The Country Shrink

“One swallow does not make a summer, neither does one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy.” -Aristotle

“Methinks thou doth protest too much.” -Shakespeare

It seems that some atheist, materialist, physician (objectionable language alert) did not like that I supported Dr. Egnor recently. While I’ll not insult Orac’s intelligence, I will question his wisdom. One does not necessarily follow from the other. Arrogance and pride are not among the characteristics of a wise person.

Psalm 101:5

“I will not tolerate people who slander their neighbors.I will not endure conceit and pride. ”

Proverbs 8:13

“All who fear the Lord will hate evil. Therefore, I hate pride and arrogance,corruption and perverse speech”

Proverbs 11:2

“Pride leads to disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.”

Proverbs 16:18

“Pride goes before destruction,and haughtiness before a fall.”

When it comes to any field, be it psychology, medicine, physics, whatever it may be, when you find someone acting as if they have all the answers, and that the traditional paradigm is venerated as religious doctrine, you ought to be very skeptical. When dissent and questioning of the status quo is equivalent to scientific blaspheme, you have to wonder about the basic rationality and motivation of the individuals attempting this self-veneration.

Orac verbally excretes:

Here’s the sentence from Country Shrink’s post that tells you all you need to know about his scientific and critical thinking chops:

I’ve learned more from Dr. Mercola (3), than I’ve ever learned from a traditional M.D.

My brain hurts after reading that one. If this guy thinks Dr. Mercola is a reliable source of any medical information, his knowledge deficit is much more than a quickie blog post can rectify. Dr. Mercola, as you may recall, runs the highly popular repository of “alternative medicine” pseudoscience, attacks on the medical establishment, and apologetics for quackery. True, he’s not as batsh** crazy as, say, for instance, Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com, but that’s like saying that energy healing is not quite as ridiculously implausible as energy healing.

So, I said that I’ve learned more from Dr. Mercola than any traditional MD, and I stand by this completely. Not only that, but I’ve used what I learned there to help improve the health of my patients. So far, all I’ve learned, or perhaps reinforced what I already knew, from Orac is that intelligence does not necessarily confer wisdom, rationality, or maturity.

He also laments that evolution is under-taught in medical school. I really don’t think evolution could be under-taught in medical school. Why waste time on a concept that has never saved a single life, nor contributed anything substantially to technology? If anything, it has resulted in a net loss of life (eugenics anyone?). Maybe, just maybe, simple notions of natural selection could be useful in the area of medication resistance. But maybe not. It seems more likely that trying to develop safeguards to the horrific level of iatrogenic deaths, injuries, and illnesses would be more profitable. That would include ways of stemming the spread of superbugs, and more rational prescribing of antibiotics.

Someone who is developing rat poison doesn’t need to understand “evolution” to know that rats have become resistant to the poison, they only need to figure out another way to kill rats, and the most effective ways to administer the poison that minimizes the development of resistance.

“As for that little bit about shooting fish in a barrel, let me assure you that Dr. Atwood is quite capable of it, as am I. Too bad the Country Shrink put himself in the proverbial barrel to be shot at by me on a day when I just so happened to be in the mood for shooting fish in a barrel.”

Ouch… Have you ever actually shot a gun Orac? I don’t think I’d be too worried if you had a gun, but if you came at me with a scalpel, I’d run for my life.

The Outsider also shoots back.

—-

Note: I’m not a fan of the whole energy healing movement. I am a big fan of optimizing health through nutrition. Traditional medical education is woefully inadequate in this area.

Kimbal Atwood IV, M.D., of ‘Science-Based Medicine’ writes:

“If people are going to enter the fray of debate, at least they ought to play by the rules. One who doesn’t is the Intelligent Design apologist

Michael Egnor, a nice counter-example to the popular myth that neurosurgeons are necessarily intelligent. I’m aware that Steve Novella posted the day before yesterday in response to Egnor’s recent lament about our close friend Orac and about Dr. Novella himself. I couldn’t help but stick in my two cents, however, because deconstructing Egnor’s essay is like shooting fish in a barrel, and it seemed appropriate for Boxing Day. I have avoided reading Dr. Novella’s piece so as not to color my own thinking, so please forgive any redundancies (speaking of that, I’m not the first to make the obvious pun of Egnor’s name). My post will be short and sweet and sour.” (1)

The science establishment claims to be able to rationally evaluate data, design experiments, develop theories with minimal ideological baggage, and interpret scientific results in an objective manner. So, here is an anesthesiologist and internist calling a neurosurgeon/neuroscientist stupid, in a round about way, for supporting intelligent design. Maybe you’ll think it has to do with Egnor’s criticism of the medical establishment in other ways, if you read the article. Perhaps that’s part of it.

Egnor writes:

“There is an internet cottage industry of physicians and scientists who regularly excoriate alternative medicine and other non-traditional or even fringe approaches to health or to scientific understanding. Steven Novella, Orac, and a host of other faux “defenders of science” decry the danger to the public from vaccine “denial,” homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, among others. Now, I agree with my medical colleagues that the scientific basis for most of these practices or viewpoints is missing or minimal. I don’t believe that the scientific evidence supports the view that vaccines cause autism. I am not a supporter of “alternative medicine,” and I objected when an effort was made some years ago to expand alternative medicine here at Stony Brook. Alternative medicine, like traditional medicine, must be subjected to strict standards of evidence for safety and efficacy. Most types of alternative medicine fail to meet those standards, and therefore should not be endorsed by the medical profession.” (2)

Who did he criticize here? Alternative or traditional medicine? Traditional medicine’s approach is this: ‘if it cannot be cut, irradiated, poisoned, or altered with synthetic chemicals, we aren’t interested. The pharmaceutical industry does not fund us to do that type of research.’ Also, ‘we can’t charge the big bucks for any alternative treatments.’

So what is Dr. Egnor’s criticism that Dr. Atwood finds to be so offensive?

“The data is uncontestable. Each year in the United States, errors of traditional science-based medical practice kill at least a hundred thousand people, probably substantially more. These errors include medication errors, surgical errors and unnecessary surgery, preventable bedsores, infections caused by poor technique and the failure of medical personnel to practice good hygiene such as hand washing, and many others. Note that none of these deaths are caused by homeopaths, vaccine “deniers,” etc.”

I’ve learned more from Dr. Mercola (3), than I’ve ever learned from a traditional M.D.

I thought Egnor’s criticism of medicine was well founded. In my practice, I frequently have to fill in the gaps for my patients with chronic medical problems that “contemporary medicine” fails to fill. I’m sorry, but a 5-15 minute appointment hardly fills the bill. Maybe it works well from a purely materialistic and monetary perspective, but it doesn’t work well from the perspective of the patient. Know anyone who had to spend a significant amount of time in the hospital and caught a hospital (iatrogenic (4)) infection? You probably do. I knew more than one person who died from this, and more than one person who spent 6+ months in the hospital fighting an infection that they caught in the hospital as a result of their treatment. On internship, I had to don a near full body covering to go in to hospital rooms to talk to these folks (I had the head covering, mask, plastic overshirt, and so forth, needed just to walk in the room for people with MRSA and other hospital acquired infections). Try being very personal as a shrink in this garb… I did the best I could, and I really felt for these people who had suffered as the result of iatrogenic diseases. Some had been in isolation for 6+ months and could receive no visitors who did not wear the clothing that I wore. You want to talk about depression? Who wouldn’t be depressed? I sure as hell would be.

We’ve seen time and again that personal attacks are the modus operandi and an established scientific method for the anti-ID movement. It’s sophomoric at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Dr. Egnor is seen as a “quack” by physicians such as Dr. Atwood the Fourth. Does it have anything to do with his endorsement of ID or his medical practice? You be the judge. I have my own opinions.

So, let’s see if Dr. Egnor is proved stupid. Do you think Dr. Atwood (number 4) is a good enough shot to shoot fish in a barrel? By the way, the training to be a neurosurgeon requires 8+ years of college plus a 6+ years residency. Stupid or ignorant right? (5)

(1) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=324
(2) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/12/advice_to_an_arrogant_medical.html
(3) http://www.mercola.com
(4) http://www.onelook.com/?w=iatrogenic&ls=a
(5) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=323

—
No, I am not an M.D., and you should listen to M.D.’s instead of me. I’m just a Ph.D., shrink, and maybe I’m completely stupid like Dr. Egnor. Actually, I’m much worse than Dr. Egnor.

I’ve written on this subject before, and others are catching on.  John Grohol of PsychCentral writes:

Eight medications for a single child? Heck, I wouldn’t want to see an adult taking that many medications for a psychiatric disorder, much less a child of 10.⁽¹⁾

Yes, he talked about a report of a child being on 2 antipsychotics, 2 mood stabilizers, 2 stimulants, 1 antidepressant, and another med just for ADHD.  You’ve got to be kidding me.

I wish this surprised me.  It doesn’t.  Dr. Grohol thinks things might be better if the diagnoses were rendered by psychiatrists….maybe…maybe…

…general practitioners and physicians should never be diagnosing a child’s psychiatric condition unless they are a psychiatrist, plain and simple. They might offer a preliminary diagnosis, but then the rule should be that they refer on to a qualified mental health professional (a psychiatrist is fine, but psychologists and other mental health professionals are also well-qualified to properly diagnose and recommend a comprehensive treatment plan).

I’ve evaluated numerous children diagnosed by psychiatrists who were on 4 different classes of medication for ADHD (antipsychotic, mood stablizer, antidepressant, and another med to combat side effects).  As Dr. Grohol notes:

Compared to adults, few studies have been done to ensure the safety and efficacy of many of these psychiatric medications (except for childhood concerns like ADHD). Medications for children are sometimes necessary, absolutely. But it should be done only under the oversight of a specialist in mental health concerns (a psychiatrist) and treatment should, ideally, be conducted through a treatment of team of mixed mental health professionals.

I would urge even more caution that Dr. Grohol.  A psychiatrist will typically spend 15-30 minutes evaluating the issue.  Usually (not always), their only tool is medication.  In my practice, if it is at all feasible, I work with the patient in every way I can think of to avoid medication.  Occasionally, it’s not possible.  But very often it is.  If a psychiatrist wants to put your child on meds, ask if it has been approved for use in children.  There are not many meds that have been, but they are used all the time.

(1). http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/12/15/overprescribing-medications-in-children/

There’s no doubt about it, the average American diet is atrocious. Give us the 44 ounce softdrinks, Big Macs, ice cream, and snack cakes, and we’ll take that every time over a healthy diet of fruit and vegetables. Obesity is referred to as an “epidemic” in America. I agree with all of that.^[1] Here’s where I get off of the bus:

Maybe your mother didn’t cry, “Mangia!” when you ate dinner, like mine did. Still, you’re likely to whisper it to yourself. That’s because you possess a simple survival impulse: Eat until sated. Our neanderthink legacy is to store as much energy as possible, since calories were scarce and uncertain for most of human evolutionary history and our metabolism was set to guard against the possibility of starvation tomorrow. The problem is that eating more doesn’t sate us; we merely recalibrate how much we think we need.

Our evolved mind-set on food hinders us in several ways. Our instincts tell us to keep eating well beyond when we are sated. Worse, the foods we crave—calorie-dense fats and sugars—were once rare and valued as a bulwark against starvation; now they’re plentiful and harmful in excess. We don’t crave plants, precisely because they were more abundant in our past. And if we do manage to temporarily gain a handle on the gustatory Disneyland in which we live, our dietary rigor plummets once we’ve lost weight.⁽¹⁾

So, the notion is that our Neanderthink makes us do it. For the sake of argument, let’s say I concede this point for a moment. What is the recommendation?

We’re good at rationalizations to avoid governing our food intake. We tell ourselves, “I can get away with eating this delicious morsel,” or “It’s too hard to deny myself this scrumptious ice cream.” By yielding to such urges, we ratchet upward the amount of sugar and fat we crave, because we are tampering with a hormonal system finely attuned to the lack of such concentrated energy. On the savannah, the sweetest confection was wild fruit.

Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, famously summed up what you need to know to consume healthfully: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” The method by which we might hew to this Paleolithic regimen can also be summed up in seven words: “Dieting gets easier if you don’t cheat.”

So the question is, how do the recommendations actually follow from the just so story? They don’t. It’s just, “Don’t eat too much, and eat mostly plants. Oh yeah, don’t cheat.” But this goes back to the premise of my original post, and that is that the Darwinian Psychology narrative is thought to add scientific authority to whatever is being discussed. Forget the fact that the conclusion does not follow from the premise in the article. That is irrelevant to why these folks invoke a Darwinian just so story. They think it adds credibility. For me, they just prevented the story from being printed out and handed to my patients, which could have been beneficial.

The same periodical also published an article entitled, How to Be a Good Storyteller not long before.⁽²⁾

Perhaps they find these articles unrelated, but I found them to be very related:

Stories also entertain, educate, and instill moral values—sometimes all at once. We can all tell narratives, whether in the classroom, the boardroom, or the living room, but it takes practice to become a fine raconteur.

It seems the folks over at Psychology Today have been getting their practice.

—References—
⁽¹⁾ Neanderthink: An Outsize Appetite, Courtesy of Evolution, Nando Pelusi Ph.D., (11/17/08), Psychology Today
⁽²⁾ How to Spin a Good Story, Brian Andrew, (10/20/08), Psychology Today

—Footnotes—
^[1] I have a simple experiment which I use to teach my patients about their diet. This one has to do with sugar, and more specifically folks who are addicted to soft drinks. Go two weeks without any soft drinks (it actually doesn’t matter if it’s a diet soft drink or regular), and then go out and buy the biggest soft drink you can. Then it will be clear to you what it does to your mind and body. This is something that has worked in each case. In fact, the research shows that drinking just one diet soft drink daily increases the risk of being overweight to an extent that is greater than regular soft drinks, although not by much. One diet soft drink daily increases your chances by approximately 42% whereas one sugar filled drink increases your chances by 38%. It goes up with each additional drink per day.

I am going to write an ongoing series on Darwinian Psychology (aka Evolutionary Psychology). Unfortunately, my chosen field (psychology) has probably generated more “just so”^(1,2) stories than has biology. Paleontologist and Darwinist, Stephen J. Gould, wrote about “Darwinian Fundamentalism”,⁽³⁾ and specifically singled out Darwinian Psychology for criticism. He also noted the similarity between Darwinism and fundamentalism:

But since the modern ultras [Ultra Darwinists] push their line with an almost theological fervor, and since the views of founding fathers do matter in religion, though supposedly not in science, Darwin’s own fierce opposition does become a factor in judgment.⁽³⁾

Equivalent of Darwinian Just So Story

I have noted an interesting phenomena among scientists and in “scientific” writings. Presenting a Darwinian “just so” story for the phenomena that you are discussing seems to provide the research with a veneer of scientific credibility. It is as if a Darwinian “just so” story is a suitable substitute for empirical data.

For those who study persuasion, they will note a similar phenomena in the general population. For example, people dressed in a suit and tie are more persuasive than those not dressed in this manner.⁽⁴⁾ Authority is conferred to individuals dressed in this manner. For those of us who worked in an hospital setting in graduate school, we were always excited when we were able to wear a white lab coat, because the patients listened to us better and were more apt to follow our instructions.

As an aside, this may be related to evolutionary factors indicating intelligence. Intelligence among our ancestors may have been displayed by having unique abilities (such as making unique tools or being able to communicate in a way that less intelligent apes could not understand).^[1] Over time, our ancestors would have developed a mutation to recognize these symbols as promoting survival, and would have thus been more attracted to individuals who displayed these symbols. [Yes, I'm being sarcastic here.]

So, I hope you enjoy this forthcoming series analyzing pseudoscientific Darwinian Psychology. There is a wealth of material upon which to draw. The motto for this area seems to be, “If it sounds good and references evolution, then it is science.”

—References—

⁽¹⁾ Just So Stories, Wikipedia
⁽²⁾ Darwin Says “Just So…”
⁽³⁾ Darwinian Fundamentalism, Stephen J. Gould, (1997)
⁽⁴⁾ Perceived Symbols of Authority and Their Influence on Compliance, Bushman, B.J. (1984)

—Notes—
[1]. I have generated a Darwinian Just So Story to help provide credibility to this post. Did it work?

A recent atheist commenter wrote:

so i stumbled upon… “No, it’s not impossible to maintain, and I’m of the opinion that no amount of skepticism is enough.”
Absolute skepticism is arrogance, or at least an utter lack of trust in the experiences and knowledge of others.
You hear something from a friend, but you’re skeptical, so you go look it up. You find ten other people that agree with what your friend said, but you’re skeptical of them. Where does it end?
When people say absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain, they’re not lying; it is impossible. Eventually you have to give in to trust.”

I recently turned atheist. You are right i didn’t have a good relationship with my father. but arrogantly i think i am an absolute skeptic. It hurts my brain, but i think i’m closer to the truth. I would like to be a theist again, when i was happy. now being a atheist, i am depressed. but none the less, I can’t justify believing in Christianity. I wish i could but i can’t. I see so many errors in it. How do you rationally believe in Christianity, [if even possible]?

I’m responding here, not as a shrink, but as a Christian and fellow human being.

I appreciate your comment very much. I can tell from what you wrote that you are distressed by both your skepticism and your atheism. You want to believe, but you have deep doubts. You see all kinds of “errors” with Christianity.

Believe it or not, I at one time, was in a similar position. You have a lot of questions about Christianity. So did I. And we are not alone. All believers have doubts at times. In fact, I think doubt is a necessary part of faith. It wouldn’t be called faith, if there was no doubt. What I would ask you to do is to sincerely pray to God. Say something like, “God, here is what keeps me from believing in you. I want to believe, but I have trouble believing because… Please lead me to the answers of my questions.” And, start to listen for the answers. Do even more than that. Start to seek out the answers. God will accept you with all of your flaws. He accepts me, and I am as flawed as anybody. Don’t seek the answers to your questions because it will make you happy, because believers may have even more challenges. Seek the truth.

31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;

32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (1)

You ask the question:

How do you rationally believe in Christianity, [if even possible]?

I answer you unequivocally, Yes. You can rationally believe in Christianity. There have been many atheists who have rationally examined the evidence and came to believe. (2,3,4,5,6) God can help you with your skepticism if you let Him.

(1). John 8:31-32 (NASB)
(2). Jesus Among Other Gods, Ravi Zacharias
(3). The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
(4). The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel
(5). Who Moved the Stone, Frank Morrison
(6). Testimony of the Evangelists, Simon Greenleaf (Full Text Available Online)

Women who deliver vaginally may be more responsive to their newborns in the early postpartum period than those who deliver via cesarean section, new research suggests.1

This has been speculated about for a long time, but new research shows that it is the case. I think it only makes sense. As humans, I think we are automatically more connected with others with whom we have suffered together. But, I think the other point is that this method is more natural (as God intended perhaps). I realize that there are many situations where this is not an option, but I also know that over the years, the decision of vaginal versus cesarean birth has been a matter of convenience. I don’t necessarily mean the woman either. I’ve heard stories about a doctor having to come in on a holiday to deliver a baby, and in order to get it over as soon as possible, opted for cesarean. Or worse, induced the birth and utilized forceps for the most rapid delivery possible. Doctors like their holiday times as much as anyone.

The research also found:

“We found a significant difference in activity in certain cortical and subcortical areas of the brain in this group of mothers who delivered vaginally compared with those who delivered by cesarean section. Broadly speaking, the cortical brain regions are believed to be important for regulating emotions and empathy,” principal investigator James Swain, MD, PhD, FRCPS, told Medscape Psychiatry.

This research is part of a longer term study examining the relationship between bonding at delivery method. The researchers reported that cesarean deliveries have increased from 4.5% in 1965 to 29.1% in 2006. Based on my observations, people who were born via cesarean section are more reactive to sudden changes, scared of surprises, and have more difficulty with life transitions.

¹ http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/581065?src=rss

I became the victim of one of his most violent crimes, and repressed the memories for 43 years until 2005. Dickinson meticulously planned a gang rape in my honor several days in advance. My life was derailed. I told no one — not even the rapist. Confronting Dickinson would mean acknowledging to myself that the rapes had actually occurred … too horrible for my conscious mind to accept, and at that time, the words drugged or raped never occurred to me. I forced myself into denial, refusing to believe it ever happened. The mind rejects whatever it deems as “unimaginable”. More on that later.¹

There is a general defense mechanism that seems to explain all others to one extent or another. That defense mechanism is repression. All defense mechanisms involve a blocking of information from awareness. With the specific defense mechanism of repressed memories, the information is from one’s past. The quote above is from an individual who experienced horrific trauma, repressed it, and then recovered it later.

Freud rejected his earlier notion of widespread sexual abuse as fantasies. He simply could seem to deal with the implications. Later, therapists and shrinks in their exuberance, implanted many false memories through suggestion into their patients. As a result, many psychologists, completely rejected the notion of repressed memories. When what they should have learned is to be very careful, and to understand the issue in great detail. Part of the duty of a physician is, “first, do no harm.” This is also the duty of a shrink. By rejecting out of hand, the possibility of repressed memories, there are folks who will be harmed. I’ve seen a number of folks who thought “something might have happened,” but as far as I can tell nothing did. This is not generally how truly repressed memories emerge.

One also has to be very careful with the use of hypnosis in the recovery of repressed memories. This can easily implant false memories. That said, a very competent psychologist may help someone to recover memories in a very objective and sensitive way.

¹ http://www.georgia-tech-rape-victim2.blogspot.com/

I write on the psychological aspects of atheism, because academic psychology and academic tradition has been biased and focused on the psychological aspects of belief in God.  I feel there needs to be a little balance to this issue.  Recently, there has been some research that seems a little more even-handed in the study of belief and disbelief.  It is a very large and ongoing study.

I have noted before, the association between a poor relationship with one’s father and atheism.  Paul Vitz noted this association for the most extreme atheists.  The recent study presents some data on the issue in terms of what atheists and believers say about their relationship with their fathers.

There certainly is a correlation here.  It looks as if approximately 56% of atheists believe that they had a good relationship with their father, whereas, 62% of believers believed they had a good relationship with their fathers.  Granted, that’s only about a 6% difference.  So, while the association I’ve noted between relationship problems with the father and atheism exists.  It does not appear to be the whole story.  I would also point out, that in treatment, that beliefs about one’s relationships with one’s parents often changes during the course of treatment.  Patients often come to see their relationship with their parents in a new light–the light of today’s understanding.  So, I will admit that the relationship may be less strong than what I have presented before, but certainly does exist.  This factor with the mother, is not associated.  The study also did not examine the strength of belief and association with the relationship with one’s parents (which is the notion of Paul Vitz).

I’ve also asserted the following before:

4). They portray themselves as enlightened, intelligent, tolerant, moral, caring, accepting, loving, peaceable, and kind.  And sometimes, they really and truly are.  I’ve known them and met them.  However, they are not tolerant, in general, of the beliefs of “believers.”  They can tolerate anything but that.

I think the data broadly supports this assertion.  You can see more graphs here.

The data does seem to show that atheists (on average), view themselves as more intelligent than the rest of the population.

So, as you can see, 68% of atheists believe they are more intelligent than the average person, whereas, 52% of Christians believe they are more intelligent than the average person.  This is a stronger association than the assocation between the relationship with the father and atheism.  So, this confirms what I’ve stated with respect to intellectual elitism and atheism.  However, I would also state that I have never seen a study of IQ scores of believers vs. atheists.  So it is at least possible that their beliefs about their intelligence are accurate.  But on average, in my opinion, this intellectual elitism does exist.

I will continue to examine these issues in Part VI.

((FOR THE EYES OF A SHRINK ONLY))

Other folks, please read at your own risk. Do I have your interest?

As a shrink, you really need to have several quotes at the ready–quotes possessing wisdom.  Folks come to see you for wisdom, believe it or not.  This is a piece of wisdom taught to me by my mentor.  When folks come to see a shrink, they expect shrinks to have some wisdom.  I’ll present some of the gems that I have acquired over the years.  These are few and far between.  I don’t learn these very often. I quote myself here a couple of times. I hope that’s not too vain.  Are you a non-shrink and still reading?  Hmmmmm.  (Shrink raises one eyebrow, and then looks away while observing non-verbal behavior out of the corner of his eye).

ANGER

“No man is ever made braver through anger, except the one who would never have been brave without anger. It comes, then, not as a help to virtue, but as a substitute for it. And is it not true that if anger were a good, it would come naturally to those who are the most perfect? But the fact is, children, old men, and the sick are most prone to anger, and weakness of any sort is by nature captious.”¹

“Be ye angry, and sin not.” (Ephisians 4:26).

“If you do not wish to be prone to anger, do not feed the habit; give it nothing which may tend to its increase.” (Epictetus).

“If you are patient in one moment of anger, you will escape a hundred days of sorrow.” (Chinese Proverb).

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” ²

“Anger is part of being human. You’ll never get to a place where you’re never angry. That doesn’t happen for humans. At times, anger drives us to address things that we would not otherwise. So, it can be a positive motivation at times. You can tell it’s not positive by thinking about whether the other person is put beneath you as a human being. If so, then you are out of line.” — The Country Shrink

SUICIDE

“Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.” (Author unknown)

“Folks who commit suicide make it more likely that their children or relatives will do the same. There is nothing more harmful to family members than for one of the family members to commit suicide. I’ve worked with people who had a family member commit suicide as a child. There are few traumas that are worse.” –The Country Shrink

…. To Be Continued–You didn’t expect me to reveal all of the scant wisdom I have in one post, did you? ….

What, you’re not a shrink and you’re still reading? For shame. For shame. Who woulda thought it?

¹ http://praxeology.net/seneca2.htm
² http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29885.html