But a bit better than yesterday. Been reviewing the last post and don’t think I really nailed what I was trying to say. So here’s another shorter go:
i. most of the traditional talking cures can’t put much of a case together for bringing about long-term change in the individual patient’s happiness
ii. this is largely because of their conception of humanity as being a separate-independent type of species rather than one which is first, foremost (and just about everything else) a social one…
iii. also because they tend to assume that ‘thinking’ of some ‘deeper’ sort is what drives behaviour (so that’s where they focus (similar errors dominate the thinking of the pharma obsessed psychiatrists…)
iv. when there is some evidence of superior efficacy (as there is with CBT) it is dismissed because it is “clearly” too superficial and too quick-fix…which just reveals the underlying assumptions about how this stuff works…
v. they bitch a lot at and with each other (if nothing else, Freud’s ideas gave a lot of folk a lot of opportunity to quarrell with each other of precise definitions of abstract conjectures…)
Frankl’s point is this: let’s be sensible. Sometimes causes are deep and profound (and thus need deep and profound tools to unpack); mostly they are neither. So let’s have a modicum of commonsense in psychotherapy and in other attempts to change behaviour like marketing, please. Mostly behaviour has superficial causes and corresponding superficial levers for change. Just because something’s powerful doesn’t make it deep…(insight department files F9 button here)
My additional point is: let’s be pragmatic. The “I” view of things has helped to a certain degree to take us all this far but beyond that it’s less than useful for the kind of behaviour we are now looking at – social media, networks, etc etc. “We” however seems much more likely to deliver the goods so let’s spend some more time seeing where it can take us. I believe that the latter is not just likely to be more useful; I also happen to think it’s a more accurate description of human behaviour. But that doesn’t really matter right now: the key question is which is going to be more useful to us?