|
Today I was looking at a list of some of the best selling books of all time in the past few decades, and one thing that I noticed that several of them were self-help books. Stephen Covey, Robert Greene and many others have become very, very rich people through writing the books they have written and still write. I'm not saying that they are necessarily doing a bad thing, and probably a lot of those books are helpful (I've read only a couple, mostly with regards to productivity and life organization), and of course it is pretty obvious that it is a massive cash-cow - after all, most successful self-help authors put out new books with "new discoveries" all the time. They found their niche, there is a demand for such products - good for them, go capitalism. But a thought came to my mind with regards to one thing - there are more self-help products than ever before, but is the industry actually helping their clients achieve their goals? I know a couple of self-help addicts who buy a shitton of these books, audiobooks and other products, and spend a lot of their leisure time going through guided introspection by using these products, and every time I talk to them (Those situations are far in-between, because all of them are even more neurotic and anxious than I am), they say that they finally have found the new key or new solution for their lives, which once again manifested in a profound realization, which makes them feel happy as gently caress once they have it, but they turn back into their miserable selves in a week or two. The cycle for a new realisation continues. Do any of you know these kinds of people? They pay for these books, read them religiously, pay for courses and go to seminars, but they sort of never improve their lives. They only improve their knowledge of self-help, but the self-help really isn't helping their lives get better. While I believe that self-development is an admirable goal, I think it's something a lot more personal and traditional - therapy, boundaries and your values. I think the first is far more important than reading a lot of books on how to be "happy", and having strong boundaries + knowing your values is far more important and will make you more productive/assertive/sexual/present or whatever the self-help industry is selling at that time, and a lot of the useful things that are written by self-help authors are nothing new or original. Another problem that I think goes along with this is a belief that is ingrained with this self-help addiction - that there is something inherently wrong with myself and that I can "fix" it. Isn't this just a intellectualization? It just sounds like a lot of the self-help bullshit that you read is trying to solve an emotional problem by some sort of rationalization, which probably leads to emotional disconnection, while at the same time creating a feeling of achievement due to the new realizations that people who use self-help get by reading a new self help book. I want to hear the thoughts of people on this board about this. Is self-help by itself self-destructive due to how it perpetuates a belief of self-inadequacy? Can a person really become addicted to self-help? Is some self-help useful, and to what degree? I wouldn't be surprised that a lot of people who regularly post their problems on E/N are to a degree addicted to self-help, due to the encouragement and false sense of accomplishment that it gives.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
Good question, and I tend to agree with the points you've made. This can be seen in other parts of society as well, like how the U.S. Welfare State has destroyed African-American families since the 1970s. You can indeed become addicted to self-help, and these people behave similarly to the types who read workout/dieting magazines and jump from routine to routine without giving anything a real chance to work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Narciss posted:...the U.S. Welfare State has destroyed African-American families since the 1970s. Could you elaborate on this? I thought the problem was the lack of a welfare state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Could you elaborate on this? I thought the problem was the lack of a welfare state. For the love of god don't indulge him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Could you elaborate on this? I thought the problem was the lack of a welfare state. The changes LBJ made to things like food stamps made it a *very* unattractive prospect, financially speaking, to get married; single-parent families became subsidized. http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/07/08/commentary-end-the-welfare-marriage-penalty/ This doesn't mean I necessarily endorse getting rid of the benefits, but we certainly shouldn't penalize stable families.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Narciss posted:The changes LBJ made to things like food stamps made it a *very* unattractive prospect, financially speaking, to get married; single-parent families became subsidized. I forget, were you a bad troll or just an idiot? I'm associating a lot of bad things with your name, I just can't remember which way you went.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
I dated a girl who became deeply involved with a self-help seminar retreat program. Very secretive, very expensive, and from what I gather they encouraged participants to cut loose friends/lovers/family who refused to embrace concepts or even enroll themselves. While I'm often inclined to view her program as a glorified cult, I do begrudgingly admit that given her sorted childhood and repressed emotional issues, she did need to seek out some kind of therapeutic solution, and for better or worse, this seminar program instilled in her a tremendous sense of well-being and happiness. Apart from the obvious concern over the longevity of this effect (not to mention the long-term financial implications of repeated seminars), my biggest philosophical problem with the whole situation was the program's fixation on happiness as the end goal. While it's difficult for me to articulate what it might be, I have long felt that there exist things more fulfilling and noble for humans to aspire towards than mere happiness. The self-help industry ferociously pushes the concept of happiness not as a means to some other goal, but as the end goal itself. I suspect that this is a destructive paradigm, because while I believe humans are biologically incapable of truly selfless behavior, to consciously value personal happiness above all else might reduce or eradicate one's capacity to empathize with others and discourage "sharing" their reserves of happiness. To put it another way, ritualistically seeking happiness runs the risk of serving as cynical justification for all sorts of immoral, anti-social, and greedy behavior. Phenylketonuric fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Aug 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
poop device posted:I forget, were you a bad troll or just an idiot? I'm associating a lot of bad things with your name, I just can't remember which way you went. Check his custom title and rap sheet and it should be self-apparent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
poop device posted:I forget, were you a bad troll or just an idiot? I'm associating a lot of bad things with your name, I just can't remember which way you went. "Financially incentivizing single-parent families over 2-parent families is bad" should not be a sentence you see and go "ugh, loving trolls". I'm not even saying we need to cut benefits for single-parent families; we could raise benefits for 2-parent families. Anyways, this is a bit outside the scope of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Narciss posted:"Financially incentivizing single-parent families over 2-parent families is bad" should not be a sentence you see and go "ugh, loving trolls". I'm not even saying we need to cut benefits for single-parent families; we could raise benefits for 2-parent families. Anyways, this is a bit outside the scope of the thread. Don't post again in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Phenylketonuric posted:I dated a girl who became deeply involved with a self-help seminar retreat program. Very secretive, very expensive, and from what I gather they encouraged participants to cut loose friends/lovers/family who refused to embrace concepts or even enroll themselves. While I'm often inclined to view her program as a glorified cult, I do begrudgingly admit that given her sorted childhood and repressed emotional issues, she did need to seek out some kind of therapeutic solution, and for better or worse, this seminar program instilled in her a tremendous sense of well-being and happiness. Apart from the obvious concern over the longevity of this effect (not to mention the long-term financial implications of repeated seminars), my biggest philosophical problem with the whole situation was the program's fixation on happiness as the end goal. I fully agree with you with the last part. It's the same with being cool or confident, if you try to, you're already not. Happiness is not an end-goal, it's just a state that we are in. I think a lot of the issues that a lot of self-help addicts go through are a problem of emotionally repression. They are afraid of being vulnerable and they try to be "perfect", when actually they should be emotionally opening up and trying to feel, experience the world. I think a lack of vulnerability is one of the key environmental reasons why a lot of people have anxieties or shame - the self-loathing is reinforced by trying to be better or one-upping themselves, when they actually should just be who they are and engage in self-development through acceptance. This is the reason why I think a lot of men are struggling these days with women - being inauthentic means you will have no emotional connections with people, and hence, no meaningful relationships of any kind. This is why you see a lot of guys who do PUA turn into even bigger nutcases, or even becoming suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Phenylketonuric posted:I dated a girl who became deeply involved with a self-help seminar retreat program. Very secretive, very expensive, and from what I gather they encouraged participants to cut loose friends/lovers/family who refused to embrace concepts or even enroll themselves. While I'm often inclined to view her program as a glorified cult, I do begrudgingly admit that given her sorted childhood and repressed emotional issues, she did need to seek out some kind of therapeutic solution, and for better or worse, this seminar program instilled in her a tremendous sense of well-being and happiness. Apart from the obvious concern over the longevity of this effect (not to mention the long-term financial implications of repeated seminars), my biggest philosophical problem with the whole situation was the program's fixation on happiness as the end goal. I had a similar experience, but with a friend, not a romantic partner. Another downside of it to me was that she was more and more cut off from her old friends; she talked a lot about her program and kept trying to get us to sign up for it. The thing is, she had a lot of self-destructive behavior that stopped when she started these classes, so I saw it as 'good' in that way, but as time wore on it seemed like it was less a cure and more just a restraint. I also agree that happiness, while nifty, isn't the only good or worthwhile emotion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Exadus posted:Another problem that I think goes along with this is a belief that is ingrained with this self-help addiction - that there is something inherently wrong with myself and that I can "fix" it. Isn't this just a intellectualization? It just sounds like a lot of the self-help bullshit that you read is trying to solve an emotional problem by some sort of rationalization, which probably leads to emotional disconnection, while at the same time creating a feeling of achievement due to the new realizations that people who use self-help get by reading a new self help book. This in general is a very harmful belief, as it relies on the misconception around what a "self" is. By "figuring out" what is wrong with the self, you apply some patch over an existing issue, constantly reassuring yourself that it is now "fixed" until reality bites you in the rear end again. Even if you manage to avoid the problems originating from the actual issue, what you're left with is your consciousness in constant battle between the "issue" and the "fix". Rarely this approach leads to actual, beneficial change in someone. It's much more effective to identify the behavior you believe is right or appropriate and act on it rather than attempting to "fix" what is "wrong".
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Kane posted:This in general is a very harmful belief, as it relies on the misconception around what a "self" is. Isn't that pretty much CBT? I think you're right on point A lot of people who get into perpetual self-help probably just need good old fashioned therapy. Has anyone here read the Robert Greene books? They are exalted by a lot of people, but one of the wisest people I know told me that all the stuff he wrote is quite simpily bullshit. Makes sense - as I don't think leadership traits can only be learned by reading books and applying some system to have 'power'. You can read strategy and management to further your skillset, but that is different from leadership skills, which are more like personality traits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Exadus posted:A lot of people who get into perpetual self-help probably just need good old fashioned therapy. This, though, is part of why self-help is so popular. There is a massive stigma attached to any form of mental illness. Once you get that diagnosis there are a lot of people who are going to pretend you don't exist and try to shove you out of their lives, even if it isn't anything that makes you dangerous. All told, very few mental illnesses actually make you inherently dangerous to anybody around you but people assume they do. So what you have is people avoiding not only the stigma but also the possibility that they might be ax crazy underneath it all. American society also teaches that you should be totally self-reliant. Getting help in the form of therapy or drugs means you're relying on the skills of others or, worse yet, relying on a chemical to make you feel better. Self-help means you're doing it yourself, you're just learning the skill from somebody else. Which is tragic when you get into people relying on self-help for dealing with things like depression or crippling anxiety. Those are things psychologists, therapists, and councilors know how to fix. I feel like it also plays into how insular and individualistic we've become as a society. We don't really help each other and as we're seeing in some contemporary political movements are encouraged to go it totally alone. Needing help from others is viewed as a sign of weakness so you must do it yourself. Which is actually a very destructive attitude to take simply because we're social creatures. Organization is how we kicked everything else on this rock right in the rear end and became the dominant species. Social isolation also does horrible, terrible things to people. Sometimes the best cure for depression isn't self-help or therapy but rather having some friends you can share dinner and beer with with some sort of regularity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Exadus posted:Isn't that pretty much CBT? I think you're right on point More like the standard Buddhist message. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
I think that the self-help industry is basically the same as the diet industry. These two industries for the most part offer superficial solutions to a far more complex problem. Gaining weight is not only eating too much and moving too little, but it's the result of a dozen habits which you perform every day over a long-period of time. A diet program drastically alters your daily routine, which quickly helps you to lose those extra kilos, but once you stop your old habits will resurface which caused your extra kilos in the first place. You will gain weight and blame yourself, but the given tools were not right for you from the start. Losing weight becomes even more difficult if overeating is a coping mechanism for stress or a poor self-image. It could even be that you're not even aware of this coping mechanism. The same goes for the self-help industry, but now it's about tools on how to live the life you've always wanted to live. I think that both industries is about selling superficial solutions, making exaggerated claims about their products, and give tools which misapplied could do more harm than good. The difficulty of evaluating what would work for you is very hard and rarely provided. The above example becomes even more difficult when you consider its questions. Do you understand your problem? Are you trying to solve the symptoms instead of the underlying problem? Is the tool effective? How do you determine its effectiveness? If it's proven to be effective, is it right for you as a person and for your situation? How do you integrate this tool in your daily life? What are the results? And so on. Many people can't or don't consider such questions and so keep trying the wrong tools for the wrong problem. Is self-help destructive? Depends on the impact of the problem in your daily life and the time to get a working solution. It's mostly harmless if it's about being more productive, but the wrong tool for dealing with anxiety is harmful to your well-being. The long search for the right tool for dealing with anxiety is even more harmful. In that case seeing a professional is the better choice. An outside perspective with years of experience will answer the above questions far better than a dozen self-help books ever will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Kane posted:More like the standard Buddhist message. I've never really studied Buddhism, but one thing I've noticed a lot in both reading philosophy and the little psychology that I have is that a lot of the concepts are similar. Plato wrote about how happiness is something that comes from within and not from externals, which coincides with a lot of concepts that we hear with regards to balanced internal and external validation these days, and how they allow you put up healthy boundaries, develop values and take responsibility for your actions. Is it possible that a lot of the concepts that are being thrown about these days, especially the ones that seem to be true, are simply rehashes of ideas that have floating in the river of human knowledge for some time now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Is Robert Greene even classified as self-help? It's more just an overview on subject? If that makes any sense... Otherwise, an enormous amount of self-help is absolutely terrible. Look at self-help that's directed towards males with-in regards to relationships, dating, sex or "PUA" material. This isn't limited to printed material, Dr. Oz has been routinely criticized and is potentially facing some serious legal trouble. On the plus side, Kevin Trudeau is now in prison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Otherwise, an enormous amount of self-help is absolutely terrible. This is absolutely true. There are self-help books that will be recommended to you by a member of the American Psychological Association and then there's hundreds upon thousands of self-help books that are complete poo poo. The term "self-help" is not regulated at all and both these kinds of books will get shelved together. It's honestly analogous to having books on the benefits of bloodletting sitting between Gray's Anatomy and the Red Cross First Aid manual.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
"Self-help" is a product of an artificial scarcity of qualified psychologists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
I don't read any self-help books unless the person has a PhD in psychology or is an actual medical doctor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I also agree that happiness, while nifty, isn't the only good or worthwhile emotion. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:I think it depends on what we are defining as happiness. Hedonistic happiness most certainly should not be the goal of one's life, but I think many posters here would agree at least in part that eudaimonia (in the Aristotelian sense) is acceptable as a central life goal. You didn't disagree with me at all; you just said that it's 'acceptable' as a life goal. Sure. I didn't talk about happiness as a life goal, what I said was that happiness isn't the only good or worthwhile emotion. Eudaimonia is also not an emotion, but a state of being, according to Aristotle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
Exadus posted:I've never really studied Buddhism, but one thing I've noticed a lot in both reading philosophy and the little psychology that I have is that a lot of the concepts are similar. Plato wrote about how happiness is something that comes from within and not from externals, which coincides with a lot of concepts that we hear with regards to balanced internal and external validation these days, and how they allow you put up healthy boundaries, develop values and take responsibility for your actions. Buddhism is quite dissimilar to most everything originating in the west throughout history. http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe1-4.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 02:43
|
|