The idea of the 95% being unhealthy refers to the fact that people generally are crippled in meeting their base emotional needs. They then develop all kinds of disorders to carry the burden for them. The problem is the disorders don't solve the problem and instead add more pain. Sometimes the pain is unbearable and people seek a way out. I support that.
I agree with most of what you say here. I believe we ALL--no matter what stage we are at--can begin to just be and accept ourselves, warts and all.
This thread and my comments here stemmed from the comments in the "gay people raising children" thread which said essentially: should gay people force children to endure having gay parents, with the problems associated with it? My answer was, why not? We ALL have our problems and raise children anyway, so why should gay people be any different?
see, the part i bolded..i just don't buy. "crippled" seems far-fetched at best. sure, perhaps don't sdeal as best they can...but far from crippled imho. sure, semantics...but isn't that the whole point? believe me, i get in debates and hung up on semantics all the time ...but i also think we as a society fget way too bogged down on labels, rationalizing away behaviors....and just generally down on ourselves, on life...full of excuses...etc.
and yes, i agree....we ALL have our problems...and i do not consider 'sexual orientation' to be one of them. hell, if you've got that part figured out...you';re one step closer to happiness. haha. seriously tho, i simply believe we get a bit carried away with thinking we have a 'problem'...when really, it's just LIFE. of course, i am not dismissing those with serious disorders...and even the run of the mill, i find counseling beneficial, etc...i just don't see 95% of the population 'crippled' emotionally...b/c i still say, if that were true...then that's as we should be....b/c otherwise, damn, we were poorly designed if 95% of us don't function properly.
see, the part i bolded..i just don't buy. "crippled" seems far-fetched at best. sure, perhaps don't sdeal as best they can...but far from crippled imho. sure, semantics...but isn't that the whole point? believe me, i get in debates and hung up on semantics all the time ...but i also think we as a society fget way too bogged down on labels, rationalizing away behaviors....and just generally down on ourselves, on life...full of excuses...etc.
and yes, i agree....we ALL have our problems...and i do not consider 'sexual orientation' to be one of them. hell, if you've got that part figured out...you';re one step closer to happiness. haha. seriously tho, i simply believe we get a bit carried away with thinking we have a 'problem'...when really, it's just LIFE. of course, i am not dismissing those with serious disorders...and even the run of the mill, i find counseling beneficial, etc...i just don't see 95% of the population 'crippled' emotionally...b/c i still say, if that were true...then that's as we should be....b/c otherwise, damn, we were poorly designed if 95% of us don't function properly.
Being imbalanced is about being crippled. Yes, just coffee addiction alone is accepted. Not to mention the myriad other 'conditions'. The fact is, addiction is debilitating. Addiction literally keeps part of our thought processes paralysed. Unfortuntely, we don't know what we are missing out on. We can look at the world and think that it's life and it happens. It's where we are in evolution. At the same time, we can also look at life and see how imbalanced we are that we abuse one another, kill others whose lifestyle's we don't like (take a look at the world stage). We have a society where one in three girls is molested before adulthood, etc. The ugliness is real, too. I see both sides of the coin. I do not minimise the degree that we are ill. I also don't wallow in it. It IS where we are right now--both good and bad.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Being imbalanced is about being crippled. Yes, just coffee addiction alone is accepted. Not to mention the myriad other 'conditions'. The fact is, addiction is debilitating. Addiction literally keeps part of our thought processes paralysed. Unfortuntely, we don't know what we are missing out on. We can look at the world and think that it's life and it happens. It's where we are in evolution. At the same time, we can also look at life and see how imbalanced we are that we abuse one another, kill others whose lifestyle's we don't like (take a look at the world stage). We have a society where one in three girls is molested before adulthood, etc. The ugliness is real, too. I see both sides of the coin. I do not minimise the degree that we are ill. I also don't wallow in it. It IS where we are right now--both good and bad.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Being imbalanced is about being crippled. Yes, just coffee addiction alone is accepted. Not to mention the myriad other 'conditions'. The fact is, addiction is debilitating. Addiction literally keeps part of our thought processes paralysed. Unfortuntely, we don't know what we are missing out on. We can look at the world and think that it's life and it happens. It's where we are in evolution. At the same time, we can also look at life and see how imbalanced we are that we abuse one another, kill others whose lifestyle's we don't like (take a look at the world stage). We have a society where one in three girls is molested before adulthood, etc. The ugliness is real, too. I see both sides of the coin. I do not minimise the degree that we are ill. I also don't wallow in it. It IS where we are right now--both good and bad.
i simply don't view it in the same light as you do, or apparently some experts do either. i don't see it as being crippled or debilitated. can it be? sure. but for the vast majority, no...don't see it like that at all. perhaps holds you back some, maybe, but again...i just simply see it as different personalities, ways of dealing, etc...there is no one 'perfet' way to live, to be human, etc. we can always strive to do better for ourselves...but yea, i just don't see it in such stringent, views...and with such doom. it's life, and living. merely my take on it.
i simply don't view it in the same light as you do, or apparently some experts do either. i don't see it as being crippled or debilitated. can it be? sure. but for the vast majority, no...don't see it like that at all. perhaps holds you back some, maybe, but again...i just simply see it as different personalities, ways of dealing, etc...there is no one 'perfet' way to live, to be human, etc. we can always strive to do better for ourselves...but yea, i just don't see it in such stringent, views...and with such doom. it's life, and living. merely my take on it.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I understand that it's valid to see that point of view--one of accepting that we're not perfect and that it's okay. And I'm sure many share it. As I say, part of me accepts that, too.
The fact remains that frozen aspects of brain functioning leads to crippled choice. And 95% of the population is considered to have this issue. Psychology is an objective scientific study. It's not based on guesses and opinions. They identify what works for a human in meeting their needs and they can identify what does not work. They can identify that not meeting one's need--not wants--but needs, causes fallout that keeps people from unfolding as their blueprint would dictate.
You mentioned personality. Each personality type has the ways they can get off track when unhealthy, and also gifts, talents and qualities the person will exude when they are healthy.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I understand that it's valid to see that point of view--one of accepting that we're not perfect and that it's okay. And I'm sure many share it. As I say, part of me accepts that, too.
The fact remains that frozen aspects of brain functioning leads to crippled choice. And 95% of the population is considered to have this issue. Psychology is an objective scientific study. It's not based on guesses and opinions. They identify what works for a human in meeting their needs and they can identify what does not work. They can identify that not meeting one's need--not wants--but needs, causes fallout that keeps people from unfolding as their blueprint would dictate.
You mentioned personality. Each personality type has the ways they can get off track when unhealthy, and also gifts, talents and qualities the person will exude when they are healthy.
well i shall merely leave it as a difference of opinion, politely agree to disagree...b/c even your 'facts' of psychology, i don't fully believe....it is not an 'exact' science, always evolving...and i still will completely diagree with the call of 95%, and also that it is so 'crippling'..personally, i find that rather dismissive of the term crippling. obviously, it can't be all that crippling since 95% of the population is still out there, functioning...and i don't think al that emotionally unhappy/unstable...etc. anyhoo..it's all interesting, but i see it as different points of view..not facts...even if you get a couple of docotrs/experts to back it up...still not definitive to me, not as of yet, anyway.
well i shall merely leave it as a difference of opinion, politely agree to disagree...b/c even your 'facts' of psychology, i don't fully believe....it is not an 'exact' science, always evolving...and i still will completely diagree with the call of 95%, and also that it is so 'crippling'..personally, i find that rather dismissive of the term crippling. obviously, it can't be all that crippling since 95% of the population is still out there, functioning...and i don't think al that emotionally unhappy/unstable...etc. anyhoo..it's all interesting, but i see it as different points of view..not facts...even if you get a couple of docotrs/experts to back it up...still not definitive to me, not as of yet, anyway.
You are backing up your disagreement with an opinion, and yet is your opinion an informed one? I mean do you have specific information/facts to back what you say and to counter what I've said? You have said that the facts of psychology are a point of view and not facts. What are your facts? Whether a line of study can improve and change does not minimise the fact that objective study is more reliable than personal opinion.
You say: "it can't be all that crippling since 95% of the population is still out there, functioning". The point is, you acknowledged earlier the many disorders and dysfunctions people have. When someone dysfunctions, they are not functioning okay--that's why the term is "dys" function.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
We have a society where one in three girls is molested before adulthood, etc.
i find that very difficult to believe. ive heard it said that 1 in 4 will be sexually harassed in college. but molested to me means basically raped or damn close to it and that seems a staggering number. that means i know very few girls who werent molested as a kid. where did you find this statistic?
im also curious about this 95% of us are dysfunctional thing. ive seen you mention it several times and i also find that pretty hard to swallow. ive always been curious where that one came from.
i find that very difficult to believe. ive heard it said that 1 in 4 will be sexually harassed in college. but molested to me means basically raped or damn close to it and that seems a staggering number. that means i know very few girls who werent molested as a kid. where did you find this statistic?
im also curious about this 95% of us are dysfunctional thing. ive seen you mention it several times and i also find that pretty hard to swallow. ive always been curious where that one came from.
The 1 in 3 statistic, I heard on Oprah, among other places, at different times, by different experts. I've also heard one in four. (http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp ... http://www.sexualassaultresources.org/ ) Many of the women I know were molested as children. The term molested, from what I understand, refers to all manner of sexual assault. For example, when I was five I was orally sodomised by neighbourhood boys. My daughter was manually groped and fondled in the genital area by a family friend when she was 4.
The 95% number comes specifically from books on co-dependency. My boyfriend and I were going through co-dependency books at a bookstore once. We were looking for some information and skimming through, and at the beginning of one book after another, each author separately used the 95% statistic. One of my favourite authors on the subject is John Bradshaw (the guys who started the "inner child" stuff)
The idea is that in childhood, we're taught to deny our feelings on a mass scale. Then our emotional self stays immature inside while we develop a false self--the image that is okay on the outside. The basis of psychological problems is that we are living as the false self, and we've lost touch with our real selves, without even knowing it since we did not develop in healthy ways to begin with. This would be fine if we did not have painful behaviours that cause us grief, pain, the breakdown of our families, and that ingrain dysfunctional patterns in our own kids.
Here is some information on the topic from a John Bradshaw book. Keep in mind that he refers to addictiveness/compulsivity in referring to not just the usual addictions but as addiction to sex/pornography, religion, abusive relationships, workaholism, shopaholism, eating disorders, gambling and many others:
" Addictiveness is the inner emptiness we try to fill up with any mood-altering behavior. The word addiction has often been limited to chemical substances like alcohol, nicotine, and other drugs that have their own inherent addictive properties....there are many types of non-chemical addiction...the common root of every addiction is compulsivity understood as addictiveness.
Compulsive/addictive behaviors are not about being hungry, thirsty, "horny" or needing to work. They are about mood alteration. They help us manage our own feelings. They distract us or alter the way we are feeling so that we don't have to feel the loneliness and emptiness of our abandonment and shame. The mood alteration that comes from distractive activities is mostly unrecognized in our culture.
The most crucial aspect of any compulsivity is the life-damaging aspect of it Life-damaging means that the compulsive/addictive behavior causes personal dysfunction. Compulsivity of any sort blocks us from getting our needs met through our own basic human power. The compulsivity takes up all our energy. Our choices are narrowed. Our freedom is lost. Our will is disabled. Compulsivity is a state of inner barrenness. We are totally externalized without any self-reflection and interior life. How can we have an inner life when we feel flawed and defective as a human being? This shame core keeps the addict from going inward. The true self hides behind a masked false-self."
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"Shame with it's accompanying loneliness and psychic numbness, fuels our compulsive/addictive lifestyle...Shame fuels compulsivity and compulsivity is the black plague of our time. We are driven. We want more money, more sex, more food, more booze, more drugs, more adrenaline rush, more entertainment, more possessions, more ecstasy. Like a starving person, even more of everything does not satiate us." (source: "Bradshaw on: The Family", by John Bradshaw)
Many on this board recognise that there are major underlying flaws to the way we live that are causing mass fallout around us. Because the workaholic appears successful, or because needing an adreneline rush Fear Factor style have become socially acceptable, much like the old days when smoking was portrayed as glamorous, does not effectively erase the underlying condition of the disease of unending "More". The problem is our pursuit of more will NEVER soothe the inner problem of co-dependency....The good news is co-dependency can be overcome and people can and DO find their way to health. Unfortunately, this issue is denied in our culture. The key to co-dependency IS denial.
""...our most pressing human problems focus on compulsive/addictive behavior. Addictions narrow our minds and disable our wills. Our life is no longer a conscious choice. (edit: remember, he refers to addiction to tv, or food--notice the obesity around us??--; he refers to addiction to pornography, or sexual conquests; or addiction to caffeine, nicotine, to religion)
It is false thinking to believe that addiction is only about dope fiends in dark alleys or belligerant and stumbling drunks.
In my own work as president of the Palmer Drug Abuse program, I found a very stereotyped conception of addiction. While we treated teenagers abusing chemicals, we also dealt with their parents and their families. All around me I found work addiction, religious addiction, eating disorders, co-dependent people addicts, parents addicted to their children, cigarette addicts and rageaholics.
...An addiction is a pathological relationship with any mood altering experience that has life-damaging consequences. The inability to relate in a healthy manner is the result of shame, since shame is the result of broken relationships. Once the interpersonal bridge with caretakers or survival figures is broken, children believe they do not have the right to depend on anyone. They quit trusting themselves and others and start depending on their fantasy bond and self-indulging patterns of behavior.They are set up for pathological relationships.
Pathological implies a delusional quality to the relationship. Delusion and denial are the essence of compulsive/addictive behavior.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
why should the most prosperous part of the world barring maybe japan, be the most psychologically messed up???
how much of a contributing factor are the following
1) the high rate of broken marriages
2) the pill and the bedroom revolution that followed
3) labour class culture that became so popular
4) the western society could only have declined. i mean the stranglehold of the west on the world ever since colonisation began and till it ended with WW2 - couldnt get any more dominant. so after the ww2, while western dominance started slowly declining, western society meanwhile was facing a problem of abundance. people in asia and africa were starving while most people in the non-commie west at least had all basic things. i mean to say, all this affleuce made for an entire society of "spoilt children" in the west. could that be a reason??
i'd appreciate if people gave their answers/opinions to each of the four points and added a few that i could have missed out.
well I stopped reading after "why should the most prosperous part of the world barring maybe japan, be the most psychologically messed up???"
Thats a fairly ignorant statement since Japan has the highest suicide rate of any so-called "prosperous" nation.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
I talk about the 95% and the western world being "messed up" because I have some sense of what that means. The co-dependency books that I get my information from do NOT imply at all that this issue is only occuring in the west...They talk about it as a human issue. I don't know if it is considered worldwide or not and therefore I cannot speak to that. I personally would not in any way say that the US is the most psychologically messed up place--by any stretch of the imagination.
This is NOT about one country being messed up and others being okay--as a matter of fact, that very mentality of looking down on others is a symptom of these imbalances!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I talk about the 95% and the western world being "messed up" because I have some sense of what that means.
You're right, sorry to imply that if one commits suicide they are "messed up"... I know now that if you take your own life that you are mentally healthy.
This is NOT about one country being messed up and others being okay--as a matter of fact, that very mentality of looking down on others is a symptom of these imbalances
Whos looking down on others??? It was said that the so-called "prosperous world" barring Japan was "psychologically messed up"... obviously the correct nomenclature.... all I was saying is that isn't an accurate statement because the country with the highest suicide rate shouldn't be implied as the least psychologically messed up.
But going back to my above statement, I know now that suicide implies mental wellness, so I retract my previous statment.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
The liberal left along with hollywood and the like have made us a nation of "man-girls".
Why take responsibility for your actions/situation/life when you can blame your parents? Or your teachers? Or your friends? Hell, anyone but yourself. Japan has a high suicide rate DUE to their level of personal responsibility. I fucked up, I've mad a mess of things, IM going to fix it. Not saying their way of "fixing it" is right. But they don't blame others. They put the blame for their situations where it belongs. On themselves. Everyone creates their own reality, just not everyone accepts nor acknowledgest that fact.
Everyone creates their own reality, just not everyone accepts nor acknowledgest that fact.
I agree with this 100%.
The catch is that many people are unconsciously creating their own reality--beyond their awareness, and they blame everyone for what is happening in their lives, rather than accepting responsibility.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You're right, sorry to imply that if one commits suicide they are "messed up"... I know now that if you take your own life that you are mentally healthy.
I apologise if I was unclear. It looks like you felt my comments were directed to you. They were not. I took no issue with what you said, it's just that your post triggered my recall that I needed to clarify my original point, which this entire thread was (possibly falsely) based upon.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I apologise if I was unclear. It looks like you felt my comments were directed to you. They were not. I took no issue with what you said, it's just that your post triggered my recall that I needed to clarify my original point, which this entire thread was (possibly falsely) based upon.
my apologies... I feel like an idiot.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
You are backing up your disagreement with an opinion, and yet is your opinion an informed one? I mean do you have specific information/facts to back what you say and to counter what I've said? You have said that the facts of psychology are a point of view and not facts. What are your facts? Whether a line of study can improve and change does not minimise the fact that objective study is more reliable than personal opinion.
You say: "it can't be all that crippling since 95% of the population is still out there, functioning". The point is, you acknowledged earlier the many disorders and dysfunctions people have. When someone dysfunctions, they are not functioning okay--that's why the term is "dys" function.
sorry for the very delayed response, haven't been back.
um, i am not 'backing up' anything. i very clearly was offering my personal opinion. i also wasn't disagreeing with their being facts in psychology...but moreso that much is NOT proven as fact in this field of study...and for every expert who you can possibly tout supporting this thinking, i am sure there are just as many who DISagree with it, thus not 'facts'...just educated opinions. so yea, as i said..i politely agree to disagree. thus far, not enough objective study done and provable for any 'facts' as of yet on this, so you can give me a few doctors who have studied and agree to this 95%.....but it is not a vast concencus, so i am just as correct in not believing it as you are in believing it...it's all who you choose to believe unitl hard and fast, concret facts are set.
and sure, i said there are many with issues/disorders...but still don't buy 95%, not even close...thus why i was simply disagreeing....b/c neother of us will change our minds...i simply do not follow/agree with your sources.
sorry for the very delayed response, haven't been back.
um, i am not 'backing up' anything. i very clearly was offering my personal opinion.
Very fair.
i also wasn't disagreeing with their being facts in psychology...but moreso that much is NOT proven as fact in this field of study...and for every expert who you can possibly tout supporting this thinking, i am sure there are just as many who DISagree with it, thus not 'facts'...just educated opinions.
This sounds like guesswork on your part. I choose not to base my understanding of a subject on guesswork.
I agree that the "facts" and the way they are interpreted are educated opinions. It's like the hard sciences, though, in that they have a model, and within the model, they can make predictions and over and over and then can show the model to be 'true'. They understand that if an individual continues to fuel dysfunctioning behaviour, they will not unfold to their potential but will remain dysfunctional.
so yea, as i said..i politely agree to disagree. thus far, not enough objective study done and provable for any 'facts' as of yet on this
Can you tell me where you get your information that there is not enough objective study done for any proveable facts on this? This is the kind of claim that it does not make sense to make based on an opinion.
so you can give me a few doctors who have studied and agree to this 95%.....but it is not a vast concencus, so i am just as correct in not believing it as you are in believing it...it's all who you choose to believe unitl hard and fast, concret facts are set.
I explained that I was in a book store and one book after another said the same thing! To me that looked like a consensus on the subject. Again your claim that it is not, does not hold water if you have not investigated information on the subject. Of course, you are still entitled to that claim.
If you believe you are correct making claims based on subjects you apparently don't have knowledge of, that is your entitlement. You are entitled to your opinion, and yet, that does not mean it is based on understanding of the subject matter. It sounds like you've decided to not believe the subject matter before actually investigating it. If you believe that makes you as correct as someone who has investigated the subject matter quite indepthly, plus used the same models personally and has experience with the subject, that's your choice. There is a big difference between not investigating a subject and judging it, and with having an educated opinion on the subject.
and sure, i said there are many with issues/disorders...but still don't buy 95%, not even close...thus why i was simply disagreeing....b/c neother of us will change our minds...i simply do not follow/agree with your sources.
Again, that's certainly fair.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This sounds like guesswork on your part. I choose not to base my understanding of a subject on guesswork.
I agree that the "facts" and the way they are interpreted are educated opinions. It's like the hard sciences, though, in that they have a model, and within the model, they can make predictions and over and over and then can show the model to be 'true'. They understand that if an individual continues to fuel dysfunctioning behaviour, they will not unfold to their potential but will remain dysfunctional.
Can you tell me where you get your information that there is not enough objective study done for any proveable facts on this? This is the kind of claim that it does not make sense to make based on an opinion.
I explained that I was in a book store and one book after another said the same thing! To me that looked like a consensus on the subject. Again your claim that it is not, does not hold water if you have not investigated information on the subject. Of course, you are still entitled to that claim.
If you believe you are correct making claims based on subjects you apparently don't have knowledge of, that is your entitlement. You are entitled to your opinion, and yet, that does not mean it is based on understanding of the subject matter. It sounds like you've decided to not believe the subject matter before actually investigating it. If you believe that makes you as correct as someone who has investigated the subject matter quite indepthly, plus used the same models personally and has experience with the subject, that's your choice. There is a big difference between not investigating a subject and judging it, and with having an educated opinion on the subject.
Again, that's certainly fair.
may i ask, exactly what section of the bookshop were all these books located? was it in the medical/psych section, or self-help? are all those presenting these facts docotrs/psychiatrists? are they presenting their facts with documentation of their studies? is the control groups a large enough piece of humanity to make truly observable results and decisions on? i am well aware of how scientific studies are conducted, how educated opinions are formed, etc. yes, you most definitely have researched this subject far more than i...very evident, and cetainly nothing i disputed. 2 things i took issue with: the 95% figure, and the 'crippling' comment, nothing more.
anyway, i am fairly well educated....as someone in the education field i was required to take many psychology/sociology courses...granted, it's been a long time and i am sure newer studies, etc have happened in the interim. i also was required to read much, mostly education related, in regards to psych/saociological issues in regards to children and adolescents, familt mental health, get certified for recognizing signs of emotional/pysical abuse, etc. my only point is...95% is a fairly significant/important #...especially if that percentage is 'emotionally crippled'...and i i would think, somewhere...i'd have read it in an article, seen it on some medical/psych news....something. in this day and age...sooo much info is out there, easily accessible, that even w/o research, one learns much with little effort. i in no way consider myself an expert....but i read a lot, especially articles/news on such things...and your posts are the very FIRST time i have ever heard this 95% figure, and that surprises me. to me, something that is a vast concensus, i'd have heard about...b/c if it is truly 'fact'....i'd think it's pretty important news to share with the general population.
in reading this thread, i see one source you list....so maybe there are more..i am not arguing that fact. ALL i said is, i do not think within the medical/psych community that this figure is accepted as fact amongst most doctors in this field of study...i've never even seen it hinted at to such a widespread, exact figure...seen it in any psych text, etc. i did not deny there may be many who have studied it, possibly even shown it to be true for many...but nope...i see no hard and fast facts to 'prove' 95% of the population is emotionally crippled. yes, all semantics, but 'crippled' is a pretty powerful word to me.
i do not have the physical stamina/endurance of say lance armstrong...does that make me physically crippled?...not living up to my physical capabilities?...i guess one could see it in such a light...i just have different priorites, certainly don't see it as a flaw...so perhaps what one may categorize as 'emotionally crippled'...another simply does not place such a high value on self-actualization and is living their life, fairly content/happy. we all have vast potential, much possibly unrealized...but i don't see that as some vast flaw. so again, you're right...i have no 'proof'....but i haven't seen proof on the other side either. and yes, i haven't researched the subject in depth, so sure you have...but doesn't mean my opinion is based on nothing...and anyway...if that's what you think, what does it matter?
i simply disagree....and you can call it an uneducated opinion if you like, makes no difference to me. either way, i still await something that appears as 'fact' to me...and thus far, i haven't seen any. a fact is something provable, over and over...and agreed upon by the majority of experts in a given field...and i have seen no evidence of this....maybe those you cite are right, and in time it will become more widespread/known....and then i will gladly admit i did not know...but as of now, i simply do not see enough evidence of such to agree that the psych community as a whole supports this line of thinking.
anyway, i never disagreed with your general concencus of dysfunction or issues...just your figures, and the idea you presented as being fact of 95% being emotionally crippled. perhaps it's merely the language i take issue with. one may not be as emotionally aware as they might have the potential for, but i hardly call it crippled...b/c if that is so...we're a pretty sad species, amazing we're on the top of the heap if we fail so miserably to meet our potential. hell, supposedly we only utilize approx. 11% of our brain capacity?...does that make us underachievers?...or perhaps it's all a part of the grand scheme of nautre/life..to be developed, nurtured, changed....in the future? i just fail to see it as some defect in humanity in that sense, if only 5% are where they should be emotionally...seems like a poor design at best....or maybe...this idea of perfection, this ideal....is perhaps not what ty
ruly should be, but simply an opinion or point of view.
may i ask, exactly what section of the bookshop were all these books located? was it in the medical/psych section, or self-help? are all those presenting these facts docotrs/psychiatrists? are they presenting their facts with documentation of their studies? is the control groups a large enough piece of humanity to make truly observable results and decisions on? i am well aware of how scientific studies are conducted, how educated opinions are formed, etc. yes, you most definitely have researched this subject far more than i...very evident, and cetainly nothing i disputed. 2 things i took issue with: the 95% figure, and the 'crippling' comment, nothing more.
anyway, i am fairly well educated....as someone in the education field i was required to take many psychology/sociology courses...granted, it's been a long time and i am sure newer studies, etc have happened in the interim. i also was required to read much, mostly education related, in regards to psych/saociological issues in regards to children and adolescents, familt mental health, get certified for recognizing signs of emotional/pysical abuse, etc. my only point is...95% is a fairly significant/important #...especially if that percentage is 'emotionally crippled'...and i i would think, somewhere...i'd have read it in an article, seen it on some medical/psych news....something. in this day and age...sooo much info is out there, easily accessible, that even w/o research, one learns much with little effort. i in no way consider myself an expert....but i read a lot, especially articles/news on such things...and your posts are the very FIRST time i have ever heard this 95% figure, and that surprises me. to me, something that is a vast concensus, i'd have heard about...b/c if it is truly 'fact'....i'd think it's pretty important news to share with the general population.
in reading this thread, i see one source you list....so maybe there are more..i am not arguing that fact. ALL i said is, i do not think within the medical/psych community that this figure is accepted as fact amongst most doctors in this field of study...i've never even seen it hinted at to such a widespread, exact figure...seen it in any psych text, etc. i did not deny there may be many who have studied it, possibly even shown it to be true for many...but nope...i see no hard and fast facts to 'prove' 95% of the population is emotionally crippled. yes, all semantics, but 'crippled' is a pretty powerful word to me.
i do not have the physical stamina/endurance of say lance armstrong...does that make me physically crippled?...not living up to my physical capabilities?...i guess one could see it in such a light...i just have different priorites, certainly don't see it as a flaw...so perhaps what one may categorize as 'emotionally crippled'...another simply does not place such a high value on self-actualization and is living their life, fairly content/happy. we all have vast potential, much possibly unrealized...but i don't see that as some vast flaw. so again, you're right...i have no 'proof'....but i haven't seen proof on the other side either. and yes, i haven't researched the subject in depth, so sure you have...but doesn't mean my opinion is based on nothing...and anyway...if that's what you think, what does it matter?
i simply disagree....and you can call it an uneducated opinion if you like, makes no difference to me. either way, i still await something that appears as 'fact' to me...and thus far, i haven't seen any. a fact is something provable, over and over...and agreed upon by the majority of experts in a given field...and i have seen no evidence of this....maybe those you cite are right, and in time it will become more widespread/known....and then i will gladly admit i did not know...but as of now, i simply do not see enough evidence of such to agree that the psych community as a whole supports this line of thinking.
anyway, i never disagreed with your general concencus of dysfunction or issues...just your figures, and the idea you presented as being fact of 95% being emotionally crippled. perhaps it's merely the language i take issue with. one may not be as emotionally aware as they might have the potential for, but i hardly call it crippled...b/c if that is so...we're a pretty sad species, amazing we're on the top of the heap if we fail so miserably to meet our potential. hell, supposedly we only utilize approx. 11% of our brain capacity?...does that make us underachievers?...or perhaps it's all a part of the grand scheme of nautre/life..to be developed, nurtured, changed....in the future? i just fail to see it as some defect in humanity in that sense, if only 5% are where they should be emotionally...seems like a poor design at best....or maybe...this idea of perfection, this ideal....is perhaps not what ty
ruly should be, but simply an opinion or point of view.
Certainly fair enough. Thanks for clarifying your view for me.
It's a tricky subject. By the theory I'm familiar with, included in that 95% are counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists! I read the figure the other day, that of those helping professions 60 - 80 percent have not worked through their own codependency issues and therefore don't recognise, understand them or are able to deal with them in others! This is because denial is a key to the ongoing prevalence to the cycles. Both you and I are firm in our views. Since you are disagreeing with a small aspect of what I am saying, about the crippling and the 95% number I will direct you to the National Mental Health Association. I'm sure you will agree that not only are they very mainstream, but that they are reputable and balanced.
"Originally, co-dependent was a term used to describe partners in chemical dependency, persons living with, or in a relationship with an addicted person. Similar patterns have been seen in people in relationships with chronically or mentally ill individuals. Today, however, the term has broadened to describe any co-dependent person from any dysfunctional family."
"What is a Dysfunctional Family and How Does it Lead to Co-Dependency?
A dysfunctional family is one in which members suffer from fear, anger, pain, or shame that is ignored or denied. Underlying problems may include any of the following:
* An addiction by a family member to drugs, alcohol, relationships, work, food, sex, or gambling.
* The existence of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.
* The presence of a family member suffering from a chronic mental or physical illness.
Dysfunctional families do not acknowledge that problems exist. They don’t talk about them or confront them. As a result, family members learn to repress emotions and disregard their own needs. They become “survivors.” They develop behaviors that help them deny, ignore, or avoid difficult emotions. They detach themselves. They don’t talk. They don’t touch. They don’t confront. They don’t feel. They don’t trust. The identity and emotional development of the members of a dysfunctional family are often inhibited."
If you take one member of a family who abuses drugs, or alcohol, or is addicted in any way. or is a rageaholic, workaholic, shopaholic, promiscuous, a gambler, mentally ill, chronically physically ill, has eating disorders, is abusive, is controlling/a perfectionist, etc. the other members of the family must adapt to this problem. If the problem is not called out as it is, and treatment gotten or the problem otherwise solved, the family--mother, children etc. must adjust to dysfunctional ways, thereby being dysfunctional themselves. So even if only one member is obviously ill, all members are contaminated and pass on the cycles.
The National Mental Health Association says:"family members learn to repress emotions, They develop behaviors that help them deny, ignore, or avoid difficult emotions. They detach themselves. They don’t talk. They don’t touch. They don’t confront. They don’t feel. They don’t trust. The identity and emotional development of the members of a dysfunctional family are often inhibited. they can lose contact with their own needs, desires, and sense of self." ---given these problems, to me it is clear that the person in question is emotionally crippled. Emotional health is an important criteria for experiencing life in a satisfying way.
Further, the following are signs of co-dependency:
1. Do you keep quiet to avoid arguments?
2. Are you always worried about others’ opinions of you?
3. Have you ever lived with someone with an alcohol or drug problem?
4. Have you ever lived with someone who hits or belittles you?
5. Are the opinions of others more important than your own?
6. Do you have difficulty adjusting to changes at work or home?
7. Do you feel rejected when significant others spend time with friends?
8. Do you doubt your ability to be who you want to be?
9. Are you uncomfortable expressing your true feelings to others?
10. Have you ever felt inadequate?
11. Do you feel like a “bad person” when you make a mistake?
12. Do you have difficulty taking compliments or gifts?
13. Do you feel humiliation when your child or spouse makes a mistake?
14. Do you think people in your life would go downhill without your constant efforts?
15. Do you frequently wish someone could help you get things done?
16. Do you have difficulty talking to people in authority, such as the police or your boss?
17. Are you confused about who you are or where you are going with your life?
18. Do you have trouble saying “no” when asked for help?
19. Do you have trouble asking for help?
20. Do you have so many things going at once that you can’t do justice to any of them?
"If you identify with several of these symptoms; are dissatisfied with yourself or your relationships; you should consider seeking professional help. Arrange for a diagnostic evaluation with a licensed physician or psychologist experienced in treating co-dependency."
I'm willing to step beyond the "95%" and look at the facts that a dysfunctioning family is a dysfunctioning family, regardless of numbers. There is very real emotional fallout that prevents people from being fulfilled. Such problems can be resolved, and people can find peace and happiness, rather than merely cope with a painful life.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm willing to step beyond the "95%" and look at the facts that a dysfunctioning family is a dysfunctioning family, regardless of numbers. There is very real emotional fallout that prevents people from being fulfilled. Such problems can be resolved, and people can find peace and happiness, rather than merely cope with a painful life.
well, we found the common ground...which i had no doubts we would, b/c all a long i agreed with much of what you said in regards to dysfunction. as i said, my main issue is always...i do not like opinions, well-educated or not...or theories/concepts/ideas....touted as 'facts'...and i especially dislike statistics spouted as facts. sure, semantics...but very important distinctions in my mind.
all the info above presented, i can agree with, and also guidelines are just that...things to be aware of, consider...but there are no hard and fast #s given, or any mention of being 'crippled'...so yes, i guess when you present truly objective information in a non-emotional way, i can agree. it's when you add those undocumented statistical #s...or use such potent terminolgy such as 'emotionally crippled'...that i start to say whoa! if you want to believe that to be the case, so be it....but personal opinion is just that and i believe should be presented as such.
dysfunction is a serious issue, but there are degrees.....and yes, i do not put the idea of say coffee addiction - an example used earlier - in the same ballpark as someone emotionally abused continually as a child. so then, if one is linking a fairly benign addiction into the 'debilitating' category, that it infringes on our emotional health...sorry, that's taking it too far for me. anyway, agree...serious issues..important to address, and absolutely have repercussions in our lives.....but no, i do not believe that the vast majority of the population is suffering from or needs to recover from delibilating family or personal dysfunction. i think that actually is a disservice/abuse of such terminology for those living with truly emotionally criplling/dysfunctional issues. for me, it undermines the power of such language by using it in so many cases.
anyway, as i mentioned elsewhere ...thanks for the late-night reading material; enlightening. while it didn't present any new information to me, nor alter my views of the truly factual..it was definitely interesting reading, particularly maslow's heirarchy theory.
I'm willing to step beyond the "95%" and look at the facts that a dysfunctioning family is a dysfunctioning family, regardless of numbers. There is very real emotional fallout that prevents people from being fulfilled. Such problems can be resolved, and people can find peace and happiness, rather than merely cope with a painful life.
well, we found the common ground...which i had no doubts we would, b/c all a long i agreed with much of what you said in regards to dysfunction. as i said, my main issue is always...i do not like opinions, well-educated or not...or theories/concepts/ideas....touted as 'facts'...and i especially dislike statistics spouted as facts. sure, semantics...but very important distinctions in my mind.
all the info above presented, i can agree with, and also guidelines are just that...things to be aware of, consider...but there are no hard and fast #s given, or any mention of being 'crippled'...so yes, i guess when you present truly objective information in a non-emotional way, i can agree. it's when you add those undocumented statistical #s...or use such potent terminolgy such as 'emotionally crippled'...that i start to say whoa! if you want to believe that to be the case, so be it....but personal opinion is just that and i believe should be presented as such.
dysfunction is a serious issue, but there are degrees.....and yes, i do not put the idea of say coffee addiction - an example used earlier - in the same ballpark as someone emotionally abused continually as a child. so then, if one is linking a fairly benign addiction into the 'debilitating' category, that it infringes on our emotional health...sorry, that's taking it too far for me. anyway, agree...serious issues..important to address, and absolutely have repercussions in our lives.....but no, i do not believe that the vast majority of the population is suffering from or needs to recover from delibilating family or personal dysfunction. i think that actually is a disservice/abuse of such terminology for those living with truly emotionally criplling/dysfunctional issues. for me, it undermines the power of such language by using it in so many cases.
anyway, as i mentioned elsewhere ...thanks for the late-night reading material; enlightening. while it didn't present any new information to me, nor alter my views of the truly factual..it was definitely interesting reading, particularly maslow's heirarchy theory.
The "statistics" that are documented in the books I've read are there for those who are interested. There are numerous books on the topic that are laced with objective studies, facts, theories and case studies for those who are interested in judging the objectively accumulated information for themselves. Such information is what informs associations like the National Mental Health Association.
I've found John Bradshaw books to be particularly informative, in that they detail all kinds of psychology principles as a way of making points.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The "statistics" that are documented in the books I've read are there for those who are interested. There are numerous books on the topic that are laced with objective studies, facts, theories and case studies for those who are interested in judging the objectively accumulated information for themselves. Such information is what informs associations like the National Mental Health Association.
I've found John Bradshaw books to be particularly informative, in that they detail all kinds of psychology principles as a way of making points.
i have and can agree with all of that. however, again, to say that 95% ARE....is not the same as saying up to or 95% may be....etc......very important distinctions to me. and sure, lots of facts can be laced with lots of theories/ideas...personal summations, etc.
hey, it's all good...we each find our own sources of what appeals to us, what we find informative, etc. i don't need everything to be a 'fact' for me to find it worthy..i just need people to be clear on whether they are presenting fact, theory, or personal opinion.
i have and can agree with all of that. however, again, to say that 95% ARE....is not the same as saying up to or 95% may be....etc......very important distinctions to me. and sure, lots of facts can be laced with lots of theories/ideas...personal summations, etc.
hey, it's all good...we each find our own sources of what appeals to us, what we find informative, etc. i don't need everything to be a 'fact' for me to find it worthy..i just need people to be clear on whether they are presenting fact, theory, or personal opinion.
If you look through my exact words in this thread, I'm very clear when I present something as fact. If I assert something, and then say I base that assertion on having read it in numerous sources, I mean exactly that. I am responsible for my intent and for exactly what I say. I do not control what others hear.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
see, the part i bolded..i just don't buy. "crippled" seems far-fetched at best. sure, perhaps don't sdeal as best they can...but far from crippled imho. sure, semantics...but isn't that the whole point? believe me, i get in debates and hung up on semantics all the time
and yes, i agree....we ALL have our problems...and i do not consider 'sexual orientation' to be one of them. hell, if you've got that part figured out...you';re one step closer to happiness.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8k9o7qZs_Y
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i simply don't view it in the same light as you do, or apparently some experts do either. i don't see it as being crippled or debilitated. can it be? sure. but for the vast majority, no...don't see it like that at all. perhaps holds you back some, maybe, but again...i just simply see it as different personalities, ways of dealing, etc...there is no one 'perfet' way to live, to be human, etc. we can always strive to do better for ourselves...but yea, i just don't see it in such stringent, views...and with such doom. it's life, and living. merely my take on it.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
The fact remains that frozen aspects of brain functioning leads to crippled choice. And 95% of the population is considered to have this issue. Psychology is an objective scientific study. It's not based on guesses and opinions. They identify what works for a human in meeting their needs and they can identify what does not work. They can identify that not meeting one's need--not wants--but needs, causes fallout that keeps people from unfolding as their blueprint would dictate.
You mentioned personality. Each personality type has the ways they can get off track when unhealthy, and also gifts, talents and qualities the person will exude when they are healthy.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well i shall merely leave it as a difference of opinion, politely agree to disagree...b/c even your 'facts' of psychology, i don't fully believe....it is not an 'exact' science, always evolving...and i still will completely diagree with the call of 95%, and also that it is so 'crippling'..personally, i find that rather dismissive of the term crippling. obviously, it can't be all that crippling since 95% of the population is still out there, functioning...and i don't think al that emotionally unhappy/unstable...etc. anyhoo..it's all interesting, but i see it as different points of view..not facts...even if you get a couple of docotrs/experts to back it up...still not definitive to me, not as of yet, anyway.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You are backing up your disagreement with an opinion, and yet is your opinion an informed one? I mean do you have specific information/facts to back what you say and to counter what I've said? You have said that the facts of psychology are a point of view and not facts. What are your facts? Whether a line of study can improve and change does not minimise the fact that objective study is more reliable than personal opinion.
You say: "it can't be all that crippling since 95% of the population is still out there, functioning". The point is, you acknowledged earlier the many disorders and dysfunctions people have. When someone dysfunctions, they are not functioning okay--that's why the term is "dys" function.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i find that very difficult to believe. ive heard it said that 1 in 4 will be sexually harassed in college. but molested to me means basically raped or damn close to it and that seems a staggering number. that means i know very few girls who werent molested as a kid. where did you find this statistic?
im also curious about this 95% of us are dysfunctional thing. ive seen you mention it several times and i also find that pretty hard to swallow. ive always been curious where that one came from.
The 95% number comes specifically from books on co-dependency. My boyfriend and I were going through co-dependency books at a bookstore once. We were looking for some information and skimming through, and at the beginning of one book after another, each author separately used the 95% statistic. One of my favourite authors on the subject is John Bradshaw (the guys who started the "inner child" stuff)
The idea is that in childhood, we're taught to deny our feelings on a mass scale. Then our emotional self stays immature inside while we develop a false self--the image that is okay on the outside. The basis of psychological problems is that we are living as the false self, and we've lost touch with our real selves, without even knowing it since we did not develop in healthy ways to begin with. This would be fine if we did not have painful behaviours that cause us grief, pain, the breakdown of our families, and that ingrain dysfunctional patterns in our own kids.
Here is some information on the topic from a John Bradshaw book. Keep in mind that he refers to addictiveness/compulsivity in referring to not just the usual addictions but as addiction to sex/pornography, religion, abusive relationships, workaholism, shopaholism, eating disorders, gambling and many others:
" Addictiveness is the inner emptiness we try to fill up with any mood-altering behavior. The word addiction has often been limited to chemical substances like alcohol, nicotine, and other drugs that have their own inherent addictive properties....there are many types of non-chemical addiction...the common root of every addiction is compulsivity understood as addictiveness.
Compulsive/addictive behaviors are not about being hungry, thirsty, "horny" or needing to work. They are about mood alteration. They help us manage our own feelings. They distract us or alter the way we are feeling so that we don't have to feel the loneliness and emptiness of our abandonment and shame. The mood alteration that comes from distractive activities is mostly unrecognized in our culture.
The most crucial aspect of any compulsivity is the life-damaging aspect of it Life-damaging means that the compulsive/addictive behavior causes personal dysfunction. Compulsivity of any sort blocks us from getting our needs met through our own basic human power. The compulsivity takes up all our energy. Our choices are narrowed. Our freedom is lost. Our will is disabled. Compulsivity is a state of inner barrenness. We are totally externalized without any self-reflection and interior life. How can we have an inner life when we feel flawed and defective as a human being? This shame core keeps the addict from going inward. The true self hides behind a masked false-self."
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"Shame with it's accompanying loneliness and psychic numbness, fuels our compulsive/addictive lifestyle...Shame fuels compulsivity and compulsivity is the black plague of our time. We are driven. We want more money, more sex, more food, more booze, more drugs, more adrenaline rush, more entertainment, more possessions, more ecstasy. Like a starving person, even more of everything does not satiate us." (source: "Bradshaw on: The Family", by John Bradshaw)
Many on this board recognise that there are major underlying flaws to the way we live that are causing mass fallout around us. Because the workaholic appears successful, or because needing an adreneline rush Fear Factor style have become socially acceptable, much like the old days when smoking was portrayed as glamorous, does not effectively erase the underlying condition of the disease of unending "More". The problem is our pursuit of more will NEVER soothe the inner problem of co-dependency....The good news is co-dependency can be overcome and people can and DO find their way to health. Unfortunately, this issue is denied in our culture. The key to co-dependency IS denial.
""...our most pressing human problems focus on compulsive/addictive behavior. Addictions narrow our minds and disable our wills. Our life is no longer a conscious choice. (edit: remember, he refers to addiction to tv, or food--notice the obesity around us??--; he refers to addiction to pornography, or sexual conquests; or addiction to caffeine, nicotine, to religion)
It is false thinking to believe that addiction is only about dope fiends in dark alleys or belligerant and stumbling drunks.
In my own work as president of the Palmer Drug Abuse program, I found a very stereotyped conception of addiction. While we treated teenagers abusing chemicals, we also dealt with their parents and their families. All around me I found work addiction, religious addiction, eating disorders, co-dependent people addicts, parents addicted to their children, cigarette addicts and rageaholics.
...An addiction is a pathological relationship with any mood altering experience that has life-damaging consequences. The inability to relate in a healthy manner is the result of shame, since shame is the result of broken relationships. Once the interpersonal bridge with caretakers or survival figures is broken, children believe they do not have the right to depend on anyone. They quit trusting themselves and others and start depending on their fantasy bond and self-indulging patterns of behavior.They are set up for pathological relationships.
Pathological implies a delusional quality to the relationship. Delusion and denial are the essence of compulsive/addictive behavior.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well I stopped reading after "why should the most prosperous part of the world barring maybe japan, be the most psychologically messed up???"
Thats a fairly ignorant statement since Japan has the highest suicide rate of any so-called "prosperous" nation.
I talk about the 95% and the western world being "messed up" because I have some sense of what that means. The co-dependency books that I get my information from do NOT imply at all that this issue is only occuring in the west...They talk about it as a human issue. I don't know if it is considered worldwide or not and therefore I cannot speak to that. I personally would not in any way say that the US is the most psychologically messed up place--by any stretch of the imagination.
This is NOT about one country being messed up and others being okay--as a matter of fact, that very mentality of looking down on others is a symptom of these imbalances!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You're right, sorry to imply that if one commits suicide they are "messed up"... I know now that if you take your own life that you are mentally healthy.
The liberal left along with hollywood and the like have made us a nation of "man-girls".
Why take responsibility for your actions/situation/life when you can blame your parents? Or your teachers? Or your friends? Hell, anyone but yourself. Japan has a high suicide rate DUE to their level of personal responsibility. I fucked up, I've mad a mess of things, IM going to fix it. Not saying their way of "fixing it" is right. But they don't blame others. They put the blame for their situations where it belongs. On themselves. Everyone creates their own reality, just not everyone accepts nor acknowledgest that fact.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
The catch is that many people are unconsciously creating their own reality--beyond their awareness, and they blame everyone for what is happening in their lives, rather than accepting responsibility.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
sorry for the very delayed response, haven't been back.
um, i am not 'backing up' anything. i very clearly was offering my personal opinion. i also wasn't disagreeing with their being facts in psychology...but moreso that much is NOT proven as fact in this field of study...and for every expert who you can possibly tout supporting this thinking, i am sure there are just as many who DISagree with it, thus not 'facts'...just educated opinions. so yea, as i said..i politely agree to disagree. thus far, not enough objective study done and provable for any 'facts' as of yet on this, so you can give me a few doctors who have studied and agree to this 95%.....but it is not a vast concencus, so i am just as correct in not believing it as you are in believing it...it's all who you choose to believe unitl hard and fast, concret facts are set.
and sure, i said there are many with issues/disorders...but still don't buy 95%, not even close...thus why i was simply disagreeing....b/c neother of us will change our minds...i simply do not follow/agree with your sources.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
This sounds like guesswork on your part. I choose not to base my understanding of a subject on guesswork.
I agree that the "facts" and the way they are interpreted are educated opinions. It's like the hard sciences, though, in that they have a model, and within the model, they can make predictions and over and over and then can show the model to be 'true'. They understand that if an individual continues to fuel dysfunctioning behaviour, they will not unfold to their potential but will remain dysfunctional.
Can you tell me where you get your information that there is not enough objective study done for any proveable facts on this? This is the kind of claim that it does not make sense to make based on an opinion.
I explained that I was in a book store and one book after another said the same thing! To me that looked like a consensus on the subject. Again your claim that it is not, does not hold water if you have not investigated information on the subject. Of course, you are still entitled to that claim.
If you believe you are correct making claims based on subjects you apparently don't have knowledge of, that is your entitlement. You are entitled to your opinion, and yet, that does not mean it is based on understanding of the subject matter. It sounds like you've decided to not believe the subject matter before actually investigating it. If you believe that makes you as correct as someone who has investigated the subject matter quite indepthly, plus used the same models personally and has experience with the subject, that's your choice. There is a big difference between not investigating a subject and judging it, and with having an educated opinion on the subject.
Again, that's certainly fair.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
may i ask, exactly what section of the bookshop were all these books located? was it in the medical/psych section, or self-help? are all those presenting these facts docotrs/psychiatrists? are they presenting their facts with documentation of their studies? is the control groups a large enough piece of humanity to make truly observable results and decisions on? i am well aware of how scientific studies are conducted, how educated opinions are formed, etc. yes, you most definitely have researched this subject far more than i...very evident, and cetainly nothing i disputed. 2 things i took issue with: the 95% figure, and the 'crippling' comment, nothing more.
anyway, i am fairly well educated....as someone in the education field i was required to take many psychology/sociology courses...granted, it's been a long time and i am sure newer studies, etc have happened in the interim. i also was required to read much, mostly education related, in regards to psych/saociological issues in regards to children and adolescents, familt mental health, get certified for recognizing signs of emotional/pysical abuse, etc. my only point is...95% is a fairly significant/important #...especially if that percentage is 'emotionally crippled'...and i i would think, somewhere...i'd have read it in an article, seen it on some medical/psych news....something. in this day and age...sooo much info is out there, easily accessible, that even w/o research, one learns much with little effort. i in no way consider myself an expert....but i read a lot, especially articles/news on such things...and your posts are the very FIRST time i have ever heard this 95% figure, and that surprises me. to me, something that is a vast concensus, i'd have heard about...b/c if it is truly 'fact'....i'd think it's pretty important news to share with the general population.
in reading this thread, i see one source you list....so maybe there are more..i am not arguing that fact. ALL i said is, i do not think within the medical/psych community that this figure is accepted as fact amongst most doctors in this field of study...i've never even seen it hinted at to such a widespread, exact figure...seen it in any psych text, etc. i did not deny there may be many who have studied it, possibly even shown it to be true for many...but nope...i see no hard and fast facts to 'prove' 95% of the population is emotionally crippled. yes, all semantics, but 'crippled' is a pretty powerful word to me.
i do not have the physical stamina/endurance of say lance armstrong...does that make me physically crippled?...not living up to my physical capabilities?...i guess one could see it in such a light...i just have different priorites, certainly don't see it as a flaw...so perhaps what one may categorize as 'emotionally crippled'...another simply does not place such a high value on self-actualization and is living their life, fairly content/happy. we all have vast potential, much possibly unrealized...but i don't see that as some vast flaw. so again, you're right...i have no 'proof'....but i haven't seen proof on the other side either. and yes, i haven't researched the subject in depth, so sure you have...but doesn't mean my opinion is based on nothing...and anyway...if that's what you think, what does it matter?
i simply disagree....and you can call it an uneducated opinion if you like, makes no difference to me. either way, i still await something that appears as 'fact' to me...and thus far, i haven't seen any. a fact is something provable, over and over...and agreed upon by the majority of experts in a given field...and i have seen no evidence of this....maybe those you cite are right, and in time it will become more widespread/known....and then i will gladly admit i did not know...but as of now, i simply do not see enough evidence of such to agree that the psych community as a whole supports this line of thinking.
anyway, i never disagreed with your general concencus of dysfunction or issues...just your figures, and the idea you presented as being fact of 95% being emotionally crippled. perhaps it's merely the language i take issue with. one may not be as emotionally aware as they might have the potential for, but i hardly call it crippled...b/c if that is so...we're a pretty sad species, amazing we're on the top of the heap if we fail so miserably to meet our potential. hell, supposedly we only utilize approx. 11% of our brain capacity?...does that make us underachievers?...or perhaps it's all a part of the grand scheme of nautre/life..to be developed, nurtured, changed....in the future? i just fail to see it as some defect in humanity in that sense, if only 5% are where they should be emotionally...seems like a poor design at best....or maybe...this idea of perfection, this ideal....is perhaps not what ty
ruly should be, but simply an opinion or point of view.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
It's a tricky subject. By the theory I'm familiar with, included in that 95% are counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists! I read the figure the other day, that of those helping professions 60 - 80 percent have not worked through their own codependency issues and therefore don't recognise, understand them or are able to deal with them in others! This is because denial is a key to the ongoing prevalence to the cycles. Both you and I are firm in our views. Since you are disagreeing with a small aspect of what I am saying, about the crippling and the 95% number I will direct you to the National Mental Health Association. I'm sure you will agree that not only are they very mainstream, but that they are reputable and balanced.
http://nmha.org/infoctr/factsheets/43.cfm
"Originally, co-dependent was a term used to describe partners in chemical dependency, persons living with, or in a relationship with an addicted person. Similar patterns have been seen in people in relationships with chronically or mentally ill individuals. Today, however, the term has broadened to describe any co-dependent person from any dysfunctional family."
"What is a Dysfunctional Family and How Does it Lead to Co-Dependency?
A dysfunctional family is one in which members suffer from fear, anger, pain, or shame that is ignored or denied. Underlying problems may include any of the following:
* An addiction by a family member to drugs, alcohol, relationships, work, food, sex, or gambling.
* The existence of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.
* The presence of a family member suffering from a chronic mental or physical illness.
Dysfunctional families do not acknowledge that problems exist. They don’t talk about them or confront them. As a result, family members learn to repress emotions and disregard their own needs. They become “survivors.” They develop behaviors that help them deny, ignore, or avoid difficult emotions. They detach themselves. They don’t talk. They don’t touch. They don’t confront. They don’t feel. They don’t trust. The identity and emotional development of the members of a dysfunctional family are often inhibited."
If you take one member of a family who abuses drugs, or alcohol, or is addicted in any way. or is a rageaholic, workaholic, shopaholic, promiscuous, a gambler, mentally ill, chronically physically ill, has eating disorders, is abusive, is controlling/a perfectionist, etc. the other members of the family must adapt to this problem. If the problem is not called out as it is, and treatment gotten or the problem otherwise solved, the family--mother, children etc. must adjust to dysfunctional ways, thereby being dysfunctional themselves. So even if only one member is obviously ill, all members are contaminated and pass on the cycles.
The National Mental Health Association says:"family members learn to repress emotions, They develop behaviors that help them deny, ignore, or avoid difficult emotions. They detach themselves. They don’t talk. They don’t touch. They don’t confront. They don’t feel. They don’t trust. The identity and emotional development of the members of a dysfunctional family are often inhibited. they can lose contact with their own needs, desires, and sense of self." ---given these problems, to me it is clear that the person in question is emotionally crippled. Emotional health is an important criteria for experiencing life in a satisfying way.
Further, the following are signs of co-dependency:
1. Do you keep quiet to avoid arguments?
2. Are you always worried about others’ opinions of you?
3. Have you ever lived with someone with an alcohol or drug problem?
4. Have you ever lived with someone who hits or belittles you?
5. Are the opinions of others more important than your own?
6. Do you have difficulty adjusting to changes at work or home?
7. Do you feel rejected when significant others spend time with friends?
8. Do you doubt your ability to be who you want to be?
9. Are you uncomfortable expressing your true feelings to others?
10. Have you ever felt inadequate?
11. Do you feel like a “bad person” when you make a mistake?
12. Do you have difficulty taking compliments or gifts?
13. Do you feel humiliation when your child or spouse makes a mistake?
14. Do you think people in your life would go downhill without your constant efforts?
15. Do you frequently wish someone could help you get things done?
16. Do you have difficulty talking to people in authority, such as the police or your boss?
17. Are you confused about who you are or where you are going with your life?
18. Do you have trouble saying “no” when asked for help?
19. Do you have trouble asking for help?
20. Do you have so many things going at once that you can’t do justice to any of them?
"If you identify with several of these symptoms; are dissatisfied with yourself or your relationships; you should consider seeking professional help. Arrange for a diagnostic evaluation with a licensed physician or psychologist experienced in treating co-dependency."
I'm willing to step beyond the "95%" and look at the facts that a dysfunctioning family is a dysfunctioning family, regardless of numbers. There is very real emotional fallout that prevents people from being fulfilled. Such problems can be resolved, and people can find peace and happiness, rather than merely cope with a painful life.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well, we found the common ground...which i had no doubts we would, b/c all a long i agreed with much of what you said in regards to dysfunction. as i said, my main issue is always...i do not like opinions, well-educated or not...or theories/concepts/ideas....touted as 'facts'...and i especially dislike statistics spouted as facts. sure, semantics...but very important distinctions in my mind.
all the info above presented, i can agree with, and also guidelines are just that...things to be aware of, consider...but there are no hard and fast #s given, or any mention of being 'crippled'...so yes, i guess when you present truly objective information in a non-emotional way, i can agree. it's when you add those undocumented statistical #s...or use such potent terminolgy such as 'emotionally crippled'...that i start to say whoa!
dysfunction is a serious issue, but there are degrees.....and yes, i do not put the idea of say coffee addiction - an example used earlier - in the same ballpark as someone emotionally abused continually as a child. so then, if one is linking a fairly benign addiction into the 'debilitating' category, that it infringes on our emotional health...sorry, that's taking it too far for me. anyway, agree...serious issues..important to address, and absolutely have repercussions in our lives.....but no, i do not believe that the vast majority of the population is suffering from or needs to recover from delibilating family or personal dysfunction. i think that actually is a disservice/abuse of such terminology for those living with truly emotionally criplling/dysfunctional issues. for me, it undermines the power of such language by using it in so many cases.
anyway, as i mentioned elsewhere
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The "statistics" that are documented in the books I've read are there for those who are interested. There are numerous books on the topic that are laced with objective studies, facts, theories and case studies for those who are interested in judging the objectively accumulated information for themselves. Such information is what informs associations like the National Mental Health Association.
I've found John Bradshaw books to be particularly informative, in that they detail all kinds of psychology principles as a way of making points.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i have and can agree with all of that. however, again, to say that 95% ARE....is not the same as saying up to or 95% may be....etc......very important distinctions to me. and sure, lots of facts can be laced with lots of theories/ideas...personal summations, etc.
hey, it's all good...we each find our own sources of what appeals to us, what we find informative, etc. i don't need everything to be a 'fact' for me to find it worthy..i just need people to be clear on whether they are presenting fact, theory, or personal opinion.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!