The end of a personal odyssey - yay!

[Buttercup]

Three years ago I involved myself in a certain group pertaining to a particular belief. An official within warmly welcomed me, and was like a brother. His wife was another story, but eventually she befriended me. Then this official betrayed my trust. I left that particular group after much unwanted drama.

Within the same belief system I proceed to an affiliated but different group. Figured this time around would be different. Well it turned out not so. Rampant hypocrisy, various nasty/ill-tempered attitudes, etc. An elderly official began making advances, watching and stalking me.

This was a belief somewhat similar to childhood; I'd not been involved with beliefs for nearly 2 decades since my teens. But I figured (wrongly) that because these folks are well educated with college degrees galore, they'd be more reasonable and rewarding to deal with.

Wow, did I ever underestimate the destructive power of educated fools.

I'm now OUT of all that permanently since a handful of months, and I'm glad. My sister has suggested she and new boyfriend involve themselves in a somewhat similar fashion. I certainly advised her not to. To each their own as beliefs go, but I can do just fine on my own -- thanks.

[Fazor]

I believe that I always forget about you changing your user name. And all the italic and underlined words (the purposely ambiguous nature, not the formatting itself) make this post funnier than it should be. At least to me it does. But I'm glad you were able to get out of that situation.

. . . sorry, it just looked like fun.

[Buttercup]

No problem, Fazor. Yeah, the situation was not fun. Talk about headaches. Those folks can have each other...

[Jeff Root]

Obviously without going into specifics, could you characterize it in terms of
how well known it is and how mainstream it is in US culture? My sister was
in a well-known organization that is pretty far from mainstream, and she met
the person who is now her husband there. She was in it for several years
before she got out. I don't think she had anything like the problems you
encountered, but her organization has its own brand of problems. I'm just
curious how prevalent this kind of thing is. I can't tell whether it is rare or
commonplace.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Buttercup]

Obviously without going into specifics, could you characterize it in terms of
how well known it is and how mainstream it is in US culture? My sister was in a well-known organization that is pretty far from mainstream, and she met
the person who is now her husband there. She was in it for several years
before she got out. I don't think she had anything like the problems you
encountered, but her organization has its own brand of problems. I'm just
curious how prevalent this kind of thing is. I can't tell whether it is rare or
commonplace.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

It is actually a very well known organization which dates back to the 1770's. Previously it was connected with an English entity, but of course with the American Revolution the name and various other aspects/allegiances had to change.

Currently this org is in the midst of a bitter inner struggle: The ultra-progressives "vs" the non-.

I was attracted after reading a ton of psychology in relation to its central "Figure." The official who was like a brother was another strong factor.

But as time went on I began to notice a lot of corruption and weird attitudes. It'd not been since childhood that I'd dealt with a formal/structured belief system. I also noticed a repetition of unpleasantness and downright irrational hostility. After a while it seemed like watching the same stage play, just with different actors. After "Round Two" that did it for me.

I figured (wrongly) because this org has higher education as part of its requirements for official positions (a Bachelors Degree is minimum requirement) there'd be a general openness, urbaneness...wow, was I ever wrong. The final straw was paying a G-rated "cute" compliment to an elderly official, who got turned on and began aggressively pursuing me. Another official's wife saw that reaction and began reacting hostilely towards me...as if I'd invited the old man's reaction, liked it and might try it on her man next!

A nut's a nut, and that's the end of it.

Otherwise I'm staying home.

p.s.: I might also quit reading psychology. Seriously.

[Fazor]

p.s.: I might also quit reading psychology. Seriously.

Don't.

[mugaliens]

Three years ago I involved myself in a certain group pertaining to a particular belief. An official within warmly welcomed me, and was like a brother. His wife was another story, but eventually she befriended me. Then this official betrayed my trust. I left that particular group after much unwanted drama.

I'm quite tired of drama myself, Garnet Star, and remain utterly amazed at just how deeply seated this appears to be in the human psyche, even among those who on the surface appear immune.

Within the same belief system I proceed to an affiliated but different group. Figured this time around would be different. Well it turned out not so. Rampant hypocrisy, various nasty/ill-tempered attitudes, etc.

I've seen much the same over the last several weeks, including questioning my integrity, my work history, background, and experience. Quite appalling, actually.

An elderly official began making advances, watching and stalking me.

This is typical "regime-protection behavior." My advise is to find a healthier regime!

This was a belief somewhat similar to childhood; I'd not been involved with beliefs for nearly 2 decades since my teens. But I figured (wrongly) that because these folks are well educated with college degrees galore, they'd be more reasonable and rewarding to deal with.

Wow, did I ever underestimate the destructive power of educated fools.

Good for you!

I'm now OUT of all that permanently since a handful of months, and I'm glad. My sister has suggested she and new boyfriend involve themselves in a somewhat similar fashion. I certainly advised her not to. To each their own as beliefs go, but I can do just fine on my own -- thanks.

I am very happy for you! Someone once said, "There are three stages to every man:

1) Newborns in the world - it's here where we show them the ropes.

2) Seasoned hands - it's here where they're showing the newborns the ropes.

3) Old hands - the ones who're smart enough to realize their unquestionable expertise as "seasoned hands" wasn't quite as secure as they thought. These are the ones who question the status quo, decide it's time to reinvent the wheel (if necessary), and who raise issues which the seasoned hands question six ways to Sunday.

Quite often, it's the Seasoned hands that confront and kick out the Old hands. Have we really progressed that far, though? Isn't this simply what younger lions/gorillas do to the older ones?

And we think we've advanced so far... LoL...

[Moose]

Don't.

Seconded. Just make sure it's evidence-based psychology and not the typical mass media pop-psych that tour the talk shows. Rule of thumb: if it appears on Oprah (or either of her spin-offs), it's not legit.

Also, Skinner is worth understanding for his insight on behavior-based addictions (like gambling and cult-mechanics), just keep firmly in mind that it's application to humans is best used solely as a cautionary tale. Don't try to train kids using Skinner, it's very prone to backfire in the hands of non-experts.

Freud/Jung can (and probably should) be ignored entirely.

[Argos]

Never trust an organization that has such requirements for membership. Experience shows they´re a bunch of wackos. Flee them.

[Buttercup]

Freud/Jung can (and probably should) be ignored entirely.

I was recalling your comment, Moose, and am curious to know why you recommending ignoring Freud and Jung? Freud I can ignore [], but I've been a Jungophile since 2002. However, I'm currently swearing off psychology and philosophy; I've read a ton of both in the past 15 years.

My re-entrance into "spirituality" 4 years ago surprised me (despite being strongly conditioned that way since a child), but after reading a lot of Jung and personal hardships at the time...probably not so surprising (hindsight).

I've always loved science, and read Objectivism (Rand) and 18th century Enlightenment (Reason) philosophy previously. Now I've made a strong conscious decision to stick with these -- permanently.

I do know Jung tended towards mysticism. I presume that is your objection to him? It's another reason I'm avoiding re-involving myself with his material.

[Moose]

Because Jung's views were basically Freud's views with adjustments. Freud married himself to a fatally flawed metaphor well beyond the point of its limited applicability. Jung's views were very similar and flawed for essentially the same reasons. Jung was occasionally less wrong than Freud, but not always and not by much.

The Personal and Collective Unconsciousness in particular struck me.

Her father (who in reality was of small stature) was standing with her on a hill and was covered with wheat fields. She was quite tiny beside him, and he seemed to her like a giant. He lifted her up from the ground and held her in his arms like a little child. The wind swept over the wheat fields, and as the wheat swayed in the wind, he rocked her in his arms.

Jung interpreted that dream as her having the hots for him; Jung. He claims, after bringing it up, that she agreed with his interpretation. He goes on at some length about his being the "father-lover" in her dreams.

He basically sets off my spidey sense. I can forgive wrong. But he was dangerously wrong.

The mysticism didn't help, although I can forgive it somewhat as being the product of his time.

I consider them examples of what never to do as scientists, theorists, and/or practitioners.

[TheHalcyonYear]

I hate psychology and psychiatry. My husband has problems with depression that seem to be genetic in nature. (There is a long history on one side of his family, but not the other) He is on an antidepressant classed as an SSRI+ and he says that it has allowed him to function in a reasonable fashion for the first time in his life. The thing is, it seems that about 2/3 of the psychology/psychiatry say there is not thing as genetically induced depression. Of those, half say that the antidepressant just covers up the problem while the other half say that in the long run he needs to work out the underlying issues from his childhood. When he doesn't come up with any, they want him to under go "recovered memory therapy"? because "since there is an underlying cause, this means the memories are being repressed". {{rolls eyes}}

[Moose]

THY, there's a difference between psychology/psychiatry and the pop-pshrink garbage your husband has experienced. "Recovered memory therapy" has been discredited/debunked since, IIRC, the 80s. Like Jung, it's not just wrong, it's dangerously wrong.

The trick is in finding the ones who stick to evidence-based techniques.

I noticed, the last time I was there, that my own GP has posters for aromatherapy in her office. *sets yellow flag* She's yet to suggest woo as a treatment for anything, in my hearing anyway, so the posters may only be new-ager-nectar, but it certainly caught my attention.

[Buttercup]

Jung interpreted that dream as her having the hots for him; Jung. He claims, after bringing it up, that she agreed with his interpretation. He goes on at some length about his being the "father-lover" in her dreams.

Bizarre. That wouldn't be my interpretation of the dream by any means; to me it's entirely innocent. This example surprises me, because what I've read of Jung doesn't seem overly sexualized (unlike Freud, as we know ).

He basically sets off my spidey sense. I can forgive wrong. But he was dangerously wrong.

I didn't realize until later how engrossed in Jung's works I'd become from 2004 - 2005 especially. In regards to the "groups" mentioned in my 1st post, the first basically turned out to be a repeat of an unpleasant experience in my early teen years. The second group turned out to be a repeat of the first; but it was worse and worsening. Towards the end I felt in some danger from two people in particular. I got out *pronto* and permanently of course. Ironically Jung also helped me out of that situation, as something else he'd written stuck with me during the most difficult times...and got me doubting.

Jungian psychology nearly became my religion back in 2004 - 2005. Apparently I'm more susceptible to him than I'd realized, so am leaving it alone.

The current issue of Skeptic magazine, which I bought yesterday, ironically has quite a few articles debunking pop-psychology. This won't be as "adventuresome"...but I've had enough of "adventures."

[closetgeek]

THY, there's a difference between psychology/psychiatry and the pop-pshrink garbage your husband has experienced. "Recovered memory therapy" has been discredited/debunked since, IIRC, the 80s. Like Jung, it's not just wrong, it's dangerously wrong.

The trick is in finding the ones who stick to evidence-based techniques.

I noticed, the last time I was there, that my own GP has posters for aromatherapy in her office. *sets yellow flag* She's yet to suggest woo as a treatment for anything, in my hearing anyway, so the posters may only be new-ager-nectar, but it certainly caught my attention.

Are the posters advertising that say; lavendar can cure depression or that it just sets a relaxing atmosphere? Maybe I fell victim to a woo idea, maybe it's psychosematic but I always thought that the idea of certain aroma's having an effect on mood was credible.

[Moose]

It wasn't that explicit, but the term aromatherapy was prominent on the posters. Aromatherapy, in general, talks about specific cures. There was nothing to suggest the term was being co-opted for the weaker message that scented candles smell nice.

[Buttercup]

The only thing which still bothers me in all this was the loss of a friend. She was the truest friend I've had recently, and stood up for me on a couple of occasions against another woman who very much DISliked me. I know "Randi" wanted me to stay and participate in a particular activity...but I just couldn't deal with 2 issues there any longer (besides being no longer interested in their views).

I tried for the most graceful way out with as little fanfare or making waves as possible. My departure was a blow to "Randi" I'm sure, and I fear she may not believe the reason I gave for leaving (it was true).

But I do feel bad for having let "Randi" down, after what lengths she went to on my behalf. Of course I couldn't STAY for her either. I've written two thank-you/update cards. So far no reply; I hope she's more hurt than angry.

It's been very difficult dealing with this aspect of that former situation.