Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist Psychologists

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I was wondering if anyone has any knowledge of leading (or even not so leading) Objectivist psychologists. This has been becoming a budding interest of mine, but my online searches have left me only with Nathanial Brandon's works. Which are well and good, but there has to be more out there.

Right now I'm reading about Albert Ellis' Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). Has anyone heard of it? I think I'd read about it originally in one of Brandon's books, so I thought I would give it a shot. What's throwing me off is that in priniciple, REBT makes a great deal of sense from an Objectivist standpoint; but Ellis seems to have a lot of weak premises (he questions the value of the ego, for starters!) and is an overall postmodernist. So I'm trying to take REBT for what it might have to offer, but it's always nice when the theorist's personal philosophy is actually in sync with what he's teaching.

Edited by Tabitha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering if anyone has any knowledge of leading (or even not so leading) Objectivist psychologists. This has been becoming a budding interest of mine, but my online searches have left me only with Nathanial Brandon's works. Which are well and good, but there has to be more out there.

Oh, yes, there's quite a bit more.

Dr. Edith Packer has written a number of articles about psychological issues from an Objectivist perspective. They're available here.

Dr. Michael Hurd has written a couple of books, Effective Therapy: Choosing The Right Therapy That Works For You and Grow Up America!: Learning To Live The Happy, Responsible Life. He also has a website with a bunch of material.

Dr. Ellen Kenner has a radio show and a website. She's got a number of lectures available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

Dr. Scott Adams has a website, FireFlySun, which has a bunch of Objectivist psychological material on it. I'm not sure whether it's still actively updated, but there's definitely stuff there worth examining, e.g. Dr. Ed Locke's paper "An Objectivist Perspective on Recurrent Problems in the History of Psychology".

I'm sure there's more than that, but I think you should be able to take it from there.

Right now I'm reading about Albert Ellis' Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). Has anyone heard of it? I think I'd read about it originally in one of Brandon's books, so I thought I would give it a shot. What's throwing me off is that in priniciple, REBT makes a great deal of sense from an Objectivist standpoint; but Ellis seems to have a lot of weak premises (he questions the value of the ego, for starters!) and is an overall postmodernist.

Dr. Ellis was well-aware of Objectivism, and didn't particularly approve of it. In fact, he wrote a book criticizing it, called Is Objectivism A Religion?, which I think is now out-of-print. (For the curious, his answer was "yes".) While there may be much of value in Ellis' work, he isn't a philosophical ally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cognitive therapy (or cognitive behavioral therapy) is in my opinion a bit better than REBT. Founder is Aaron Beck and as far as I know he has better philosophical views than Ellis. Otherwise the therapy is quite similar, but not fully. If you are interested in psychotherapy then I can recommend you reality therapy (William Glasser) as well, but it´s worth saying that Glasser is philosophically flawed quite a lot too (his older works are somewhat better).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow; thanks for all the responses. I'll be sure to check all these out. What I don't understand is how a good therapist or psychology theorist cannot be Objectivist, or at the very least Objectivist-leaning. If the purpose of therapy is to help the individual strengthen his own self-esteem, doesn't Ellis' (and others') promotion of "social responsibility" (atruism) negate this goal?

I've also found this to be true from my own personal experience. I went to a therapist a few years back just for some minor anxiety issues. This woman was a hippie in every sense of the word. She had pictures of herself with Timothy Leery allover her office. No joke! Statues of Buddah, 60s political stickers, the whole nine yards. Because I was aware of her philosophical leanings, I had a hard time talking to her. I went a few times but I began to feel guilty for being "me;" if that makes any sense. I mean, if someone thinks human beings are sacrificial animals, and therefore thinks that I'm a sacrifical animal, how could this person possibly help me?

I just find it so disconcerting that so many of my colleagues (people in the mental health field) are left-leaning. Not only is this counterproductive but it's harmful to clients.

Edited by Tabitha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have learned SO much about psychology from a guy named Stefan Molyneux at Freedomain Radio -- I was first turned onto his site by an Objectivist couple I knew, and the first thing I watched one of his youtube videos...well I have just ordered this guys book and I can't wait to read it, because I have been listening to them on mp3 FOR FREE

He has read Rand extensively, and Brandon and many other "rational" psychologists, he was an Objectivist for 20 years. I think he has great insight -- Listen to some of his videos or podcasts on issues that you are interested in using the Phylo-Physician (found on the main page, linked above.. just scroll down a little bit to find it) and you can plug in your interests

edit:

here is a feed my friend made for me that is a good "round up" summary of the psychological side. enjoy :lol:

Edited by athena glaukopis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
I have learned SO much about psychology from a guy named Stefan Molyneux at Freedomain Radio -- I was first turned onto his site by an Objectivist couple I knew, and the first thing I watched one of his youtube videos...well I have just ordered this guys book and I can't wait to read it, because I have been listening to them on mp3 FOR FREE

He has read Rand extensively, and Brandon and many other "rational" psychologists, he was an Objectivist for 20 years. I think he has great insight -- Listen to some of his videos or podcasts on issues that you are interested in using the Phylo-Physician (found on the main page, linked above.. just scroll down a little bit to find it) and you can plug in your interests

edit:

here is a feed my friend made for me that is a good "round up" summary of the psychological side. enjoy :thumbsup:

Stefan Molyneux is anarcho-capitalist and believes that the state is actually a human farm. Don't you see anything wrong with that?.. Also, he dislikes family because they are not voluntary...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with disliking family associations because they aren't voluntary? They aren't, and if you're letting your family dictate your life strictly because you happen to be related to them, then you do have a problem. If, on the other hand, you have a good family and voluntarily associate with your family members because you have a good friendly relationship, that's different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with disliking family associations because they aren't voluntary? They aren't, and if you're letting your family dictate your life strictly because you happen to be related to them, then you do have a problem. If, on the other hand, you have a good family and voluntarily associate with your family members because you have a good friendly relationship, that's different.

there are many families of the first kind, but their parents does not understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stef is a lot of good and a lot of bad combined. His anti-government and anti-military bullshit has gotten more and more perverse lately, though. Athena linked to a feed, and in one of the podcasts, he basically goes on and on about how no one who defends military service can ever be rational and they are accepting this "false self" which he provides no empirical evidence for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stef is a lot of good and a lot of bad combined.

This is my feeling exactly. Since I posted in this thread, I have long left Freedomain Radio because of philosophical differences.

That being said, I still have learned a lot from Stef, and still think that there is a lot of value in his take on psychology. I would still advocate a visit to his website to someone struggling with psychological issues, even if I don't agree with the man completely. Just be sure to "check your premises"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my feeling exactly. Since I posted in this thread, I have long left Freedomain Radio because of philosophical differences.

That being said, I still have learned a lot from Stef, and still think that there is a lot of value in his take on psychology. I would still advocate a visit to his website to someone struggling with psychological issues, even if I don't agree with the man completely. Just be sure to "check your premises"!

I am still exploring his website and have read some of his books. To say about his anti-government and anti-military views. Well, it makes sense why he believes so then you read into his writings. In one of his books, 'Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof Of Secular Ethics', he states that if it is amoral for a man to murder, it must be amoral for a soldier too. Also, he claims that taxation is theft since we don't choose to pay or not to pay them. It all makes sense if you live in a country like mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch Molyneux's stuff on youtube occasionally. I think the bulk of his insight is in the realm of personal relationships. He seems to have some good advice on identifying toxic people and gathering the courage to treat them justly. Also, many of the arguments he makes for market anarchy can be adapted to defend capitalism just as powerfully. Watching him can be a good study in rhetoric, especially for an Objectivist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I was looking on the internet for the same subject and found this topic from a couple of years ago...

Can't believe nobody mentioned Nathaniel Branden! He is not a full fled objectivist when it comes to politics, but his books are very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

What is most valuable about Beck's et al Cognitive Behavior Therapy is its methodology, which is: the Scientific Method applied to the individual case. While there is tremendous overlap between Beck's and Ellis' ideas, I invite you to dig around until you can find a video of Albert Ellis himself demonstrating his therapy to a "client," to see what the difference involves. In school in the 70's, there was, for example, a compliation titled, I think, "Three Therapists," which we watched in glorious 8mm. This may or may not be available on Amazon, and I have not checked to see whther anything comes up on a YouTube search. (The other two were Carl Rogers and Fritz Perls, who are unworthy of the effort to criticize in an Objectivist Forum.) But basically, Ellis is nothing short of a bully. An Attila. With the patient, excuse me, "client," chosen for the film, by the end, she has shown herself to be sufficiently resilient for his verbal onslaught, and does benefit from replacing some irrational ideas with rational ones.

Now, what I consider to be Bullying when a person with a problem comes to a professional for assistance, and pays for that assistance, I would not consider to be Bullying in a debate between two people enthusiastic about a topic with the agreed purpose of discerning the truth by the method of debate. IMNSHO, the contract is different. My patients do not voluntarily purchase my time for me to berate them, nor do they purchase my debating skills. Quite the contrary, what they consciously intend to purchase is medical care.

Albert Ellis, Ph.D., was a psychologist, whose doctoral study focused on learning theory, and I'm not sure whether he had any clinical training at all, such as it was at the time. (Please correct me on this if I am mistaken.) Aaron Beck, M.D., and John Rush, M.D., his protege, are physicians who specialize in psychiatry. Despite mountains of egalitarian rhetoric, the two are not interchangeable, and it goes beyond prescribing privileges.

Granted, Rand condemned deontologic ethics as one means of control employed by Witch Doctors, if I understand this correctly. Nevertheless, so far I have found nothing irrational or inconsistent in the physician's oath, wherein he freely and voluntarily assumes a Duty of Care toward his patients. When a free individual contracts with a physician for medical care, what that individual understands is that he will enter into a Doctor-Patient Relationship, unchanged in any essential way for millennia.

The model followed by psychology and other non-medical therapists and counselors is, indeed, consistent with their use of the term "client," i.e., it is a consultation: I come to you for advice on a matter, but I don't expect you to assume responsibility for curing me of any illness.

Here, too, "assuming responsibility for another" for anything at all sounds anathema to objectivism, especially the concept "responsibility for another's well-being." And again, I suggest the practice of medicine is a unique instance, and often comes close to the Ethics of Emergencies on a regular basis. Further, outside such emergencies, I suggest that it is not living one's life for the sake of another to agree, freely, voluntarily, and for a fair fee, for a physician to accept responsibility for his patients' well-being. Thought Experiment: Take this out of the specialty of psychiatry, and imagine the surgeon about to create a bypass for your coronary arteries, and consider whether in is un-objectivist for him to assume responsibility for your life! No, the practice of psychiatry is not thoracic surgery, but it is medicine, and it does often encounter life-or-death situations.

So, Ellis the Hun verbally assaults the citizens who consult him for advice until they drink his Kool-Aid, i.e., accept his demands about what is rational and what is not, and gives nothing more than hypocritical lip-service to assisting the "client" to think for himself in emotional matters.

Aaron Beck begins by teaching his patients the scientific method: that is, "Hm... Let's see if that thought, that makes you depressed, fits with reality or not. Here's how you can find out. It's called an Experiment." CBT then progresses from thoughts, to cognitive biases, to Premises, from dimly conscious formation of the same to enlightenment, raised consciousness, truer free will, and ultimately to Reason and greater potential for peace of mind and happiness. And, the patient learns how to think rationally in the process. In fact, that skill is fundamental to the success of CBT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another interesting resource is Alberti & Emmons, Your Perfect Right, now in its ninth edition. It has been called the "Bible of Assertiveness Training." Throughout this volume, the approach to assertiveness training is:

I respect your rights, not my own = Nonassertiveness. Not Good.

I respect my rights, not yours = Aggressiveness. Not Good.

I have equal respect for both my rights and yours = Assertiveness. Good.

The flaw in the book, and it is a profound one, is how they establish the philosophical foundation for equal respect for both my rights and yours. It is not because Homo sapiens is the top of the food chain, that human life wherever found is the highest value and the beginning of value. It is for them, instead, some of the most disturbing radical egalitarianism you might find anywhere. "Employees are equal to Bosses (NOT: "Producers of Wealth")," "Students (who naturally know less) are equal to Teachers (who are being paid to impart their knowledge)," etc. There is a complete disavowal of any form of hierarchy whatsoever. They give more than the rhetorical advantage to the collective, the hive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am most grateful for the resources and references mentioned above.

OBTW, in an email exchange a few years ago, I asked Dr. Branden of his opinion of Beck and Ellis and the whole cognitive psychology revolution. He dismissed them all as beneath contempt, but his reply was reactive whim, not rational argument. I don't know that he has no rational argument for this, as perhaps I was a gnat also beneath contempt who had not earned any time or effort on his part. :smartass:

Be well,

Anthony C. Patterson MD

Edited by PremiseChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't believe nobody mentioned Nathaniel Branden! He is not a full fled objectivist when it comes to politics, but his books are very good.

Erm, Branden was actually mentioned by the thread originator, who was explicitly looking for Objectivist psychologists *other* than Branden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...