Kevin Beal

My beautiful amazing wife wrote a book that many could benefit from reading. Several people from the community were involved. Phil Johnston designed the cover. Cheryl Hulseapple edited the book. And several others helped by reading and providing useful feedback in the writing process. Thank you so much to those involved! Amazon wouldn't let me post my review of the book, on account of being the author's husband, but I thought I would share it here: Get the book here for $0.99! On a personal note, to you, from me. I've had a lot of conversations with people about therapy over the years, as a member of the boards. There are a lot of legitimate questions and reservations people have around therapy. I've noticed too that many people have had an attitude of "I know I probably should, but eh..." and don't get around to it. Let this book help you make that decision. It doesn't feel good to be conflicted about this. Or to know that you should try it, but don't act. I doubt I would be blissfully married, have a great career I am very motivated in, and be expecting a child of my own at the end of the year if I hadn't got into therapy. I would probably still be unemployed/underemployed, depressed and anxious all the time, not living my values, and playing video games every day. I don't know for sure where I would have ended up, but it scares me to think about. Plus, cool book cover, right?

I'd caution against Steven Franssen.

I became much more confident after I got some experience with women. I don't think that anything beats experience. You have to know that you are high-quality man stuff that women would totally want if they only knew what you knew. I am not convinced that there is any way to fake it. Women will pick up on that, or at least, the kind of sensitive beauty that you should want will notice this. How do you get that confidence? I'm not convinced there is any other way than getting experience with women. And if you lack quality experience, then you have to get it somehow. Spending time with women outside of a dating context may help.

Not me, but welcome!

Nice video <3

I have, a bunch. Watch the video.

Where's you pull this out of? Your butt? Yes, they can. Here's Stef interviewing a researcher who looks into exactly this:

"I don't need therapy because I'm as smart or smarter than a therapist" is shown to be specious by use of analogy. Insofar as the doctor's visit analogy also describes therapy, not going to therapy based on that logic is as irrational as not going to a doctor based on the same logic. Since we can show that therapy can be beneficial even in this counterintuitive case, it is cause to take it seriously in other cases as well. In other words, if you are not as smart or as capable as a therapist when it comes to effective mental health, then that is more cause to consider therapy. The argument in the article does nothing to preclude the possibility of getting help from friends or family. She even says it explicitly in her next post that they can play a role. You said she begged the question. (You were mistaken, and guilty of this yourself.) You said that she said it was always beneficial. (You were mistaken.) You said that she said it was never negative. (You were mistaken.) You repeatedly mischaracterized the article. Slow down a sec, guy. And please acknowledge that you were mistaken. I'm doing all the heavy lifting here.

Insofar as the doctor is a good doctor – insofar as the doctor best exemplifies what it means to be a doctor, then it is beneficial in the sense that good medicine is beneficial. If the doctor is a bad doctor, then that's a different issue. The point is good medicine, not particular doctors. If you asked the OP if she thought seeing a bad therapist (who leads you in the wrong direction) was a good idea, do you imagine that she would say "yes"? You're talking about something other than what the article is about.

You said that the implication was that it was "always beneficial." The article is just one example of how it can be beneficial in a way you might not have thought. Saying that this implies that it's always beneficial is like saying that you must think that there are zero downsides / tradeoffs of having a stateless society if you think it's superior even in cases of dispute resolution. Or like I must think exercise is always beneficial, without exception simply because it's an answer for so many things. Why does it need explaining that therapy is not always and forever the answer? Everybody here, so far, is clear that it's not a fix-all. Who are you saving? Is it not too obvious to mention? ------------------ But, to answer your question, in post #14, she provided a case where other options might be better (i.e. other sources of support), and where it can be harmful (i.e. pushing medication). The whole post is about clarifying what the value is and isn't. I don't get the sense that you are actually reading things very closely. Answers to your questions / challenges are available only a few scrolls up the page. I'd rather not do your work for you. ----------------------- This is a follow-up article. More information about what the value or therapy is can be found here.

No such assumption was made. She never said that it was always beneficial. (See post #14). You assumed that this was the conclusion of the argument, and from there concluded that there was circular reasoning. You are the one begging the question. Projection is a psychological defense mechanism where you deny something about yourself by attributing that quality to somebody else, especially where that attribute shows up in yourself when you make the accusation. This could have happened to you in the moment. Something to keep in mind. If you need help, you might want to consider professional help from a trained therapist, even if you are very knowledgeable about psychology and the topics that would be brought up in therapy. It's not complicated.

That's why it's an article and not a conversation with a particular person. It's supposed to apply as a generality in order to be helpful to a wider audience. If we accept that you need help to work on your mental health and well-being, and we accept that a therapist is someone who is professionally trained to help with exactly that, then it stands to reason that therapy is what would be discussed. "Therapy isn't a cure-all and isn't necessary for every person's situation" seems too obvious a conclusion to even mention, to me, but maybe I'm like super smart or something. Maybe it does need to be qualified for people who would take it as "everyone must go to therapy." Maybe some people are that naive.

The very first sentence asks "Do you have issues in your life you may need help working through?" So, yes. It does establish this as the very first premise.

I'm sorry about the poor therapists. I get that this would be disheartening. There are a lot of bad programmers out there, but some endeavours require getting yourself a programmer. This applies generally, in most professions. If you need a therapist, then you need a therapist; and the presence of bad ones means that you have to filter those ones out somehow. How are you going about finding a good therapist and avoiding bad ones? If I go to a high school to contract out a software deal, then I'm unlikely to get high-quality code. If I were to do that, then it would make little sense for me to say that finding good programmers is not worth the effort. If you really wanted quality therapy, you would find a way to make it happen. Good therapists aren't mythical. They don't hide away in magic concealed institutions like wizards. As far as the money thing goes, I was (basically) unemployed when I started therapy. I thought it was incredibly important for me to go into therapy, so I made it work. I was couch surfing, finding odd jobs where I could, and as soon as I could pay for food and other very basic things, I spent the rest on therapy. Maybe it's not meaningful for me to say, but I just don't buy these two excuses: they cost too much & there are lots of low-quality ones. Those are two relatively small hurdles. And obviously, you don't have to go, I'm just saying that I think those are not the best reasons in the world. --------------------- Also, my own therapy had a lot to do with repressed emotions, but it was far from the only part of therapy. You'd think that a century and a half of scientific work and hundreds of years of work in the philosophy of mind would produce more than "you just need to stop repressing your emotions and you'll be okay." You don't have to do CBT. You could find yourself a good Coherence therapist, or a Jungian. There are options out there if you look.

Well, it can be an attack in the same sense that bullets ricochet off of superman's chest. I'm just saying that people bear some responsibility for managing their own shame and making themselves resilient in the face of antagonists online (within reason). The danger I see is the whole "I'm triggered" SJW thing. They are the extreme form of externalizing, granted, but if that virus were to infect the boards, I would be disappointed, to say the least. Maybe I'm beating a dead horse. It feels important to me, as you can tell. Thanks! I appreciate it

It's clever, and it's true in a narrow sense, but people's quality of life is improved in all sorts of situations that get called "attacks." Clever people use attacks from other people to their advantage regularly (e.x. the "useful idiot"). Trump's wife stealing her speech, and getting attacked for it is almost certainly going to help Trump's campaign. I get that this is not the sense in which "attack" is supposed to be harmful here, but it's also true that "attacks" (insofar as words on the internet would qualify) can be helpful here. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that provoking people's shame can be more useful to them than gentle prodding, empathetic / caring witness kind of communication. (source: http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/05/fat-shaming-is-good-science/).Obviously, pushing people's "shame buttons" can do damage; I'm just saying that it's more complicated than the OP and you're suggesting. I think it's worth repeating that I've been helped by all kinds of antagonistic people. My embarrassment was temporary, but the insight was permanent. It's worth making the distinction that interactions with intimate relationships are of a completely different class than ones with people on the internet. The opportunities and challenges of each are different. I would be deeply hurt if my fiancée ridiculed me, but that's not true for strangers on the internet, unless there was some existing historical shame they were touching on. If I, or my parents installed shame, guilt, ignorance, and fear buttons in me, then it's not really the stranger on the internet who's at fault; it was me or my parents (or some other dependent relationship) that did that – who really caused that shame.

If someone is trying to do it for their own gain, then yes, I don't think they should do it either. My own gain isn't my only, or even primary motivation in these cases, though. I would infinitely prefer people to tell me when I've got boogers hanging down, and be embarrassed than to walk around with those boogers any longer. Bad ideas are like boogers in that way.

It happens every day to me, probably. The two most common scenarios are teaching something new I've been learning, and getting into arguments with irrational people. Visualization is an exercise people do on purpose to be more effective people. As I understand it, the brain treats it much like it would treat the real thing. Habits and experience are affected.

I remember the "dad bod" thing floating around, where many women were saying that they preferred a man with a little belly, maybe hairy, maybe just a tiny bit like a slob. Not too much, obviously, but not male model chiseled abs either. One explanation for this preference was that it shows that a man is focused on other things, like work or his human capital. Another explanation, which I think is more important, is that women don't wanna be having sex with a guy and thinking "he's in better shape than me," and think of themselves as fat or less attractive. It's probably an insecurity thing more than anything else. Maybe guys aren't messaging the most attractive women because they don't want to compare themselves to a bombshell woman and feel too inferior by comparison. Or it could be a kind of wisdom on the part of men. The Crazy / Hot Matrix is so funny to people because there is some amount of truth to it. Fortunately, I lucked out and got a woman with brains, beauty and virtue.

My two closest friends have had this dream, but not me... that I can remember.

6 Pillars of Self Esteem, and 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, are two excellent books that discuss living an effective life. They aren't necessarily conservative, but conservatives would love them. You could try to focus on the successes you've had in your own life, what lessons you've learned from them, and share those insights with her. People learn a great deal in relationship to people they trust and admire. Even with the two books I mentioned, they are more impactful when conversations are had about the subjects in the books. What are you excited about in terms of personal development? Whatever it is, you are going to be able to make the most impact there. If you want other people to grow, you have to model growth for them. If you ask others to grow when you stagnate, you will convince nobody.

I am still accepting counter arguments from other people. Just because I couldn't care less what you think, doesn't mean I don't care about the truth, you grandiose hypocrite.

Not really. I was predestined to say that. It's not like I'm wrong either, because they are just words. There's no rational chooser in my mind which chooses what I say. It's fundamentally meaningless, just like this post I'm typing right now.

No pause. Okay, then you're a fraud. You cannot say that not addressing things is a problem. There is too much packed into what people say. I cannot address everything. People can go without addressing some argument I made. That's fine. The problem is holding me to a higher standard than people hold themselves, especially given how generous I've been already. I have other things I could do with my time.

Brace yourself for the "unchosen X of the gaps" strategy. Insert a desire in there somewhere, as if everything mental was desire. Whatever it is, something unchosen must be shoved into the gap, because we've already established the premise that mental states are unchosen. If they're unchosen then they're unchosen, as the Determinist says, unaware of the circular logic.