Feeling Good
All of us need to feel good. People, politicians, teachers, movie-star
personalities, all of us have this fundamental need. All or most are driven by this need – even if
you or I think they’ve run astray.
Even psychologists need to feel good, and for
them they need to feel they make a difference in their treatment of
patients. Rarely, will one tell us they
tried and tried but nothing worked.
Indeed, they need affirmation, often self-affirmation, of treatment success. And this makes them feel good.
Only a few psychologists are in possession of the
power to suggest the release criminally troubled (or insane) patients back into
the world of us all. To feel good they
have been successful in their treatments is not enough in a such a totally
subjective environment. We must have
strict criteria for the release of troubled people, particularly those with a
proclivity to violence. What can be done
is unclear to me. But something should
be done.
- a. From an economic viewpoint, these who are so troubled are really expensive to maintain.
- b. From a law enforcement viewpoint, these who are so troubled are time-bombs ‘a-ticking.
- c. From a societal viewpoint, these who are so troubled cause anxiety making us nervous.
That we can “put a man on the moon” sounds
great, exemplifying the prevailing attitude we must have higher levels of
intelligence. Does this apply to psychology,
psychological evaluations and psychologist’s intuitions?
Now to the church murders in Texas this
week. From my viewpoint, from what has
been reported, this killer, Devin Kelley, had been troubled for years and years
but given a pass simply too many times. What
to do for this and many other cases? A
most difficult question - for which no clear answer presents.
A Solution?
Here is an idea that comes from my world,
academics, to try to minimize bias in evaluation of scholarly work. It is the idea of blind reviewing. This means the work is given to three
referees without names to independently evaluate. The work is not accepted unless the referees
concur it should be published. Perhaps
some adaptation of this for mental cases – that is a blind evaluation of their
cases be performed by three “referees,” all experienced psychologists. The patient becomes eligible for release if
all three concur. Tell me this is flawed
and I will agree. Yet, it does introduce
a degree of impartiality completely unavailable if the case rests with the
patient’s principal service provider.
-----------------------------
THE FIRST POST
It’s all about feeling good. In years past, folks would go to church and sit patiently for one hour, contribute a few dollars, and come away feeling good. This was their total commitment. ------------------------------------------------
My first post on feeling good.
Today, in our nano-world, many of the wealthy football players have the same need – to feel good. Their obligation is to kneel patiently in their preferred church, the playing field, for three minutes of the national anthem. They feel good, and maybe the boo’s make them feel a sacrifice has been made.
Our nano-world of sound bites, quick jabs, and instant commitment pervades within the Hollywood elite, students, many news wonks, and now sports. They commit a few minutes, perhaps an hour, coming away feeling good they have done something of value. This nano-goodness is enough for them.
In contrast… The first responders in recent hurricanes, the physicians traveling to disaster areas, and those few missionaries that commit days, weeks, and even lifetimes to helping others actually do something. They have the right to feel good. For them, nano-goodness is not nearly enough.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.