Ooopsie, Psychology today posts a half miss

Here I was pottering along when a friend and a family member both pointed this out to me, I really wanted to correct some missinformation … so here we go …

My first thought was when I scanned this, was that it was fairly typical of magazine advice coloumnist stuff …. half common knowledge and half wrong.

Not that there is anything wrong with reminding folks of common knowledge, sometimes we forget to apply the basics.

But then I re-read and it became apparent to me that this was ‘Psychology Today’. This brings the wrong and incomplete bits into painful focus.

Points 1, 2, and 3 are all very standard basic relationship advice. 4, can easily be broadened out to be non-intimate relationships as well. So far, I see it as basic information that is good to remind people of, but is not breaking any new ground.

Point 5, this is where things start to go horribly wrong.
The patronising assumption that a person needs religion to be mentally healthy, or that a couple needs religion to have a healthy relationship, is obvious nonsense. And then to follow this with a flippant ‘go find a cause’ option. This just serves to further the stereotype that the non-religious and non-believers are in some way less healthy than believers. It also fails the public in talking about what non-believers should be trying to do when un-enlightened counsellors and therapists talk about ‘spiritual’ self care.

‘Spiritual’ is really refering to a sub-section of philosophical and social self care. A result of an attitude of in-group entitlement by believers. This kind of benefit can be gained from a combination of social activities with community, philosophical and world view discussions and learnings, and further education.

As a person working in the field, looking at a media source of the field, non-partisan advice that does not pander too only one group should be the gold standard.

Point 6 While there is certainly merit in some of the ideas, it is presented way too simplistically and with a very anachronistic view of human social interaction. Human society is changing, technology is very much becoming a part of that. Fighting the tide is far less productive than working with it.

Point 7
Again an article talks about forgivness without helping people realise that forgiveness is not about the other person or really the event either. Forgiveness is not something that the person need ever say to the offender. Forgiveness is about making the decision that the future life you have is more important than the harm the event did, nothing more, nothing less. Too many people are stuck on the idea that forgiveness means saying what the other person did is somehow ok. And often they cannot do that, because it was not ok. That is not the point at all, and people need to realise this to take action.

I sincerly hope that this was a blip rather than an indicator of future article quality.


~ by scawalrus on December 29, 2013.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: