Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 Kayleighs: I apologize if I missed your point. I agree with some of your response, particularly that the alcoholism of AA is not one of those situations in which people are unable to take responsibility and make choices. I can't really speak to the IQ issue. Back when I had my copy of the DSM, I don't believe low IQ or retardation were considered mental illness or disease in the same sense as alcoholism or bi-polar disorder. But other mental conditions as you mentioned concern me. Obviously, there are some people who are pretty wacked out compared with the rest of society. I don't want to address them right now. There are also a lot of other people, perhaps only slightly off kilter, who get diagnosed with various mental illnesses and then go on to identify themselves solely with those illnesses ( much in the same way that AA encourages people to do with alcoholism) and learn to think they have lost the ability to choose any other way than to be " sick " . And it is not unheard of for mental health professionals to categorize individuals as schizophrenic, bi-polar, or depressed just because it's the " latest thing " or because they cannot find any other disorder to specify for the patient, or because the pharmaceutical companies have a new drug to push. I'm not saying that happens all the time, but it is pretty scary for it to be as prevalent as it is. Just look at how many kids are apparently ADD these days. For many of these unfortunate individuals, I think a solid psycho-babble deprogramming session is in order and that promoting self-reliance, responsibility, and choice are positive things to encourage. Thanks for the response, Joan Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits > You misunderstand my point. Sometimes bad things happen to good > people, and certainly, they are responsible for playing the hand they > are dealt. The same is true if they get a terrific hand. > > I happen to believe that some people are more capable of assuming > responsibility than others. There are conditions that prevent people > from making sensible choices. AA advocates have long insisted that > " alcoholism " is one of those conditions, and I have little sympathy > for that viewpoint. But some people have very low IQ's, and can't > make choices as capably as people with higher IQ's. Equally, some > people have mental conditions that impair their judgment. That is my > belief. > > > > > > > > Hi Kayleighs, > > > > > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, > that > > > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's > what > > > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The > > > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything > that > > > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to > say, > > > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. " > > > > > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I > do > > > like this point you've made here. > > > > > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices > than > > > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make > them > > > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our > friends, > > > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not > be > > > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are > seeking > > > are hidden by others. > > > > > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just > as > > > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that > happens to > > > us is " God's will for us. " > > > > > > See you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 Kayleighs: I apologize if I missed your point. I agree with some of your response, particularly that the alcoholism of AA is not one of those situations in which people are unable to take responsibility and make choices. I can't really speak to the IQ issue. Back when I had my copy of the DSM, I don't believe low IQ or retardation were considered mental illness or disease in the same sense as alcoholism or bi-polar disorder. But other mental conditions as you mentioned concern me. Obviously, there are some people who are pretty wacked out compared with the rest of society. I don't want to address them right now. There are also a lot of other people, perhaps only slightly off kilter, who get diagnosed with various mental illnesses and then go on to identify themselves solely with those illnesses ( much in the same way that AA encourages people to do with alcoholism) and learn to think they have lost the ability to choose any other way than to be " sick " . And it is not unheard of for mental health professionals to categorize individuals as schizophrenic, bi-polar, or depressed just because it's the " latest thing " or because they cannot find any other disorder to specify for the patient, or because the pharmaceutical companies have a new drug to push. I'm not saying that happens all the time, but it is pretty scary for it to be as prevalent as it is. Just look at how many kids are apparently ADD these days. For many of these unfortunate individuals, I think a solid psycho-babble deprogramming session is in order and that promoting self-reliance, responsibility, and choice are positive things to encourage. Thanks for the response, Joan Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits > You misunderstand my point. Sometimes bad things happen to good > people, and certainly, they are responsible for playing the hand they > are dealt. The same is true if they get a terrific hand. > > I happen to believe that some people are more capable of assuming > responsibility than others. There are conditions that prevent people > from making sensible choices. AA advocates have long insisted that > " alcoholism " is one of those conditions, and I have little sympathy > for that viewpoint. But some people have very low IQ's, and can't > make choices as capably as people with higher IQ's. Equally, some > people have mental conditions that impair their judgment. That is my > belief. > > > > > > > > Hi Kayleighs, > > > > > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, > that > > > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's > what > > > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The > > > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything > that > > > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to > say, > > > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. " > > > > > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I > do > > > like this point you've made here. > > > > > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices > than > > > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make > them > > > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our > friends, > > > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not > be > > > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are > seeking > > > are hidden by others. > > > > > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just > as > > > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that > happens to > > > us is " God's will for us. " > > > > > > See you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 kayleighs@... wrote: <snip> I would be interested to know why Mr. Meier picked those particular 12 mandates, many of which have always been covered under my health insurance, and I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should get help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead set against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way shape or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without doing their homework. Actually, as this article ( Narconon. Another Scientology scam by L.Ron Hubbard. ) clearly points out, Scientology has been successful in the past at getting government funding and accreditation for over two decades. Government bureaucracies are notorious for not doing their homework. I would rather pay more to ensure that mammography is covered under health insurance than, for example, paying more for increased police power because the feds have conditioned highway funding on lowering the BAL that triggers automatic guilt under DWI statutes from .1 to ..08. The cost/benefit analysis there produces benefits so minimal, I believe, that it's ridiculous. In the end, it is not worth arguing about. I have an idea about what I consider medically necessary coverage, which is probably largely culturally determined and with which you have every right to disagree. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 kayleighs@... wrote: <snip> I would be interested to know why Mr. Meier picked those particular 12 mandates, many of which have always been covered under my health insurance, and I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should get help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead set against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way shape or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without doing their homework. Actually, as this article ( Narconon. Another Scientology scam by L.Ron Hubbard. ) clearly points out, Scientology has been successful in the past at getting government funding and accreditation for over two decades. Government bureaucracies are notorious for not doing their homework. I would rather pay more to ensure that mammography is covered under health insurance than, for example, paying more for increased police power because the feds have conditioned highway funding on lowering the BAL that triggers automatic guilt under DWI statutes from .1 to ..08. The cost/benefit analysis there produces benefits so minimal, I believe, that it's ridiculous. In the end, it is not worth arguing about. I have an idea about what I consider medically necessary coverage, which is probably largely culturally determined and with which you have every right to disagree. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 kayleighs@... wrote: <snip> I would be interested to know why Mr. Meier picked those particular 12 mandates, many of which have always been covered under my health insurance, and I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should get help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead set against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way shape or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without doing their homework. Actually, as this article ( Narconon. Another Scientology scam by L.Ron Hubbard. ) clearly points out, Scientology has been successful in the past at getting government funding and accreditation for over two decades. Government bureaucracies are notorious for not doing their homework. I would rather pay more to ensure that mammography is covered under health insurance than, for example, paying more for increased police power because the feds have conditioned highway funding on lowering the BAL that triggers automatic guilt under DWI statutes from .1 to ..08. The cost/benefit analysis there produces benefits so minimal, I believe, that it's ridiculous. In the end, it is not worth arguing about. I have an idea about what I consider medically necessary coverage, which is probably largely culturally determined and with which you have every right to disagree. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 ahicks@... wrote: > > > Hi Kayleighs, > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say, > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. " > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I do > like this point you've made here. > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices than > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make them > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our friends, > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not be > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are seeking > are hidden by others. > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to > us is " God's will for us. " > > See you, > > Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our choices, we are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices are? I would also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart failure surly did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be depressed/sad seems to entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship between our cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions that clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make choices which lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual consequences, have I " chosen " sadness? In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development of human intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices developed well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might suggest that emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to change our emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus differently, argues for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications for those dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self destructively. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 ahicks@... wrote: > > > Hi Kayleighs, > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say, > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. " > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I do > like this point you've made here. > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices than > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make them > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our friends, > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not be > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are seeking > are hidden by others. > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to > us is " God's will for us. " > > See you, > > Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our choices, we are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices are? I would also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart failure surly did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be depressed/sad seems to entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship between our cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions that clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make choices which lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual consequences, have I " chosen " sadness? In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development of human intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices developed well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might suggest that emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to change our emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus differently, argues for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications for those dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self destructively. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 ahicks@... wrote: > > > Hi Kayleighs, > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say, > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. " > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I do > like this point you've made here. > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices than > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make them > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our friends, > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not be > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are seeking > are hidden by others. > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to > us is " God's will for us. " > > See you, > > Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our choices, we are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices are? I would also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart failure surly did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be depressed/sad seems to entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship between our cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions that clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make choices which lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual consequences, have I " chosen " sadness? In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development of human intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices developed well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might suggest that emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to change our emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus differently, argues for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications for those dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self destructively. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 Grimes wrote: > I think you're both way off. Insurance companies exist to make a profit, period. They don't produce anything. Instead, they suck money out of the economy. We could get along fine without them. If it were up to me, I'd force them either to start making something or to go out of business. Health care would cost less in total if there were no insurance companies. People would choose the health care they could afford and providers would not stay in business long if they charged more than what people were willing to pay. So what happens to those who cannot afford adequate health care, in particular children? That society is more than just a group of individuals bound together by economic ties is of course an arbitrary philosophy which you needn't agree with. Is it not, however, true that your vision of laissez faire health care delivery will inevitably leave some people without access to good health care? After all many boat manufacturers stay in business despite the fact that not everyone can afford a boat. > What exactly is wrong with fee-for-service health care? Nothing intrinsically, fee for service health care can exist within a multitude of delivery schemes. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 Grimes wrote: > I think you're both way off. Insurance companies exist to make a profit, period. They don't produce anything. Instead, they suck money out of the economy. We could get along fine without them. If it were up to me, I'd force them either to start making something or to go out of business. Health care would cost less in total if there were no insurance companies. People would choose the health care they could afford and providers would not stay in business long if they charged more than what people were willing to pay. So what happens to those who cannot afford adequate health care, in particular children? That society is more than just a group of individuals bound together by economic ties is of course an arbitrary philosophy which you needn't agree with. Is it not, however, true that your vision of laissez faire health care delivery will inevitably leave some people without access to good health care? After all many boat manufacturers stay in business despite the fact that not everyone can afford a boat. > What exactly is wrong with fee-for-service health care? Nothing intrinsically, fee for service health care can exist within a multitude of delivery schemes. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 Grimes wrote: > I think you're both way off. Insurance companies exist to make a profit, period. They don't produce anything. Instead, they suck money out of the economy. We could get along fine without them. If it were up to me, I'd force them either to start making something or to go out of business. Health care would cost less in total if there were no insurance companies. People would choose the health care they could afford and providers would not stay in business long if they charged more than what people were willing to pay. So what happens to those who cannot afford adequate health care, in particular children? That society is more than just a group of individuals bound together by economic ties is of course an arbitrary philosophy which you needn't agree with. Is it not, however, true that your vision of laissez faire health care delivery will inevitably leave some people without access to good health care? After all many boat manufacturers stay in business despite the fact that not everyone can afford a boat. > What exactly is wrong with fee-for-service health care? Nothing intrinsically, fee for service health care can exist within a multitude of delivery schemes. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 Joan Meredith wrote: > Choice and responsibility have become central to my self esteem. When I > began to see myself as the author of my life, I reaped wonderful benefits. I > got to believe in myself. I got a sense of myself existing apart from others > that allowed me to enjoy being alone. I got to appreciate both positive and > negative choices I had made because they were mine- a part of who I am. If I > could give that gift to someone else, it would be the most compassionate act > of my life. > > Joan Well said. XA enjoins people to give their will and their life over to the care of God, an act of " humility " I find dehumanizing. When I first encountered the 12 step faith healing movement I did not understand how people so desperate for a change in their lives could embrace such a position of powerlessness. After some time of involvement I came to understand the extreme lack of self esteem XA inculcated as a means subordinating individuals to the " Group " . While many arrived in the " rooms " with existing low self esteem, XA's dogmatic denial of personal choice and responsibility ensures an almost complete loss of ego among it's members. Without choice and responsibility, we have no ego. Without the dignity of ego, we are lost in a fog of " group think " . Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 Joan Meredith wrote: > Choice and responsibility have become central to my self esteem. When I > began to see myself as the author of my life, I reaped wonderful benefits. I > got to believe in myself. I got a sense of myself existing apart from others > that allowed me to enjoy being alone. I got to appreciate both positive and > negative choices I had made because they were mine- a part of who I am. If I > could give that gift to someone else, it would be the most compassionate act > of my life. > > Joan Well said. XA enjoins people to give their will and their life over to the care of God, an act of " humility " I find dehumanizing. When I first encountered the 12 step faith healing movement I did not understand how people so desperate for a change in their lives could embrace such a position of powerlessness. After some time of involvement I came to understand the extreme lack of self esteem XA inculcated as a means subordinating individuals to the " Group " . While many arrived in the " rooms " with existing low self esteem, XA's dogmatic denial of personal choice and responsibility ensures an almost complete loss of ego among it's members. Without choice and responsibility, we have no ego. Without the dignity of ego, we are lost in a fog of " group think " . Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 ahicks@... wrote: <snip> > I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme > from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a bit of > middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler believes > all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't go as > far as that. Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices are governed by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within your control " ? Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 ahicks@... wrote: <snip> > I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme > from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a bit of > middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler believes > all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't go as > far as that. Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices are governed by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within your control " ? Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 ahicks@... wrote: <snip> > I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme > from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a bit of > middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler believes > all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't go as > far as that. Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices are governed by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within your control " ? Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 > > <snip> > > > I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme > > from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a bit of > > middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler believes > > all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't go as > > far as that. > > Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices are governed > by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within your control " ? > > Peace, > I really like it, . I need to think about it some more and see how it plays out in various situations. See you, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 > > <snip> > > > I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme > > from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a bit of > > middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler believes > > all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't go as > > far as that. > > Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices are governed > by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within your control " ? > > Peace, > I really like it, . I need to think about it some more and see how it plays out in various situations. See you, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 > > <snip> > > > I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme > > from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a bit of > > middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler believes > > all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't go as > > far as that. > > Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices are governed > by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within your control " ? > > Peace, > I really like it, . I need to think about it some more and see how it plays out in various situations. See you, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 > > > > Hi Kayleighs, > > > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that > > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what > > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The > > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that > > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say, > > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. " > > > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I do > > like this point you've made here. > > > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices than > > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make them > > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our friends, > > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not be > > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are seeking > > are hidden by others. > > > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as > > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to > > us is " God's will for us. " > > > > See you, > > > > > > Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our choices, we > are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices are? I would > also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart failure surly > did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be depressed/sad seems to > entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship between our > cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions that > clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other > uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make choices which > lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual consequences, > have I " chosen " sadness? > In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development of human > intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices developed > well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might suggest that > emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to change our > emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus differently, argues > for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications for those > dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self destructively. > > Peace, > Hi , I think we are hot on the trail of some understanding here, or at least asking the right questions. If the following seems rambling, its just because I'm trying to work it out a little.... Years ago I read a book about optimism. What interested me about it was that pessimists were more often " right " about a situation. They seemed to be more reality based. Optimists OTOH were frequently wrong in their projections, but were able to keep making the attempt that eventually proved fruitful. Optimists experienced the negative event emotionally differently than the pessimists did. A failure was more likely to spur another attempt for the optimists, whereas the pessimist would stop doing the action. I have been able to change my outlook on things from being mostly pessimistic to mostly optimistic. I have been successful at changing the way I perceived certain things in a very conscious way. I did have help doing this. It was learned. It is like a personal resource I have that I can call on to help me. (As a parent, I'd be dead meat without it.) Emotions are very powerful and they are NOW. One thing they always said in TX was that people learn to stuff their emotions so they don't find expression and this is one thing leading to the bottle. I think this can be true, but I also think that some people over-express emotions and cause themselves to feel even worse. Anger certainly gets a bad rep in TX and AA. But where would we be without it? Maybe having the ability to put your rational thought in harness with your emotional response is some type of answer. Your thoughts on this? I guess where this is leading me is to the idea of teaching, and that there are thinking skills that can be quantified and taught, that the person will then have as tools in making decisions. Where and how is another matter! I don't believe AA helps much in this regard as they discourage analytical thought and the abstinence achieved there comes from outside of the participant (or at least this is what they are taught). See you, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 I cannot agree with this formulation. There are plenty of people who, if fully informed (if that is even possible) would be unable to evaluate that information to foresee consequences. I think, too, that any woman who has raised a child would have to say that the ability to experience emotion comes long before the ability to make cognitive decisions. What the interplay between the two may be after the second ability develops is murkier. It should not be forgotten, either, that even very intelligent and well-informed children are not able to assess the consequences of what they may do. This is considered to be part of the reason that teenagers commit suicide -- they know that death is forever, but they can't really conceptualize that. We should consider a matter of national shame that most of the people on our death rows have below average IQ's, and many of those will never be able to reason beyond a child of a certain age. Equally, we should be ashamed of how we are treating our children who are conceived of as having committed criminal acts. It is far from clear that these children are capable of forming the intent to commit a criminal act. > > Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our choices, we > are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices are? I would > also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart failure surly > did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be depressed/sad seems to > entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship between our > cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions that > clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other > uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make choices which > lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual consequences, > have I " chosen " sadness? > In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development of human > intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices developed > well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might suggest that > emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to change our > emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus differently, argues > for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications for those > dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self destructively. > > Peace, > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 I cannot agree with this formulation. There are plenty of people who, if fully informed (if that is even possible) would be unable to evaluate that information to foresee consequences. I think, too, that any woman who has raised a child would have to say that the ability to experience emotion comes long before the ability to make cognitive decisions. What the interplay between the two may be after the second ability develops is murkier. It should not be forgotten, either, that even very intelligent and well-informed children are not able to assess the consequences of what they may do. This is considered to be part of the reason that teenagers commit suicide -- they know that death is forever, but they can't really conceptualize that. We should consider a matter of national shame that most of the people on our death rows have below average IQ's, and many of those will never be able to reason beyond a child of a certain age. Equally, we should be ashamed of how we are treating our children who are conceived of as having committed criminal acts. It is far from clear that these children are capable of forming the intent to commit a criminal act. > > Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our choices, we > are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices are? I would > also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart failure surly > did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be depressed/sad seems to > entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship between our > cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions that > clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other > uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make choices which > lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual consequences, > have I " chosen " sadness? > In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development of human > intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices developed > well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might suggest that > emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to change our > emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus differently, argues > for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications for those > dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self destructively. > > Peace, > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2001 Report Share Posted March 17, 2001 , I really liked your response to . Didn't find it rambling at all, but very insightful. This is a lot of what I mean by choice and responsibility. It sounds like at some point you made a decision to seek out ways to become more optimistic. Even if you had help, it was you who saw the importance in moving away from pessimism and took on the challenge, the responsibility, of learning to change the way you think. I have been able to do so as well, and like you have gained some valuable, if not essential, skills. But you are right, too, in saying " where and how is a different matter " . How is one to pass it along? Joan > I think we are hot on the trail of some understanding here, or at > least asking the right questions. If the following seems rambling, > its just because I'm trying to work it out a little.... > > Years ago I read a book about optimism. What interested me about it > was that pessimists were more often " right " about a situation. They > seemed to be more reality based. Optimists OTOH were frequently wrong > in their projections, but were able to keep making the attempt that > eventually proved fruitful. Optimists experienced the negative event > emotionally differently than the pessimists did. A failure was more > likely to spur another attempt for the optimists, whereas the > pessimist would stop doing the action. > > I have been able to change my outlook on things from being mostly > pessimistic to mostly optimistic. I have been successful at changing > the way I perceived certain things in a very conscious way. I did > have help doing this. It was learned. It is like a personal resource > I have that I can call on to help me. (As a parent, I'd be dead meat > without it.) > > Emotions are very powerful and they are NOW. One thing they always > said in TX was that people learn to stuff their emotions so they don't > find expression and this is one thing leading to the bottle. I think > this can be true, but I also think that some people over-express > emotions and cause themselves to feel even worse. > > Anger certainly gets a bad rep in TX and AA. But where would we be > without it? Maybe having the ability to put your rational thought in > harness with your emotional response is some type of answer. Your > thoughts on this? > > I guess where this is leading me is to the idea of teaching, and that > there are thinking skills that can be quantified and taught, that the > person will then have as tools in making decisions. Where and how is > another matter! I don't believe AA helps much in this regard as they > discourage analytical thought and the abstinence achieved there comes > from outside of the participant (or at least this is what they are > taught). > > See you, > > Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2001 Report Share Posted March 17, 2001 , I really liked your response to . Didn't find it rambling at all, but very insightful. This is a lot of what I mean by choice and responsibility. It sounds like at some point you made a decision to seek out ways to become more optimistic. Even if you had help, it was you who saw the importance in moving away from pessimism and took on the challenge, the responsibility, of learning to change the way you think. I have been able to do so as well, and like you have gained some valuable, if not essential, skills. But you are right, too, in saying " where and how is a different matter " . How is one to pass it along? Joan > I think we are hot on the trail of some understanding here, or at > least asking the right questions. If the following seems rambling, > its just because I'm trying to work it out a little.... > > Years ago I read a book about optimism. What interested me about it > was that pessimists were more often " right " about a situation. They > seemed to be more reality based. Optimists OTOH were frequently wrong > in their projections, but were able to keep making the attempt that > eventually proved fruitful. Optimists experienced the negative event > emotionally differently than the pessimists did. A failure was more > likely to spur another attempt for the optimists, whereas the > pessimist would stop doing the action. > > I have been able to change my outlook on things from being mostly > pessimistic to mostly optimistic. I have been successful at changing > the way I perceived certain things in a very conscious way. I did > have help doing this. It was learned. It is like a personal resource > I have that I can call on to help me. (As a parent, I'd be dead meat > without it.) > > Emotions are very powerful and they are NOW. One thing they always > said in TX was that people learn to stuff their emotions so they don't > find expression and this is one thing leading to the bottle. I think > this can be true, but I also think that some people over-express > emotions and cause themselves to feel even worse. > > Anger certainly gets a bad rep in TX and AA. But where would we be > without it? Maybe having the ability to put your rational thought in > harness with your emotional response is some type of answer. Your > thoughts on this? > > I guess where this is leading me is to the idea of teaching, and that > there are thinking skills that can be quantified and taught, that the > person will then have as tools in making decisions. Where and how is > another matter! I don't believe AA helps much in this regard as they > discourage analytical thought and the abstinence achieved there comes > from outside of the participant (or at least this is what they are > taught). > > See you, > > Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2001 Report Share Posted March 17, 2001 , I really liked your response to . Didn't find it rambling at all, but very insightful. This is a lot of what I mean by choice and responsibility. It sounds like at some point you made a decision to seek out ways to become more optimistic. Even if you had help, it was you who saw the importance in moving away from pessimism and took on the challenge, the responsibility, of learning to change the way you think. I have been able to do so as well, and like you have gained some valuable, if not essential, skills. But you are right, too, in saying " where and how is a different matter " . How is one to pass it along? Joan > I think we are hot on the trail of some understanding here, or at > least asking the right questions. If the following seems rambling, > its just because I'm trying to work it out a little.... > > Years ago I read a book about optimism. What interested me about it > was that pessimists were more often " right " about a situation. They > seemed to be more reality based. Optimists OTOH were frequently wrong > in their projections, but were able to keep making the attempt that > eventually proved fruitful. Optimists experienced the negative event > emotionally differently than the pessimists did. A failure was more > likely to spur another attempt for the optimists, whereas the > pessimist would stop doing the action. > > I have been able to change my outlook on things from being mostly > pessimistic to mostly optimistic. I have been successful at changing > the way I perceived certain things in a very conscious way. I did > have help doing this. It was learned. It is like a personal resource > I have that I can call on to help me. (As a parent, I'd be dead meat > without it.) > > Emotions are very powerful and they are NOW. One thing they always > said in TX was that people learn to stuff their emotions so they don't > find expression and this is one thing leading to the bottle. I think > this can be true, but I also think that some people over-express > emotions and cause themselves to feel even worse. > > Anger certainly gets a bad rep in TX and AA. But where would we be > without it? Maybe having the ability to put your rational thought in > harness with your emotional response is some type of answer. Your > thoughts on this? > > I guess where this is leading me is to the idea of teaching, and that > there are thinking skills that can be quantified and taught, that the > person will then have as tools in making decisions. Where and how is > another matter! I don't believe AA helps much in this regard as they > discourage analytical thought and the abstinence achieved there comes > from outside of the participant (or at least this is what they are > taught). > > See you, > > Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.