantos to talk to the rogue state that is Iran:

But even therapists must acknowledge that there are times when talking does no good, when therapy is inappropriate, and when the tools of the trade (”the talking cure”) not only don’t work but can be harmful. But Pelosi and Lantos and so many others seem to think of dialogue as something magical and universally appropriate:

…however objectionable, unfair, and inaccurate many of [Ahmadinejad’s] statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him.

Why? Why is it important? In order to feel that we are peaceful and good people? In order to empower him to think that we are fools? In order to allow him to buy time while he develops his nuclear weaponry? In order to give him greater prestige in the eyes of the world? In order to afford him propaganda opportunities and photo ops?

Good call neo-neocon!

And I've saved Gagdad Bob for last. Bob Godwin, a clinical psychologist and a worthy blogger of the philosopher tribe. I've never read one of his posts without haveing to go back and read it again, not only to cement the ideas he presents in my mind, but for the shear joy of reading his wordsmithing, for he is truly a master wordsmith. In this entry, Gagdab Bob uses words to explain that "What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate" and as usual, it has left me speechless (but tis a good thing I can still type).

Put another way, if one truly understands and appreciates the capability of language to store and convey immaterial spiritual qualities, this poses an insurmountable obstacle to atheism, if only because there is no materialistic/Darwinian theory that will ever account for this mysterious property of language. The moment a Darwinian struggles to express his ideas in an elegant and aesthetically satisfying way, he is no longer a Darwinian. To the extent that he believes that truth is what one is ethically bound to believe -- just as good is what one is obligated to do -- he is no atheist.

Let us stipulate what is not a tautology -- that Truth is truth, and that it is mankind's unending task to make the one conform to the other. Whenever anyone -- even an atheist -- says anything, he is presupposing a universe in which a thing called "truth" may be encoded and passed from mind to mind through a medium called language. These are huge presuppositions, and only serve to re-emphasize the crudity of the atheist mind. Unless an atheist is an abject nihilist, then he doesn't have the courage of his absence of convictions.

Gagdad Bob cannot help but make a thinking person think, so, if after reading him you aren't impressed and don't think about what you read, you really aren't a thinking person afterall.

And so once again we say fare-thee-well, intrepid Psych-Bloggers, keep fighting the good fight for the power of the mind. Auf Wiedersehen!