I think your observations about the term 'gaslighting' are on-point. Robert Stolorow has an excellent little book called 'Trauma and Human Existence,' if you are interested. With regard to trauma and 'victimhood' within an existential framework, I'm guessing you mean the degree to which a person might be regarded as 'free' to overcome their trauma?

Thanks for the read recommendation! As for trauma/victimhood - Getting stuck in the notion of being damaged and living as an object-in-itself.

Got it. Yes, if I understand your meaning, that can be a complicated situation to navigate. I'll see if I can speak to it at some point.

Thank you for your comments. I think few psychologists will recognize a sick society (they are immersed in it themselves); the ones who do should help people cope if they are clearly suffering from it. This may involve a ‘partial’ reintegration or reconciliation of sorts. Unfortunately, 'reintegrating' will for most psychologists mean teaching people to succumb to aspects of the cultural hegemony that is sick - they cannot see it as such and may in fact regard it as psychologically healthy (we ourselves become part of the problem). I think following the latest research and guidelines has always been imperfect, since ‘data’ is always being filtered through various theoretical assumptions that remain unquestioned within the social scientific research (this is a complicated subject that I talk about here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jLlpipVl0LKXYYU.html); it becomes even more of an issue when the research and guidelines becomes increasingly ideological and politically motivated. In my opinion, there is no substitute for critical thinking, and in the end, trying to do right by our individual clients or patients.

I get it. At one time I may have preferred patients ('one who suffers') but mostly settled on the imperfect term, 'clients,' for the following reasons: 1) to avoid any connotations that I might be a medical doctor; 2) I do a lot of marriage counselling - it seems strange that I might refer to them as 'patients.' 3) 'patient' seems to imply a relative passivity in relation to the more active practitioner - I want my clients working as hard as I am in our sessions.

You twist my words. The fact that I made a couple of critical remarks about current government initiatives (which may restrict our freedoms and access to information) does not make me ‘anti-government’ any more than someone criticizing capitalism necessarily makes them a communist. In my estimation, uncritical consumption of mass media, government narratives, and support for ‘the current thing’ (especially these days) is far more ideological in nature than someone who is discerning, concerned or skeptical, and reluctant to be a conformist. This has been proven throughout history. Parenthetically, if anyone else reading this were interested, there is a great video on this topic here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bLuRdrKAnZ7Tg6M.html Moreover, I am not espousing an ideology (as most would use the term) so much as drawing attention to what I take to be basic existential-phenomenological realities about authenticity, will, and agency. It is intended to help people find their voice independent from the unreflective crowd (which doesn’t mean alone, without community, or submitting to alternative dogmas, as you seem to suggest). This is the exact opposite of a ‘victim mentality’ you allude to. I am sorry that you misunderstand or cannot follow this video. Perhaps it was not meant for you.

@@HalifaxPsychologists i appreciate your time and patience to respond. i will think over your response and rewatch suggest video (Why Nonconformity Cures a Sick Self and a Sick Society) i Follow the Academy of Ideas as well.

chatGPT's summary of this video: "The speaker discusses their experience of going on a rock hike with their dog, Otis, and reflects on the importance of exercising agency and will. They explain that agency involves the ability to act on one's behalf and consists of two parts: the commanding party that sets goals and the dutiful soldier that follows through. The speaker emphasizes the role of physical exercise in strengthening one's will and building confidence. They connect the exercise of agency to authenticity and standing apart from societal expectations. The speaker also mentions the current state of society, expressing concerns about weakness, increased censorship, economic challenges, and the need to develop an ironclad will to navigate these issues. The narrative is illustrated with a personal encounter on the hiking trail, highlighting the importance of not succumbing to societal norms and maintaining confidence in one's choices. The overall message encourages individuals to exercise agency, strengthen their will, and stand apart from societal expectations."

i thought it would be fun to ask chatGPT what it thought of the video i asked chatGPT: "what right wing dog whistles are present in this text" & "what left wing dog whistles are present in this text" & "is the text ideological and if so what ideology does it align with?" these were its responses. "The text appears to contain elements that align with certain right-wing perspectives, but it's essential to note that interpretations can vary. Some potential right-wing themes or dog whistles in the text include ..." & " While the text predominantly emphasizes individualism, autonomy, and criticism of certain societal trends, it may not overtly contain left-wing dog whistles. However, some elements in the text could be interpreted from a left-wing perspective...." & "Yes, the text is ideological, and it aligns with a set of ideas associated with individualism, autonomy, and a critique of certain societal trends. The predominant themes in the text suggest an alignment with libertarian or conservative ideologies. Key elements include..."

It's never too late, in my opinion. We're continually works in progress and we're never done. Hope it goes well for you next week!

Happy to see that you are still around. I think I mostly agree with you. I might emphasize ‘being principled’ more than ‘getting behind a cause,’ since the latter can so easily deceive itself, mislead the masses via irrational emotions and moods, get co-opted for other ends, or (in the case of rebellious causes) fail to recognize when it finally needs to turn against itself (see Camus, The Rebel). Unfortunately, in a time of irrational mass-movements, a sober-minded and principled person is likely to end up the social scapegoat (see Eric Hoffer’s ‘The True Believer’). There are many reasons to dislike (perhaps even fear) modern identity politics, though it is politically incorrect to point them out or try to talk about it; I hope that is slowly changing. I do not like how it reduces people to the level of a superficial social category (race, gender, sexuality), which seems to deny or minimize each person’s unique agency and individuality. For example, I have worked with gay therapy clients who have been told that they are not ‘gay’ enough to be recognized within the so-called ‘gay community.’ Same with modern-day race politics (a black person being told they are not ‘black enough’ to represent ‘the black community’). I think what saddens me most, is that we have seemingly abandoned the ‘ideal’ of moral universalism (I think Kenan Malik may have suggested this). It wasn’t perfect (no ideals are), but it was something we aspired toward - universal principles that we would try to apply to all, irrespective of social particulars. It seems that we have now become so despairing and cynical that we’ve discarded universalism for moral particularism. Many people are now convinced that the only way to fight discrimination is through exaltation based on belonging to a socially designated ‘victim’ category, while happily condoning discrimination, racism, and sexism, if directed toward appropriate social targets (e.g., white, heterosexual, men, presumed to be inherently ‘guilty’ within the logic of the intersectional ‘progressive stack’). When universal principles no longer seem to apply, I would imagine increased tribalism will be the end result. I also don’t like the bureaucratic side of it, which seems to be everywhere now (e.g., committees). It feels ‘Orwellian’ and brings to mind Zygmunt Bauman’s warnings about technocratic societies that model themselves as ‘social gardeners’ … i.e., ‘too much of this race/sex, not enough of that …’ [weeds and flowers]. Again, it seems to ‘de-humanize’ (or ‘de-person’?) us … reducing us to our ethnic-racial boxes, as Malik would say. If this is supposed to help social cohesion and trust, I don’t see how.

You are very welcome. Yes, the 'tearfulness' is a common issue for many people, who often describe it as feeling somewhat 'overwhelmed' in that moment (the emotions seem 'too much' to handle or put words to); this kind of weepiness (which might be viewed as a special case of anxiety) tends to be different from the sort that involves 'sadness/hurt,' which has a 'softer' or more 'vulnerable' feel to it (no significant tension/anxiety present).

Yes, I think that may be part of it, at least for some people. And it could work both ways. Someone comfortable with their emotions will likely be receptive to sympathy from others. Then again, I think someone's preference for [mere?] sympathy can be a way of avoiding getting deeper into the relevant emotions. As mentioned, when a client is experiencing a feeling of some sort, I think I can (and do) readily empathize. But an issue may arise when someone describes a set of events/experiences, where the emotion is hidden or ambiguous, yet this person maybe hopes or expects the therapist (or friend/partner, etc.) will offer sympathy (often having to infer what feelings are involved) and leave it at that, without deeper exploration.

You are very kind, thanks. Another one to drop before too long 👍

pretty sure everyone 'gets on with life'.

Should be soon. Some issues came up that knocked me off the original timeline. Stay tuned.