|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
posted May 20, 2001 05:32 AM |
|
|
Yes
Yes, it's very annoying when I notice I made a spelling or grammaterical error directly after posting something. No editing allowed! Even if I proof it that only catches the most obvious errors usually. Miss those ones too sometimes.
LOL 'Someone outside "the profession"' you make it sound like the mafia or a fraternity of assassins. ;-)
So are speaking of flashes or something akin to momentary empathy? I would think empathy is an all or nothing proposition however. How can you understand someone's feelings without understanding everything?
I don't have as much credulity for therapists literate as I do for the other sciences. It's almost impossible to be objective in any science, and psychotherapy suffers from that more than most disciplines. Even in the blind clinical trials, the occurence might be objective, but the reason why it is happening it totally subjective. Science is not infalliable even then. People tend to forget that a postulate became a theory which became a working hypothosis which is then taken as scientific fact when it could be many other things.
"But all I can say is that I have experienced it and seen it many times. Moreover...it is not only my own experience with empathy but a multitude of others who have written and researched the topic and found that it is central to the mother-child relationship and hence affects all of our relationships thereafter."
Ahh... exactly what I was saying. Subjective. Understandably you are quite involved in your work, especially if you feel yourself to be experienceing true empathy you wouldn't want to think it was only projected self-pity. In therapy if you really felt true empathy you would lose yourself, and frequently therapists have to be careful to stay as objective as they can, the key word is, "can." Even if only feeling self-pity a therapist can really get themselves involved. I would say there are examples in some of the most famous miscarriages of therapy in court cases. When a therapist who had been abused as a child is brought into an investigation to question a chold and becomes convinced the child is being abused when the truth is otherwise. Of course that person would likely claim empathy with the child. Subjectively they might have thought so, but they were really still working through their own abuse.
That type of circumstance is more inique than not, but therapy as a cure is not a solution. I think that is more accepted now then in the past, but the idea that people should go to therapy for the majority of their lives well... or the fact that well established organizations within that field occasionally release press notices to the affect that more than 60% of Americans suffer from a chronic pyschatric illness indicates the kind of thinking prevalent in the field of psychotherapy today.
____________
|
|
zedrin
Known Hero
Ping pong goes the gong
|
|
posted May 20, 2001 09:43 AM |
|
|
In the end we are all effected. Weather we acknowledge it or not, we are always affected. However great our shields are we breach them ourselves whenever we interact. The problem is to recognize when we are affected. Objective we cannot be, and the only thing we actually have control over is how subjective we can become before losing tract of the outside reality.
If i don't make any sense than "It ain't my fault!".Just finished a philosophy exam.
____________
"Blow wind! Come wrack
At least we die with harness on our back" - Shakespeare, Macbeth
|
|
zedrin
Known Hero
Ping pong goes the gong
|
|
posted May 20, 2001 09:50 AM |
|
|
Empathy
Putting yourself in another's shoes too often can lead to a loss of identity. This can have disastrous consequences for the individual.
It can also lead to a reluctance when confronted with drastic actions. The consequences could be dire indeed.
Everything has two edges... While it can help you understand others better, it can also damn you, make you lose touch with the real you. This real you developes without your conscious knowledge, and when finnaly met it can prove a destructive experience.
____________
"Blow wind! Come wrack
At least we die with harness on our back" - Shakespeare, Macbeth
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2001 11:01 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 20 May 2001 05:11
|
Ichon
Hehe…yeah I guess “outside the profession” can bring up diabolical images
Well I was not speaking of “imperfect” empathy in the sense of time or “flashes” as you put it. It may occur in “flashes” but I was speaking more in terms of...well on example might be a test...just because you don’t score a 100% doesn’t’ mean that you didn’t grasp any of the material...so likewise with empathy we might get lets say 60% of their “true” and complete experience...but that does not mean that we were not able to participate in an empathetic experience.
Feelings are so complex that we may not understand someone a 100%, but that does not devalue that we understand partially where they come from. Ultimately I guess it matters less that we totally understand another’s human experience then it does that the other person senses that you are attempting to understand their experience and that in itself is a truly powerful and very fulfilling to most individuals.
I will be the first to admit that psychology is a “soft:” science...but then if look at even the “hard” sciences you will find that they too suffer from subjectivity as it is a human examining the situation and thus by definition personal experience will impact one’s conclusions.
I actually find it funny when those in the “hard” sciences look down upon the “soft” sciences. If one understands philosophy at all then one knows that objective experience may be nothing more then a delusion to begin with. I mean who is to say that what one person expierences by their senses is not in fact a creation of their own mind
I think that you are right...projection can be a powerful thing which shapes our reality...but if we become too cynical about projection…then we might as well throw out most science and our own experience. Ultimately life comes down to a trust/faith in our ability to attempt to be objective.
I don’t agree that in empathy you would lose yourself during therapy. In fact empathy by its definition contains a degree of distance and objectivity. Sympathy is what we must guard against as that can very easily turn into nothing more then an enmeshed experience in which we project and displace our own experience onto another person.
In the end I guess would be my point would be that there is no way to prove objectivity in any science. True and complete objectivity is another myth in my opinion as much as moral relativism is a fantasy.
I don’t think it is sound argument when you state that because mental illness is reportedly prevalent (not chronic as you mentioned) that it is therefore nothing but a creation of the psychological community. I mean do you dismiss medical science when it states that, lets say for example 90% of the population has experienced a virus of one sort or another?
Just because the numbers are high for both physical illness and mental illness does not mean that they don’t occur. I find it interesting that people have no problem accepting physical illness but are suspicious of psychological illness. I mean our existence is both mental and psychological/emotional…so why people are open to one illness and not towards another is puzzling
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2001 11:09 AM |
|
|
Wow...there must be something wrong
Zedrin and I actually agree on a subject...at least on his post date May 20, 2001 03:43 AM (about complete objectivity being impossible)....this is too much...something must be wrong...haha
Well then I saw Zedrin's folllowing post (about empathy) and I am sad to say he is in error again Don't have time to debate it at this point...but needless to say...he is wrong...lol.
Till the next time
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2001 11:22 AM |
|
|
Some stuff to respond to!
Alright! Some things to respond to-
Zedrin:
Interesting choice of words you had, "However great our shields are we breach them ourselves whenever we interact." Are you speaking metaphysically as in auras or perhaps chakras or did you mean it just an indication of each individuals line of seperation between self and non-self?
I think in the extreme form of it people can lose a sense of their selves submerging into someone else, but with how strong the ego is I think that is very rare.
LOL- Yes, it's true- we can barely control how subjective we become without lsoing track of the outside reality since we comprehend that outside reality subjectively that is a losing struggle from the beginning. It is only through interaction and the reinforcement of a reality we can all agree on most parts of that keeps us confused. and we think we are objective. Look at the problem people have maintaining reality when put into isolation. Unless you have a tremendous sense of self and your own perception, people tend to lose sight of the objective(fake) reality and it does become totally subjective.
I think there are more than two edges to almost everything, sometimes we might only be able to see two sides, but that dosn't mean more don't exist. LOL You could never disprove that, if the premise stand that there are some things we can't see. Just as God can never be proven or disproven. It rests on faith.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2001 11:49 AM |
|
|
dArGOn
I don't know if you can divide up your mind to the extent you understand some of what the person is going through and still call it empathy and not sympathy when you don't actually get an intuative feeling of the whole. Empathy if it exists unbiased and free would have to be totally intuative, and if it is, then why should there be limits?
"Feelings are so complex that we may not understand someone a 100%, but that does not devalue that we understand partially where they come from. Ultimately I guess it matters less that we totally understand another’s human experience then it does that the other person senses that you are attempting to understand their experience and that in itself is a truly powerful and very fulfilling to most individuals."
Yes, exactly- I mentioned that a few posts ago, what the person is getting out of the therapy is more that someone else is there, and cares enough to listen and attempt to reach empathy- even if the empathy fails, then the patient is no longer alone and does know that the person understands something, perhaps not their situation in particular, but a similar situation the therapist had gone through at an earlier point in the therapist's life.
I am not going to dispute that all sciences are somewhat subjective, the studies in philosophy and advanced physics are coming together, when tiny elements are maniplated, they perform not by any stable rules, but by what the observer expects to see. I think I did say "all" sciences in my earlier post. There is more blatant subjectivity in the 'soft' sciences as you called them however.
Truly, projection is very common also- and hard to differentiate between what is projection and what is not, since it is in a sense a subjective judgement. Your own faith in what you are seeing or think you are seeing/feeling is what you must go by in most circumstances.
I didn't say all therapists lose themselves in the therapy, but that it is a danger. By your responce I would guess you are already well aware of this danger so we agree about that.
Well, I think I said that 60% of Americans were reported to have psychiatric illnesses. I don't know if that is the exact figure, but it was a majority. So unless Americans are more mentally sick than the rest of the world(a distinct possibility if you ask anyone who isn't an American;-) those illnesses are only seen to exist by the psychiatric profession. Afterall, if a majority of people- and I mean a total majority, not a majority in a single region- how can you say what is an illness of the mind and what isn't? What is a normal healthy mind consist of tell me that? If you think there is actually a standard than I am worried. There could even be an argument supporting the naturalness of murders. Culling ourselves so we don't overrun our food sources too quickly just as diseases and starvation in the animal world preserve the leftover food for the survivors. Please don't think I am saying this is the case for murderers, because I do tend to think there is something wrong in their mind, but it is a possability it is more natural to leave them alone. If that is what was meant when it was stated that so many people were mentally ill- things that might have existed naturally, but can be changed so that people feel better, perhaps not healthier unless you equate 'health' with feeling good.
If that isn't what was meant however, what did they mean?
Yes, a virus like the common cold of which there are several hundred varieties if I recall- nearly all experience more than one variety, and it isn't natural as far as we can determine. So if there are things like virus's of the mind that spread and many people have... well, that is kind of a scary thought, but it's difficult to prove or changed given that it resides in peoples minds.
The reason people are more inclined to believe illnesses which are more physcial in nature, or the symptoms are more physical is exactly what we were discussing about objectivity earlier. They can see someone throw up or rot away from cancer, a mental condition however, unless the ill person runs around screaming about the voices in their head or does some other obvious action people are inclined to ignore it. Just to mention murderers again, serial killers are certainly ill, but how can the average person spot them without the evidence of a recent kill? They can't... If there is a real mental condition at work in murder,s then perhaps eventually a way to determine who they are before they strike will be possible, but without it being a genetic predetermination- what kind of tests would you have to have a person go through? It's almost impossible. So statements made by organizations claiming a majority of people are mentally ill is sort of strange. Even if we are all crazy, what's the point? No one is going to fix us anytime soon.
____________
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted May 20, 2001 03:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just to mention murderers again, serial killers are certainly ill, but how can the average person spot them without the evidence of a recent kill? They can't... If there is a real mental condition at work in murder,s then perhaps eventually a way to determine who they are before they strike will be possible, but without it being a genetic predetermination- what kind of tests would you have to have a person go through? It's almost impossible. So statements made by organizations claiming a majority of people are mentally ill is sort of strange. Even if we are all crazy, what's the point? No one is going to fix us anytime soon.
Hmm this was the part that interested me the most. (well maybe the fact that most Americans are barking mad but i think everyone knows it )
How can you claim that serial killers are all ill?
Is your reason that they must be for killing??? Humans have been killing each other for thousands of years this would mean everyone is ill would it not?
This reasoning would also mean soldiers too are ill or is it acceptable if they kill others for there country?
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2001 09:15 PM |
|
|
serial killers
Well, people do kill all the time, and I am not sure what to say about the people that kill only one time in defense or during war time and such things. A serial killer however- someone who seeks out victims and kills for the pleasure of it, that is much different level than killing because of greed or lust, or all the many reasons. The killing is the motivation for th ekiller, not something else- that is what maks them ill.
|
|
Zedrin
Known Hero
Ping pong goes the gong
|
|
posted May 21, 2001 09:46 AM |
|
|
Killing just for the pleasure of killing...
People drink for the simple pleasure of it. So why not kill just to kill? People hunt, people fight and they enjoy it. The step to be taken towards killing is very small.
Killing for the pleasure of killing makes them not ill, unless it actually provides no pleasure...
Hell, i had the same opinion as Dargon! I'll have to dip my hands in acid again ...
Wrong or right, i was just expressing a point of view.
Ichon.
What i meant by "shields" was the protective armor we all wear against unwaranted emotional attacks.
____________
"Blow wind! Come wrack
At least we die with harness on our back" - Shakespeare, Macbeth
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2001 01:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, people do kill all the time, and I am not sure what to say about the people that kill only one time in defense or during war time and such things. A serial killer however- someone who seeks out victims and kills for the pleasure of it, that is much different level than killing because of greed or lust, or all the many reasons. The killing is the motivation for th ekiller, not something else- that is what maks them ill.
why are you sure that all serial killers kill out of pleasure? I would of thought hate would of been a bigger reason to kill people.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2001 02:09 PM |
|
|
Pleasure vs Ethics
Zedrin:
Well, killing is a little bit more final than fighting or hurting- people that do as you describe for pleasure are often involved with their opponent to the extent they want to know the pain they are causing and also, killing is the one thing most people in society will act strongly disapproving of. Not fighting and other things as much. So someone has to be willing to give up alot more to kill than just hurt. That means either their pleasure is greater, or they have no concept of other people's expectations. Either one of those options means something is not right(as far as right=more normal or average ethics or mental comprehension). Probably someone who kills and feels absolutely nothing is not very normal either, but then what is their motivation for killing? More likely they feel something from killing, and little or nothing from anything else. So the actual killing might not be what makes them ill, but their lack of feeling from any other action they can do.
Arachnid:
Killing out of hate is much more accepted by society, and also more understood. That is why I mentioned killing of spouses from jealousy and killing an enemy in wartime and suchlike. Hate is when you care about the victim still. Killing someone because you don't care who they are, but just because removing someone gives some sort of pleasure regardless of the consequences, that is where someone would be ill- not just the fact of killing, but everything else that goes along with killing.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2001 02:16 PM |
|
|
Hunting
Zedrin;
One last thing I didn't mention- as far as hunting and killing- most people don't think of animals as equal to a human, so killing is not the same when you hunt- and it's easy to kill when you are justifying it with survival. As wartime shows. As for pleasure hunting as a sport that many people engage in- I don't know those kind of people well enough to say if they hunt because they enjoy the feeling they get when the squeeze the trigger and wach an animal die, or whichever way they use to kill the animal, or they enjoy it more as a game, the stalking, the surprise, and the checkmate so to speak.
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2001 06:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Zedrin:
Arachnid:
Killing out of hate is much more accepted by society, and also more understood. That is why I mentioned killing of spouses from jealousy and killing an enemy in wartime and suchlike. Hate is when you care about the victim still. Killing someone because you don't care who they are, but just because removing someone gives some sort of pleasure regardless of the consequences, that is where someone would be ill- not just the fact of killing, but everything else that goes along with killing.
You still seem to be saying that serial killers have to kill for pleasure just because they kill more than one person. In order to get pleasure out of killing they have to hate the person that they kill. I dont buy the fact that "hate is when you care about the victim still" infact i think its the exact opposite. If you still stand by that claim i think these are the ones most ill killing them because they care for them.
____________
|
|
Zedrin
Known Hero
Ping pong goes the gong
|
|
posted May 22, 2001 10:52 AM |
|
|
I can only speak of my own hunting experience when i say that people enjoy the stalking and searching as much as the killing.
So with serial killers it could be the same.. stalking and gathering information about their victims producing more pleasure than the actual act of killing.
Plus in the end, life is life, while we are but animated matter. Damn i sound much more eloquent then i am
____________
"Blow wind! Come wrack
At least we die with harness on our back" - Shakespeare, Macbeth
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2001 07:32 AM |
|
|
Mislead Zedrin
Hope you hands are feeling better
I think you take this "no boundaries" concept (pushing the limits of moral and social norms) a little to far in your view about serial murderers. I think you may be trying to just be provocative
Yes of course serial killers are mentally ill. There is very little dispute in my understanding. All of them at the very least have antisocial personality disorder not to mention possible depression, schizophrenia, dissociative identity disorder, etc.
They most likely all have reactive attachment disorder in addition as they never formed a bond with their caregivers resulting in lack of conscience. A lack of conscience is both a moral/spiritual problem as well as a mental disorder.
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2001 10:46 PM |
|
|
em wooly one we can post where we want. Why are you bothered anyway you have only posted two and one of thems is this one. You obviously not very chatty but alot of other people are!
____________
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted May 25, 2001 12:03 AM |
|
|
wholy one hmmm
Maybe somebody should trace ip and let us know who he really is  Probably just disgruntled about all the different philosophies ... I still say keep this thread going it really lets you take a look at what people think ToH or not
|
|
Mocara
Famous Hero
what?
|
|
posted May 25, 2001 11:16 AM |
|
|
Fruit Loops
All this talk of cereal killing is making me hungry.
Rychen I will trade you some ice cream and chips for a box of Co Co Puffs!!
Deal? =)
-Mocara
____________
|
|
rychenroller
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 25, 2001 11:56 AM |
|
|
Hmmm.... dunno I think that deal is working in your favour. But because I try to be truly honourable to people (and thus, sticking with this thread), I will make that deal with you Mocara. Go in peace(s)
____________
Myctteakyshd
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
