I despise shrinks because they despise the Golden Rule: Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Me, I would have others answer my questions according to themselves, and stop worrying about the motives and emotions behind them. I don’t want them vetted, or subject to ideological screening, and I can’t imagine that the shrinks in my place would, either.
I don’t believe in evading tough questions, subscribing to the tough Marine logic of never asking from others what I will not ask of myself, and that includes issues of validating another’s feelings. If someone else wants to use my answers to validate his actions, well, that’s his busines, not mine, but that’s also out of my desire not to be a hypocrite.
Being creative involves emotion, yet shrinks have denied it a place in debate altogether. That’s wrong; Shrinks and pundits wonder about public incivility, and increasing cases of depression, yet it comes, pretty clear to me, from an unwillingness to convince others that you hear them, as opposed to going through the motions.
You know that talking fast, according to body language specialists, isn’t a sign of dishonesty? And yet, shrinks treat them like they’ve done something wrong. They demand that such “calm down,” yet give no reason, starting with the fact that they’ve never been emotionally heard and understood. “We can’t validate anger–that would just lead to more of the rame rage,” is a dumb answer, and I’m living proof.
Just because you validate rage doesn’t mean you can’t manipulate, or redirect it. Ah, but shrinks deny that manipulation is part of their job description. Look: Making conscious effort of whether or not to answer a question is manipulation, and social pressure, be it good, or bad, is inherently so. Any social construct, even as it syncs or spars with instinct, is largely a product of social beliefs, arbitrarily placed, whether or not they actually make sense.
We as a society have placed greater emphasis on thinking outside the box, but at the same time, by thottling fast-talkers, by threatening to punish disengagers with social isolation, we are both shielding and entrenching stick-in-the-muds–a far cry from our ideals, ain’t it?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t liked having my motives judged, when I’m trying to challenge the thinking of others. It throws me out of my groove, places me in bad sorts, and just isn’t nice. I don’t do it to others, and don’t expect others to do it to me.
Try me if you like–go ahead, and see just how bad a hole you can acknowledge me into via a whole series of bruising questions. I’m not afraid of beat-downs, and that’s because beat-downs don’t phase me; if they do you, I’d suggest you ask yourself why that is.
As I see it, I’m embodying the Golden Rule, whereas the shrinks fight it. Everybody wants to feel valid, yes? Everybody wants to feel heard? Well why do shrinks advise counter to common sense?
Well, I think it goes back to Freud–be ever observing, watching, but neutral. Thing is, when they’ve got to admit they’ve got a dog in the fight, but don’t. Why deny the obvious, friends? Such kills me.