Therapy reparenting (Scott Peck)

True, he is well known since the book was a bestseller, but I suspect he is more popular with certain generations. My father read the book and tried to get me to but it didn't hold my attention, I found it hokey.

In my own experience with therapy personally and professionally, I've seen the book on only a couple of bookshelves, and it wasn't recent. And it has never, ever, been mentioned by one professor in any of my courses in the entire psychology program. He may have had a resurgence in popularity in some areas of the country but not so much where I am.

I don't think he was intending to write a textbook.

I have no interest in him one way or the other. I don't have a pro or con stance - just that there are therapists themselves who refer to him in a positive way - and the geographical range was from california to pennsylvania.
I don't find him compelling, but I don't find him any different than Brene Brown or others of their ilk. And therapists all over the place are jumping on her bandwagon. (I find her substance to be complete twaddle -but I do love listening to her voice)

Thanks for the common sense and insight. Yes have ethical concerns, in particular the profession's attitude toward the potential for serious harm inherent in all these reparenting, therapy love, etc schemes. I mean, they just don't seem to care. I think they are very attached to the idea of reparenting etc, but not in touch with the reality of it. I wonder if they are so accustomed to this notion of an engineered relationship that they don't see how weird and how treacherous it is.

I'm not just talking about guys like Peck who advocate these things more overtly. Seems like most therapists are performing some level of parental simulation which provokes regression and all the rest of it. Many of them talk in lofty, idealized language about transforming past hurts.

I do like the idea of re-parenting the self. When I am stressed my inner critic tends to start screaming at me. I have learned how to shut that voice up. This is a recent development. What bliss! But I have to keep battling because that voice does come back. This is inner work and I even would say transformative and I don't need a therapist to do it. I find that a lot of reinforcement is needed but I can do that myself. Consider how disempowering it is to have to depend on someone else to drive the bus. I say...take the wheel...and start driving. The damn bus.

The thing about incompetent therapists, I think this is a defense mechanism they use when confronted with the possibility that what they do might be fundamentally harmful, or just plain useless. It's convenient to assign blame to a scapegoat.

How can you even define competence in the context of such an ambiguous and elusive practice? It's all subjective and totally variable. I guess most would say it's something to do with boundaries or having done their own "work". These are concepts built on sand. They don't hold up to scrutiny.

And I think the ones who see themselves as competent or gifted might be the most dangerous of all.

I think the reason he could do this is because he was one himself. Yuck.

In my opinion all theories in psychology are "pop." They are all a bunch of crap. And people fall for them. It's crazy.

I'm sorry if this sounds hurtful, but if a person believes, likes or "falls for" something that resonates with them personally, I think it's pretty disrespectful to call their behavior "crazy". I personally don't agree with reparenting, but I did find some of what Peck wrote as interesting and thought provoking. I'd never dismiss your right to view his stuff as hokey or anything else. It's your right as an individual.

Well you basically are dismissing my right to view it the way I do. I do view the whole system as crazy. Not calling anyone's behavior crazy. Think you misunderstood me.

Pop psychlogy is something I despise. In my view, the whole People of the Lie book is about defense mechanisms, which is a component if depth psychology, started by Freud 100+ years ago and built upon by many. It seems like many therapists today are largely taught short-term therapies, and some schools ridicule Freud, so I am not surprised that Peck's work isn't considered meaningful by therapists, in addition to the spiritual aspects which usually do not unite with more scientific thinking.

He found a appealing way to frame and describe these concepts, which I think is a good thing because it's not as if the general public would read technical psychology books to get this information.

It was the story of the little boy with the shotgun that drew me to this thinking. I couldn't get that story out of my mind after reading it--it really affected me. But I don't follow any one person's conclusions, and arrive at my own. I think defense mechanisms have a profound effect on behavior and identity, yet there's really no science behind it and it's not something that is emphasized today outside of the psychoanalytic circles.

Donald Trump's behavior believing the election is rigged against him, rather than looking within to see that maybe it is he himself that is causing him to lose, is an example. But his need to see himself a certain way--as a winner--is so strong, that he lies to himself to uphold this belief. Of course this is only my opinion, but I think his sense of self is organized around his superiority to others, and he would fall apart if he let himself believe anything that contradicts this belief. Nothing scientific about that, but I'm not sure how else to explain it. Sure, "man toddler" is catchy, but I haven't heard of any other explanations.

So Bud, I see you believe in defense mechanisms too. To respond to what you say here, I would have to say that I don't see competencies defined for medical doctors either. They damage people everyday with delay in diagnosis, misdiagnosis, and mistakes. And everytime, the patient has to pay them for the visit anyway. Surgeries are an exception, but the system is set up in a way that doctors don't get penalized for incompetency outside of lawsuits and extreme cases that are too repeated or controversial to sweep under the rug without anyone noticing.

I think it's a real problem for health related services, but I have to choose my battles.

Did you ever think of taking the energy you invest in this issue and turning it into advocacy work? Just a thought.

I don't have a problem with Peck's ideas necessarily. It's when he and others start talking about applying those ideas in the therapy room that I think it gets creepy and unethical.

I happen to agree about doctors. I think majority are dangerous quacks. But at least consumers have some idea of what they are getting into, and the doctor is not selling the relationship. As someone said, most healthcare is a racket. I think every interaction with a doctor, psychiatrist, therapist generally increases one's chances of morbidity and mortality.

Actually I see posting here as a small bit of advocacy. If someone is taking a beating in therapy and posts here, especially if they then get a beat down here too in the form of reprimands and blaming, I like to point out that perhaps they've done nothing wrong and perhaps their therapist is a narcissist, manipulator, deceiver and they are being screwed over by a self-serving system that will sometimes sacrifice client well-being to preserve itself and it delusions (eta: or maybe the therapist is a perfectly decent person but the basic nature of the relationship is a disaster). Also, I have chronic health problems that make doing anything significant rather difficult, so ranting here in short bursts is about it for now. Plus, I myself went through therapy that brought out a very damaging parent-child sort of scenario, and I'm still in a bad state because of it, so still trying to dig myself out of that nightmare.

#

Disagree totally as he described my parents perfectly, particularly my malignant narcissistic mother. NPDs ARE 'the people of the lie'

Exactly. I do identify with Scott Peck he describes my toxic family to a T.

Everyone has narcissistic tendencies. Who decides when this becomes "NPD"? I don't think therapists and psychiatrists do themselves any favors credibility-wise by obsessively referencing all of these specious types and labels.

Also Peck apparently said this about NPD:
“To receive treatment one must want it, at least on some level. And to want it one must consider oneself to be in need of it. One must, at least on some level, acknowledge his or her imperfection.”

Here again, things get creepy. You have a personality "disorder", you need deprogramming, I am the expert and master who will oversee this process. Submit, submit, submit. Obey, obey obey. Resistance is futile.

I decide when its NPD. I identify with his books because it reflects my own family. I know my family, I know how my mother was and what she was.
'Experts' are not just people with degrees, people who have lived through an experience particularly if they research, observe, and read are experts on their life.
You can get experts who are unless as some posters here have found, and sometimes a lay person who gets it.
I dont understand whats 'creepy' ? To me he just says it as it is. Some people are evil (no empathy) A personality disorder will not be 'cured' as for most it is an integral part of their personality, born that way. My NPD mother and sociopathic/psycopathic sister think they are *amazing* always right, they never admit fault. They would never submit to any one.
Why would you look for 'help' if you are already perfect?

The creepy part is when any MH practitioner implies that certain types of people require treatment. And also when the practitioner suggests that they are the one to administer this alleged treatment, presumably because they are some sort of human relationship wizard or sorcerer. None of this has any factual or concrete basis. Lot of blind faith.

[QUOTE=BudFox;5346033]The creepy part is when any MH practitioner implies that certain types of people require treatment. And also when the practitioner suggests that they are the one to administer this alleged treatment, presumably because they are some sort of human relationship wizard or sorcerer.

But. Some people DO need treatment. Why go to a practitioner if you don't want treatment. Just stay at home and save your money. Sorted.

[QUOTE=Rainstoppedplay;5356297]I don't think anyone needs treatment from a therapist. I believe some people benefit from seeing a therapist. I don't consider what they do to be treatment. I did not hire one of them to let them "treat" me in any fashion. It is not something I sought out and is not what I pay for.

Do you think part of the issue here is that some people have mental illnesses and want healing from them and others have issues that they want to address? Just wondering how much difference that makes between, say what SD wants from ts and what I want from ts (counting myself as among the mentally ill, not you SD)

I remember reading Scott Peck a lot of years ago and liking what he said about love and attraction. But that is about all I remember. I am in a really different place now. If I knew where my copy of it is, I might take another look at it. Books are still packed from move.

There's plenty of evidence for CBT type therapies are effective for anxiety and depression. A good solid CBT therapist is a teacher of those techniques...

Yes, this. I think that is some of the disconnect between viewpoints.

I don't have an issue with the idea of treatment, but I do think there's a problem with the system not being able (or willing) to keep out the kooks and incompetents of its profession. People who are harmed have little to no credibility when it comes to complaints, unless there is blatant abuse.

I went to practitioners because i got the same messages as everyone else about the necessity of submitting my problems to the MH system for processing. Then after train-wreck therapy i came to me senses. I'm with SD, i don't think therapy is treatment or necessary, though obviously can be helpful, and the ubiquity of these ideas reflects the power of marketing.

And yet, for some, like me, CBT made both my anxiety and depression ten times worse. It was the worst experience I have had. There is at least one study out od Sweden which confirms that cbt can be disastrous for some.

I have problems with serious depression, anxiety, hoplessness, anger, and more. There are definitely physiological components which can be treated and i am doing my best on that front. The rest of it, the emotional and spiritual and social aspects, is more abstract and i would never describe this as mental illness. That would be medicalizing something which is not medical. In this context the practices of talk therapy and pharmacological psychiatry have no place, because they neither treat real illness nor make up for the emotional or social deprivations and wounds in any genuine way, though each claims to do one or more of these things. In my experience...

I can see how therapy might be a temporary balm for one's wounds, but treatment?

I think it's overreaching for any one person to presume to have experienced the entire spectrum of mental health issues that might take one to therapy—to limit them, no less, to a handful of emotional challenges—and then to declare therapy a temporary balm for one's wounds.

Yes! I honestly find it insulting for someone to presume that because something didn't work for them that it is useless or ineffective.