Author M. Scott Peck, MD.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:06 pm

glauber wrote:Hey, Cranberry, read some Freud, instead. It's funnier.

I myself prefer Oliver Sacks.

I've read lots of Freud, actually. And Jung, William James, and Carl Rogers. I wish there were more women psychiatrist authors to read. I've read a lot of Kübler-Ross' books, but she's really the only one.

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:08 pm

Cranberry wrote:
glauber wrote:Hey, Cranberry, read some Freud, instead. It's funnier.
I've read lots of Freud, actually. And Jung, William James, and Carl Rogers. I wish there were more women psychiatrist authors to read. I've read a lot of Kübler-Ross' books, but she's really the only one.

How about Karen Horney? (good Beavis/Butthead name... huh huh huh, he said horny!)

I've always liked Freud -- at the very least he's entertaining -- then i married an Adlerian!

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:16 pm

glauber wrote:
Cranberry wrote:
glauber wrote:Hey, Cranberry, read some Freud, instead. It's funnier.
I've read lots of Freud, actually. And Jung, William James, and Carl Rogers. I wish there were more women psychiatrist authors to read. I've read a lot of Kübler-Ross' books, but she's really the only one.
How about Karen Horney? (good Beavis/Butthead name... huh huh huh, he said horny!)

I've always liked Freud -- at the very least he's entertaining -- then i married an Adlerian!

In The Denial Of Death, Ernest T. Becker puts forth some really interesting thoughts on Freud and his many of his theories as well as more personal stuff about Freud's life. According to Becker, Freud was wrong on almost all the specific issues he cared about, but right in a more general, over-all way. So most people who dismiss Freud as a lunatic or just plain weird are actually missing out on a lot, because he wasn't completely wrong. It's been a while since I read that book, though. It was terribly long and hard to read, but I made myself read it.

One of my favorite psycho-religious topics to read about is death, the psychology of death, how people handle death, how people die, etc.

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:17 pm

Yes, it's one of those things you can only do once.

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:21 pm

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:22 pm

glauber wrote:Yes, it's one of those things you can only do once.

That makes it all the more fascinating.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:24 pm

glauber wrote:I noticed this message today at the bottom of one of my C&F windows:
Code: Select all
Warning: shell_exec() has been disabled for security reasons in /home/.fangle/lafferty/chiffboard.mati.ca/includes/page_tail.php on line 60
Be very careful and, what's the word... huh... vigilant. Remember to be extra vigilant tonight.

The alert level today is fuchsia.

I've seen that multiple times over the past few days as well.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:35 pm

glauber wrote:How about Karen Horney? (good Beavis/Butthead name... huh huh huh, he said horny!)

After looking over amazon.com, it seems that Karen Horney also uses the 'M.D.' after her name on (at least some of) her books.

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:06 pm

Cranberry wrote:
glauber wrote:How about Karen Horney?
After looking over amazon.com, it seems that Karen Horney also uses the 'M.D.' after her name on (at least some of) her books.

To differentiate herself from the lichen star with same name.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:08 pm

So most people who dismiss Freud as a lunatic or just plain weird are actually missing out on a lot, because he wasn't completely wrong.

They're missing a great deal. Freud changed how we see the brain.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:36 pm

glauber wrote:
Cranberry wrote:
glauber wrote:How about Karen Horney?
After looking over amazon.com, it seems that Karen Horney also uses the 'M.D.' after her name on (at least some of) her books.
To differentiate herself from the lichen star with same name.

1). Is there a lichen star named M. Scott Peck?

2). Why does it seem every person who participates in an adult film automatically becomes a 'star'?

Post by **Dale** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:02 pm

(M)aster of (T)heological (S)tudies

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:11 pm

DaleWisely wrote:(M)aster of (T)heological (S)tudies

Thanks.

I knew it was master of something.

BillChin · Post by **BillChin** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:30 pm

Wombat's missive about use of titles reminds me of a story. When I was working at a computer magazine we called for open submissions from anyone and everyone. One of our submitters was a dentist and insisted on having DDS after his name on his byline. Of course his being a dentist had nothing to do with the article. I forget how it was resolved, but almost everyone at the magazine thought the dentist to be a bit off to become so upset over this.

For Dr. Peck, it seems to me a business decision, nothing more, nothing less. He sells more books with MD. I think most publishers would put just about any text on the cover of a mass market book, as long it translates into more sales and was anywhere near the realm of truth. To call it dishonest seems rather harsh, but maybe in academic circles it is seen in very poor taste.
+ Bill

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:51 pm

Jerry Freeman wrote:
Wombat wrote:If this author's clinical experience is part of his qualification for writing a book, it is perfectly in order to say where he works and how his work bears on the content in the preface. The qualification-flaunting practice has been long since discredited because too many people use it to trade on irrelevant qualifications or (worse) to give spurious credence to work that has failed to get past the peer review system. This system exists to protect the unwary punter. Since every academically qualified author knows the conventions I'm mentioning here, and also knows their rationale, you would have to wonder why he is flouting them. But, as I suggested, there might be an innocent explanation.
Again, I think your reaction is a bit strong.

For one thing, I think you're giving too much credit to the peer review system. I have serious misgivings about the idea that a system of "authority" (yes, in quotes) should be imposed on what gets published in the popular press and on how various writers may or may not present their credentials. If the credentials are bogus, someone will out them, and readers can draw their own conclusions about the worthiness of their work.

Your comments, quite frankly, give me the heebeejeebees. Calling the mind police, calling the mind police ... Proceed to fifth and main street immediately. Unwary punter is thinking for himself ... unwary punter is drawing his own conclusions without peer review screening. Mind police, mind police, please proceed immediately ...

Best wishes,
Jerry

Jerry, again I think you've missed the point. People invoke academic qualifications why? Because they carry with them a sort of guarantee of authority. My point about the convention was that, far from carrying any such guarantee, they are quite misleading.

The fact that a book fails to list the authors credentials doesn't guarantee that peer review has taken place. All it gurantees is that the author hasn't violated a convention designed to weed out dishonest self promoters.

I posted my last very late last night and I wondered when I woke up if in fact I had been overly harsh. Perhaps even top scientists violate the convention and I simply haven't noticed. A quick check revealed that this simply isn't so. Here's a brief list, drawn from the shelves around me at home, of writers on science, history and anthropology who don't violate the convention: Richard Feynman, Richard Dawkins, David Suzuki, Dan Dennett, Michael Dummett, Ernst Mayr, Eric Hobsbawm, Umberto Eco, Luigi Luca Cavelli-Sforza, Claude Levi-Strauss, Edward Said and countless others.

Amongst the many books by less illustrious scholars on my shelves, some of whom have *shudder* no qualifiactions at all, there are many very good books as well a many less good books.

Since a failure to blazon qualifications is no guarantee of peer review, I think your comments about mind police are directed towards the wrong crowd. The practice I'm complaining about is akin to the fallacy of illicit appeal to authority. Those who are content to observe the convention of letting their book speak for itself, and those who defend the convention, can hardly be accused of being mind police. I never said you have to be qualified to write books of popular scholarship and I own and read many books that aren't. All the convention requires is that autobiographical notes about qualifications be placed in the places reserved for those notes and, on a paperback, that includes the back cover.

Just as a matter of interest, why do you think the people on my list, and countless other top ranking scholars, observe the convention, along with countless people who have no qualifiactions to flaunt?

Chiff and Fipple Forums

Author M. Scott Peck, MD.

Ooops!

Re: Shell_exec() has been disabled for security reasons!