Wednesday, August 10, 2022
Freewill vs Determinism
https://www.simplypsychology.org/freewill-determinism.html
Hard determinism sees free will as an illusion and believes that every event and action has a cause.
Behaviorists are strong believers in hard determinism. Their most forthright and articulate spokesman has been B. F. Skinner. Concepts like “free will” and “motivation” are dismissed as illusions that disguise the real causes of human behavior.
In Skinner’s scheme of things the person who commits a crime has no real choice. (S)he is propelled in this direction by environmental circumstances and a personal history, which makes breaking the law natural and inevitable.
Rav Wolbe: Religion has replaced sex as taboo
This is my translation of an excerpt (pp 72-73) from Rav Wolbe's essay on Religion and Psychiatry that I recently posted
========================================
Frankel quotes the Yale University psychiatrist, F. C.
Redlich, “Psychodynamic psychiatry threatens the strict religious dogmas. It
seems to do this by its implicit values rather than by explicit statement.”
Frankel added the following comment after attending a conference of
psychiatrists in New York. “It is almost impossible to find in New York
psycho-analysts who don’t have serious doubts about the mental health of their
clients - if after completing their psychoanalytic treatment they are still actively
religious.” If this observation is in fact accurate, perhaps it is truly time
to acknowledge that there is absolutely no necessary contradiction between the
Jewish conceptualization of man and that of psychiatry. Perhaps the two views even
complement each other. I am going to allow myself to be sarcastic for a moment
and to say, After seeing the elevated picture of man as the beloved friend –
how can one be satisfied with the picture of man as an intelligent monkey with
the addition of a subconscious mind and a bit of sublimation?” There is to this
matter an additional aspect. Psycho-analysis made a major contribution by
revealing the mechanism of repression i.e., repression of the libido. With the
passage of the years the analytic concepts such as libido and repression have
in my opinion – become very popular. While permissiveness is not implicit in
psycho-analysis, nevertheless the popularization of psycho-analysis has caused
it. That is because the masses have found justification in it for
permissiveness. Perhaps they have even found guidance to behavior which is very
free concerning sexual issues. Consequently – repression of the libido has
become uncommon. Today there is no
repression of sex – but there is repression of religious feelings. That is what
Frankel has written. He quotes Gordon Allport, “Perhaps there has been an
exchange - during the course of the last
50 years - between the nature of religion and sexuality: Today psychologists
write without any inhibition- such as
Freud or Kinsey – regarding the passions of man. However they blush and keep
quiet the moment the conversation comes to religious yearnings.
Psychiatry in Crisis! Mental Health Director Rejects Psychiatric “Bible” and Replaces With… Nothing
Scientific American What is mental illness? Schizophrenia? Autism? Bipolar disorder?
Depression? Since the 1950s, the profession of psychiatry has attempted
to provide definitive answers to these questions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Often called The Bible of psychiatry, the DSM serves as the ultimate authority for diagnosis, treatment and insurance coverage of mental illness.
Now, in a move sure to rock psychiatry, psychology and other fields that
address mental illness, the director of the National Institutes of
Mental Health has announced that the federal agency–which provides
grants for research on mental illness–will be “re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.” Thomas Insel’s statement comes just weeks before the scheduled publication of the DSM-V, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Insel writes:
“While DSM has been described as a ‘Bible’ for the field, it
is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each.
The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been
‘reliability’–each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same
terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our
definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM
diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms,
not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this
would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature
of chest pain or the quality of fever. Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis,
once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the
past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely
indicate the best choice of treatment. Patients with mental disorders
deserve better.”[...]
Seridei Aish: Recommends psychology rather than force or prohibitions to deal with teenager who is obsessed with magic tricks
Torah & psychology: Conflicts in values and goals I
There is an organization which provides therapy to frum clients using trained psychologists and social workers. The organization has a posek who has answered their questions for years. Recently a question arose dealing with a wife who was severely abused in all possible ways. She has been destroyed psychologically without any self-esteem or ability to function as an independent entity. Therapy and the law requires that she be treated as a separate entity and be given the skills and confidence to decide whether she wants to get divorced. The Rav insists that the Torah requires that the husband be involved in her therapy and especially the issues of divorce.
What would you advise?
First update - the other side of the story.
After some investigation, I found out the rav's point of view. He had been informed by a number of people who had worked with the couple previously for shalom bayis that the woman's account of abuse are questionable and might possibly indicate delusions and psychosis. The rav said that the reality of the woman's story needs to be verified with others before giving her treatment as an abused person who probably should get divorced. The wife refuses for the therapist to speak to her husband and the therapist believes she is telling the truth. Legally and ethically a therapist can not go behind a clients back to solicit information when the client objects. Thus the rav is not asserting that the husband has to be involved because he is a husband but because of the need to clarify the truth of her claims. Thus there is a clear conflict between the values of secular therapy and secular law and the Torah position
Second update: Thursday Nov 29
Another case. A troubled marriage of a couple who are at the highest levels of Torah society. If they get divorced it will destroy their children's chance of happiness in shidduchim. Therapist insists that the marriage is unhealthy and supports wife call for a divorce. Their rebbe tells the therapist to provide wife with sedatives so she can survive the marriage until the kids are married off. This is a question of values - not reality or professional judgment. Does the therapist have to listen to the rav or does his Ph.D. exempt him from Torah obligations as seen by the rav
Third update - another case
I remember, as a bachor in yeshiva, speaking to the psychologist of one of my fellow students who became psychotic. The therapist told me, "the basic problem is you people don't touch girls until you are married. My client would be way better off psychologically if he got a girl friend." When I objected that this was against our religious laws, he snickered and said, "It is my professional view that this is necessary for my client's well being." Would you require that a prostitute be hired until he got a girl friend because a licensed expert in the field of pscyhology said it was necessary?
Fourth update - December 1 2012 What does it mean when a rav issues a psak in medical issues -
See Rav Sternbuch paskens that alternative medicine can't be used instead of conventional medicine in pikuach nefesh cases
First update - the other side of the story.
After some investigation, I found out the rav's point of view. He had been informed by a number of people who had worked with the couple previously for shalom bayis that the woman's account of abuse are questionable and might possibly indicate delusions and psychosis. The rav said that the reality of the woman's story needs to be verified with others before giving her treatment as an abused person who probably should get divorced. The wife refuses for the therapist to speak to her husband and the therapist believes she is telling the truth. Legally and ethically a therapist can not go behind a clients back to solicit information when the client objects. Thus the rav is not asserting that the husband has to be involved because he is a husband but because of the need to clarify the truth of her claims. Thus there is a clear conflict between the values of secular therapy and secular law and the Torah position
Second update: Thursday Nov 29
Another case. A troubled marriage of a couple who are at the highest levels of Torah society. If they get divorced it will destroy their children's chance of happiness in shidduchim. Therapist insists that the marriage is unhealthy and supports wife call for a divorce. Their rebbe tells the therapist to provide wife with sedatives so she can survive the marriage until the kids are married off. This is a question of values - not reality or professional judgment. Does the therapist have to listen to the rav or does his Ph.D. exempt him from Torah obligations as seen by the rav
Third update - another case
I remember, as a bachor in yeshiva, speaking to the psychologist of one of my fellow students who became psychotic. The therapist told me, "the basic problem is you people don't touch girls until you are married. My client would be way better off psychologically if he got a girl friend." When I objected that this was against our religious laws, he snickered and said, "It is my professional view that this is necessary for my client's well being." Would you require that a prostitute be hired until he got a girl friend because a licensed expert in the field of pscyhology said it was necessary?
Fourth update - December 1 2012 What does it mean when a rav issues a psak in medical issues -
See Rav Sternbuch paskens that alternative medicine can't be used instead of conventional medicine in pikuach nefesh cases
Rav Dessler: Modern Psychology's mistaken view of man
Open Letter to Rav Nota Greenblatt: Why your comparison of Psychology to Medicine to justify not investigating the facts behind the heter - is a tragic mistake!
You have acknowledged that you provided the heter for Tamar Epstein to remarry without first receiving a Get from her first husband. You have also said that you have no knowledge of the facts but based yourself on therapists that Rav Kaminetsky said were experts and reliable. You stated that based on the facts that you were told – Tamar’s marriage to Aharon Friedman was a mistake and was null and void according to your understanding of the views of Rav Moshe Feinstein. The therapists claimed that Aharon was suffering from severe mental health issues. In particular they stated that he is suffering from two major incurable personality disorders – either of which is so debilitating that no normal woman would want to marry him. It is claimed that Tamar stayed in the marriage with the hope that these conditions were curable. Finally it is claimed by the report that Tamar left the marriage when she was bluntly told that there was no cure for these disorders. There is apparently no one who disputes these statements.
However as Rav Aharon Feldman, Rav Shlomo Miller , Rav Landesman, the Baltimore Beis Din and others major rabbis have stated – the reports are in fact not trustworthy for several reasons. 1) only one of the therapists actually met with Aharon Friedman and he only said that Aharon was not going to change - not that he was severely mentally ill 2) the therapist who wrote the report received his information from Tamar who paid for his services and there was no input by Aharon or opportunity for Aharon to defend himself from the negative accusations 3) it is a well known fact that psychological reports are highly subjective 4) It is acknowledged by experts in psychology that the categories of the DSM diagnostic system include normal behavior as well as pathologies – and thus receiving a label of paranoid or OCD does not by itself mean that the conditions are outside of normal behavior. 5) Only one of the two therapists is frum and he did not speak with Aharon himself. Thus there is only one frum person claiming that Aharon has severe mental issues and he is testifying only from second hand information that he received from Aharon’s wife – hardly a reliable basis for establishing the truth. 6) Perhaps the biggest refutation of the reports claim that Aharon has severe incurable mental illness is that Tamar made no such claims against Aharon to either the Baltimore Beis Din or to the secular court. It is inconceivable that Tamar who is intelligent, sensitive and knowledgeable about modern psychology would not notice the claimed paranoid or obsessive compulsive behavior even after many months of marriage – until a psychologist informed her! Furthermore Tamar made no reference to the mental illness in her diary where she specifically discussed Aharon's good and bad points. Tamar’s most serious claim was that Aharon was not sociable enough for her.
Given the above strong basis that the facts you were given a false – it is a major puzzle why you don’t retract or even investigate whether the facts you used are true. You are quoted as justifying your inaction by saying that this is no different than a case in which a person comes and says a doctor told him that it is a danger for him to fast on Yom Kippur. You say – “Just as I am not qualified to investigate the medical condition of this person but I rely on expert testimony – so here I am not an expert in Psychology and relied on expert testimony that Aharon has 2 incurable mental health problem that prevent him from being a normal husband.” In addition you have said that even if 6 psychologists disagreed with the diagnosis – you would not retract the diagnosis because it has been established by two experts. You claim you are simply applying the halacha to the data given by experts – who would not lie because of the assumption that they would not do something to ruin their reputation.
Unfortunately your explanation is a severe misunderstanding of the nature of Psychology and the value of an expert's diagnosis - especially one made based on an opponent's statement. A better model for understanding what has happened here is the following:
Tamar has been diagnosed with a potentially fatal heart disease. The doctor tells her that her heart will fail unless she stops indulging herself with a diet consisting mainly of pizza, coke, french fries, burgers and candy bars. Despite the warnings, she makes no effort to change her life style because her parents and friends say – as they always have - she is entitled to eat whatever she wants – and no one can tell her what to do.
Consequently her heart is on the verge of failing and she is told the only way to save her life is to get a heart transplant. The problem is there are few transplants available and because of her poor health she is on the bottom of the recipient list.
She goes to her rebbe Rav Shmuel with her problem and he tells her that he knows a heart surgeon who has exclusive access to hearts from men executed for crimes in China. He acknowledges that the morality and legality of the use of such hearts is questioned by many but says – “This is pikuach nefesh! You may surely rely on Rav Nota to save your life. While he doesn’t know anything about cardiology he is the world’s best surgeon and transplant man.”
Rav Shmuel urges her to hire cardiologists to describe her heart condition as terminal and that there is absolutely no other solution than a heart transplant. She finds an expert who is willing to write a report totally based on what she tells him - because she told this expert that her previous doctor said she has very little time left and there is no more time for additional testing.
She makes sure to leave out any information that indicates that life style changes would improve her condition and she distorts all test results to make her condition look as bad as possible. The cardiologist motivated not only by the fat fee he receives but the belief that he is saving her life - writes a detailed report that paints the darkest picture of her condition. He says there is no alternative to an immediate heart transplant and makes up a couple factors to make it even more powerfully urgent.
The next week Rav Nota transplants a heart from a recently executed human rights dissident. He relies on the reports of two doctors in China that the heart is healthy. With great satisfaction he observes Tamar miraculous recovery from heart failure. She is a new woman and she is very grateful to Rav Nota and to Rav Shmuel for suggesting his services. She returns to her life and her lifestyle with great happiness to be given a second chance.
But rumors start circulating on the Internet and even the mainstream media. There are apparently problems. Reports smuggled out of China indicate that the heart “donor” had a horrible disease. A disease that produces horrible disfigurement and muscle debilitation not only in the heart recipient but also in all her future children - as well as ruining her husband's health. Various concerned doctors contact Rav Nota to inform him that there is a good chance that the heart is diseased and that it needs to be removed as soon as possible. Rav. Nota is well acquainted with the disease in question, and knows that its incidence in China is much higher than average. In spite of these dangers,
he eschews all questions about whether this heart has been adequately
confirmed to be free of the disease, and did the operation on the basis
of the say so of people he doesn't know - but were described as experts.
Rav Nota replies to his callers, “I am not a cardiologist and I relied on the expert American doctors who wrote the report that she was sick and I relied on the expert Chinese doctors that certified that the heart was healthy. I don’t want Tamar to be upset by these reports. I am going to deny that there is any problem and tell her she shouldn’t worry about these rumors. Since I am relying on experts – there is nothing to worry about! While these rumors might very well be true – but I will not consider the possibility unless the certifying doctors themselves say they were mistaken. My conscience is clear since I am simply following the rules and I have been guided by the experts - as well as the beracha from Rav Shmuel himself. Stop bothering me and please don’t say anything to Tamar!”
Psychology of everyday life: "I feel sorry for him - but it's not my job!"
Update about Judaism and Psychology. I mentioned to the director of the program that asked me to write on the topic - that in contrast to other topics that they dealt with - this topic was different. Topics such as suffering or purpose in life etc - utilized questions simply as a means to teach the student that which the teacher already knew. These topics are closed ones with a clear answer. In contrast the topic of Judiasm and Psychology was an open one - with fundamental unanswered questions for both Judaism and Psychology. So while I could present the questions, and some basic principles - I could not provide them final clear answers. In other words I can teach an approach to deal with these issues - but not give "the Torah answers." This in in fact the dispute of the Rambam and Ravad of how to deal with free will. Ravad said an intelligent person does not ask questions that have no clear answer and but apparently the Rambam disagreed.
While we are on the topic of Psychology and Judaism I am reminded of a story.
While we are on the topic of Psychology and Judaism I am reminded of a story.
When I first visited Israel I had a Shabbos meal at the home of an occupational therapist who worked at Haddassa with wounded soldiers from the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War as well as handicapped people.
She mentioned two incidents to illustrate the Israeli mentality - as opposed to the American. 1) She said that when the wounded soldiers were brought to the hospital from the battle field - some with horrible wounds - they were totally silent. No crying, no moans, no cursing - total silence - which she said was totally different than her experience in American hospitals. She said that Israelis feel uncomfortable about sharing their personal feelings with others - even if it means not screaming in pain or even complaining about severe burns and wounds.
She mentioned two incidents to illustrate the Israeli mentality - as opposed to the American. 1) She said that when the wounded soldiers were brought to the hospital from the battle field - some with horrible wounds - they were totally silent. No crying, no moans, no cursing - total silence - which she said was totally different than her experience in American hospitals. She said that Israelis feel uncomfortable about sharing their personal feelings with others - even if it means not screaming in pain or even complaining about severe burns and wounds.
2) The second anecdote was more upsetting. She said there was one quadriplegic who lived in the hospital and whose mobility depended on an electric wheelchair - that he operated with the fingers on his right hand that he still could move - that had to be charged every night. One day she came in and found that the wheel chair had not been charged. She angrily asked the attendant why he hadn't plugged it in? She berated him by pointing out that the handicapped young man had lost the whole day because of the attendant's negligence.
The attendant expressed astonishment at the criticism. "Of course I wanted to charge the battery. I know full well the consequence of not having a charged wheelchair. You think I am a moron? An insensitive person? But what could I do - the faceplate on the socket was loose and I couldn't insert the plug!" She angrily said, "Well why didn't you fix the socket - it is a simple job taking 30 seconds with a screwdriver. The attendant patiently explained to this "stupid" American nurse that what she said was absolutely true - the repair was trivial. "But it is not my job. My job is to insert the plug not fix the socket!"
"Pandemic of low self-esteem" in Yeshivos - Rav Reuven Feinstein
updated May 3 I am currently trying to understanding the recent transition from interpersonal relations governed by Torah concepts and the current replacement by secular psychological values and processes. Currently one of the most important psychological concepts is that of self-esteem. Despite the fact that there is no such concept in Torah we have here a call by Rav Reuven Feinstein to institute programs and methodology in yeshivos to fight against the "pandemic of low self-esteem" in our yeshivos. Furthermore he indicates that this secular attribute of self-esteem is critical for spirituality and serving G-d! This widespread and uncritical acceptance in our community of the importance of psychology - not only to be a healthy person but to develop sprituality - is in strong contrast with Rav Dessler (Vol 3 page 360). It is important to note that there is actually no scientific evidence to support the importance and centrality that self-esteem has in education, parenting and therapy. Why have rabbis accepted its importance? The following is a haskoma that Rav Feinstein wrote for a book - on building this psychological characteristic of self-esteem - written by a rabbi for the frum world. I have previously posted this Yeshiva Education and low self-esteem where I note that the problem of low self-esteem is uniquely a problem in yeshivos that follow the Lithuanian approach - but not in the Chassidic or Sefardic yeshivos. This is apparrently related to the emphasis of elitism described by Rav Dessler. See Rav Dessler - producing gedolim at expense of others. See Self-esteem is destructive
see video- Rabbi Twerski describe his struggles with low self-esteem
=========================================
See "Bringing out the Best"
============
Rabbi Dr. Twerski's (Forward to Rabbi Roll’s Bringing out the Best on self-esteem 2008)to the same book: [...] We are fortunate that we have had great Torah scholars who were able to do so and extracted the gems of wisdom from it. Among them is the famous ethicist, Rabbi Nosson Tzvi Finkel, better known as the Alter of Slobodka. A healthy self-esteem is essential for optimum function and for achieving one’s mission and goal in life. Unfortunately, there are many things that militate against the development of a healthy self-esteem, some of which I described in my book Angels Don’t Leave Footprints. In his sefer, Ohr HaTzafun, the Alter of Slobodka draws upon the Torah narrative to show us how the Torah emphasizes gadlus ha’adam, man’s potential for greatness. Just as the Alter derived these concepts from the Torah and made them available to us, Rabbi Yisroel Roll expands upon them and applies them to a person’s self-concept, with instructions on how to create a healthy self-image and implement these lesssons in our lives. Self-esteem is contagious. Children may get it from their parents, students from their teachers, and everyone from their friends. It is important that we become aware of the components of self-esteem and the factors that jeopardize our self-esteem. Rabbi Roll has utilized the teachings of the Alter and delivered them to us in a consumer-friendly fashion, with practical strategies to develop and enhance positive attitudes and encourage a family atmosphere of healthy self-esteem. The pursuit of happiness is universal, and if there is any one thing that is an obstacle to achieving happiness, it is the lack of self-esteem. By facilitating the development of self-esteem, Rabbi Roll has made an important contribution to enhancing family life and shalom bayis.
In contrast we find acknowledgments that Mussar concepts are not those of Psychology
================
Dr. Meir Levin (Beyond Psychology in Jewish Action 2003): Psychology and Musar Are Not the Same - Because of the lack of appreciation of the uniqueness of musar, some have recently begun misrepresenting it as a kind of psychological teaching. The bastardization of musar takes various forms. A number of self-help volumes targeting the Orthodox community have recently been published. While some of the authors of these books explicitly aim at the legitimate synthesis of psychological and musar approaches or at restating musar principles in the language of psychology, others use musar to Judaize psychological teachings. One must not minimize the beneficial effects that the spread of psychological insights can have in our communities. And those who do this work are well intentioned. In fact, practitioners of musar would do well to pay at least some attention to advances in behavioral sciences. Yet, psychology is not musar and musar is not psychology. The conflating of the two detracts from each one.
See Rabbi Ephraim Becker - why equating gadlus haAdam and self-esteem is problematic
see video- Rabbi Twerski describe his struggles with low self-esteem
=========================================
See "Bringing out the Best"
============
Rav Reuven Feinstein (Haskoma to Rabbi Roll’s Bringing out the Best on self-esteem 2008): In a generation bereft of spiritual guidance, following a path dictated by societal values and goals, it is clear that beyond the simple impairment of Torah Ethics and values, is the destruction of Jewish self-esteem. In yeshivos today there is literally a pandemic of low self-esteem. An outcome of this most horrible condition, is that once a person has achieved a state where self-worth and self-value are diminished, that person is literally open to all foreign pressures both within and without. Once those pressures are given free reign, the outcome is without exception, negative. Building, nurturing, and maintaining a healthy, positive and balanced self-esteem is critical to the development of any child. Instilling Torah Values side by side with a healthy self-esteem is not only fundamental to a solid foundation of Torah and mitzvos, it is critical for one wishing to grow and develop in their relationship with Hashem. Rabbi Roll has undertaken a most worthy project in addressing the deficit of self-esteem so prevalent within our communities, yeshivos and schools. The Alter of Slabodka’s work Ohr HaTzafun explains the Torah’s definition and obligation of self-esteem in this world. Rabbi Roll has expounded upon these concepts and presented them for consideration. There is no greater achievement in this world that to inspire, teach, or motivate another....
==================
================
Dr. Meir Levin (Beyond Psychology in Jewish Action 2003): Psychology and Musar Are Not the Same - Because of the lack of appreciation of the uniqueness of musar, some have recently begun misrepresenting it as a kind of psychological teaching. The bastardization of musar takes various forms. A number of self-help volumes targeting the Orthodox community have recently been published. While some of the authors of these books explicitly aim at the legitimate synthesis of psychological and musar approaches or at restating musar principles in the language of psychology, others use musar to Judaize psychological teachings. One must not minimize the beneficial effects that the spread of psychological insights can have in our communities. And those who do this work are well intentioned. In fact, practitioners of musar would do well to pay at least some attention to advances in behavioral sciences. Yet, psychology is not musar and musar is not psychology. The conflating of the two detracts from each one.
See Rabbi Ephraim Becker - why equating gadlus haAdam and self-esteem is problematic
Update:We also find acknowledgment that self-esteem was not part of classic mussar. In fact self-esteem was discovered by Rabbi Twerski as the result of his own personal psychological-spiritual crisis as he describes fully on a video.
Andrew Heinze (Americanization of Mussar: Abraham Twerski’s 12 Steps, Judaism Fall 1999): Even though the emphasis on proper self-esteem seems more congruent with American optimism than with Jewish irony, Twerski speculates on the traditional sources of his orientation.
“My clinical emphasis on the importance of attaining a positive self-concept and avoiding self-flagellation may have had its origin in an anecdote about the Chafetz Chayim (Rabbi Israel Meir HaCohen) which Father repeated many times. One time the Chafetz Chayim was riding home to Radin and had the driver stop to pick up a man walking along the road. Along the way, the man mentioned he was journeying to visit the Chafetz Chayim, to which the Chafetz Chayim replied that. he didn't see why the man was going to such effort because the Chafetz Chayim wasn't so special The man then slapped the Chafetz Chayim in the face. Later in Radin the man met the Chafetz Chaimand and immediately bowed down, asking for forgiveness. The Chafetz Chaim said there is no need for this, as the man was defending him. "But I did learn something new trom this experience I have always pointed out how wrong it is to belittle others. Now, I know it is also wrong to belittle oneself.” [Twerski Generation to Generation pp 90-91]
The
lesson of the Chofetz Chaim notwithstanding, Twerski knows that his
emphasis on self-acceptance departs from the mainstream of mussar. In
trying to fathom why this should be so, he speculates that perhaps in
earlier generations the problem of low self-esteem was less urgent.
After Darwin and Freud, however, humanity faced a crisis in the form of
psychological determinism and the denial of special creation. These
theories, Twerski concludes, had an effect on the self-esteem "of even
the Torah-true Jew." [Twerski I am I page 40].
So,
in contrast to the darker and more stoic sensibility of mussar classics
like Mesillat Yesharim, Abraham Twerski's postwar American therapeutic
brand includes a softer touch and more empathetic disposition. Using the
confessional format as a way of establishing emotional rapport with his
readers, Twerski openly describes his own confrontation with unpleasant
inner impulses and his all-too-human deduction that he must be an
unworthy person to harbor such feelings. In grappling with this crisis
of self-esteem, Twerski ultimately found an answer in the Talmud (B.
Shabbat 89a) which explained that people have been given the mitzvot
precisely because they have been endowed with animal impulses. "The
discovery of animalistic traits within myself," he explains to his
readers, "was no reason for me to consider myself to be a 'bad' person."
Psychology’s brilliant, beautiful, scientific messiness.
Scientific American Today, sitting down to my Twitter feed, I saw a new link to Dr. Alex Berezow’s old piece on why psychology cannot call itself a science.
The piece itself is over a year old, but seeing it linked again today
brought up old, angry feelings that I never had the chance to publicly
address when the editorial was first published. Others, like Dave
Nussbaum, have already done a good job of dismantling the critiques in this article, but the fact that people are still linking to this piece (and that other pieces, even elsewhere on the SciAm Network, are still echoing these same criticisms) means that one thing apparently cannot be said enough:
Psychology is a science.
Shut up about how it’s not, already.
I clearly cannot just say that without explaining why
psychology is a science, although sometimes I wish I could just join the
biologists, chemists, and physicists who are never faced with having to
answer such questions. So I will start by quoting the main thrust of
Dr. Berezow’s argument, and then explaining why the 20-year-olds who
take my Intro Social Psych class each semester could have told Berezow
why he’s wrong by the end of our first week of class.
From Berezow’s piece:
Psychology isn’t science.
Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.
[To claim that psychology] is “science” is inaccurate. Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. [...]
Kashering by renaming. What is Jewish Psychotherapy?
We also need to recognized that there is also a corresponding problem of frum people mechanically applying Torah ideas - without a sensitivity and concern as to whether these ideas are appropriate for the situation or people and whether they help or harm spiritual growth.
============================================
Guest post
May University Academic Psychology be imported en bloc into Judaism?
Does Hashkaffah have to be consistent with itself, or may incompatible ideologies be homogenized?
How are treif ideas introduced into the Haredi community?
If you take ideas from anywhere and just rename them, 'Psychology', they automatically become acceptable.
'Psychiatric diagnosis'
Denigrating, labeling and degrading another Jew, an action previously called ‘lashon hara’, ‘motsi shem ra’, ‘onoas devarim’, ‘mitkabed bklon chaveiro’ and ‘yalbin pnei chaveiro berabim’, is now acceptable if it is renamed 'psychiatric diagnosis'. This is what they publicly did to the husband of the agunah. He has grounds for lodging a complaint.
Even if this ‘psychiatric diagnosis’ is valid, which I doubt, it may only be applied 1) to a patient and 2) confidentially. In this case, it is public slander.
I doubt the validity of the DSM5, the categories therein, and the application of these stigmatizing labels.
The names of the non-existent illnesses in the DSM5 are merely derogatory epithets.
Just rename these ideas, 'Psychology' or ‘Psychiatry’, they automatically become acceptable.
Practices which previously were forbidden by Torah, for example, onoas devarim, obscene speech or shaming, all of a sudden become permitted by renaming them ‘psychotherapy’.
‘Psychotherapy’ is really ‘Just Talking’, and does not have any special status which permits violating Hallachah.
Psychologists and psychiatrists are admired for the mere fact of being 'psychologists' or ‘psychiatrists’ and will be invited to speak at a shul. Speakers will be invited to tell us "the secrets of marriage", "how to handle stress", "’how to’ … many other things", parenting, relationships, education and "the meaning of life" and so, deviously they introduce Christian existentialism, mechanical behaviourism, carnal Freudianism, deterministic neuroscience and Eastern meditation into our culture.
Freud has been elevated from the anti - religious person he really was (he wrote, "Religion is the universal obsessive neurosis of mankind") into a 'ground breaking medical pioneer'.
Psychoanalysis has been elevated from the pornography it really is into a 'respectable medical treatment'. Any harmful practice to another person becomes acceptable just by calling it ‘doing chesed’ or ‘therapy’.
Besides the current topical agunah/eishes ish/mekach taut case, there is another questionable heter from psychology which needs to be examined.
When women are allowed to have abortions or contraception, "in order to protect the "'mental health of the mother'" (rodef?), we have to question the vague, capricious, subjective term, "mental health of the mother".
Is the term, "the mental health of the mother" really an authentic illness and serious enough to warrant an abortion?
Some religious women may go through a doubtful "post natal depression" in order to get a heter for contraception...
I think the general practice appears to be meikel because we fear the risk of suicide.
Kids may try obtaining abusable, stimulant drugs through the questionable illnesses of ADD\ADHD and learning "disorders".
Shyness in a woman is regarded as being Tzniyus and is a very precious Jewish value. However, in the American value system, shyness is regarded as an "illness", "Social Anxiety", to be treated with tranquillizers.
In fact there must be many examples of the misuse of psychological conditions and behaviours, renamed as "illnesses", to make permitted the otherwise forbidden.
On the other side of the coin, there must be many examples of renaming bad practices as "therapy" to make permitted the otherwise forbidden.
What about electric shocking people against their will? Usually this would be assault, striking a person, but renaming this as "therapy" makes it permitted.
The Aseret HaDibrot forbids kidnapping. "Lo Tignov", Although this refers to one stealing a person for resale and being chayav mita, lesser degrees of confining people against their will are also forbidden, and involuntary psychiatric hospitalization may be a loophole through which this is done. Of particular danger are young girls, with anorexia nervosa, who are removed from their frum home environments and placed in very suspect circumstances where bad things and bad influences happen.
Viktor Frankl's Logotherapy. The only psychotherapy acceptable to Judaism?
In certain circles over the past 40 years, Viktor Frankl's has been promoted as, the only psychotherapy acceptable to Judaism!
Probably the reason Frankl's therapy is so popular in religious, especially kiruv, (and missionary) circles is his use of expressions like 'Religion', 'Values', 'Free Will' and 'Responsibility' as solutions. These are presented as opposed to deterministic Freudianism and mechanical behaviourism, and therefore appear to be an improvement. However these attempts to elevate psychology by "adding Spiritual Values" doesn't work.
Here we will show that Viktor Frankl's psychotherapy is the opposite of what it is advertised as. It is actually deviously introducing non-Jewish values and undermining Torah!
Both Logotherapy and Existentialism, which have been popularized, are actually alien to Judaism and we have been misled.
Viktor Frankl, prescribes 'Meaning' as a reason for becoming religious, and as the cure for mental illness.
Problems of living or whatever, are addressed by Frankl's followers with, "You need, Rx prescription, "Meaning in Life".
When someone is told, "You need to get 'Meaning In Life'" does that mean that 'Meaning In Life' is a commodity which you can "get"?
Actually, it's impossible to "get "'Meaning' in Life.""
It's impossible to get "'Meaning' in Life", because 'Meaning' is an abstract noun and does not denote any concrete thing.
What do Existentialists refer to when they talk about ‘Meaning’?
Let's search for the origins.
In the writings of the existentialist psychiatrist, Viktor Frankl, he recommends "Meaning in Life" as a cure out of despair or alienation or mental illness, and yet Frankl does not say what that "Meaning" is! He certainly does not specify "Torah and Mitzvot"! "Meaning" can be anything, and is subjectively unique to the individual.
In the case of Sartre the French, "atheist existentialist", "Meaning" could stand for, or refer to, exercising his freedom and creativity in literature, or fighting in the French Resistance, out of having suffered the "meaninglessness of life". Once again Sartre also holds that, "Meaning" can be anything, and is subjectively unique to the individual.
For Jewish existentialist Martin Buber "Meaning" appears to be found in the "Encounter" between "I and Thou".
For German existentialist, Martin Heidegger, speaking in 1933, "The Führer alone is the present and future German reality and its law."
Let's go to the first existentialist in order for us to grasp the origin of the concept.
In the case of Søren Kierkegaard, the founder of Existentialism, as a Christian, Jesuit priest, "Meaning" seems to refer to, turning to the Lord out of the sickness of Original Sin. This seems to be the prototype of "Meaning" from Existentialism's creator.
From here by induction we may generalize out what Existentialists refer to by "Meaning".
Existentialist "Meaning" refers to "turn to X out of Y".
"X" = existential "Meaning."
Where "X" means any subjective meaning you want the variable to be.
However "X" has a quasi religious orientation, like "turn to the Lord", although atheist existentialists have given a non-theistic meaning to "X" like 'creativity' or 'patriotism' or 'French freedom'. Sartre described Existentialism as "theology without a god".
The variable, "Y" could be any negative state you'd like it to be e.g. 'nothingness', 'despair', 'mental illness', 'original sin', 'alienation', 'meaninglessness' etc.
"Turn" is of a therapeutic or quasi 'religious conversion' nature.
Existentialists tell us, "turn to X out of Y!"
An underlying principle behind the use of Viktor Frankl is the double agenda of therapy as religious conversion.' i.e. "Meaning In Life" as a cure, being the reason for becoming religious. This is not seeing 'Religion' as Truth, or the Essence of Creation, but rather pragmatically, 'Religion' as "therapy" or crutch.
Just to add a sad digression; If he had lived in his time, how would Karl Marx have understood Viktor Frankl's therapy?
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
— Karl Marx.
It's because we have perspectives like Viktor Frankl's that we get responses like Karl Marx's.
Yidden,
We've been fooled!
By the way! Was Viktor Frankl really the spiritual, existential psychiatrist that propaganda makes him out to be? No! Who was Viktor Frankl?
Viktor Frankl was an extreme, institutional, organic psychiatrist who prescribed drugs, practiced shock treatment and carried out lobotomies! Surely many of these practices are excessive and violent and may be hallachicly questionable, but are allowed to slip through under the guise of "medical treatment"!
A further concern to Torah observant Jews is Jungian Psychology.
Is Jungian Psychology a gateway to cults?
Jung's concept of the collective unconscious led him to incorporate Eastern and Western religions. Are patients undergoing such therapy likely to be introduced to Eastern and other Religions?
Jung is embraced, because he also incorporated 'Religion' into his psychology. Once again 'Religion' and 'Therapy' is the program.
May we generalize this to an abuse of psychotherapy, the influence or conversion of the patient to the therapist's religion, or the opposite, the "dereligionization" of the patient to atheism? It must be noted that many patients are involuntary patients or coerced into therapy and do not have the choice of therapist with appropriate value systems and treatments.
Yidden, We've been fooled!
Torah and Psychology: Fundamental Issues by Dr. Baruch Shulem
This is a response to the recent post about Torah and Psychology. It is very concise but covers most of the issues raised. Read it slowly and carefully.
I. Partial list of potential relationships between Torah and psychology/psychiatry.
1. Torah and/or Psychology i.e. a relationship between equals – compare and contrast these separate entities2. Torah versus Psychology i.e. a relationship based on adversity or competition (between equals)3. Torah analyzes Psychology i.e. Torah as the superior entity determines the value of all things in our world – including psychology.4. Psychology of Torah i.e. Psychology analyzes Torah from a superior position- found often in academic frameworks5. Using psychology to ‘prove Torah as relevant or ‘true’ i.e. psychology being the gold standard and paradoxically superior.6. Psychology as religion the standard to define goals, means and standards of ‘good living’ and ‘health’.
II. Different types of therapist
I have encountered all of these relationships in my many years of working and teaching mental health professionals. I went through some of them myself before finding a home. I have categorized my colleagues and students into three very different groups:
1. Secular therapists - #6 His or her training determines what language and techniques can and should be used. Religious issues are ‘just content’.2. A therapist who is religious - #1 His or her primary identification is with ‘psyc theory and interventions’. Psyc will determine health and goals. Religion is a person value not to be allowed to contaminate therapy.3. A religious therapist -#3 - I use Torah language and goals supplementing my Torah work with people using secular instruments for measuring outcome and on occasion some medication.
III. Two Basic Tenents of all modern Psychotherapy.
All of modern psychotherapy is predicated on two basic tenets: the use of talking to develop a ‘clients’ ability to productively decide and carry out his goals in life. All of the divergent theories and systems of psychotherapy have seemingly contradictory vocabularies: Gestalt – emotional expression
Cognitive – thoughts and ideas patterns of decision making
Psychodynamic – early childhood memories and emotions
Jungian – dreams and symbolism
Family therapy – structure, boundaries, relationships
Solution oriented – identifying strengths planning future activities
This all too short summary does not do justice to the depth and vastness of these theories and descriptions of the helping processes. It does though show that there is no one acceptable theory is recognized or ‘proven’ to be effective or efficient. All are based on human dreams, ideas, theories, or attractive nonsense.
All of these, and many more other therapies, have two things in common: a central tool is ‘talking or speech’. The second common element is the goal to influence who I am talking with – to help him ‘get better, healthier, happier, more in control of his or her life.’
Talking and helping the person to ultimately be more in control of some part of his or her life.
Thousands of pages, books, and training seminars. Each approach claims to be the ‘one’ way to help.
IV. My personal Torah based approach
The Torah approach I use is based on 16 words:
Genesis II, 7
Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.[1]
We were given two gifts: the power of speech and freedom to choose. I work only with these two gifts.
The non-Jews were on to something when the developed “psychology”. Like many things from Torah they didn’t understand the depth – they got only the outer covering, they were moving in the right direction, but stopped too soon .
We have the whole ‘thing’ – Adam body and soul.
I believe the ongoing discussion of about ‘psychology’: “Kosher or not” is at best misplaced.
These two gifts are enough to carry out a fully effective and efficient helping process plus they come from a trusted source.
Baruch Shulem
Psychology and Its Limitations by a psychoanalyst - Dr. Greenwald
https://agudah.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/JO1967-V4-N05.pdf
Psychology, due to its success in plowing through the previously uncharted field of the unconscious, structured its psychic apparatus by placing the instincts, the id, and the unconscious drives at its core. The simple, yet far-reaching distortion, was to see the psyche as total man. An unfortunate result of this distortion is the deterministic outlook of psychology which led to the denial of human free will, since the psyche was envisioned as functioning in accordance with certain set psychological 'rules.'
THE TOOLS TO COPE with these changes, to utilize these changes for the fulfillment of man's purpose on earth, and the source of strength to balance the great strain, are the Torah and Mitzvos of G-d, as explained by our Sages. If we strip psychology of its scientific aura and its sometimes cumbersome and complex terminology; and look upon it as a way to handle these changes, an art of living, then psychology is unlike other sciences in respect to the role of our Sages. It is generally accepted that they did not occupy themselves with the sciences, though they express some remarkable insights in this area. Science was viewed as a necessary useful tool for the understanding of many halochos, such as astronomical calculations for fixing the Jewish calendar. Since psychology is the study related to man's mind, his behavior, his way of life, then this is the 'science' that our Sages are specifically and essentially expert in. This is not to be understood superficially as we are prone to do, overjoyed in finding some grain of psychological wisdom in a Midrash, or in zealously .gleaning
some psychoanalytically-oriented interpretation out of
some Aggada, or~what is more dangerous-when we
corroborate newly, developed attitudes and approaches
to child-rearing or education with the wisdom of our
Sages. One cannot develop theories of multi-dimensional implications such as regards education or living habits
from one or two isolated Rabbinic statements, since
nearly every such saying has one or many others in
some other, or even contradictory, context. But more
basically, there is a psychology of the Rabbis; .there is
no Rabbinic astronomy or physics. The psychology of
the Sages is expressed as a way of life, a very complete
and unique system to fulfill all the needs of a Jew, from
birth to death.
AT THIS POINT, I am painfully aware of two shortcomings of what has thus far been said. I should project in more practical terms this psychology of our Sages and then discuss what practical contribution modern psychological thought can make within the framework of this Rabbinic psychology. There is no doubt in my mind that there is such a contribution, though it must necessarily be selective in order to conform to our basic Torah outlook, particularly in the sensitive area of psychotherapy.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)