Reader Email: Selwyn Duke Responds to Two Psychologists

Aaron writes:

I enjoyed the article that Rush mentioned on his program.  I do have one issue I would like to bring up however.  "sickologists"?  I am a "sickologist" and am also wary of the bevy of research my profession "produces" or "conducts" to normalize what we all know is abnormal or abberent behavior.  But why demean Psychologists?  Why broad stroke us?  Isn't that roughly equivalent to saying "All men are inferior to women because some of them aren't as communicative"?  Really?  All men? And communicative ability is the benchmark?   And by the same token....all Psychologists? My profession is largely, vastly, and mostly comprised of left leaners. Whenever I attend a conference or even sometimes just dinners I invariable have to endure some type of conservative bashing because it simply doesn't dawn on people that they might be in mixed company.  This is the first time I have ever had that experience with someone who I assume is also from my side of the political spectrum.  Granted, I may be wrong and we may be political polar opposites, but I doubt it.  I usually console myself in those instances of bashing with the idea that this is yet another example of liberals actually being the group that is less inclusive, less tolerant, and frankly less intelligent, although that last one is likely a stretch. I was disappointed to have the same experience while reading your article.

Aaron

Cannon

Dear Aaron,

Your approach is very non-confrontational and definitely designed to avoid tweaking someone's ego, something that could cause the average person to dig in his heels further.  Good psychology there.  However, it doesn't really matter either way in my case, as I acknowledge the truth regardless. 

Obviously, you are a good man, and if you are a psychologist who is more traditional in nature, I applaud you. But it's not about you, and people really need to be less sensitive and to avoid personalizing matters.

Generalizations absolutely can be valid, and we all need to be reasonable and interpret them correctly.  For instance, if I say that men are taller than women, I obviously don't mean that every man is taller than every woman.  Rather, I'm speaking of averages.

Likewise, psychologists have a certain collective character.  And, in a way, your testimonial just vindicates my assessment.  You said that when you attend gatherings of psychologists, they sometimes impugn conservatives, totally oblivious to the fact that some may be among them.  Why, I ask you?  It's simply because they understand what I (and you) understand: In general, psychologists are so characterized by left-wing unthought (feelings) that it is just assumed they will be liberal in the same way we assume birds will fly, even though some do not.

And because the soft sciences are great bastions of liberalism, they are very destructive.  They provide a specious scientific basis for liberalism, which, obviously, lends it credibility. 

This is not to say that there isn't such thing as legitimate psychology.  Obviously, man operates by certain principles, and if you can understand them, you can better remedy what ails him.  However, the school of thought that dominates is not the legitimate variety but a toxic, pseudo-intellectual discipline born of a godless, flawed philosophy. 

Thus, I will continue to do my utmost to expose mainstream psychology as the fraudulent pseudo-science it is.  Just as I criticize lawyers and used car salesmen despite the fact there are some good ones, I also have no compunction about criticizing psychologists as a group, since collectively they constitute a deleterious force.

Again, this is no condemnation of you, as you do seem like a wonderful man.  And if it makes you feel any better, I despise journalists, too, despite the fact that I am one.  As you know, a mature, well-adjusted person can look at himself and those he identifies with honestly and acknowledge the shortcomings of same.

Anyway, I guess some might say that in this battle you could be considered "collateral damage," but it doesn't have to be that way.  We're on the same side, so why not join me and my philosophical soulmates in exposing the destruction wreaked by mainstream psychology?  You'll only be making your chosen field better.  And isn't that what we all want to do?

Now, for a good example of the mental illness most psychologists are possessed of, read the response below.

 

Mr. Duke,

My uncle sent me your articled referenced in my subject line. You're an excellent writer.  Unfortunately, you have quite a narrow understanding of the human condition - something of which even excellent writers can be guilty.

I believe that most people perceive issues or problems through a filter that 'sickologists' call our mind, which is difficult to change.  Nonetheless, let me try to add some nuance to your article's thesis.

It's very easy to simply dismiss something as 'psycho-babbler' conjuring, but the problem is that we assign meaning to actions, thoughts, and words; it's not the other way around.  Women do not communicate more, less, or any differently than men do.  At least, inherently they do not.  Rather, we perceive a difference that is entirely related to the way that our minds construct the notion or idea of gender.  You see, female and male, man and woman, those are just designations that we use to classify our world.  They do not actually exist outside of our own minds - outside of our own perception.

Have you ever heard of a person who is transgender, or she-male, transvestite, trannie, katoey, he-she, she-he, whatever?  Do you think they talk more (too much) if they look and act like a woman, but have a penis?  Or perhaps they are more like the 'strong, silent type' if they look and act like a man, but have a vagina.  Do you think only American women talk more than American men or is it the same everywhere in the world?

I think you see my point.

Please let me know if you'll be so kind as to formally respond to or post my reply.

Thanks.

JJO, Psuper Psycho-Babbler

Dear JJO:

Hmm, what shall I call you?  A moral relativist?  Nominalist?  Solipsist?  Ah, silly me, I forgot that catchall term: Psychologist.

You said,

"I believe that most people perceive issues or problems through a filter that 'sickologists' call our mind, which is difficult to change."

I hope you'll bear this in mind as you read what follows.

Now, you wrote,

"You see, female and male, man and woman, those are just designations that we use to classify our world.  They do not actually exist outside of our own minds - outside of our own perception."

I find this interesting since you said that I have a very "narrow understanding" of the "human" condition.  Is my narrow understanding correct?  Well, if you thought so, you wouldn't have taken issue with it.  You obviously believe it's incorrect and this means, if you can judge it to be so, that you believe your understanding of it is correct. 

But now you have contradicted yourself.  After all, if you are right, then just like female and male, man and woman, "human" is just a designation that we use to classify our world.  It would not actually exist outside of our own minds -- outside of our own perception. 

You see, just like with she-males, transvestites, trannies, katoeys, he-shes, she-hes -- all those gradations you mentioned -- what is a human?  I'm sure you believe in evolution, so maybe some of the perceptions we call humans are at a slightly different point on the evolutionary ladder than others.  How can we really say they're "human"?  That is just a designation we use to classify our world, my good fellow; it doesn't exist outside our minds.

Now, you also said that women do not inherently behave differently.  "Rather, we perceive a difference that is entirely related to the way that our minds construct the notion or idea of gender."  However, if women's and men's behavior could be defined, we could say definitively whether they behave differently or not.  Ah, but you said that was impossible, as we can't even say that "men" and "women" exist outside of our own minds, and how could we define the behavior of categories of creatures that don't exist?   

But it then follows (hewing to your philosophy) that since "human" doesn't exist outside of our own minds, we cannot possibly define human behavior.  Thus, your implication that you understand human behavior and that mine, since it doesn't accord with yours, is incorrect, is illogical and contradictory. 

In other words, how can you criticize me for claiming to know what the sexes' natures are on the basis that it is all perception and has no relation to external reality, but then turn around and claim that you can define exactly what human nature is?  And, if you cannot define human nature, you cannot say my conception of it is flawed.  Thus, your argument collapses upon itself. 

Your world view dictates that, just as I cannot define such matters, neither can you.  Therefore, to be consistent with your philosophy, you have no business criticizing me.  I, on the other hand, am constrained by no such limitation.

You see, being an absolutist, meaning, I believe in God and His Truth, I know there is actually something to perceive -- namely, Truth.  Understand what perception is; you cannot perceive unless there is something to perceive.  Perceptions are not merely fancies conjured up in a mind completely detached from outside stimuli.  So, the only question is, do you perceive things clearly or not?  And since I believe these things really exist and that I do understand them -- that I have a yardstick for judging these matters (something you have tacitly acknowledged you do not) -- I can criticize you. 

You contradict yourself because, like all liberals, you operate based on emotion, which changes with the wind. That is why you are guilty of exactly what you ridicule me for: Using one's perceptions as a yardstick for judging others'.  But you're numb to this, being enslaved as you are to feelings.  Unfortunately, yours is the prevailing mind-set among sickologists, the majority of whom belong not in the chair, but on the couch.

Lastly, for the purposes of aiding you in self-improvement, I will render my diagnosis of your condition.  Based on the nomenclature in use in my office in the ether, you, sir, are what is clinically known as a "kook."

Oh, I also might mention that maybe you should contact Aaron from the email above, as he may be able to help you with your disordered thinking.

Thank you for writing; it's always nice hearing from one of the free radicals in the putrescent body of western civilization.  Alas, though, you folks make it too easy.

Consider yourself "nuanced."