Problems I Have With Clinical Psychologist Dr. Phil

[serenesam]

1). Dr. Phil does not like the technique of “getting them before they get you.” While I do understand where Dr. Phil is coming from with regard to not getting someone before they get you, I feel that there are cases in which one does have to get the other one(s) or the other one(s) will get them. As a conflict theorist, I see a struggle not just in terms of power but virtually all aspects in our daily lives. There is a struggle between spouses, family, friends, strangers, coworkers, and generally speaking between people and other things such as nature, the environment, genes, animals, and almost all things surrounding a particular person. While cooperation is certainly the best ideal and most desired, sadly, this method cannot always work to its fullest usage and application. From a conspiracy perspective, I feel that Dr. Phil’s notion of resolving conflicts the non-violent way only fuels the establishment’s attempt to control and maintain power over the population. Opportunistic pathogens do not possess the kind of cooperative mindset like some people but rather they are like psychopathic scorpions with highly intelligent brains minus emotional responses and projections. We know full well that attempting to counsel a psychopath may only encourage its destructive and violent tendencies similar to the way that a student tells a grown-up or a teacher about being bullied may only encourage the bully to do further acts of bullying with additional vigor. Analogous to the fictional television show like Smallville or Superman, Lex Luthor will not hesitate to kill Clark Kent yet Clark Kent is reluctant to kill Lex Luthor. That kind of mentality is very dangerous in my opinion because it puts good vulnerable people at risk and just like some people today question why nobody had the courage to do anything pertaining to Adolf Hitler’s genocide against Jewish people until it was too late. As exemplified in the television show Battlestar Galactica, the humans must find every single opportunity possible to kill or destroy the cylons such as nuking a particular facility and they must be attentive because the cylons terminate just like the T-888 model in Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles or the T-1000 liquid metal model from the regular Terminator Movies. To put it into simplistic practical perspective like a soldier serving their own country, they must eliminate the enemy before the enemy eliminates them. Going back to the bullying example, if you cry and wine to an administrator, you are putting yourself at risk for future bullying attacks. However, if you stand up for yourself and attack the bully, the bully may think twice before attacking you again because in his/her mind she may think: “Do I really I want to get a little scar or pain from someone whom I find inferior or is it just not worth it?” I find Dr. Phil’s advice just perfect for the will of the establishment because people do not do anything drastic until it may be too late. In other words, Dr. Phil’s advice is like telling the mass population to be a little lab rat not doing anything, not standing up for themselves, not fighting back, not defending themselves, obey your masters, obey the powers to be, and play it nicely or simply just play it nice. Once again, while this is of worthy, positive, commendable, and sound advice, genetic predisposition and normal personality types do not mesh well with simply one act of “playing it nice” or the methodology of cooperation (because we all have unchangeable traits and/or the state of being). Therefore, it is in my opinion that in certain cases, violence, killing, and destruction is the only perfect answer.

2). Dr. Phil does not like the mentality of “us versus them.” I would assume then that Dr. Phil isn’t really that big of a fan of Alex Jones. This is similar to the technique of “getting them before they get you.” In reality and in my opinion and given the non-changing attitudes of individuals, it truly is always “us versus them” when you are talking about movements struggling or are in competition with other movements or when you are talking about one group in conflict with another group. Alex Jones once said “Either we go down or they go down” and it truly is as simple as that. When one side or one group or one movement does not want to engage in non-violent dialogue, the default position must be a continual fight or battle because the other side or other movement continues to go on the offensive attack mode. To stand there and do nothing would be foolish because you are allowing yourself to sink. The history within last century has shown how the powers to be were able to commit genocide like in China, Russia, Germany, and many other places in the world. It is as if the mass population are a bunch of silly people who really believe they can trust their own governments and leaders all the lies being told to them which only led to their own demise. Hence, there will always be an “us versus them” mentality similar to the functionalist perspective of those at the tip top of the pyramid and those at the bottom. Not everyone can be at the tip top of the pyramid and not everyone can be at the bottom of the pyramid. Altering one part of society may adversely affect all other parts of a society and this isn’t always a positive thing for there must be a negative consequential damage to one side or the other.

3). Dr. Phil lacks the comprehension of an overall broad perspective on life and the world. I remember in one episode, there was an 18 year old woman who was a porn star/escort and it appeared as if she wanted out and her family concurred. In short (I’m paraphrasing), Dr. Phil really believed that she needed to get a college education to make real money and that for her to continue her current lifestyle would mean her ending up feeling misery and broke in her elderly years. In my opinion, that was the most stupid comment I have ever heard Dr. Phil speak of. Actually, if she really wanted to, she could continue doing what she was doing for the rest of her life and she may even be able to retire early with lots of money in her possession. I assume the only reason she wanted a way out and the only reason why Dr. Phil agreed is only because both of them lack the understanding as to what is truly going on in the world with regard to getting paid of what I call a “slave wage salary.” She probably never really had a real job and is inexperienced in life. Donald Trump even once stated “I know someone with just a high school diploma who makes three times as much as someone with a bachelor’s degree.” Given the fact that I think she was hot, she can go a long ways in marketing and selling herself making the kind of salary where in one year she makes would take five years for a professor or a researcher to generate. There is even a legal brothel in the state of Nevada known as the Bunnyranch and there was this one woman who was a registered nurse. She stated on record in a tape recording on the Tyra Banks show that she loves her job and doesn’t have to conform to the outrageous hours as a registered nurse (you need an associate’s degree for nursing). Mathematically speaking, she would generate more incoming money anyways. Even if she was 40 years old, she could get cosmetic surgery, a full body lift, and still look amazingly beautiful. Professional elite escorts have also appeared on the Tyra Banks Show claiming to make 500,000 dollars per year. Now multiple that by ten (as in ten years) and you have made 5,000,000. Even a mechanical engineer may make up to 5,000 dollars per month which is about 60,000 dollars per year. Finally, there are a lot of successful people who dropped out of college and some even dropped out of high school. The bottom line is that Dr. Phil’s advice sounds like a cliché and almost identical to the brainwashed educators of how things should be and follows the current will/order of the establishment.

4). Dr. Phil holds a PhD in clinical psychology and while this is quite an extraordinary accomplishment, the possession of an advanced degree may make him stagnant, arrogant, unwilling to adapt to change, startled by ambiguities, and ultimately is another puppet or pawn used by the establishment. When a person attains a doctor of philosophy, it is only by human nature that they think or believe they know everything or have all the answers. This is a dangerous fallacy and an illusion blinding the so-called expert professional. We know for a fact that sometimes, average normal ordinary people may produce far better effective results compared to a mental health professional (Youtube search Levels of Consciousness 3, Bipolar Disorder, Spiral Dynamics, Psychology of Being). The ego of a human being is present and to say it is not present is simply foolish for I believe this may occur at a subconscious level. Dr. Phil may not notice, think, or believe he is arrogant but in his discussions with client/patients, he may say things in which he thinks is the best way or approach. Dr. Phil is the perfect person to show and indoctrinate the mass population on how we should truly behave. I have seen him with Oprah Winfrey several times and the two of them have made appearances with each other. Both Dr. Phil and Oprah Winfrey make up a deadly composition or combination and in my opinion are very effective in manipulating the mass population into loving their servitude to the establishment as if this is the lovely duckly way of existence and anyone who deviates from that is seen as being weird or in need of treatment. Dr. Phil may have worked a real job before attaining his PhD but times have changed. It is not like 30 years ago where a person can simply just walk out of his home and get a job. Today’s job interview process is excruciating with many steps. Dr. Phil does not understand that the world has too many people and not enough jobs for everyone. It is not surprising for conspiracy theorists to assume that there is a secret plan to wipe out the population. I don’t believe we are overpopulated in generic terms of the overall area of planet earth but there are particular places/cities that have way too much density. A company can only hire so many people and if you’ve got 700 people applying for one position as a janitor, that means you are going to have turn away 699 people. For Dr. Phil to criticize people who don’t have a job demonstrates clearly the kind of knowledge he possesses even with the so-called doctor of philosophy degree. It also contributes to his lack of comprehension with regard to the world as discussed previously. Also, there is a great Youtube video called "Valedictorian Speaks Out Against Schooling."

5). Dr. Phil practices reality therapy. I have nothing against this but I find an overall integrative approach to counseling and psychotherapy to be more effective. I have seen him pose questions like “What do you want?”, “How do feel?”, and have seen him conducting the empty-chair technique. Dr. Phil believes in change and he really believes that no matter how devastating a problem is, it can be fixed and reversed. The sad reality about all of this is that that is not always the case. For example, there was a Dr. Phil family from six years ago that came back and the wife said “My husband got worse.” There was another episode with some dude who got help from Dr. Phil but returned later due to relapse (I talk about how counseling may not work in my thread “Change as a Concept”). Another example was a girl suffering from anorexia nervosa (eating disorder) and her family has now given up on her. In a way, you can almost suggest that Dr. Phil is akin to Carl Jung especially the belief that people can change and in opposite to Sigmund Freud who believed that change was not possible. Although I am a supporter of the humanistic phenomenological approaches, I am also a supporter of psychoanalysis and psychodynamics because I believe in the unconscious and subconscious as powerful motivators and shapers of who we are and how we behave. Dr. Phil does not really like to focus on the past but in the here and the now and in the moment. This is wonderful but in my opinion, to ignore the past history of trauma may also ignore the true root underlying problem. Dr. Phil may be able to suppress it temporarily speaking, but it may resurface to the surface later on in the subsequent future if it is not resolved akin to flashing-back memories hindering the present moment actions of the here and the now. It is not a surprise to see the Freud and Jung letters coming to a bitter end (I think they are two of the greatest psychologists of all time with Freud having the upper edge over Jung of course given the exponential increase in crime, ineffective methods of counseling, relapse, and a disastrous system/order in the present world so much for Beck’s Cognitive Theory of Depression like yeah sure you can do cognitive restructuring and change my thought patterns) just like it is not surprising to see the gullible crowd echoing Dr. Phil’s amazing counseling abilities and skills akin to Obama echoing change repeatedly. An easy-to-understand way would be to look up a music video on Youtube by Kylie Minogue called "Wouldn't Change a Thing."

6). Dr. Phil lacks cultural sensitivity to various people of different cultures and backgrounds. Dr. Phil believes he can apply his approach universally to virtually anyone and everyone. To apply the same therapeutic technique to people of high socioeconomic status and people of low socioeconomic status is ineffective in my opinion. Both people have a different level of propensity, sensitivity, and ingrained way of thinking. The environment is a very powerful motivator and shaper of people’s behavior and it is difficult to adjustment and in some ways I would argue permanent and not able to change. What Dr. Phil may see as being “disorderly” may not be seen in that light from someone of a different culture that would deem it to be rather normal or “orderly.” Due to such cultural differences, utilizing the techniques of Dr. Phil may not work towards particular groups of people. Derived cultural mentality from parents and grandparents may further stagnant any form of change in both thinking and behavior especially if one has already bypassed the critical period of development which is why it is so much easier to change and brainwash a child than an adult.

[hortonpilot]

 As a conflict theorist, I see a struggle not just in terms of power but virtually all aspects in our daily lives. There is a struggle between spouses, family, friends, strangers, coworkers, and generally speaking between people and other things such as nature...................

****************
Absolute reality !
Faced with the facts which most people avoid.
Conflict is something i avoid if i can,  i saw enough in my childhood .
But you can't run from conflict at all times.

A co-worker was asking about a situation at work where she was being intimidated and bullied even though she was the senior staff member.
I mentioned my reluctance but in looking back in  more than 90% of the times where i had responded to a conflict , sometimes in an over-kill manner the results were favorable despite my being unhappy with how i had dealt with the matter.
In almost every single case even the worst actions were recoverable and those that were'nt did not matter.
What you say by  an attack being a wake-up call to the bully is true in every respect.
If you don't they walk all over you.

As you say making a complaint to the administration over these matters goes nowhere and they are implicit in the scheme of things.
Even the most careful case you might present to admin over a clear and repeated abuse will go no place and more than often you will find the bully types are promoted.
You stand up to these people in your own way and they leave you alone , unless they are a sociopath.

That all this mealy-mouthed stuff is part of the process of being dominated by the society and the process of subservience, a rule for those who know about aggression and for most it is  a secret world of double-standards they will never understand.

A world exists despite all the crap schools preach about being zero tolerant of bullying and trying to shape a better society. The schools do very little and will not address the family as a unit where it starts then comes into the school.
You leave school and then you might experience intimidation in the workplace that will effect your career.
Certain things might help you get on in this world or insulate you.

The sociopath/bully doesn't abide or care about normal conventions and this is what many people do not realise  and you may need to do whatever it takes to defend yourself.
To the bully it is a way of life and there is absolutely no reason to change.

Naive people think we all think alike and are often surprised at what happens to them, drastic stuff has become more acceptable in society with less secure employment, bank for-closures and increasing anti-sociable behavior, family law has changed where we some very questionable settlements .


Reading your line about Dr Phill's attitude to the unemployed .
Sad he thinks or says  where we live in a world where unemployment is a part of life and the grand plan.
No leaned person could possibly defend this.

A complex subject indeed .

In part it is knowing what you are up against then basic survival

Horton
 

[Joni]

My problem with Dr. Phil is rather generic in that he tells people how to solve their problems rather than help them find their own solution. Telling people to "get a backbone" seems to be a favorite phrase for him, but he doesn't really help anyone learn how to do this.

[hortonpilot]

Excellent point, self-reliance and personal development go a long way.

Horton

[voodoo scientist]

It would be quite difficult to address your post in detail, as most of the sections contain multiple points, so I will address the points more generally and cherry-pick a few specifics I find most interesting. I don't see Dr. Phil as being central to your post's conveyed meaning, so I will largely be ignoring him.

To start at the beginning, I agree with the claim that the ideal of a conflict-free society has been played out. However, going to the other extreme and advocating the incorporation of commonplace violence into our culture, which is really what the entire first paragraph boils down to, is fantastically dumb. Violence is incredibly harmful to almost every aspect of society and human life, and there is simply no way any character development could possibly make up for these effects. Conflict can take many forms, and violence is only one of them - and rarely the most effective. What we should be including in our culture are concepts for coping with contradiction and excelling in ambiguity, because that is where, or perhaps rather how conflict happens today: manipulation.

The second claim, that there must be a loser in all transactions, I consider to be blatantly false. Few human interaction systems amount to zero sum games as you propose, and while you may well disagree, I don't find the point interesting enough to merit further discussion on my part.

The third and fourth point I feel are related, in that the third attempts to substantiate the claim of the fourth that because experts are not always reliable, they are no more reliable than ordinary people, even within their field of expertise. This, I feel, is a common misunderstanding of how experts 'work.' While there actually is considerable support for qualitatively different neurological function in experts working within their field, at the end of the day, experts only attempt to be quantitatively better than ordinary people. If one asks an ordinary person a psychological question, they could have a valid answer. If one asks an expert, they could also have a valid answer, as you say. However, since one has no real selection mechanism for finding a 'valid' answer (otherwise one would not need to ask anyone, after all), one needs to choose the source who has the highest probability of delivering valid answer based on trust, because one does have a selection mechanism for "trustworthy" people (regardless of how good it is in a given individual).

Finally, though parts of it are occasionally included in eclectic therapy, Freudian psychotherapy is basically no longer practiced, and the question of Jung versus Freud has become more or less moot. Psychology has developed a great deal beyond the founding authors you mention and is rapidly gaining in complexity, as well as bleeding across disciplines with biology and neuroscience. Currently, it is highly questionable if human psychology can really be reduced to its constituent parts in the manner proposed under Freudian and Jungian paradigms. Aside from massive advances in our understanding of the brain's biology, one of the things that are driving this within psychology itself is the growing rejection of universalism and the realization that culture plays a much bigger part in fundamental aspects of our development than we previously believed, but this cannot be ascribed to either Freud or Jung, though they obviously played a crucial part in the development leading to the current state. For instance, it's no longer meaningful to speak of a unified subconscious.

Also, regarding Dr. Phil, while I realize he's a useful target, it might be useful to remember that Dr. Phil was a psychologist who became a TV show host. He's not still a psychologist, although his show is psychology-inspired. He does try hard to portray it as the real deal, though.

[acousticeagle]

I have watched the Dr Phil show a number of times, but see that he's been handpicked by tv execs for the voyerism aspect of exposing real human problems and then providing hard answers to an audience.

Certainly, his attitude can be caring, but on the other hand, he's judgemental and sees much in black and white terms. As someone who has an interest in psychology, naturally I tuned in to see what the fuss was about with Dr. Phil. The one thing he does seem to acheive is to 'wake people up' from a sleepy state of non-action. This is pretty aggressively done, and I'm not saying that some people don't need that. Many people get stuck in a rut ie., in abusive situations and can't see their way clear.

But I've seen Dr Phil berate people who are victims - and this is wrong. He does this by seeing them in such a black and white way and then, through his judgemental attitude towards them, leave them with no where else to go except into psychological areas of self-castigation. I imagined myself, briefly in an imaginary scenario, being under the scrutiny of Dr Phil, and I have to say that he didn't leave me with a good feeling.

[serenesam]

It would be quite difficult to address your post in detail, as most of the sections contain multiple points, so I will address the points more generally and cherry-pick a few specifics I find most interesting. I don't see Dr. Phil as being central to your post's conveyed meaning, so I will largely be ignoring him.

To start at the beginning, I agree with the claim that the ideal of a conflict-free society has been played out. However, going to the other extreme and advocating the incorporation of commonplace violence into our culture, which is really what the entire first paragraph boils down to, is fantastically dumb. Violence is incredibly harmful to almost every aspect of society and human life, and there is simply no way any character development could possibly make up for these effects. Conflict can take many forms, and violence is only one of them - and rarely the most effective.

Okay, I suppose we should let the bully run all over you. I suppose we should wait til you get shot before you do something. By the way, my point about violence is that sometimes it is the right answer - not always.

What we should be including in our culture are concepts for coping with contradiction and excelling in ambiguity, because that is where, or perhaps rather how conflict happens today: manipulation. The second claim, that there must be a loser in all transactions, I consider to be blatantly false. Few human interaction systems amount to zero sum games as you propose, and while you may well disagree, I don't find the point interesting enough to merit further discussion on my part.

The third and fourth point I feel are related, in that the third attempts to substantiate the claim of the fourth that because experts are not always reliable, they are no more reliable than ordinary people, even within their field of expertise. This, I feel, is a common misunderstanding of how experts 'work.' While there actually is considerable support for qualitatively different neurological function in experts working within their field, at the end of the day, experts only attempt to be quantitatively better than ordinary people. If one asks an ordinary person a psychological question, they could have a valid answer. If one asks an expert, they could also have a valid answer, as you say. However, since one has no real selection mechanism for finding a 'valid' answer (otherwise one would not need to ask anyone, after all), one needs to choose the source who has the highest probability of delivering valid answer based on trust, because one does have a selection mechanism for "trustworthy" people (regardless of how good it is in a given individual).

Sure, as if sources can live up to that. Lots of research and sources contradict each other.

Finally, though parts of it are occasionally included in eclectic therapy, Freudian psychotherapy is basically no longer practiced, and the question of Jung versus Freud has become more or less moot. Psychology has developed a great deal beyond the founding authors you mention and is rapidly gaining in complexity, as well as bleeding across disciplines with biology and neuroscience. Currently, it is highly questionable if human psychology can really be reduced to its constituent parts in the manner proposed under Freudian and Jungian paradigms. Aside from massive advances in our understanding of the brain's biology, one of the things that are driving this within psychology itself is the growing rejection of universalism and the realization that culture plays a much bigger part in fundamental aspects of our development than we previously believed, but this cannot be ascribed to either Freud or Jung, though they obviously played a crucial part in the development leading to the current state. For instance, it's no longer meaningful to speak of a unified subconscious.

Also, regarding Dr. Phil, while I realize he's a useful target, it might be useful to remember that Dr. Phil was a psychologist who became a TV show host. He's not still a psychologist, although his show is psychology-inspired. He does try hard to portray it as the real deal, though.

Well, I suppose Peter Joseph is crazy then for his presentation on Social Pathology on Youtube.

[serenesam]

As a conflict theorist, I see a struggle not just in terms of power but virtually all aspects in our daily lives. There is a struggle between spouses, family, friends, strangers, coworkers, and generally speaking between people and other things such as nature...................

****************
Absolute reality !
Faced with the facts which most people avoid.
Conflict is something i avoid if i can,  i saw enough in my childhood .
But you can't run from conflict at all times.

A co-worker was asking about a situation at work where she was being intimidated and bullied even though she was the senior staff member.
I mentioned my reluctance but in looking back in  more than 90% of the times where i had responded to a conflict , sometimes in an over-kill manner the results were favorable despite my being unhappy with how i had dealt with the matter.
In almost every single case even the worst actions were recoverable and those that were'nt did not matter.
What you say by  an attack being a wake-up call to the bully is true in every respect.
If you don't they walk all over you.

As you say making a complaint to the administration over these matters goes nowhere and they are implicit in the scheme of things.
Even the most careful case you might present to admin over a clear and repeated abuse will go no place and more than often you will find the bully types are promoted.
You stand up to these people in your own way and they leave you alone , unless they are a sociopath.

That all this mealy-mouthed stuff is part of the process of being dominated by the society and the process of subservience, a rule for those who know about aggression and for most it is  a secret world of double-standards they will never understand.

A world exists despite all the crap schools preach about being zero tolerant of bullying and trying to shape a better society. The schools do very little and will not address the family as a unit where it starts then comes into the school.
You leave school and then you might experience intimidation in the workplace that will effect your career.
Certain things might help you get on in this world or insulate you.

The sociopath/bully doesn't abide or care about normal conventions and this is what many people do not realise  and you may need to do whatever it takes to defend yourself.
To the bully it is a way of life and there is absolutely no reason to change.

Naive people think we all think alike and are often surprised at what happens to them, drastic stuff has become more acceptable in society with less secure employment, bank for-closures and increasing anti-sociable behavior, family law has changed where we some very questionable settlements .


Reading your line about Dr Phill's attitude to the unemployed .
Sad he thinks or says  where we live in a world where unemployment is a part of life and the grand plan.
No leaned person could possibly defend this.

A complex subject indeed .

In part it is knowing what you are up against then basic survival

Horton
 

You mentioned a good point. I was bullied in school too but when I socked him back, he stopped. Shows you that violence sometimes is the answer. The counselor was kind of shocked because I was an honor student. Ironically, I made tons of friends because of it.

Just like in WW2 when the USA had to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - if they didn't do so, more American lives would have been lost because the Japanese would not stop. That sure demonstrated power.

Look what happened during Hitler's regime. Nobody did anything. Yeah, sure, let's negotiate Mr. Hitler.

[hortonpilot]

"You mentioned a good point. I was bullied in school too but when I socked him back, he stopped. Shows you that violence sometimes is the answer. The counselor was kind of shocked because I was an honor student. Ironically, I made tons of friends because of it."


 I have wrestled with this one for years but as i said despite our fear of not handling things well at times the results are not always bad.
 So i wonder about alternatives to dealing with situations that might not occur to us?

It could be as simple as drawing the line in the sand for some people,if we don't they bully us?
We let them know that we won't be pushed around or manipulated and they then know how to treat us, if we don't they continue.
In part it is complicated , politeness and manners allow for behavior that is manipulative and the boundaries are confused , blurred and create opportunity for victimisation.

Always the element of fear in what will happen if we act in a certain way or loose it, but in reality nothing much mostly happens except we might feel uncomfortable.

Horton

[voodoo scientist]

Okay, I suppose we should let the bully run all over you. I suppose we should wait til you get shot before you do something. By the way, my point about violence is that sometimes it is the right answer - not always.

Sure, as if sources can live up to that. Lots of research and sources contradict each other.

Well, I suppose Peter Joseph is crazy then for his presentation on Social Pathology on Youtube.

The clarification on point 1 is quite reasonable. Violence is indeed sometimes the answer, but every adult knows this, because the threat of violence (better known as the law) is constantly hanging over our heads. Without this threat of violence, society would no longer have any coherence. However, it's generally only for people who fall outside the scope of criminal law for various reasons, such as children on the playground, that it can be said that violence still has relevance. For adults, it is generally much safer, less time intensive and less risky to turn to the law to 'get back at' people - that's why we have it.

Most research actually tends to support existing research, that's why there is mainstream research (findings that 'fit') and non-mainstream research (findings that don't yet 'fit'). To say that expertise is null because research has yet to provide 100% proof (which never happens outside of religion) is failing to acknowledge one of the foremost qualities of an expert: the ability to hold multiple potential viewpoints on their subject of expertise by their perceived validity. You should read up on expertise and how it's meant to work outside of the mainstream cultural presentation of the "expert" as the ivory-tower wizard out of touch with reality. I think you might be surprised.

Finally, I'm not familiar with Joseph, and not sure I understand Joseph well enough to relate it to the section of my post you quote. Perhaps you could explain the relevant parts of social pathology for me.

[serenesam]

 
Always the element of fear in what will happen if we act in a certain way or loose it, but in reality nothing much mostly happens except we might feel uncomfortable.

Horton

I think bullies play on "fear." They won't bully someone they know they can't take on.....

[serenesam]

For adults, it is generally much safer, less time intensive and less risky to turn to the law to 'get back at' people - that's why we have it.

Well from where I'm from in the US, the police can only do so much. Also when you go to court, there is a chance you might lose the case. Go to Youtube and type in "Don't talk to the Police."

Also, some people just go back and kill their victim if they call the police. There was a case in which a stalker posted bail and killed his victim when he got out.

[quote[Most research actually tends to support existing research, that's why there is mainstream research (findings that 'fit') and non-mainstream research (findings that don't yet 'fit'). To say that expertise is null because research has yet to provide 100% proof (which never happens outside of religion) is failing to acknowledge one of the foremost qualities of an expert: the ability to hold multiple potential viewpoints on their subject of expertise by their perceived validity. You should read up on expertise and how it's meant to work outside of the mainstream cultural presentation of the "expert" as the ivory-tower wizard out of touch with reality. I think you might be surprised.

Finally, I'm not familiar with Joseph, and not sure I understand Joseph well enough to relate it to the section of my post you quote. Perhaps you could explain the relevant parts of social pathology for me.

Well Peter Joseph cites some very credible sources and he breaks them well down. Perhaps you should watch that video on Youtube instead of telling me to spoon-feed you. He condenses it as much as possible. Just like in school, kids think they can watch the movie instead of reading the book. Go read the book! At least you don't have to read a book so I say to you - Go watch the video! - you'll learn a lot.

[hortonpilot]

Face up with a bully is very much part of the animal world, we are but animals , even on a good day.

Horton

[voodoo scientist]

Well Peter Joseph cites some very credible sources and he breaks them well down. Perhaps you should watch that video on Youtube instead of telling me to spoon-feed you. He condenses it as much as possible. Just like in school, kids think they can watch the movie instead of reading the book. Go read the book! At least you don't have to read a book so I say to you - Go watch the video! - you'll learn a lot.

That rather seems like dodging the question. Why won't you explain how you feel it's relevant to the section of my post you cited?

[serenesam]

Well Peter Joseph cites some very credible sources and he breaks them well down. Perhaps you should watch that video on Youtube instead of telling me to spoon-feed you. He condenses it as much as possible. Just like in school, kids think they can watch the movie instead of reading the book. Go read the book! At least you don't have to read a book so I say to you - Go watch the video! - you'll learn a lot.

That rather seems like dodging the question. Why won't you explain how you feel it's relevant to the section of my post you cited?

Ok, since you seem lazy, fine. I brought up the video Social Pathology by Peter Joseph on Youtube to illustrate that the current system (laws, treatments, mental health professionals) is not working and Peter Joseph does an excellent job of letting the viewer see tons of evidence, research, and data from top universities indicating the opposite of what you suggested – the notion that I’d be surprised of how the current system is working so perfectly – well, of course, that’s what the establishment wants you to believe. Statistics and so-called “credible evidence” can be faked to support one’s agenda (I know someone who is a graduate student of statistics too). Independent media sources also indicated that they love to “cook” the numbers for crime, recovery rates, and the unemployment rate too.

[serenesam]

Well Peter Joseph cites some very credible sources and he breaks them well down. Perhaps you should watch that video on Youtube instead of telling me to spoon-feed you. He condenses it as much as possible. Just like in school, kids think they can watch the movie instead of reading the book. Go read the book! At least you don't have to read a book so I say to you - Go watch the video! - you'll learn a lot.

That rather seems like dodging the question. Why won't you explain how you feel it's relevant to the section of my post you cited?

How is that dodging the question when you lack the ability or desire or will to want to understand an educational insightful video?

[HexHammer]

Dr Phil is a big narcissistic fraud.

http://vip.tv2.dk/article.php/id-9954812:dr-phil-mishandlede-sin-kone.html?rss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_McGraw