What used to be called “hysterical” we would now call an incest survivor. A “histrionic” would be a type of narcissist. The British are more comfortable retaining categories than the APA, so they also use terms like “dependent masochistic” for codependency. This term is unacceptable to American feminists as a female stereotype, but I think I know more codependent men than women.
1 Like
No. Getting emotional is a negative not because who does it but because it leads to faulty decisionmaking. Generally a bad idea.
1 Like
Just to flesh this out a bit…
Freud got his start analyzing “Dora”, the daughter of his good friend. She was the first patient to be labeled “hysterical”. And yes, the reason she needed the therapy (good therapy, not the self- and friend-serving nonsense she got instead) was because she was the victim of her dad’s incest. You know, Freud’s dear friend. Somehow it was all Dora’s fault.
1 Like
And that is one of the saddest things I’ve seen in a while.
Freudians still use the word “hysteria” but I think it is understood to mean “adult survivor,” and this is an example of what has greatly diminished the public’s understanding of psychology or psychoanalysis:
- A tradition of all out political warfare over jargon and concepts that may have been rendered obsolete decades earlier.
- Blatantly rewriting history to ignore all the other schools of psychoanalysis.
- But still appropriating concepts from other schools without acknowledging them.
- Pretty much ignoring anything learned in the treatment of addiction because it leads away from Freudian concepts of compulsion towards Adlerian concepts of power (and Adler does not exist in their canon). This extends to anything else where people get supportive therapy in a group setting, such as adult survivor groups (Al-Anon etc) including those for incest.
- Devotion to the idea of the therapeutic power of discovering repressed memories in a dramatic Big Reveal, when many people know exactly what happened to them, which reduces the analyst to Captain Obvious.
- Largely ruining the exploration of the use of “regression” as an emotional defense by tangling it up in concepts of infant sexuality, then being baffled by the way adults respond to stress with flat emotionless lying.
- The extension of all these habits into psychoanalytic training programs which focus on initiating analysts into specific orthodoxies.
I feel like this reduces the value of psychoanalysis something like 40% However, I don’t roll in all the historical sins of psychoanalysis because Freud was born before the American Civil War in addition to being a very provincial person who simply did not get out much. I recently read Fenichel’s “The Psychoanalytic Theory Of Neurosis” (1945), and half of it was great and another third was utterly absurd.
1 Like
On “The Critic,” Jay (Jon Lovitz) begs his rich elderly New England WASP mother for any sign of emotion, but she says sternly “Jay, emotions are for ethnic people.”
And that invalidates my claim exactly… how?
FFS, psychoanalysis does not begin and end with Sigmund Freud. In any case, the controversy about the term hysteria was in reference to a remark made by Wil Wheaton, and in reference to a man, at that. There is no sense in wringing our hands over how sexist this usage may or not have been, without knowing the intentions of the speaker. I don’t have any context to suggest this, and think it’s a diversion anyway.
“probably” a logical fallacy? Oh okay. If you say so.
Could you provide your research and sources that helped youc ome to the multiple claims you’ve made inyour comment?
gamers are compulsive based on their compulsive game play.
This, especially. What gamers? All gamers? How do you define gamers? What about your definition of compulsive game play? How did you come to the conlusion that gamers compulisvley play games?
Do you play games? Or is this just about other gamers?
How they bicker confirms that they are compulsive
How did you come to this conclusion?
but that in itself doesn’t prove anything about games since the identical conflict could be had with non-gamers.
What do you mean by “identical conflict”? Why aren’t you even attempting to define your terms?
We have the ability to read beteween the lines. The fact that you’re comparing Anita Sarkeesian and the death threats and harrassment she’s had to deal with, to Benghazi, is pretty telling.
Can you define what you mean by “getting emotional” and exaclty when it starts to lead to “faulty decisionmaking” and also why it’s “generally a bad idea”? Also, who gets to determine when someone else is being emotinoal, and using what standards? And what is the oposite of “not getting emotional”? Are we not supposed to have emotion about anything at all, ever, whenever we discuss something or ist here some sort of line and how is that line determined, and again, who makes that determination?
3 Likes
Back to the question of “What does it prove?” Third base!
I actually get the feeling you’re like another comeneter up thread who went the whole “I am not defending gamergate but and also it’s totally possible to be neatural about gamergate without defending them and both sides are acting terrible, they are totes equal” or something like that.
Which is false.
I do note that you’ve spent no time responding to my other points and other questions, or any time fleshing out your baseless and unsupported claims, though. Huh.
1 Like
No matter how much you want to deny it, they are a hate group, and you are defending a hate group.
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/10/16/hatewatch-headlines-101614/
3 Likes
I’ve never owned a game console. And I generally don’t get drawn into arguments on line, which frees up vast amounts of mental energy. I’m just sitting here doing what I’m usually doing, which is tedious spreadsheet data entry. Then I’ll probably go do some work with really dangerous power tools. Getting emotionally involved in these issues would either screw up my spreadsheet or lead to an injury out in the shop.
1 Like
They only listed one Article from the Guardian about GamerGate. What I see it as a Reactionary movement centered around a scandal that suddenly got way out of hand.
I really don’t care about what you’re doing right now, it’s pretty irrelevent, but yeah, okay, you’re not a gamer. I could tell. And I wonder how much research you’ve actually done with this subject. Something tellis me you just have opinions based on a couple things you read a few times like last year, while on break from your boring job.
You haven’t responded to any of my other points. No surprise there, but okay.
Ah. Yes. A “scandal”. How dismissive. Death threats, harrassment, bomb threats, and SWATing aren’t mere “scandal”. And this has been going on for YEARS, now. Fuck, it intermingles directly with “Elevatorgate”. Which is STILL going on.
This isn’t a mere “scandal”. This is persuasive misogony and hate.
6 Likes
Yeah, I’ve had people follow me for years writing screeds and thinking that I’m reading them or something, no matter how many times I try to disabuse them of that notion.
2 Likes
…what? I have no idea what you’re talking about at all.
