Do Americans need shrinks?

Do the Brits? Vox has a point here:

This is why therapy is reliably doomed to failure:

Confessions of a depressed psychologist: I’m in a darker place than my patients.

I am sitting opposite my sixth patient of the day. She is describing a terrible incident in her childhood when she was abused, sexually and physically, by both of her parents. I am nodding, listening and hoping I appear as if I appear normal. Inside, however, I feel anything but.

My head is thick – as if I’m thinking through porridge. I find myself tuning out and switching to autopilot.

And his comment:

Would you go to a plumber whose toilet is overflowing? Would you hire a computer programmer who didn’t know how to use a computer? Then why would you ever talk to one of these nutjobs in order to fix whatever mental issues you might be having? In addition to the 46 percent of psychologists who the NHS reports as being depressed, “out of 800 psychologists sampled, 29 per cent reported suicidal ideation and 4 per cent reported attempting suicide.”

That’s all well and not fine but the question I ask is why this is a such a huge American phenomenon – at least they talk about it more, put it in film etc. – America’s been called a nation of neurotics before.

And if that’s so, then what are we? Timid fieldmice? One would think so, the sort of c*** we put up with from our “leaders”, the shoddy service in shops etc.  That’s why we’re an easy touch for invaders migrants refugees.

Have a happy Valentines with your loved ones, OoL readers.

8 comments for “Do Americans need shrinks?

  1. Rickie
    February 14, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    I would like to see Frank Davis (banging on about the smoking ban) have a few hundred sessions with a shrink about his denial issues.

    Hell they could have group therapy if all the cult on his blog showed up.

    • February 14, 2016 at 6:40 pm

      Admins discussing whether to delete this comment about another blogger at another site.

  2. Rickie
    February 14, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    Sorry james, I had no idea bloggers were exempt from comment, just politicians and celebs is it, and anyone who appears in the media/press

    I am unsure what the censor allows


  3. Rickie
    February 14, 2016 at 7:07 pm

    Just say the word and I will leave, I can’t post on a site with Liberty in its title and then have overbearing censorship

    Let me know

    • February 14, 2016 at 7:10 pm

      Censorship is when the government silences you. Our gaff, our rules.

  4. Junican
    February 14, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Rickie Trickie Dickie is going around blogs condemning other bloggers and trying to harm them. I gave him fair warning about staying on topic. and when he still pestered, I deleted him full stop.

  5. Rickie
    February 14, 2016 at 10:06 pm

    @Junican, the topic was smoking….you didn’t like my view on smoking and then you stopped me full stop.

    I get this shite all the time…my views on topic about smoking on smoking blogs gets twisted into trolling and then its all about ridding the blog of trolls.

  6. February 14, 2016 at 10:14 pm

    OK, it’s 21.41 and I’ve just had a reply from our last admin – actually, it was earlier but I was watching The Man in the High Castle.

    We’re all three agreed the comment is out of order but not for reasons Rickie states:

    I can’t post on a site with Liberty in its title and then have overbearing censorship

    Sorry but that is utter bollox – we are not children, we are quite capable of reasoning and I see ad hominem where it exists. It would not matter were it a Statist blogger who was being bad-mouthed or a pro-EU, we would defend that person just as much.

    On so many levels it’s wrong – for a start, it’s not even one of ours being slighted personally and so it has no place here, it’s not on topic anyway, it’s out of the blue, from nowhere, it does not go into the issue in the post and that man slighted has no chance to reply. This is just the wrong place for it.

    Then there is the little matter of it directly contravening the blog rule here that we do not go for the man, we go for his relationship to an issue.

    Also, Rickie misunderstands the whole nature of freedom of speech. I am first and foremost a classical liberal in a John Stuart Mill way – that is, we should be free to do and say as we wish until it harms someone else. Plus govt should stay out of our lives.

    That is my understanding of libertarianism. It’s not and never has been “do as thou wilt”, freedom can only exist under the rule of law and at this blog, the law is clear and unequivocal – we don’t go personally for other people’s throats, if they’re not doing anything evil. It’s irrelevant if it’s a friend or a foe – same rule applies.

    I’m not sure if the plan was Rickie makes comment, we close ranks around the named blogger, Rickie is vindicated that we’re all part of the same club. Actually we are disparate people from different walks, we’re unherdable cats but there’s still a vague area within which we hold back – it’s not been defined, we all just know what’s acceptable and what is not. Call it bourgeois, call it what you want but most people understand rules of debate.

    Now, all three agreed the comment was to be deleted but as there has been subsequent comment on it, then it would look a bit stupid if the first was now deleted and no one reading knew what the hell was going on.

    So, it sits as is and readers are asked that any further comment be not on the Rickie issue but on the topic in the post itself please. In fact, let me put it more clearly – no further off topic comment will be entertained in this thread and attempts to keep the Rickie issue going will certainly be deleted, whether it supports our stand or supports Ricky.

    No more on that.

Comments are closed.