PDA

View Full Version : How to hunt elephants.



They called me Bruce
08-14-2013, 07:30 AM
Thanks for your patience everyone.

The 'elephant in the room' is of UK origin and the wikki on it covers it well. It is used by Richard Dawkins as the punchline for the introduction to the video 'Root of all evil?' Episode one is on U tube, it's the first few minutes.

The term has been used by all the psycs i know in relation to ethics, as seen in the links below.

The connection between PTSD and religious instruction is also below, but the references are controversial. I did discuss an experiment some years ago using 'Measures of religiosity' and placebo etc. just to see what sort of reaction would come out, but it was obvious that I'd get trodden on by the elephant before I could get funding, so I left it at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_post-traumatic_stress_disorder

There is a lot here, and it is heavy reading.

http://www.psychology.org.au/inpsych/spirituality_ethics/

The sentiment to “not undermine the faith” having precedence over mental health still exists, though it has been qualified to some extent. There is a story here if someone wants to write a psych thriller. The ‘religious elephant’ on the ethics committee is standing ready to swing into action against any practitioner who shows a tendency to ‘undermine the faith’ but no-one talks about that professionally. Since there are a lot of mental health practitioners with religious backgrounds, this is not hard to implement.

See also the Knights of Columbus, below.

http://moralcompassblog.com/2013/03/26/is-religious-trauma-syndrome-rts-for-real/

Lots of noise too. Useful background perhaps?

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/behavioural-neuro/comp-cog-neuro/index.aspx

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/psychology/deb-shoumitro.aspx

http://cnil.bham.ac.uk/
What the scientists are up to.

Now the hard copy,

FAA –H-8083-9A Aviation instructor’s handbook. P 1/5 Theory X is the ‘Child of God’ model. Theory Y is the rational adult model. P1-6 Human factors that inhibit learning. ‘Compensation’ applies to religious beliefs, the compensating factor being built on repeated praise of ‘being strong in one’s faith.’ See Freud, defense of ego 1894.

Reaction formation can be orchestrated by seeking forgiveness from God. May be a key element in Catholic psycho-sexual development, which I’m still looking at.

Marieb. N Human anatomy and physiology. 5th edition Benjamin Cummings 2001.

P493, 615. Mechanisms. Traditionally the CNS and endocrine system are treated separately with minimal mention of their interactions. This is where a background in engineering process control helps, since the forward and backward control paths can be put together to look at a human system response.

Teehan, John. In the name of God. The evolutionary origins of religious ethics and violence. Wiley Blackwell, 2010.

This is heavy going. The presentation of humanism as controversial within the United States is discussed on p217-218. He cites Gintis et al 2003 (p153) with relation to a dual cognitive system in humans. This is what allows the human mind to work with abstract concepts, such as mathematics, theoretical physics and supernatural entities as if they are real. Linking back to the section on synthetic flight simulators in FAA –H-8083-9A and the qualifying requirements for synthetic training shows how well developed this capability is. The purely abstract can be a problem, as seen with the loss of Air France Flight 447. (no basic airmanship)

The elephant’s teeth, as it were;

‘One social issue that has received considerable attention over the past several years has been the question of religious institutions that have either certain preferences (based on religion) for selecting students or faculty or specific exclusions based on religion. Historically, the courts have granted special privileges to religious institutions and have held that they are exempt from the civil rights act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.’

Sales, Bruce Dennis. The professional psychologist’s handbook. Plenum Press 1983. P211. This is the only mention of religion listed in the index. These precedents will stand until something (a specific ruling by a higher court in that heirachy or legislation) overturns them.

The past is more colorful;

‘When H.R. Trevor-Roper remarked in The last days of Hitler that Jesuits created a system of education aimed at preventing knowledge,” the New York Knights of Columbus “on behalf of 80,000 Knights of Columbus in the state” wrote to the publishers: “We feel that the Macmillan Company, as the publisher of this volume, is an accessory in this vicious attack against the Jesuits, and we request that you withdraw this book from sale until you have removed from its pages the vile attack which Mr. Trevor-Roper makes against the Jesuits.”

The reference given is Catholic News, October 4 1947.

Blanshard, Paul. American freedom and Catholic power. Beacon 1950. P187.

It would seem from discussion elsewhere on AW, that the Knights of Columbus may now be extinct, but I’ll leave that up the gentlemen in question to confirm.

cornflake
08-14-2013, 07:54 AM
Thanks for your patience everyone.

The 'elephant in the room' is of UK origin and the wikki on it covers it well. It is used by Richard Dawkins as the punchline for the introduction to the video 'Root of all evil?' Episode one is on U tube, it's the first few minutes.

The term has been used by all the psycs i know in relation to ethics, as seen in the links below.

The connection between PTSD and religious instruction is also below, but the references are controversial. I did discuss an experiment some years ago using 'Measures of religiosity' and placebo etc. just to see what sort of reaction would come out, but it was obvious that I'd get trodden on by the elephant before I could get funding, so I left it at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_post-traumatic_stress_disorder

There is a lot here, and it is heavy reading.

http://www.psychology.org.au/inpsych/spirituality_ethics/

The sentiment to “not undermine the faith” having precedence over mental health still exists, though it has been qualified to some extent. There is a story here if someone wants to write a psych thriller. The ‘religious elephant’ on the ethics committee is standing ready to swing into action against any practitioner who shows a tendency to ‘undermine the faith’ but no-one talks about that professionally. Since there are a lot of mental health practitioners with religious backgrounds, this is not hard to implement.

See also the Knights of Columbus, below.

http://moralcompassblog.com/2013/03/26/is-religious-trauma-syndrome-rts-for-real/

Lots of noise too. Useful background perhaps?

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/behavioural-neuro/comp-cog-neuro/index.aspx

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/psychology/deb-shoumitro.aspx

http://cnil.bham.ac.uk/
What the scientists are up to.

Now the hard copy,

FAA –H-8083-9A Aviation instructor’s handbook. P 1/5 Theory X is the ‘Child of God’ model. Theory Y is the rational adult model. P1-6 Human factors that inhibit learning. ‘Compensation’ applies to religious beliefs, the compensating factor being built on repeated praise of ‘being strong in one’s faith.’ See Freud, defense of ego 1894.

Reaction formation can be orchestrated by seeking forgiveness from God. May be a key element in Catholic psycho-sexual development, which I’m still looking at.

Marieb. N Human anatomy and physiology. 5th edition Benjamin Cummings 2001.

P493, 615. Mechanisms. Traditionally the CNS and endocrine system are treated separately with minimal mention of their interactions. This is where a background in engineering process control helps, since the forward and backward control paths can be put together to look at a human system response.

Teehan, John. In the name of God. The evolutionary origins of religious ethics and violence. Wiley Blackwell, 2010.

This is heavy going. The presentation of humanism as controversial within the United States is discussed on p217-218. He cites Gintis et al 2003 (p153) with relation to a dual cognitive system in humans. This is what allows the human mind to work with abstract concepts, such as mathematics, theoretical physics and supernatural entities as if they are real. Linking back to the section on synthetic flight simulators in FAA –H-8083-9A and the qualifying requirements for synthetic training shows how well developed this capability is. The purely abstract can be a problem, as seen with the loss of Air France Flight 447. (no basic airmanship)

The elephant’s teeth, as it were;

‘One social issue that has received considerable attention over the past several years has been the question of religious institutions that have either certain preferences (based on religion) for selecting students or faculty or specific exclusions based on religion. Historically, the courts have granted special privileges to religious institutions and have held that they are exempt from the civil rights act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.’

Sales, Bruce Dennis. The professional psychologist’s handbook. Plenum Press 1983. P211. This is the only mention of religion listed in the index. These precedents will stand until something (a specific ruling by a higher court in that heirachy or legislation) overturns them.

The past is more colorful;

‘When H.R. Trevor-Roper remarked in The last days of Hitler that Jesuits created a system of education aimed at preventing knowledge,” the New York Knights of Columbus “on behalf of 80,000 Knights of Columbus in the state” wrote to the publishers: “We feel that the Macmillan Company, as the publisher of this volume, is an accessory in this vicious attack against the Jesuits, and we request that you withdraw this book from sale until you have removed from its pages the vile attack which Mr. Trevor-Roper makes against the Jesuits.”

The reference given is Catholic News, October 4 1947.

Blanshard, Paul. American freedom and Catholic power. Beacon 1950. P187.

It would seem from discussion elsewhere on AW, that the Knights of Columbus may now be extinct, but I’ll leave that up the gentlemen in question to confirm.

If you have a point, it'd probably help if you could state it someplace.

You claim there's a link between PTSD and religious instruction, and leave the Wiki, which describes an unofficial variant of PTSD related to sexual abuse, torture, severe trauma, and has no mention, anyplace, of religion or religious instruction.

There's a link relating to multisensory integration, language acquisition and the like.

There's a basic ethics article out of Australia discussing that psychological professionals should keep their beliefs to themselves, not impose said beliefs on their clients, and be careful to advise clients of specific boundaries, which is all kind of clinical practice 101.

Then you've got that like, 70 years ago, someone insulted the Jesuits and the Knights of Columbus disagreed with what that one person said.

What the hell is all this mess meant to mean? If you have something you mean to say, could you possibly elucidate it?

I'm certainly not following any more random links that seem to have nothing to do with anything.

They called me Bruce
08-14-2013, 09:14 AM
If you have a point, it'd probably help if you could state it someplace.

You claim there's a link between PTSD and religious instruction, and leave the Wiki, which describes an unofficial variant of PTSD related to sexual abuse, torture, severe trauma, and has no mention, anyplace, of religion or religious instruction.

There's a link relating to multisensory integration, language acquisition and the like.

There's a basic ethics article out of Australia discussing that psychological professionals should keep their beliefs to themselves, not impose said beliefs on their clients, and be careful to advise clients of specific boundaries, which is all kind of clinical practice 101.

Then you've got that like, 70 years ago, someone insulted the Jesuits and the Knights of Columbus disagreed with what that one person said.

What the hell is all this mess meant to mean? If you have something you mean to say, could you possibly elucidate it?

I'm certainly not following any more random links that seem to have nothing to do with anything.

I mean to say that there is enough here to speculate in fiction or design an experiment to prove the link.

I'd also observe that the response has come after some 20 minutes and I've been grinding through this for at least a decade. One needs to take one's time with this stuff, so I'd recommend against anyone else being too hasty with a response. I wasn't expecting anything back on this for days.

"What the hell is all this mess meant to mean? If you have something you mean to say, could you possibly elucidate it?"

Perhaps this is an area you should be avoiding, if it is upsetting you this much. Sorry for dragging you into it.

cornflake
08-14-2013, 09:32 AM
I mean to say that there is enough here to speculate in fiction or design an experiment to prove the link.

I'd also observe that the response has come after some 20 minutes and I've been grinding through this for at least a decade. One needs to take one's time with this stuff, so I'd recommend against anyone else being too hasty with a response. I wasn't expecting anything back on this for days.

"What the hell is all this mess meant to mean? If you have something you mean to say, could you possibly elucidate it?"

Perhaps this is an area you should be avoiding, if it is upsetting you this much. Sorry for dragging you into it.

Welcome to the Internet, dude. You really can't decide that people should ponder your posts for specific lengths of time you find appropriate or avoid things on an open forum if you dislike their responses.

As I recall, you didn't suggest there was enough to "speculate in fiction," or design an experiment, which of course, wouldn't prove that. You said (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8339173&postcount=4), in fact -


I've seen a lot of arguments about what religion does, what it means and what it says. I've only seen a few things about why it works, and why it only works on children.

These all relate to factors common to post traumatic stress disorder, which is treatable using adrenaline supressors and the emergence of rational reflection post childhood.

This would mean that faith is a treatable mental illness brought on by a carefully developed philosophical trauma

When a psychologist said this was news to him, you said you'd be back with references.

lastlittlebird
08-14-2013, 09:34 AM
Was this meant to be in this thread (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268654)? It seems like a follow up post to something said there.

Bruce, this is a writer's forum. Your original post doesn't seem to connect to anything to do with writing... any more than any one of millions of ideas could be said to be worth speculation in fiction. Why would a writer give up days of their time to read so many links when there doesn't appear to be any incentive to do so? Even less now that you've dismissed a reply asking for clarification.

Old Hack
08-14-2013, 10:03 AM
If this was meant to be a continuation of the discussion lastlittlebird linked to, Bruce, please let a moderator know so that we can merge the two threads.


I mean to say that there is enough here to speculate in fiction or design an experiment to prove the link.

But you didn't say it and, just as in many of your other posts here, your writing is so full of jargon that it's confusing, you make no real points, and you ask no real questions.


I'd also observe that the response has come after some 20 minutes and I've been grinding through this for at least a decade. One needs to take one's time with this stuff, so I'd recommend against anyone else being too hasty with a response. I wasn't expecting anything back on this for days.

As has already been pointed out, you don't get to dictate how long people take to react to your posts.

The speed with which cornflake responded isn't the cause of cornflake's confusion. The confusion comes from your original post.


"What the hell is all this mess meant to mean? If you have something you mean to say, could you possibly elucidate it?"

Perhaps this is an area you should be avoiding, if it is upsetting you this much. Sorry for dragging you into it.

Bruce, you need to work on your writing. Work out what you want to say and then say it, as clearly as you can. You said in another thread that you were trying to be too clever: well, ditch that cleverness. Aim for clarity instead.

RichardGarfinkle
08-14-2013, 12:25 PM
They called me Bruce,

I'm afraid your post reads like a batch of notes rather than a piece of writing. If, as you say, you've been immersed in this subject for a decade then you will have a batch of connections in your mind that your readers do not have.

If you wish others to understand you then it's your job as a writer to create and illuminate those connections for us.

It's not our job to follow your thinking in the manner you think it.

It's your job to create a way for us to understand the idea you are trying to bring across. That's what communication is. That's what the art of writing is for.

Stacia Kane
08-14-2013, 03:30 PM
I think we all know what the phrase "the elephant in the room," actually means. Our confusion was about what this particular elephant has to do with publishing. Specifically with publishing your book.

You can provide all the links you like which show in some way that religious leaders get tetchy about psychologists talking to their patients about religion or that a particular problem with PTSD relates to religion, but I am frankly not interested enough in how psychologists deal with religion (outside the US, apparently?) to spend any time on them, because again, it has nothing to do with publishing.

If you're so worried that publishing a novel with a concept already explored numerous times by fantasy authors may be a problem for a religious person in your town, use a pseudonym if and when your book is published.

I can't speak specifically to laws in Australia, but as far as I know free speech is a thing there, too. In the US a psychologist could not be barred from practice for writing a novel that posits a world without religion. I'm pretty sure that's the case in Australia and I am quite sure that's the case in the UK, as well.

The fact that here may be controversy in the psych world about the concept of religious PTSD does not mean there would be controversy in the psych world about a novel being written about it, or rather, that a backlash would occur on the author of such a novel which might cost them their career.

The job of a writer is to make something believable; it doesn't matter if it's a Real Thing or not. No one is telling you there's a problem with your concept that means it can't be a book, so I'm not sure why we need the proof that it's a real thing.

Again, forgive me if I have misunderstood your purpose in posting these links. But I'm still not seeing anything that means a psychologist or other psychiatric professional is in danger of losing his or her license for agreeing with/writing about a theory, or especially is in danger of same for writing a novel with a concept about birth control. And I am especially not seeing anything which offers any sort of proof that publishing professionals would be concerned about such a topic. Because they wouldn't be.

Nobody in publishing cares about your town council. Macmillan obviously didn't care fifty+ years ago when they published the novel with which the K of C had a problem, so why would they care now? Showing us that fifty years ago publishing ignored the anger of a Catholic men's organization certainly doesn't show us that today the result would be any different.

mccardey
08-14-2013, 03:41 PM
I can't speak specifically to laws in Australia, but as far as I know free speech is a thing there, too. In the US a psychologist could not be barred from practice for writing a novel that posits a world without religion. I'm pretty sure that's the case in Australia and I am quite sure that's the case in the UK, as well.

Yes, I think that's a fair statement... :Sun:

veinglory
08-14-2013, 05:58 PM
Speculate in fiction how? Maybe come up with something along those lines and then get back to us.

But I have to say that this is an area that is pretty well researched and tends to come down to two things: 1) talking to people and trying to help them tends to be beneficial no matter what particular method you use, and 2) for people who have a faith working with (rather than against) that faith has better outcomes.

If you are making a claim radically different to that I, personally, would suggest staying in the fictional realm.

benbradley
08-15-2013, 02:05 AM
If this was meant to be a continuation of the discussion lastlittlebird linked to, Bruce, please let a moderator know so that we can merge the two threads.
...
To be fair, another moderator in that other thread suggested the OP start a new thread:
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8344123&postcount=11

Otherwise, I totally agree with yours and many others' posts here.

These threads give me the feeling of Darmok, but I don't see a resolution here.

Sheryl Nantus
08-15-2013, 02:51 AM
Work out what you want to say and then say it, as clearly as you can.

This.

In another thread I told you to WRITE THE BOOK. If you can't describe the book it's not going to go well when you try to sell it.

Save the cute and coy phrasing for later. If you want to sell your book you need to be able to get people interested within a sentence or two. Not huge honking paragraphs of links and vaguely worded connections.

I suggest you try again.

gingerwoman
08-23-2013, 09:04 AM
This.

In another thread I told you to WRITE THE BOOK. If you can't describe the book it's not going to go well when you try to sell it.

Save the cute and coy phrasing for later. If you want to sell your book you need to be able to get people interested within a sentence or two. Not huge honking paragraphs of links and vaguely worded connections.

I suggest you try again.
I thought he had written the book and was paying people vast quantities of money to analyze it market potential. :Shrug:

Sheryl Nantus
08-23-2013, 02:23 PM
Since he hasn't been back since the 14th I'll assume he's found his answers.

:)

benbradley
08-24-2013, 01:44 AM
It's kind of a shame, I was hoping someone would get the Darmok reference - I found that episode infuriatingly non-understandable, even after I "knew" what it was about.

They called me Bruce
08-31-2013, 12:39 PM
Since he hasn't been back since the 14th I'll assume he's found his answers.

:)

Nope, I'm still around, I've been busy elsewhere!

John_Lombard
09-01-2013, 11:18 PM
Nope, I'm still around, I've been busy elsewhere!
Good...then perhaps you could take a little time to respond to my comments (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8374131&postcount=15) in regards to the complete nonsense you posted in my thread.

AW Admin
09-02-2013, 01:13 AM
Good...then perhaps you could take a little time to respond to my comments (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8374131&postcount=15) in regards to the complete nonsense you posted in my thread.

Ahem. It isn't "your thread." And I suggest both you and They called me Bruce might pause and reflect on the The Newbie Guide to Absolute Write (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66315).

Because we do expect courtesy and the assumption of good will.