Anyone recommend any good popular psychology books?

nesf

Mostly interested in abnormal psychology but open to most topics.

TrollHammaren

There are no good popular psychology books

James T Kirk

The only pop-psych book I can remember reading is 'The People of the Lie' by M. Scott Peck, which is all about the nature of evil. Some spooky case studies in there, and very easy to a read.

krd

I would be interested in some books on that subject too.

The term "abnormal psychology" is something that really annoys me. It's psychologists way of taking anything they're uncomfortable with and pushing it away so they don't have to deal with it.

It's quite normal to be a lying, cheating, sleazy little scumbag. I would be certain many professional psychologists are. I have met a few who are.

Really nasty behaviour. is within the spectrum of "normal" behaviour. Very few people go out and chop people up with an axe. But it's very common for ordinary people to do very nasty things.

I don't know if there's any literature out there on the banal stuff. Monsters like psychopaths are just circus freaks. The real interesting evil is the things done by ordinary people, day in, day out. The sneering shop assistant, the bus conductor who kicks you off the bus because you're 5c short. The little evils by the little people. That's what's interesting.

Perplexed4

Beyond fear by Dorothy Rowe which tackels how the mind works, fear and the diverse ways we defend ourselves against it including those ways which get us diagnoised with 'mental illness's' and the cruelty with which such folks are treated. And all without once mentioning 'abnormal psychology'. Get the 20th anniversary edition which although 600 pages is written in very clear and moving language. I repeatedly turn to it.:)

Or her 'Why we lie' which tackles the banking crisis, climate denial, the nazis, JP sartre and why we don't like being lied to and lieing to ourselves and the dangers therein. All from the point of veiw of an eminent and wise psychologist who is not affraid to offend her profession's vanities.:)

'How mumbo jumbo conquered the world' by Francis Wheen is a hilarious polemic which skewers much of the insane nonsense that bedevils our culture.:)

'The Psychopath test' is Jon Ronson's latest tome. Haven't read it yet but reports are of the usual high level of insight and hilarity that feature in his work. 'Them' looked at conspiracy theorists, 'The men who stare at goats' you might be familiar with from the movie but the book is much better. Simultaneously very funny and extremely terrifying to learn what craziness goes on in the us military and what cruel purposes it's used for.:)

'Thr drama of being a child' by Alice Miller tackles the consequences of an abusive upbringing including the denial of such abuse and the dubious motivations for people to become therapists. It is short, 120 pages and clearly written but quite insightful.:)

Perplexed4

And I almost forgot 'Paranoia the21st century fear' by Daniel and Jason Freeman a psychiatrist and his brother whose a writer which tackles a more neglected area of peoples mental health. Short and eminently readable.

And finally 'Doctoring the mind; why psychiatric treaments don't work' by Richard Bentall brings us up to date with the failure of psychiatry to make much of a dent and psychiatric issues. Less critical, hopeful actually, of his own profession psychology but well researched, lots of references and very readable.

Good luck!:)Happy reading!:)

Velvety

krd wrote: »

The term "abnormal psychology" is something that really annoys me. It's psychologists way of taking anything they're uncomfortable with and pushing it away so they don't have to deal with it.

Isn't identifying treatments and better understanding psychopathology the entire purpose of abnormal psychology?

Perplexed4

In our world today aren't we supposed to be celebrating difference and diversity, or at least tolerating it. In the past for instance homosexuality was regarded as a manifestation of psychopathology but is more readily tolerated today. Some experiences people have may be a perfectely understandable, if undesireable but 'normal' response to psycho-social stressors and to pathologise those responses becomes a stressor in and of itself. One may for instance, in the right environment, celebrate ones sexuality but if people regard it as 'abnormal' and condemn you for it then distress may be likely to follow.
Today many people are learning of the experience of auditory hallucinations, which are likely to get one condemned to psychiatric 'care' and all the unpleasantness that entails, as an expression of human diversity. Many people hear voices that comfort, inform or interest them. And others whose voices are persecutory have lesarnt the best way to handle them is not to quite them thru drugs but to engage them in a discourse that allows the person to get on with their lives. The hearing voices network website give you more info:http://www.hearing-voices.org/:)
So in short what Abnormal about being upset, it happens to the best of us at times. Why assume mental distress is a 'pathology' when to regard it as an understanable response to psycho-social phenomenon gives more hope of acceptance and better understanding of the change that is required to relieve that distress.

Velvety

Perplexed4 wrote: »

In our world today aren't we supposed to be celebrating difference and diversity

What? We should be celebrating depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia? I'm not going to post any more because I don't want to derail this thread but classifying and studying mental distress (if abnormal psychology or psychopathology don't sit well with you) is very important to develop treatments.

It's very naive and impractical to think that simply changing society's attitudes to mental distress is some sort of blanket treatment for very real, acute mental health difficulties.

Perplexed4

I'm sorry you feel that way Velvety but YOU have completly misunderstood what I said. :mad:I said celebrate diversity not distress. :eek:And the point I'm making is that the concepts of 'abnormal psychology' and 'psychopathology' are not very useful for understanding mental distress. And these concepts would appear to hinder our ability to respond appropriately and help the people involved in such situations.:)

Odysseus

OP I would just head into the likes of H%F and just have a look at some of the core texts for abnormal psych that are used in any of the psych degrees over here. Many are down my mums, so I can't remember there names. But going for a core text at undergrad level will give you a good introduction to the topic. From their you can see what ares of abnormal psych interest you most.

I would like to study forensic psych later on, and that what I did. I picked up three core texts on the area and worked from there. That's basically what I do when I want a solid introduction to a specific area within psychotherapy/psychology.

Odysseus

Perplexed4 wrote: »

I'm sorry you feel that way Velvety but YOU have completly misunderstood what I said. :mad:I said celebrate diversity not distress. :eek:And the point I'm making is that the concepts of 'abnormal psychology' and 'psychopathology' are not very useful for understanding mental distress. And these concepts would appear to hinder our ability to respond appropriately and help the people involved in such situations.:)

I don't think that there is anything inaporpriate about usinng the term psychopathology. Professions don't add a moral judgement on the person because of their pathology. The pathology is what I'm working with.

If a clinician is making moral judgements they need to be talking about it in supervision or their own therapy.

Perplexed4

The terms @abnormal psychology' and 'psychopathology' are loaded with judgement, moral and otherwise. While most clinicians might keep their thoughts to themselves mosttimes their clients haven't always failed to notice they are being judged and mostly found wanting. Most clinicians are not likely to be in supervision or therapy themselves and if they are their supervisor/therapist is likely to share their judgement. 'Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity', is an old saying that bears keeping in mind.
There appears to be an incredible amout of naivety about the whole mental health enteprise on these forums. Sandor Ferenzi, who was regarded as the greatest practising clinician of psychoanalysis in the 1920's and 1930's had this to say.
"Why should the patient place himself blindly in the hands of the doctor? Isn't it possible, indeed probable, that a doctor who has not been well analyzed (after all, who is well analyzed?) will nor cure the patient but raather will use her or him to play out his own neurotic or psychotic needs? As proof and justification of this suspicion, I remember certain statements Freud made to me...He said that patients are only riffraff. The only thing patients were good for is to help the analyst make a living and to provide material for theory. It is clear we cannot help them."
If you don't find this statement like so much of 'abnormal psychology' loaded with judgement, well! :cool:

TrollHammaren

Perplexed, are you distrustful of psychology or clinicians in general? Clinical psychologists and psychoanalysts are exposed so much to the academic concept of abnormal, as opposed to the social, that most don't even consider the social stigma attached to having some sort of psychological disorder.

If someone is a paedophile, the general public will judge that person, but most clinicians are acutely aware that there may be some underlying psychological reason for the inclinations and will refrain from judging.

Perplexed4

TrollHammaren wrote: »

Perplexed, are you distrustful of psychology or clinicians in general? Clinical psychologists and psychoanalysts are exposed so much to the academic concept of abnormal, as opposed to the social, that most don't even consider the social stigma attached to having some sort of psychological disorder.

This I have to say is hilarious!:D

If someone is a paedophile, the general public will judge that person, but most clinicians are acutely aware that there may be some underlying psychological reason for the inclinations and will refrain from judging.

Are you asserting here that the average Clinical psychologists and psychoanalysts judgement is so impaired by their work that they are incapable of seeing what is abhorent about paedophilia. If they can see nothing wrong with abusing children whats to say they can restrain themselves when they feel like abusing adults?

TrollHammaren

Perplexed4 wrote: »

Are you asserting here that the average Clinical psychologists and psychoanalysts judgement is so impaired by their work that they are incapable of seeing what is abhorent about paedophilia. If they can see nothing wrong with abusing children whats to say they can restrain themselves when they feel like abusing adults?

A paedophile doesn't necessarily have to offend - the inclination may just be there.

What I'm saying is that whilst the average person judges, clinicians and psychologists are supposed to look at the reason behind the abnormality. Let's using another example: pyromania. Most people will judge a person for setting stuff on fire, a psychologist will aim to discover why he set it on fire, or why the need was present.

Or coprophilia. Most may say "eeew, that guy is attracted to poo, he must be a weirdo". A psychologist asks "why is he attracted to poo?"

Perplexed4

You be asking in for it if you called someone a paedophile and they never offended!

Granted that understanding is not an excuse and psychologist who do their job are looking to understand but they are frequently employed to judge. And they are human and will judge.

No one would judge the psychologist who thought a person with an excessive interest in poo was a weirdo, assuming that person wasn't a child wherein an open interest in poo was normal. Freud however built a whole theory around Anality which is somewhat perverse and very judgemental.

I am put in mind of a noted columnist who tried to argue he used the word bastard in a descriptive non-judgemental sense. He subsequently had to apologise. Anyone, including psychologist, who uses terminology loaded with moral judgement and seeks to deny such judgement is lying and most probably to themselves!;)

Perplexed4

Anyone want to get back to the point and suggest some titles of decent psychology books.

TrollHammaren

Perplexed4 wrote: »

Granted that understanding is not an excuse and psychologist who do their job are looking to understand but they are frequently employed to judge.

Psychologists are not employed to judge people in that way. They are employed to assess and/or treat their mental health of mental state.

Perplexed4 wrote: »

And they are human and will judge

You have a pretty cynical view of humans if you think an intrinsic aspect of humanity is judgement. I can honestly say I don't judge people.

Perplexed4 wrote: »

No one would judge the psychologist who thought a person with an excessive interest in poo was a weirdo, assuming that person wasn't a child wherein an open interest in poo was normal.

A psychologist is aware that the interest is strange, but there is no judgement. If I hear that someone is pathologically interested in poo I automatically think "what's going on in their brain", not "that guy is a weirdo".

Perplexed4 wrote: »

Freud however built a whole theory around Anality which is somewhat perverse and very judgemental.

Freud has very little, if any, credibility in modern academic psychology.

Perplexed4 wrote: »

I am put in mind of a noted columnist who tried to argue he used the word bastard in a descriptive non-judgemental sense. He subsequently had to apologise. Anyone, including psychologist, who uses terminology loaded with moral judgement and seeks to deny such judgement is lying and most probably to themselves!;)

You're talking ****e. "Abnormal psychology" is not loaded with judgement among the academic field, some people just choose to view them that way. This is pretty normal in all areas of academia. The first non-psychology example that comes to mind is "poor sleep hygiene", which refers to bad sleeping patterns - you can interpret that as meaning you're a dirty fúcker, but that's not what it means.

This has been going on for years. "Sexual paraphilia", a non-judgemental term, is likely going to be changed to "sexual variation" in the DSM-V because people don't like the idea of having a "paraphilia".

Perplexed4 wrote: »

Anyone want to get back to the point and suggest some titles of decent psychology books.

Sure, "Psychological Science" by Gazzaniga and Heatherton. At least they know what they're talking about.

Odysseus

Perplexed4 wrote: »

Are you asserting here that the average Clinical psychologists and psychoanalysts judgement is so impaired by their work that they are incapable of seeing what is abhorent about paedophilia. If they can see nothing wrong with abusing children whats to say they can restrain themselves when they feel like abusing adults?

As a clinician I'm working with a person, I may have my own views about things they have done, but that does not enter the therapy. My own morals are that my own, they should not enter my consulting room.

Odysseus

Perplexed4 wrote: »

You be asking in for it if you called someone a paedophile and they never offended!

Granted that understanding is not an excuse and psychologist who do their job are looking to understand but they are frequently employed to judge. And they are human and will judge.

No one would judge the psychologist who thought a person with an excessive interest in poo was a weirdo, assuming that person wasn't a child wherein an open interest in poo was normal. Freud however built a whole theory around Anality which is somewhat perverse and very judgemental.

I am put in mind of a noted columnist who tried to argue he used the word bastard in a descriptive non-judgemental sense. He subsequently had to apologise. Anyone, including psychologist, who uses terminology loaded with moral judgement and seeks to deny such judgement is lying and most probably to themselves!;)

Well as a psychoanalyst I disagree with you, yes it's in peoples nature to judge, but if I act on that judgement or allow it to interfer with the patents treatment, then I need to be speaking about it in supervision or refer the person on. We [psychoanalysts] still use the diagnostic classification perverse, however, there is no moral judgement assigned to that classification, it is a way of being in the world.

krd

Odysseus wrote: »

As a clinician I'm working with a person, I may have my own views about things they have done, but that does not enter the therapy. My own morals are that my own, they should not enter my consulting room.

I know it's a necessity to have a level of detachment. My belief on morals, is that they're not a purely intellectual exercise, but they're experienced on an emotional level - a visceral level. Where someone has done something that makes you feel sick to your stomach - you actually feel sick to your stomach.

Even if say you're detached - on a subconscious level, are you? Can you be?

My own morals are that my own

Is that a position of moral relativism?

krd

Odysseus wrote: »

We [psychoanalysts] still use the diagnostic classification perverse, however, there is no moral judgement assigned to that classification, it is a way of being in the world.

Perverse is a bad word.

per·vert (pr-vûrt)
tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts
1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See Synonyms at corrupt.
4. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort

And what does the classification perverse mean to the psychoanalyst. Or what can it mean. Does it mean that if someone is socially conservative and socially conformist that they are not perverse, whereas someone who rejects those values, and acts counter to them is perverse - or a pervert?

It wouldn't be a problem I would be the first to have with psycho therapy. That central to wellness is to accept the socially dominant modes of thinking as correct, right and good. Under those terms, a dissident can be determined to be unwell - and locked up in an asylum, like they did in the Soviet Union.

Is Orwell's Winston Smith a pervert. Is he insane. Or is his political mania a manifestation of sanity.

Odysseus

krd wrote: »

Perverse is a bad word.

per·vert (pr-vûrt)
tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts
1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See Synonyms at corrupt.
4. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort

And what does the classification perverse mean to the psychoanalyst. Or what can it mean. Does it mean that if someone is socially conservative and socially conformist that they are not perverse, whereas someone who rejects those values, and acts counter to them is perverse - or a pervert?

It wouldn't be a problem I would be the first to have with psycho therapy. That central to wellness is to accept the socially dominant modes of thinking as correct, right and good. Under those terms, a dissident can be determined to be unwell - and locked up in an asylum, like they did in the Soviet Union.

Is Orwell's Winston Smith a pervert. Is he insane. Or is his political mania a manifestation of sanity.

You said you where familiar with the work of Lacan and you also mentioned other Lacanians. I'm not being funny but surely you already know the answer to that question. Perversion from our viewpoint doesn't not always refer to overt sexual acts, like the fetishist is generally a pervert but it does not always refer to sexual acts/position.

As you know there are three major classifications, neurotic, psychotic and perverse, and then there are sub=classes: e.g. neurotic covering hysteria, obsessional neurosis and phobia.

The centre to wellness from my viewpoint is summed up in Civilization and its Discontents where Freud states "that like is too difficult for us", we rarely use the word cure in therapy now. There are many different understandings of exactly what the end of analysis is, I tend to go with Freud's comments about the ability to love and work, with Lacan your talking about transversing the fundamental fantasy' or identifying with the symptom.

You give a definition of perverse for a normal dictionary I don’t have a clinical one to hand but it would give you a better sense of how the term is used clinically. However, apart from moralistic treatments like those based on 12 Step Fellowship for addiction, imo a clinician morals have no place in a treatment setting. This is not easy, but that is why we have supervision and personal therapy for. If the transference is too strong and affecting the therapy is a negative manner, you need to refer the person.

I know we have gone way off topic, so if you want to continue it maybe start a new thread.

TrollHammaren

From the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (Colmon, 2006): Perversion, sexual, "An obsolete term, often considered offensive nowadays, for a paraphilia."

Odysseus

TrollHammaren wrote: »

From the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (Colmon, 2006): Perversion, sexual, "An obsolete term, often considered offensive nowadays, for a paraphilia."

I was more thinking of an analytic one like The Language of Psychoanalysis or Evan's Lacanian dictionary. Believe me it's still in use with analysts who may also be clinical psychologists or psychiatrists, actually you would be suprised at the amount of the above who also practice analysis. I know a few consulant psych here who practice analysis with suitable patients., so we not that oboslete;) But as I said above maybe for another thread. I woill gladly engaging in a thread on analysis, but I have said this from day one I'm not here to defend analysis, but as a psychotherapeutic treatment I don't mind discussing it.

Mr Porridge

I think that The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins explains the route of all human behaviour. It's not an easy read but it's very worthwhile. All human behaviour reduces to our selfish genes and what we do to reproduce.

hotspur

Odysseus wrote: »

I tend to go with Freud's comments about the ability to love and work

I was looking for the reference for that comment some time ago and there isn't one. It may have been something he said, but there is no evidence that he did. Which is a bit of a shame really, because it has always struck me as being pretty good.

krd

Odysseus wrote: »

I was more thinking of an analytic one like The Language of Psychoanalysis or Evan's Lacanian dictionary. Believe me it's still in use with analysts who may also be clinical psychologists or psychiatrists, actually you would be suprised at the amount of the above who also practice analysis. I know a few consulant psych here who practice analysis with suitable patients., so we not that oboslete;) But as I said above maybe for another thread. I woill gladly engaging in a thread on analysis, but I have said this from day one I'm not here to defend analysis, but as a psychotherapeutic treatment I don't mind discussing it.

I would be interested if you wanted to get the thread going.

I'm sorry, I haven't had the energy to respond to your post. Not for any particular reason. I just haven't had the energy - maybe it's because I've been tired.

I'm not any kind of expert on Lacan. And I don't really know how I feel about him.

If you want to get the ball rolling, get the ball rolling. Whateva

Odysseus

krd wrote: »

I would be interested if you wanted to get the thread going.

I'm sorry, I haven't had the energy to respond to your post. Not for any particular reason. I just haven't had the energy - maybe it's because I've been tired.

I'm not any kind of expert on Lacan. And I don't really know how I feel about him.

If you want to get the ball rolling, get the ball rolling. Whateva

I would be glad to mate, it's how we all learn about each other's clinical work. Hpwever cpuld ypu start it with a question abput Lacan, anything form the famous "the unconscious is structured like laguage" to the emphasis he played on French Phil, psychoanalysis is very big in France. Anything really it cloud be about Freud, or why I think it's useful in my HSE work with the Addiction Services.

It's just getting the ball rolling and as I'm most know psychoanalyst here I don't want to be seen as setting a specific agenda, how does that sound. If you not happy with that I'll come up with something else. How does that soundo because it's a tad unfair on thr OP. Let me know what you thing?

Odysseus

hotspur wrote: »

I was looking for the reference for that comment some time ago and there isn't one. It may have been something he said, but there is no evidence that he did. Which is a bit of a shame really, because it has always struck me as being pretty good.

I have come across that too Hotspur, It's not in vol.24 of the SE. However, I99.99999 sure I read it and remember having a disussion with Barry O'Donnell about it when I was doing my BA which too be fair is a long time ago at a guess it may be in one of the case studies The Rat Man or The Wolf Man I think. I must ask Rik.

Unless all of the above is a screen memory:o