October 11, 2008 2:06 AM | Posted by Felix: | Reply

Ok, one or two posts on the economy, I don't mind. But I'm beginning to wonder if this is a blog about the economy or psychiatry.

Score: -1 (1 votes cast)

October 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Posted by xon: | Reply

The precise problem to which Alone addresses himself (well, at least one of them. . .) is that we all pathologically compartmentalize our reality. We blithely entrust with our mortgages, investments, government and homes, with people from whom we would, justifiably, flee in horror if we met them in a circumstance providing us any glimpse whatsoever of their psychology.

These posts illuminate the effects of that.

Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

October 11, 2008 7:12 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Agreed Felix. I'm getting pretty sick of the economy posts here. They're not as interesting or insightful as the psychiatry ones.

Score: -1 (1 votes cast)

October 11, 2008 7:21 PM | Posted by m (2): | Reply

xon, your comment reminds me of one who freely interprets the "meaning" of an artist's work using pseudo-sophisticated language that is little more than a combination of projection and BS.

I'm not sure, either, how much of this is about "pathology," "compartmentalized reality," or "psychology," and how much of it reflects his preoccupation with the frightening economic situation we find ourselves in.

Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

October 12, 2008 2:14 AM | Posted by David: | Reply

It's the guy's blog ... let him write whatever he wants. I've benefitted from his take on narcissism, the melding of creative writing and the DSM IV-V and the curious world of therapy, studies and psychopharmacology, just to name a few.

These economic entries seem pretty fear-fueled, giving off a sonorous, end of the world raga, but hey ... it's bad times for many over-leveraged professionals, including psychiatrists. I'd hazard a guess that people used to being in control are more emotionally buffeted by these kinds of events.

Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

October 12, 2008 2:24 PM | Posted by xon: | Reply

While you morons are busy whistling that, "it's not so bad" and "keep stroking my narcissism, damn it!", Alone is pointing out the problems that are looming ahead, rather than burying his head in the sand, or saying that we can't do anything about it.

m(2) strikes me as one of 'those people' who are so suffused with their own blinkered worldview that it actually offends them to the point of insult when somebody actually points out that mind impacts body impacts culture impacts society, and if you want to keep society from imploding you have to avoid doing what has blown it up in the past. You also have to look outside your rote-learned slave education to realize that reality is interconnected. A narcissist with the reins of power does not cause psychiatric stress. They kill millions of innocents. I'd say that makes psychiatry important to economics.

Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

October 12, 2008 3:03 PM | Posted by m (2): | Reply

xon,

Go on spouting your opinions and moral indignation at being challenged on your analysis of this blog. I kind of expected the response you gave (thanks for being predictable).

I think you've misread me, but that's okay. My take on recent entries in this blog is that "Alone" is trying to make sense of what's going on in the world around him. You can't allow him to be confused or afraid; he has to be in control for you, and everything he writes has to have a codified meaning. How about seeing him as a human being, rather than some kind of prophet immune from the stark reality of current events.

And do try to keep your own narcissism in check.

Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

October 12, 2008 3:52 PM | Posted by xon: | Reply

m(2),

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/argue.html

Neener neener doesn't constitute a credible argument.

The definition of professional can be reduced to "One who attempts to make sense of the world around him." Alone's faults notwithstanding, he had ably proven himself to be professional.

Rather than arguing from his own 'personal meaning', as you do, he is pointing out that the arguments being made and actions being taken conform to an already established vocabulary of, in this case, history and law. By pointing this out, he steps over the safe boundaries of professional psychiatry and shows the readers that something that seems new or "out of control" is actually well known, and understandable. (And in this case, understandable means worthy of being avoided.)

Your statement about how I have to control his analysis is transparently paternalistic. I read to learn, not to control. On the other hand, you've posted twice to resist his interpretation so that it doesn't disturb the categorization of the world you've undertaken in your mind. That obviously disturbs you.

Rather than a prophet, I appreciate this blog for his humanity, rather than its 'professional' agenda. Over and over again, Alone (sorry to be invoking names so frequently) dissolves the artificial 'boundaries' between bodies of knowledge and observes the world as a whole. The starkness of current world events has identifiable and comprehensible causes. Pointing this out hardly constitutes 'overstepping one's professional bounds'.

My indignation stems from the other comments here trying to tell Alone to, "Stay in his lane." Your tut-tutting only more clearly shows your stripes.

Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

October 12, 2008 7:06 PM | Posted by m (2): | Reply

xon,

First of all, there was no "neener neener," except what issued from your keyboard, so you can stop trying to obfuscate now.

I'm not trying to tell Alone to "stay in his lane," I'm telling you you're a prententious, pseudo-intellectual narcissist who is trying to feed us your interpretation of what "Alone" is saying, and I'm not buying it. Did I make myself clear this time?

In fact, I haven't attacked Alone at all. I've attacked you. How have you failed to notice that?

This is "Alone's" blog; he's free to do with it as he pleases. I don't think he needs an apologist (you), nor do the rest of us need an interpreter (you). If other people want to comment on missing the more typical psychiatric topics, that's their business.

Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

October 12, 2008 8:02 PM | Posted by xon: | Reply

You're absolutely providing tonight's entertainment. Let's take it from the top:

There is no measurable difference between: Go on spouting your opinions and moral indignation at being challenged on your analysis of this blog. I kind of expected the response you gave (thanks for being predictable). and "neener neener" except that one takes a slightly larger vocabulary and at least suggests you should know better.

If you had enjoyed the poignantly humorous website I suggested to you, you would have seen that pretentious pseudo-intellectuals favor arguments like:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to oranges.
What are your parameters? or
You can stop trying to obfuscate now.

I don't know you, so I can only make guesses as to your linguistic decorum, but
"Ok, one or two posts on the economy, I don't mind. But I'm beginning to wonder if this is a blog about the economy or psychiatry."

and

"Agreed Felix. I'm getting pretty sick of the economy posts here. They're not as interesting or insightful as the psychiatry ones."

generally don't pass in civilized company as supportive commentary. So, I thought I'd chime in and provide a counterpoint.

Then comes m(2) to the rescue. Reeking of black-bereted beatnick daddy-o poseur, he takes it upon himself to attack me. (Don't deny it; you just bragged about it. . .) You're just the kind of type that would have been quite happy having fellated yourself a spot on the East India Co. board -- oblivious to reasoned criticism, pretentious in presuming to understand discourse above your comprehension, and extremely liberal in your conviction that you have the by-god-given right to "lay a bit of stick about" wherever you might presume to visit.

The original post referred to the similarities between the formation of a Crown Joint Stock Corporation that, over it's history visited considerable suffering and dislocation across at least 3 continents, by virtue of it's being a co-mingled entity of private capital and sovereign police power; and the recent events in our country's economy and government. The comparison is, objectively, apt.

It's significance is that almost everyone outside of the Directors and the King's Ministers failed to understand the volatility and corrosiveness of all the Joint Stock companies, and thus did not strangle them in their infancy as would have been prudent given the centuries of trouble they brought. So these economic 'facilities' that we are watching, sheep-like, come into existence to vex our lives, our neighbor's, and our children's.

Since one of Alone's other themes is the defaulting of social services to the profession of psychiatry, his particular making of the point is both relevant, and appropriate. Once our economy is ravaged by the socio-economic oppression that will emerge essentially unchanged from the historic example shared in the OP, people like Alone will face the brunt of the pain.

So, rather than whining that he's not talking about high-heeled white shoes, pubic hair, teenage girls, oral sex and MMS chicks, and other things you appear desperately too uptight to have ever actually experienced, I suggested that we pay attention to the things that he is warning are coming as a consequence of the discussion in his post (things that you, on the other hand, would seem to be much more familiar with): a brutal ass-fucking by a rich banker or a corrupt government bureaucrat.

Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

October 12, 2008 11:11 PM | Posted by m (2): | Reply

Bwahahahahahaha. That narcissistic injury stung, didn't it, xon?

Thanks for proving my point so eloquently. :D

Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

October 13, 2008 3:39 AM | Posted by fraise: | Reply

I too appreciate the economy posts and their link with psychiatry. It's transparently obvious that the psychology of those "running" the economy (I don't have the time to write something more accurate, so will go with that shorthand) impacts our country. It's nice to see those links explored openly.

A related remark was someone's comment on MetaFilter, actually -- it went something like "none of the smart kids in school wanted to be businessmen". Although anecdotal, it's true for all the smartest people I've known. Only *one* is in big business, none in finance. (The exception is director of a business unit, but is staunchly upright and doesn't fall prey to power-hungry narcissists, which is immensely refreshing. His unit is vibrant, diverse and -- how about that -- productive.) Who are the classmates who did go into finance? The ones who played the system: who got straight As because they took the easiest classes and/or cheated on tests, and the one whose father was a big-name lawyer and strong-armed his son's university into giving him passing grades.

Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

October 13, 2008 11:27 AM | Posted by Paul: | Reply

m (2), I'm not sure where you're coming from. xon's analysis seems right on the money to me, and nowhere does he claim that "Alone" can't be afraid or human. Nor does he elevate him to prophet status. Just a man giving us his take on the financial crisis and what it could mean for our future.

The Ponzi scheme, live-outside-your-means economy we've had for the last 25 years seems very relevant to the culture's psyche at large, if there is such a thing. And if there isn't (or the economy isn't relevant to it), you're not making your case very well.

Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

October 13, 2008 12:14 PM | Posted by MedsVsTherapy: | Reply

Wow. This is the most excitement I have heard in this joint in a long time.

I just want to clarify: was that an end-of-the-world raga, or an end-of-the-raga world?

And what would be an end-of-the-world raga? It ends, but not nearly as quickly as other endings? It descends down a similar, but not the same, set of steps, as that which it rose up?

Is there a reincarnation overtone to the choice of the raga versus some other song form?

Was this a typo? Was this supposed to be "Rage?" Or "Rant?" Or "Rag?" Like: instead of the "fixin to die rag," we have the 'end-of-the-world rag?' Can someone post the mp3 of the end-of-the-world raga? Is it on bittorrent? Are there copyright concerns? DRM rootkit? Thanks!

Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

October 13, 2008 12:59 PM | Posted by xon: | Reply

October 12, 2008 11:11 PM | Posted by m (2): | Reply

Bwahahahahahaha. That narcissistic injury stung, didn't it, xon?

Thanks for proving my point so eloquently. :D

neener-neener. q.e.d.

Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

October 13, 2008 6:45 PM | Posted, in reply to MedsVsTherapy's comment, by David: | Reply

Thanks for asking. It was an end of the world raga, no typos, no doubt about it. But more than that, I thought I'd employed a suitably pretentious allusion to these series of mock, mytho-poetic musings on the economy.

As you've shown a laudable interest in ragas, I thought I'd close with the following:

Most importantly, a raga must evoke a particular emotion or create a certain 'mood,' which is hard to define, however. As the term raga itself implies, it should 'colour' the mind, bring delight, move the listeners and stimulate an emotional response. In other words, the concept of raga, which has evolved over a period of two millennia, eludes an adequate brief definition. It is an open-ended concept in which the association of a particular raga with a specific emotional state, a season or time of day, though intangible, is as relevant as its melodic structure.

Score: 0 (0 votes cast)