Testing, Testing - Parting Thoughts
Some final thoughts on the 'Gullible Goodwill' test.
The test relies on a charming, but sadly inaccurate, myth that is all too popular in recovery circles, which goes something like this:
The first front is something I'll call The General Theory of Selective Emotional Blindness. It's the notion that people who have an emotional problem are somehow blinded to that specific problem's existence by the problem itself.
By this reckoning, it should be completely impossible for anyone suffering from depression, or bipolar disorder, or PTSD, or any other psychiatric disorder, to ever fully consent to enter treatment.
Why?
Because, if this fallacy were true, none of these people could ever imagine, let alone ever be brought to believe and understand, that they are suffering from the disorders that they in fact do suffer from.
And therefore, their fully informed consent could never be obtained - because it is impossible for them ever to be fully informed!
There certainly are people who are too emotionally fragile, too vulnerable, to be faced with a specific diagnosis directly. Having their particular problem named to them could do them far more harm than good, and a caring professional will find other ways to bring them into treatment with minimal trauma and maximum understanding.
But it's also pretty obvious - I hope - that there are plenty of people on the planet who can perceive, perfectly well, that they suffer from depression, bipolar disorder, etc.; and that many of these people are doing all they can, with all their hearts and souls and minds and strength, to seek and comply with an appropriate treatment plan, because they do not want to suffer from untreated depression, bipolar disorder, etc.
So the General Theory fails PDQ.
The second front is something I'll call the Special Theory of Selective Emotional Blindness. This is the notion that people who have a personality disorder that renders them inimical - i.e., the well and truly nasty who dwell among us - are somehow incapable of figuring out that
Now: in place of the General and Special Theories of Selective Emotional Blindness, I'd like to offer The Stormchild Theory of Human Psycho-Predation.
[1] Human predators exist; they are not rare; their prevalence is such that most human groups and organizations will unavoidably include one or more, often in positions of dominance.
[2] Most human predation is psychologically based, at least initially.
[3] Most human predators know perfectly well that they are predatory, and they start young. [This is one of the reasons it is unwise to ignore or trivialize childhood bullying. It gets a lot bigger and meaner when it grows up.]
[4] Astute human predators also know that the best way to get close to prey is by pretending not to be predators.
[5] One of the most effective ways of disarming prey is to exploit the two myths referenced above: the predator announces that they are 'afraid they might be' what they know perfectly well they are.
Think of [5] as psychological camouflage, because that is exactly what it is. It disarms the prey both cognitively and emotionally: cognitively by exploiting the myths above, which compel the prey to reject any possibility that the predator could be a predator - precisely because the predator says they might be!and emotionally because it includes the 'pity ploy', a la Martha Stout:
"I am afraid [that I have X]. Pity me. Reassure me. Abandon critical thinking and all other forms of self-protection to 'rescue' me."
Don't do it. Resist the siren song. Offer an honest, caring but non-enabling response when invited to play the predator's game.
Your psychological safety is worth it.
The test relies on a charming, but sadly inaccurate, myth that is all too popular in recovery circles, which goes something like this:
If you are wondering if you have 'X', you can't possibly have 'X',This would be very comforting if it were true [and, it would be an infallible basis for avoiding scoundrels!], but it is in fact untrue on at least two fronts.
because nobody who actually has 'X' ever wonders if they do.
The first front is something I'll call The General Theory of Selective Emotional Blindness. It's the notion that people who have an emotional problem are somehow blinded to that specific problem's existence by the problem itself.
By this reckoning, it should be completely impossible for anyone suffering from depression, or bipolar disorder, or PTSD, or any other psychiatric disorder, to ever fully consent to enter treatment.
Why?
Because, if this fallacy were true, none of these people could ever imagine, let alone ever be brought to believe and understand, that they are suffering from the disorders that they in fact do suffer from.
And therefore, their fully informed consent could never be obtained - because it is impossible for them ever to be fully informed!
There certainly are people who are too emotionally fragile, too vulnerable, to be faced with a specific diagnosis directly. Having their particular problem named to them could do them far more harm than good, and a caring professional will find other ways to bring them into treatment with minimal trauma and maximum understanding.
But it's also pretty obvious - I hope - that there are plenty of people on the planet who can perceive, perfectly well, that they suffer from depression, bipolar disorder, etc.; and that many of these people are doing all they can, with all their hearts and souls and minds and strength, to seek and comply with an appropriate treatment plan, because they do not want to suffer from untreated depression, bipolar disorder, etc.
So the General Theory fails PDQ.
The second front is something I'll call the Special Theory of Selective Emotional Blindness. This is the notion that people who have a personality disorder that renders them inimical - i.e., the well and truly nasty who dwell among us - are somehow incapable of figuring out that
[a] the General Theory exists,I am afraid that just about everyone who has read this far knows this is false based on direct experience. Predators have not only figured ALL of this out, they've written an entire playbook to take advantage of it.
[b] it's hogwash,
[c] but a lot of people believe it,
[d] and therefore one of the easiest ways to locate promising targets is by[1]stating that you are afraid you might be whatever you know perfectly well you actually are, and
[2]waiting to see who insists - categorically - that you can't be, merely because you just asked them if you might be.
Now: in place of the General and Special Theories of Selective Emotional Blindness, I'd like to offer The Stormchild Theory of Human Psycho-Predation.
[1] Human predators exist; they are not rare; their prevalence is such that most human groups and organizations will unavoidably include one or more, often in positions of dominance.
[2] Most human predation is psychologically based, at least initially.
[3] Most human predators know perfectly well that they are predatory, and they start young. [This is one of the reasons it is unwise to ignore or trivialize childhood bullying. It gets a lot bigger and meaner when it grows up.]
[4] Astute human predators also know that the best way to get close to prey is by pretending not to be predators.
[5] One of the most effective ways of disarming prey is to exploit the two myths referenced above: the predator announces that they are 'afraid they might be' what they know perfectly well they are.
Think of [5] as psychological camouflage, because that is exactly what it is. It disarms the prey both cognitively and emotionally: cognitively by exploiting the myths above, which compel the prey to reject any possibility that the predator could be a predator - precisely because the predator says they might be!and emotionally because it includes the 'pity ploy', a la Martha Stout:
"I am afraid [that I have X]. Pity me. Reassure me. Abandon critical thinking and all other forms of self-protection to 'rescue' me."
Don't do it. Resist the siren song. Offer an honest, caring but non-enabling response when invited to play the predator's game.
Your psychological safety is worth it.
posted by Stormchild at 30.10.08
3 comments
