Les: Good comments on the relationship of the self-help movement to
free willism. An implication of many self-help books is that this should
be enough, you should be able to do this on your own, you shouldn't
have to seek therapy. Unfortunately a lot of therapists give the same
FW message, that if therapy fails then the client has chosen to fail,
could have done better, etc. I think if therapy got better and more
accessible, that would help get rid of a lot of the worthless stuff that's
being promoted as self-help.

To call a book "self-help is a bit of a misnomer. Isn't it really one person
writing something which may be of help to another person? So it's
other-help, just like therapy, but a much cheaper and probably much
weaker form. Not personalized, interactive, dynamic.

While I agree with you that most of the real affect of the self-help
movement is enriching the authors and publishers and lecturers at the
expense of the desparate public, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that
the right book or tape or lecture at the right moment could be
beneficial. These products can become determinants, though, in the
case of mental problems, unlikely to be powerful determinants. But I
wouldn't rule out the possibility that a well-written book by a sincere
author might have a positive effect on a person.

Like you I've had clients come to my office after reading self-help
books. I'm not sure if I could say they were always worse off for having
read them, maybe the books were the early, stumbling steps on a long
productive quest for happiness.

Maybe we should compile a list of books we've found useful to
recommend to clients. I've thought of copying Tucker-Ladd's chapter
on Determinism for clients. One book I've recommended is "Wherever
you go, there you are" by Jon Kabat-Zinn. Other helpful books are ones
on organization, philosophy ("The Problem with the Soul", not officially
a self-help book, but it was pretty damn helpful to me).

In fact, weren't you thinking of writing a book, Les?! I hope you do. Your
ideas and vision top what's out there by miles. Who knows, it may be
the first truly helpful book in the genre.

Ken







I think maybe some common ground might be reached if we change the
name of the movement. After all, what we're really talking about is not
self-help, it's more like book-help, in other words the idea that this book
might help me. And I don't find that impossible to believe. Even if I
thought 100% of the self-help books ever written were useless, that
wouldn't mean that no one will ever write a useful one. The idea that a
book could help some serious problems seems unlikely--- In
cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Les Garwood, D.O." <
determinism00@y...> wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> A rare opportunity for me to check in.
>
> Clay, I am thrilled another determinist is addressing the "Self" help
> issue.
>
>
> And well-written reply, if I may say so, Ken, as usual.
>
> It's long been a hot button topic of mine, this so-called "self help"
> movement or genre. It fairly frustrates me to see long, and
> ever-growing shelves of this rubbish in bookstores everywhere.
>
> Many self help (SH) authors, while grandiosly deluding themselves
that
> they are helping of others, become rich and famous at the expense of
> their almost inevitably disappointed readers. So I suppose, in an
> ironic way, the books do work--for the publishers and their writers.
> They wittingly, or not, exploit desperate victims of the FW culture,
> while all the time actually assisting in the pathogenesis of that model.
>
> Any benefit they have to their audience is based solely upon what
Ken
> alludes to: the addition of new information into their pool of
> determinants, and the fleeting, cheerleader effect. Of course, these
> revisions are themselves determined too. And when I speek of
> determinants, I am referring only those that are operating at the
> split instant of a given event--not hypothetical, and unknowable
> future ones.
>
> I say "unknowable" because I think the immediate future is the only
> true domain of the over-hyped and often misunderstood quantum
physics
> term called the "observer effect" More precisely, just as some event
> is about to be born into the present any observer involved necessarily
> is part of, and therefore affects, the mix of its determinants.
>
> We often read about this as evidence that things "could" have been
> different, had the observer not been present (and therefore implying
> FW). Well, this is not even a half-truth--which is to say, not a
> truth at all. The key issue, blindly missed by QM-versed FreeWillies,
> is that the addtion of the observer to these experiments is also
> determined, and therefore, so is his/her effect upon the outcome of
> the experiment. You cannot both have observed, and not observed,
any
> single event; and there is no such thing as exactly reproducing the
> same conditons twice in order to "test" this. But I digress, as usual.
>
> Regarding "self" help notions again: I think this is a classic example
> of how FW is destructive. I can't tell you how many patients I've had
> who've come to me more despondent than ever after "failing" to help
> themselves even after being "enlightened" by some SH book. The
> not-so-subtle message, and fine print escape clause of all SH books is
> that if the method seems to fail, it's the reader's "fault" for not
> being more self-disciplined, or some such tripe. It shouldn't take a
> determinist to spot the euphemisms for FW here.
>
> So it galls me how it's also completely lost on the majority of the
> public that if it's all ultimately up to FW anyway then what the hell
> does anyone need a SH book for in the first place??? Similarly, if
> the book is supposed to make a difference then this simultaneously
> obviates FW. In the bizarre, self-refuting world of FW, either
> everything must be due to FW, or nothing is.
>
> With Warm and Determined Regards, Naturally
>
> Les
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts" <ken@k...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Clay: I'm glad you're able to rejoin our discussion. I hope your
> > treatment is painless and successful.
> >
> > We might be able to simplify this discussion if we examine the idea
> > "changing the future".
> >
> > What is being changed? The future hasn't occurred yet, so we
can't in
> > my opinion speak of changing it. We don't know what the future is,
> > whether our actions will be a significant part of it, but whether our
> > action will play a significant role in the future, and what that
> role will
> > be, is fully caused and not possible to "change".
> >
> >
> > Let's take a trivial example. Say I have some dirty plates on the
> dining
> > room table in the evening at my house. What will happen to those
> > plates in the near future? I don't have full information about all the
> > determinants involved, but I can imagine several different futures:
in
> > one version the plates remain there until morning, in another I put
> them
> > in the dishwasher right away, in another I wait an hour, in another
> I drop
> > one, in another the table breaks and the plates fall on the floor and
> > break, in another a meteorite crashes through the ceiling and
destroys
> > the table, the plates, and me. And so on. There are an infinite
number
> > of seemingly possible futures, but only one genuinely possible
future,
> > fully caused by preceding determinants. That's the assumption of
> > science, as I understand it, that for a given set of circumstances
> there
> > is only one possible outcome. For a roughly approximate set of
> > circumstances, "plates on a table at night at my house", there are
> > several imaginable outcomes, but only one possible outcome for
each
> > particular occurrence. Some of the futures seem more likely, but
only
> > one will actually occur, and it will be fully caused, including any
> > participation or non-participation on my part.
> >
> > So, though I may take the plates to the kitchen, I can't be said to
> have
> > changed the future, any more than the table or the plate or the
> > dishwasher or meteor can. If all events are determined (which in
> > determinism, they are!) then my actions are no more free than the
> > actions of the molecules in the plate, the meteor, the table. I am
more
> > complex and therefore harder to predict, but no less caused. The
same
> > applies to the missions to the moon or to a therapist's plan. If they
> > occur, they had to occur, the future was not changed. There need
be
> > no grand "plan", just some energy and space and time and physical
> > laws, lots of stuff will happen.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> >
> > --- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "clayt1_2000" <drclay@c...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all!
> > >
> > > Sorry for the long break...but I see others have been gone too.
> > >
> > > I'm getting my out-of-control cells taken care of...just 6 more
> > > weeks of radiation to go.
> > >
> > > I finally took a little time to try to think through my confusion
> > > about self-help and determinism. This is my first rough draft. I
> > > need to think about it some more. Any help anyone can give me
will
> > > be welcome.
> > >
> > > Self-help, Will power, and God's will.
> > >
> > > Self-help is the use of knowledge to change yourself, your
> > > relationships, or your life. This knowledge may come from many
> > > sources—reading, wise helpers, accumulated cultural wisdom,
and
> > > even "figuring out" by yourself what will work. If the plan for
> > > changing is developed and carried out by a professional, however,
it
> > > is not self-help, it is professional treatment. Self-help is based
> > > on better understanding the very complex laws of behavior—the
> > > dependable cause and effect relationships—that permit one to
> > > establish conditions, mental or physical, that control the
> > > subsequent behavior. Scientific knowledge offers a hope of
> > > influencing the future.
> > >
> > > Will power is based on the belief that concentration and sufficient
> > > long-lasting motivation will enable a person to achieve
> > > extraordinary goals. It is the change method exemplified by a
> > > motivational speaker, a cheering section, a supportive friend or
> > > group, an encouraging coach, or even by repeated self-
inspiration.
> > > If meaningful motivation can be increased and if the existing
lawful
> > > habits, attitudes, and environmental conditions do not need to be
> > > changed, future changes are sometimes possible. High motivation
can
> > > not alter nature's laws. That is, if the necessary and lawful
> > > conditions, skills, methods, and other factors are not already in
> > > place and functioning the end goal is not likely to be achieved, no
> > > matter how motivated or driven one might be. Another major
problem
> > > with this approach is that often motivational drive quickly
> > > dissipates and becomes ineffective unless it is repeatedly or
> > > constantly pumped up.
> > >
> > > God's will is a concept widely believed by many people…or at
least
> > > applied by many when some outcome is highly desired or
dreaded. It
> > > is a fatalistic belief that everything is unfolding according to a
> > > pre-set "divine" plan; thus, humans are urged to accept God's
> > > inevitable plan and to be grateful for or, at least, tolerant of
> > > whatever happens. God's will is a particularly interesting notion
> > > because it would seem to contradict the common belief that
God's
> > > plan for everything can be influenced by prayer. The future has
to
> > > be either fixed or changeable; it can hardly be both. Yet, believing
> > > God will intervene for you or already has good plans for your
future
> > > may leave you hopeful and optimistic, characteristics that are
> > > positively related to feeling better and performing better.
> > >
> > > While I don't believe that every event and every outcome in the
> > > future is totally pre-determined by a grand plan, it would be
> > > possible to believe that everything is unfolding in accordance with
> > > fixed, immutable laws, such as the laws of physics, chemistry,
> > > behavior, social interaction, etc. In that case, while every future
> > > event would be fixed in terms of being lawful but also controllable
> > > to the extent that the conditions and lawful relationships could be
> > > understood and manipulated to bring about a desired outcome.
> > > Likewise, every moment and action that has already passed and
was
> > > fully determined by the laws involved at the time, i.e. the actor
> > > couldn't have done otherwise. Yet, what happens at a future
moment
> > > can be influenced if the actor, a helper, or someone else is
> > > knowledgeable enough of the laws (methods of change) involved
in
> > the
> > > future event.
> > >
> > > Example: Man might influence his destiny to some extent,
> > > e.g. in the early 1960's the USA decided to go to the moon…and
did
> > > it. Or a therapist might draft a plan to reduce a patient's
> > > depression…and do it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Clay