|
|
||
|
psychology Dr. Michael Hurd on Effective Therapy Part III - Interview by Joseph Kellard Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychologist in private practice in Chevy Chase, MD. He offers in-person therapy, phone consultation, and e-mail consultation. Dr. Hurd is the author of "Effective Therapy" (New York: Dunhill, 1997). He also publishes "The Living Resources Newsletter," which covers psychology, education, and politics. This interview was conducted by Joseph Kellard, a freelance writer living in New York. Reason Digest: Why is the therapy that tells people such goals as emotional repair and self-improvement are not needed becoming increasingly popular? Dr. Hurd: Philosophically, because of the mind-body dichotomy. In other words, the idea that reason and facts must be applied as an absolute in the material world (medicine, cars, airplanes, surgery, etc.) while reason and facts can be totally disregarded in the non-material dimension (psychotherapy, education, the quest for meaning in life, etc.) Until people grasp this contradiction and become more willing to think consistently, some form of mystical approaches to coping with life, whether through traditional religion or trendy New Age remedies, will dominate. Psychologically, the need to escape reality will likely always be tempting for some. Today, in our culture, it is apparently highly tempting for many to indulge in non-reality. Notice, for instance, the continued attraction of drug use despite its illegality and obvious negative life consequences. So long as people are looking for easy rationalizations to escape reality rather than face and make the most of it, "healers" who teach the opposite of what human nature requires will stand ready and waiting to peddle their ideas. Reason Digest: In your chapter on child psychology, you write that giving in to a child's tantrum or any form of deliberate emotional manipulation is tremendously destructive to the child's future self-esteem. Why is this true, and what do you believe is the foundation for developing authentic self-esteem in a child, as contrasted with the practices now in vogue that, at best, engender pseudo self-esteem? Dr. Hurd: Giving in to a child's irrational tantrum tells him that his emotions -- and emotions alone -- can and should rule his (and everyone else's) existence. This is a profoundly mistaken idea that ultimately does more harm to the child than the inconveniences or discomforts it causes the parents. When he goes to college, he will expect the teacher to excuse his poor study habits simply because he did not feel like studying. When he gets married, he will expect his wife to do his bidding simply because he wants it and demands it. Ditto with any children unlucky enough to be fathered by him. More fundamentally, it teaches him that emotions are the ultimate guide to determining what is reality. It places consciousness -- or more specifically *his* consciousness -- above objective reality. If he feels it, it's true. Judge for yourself what this does to his mental health and his self-esteem. Reason Digest: How responsible is militant feminism, in contrast with militant traditionalism, for creating the many broad, antagonistic generalities that are at the core of that "cynical veneer of today's 'war between the sexes'" that you write about? Dr. Hurd: Militant traditionalism and militant feminism are fundamentally the same. Each relies on the view that men and women inhabit different cultural universes -- literally different realities. The militant traditionalists say that because men and women are fundamentally and by nature at odds with each other, all women should stay home and raise kids while all men should pursue careers. The militant feminists say that because men and women are fundamentally at odds, all women should despise men, and all men should be punished. Today, I would say that militant feminism is more responsible for the antagonistic generalities about men and women. This is not because militant feminism is fundamentally worse than traditionalism; rather, it is because militant feminism happens to be more influential today. It is militant feminism, for example, which is responsible for the idea that women should not have to prove sexual harassment, that reason and logic are "masculine" ideas designed to enslave women, and that women should be hired in equal numbers to men regardless of objective ability (such as physical strength in the case of the military). The evil common to both irrational traditionalism and irrational feminism is the war each declares on individuality. Individualism does not deny objective differences which are obviously known to exist between men and women. But individualism also requires that both men and women pursue personal happiness and have their individual rights under the law (such as property rights, contractual rights) equally respected. It requires that men and women be judged as individual cases, not members of collective hordes determined by their biological genders. Reason Digest: What are your thoughts on such popular self-help books as "Men are from Mars, Woman are from Venus"? Dr. Hurd: I don't read many self-help books because I have found that most of them rest on different premises from my own. This does not mean that a particular self-help book might not make many good points. I have not read "Men Are From MarsS." because the very title implies to me the exact gender cultural warfare idea I oppose. Its best-selling appeal is no accident, because both feminists and traditionalists have convinced the mainstream of our society that men and women are hopelessly different -- from Mars and Venus, so to speak. At the same time, I understand the book makes some useful observations, such as the tendency for men and women to seek out different goals in conversation. Men tend to want to resolve problems, while women tend to place more of a value on processing feelings. But I don't know how helpful it is to recognize this observed pattern, even if it's true, unless one has a positive strategy (such as reason, introspection) which both men *and* women can use to help cope with the differences. As I see it, reason and introspection (capacities both men *and* women possess) bridge the gap between the sexes. Talk of men being from Mars and women from Venus simply widens the gap. Reason Digest: What are your thoughts on radio therapists, such as Dr. Joy Brown, and their offering psychological advice to strangers over public radio? Dr. Hurd: I have not heard Dr. Joy Brown, so I have no opinion about her. I am familiar with Dr. Laura Schlessinger ("Dr. Laura"), who is on private radio. I believe Dr. Laura is very mixed and contradictory in her approach. She speaks as if she believes reality is objective, and that certainty is possible, and that one should make objective judgments. I agree with these principles. She has a "BS detector" unlike anything I have ever seen, a very useful quality for a psychotherapist. By "BS detector" I mean an ability to quickly and correctly identify when a person is lying, denying, or rationalizing. She usually does this by paying very close attention to contradictions in what people are saying. Unfortunately, Dr. Laura also makes snap-judgments which sometimes prove to be wrong. She lapses into advice-giving and religious dogmatism at times, as if the callers to her show were unable to think for themselves and she must do their thinking for them. She actually states, explicitly, that she is religious and believes religious doctrines are the only alternative to subjectivism and emotional indulgence. On this most fundamental point I profoundly disagree with her and would argue that this error is the cause of the occasional nastiness or harshness she does exhibit. It's hard to be in a good mood, quite frankly, when you do not believe that reason and objectivity is a viable substitute for both religious dogmatism and spineless subjectivism. I like that she's not a spineless subjectivist. But I don't especially like who she *is,* and I doubt that I would seek her help for a personal conflict. I don't have a problem with psychological advice over the radio in principle. It's not the same as private, individualized counseling. But it does have its advantages, especially for people experiencing personal conflicts who might not otherwise make the time to see a professional therapist in a practice. Reason Digest: You hold that mental health care is not a right. How would a financially poor, mentally disabled individual, such as clinical schizophrenic, get the mental care he or she needs in the laissez faire capitalist society that you advocate? Dr. Hurd: The premise of the question is that it is somehow everyone's responsibility to make sure these individuals get the treatment they want, and I maintain that it isn't. My view is that we are not our brother's keepers. None of us has a moral claim to any part of someone else's property, mind, or life. As I said in my book, we all have a right to trade with the baker in order to obtain the bread he made, but none of us have a moral right to forcibly take his bread (nor even the crust) simply because we're hungry. Because trade is in one's rational self-interest, a society based upon freedom of trade and property rights raises the standard of living for everyone, including the disabled and schizophrenic individuals you mention. As the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. The disabled and the poor desperately need to live in a society that permits the rise of a Henry Ford or a Bill Gates, because the technology created and marketed by such individuals makes possible a wealthier and more advanced society. If I were disabled, I would much rather live in a wealthy society where I have no right to somebody else's property than a Communist society where the great innovators and wealth producers were not left free to produce and, yes, earn a big profit. Today, some sectors of our economy are freer than others. The computer field was largely uncharted territory, which is why a Bill Gates could rise and succeed in a way that ultimately benefits us all. The medical/mental health field, on the other hand, is as regulated by government as a field can be without being outright socialized. (Government officials are presently in the process of outright socializing it, decree-by-decree). As a consequence, medical costs are much higher because of all the bureaucracy and counterproductive proposals the government regulations create. HMOs, for example, came into existence in part because of government subsidies, and in part because government regulation made health care too expensive for some kind of restraint on costs not to take place. If HMOs don't try to contain costs created by government policies, then we have no choice but to resort to the medical equivalent of the post office! In a free and unregulated market, costs would be cheaper and health care would be easier for most people to obtain. People would also be more responsible for taking care of themselves and disabled family members. Indeed, they would have more resources for doing so since 40 percent of their income would not be taken to fund huge federal programs such as Medicare. If all else failed, private and voluntary charity could help out people in need through no fault of their own. It does today, even with fewer people donating to charities than would be the case if tax bills were not so huge. Just imagine how private charity could function if Big Government got out of the charity business. Reason Digest: What has been the general reaction to your book by your peers in your profession? Dr. Hurd: I didn't write the book for peers, so I haven't sought out their reaction. Unless they are intellectually honest, I don't think they will give it the time of day because it challenges many of their sacred cows. New and prospective therapists seem to like it. A few of my colleagues have read it and they generally respect it even though they think I am too hard on traditional approaches such as AA, insight therapy, and so forth. (In what way am I too hard? I have not yet received an objective reply to which I can respond). At this point, I can only say that the unhappiness I continue to see generated by traditional approaches to therapy within the clients themselves leads me to think I was actually rather gentle in my criticisms. A lot of people who have been in therapy cheer what I have to say in the book, fire their present therapist, and come to me for help instead. Reason Digest: Finally, what did you set out to achieve with your book, and did you achieve it? Dr. Hurd: I set out to identify general, objective principles of psychotherapy. I succeeded, and I'm happy with the results. I refer back to the book often to check its validity in reality. I'm pleased to say I can stand by everything I wrote. Edited by www.ObjectiveScience.com Copyright Joseph Kellard/Objective Science. All rights reserved. Permission granted to link to this article only; but, permission is not granted to republish it.
|
