A Critical Look at Psychologist Dr. Phil

SereneSam: I was interested in your opinion of Dr. Phil & looked at your OP. I would have read it if it had some paragraph breaks to improve readability.

It takes extra time & extra study to deal with long paragraphs. When I see such a post, I move on to other Threads. I can read 2-3 posts with good paragraph breaks in the time it takes to read one with few breaks.

Sometimes I will read a post with few breaks if the subject is especially interesting to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But that wasn't Dr. Phil. So what are you trying to do, make Dr. Phil seem to look like he is somehow associated with this this asshole? :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, no offense, but I would say the virtually all the scholars are assholes here. That's what happens when you think you attained the highest credentials possible and get caught up in your egos.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But you brought up the man who tried to make the boy a girl , who wasn't a "scholar" here at all . So what do you mean that the scholars here are all assholes? I only pointed out that the man you were talking about was an asshole not anyone else. Unless of course you were that man?

 

What do you mean the man wasn't a scholar? His name was John Money, a psychologist.

This statement here makes no sense to me.

 

Then don't read it. It is as simple as that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I find it striking that you choose to emphasize conflict over co-operation.

The thing about conflict, as I understand it, is that unless it stops being conflict and becomes co-operation, it is a zero-sum enterprise, resulting in at best, one party in a dominant position and one party in a submissive position, one fearful, the other resentful, neither with dignity intact. This is neither a pleasant nor a stable situation.
Dominating someone into submission requires constant wariness. Being dominated sticks in one's craw until one usually explodes. If we're talking about a familial relationship this is hardly tenable or healthy.

At worst conflict results in singular or mutual destruction of both parties to the conflict. This is why intraspecies conflict is generally less than fatal and very ritualized, because full-on conflict generally has a negative survival value.

Could you elaborate what benefits you garner from your conflict theories in life and in your practice?

 

Sure, let's negotiate Mr. Hitler.

Was it necessary to nuke both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

By the way, I never suggested that violence was always the answer. I said sometimes it is the perfect answer.

 

You must consider the following when appraising Dr. Phil.

He is in the entertainment business. This is different from a business providing therapy in an office enviromnment. He seems to do a good job of running an entertaing show as well as providing reasonable advice.

He has to be careful to avoid lawsuits. Some statements he could make in a private therapy environment would be likely to result in a lawsiut if broadcast to a TV audience.

He does seem to have some experts on his show who provide advice an/or information pertinent to the problems of his guests.

He spends quite a bit of money providing professional counseling and/or institutional care for his guests.​

Many of his guests seem to be in serious need of therapy, which they would be unlikely to get if not for Dr. Phil. It seems to me that many/most of his guests are in worse shape than a lot of those who go to some type of therapist.

 

Mostly a gun is useless, but there's a time when it's the only tool for the job...and yes, sometimes you have to deal with an aggressor violently.

Could you explain conflict theory in more detail then? Perhaps I'm not understanding you here...

You see I come from the premise that in most conlict situations the opponents are not trying to annihilate one another. In fact after the conflict is resolved they are going to have to coexist, and so the best solution is one that is mutually beneficial, or at least mutually palatable...otherwise there's no real resolution and the conflict is just going to fester.