Physics & Psychology

[BIGBANGSingh]

I'm looking for books on physics & psychology, respectively, that provide systematic presentations of the respective subjects, & also agree w/ Objectivism. Books written by Objectivists would be preferred. Any suggestions?

[Old Geezer]

In terms of Psychology, you might want to check out books by Albert Ellis. He is the founder of a school of therapy known as Ratioanal Emotive Behavior Therapy

While not a full fledged objectivist, most of his theories/applications rest on objectivist principles.

A) that thoughts are precursors to emotions.

People will be happier if they eliminate irrational thoughts from their lives.

C) People are capable of free will and are not slaves of their behavioral conditioning as behavioralists say, nor are they slaves of their early childhood experiences as psychodynamic thinkers assert, nor are they slaves of their emotions as humanists tend to believe.

D their is an objective reality and people are capable of perceiving it accurately

E. Religion is not grounded in reason and causes dysfunction in people's lives. (for instance he thought AA was evil because people suffered under the illusion that they were not in control of their lives, God was... he founded a group called Rational Recovery which tried to rationalize and secularize the 12 steps)

F. It is possible for a therapist to be able to think more objectively than a student, but that a student may then learn to think objectively and thus be able to eventually sever his relationship with the therapist.

Those are the ones that come to mind.

[danielshrugged]

David Harriman, an Objectivist, is working on a book on the history of physics called The Anti-Copernican Revolution. But it isn't available yet, and I don't know when it will be.

[BIGBANGSingh]

I thought Albert Ellis denounces Objectivism?

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/other/religion.html

[poohat]

Nathaniel Branden has written many books on Psychology which integrate well with Objectivism. "The 5 Pillars of Self Esteem" and "Honoring the Self" are his 2 best selling works, I believe.

[Old Geezer]

Ellis does apparently denounce objectivism,(and is not an objectivist) but mostly just what he saw as its "dogmatic" audience. As far as actual psychologists writing books, Ellis is one of the closest practitioners you can get to an objectionist.

I guess the importance of Ellis is that he is considered the founder of the "cognitivist" school of psychology, which draws strongly on Objectivist principles, some of which I mentioned.

In atlas shrugged Rand mentions psychologists that are critisized because "they dared to suggest that men can think"

This is essentially what a cognitivist does. A cognitivist essentially believes that the chronology of things goes like this;

A)The environmental stimuli comes first (such as a Girlfriend telling you its over)

the Perception/Interpretation comes next (you decide it means nobody wants to date you or you decide it means that its over with her but you will still keep going and your life will be just fine you will find someone else to date)

c) the behavioral response comes next.

This is very much in line with an objectivist understanding of how people work. If you are capable of writing off what Ellis perceived as dogmatism as a mistake in thinking, you can accept most of the rest of his work as grounded in objectivist principles.

If however this does not work for you you might want to look at the work of Aaron Beck.

[BIGBANGSingh]

Nathaniel Branden has written many books on Psychology which integrate well with Objectivism. "The 5 Pillars of Self Esteem" and "Honoring the Self" are his 2 best selling works, I believe.

From sources I trust I hear his only good book is really "The Psychology of Self-Esteem," and the rest of his stuff is kind of junk. Anyone want to confirm/deny this?

[BIGBANGSingh]

David Harriman, an Objectivist, is working on a book on the history of physics called The Anti-Copernican Revolution. But it isn't available yet, and I don't know when it will be.

Yeah, I plan on getting this, and am also looking forward to "Induction in Physics & Philosophy" by Peikoff & Harriman.

[BIGBANGSingh]

Ellis does apparently denounce objectivism,(and is not an objectivist) but mostly just  what he saw as  its "dogmatic" audience.  As far as actual psychologists writing books, Ellis is one of the closest practitioners you can get to an objectionist.

I guess the importance of Ellis is that he is considered the founder of the "cognitivist" school of psychology, which draws strongly on Objectivist principles, some of which I mentioned.

In atlas shrugged  Rand mentions psychologists that are critisized because "they dared to suggest that men can think"

This is essentially what a cognitivist does. A cognitivist essentially believes that  the chronology of things goes like this;

A)The environmental stimuli comes first (such as a Girlfriend telling you its over)

the Perception/Interpretation comes next (you decide it means nobody wants to date you or you decide it means that its over with her but you will still keep going and your life will  be just fine you will find someone else to date)

c) the behavioral response comes next.

This is very much in line with an objectivist understanding of how people work.  If you are capable of writing off what Ellis perceived as dogmatism as a mistake in thinking, you can accept most of the rest of his work as grounded in objectivist principles.

If however this does not work for you you might want to look at the work of Aaron Beck.

Would you consider this his best and most comprehensive book?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

[RadCap]

Harriman is definitely a good source fior physics.

For psychology, if you must consult Branden, read his stuff before the 'split'. After that, he progressively accepted many of the same errors that those in TOC have embraced.

There is a psychologist you may consult for materials. Dr. Michael Hurd. He has worked closely with Peikoff (including on his radio show) and also participates on HBL.

See if there is anything on his site which might interest you.

http://www.drhurd.com/publications/

[Old Geezer]

"Would you consider this his best and most comprehensive book?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books "

Well, the table of contents looks like it might be a good start... I guess it depends on what you are reading it for... If you are experiencing emotional pain you might want to consider purchasing a book which directly addresses those issues. If you are interested in it for philisophical reasons it might be best to see if you can hunt down a copy of his more theoretical works....

HOWEVER

the beauty of a system like ellis's is that it's coherence/consistancy make it pretty easy to "Boil down" to core principles.

What that means is that a great deal of his work is accessible via the web.

you might, for instance first check out

12 irrational beliefs

or what is REBT

[Old Geezer]

FYI

While the articles Dr. Hurd posted on his site are worth perusing, there are reasons to view his credentials as a psychologist with some skepticism.

A)He states that " Freudian view... is still the dominant influence on therapists today"

This is absolutely and empircally untrue and has been for many years. The most influential schools of thought in among psychologists is the cognitive behavioral school. Research consistantly supports this.

(If you doubt it flip through a Graduate School book some time and peruse what percentage of various schools faculty come from "psycho-analytic, or humanist or existential" schools of thought...or ask a psychologist what the most popular diagnostic tool for diagnosing depression is, its the Beck Depression Scale which is based on assessing whether patients assessments of their reality is accurate...)

He has not apparently published any scientific research. (I didnt find any on his list of publications))

C) The saybrook Institute seems to be some sort of distance learning program.(and a rogerian leaning one at that) I suppose in theory they can work, but in my experience, the best Graduate programs are those that allow for the most active exchange between canidates and their supervisors...

D)Im not even sure if he is licensed as a full fledged psychologist.

E. Most of his ideas seem to stem from Beck and Ellis anyway, and those two have mountains of research to support their theory, so it might be worth just going straight to the source.

That being said, his sight is extremely interesting and his articles make sense and are witty.

[RadCap]

What a smear piece.

What Dr. Hurd has made available on his site is good BUT his 'credentials' to actually say things about psychologist are suspect.

Why?

A. I disagree with his supposed characterization of of other psychologists. This disagreement makes his psychological viewpoint suspect in my book.

2. Any good psychologist should write books. He hasnt, which means what he knows about psychology is suspect.

C. While I wont claim his education was bad and thus his knowledge of psychology is deficient, I will question the *style* of the educational institute where he got his PhD. As such, I will throw his knowledge of phychology into question.

D. I'm not sure if he has govt approval to practice psychology.

E. Most of this objectivist's psychological ideas appear to come from others (who are not objectivists). I don't necessarily have a problem with them, so in recommending Objectivist texts, I suggest you go to some non-objectivists instead of this objectivist.

But of course, remember - I still like what Dr.Hurd has written or said. I just want to throw into question HIM - his background and qualifications - not what he says. Really. I mean how could anything I have just said make one suspect the validity of anything he says or writes?

--

Or - put more simply: I will explicitly state his work is good, but will imply it is actually not good. How? By attempting to create doubt about the author and his knowledge of his field - and thus about anything he says on the topic.

[Old Geezer]

"A. I disagree with his supposed characterization of of other psychologists. This disagreement makes his psychological viewpoint suspect in my book."

Radcap

A) its not supposed its actual, he links it on ihis site.

I commented on his credentials as a psychologist, not his "psychological viewpoint"

c) someones lack of knowledge about the theoretical influences in the field which he claims to speak certainly speaks to his credentials as a professional.

"2. Any good psychologist should write books. He hasnt, which means what he knows about psychology is suspect."

A)I didn't say books, I said scientific reseearch. (or theory papers for that matter)

"C. While I wont claim his education was bad and thus his knowledge of psychology is deficient, I will question the *style* of the educational institute where he got his PhD. As such, I will throw his knowledge of phychology into question."

Just as I do not assume that "state run media" are necessarilly printing false stories, I do not assume that "distance education" is not adequate. However, just as there are reasons to doubt that state run media stories have received the proper scrutiny, so to are there reasonsto suspect that Dr. Hurd's "research"(wherever that is) did not receive the proper scrutiny. (Those reasons include the fact that no Distance Learning center that I have had contact with applies much scrutiny, the lower GPA required for applicants, the minimal test scores required for applicants, and the lack of national licensure)

"D. I'm not sure if he has govt approval to practice psychology."

Im not even sure if he has the approval of any group that recognizes psychologists.

"E. Most of this objectivist's psychological ideas appear to come from others (who are not objectivists). I don't necessarily have a problem with them, so in recommending Objectivist texts, I suggest you go to some non-objectivists instead of this objectivist."

If the question is about who is more objectivist there is no question , But since this thread is about psychologists it certainly makes sense to refer one to a psychologist who has actually done research about the subject.

"Or - put more simply: I will explicitly state his work is good, but will imply it is actually not good. How? By attempting to create doubt about the author and his knowledge of his field - and thus about anything he says on the topic."

Im sorry you got that impression.... His "work" in the field of psychology is not good....(If you can call a bunch of op-eds and a few self help books "work in pcyhology")Interesting maybe, witty perhaps, maybe even coherent, but by no means good as science

[MinorityOfOne]

Bear in mind that Hurd is professionally a therapist, not a theoretical or research psychologist, so it's not surprising that he hasn't published journal articles or theoretical books. So while I disagree with Geezer's implication that it constitutes a reason to think that Hurd is incompetent, it does mean that he hasn't done what Singh was looking for. If you want for a systematic presentation of psychology written by an Objectivist, you won't find one from Hurd.

I'd recommend buying copies of the older compiled Objectivist journals: The Objectivist, The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist Forum. You'll find most of Branden's "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" in them, since it's largely just a compilation of his essays anyway. (He hasn't done much since then except rehash the same stuff; his books after that are really only at all valuable if you find his case studies interesting.) There's also some material in there by Edith Packer, who did some valuable work... you can find some of it for purchase at http://capitalism.net/ as well. (I think she might have had some articles in older issues of The Intellectual Activist, though I'm not sure about that; it might be worth poking around the back issues section of the TIA website.)

Also, if you're interested in psycho-epistemology, read Branden's old articles on it, Rand's articles on it, Packer's articles on it, and Binswanger's lectures on it. (There might be more writers I'm missing, too.)

If you're looking for a total systematic presentation of all areas of psychology, though, no one influenced by Objectivism has published anything of the sort. I know of some really damned smart Objectivist graduate students studying psychology, though, so there's hope for the future.

[RadCap]

I am not dealing with OG's ntellectual dishonesty any further. I intend no further discussion with him as it would serve no end but to provide his irrationality sanction.

If others have questions about my post, I will happily answer them.

[Old Geezer]

"I am not dealing with OG's ntellectual dishonesty any further. I intend no further discussion with him as it would serve no end but to provide his irrationality sanction"

Rad cap

as you have done twice now you have called my posts "irrational" without posting evidence to support your claim.

[AshRyan]

Nathaniel Branden has written many books on Psychology which integrate well with Objectivism. "The 5 Pillars of Self Esteem" and "Honoring the Self" are his 2 best selling works, I believe.

Just as a point of fact, I believe the book is called "The Six Pillars of Self Esteem."

[BIGBANGSingh]

What about Pinker's "How the Mind Works" or "The Blank Slate?" Any good?

[Old Geezer]

BigBang

I guesss youll need to be more specific about why you are interested in these books...

If you are interested in research that proves that objectivist principles can be applied well to people seeking psychological help, you should probably check out the works of Aaron Beck or Albert Ellis....

If you want to gain a broad understanding of the major schools of thought/research within psychology, an introductory text would help.

If you are interested in self help, most any of the books above could help...

etc etc etc

[BIGBANGSingh]

BigBang

I guesss youll need to be more specific about why you are interested in these books...

If you are interested in research that proves that objectivist principles can be applied well to people seeking psychological help, you should probably check out the works of Aaron Beck or Albert Ellis....

If you want to gain a broad understanding of the major schools of thought/research within psychology, an introductory text would help.

If you are interested in self help, most any of the books above could help...

etc etc etc

Well, I'm interested in both Psycho-Epistemology & Self-Esteem, hence my query on Pinker's & Branden's books.

[C-Wolf]

Pinker is good, but he won't help you with psycho-epistemology. In terms of self-esteem, if you are looking for something other than Brandon/Ellis, check out Abraham Maslow. The scraps of his theory that they teach in Psych 101 don't do his work justice. His notions of self-esteem and self-actualization fit in nicely with Aristotelian/Randian philosophy. In fact, he cites Rand numerous times in his book _Motivation and Personality_, which, incidentally, is the book I consider his best. If you are interested in issues relating to philosophy of mind, you can groove on John Searle; he is generally excellent.

[MinorityOfOne]

Yeah, Searle is very good. "The Mystery of Consciousness" is a good book to start with; it's basically a collection of academic book reviews, so it's a pretty broad introduction to his ideas. I intend to pick up "The Construction of Social Reality" when I get a chance.