In Reply to: Re: sounds like a mo letter too! give 'em hell, Joel's nuts and not home posted by FYI on January 30, 2006 at 18:47:05:
1) You seem to have gotten me mixed up with Who Cares?
2) My response to was Who Cares?, not to you.
3) Over two years of observating Joel's never-ending "ideas of reference" where he makes all sorts of illogical and paranoid connections between unrelated scriptures, ideas, and current events provides evidence of a psychotic disorder.
4) Dunno if there's also a mood disorder going on, I just know a classic thought (psychotic & delusional) disorder when I see it.
5) I am a licensed diagnostician with a PhD. I purposely did not diagnose Joel, only pointed out the high probability of a transient psychotic disorder and placed the content and style of his written posts in that context.
1. I am sorry for the mixup.
2. ibid
3. "Observating"; huh? That's not a word--sorry. And:
a. lots of things are “illogical”, but even that "diagnosis" can be relative (and the question is always begged: “Within whose logic, and what belief paradigm?”). As I mentioned, Soviets in Russia considered anything not atheistic to be illogical. Hardcore PCers feel the same way, but only about Biblical Christians. Same goes for paranoid—if someone really IS out to get you, the “paranoia” is justified.
b. Everybody in the cult, by definition, accepted and acted upon as if true, all of the “illogical and paranoid scriptures, ideas and current events” posited by Berg as proof of his being a prophet. To uniformly assert here that all such people qualify to be accurately described as you did Joel, in your last post, is still not logical. If I have to further argue that, your position on the matter is not worth discussing; it is spurious at best, and not worth consideration. Your idea of evidence is extremely unclear. There are plenty of points of view such as his which have little or nothing to do with psychosis. You are painting clumsily with an extremely broad brush, and it helps no one—maybe it does give you the momentary thrill of feeling important?
c. I did not diagnose Joel either. All I indicated was that I want to help him, and that a diagnosis of his problem is extremely difficult. Hamlet told Horatio something like “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy”, and I am telling you the same, BECAUSE you basically assaulted and insulted me verbally. I forgive you, but that is the behavior of an immature jerk, as I said, in so many words. That’s not the point here.
4. How about a little primer, on just what constitutes a “psychotic & delusional” thought disorder, here; since you are so imminently qualified to teach; and especially to teach poor uneducated, inexperienced little ole’ me? You still have not answered ANY of my questions directly. Why? Please illuminate us all. By the way, I am very serious here—my consideration of, and concern for, Joel is also very serious. Do you always use non-words like “Dunno” in such as situation—it just seems inappropriate in so many ways. Really.
5. In my experience, sometimes BS, MS and PhD can mean “Bull S—t, More of the Same, and Piled Higher and Deeper, especially if the degrees in question are not germane to the actual question, or the specific nature of a problem. I have known, for instance, extremely pompous PhDs who thought that that mere title gave them a sort of infallibility in areas outside their actual education and experience, probably BECAUSE they “doctored” in a soft “discipline” rather than a hard science—that’s usually the case. Tom Cruise could claim to be a “licensed diagnostician” by virtue of having spent thousands of dollars to become “clear” through Dianetics/Scientology, so you can plainly see that your using the phrase “licensed diagnostician with a PhD” could mean either something substantial, or absolutely nothing at all.
Probability is the basis for empirical science, and MUST be based on actual already-collected data. It is a term, however, quite frequently dishonestly used by some very pretentious, and ultimately, unhelpful pseudo-intellectuals. Please understand that I am speaking here as an ex-cultist; elaboration should be unnecessary. If you do not have access to the actual data commonly used to evaluate psychoses, you are, quite frankly, faking it for your own reasons; whatever they are. And you are demeaning to others in doing so. Why?
Ergo, you do NOT know that what I suggested, even urgently appealed, will not help at least as well, and it is hoped, better, than do some of the “disciplines” currently available to the actually psychotic. Any number of many types of “licensed diagnostician[s] with a PhD” could render any number of opinions in Joel’s case, but ONLY a psychiatrist (and hospital psychiatrists DO work in a team) could prescribe anti-psychotic meds where ONLY that could be effective.You have said nothing, but I know a lot, by education and actual experience, about the difference between iatrogenic and autogenic etiologies in respect to the actual diagnoses of thought disorders, and ofcommon treatments which should follow.
You are guessing, IMHO. As Acheick pointed out, Joel may simply be a long-time drunk. Substance abuse of many kinds, I have observed professionally, can also cause many of the “symptoms” supposedly “obervated”, as you said, in what Joel writes frequently.
So can merely a stubborn refusal to give up the belief paradigm, in the ABSENCE of anything directly psychotic at all, learned in a sub-Christian cult. “Self-delude by choice, and habitual drunk plus arrested development resulting in unresolved cognitive dissonance” is also a strong possibility. Who in the world are you to assert that a Biblical approach has no value? Have you ever read anything such as “Competent to Counsel” by Jay E. Adams?
Adams accompanied Hobart Mowrer, the professor and mentor of the author of Thomas Harris, author of Transactional Analysis (who ALSO wrote the Hannibal Lecter series—NOT a serious psychotherapist after all—“birds of a feather”?), and saw him use a “new” approach VERY similar to the Gospel, and it worked fantastically. Those results should at least spark some interest in using Christian counseling after all. I highly recommend Adam’s book, based on your mention at last post of an at least semi-spiritual reference to a somewhat Christian point of view.
The following question (two, actually, and compound) is HEAVILY begged by what you’ve written: What exactly, if any, are your spiritual/religious beliefs? Are you an actual psychiatrist, and is your choice of the term “licensed diagnostician” a hidden attempt to make me believe you are, just what is your PhD in, where did you get it, what was your doctoral thesis and where can I read it?
Sincerely,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)