TLP is my hero...

[Member 1337]

---

Members don't see this ad.

For those interested in TLP, old presentation has been posted on:

http://www.reddit.com/r/thelastpsyc...p_lecture_given_at_aapl_in_75_min_mp3_format/

Alone discusses his take on narcissism. Blog at www.thelastpsychiatrist.com.

 

[Shikima]

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/04/the_maintenance_of_certificati.html#more

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

TLP was consistently one of the best blogs I read about healthcare and honestly one of the best overall bc of his content.

 

[wolfvgang22]

Lol, that article on MOC is awesome! Thanks for sharing the link.
I disagree on one thing only: my exam two years ago was like going to prison with the security. I'm pretty sure the bathroom was bugged, and I got a pat-down every time I moved or sneezed. Maybe the matronly proctor just liked me, I don't know.

 

[NickNaylor]

I'm still working my way through his content. I think he goes a bit off the rocker at some points, but I think most of his stuff is spot-on. Then again, "if you're reading it, it's for you."

 

[birchswing]

I'll call myself out, and I'm sure it comes to no surprise, but I don't "get" his writings. I did really like his explanation of how Seroquel works. That was great. But the rest seems like manipulative wordplay. So much backgrounded information—he is constantly making presuppositions for you and then subverting your expectations: the ones he just made for you a few words ago. Reading his writing reminds me a bit of the way Rush Limbaugh speaks. There's a gift there, but I'm not sure how useful it is. I've only read a few of his entries, so it probably doesn't help that they're so heterogeneous.

This might seem sacrilegiously reductive, but what is his "thing"? What's the big world view?

 

[wolfvgang22]

The blogger does make a wide range of cultural references to written material from the internet, sciences, arts and popular culture, and he rambles. I only read two or three entries of interest, because they were so long. I loved one of his posts on ADHD stimulants, which was insightful although probably not 100% scientifically accurate. I wonder if anybody without at least a college education would understand a lot of what he writes.

He might be hard to understand to anybody that is not from the U.S. regarding the pop culture references. I saw lots of comments on his blog pointing this out, and telling him he could probably sum up his opinions in just one paragraph.
But, hey, it's his personal blog and if he wants to write in this almost stream-of-consciousness style, that's Ok. He rambles until he eventually hits on a great line once in a while where I laugh out loud and say "I can't believe he just wrote that!" He just doesn't have an editor.

I don't think he has one single, simple world view. He's obviously not a fan of certain extreme feminists Social Justice Warriors at all. I detect a large amount of Chomskyism in his posts, which to me is no bad thing if not taken too far (like a lot of social justice or many other views). I suspect he is much of a libertarian, though I may be wrong.

 

[birchswing]

The blogger does make a wide range of cultural references to written material from the internet, sciences, arts and popular culture, and he rambles. I only read two or three entries of interest, because they were so long. I loved one of his posts on ADHD stimulants, which was insightful although probably not 100% scientifically accurate. I wonder if anybody without at least a college education would understand a lot of what he writes.

He might be hard to understand to anybody that is not from the U.S. regarding the pop culture references. I saw lots of comments on his blog pointing this out, and telling him he could probably sum up his opinions in just one paragraph.
But, hey, it's his personal blog and if he wants to write in this almost stream-of-consciousness style, that's Ok. He rambles until he eventually hits on a great line once in a while where I laugh out loud and say "I can't believe he just wrote that!" He just doesn't have an editor.

I don't think he has one single, simple world view. He's obviously not a fan of certain extreme feminists Social Justice Warriors at all. I detect a large amount of Chomskyism in his posts, which to me is no bad thing if not taken too far (like a lot of social justice or many other views). I suspect he is much of a libertarian, though I may be wrong.

I think I understand him. I'm wary of literary experiences where it feels like I've been taken through a rabbit hole to have an epiphany. There's a lot of suggestions in his articles that you have to accept to get to his conclusions. I've only read a few of them He is gifted with words.

In advertising there's a technique by which advertisers use puns or double entendre to make the reader feel ownership over the material. If you have to figure something out, it makes it yours. So if you take, "Make poverty history," for example, there is a double meaning: You are making it history (making it disappear) and also making history in the area of poverty, in the sense of being part of history. It gives you a sense of the phrase being your own because you have a cognitive connection to it.

I think there is a little bit of that in play in the way TLP writes.

I'll read more if he comes out with more posts. I would have listened to the audio file but I'm wary of getting a torrent downloader on my computer. I don't doubt he's very intelligent and has valuable contributions. His post on Seroquel was very well written and was a great lay explanation of how it works at differing doses.

I just read his post on Sheryl Sandberg. I actually agree with his conclusions, but for different reasons. And I could have gotten there a lot quicker. The big picture of what he was talking about in that article is that there is a push for higher labor force participation as this improves nominal GDP (he didn't say that, but that's what's going on). We're at historically low labor force participation (even though we're at near full employment--which is based on a very specific definition). The more women who work, the great our productivity. But who does that benefit? Obama recently came out in favor of increased early childcare so that more women can work. All of that increases nominal GDP--more work, more childcare jobs=more production of good and services. So it helps business. But does it increase quality of life? I would argue that it doesn't. I'm not old-fashioned in that I think a mother should raise a child during formative years. But I think *someone* should raise a child and that daycare should be used sparingly rather than as a default parenting method in the first few years of life. So as a progressive, I strongly disagree with Obama--I forget exactly what he said, but it was very disparaging about the value of mothers mothering children. So, I concluded similarly to the TLP in his post on Sheryl Sandberg. We have changed the value of work, and we have changed the value of family. He never really made the argument though of what the motive is to encourage more women to work for the sake of working. I think the motive is to help business, and the counter-argument is quality of life. I guess he made that point, but it was lost among a lot of writing that feels like going on a carnival ride (which is not necessarily a bad thing).