Bunk on the couch (SRR #111)

Shrinkrapradio's issue #111 is a great podcast as usual. If I am critical of the episode it is because of the subject at hand. Dr. Justin Frank is interviewed about his book called 'Bush on the couch', in which he has made a psycho-analysis of the current president of the US based on whatever sources he had available, short of having had George W. himself on the couch. If the latter had been the case, the study would have been better, but as a doctor, Frank couldn't have published it. With detached distance he could, the question is whether he should have. Allow me to make a couple of reservations.

In 1964 a survey on presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had him declared unfit to become a president on psychological grounds. Afterwards the APA ethical committee defined the 'Goldwater Rule' stating that it is unethical for psychiatrists and psychologists to state an opinion about a person who has not been examined. How different is Frank's book about Bush from the survey about Goldwater? Frank defends himself by pointing out he has done 2 years of research and the Goldwater survey had asked professionals to make a claim on more superficial basis. However, also after 2 years of research, Frank can still not claim he has truly examined George W.

Yet he makes heavy statements summarizing it as: Bush hates his father and he identifies the American people with his father and will do everything to hurt them. I mean, if at all this can be true, it must be subconscious, and sufficiently hidden from his direct circle of adjuncts, otherwise he cannot pull this off. This brings me to the critique of Karl Popper on Freud and psycho-analysis in general: What could possibly falsify these claims about the president's personality?

What I am getting at is that no matter how thorough and conscientious such a study is conducted, it cannot be sufficiently founded. Frank points out that psycho-analytic studies have been made of Moses and Hitler (bien etonnés de se trouver ensemble), but that is for lack of having the opportunity to do otherwise and moreover as part of heuristic historical analysis. He also relates to us that the CIA and other such agents use the services of psychiatrists and psychologists for analyzing important subjects. So why can't Frank study Bush? Well he can study all he wants, but apart from using an authority argument (if the CIA can do it, I can), the kind of study essentially remains heuristic and can never make hard claims. Especially not the kind Frank has made.

It is therefore my opinion the whole study can be debunked a prima facie and the book is basically superfluous. If Bush needs to be criticized it should be for his policies, decisions and statements and that should be enough. Dr. Lawrence Friedman, dean of the Los Angeles Institute of Psychoanalysis, responded to the Goldwater survey in a way that seems to me completely applicable to Frank's study: "I shall do everything I can to help defeat Mr. Goldwater, but I shall point to his ideas, his statements, his political orientation, and his associations, not to his psychology. There is enough political evidence to defeat him with. I would like to see [presented] that information and not waste your facilities on an approach which is neither right nor effective."

Ronald van den Boogaard geeft plug

Wat een stukje radio van twintig jaar geleden, vermag. Ongetwijfeld stonden de archieven van de VPRO al jaren op het internet te verstoffen, maar ik had de marathoninterviews niet zo gemakkelijk ontdekt als er geen podcast van was gemaakt. Trouwens, de VPRO heeft weer een hele batch erbij gezet. Nu kunnen we luisteren naar het archief tot en met 1989. Ik ben meteen maar begonnen met Rudi Kross, en na het eerste uur lekker geinspireerd voor het vervolg. En zo zijn er nog meer: Albert Helman, Lea Dasberg, Hans van Mierlo en meer en meer. Waar haal je de tijd vandaan?

Maar goed, eerst waren daar de interviews van afgelopen zomer (met o.a. Conny Palmen, Lieve Joris, Eugene Sutorius) en vandaar kwamen de oude uit 1986, met onder andere een juweel van een interview met Jan Wolkers. De complimenten die ik hier achterliet voor Ronald van den Boogaard, hebben hun weg gevonden naar zijn -- Van den Boogaards , niet Wolkers' -- blog en daar word ik nu geciteerd. Goed voor hem, goed voor mij. Hartelijk dank, Ronald.

Lees het overig geblog van Ronald, want daar zit allerlei moois tussen. Wat overigens ook wel aardig te vermelden is, is dat Ronald blogt op een site gebouwd met Joomla, net als mijn PBeM website.

UC podcast: US and new Middle East

The University Channel podcast remains an outstanding source of information on many a subject. I can't follow up on everything and usually even on the subjects I do want to follow up on, I have a terrible backlog. So it came to pass only now I had the time listening to a lecture by Gideon Rose on the US and the Middle East, as he held it on April 30th.

If I may paraphrase Rose, he says the situation for the US and the Middle East is bad, it is going to get worse on the short term, but then it is going to bottom out and allow to turn for the better again. Iran may obtain a nuclear weapon, but it is not going to totally upset the region. The US will back out and civil war will prevail in Iraq and throughout the region fundamentalists will gain more power. If however, the countries in the Middle East do not want to turn into stagnating backwaters such as Syria, they must link in with globalization and reform.

All of this is explained in a clear expose. As an audio experience nothing is left to be desired, but as usual with UC podcast, all is available in video as well.

Introducing the unknown - a Writing Show sampler

I know from my own experience how tough it is to start a story in a fantasy setting; totally unknown to the public, exclusively known to me - to the extent I have developed it, that is to say. Before you know it, you are showering your readers with bulky fact packages and that is not as elegant as it should be.

Paula Berinstein has dedicated the September 9th issue of the Writing Show to this problem and she takes tow classic examples to help us out. Who are better than Lewis Carrol and J.R.R. Tolkien to show us the way? Indeed, who are. I think the examples are very helpful

There is a funny thing that happens though. It so turns out both Carrol and Tolkien 'sin' in the way of telling in stead of showing. Paula, apologizes and hastily moves on with the description and analysis. But how bad is this after all? Don't we see here when telling is in order, before showing? When the narrator is working on his relationship with the reader rather than delivering the story? Isn't that a legitimate layer in fiction as well?

TWN transitions (92)

The Word Nerds should not be recounted, the podcast should be experienced. The latest edition, about transitions features Dave and Barbara Shepherd, discussing all variations, apparitions and expressions of change. This show even brings a junior Shepherd. Dave and Barbara's son Ben performs with his band Wetbrain on the show. What transition that means for the Shepherds.

It signifies what transition the Shepherds as a family go through. The kids have left the house. The basement has turned into a full time Word Nerd studio. Still, the show will not increase to more than one issue per 3 weeks. I keep on hoping.

An image search for Wetbrain in pictures gave me the added pic. I hope this is THE band as intended. Which one is Ben?

David Lukoff at Shrinkrapradio (110)

David Lukoff should return to Shrink Rap radio, for he and Dr. Dave and are not done talking yet. This issue of SRR, #110, focuses mostly on David's success at getting a new diagnostic category -- Religious or Spiritual Problem -- accepted into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. He describes how he, in collaboration with others, achieved the recognition for the diagnostic category.

What is very impressive, is that Lukoff has suffered a severe psychotic episode himself. He has been able to recover and even made the experience contribute to his consequent work in psychiatry and psychology. When he relates about this episode, especially the starting point of it, I think we see, much what every listener could identify with. Maybe each one of us, allows oneself to slide into a crisis to some degree. Not necessarily to the degree Dr. Lukoff has done, which included substance abuse, homelessness and psychosis. Nevertheless, such crises, seem, in the end, to be beneficial, when incorporated properly into 'healthy' life.

Much about this, is left unsaid. And in the end both Lukoff and Van Nuys agree, they should meat again. I can only say: do not wait too long.