The Taproot Therapy Podcast - https://www.GetTherapyBirmingham.com

Icky, Mean, Hateful: On the nature of evil in psychotherapy

Read More at https://gettherapybirmingham.com/blog/
One of the things that happens frequently in family therapy is that a person or group of family members will accuse the other person or group of family  therapy of being mean or hateful. Most of the time if someone is abusive or intentionally hurtful they won’t deny ill intentions. Put simply, someone who has meant to be mean will usually admit that.  Other times one side denies intentionally trying to hurt the person accusing them of trying to cause harm. 
When this happens I usually draw a line down a piece of paper and have each side write down what they remember was said. On one side of the paper will be an objective statement. These statements might include something like you drank too much and yelled at me or you spent more money than you said you would. On the other side will be a subjective and usually judgemental one. These statements might include something like you said I am obnoxious or you said I am stupid and can’t do math. These statements refer to the same events but each party hears two different things. 
When we don’t want to grow or change then we view others asking us to change behavior as an attack not an objective statement of reality. When someone points out that I went over budget it is easier for me to feel like they are in the wrong for making me feel stupid accepting that I could change my behavior or learn new things. When I get drunk it is easier to think that someone is judging me than to admit a mistake. 
I tell clients often in psychotherapy that avoiding conflict does not make them a good person. Often it turns us into enablers of bad behavior and makes us contributors to the problematic state of the world. One of the ways that we do this is by pretending that the truth is always in the middle of each conflict and that all perspectives are equally valid. This is avoidance, because holding the authority to judge one side versus another makes us feel icky or judgy. We want life to be a children’s movie where all conflict is a misunderstanding between benevolent parties. That isn’t life. Sometimes people do, say and believe things that are just wrong. Each person could have a valuable perspective and could make a unique contribution to our collective reality. Operative word here is could. Not everyone chooses to. 
Any person’s validity of perspective is predicated on that person’s ability to be honest with themselves. How can I be honest with anyone if I can’t even look in the mirror? If you cannot be honest with yourself or accept objective reality about something then every word you say about that thing is a lie. It does not matter whether or not you mean it to be a lie or even if you know that you are lying. To pretend that unconscious or unintentional dishonesty is a perspective that deserves our consideration is an absurd proposition. Yet, most people still do this just so they don’t have to feel mean!
I am not advocating for you to pass self righteous judgment or throw out discernment and humility. The opposite of truth is not lies but certainty. Judgment is unhealthy when it comes from an unresolved superiority complex. Judgment is a part of mature adulthood when we allow our intuition to tell us that some things are simply wrong no matter how widely accepted or traditional they are. Moral certainty is one of the first stones on the path to fanaticism but moral clarity is an essential ingredient to mental health. We can never wield judgment, or discernment, as a tool that helps us make healthy decisions and avoid destructive paths if we get overwhelmed by guilt everytime we start to notice that others are behaving badly. 
Many times when we talk about psychology, politics, religion or family honestly and openly it makes people feel icky or guilty. This is because most people do not want to know what they think in these arenas or don’t want to accept what they already know. Psychologist Carl Jung calls this the shadow. The slippery half truths we tell ourselves to not have to accept the whole truth that always walks behind us. Often this is because of trauma. We don’t want to hurt others by criticizing them because we were hurt as children. It is easier to believe everything is our fault or enable bad behavior by refusing to point out unhealthy and self destructive tendencies. 
If we are afraid of judgment we think we can avoid it but instead our avoidance causes more problems. Instead of having frank conversations about where our beliefs diverge from others we try to control them through praise. Telling someone that we like them because they do certain things is still judgment. Criticism cloaked in praise is still a form of control and manipulation. “I love you because you make good grades” is no different from “I won’t love you if you make bad grades”. 
Other times unconscious fear of holding authority or passing judgment blinds us to the judgments we do hold and pass. Many people are unaware that they hold judgments because they have identified with them for so long. Some individuals who grew up in judgmental families may not even realize that they are constantly passively criticizing others. That is because the places where we were taught to criticize ourselves and others often hid an unhealed and unacknowledged pain from childhood. The things or people we judge intensely have the potential to become important teachers once we learn to work with our judgments.
When we have unconscious biases we often cannot see them and can’t apply our values consistently until we do. We apply values in the abstract but ignore our values when we are looking friends, family or patients in the eye. Maybe this avoidance is worse in the “bless her heart” American South, where I live, but it seems there is something very old and very human about it too. It seems that many people who are afraid to grow and change will accuse others of being hateful, judgmental, or mean for pointing out reality to them. They do this because they do not want anyone to point out their own hidden mistakes and insecurities. Remember, fear of judgment always comes from an unresolved wound. When you hold authority comfortably people with this unconscious wound will always react negatively to you. They would rather have their faults ignored and enabled. 
When you tell someone how their behavior affected you in family therapy you will often hear things like well, you must think you are perfect if you are going to point out something honest and true about me!. Trying to avoid judgment of others is not a virtue, it is a sin. We owe it to ourselves and others not to carry water for bad behavior and self destructive patterns. Loving others is giving them what they need, not what they want. What we need is not always a gift we want right now. It is our job to give honesty as a gift and others to pen the gift if they want. If someone does not want your constructive criticism then don’t offer it, but don’t cut them slack in your own head or insist that others cut slack for them. 
My critique in this article is a little bit about what we do, but much more about the way we think. Most of us are afraid of being judgmental, but when you give up your right to judgment then you give up your integrity with it. You have a responsibility to discern and apply your own moral authority to your life as an adult. Not what is traditional, not what you were taught, but the things that you have learned are actually effective. You cannot function as an adult without this ability. If you cannot ask yourself is the world and myself better off for this decision with clarity comfortably then you are avoiding part of mature adulthood and part of yourself. Avoidance is not mature. Ignoring these realities leaves you neurotically reliving childhood. 
I will admit that healthy and unhealthy behavior can look the same from the outside. Some people criticize others just to deflect judgment off their own flaws. This is an example of that person avoiding admitting the things it is their job to change and grow through. To others the same criticism may be a good faith attempt to offer someone constructive criticism on where they hurt others needlessly and diverge from their stated values in practice. This is often hard to tell a part in ourselves and others. Therapy was very beneficial to me in my ability to do this for myself. 
 
Alfred Adler said that all problems in mental health come from someone not wanting to do one of two things. 
Help other people Wait till they ask for the help. This article is not defending your right to punish or antagonize. Other people’s decisions are theirs and not for you to change or obsess over. Not even your parents, not even your friends. Especially not your patients. Help people. Wait till they ask for the help. This is the first step of the change process. Instead this article is about allowing clarity in our own communication and thinking. Unless someone asks you for help in their moral development and growth then leave them alone. Unless someone asks you for help their decisions and moral dishonesty are not any of your business. You have no right to enforce your morals on the world. Many sessions of therapy with me end when I tell people that I can’t take their symptoms away without asking them to change their behavior. We can’t keep acting the same way and expect to feel different. I let patients decide if they want my help. Whether they get better is not my decision.
Integrity means that the same ethical standards that we have for others we should apply equally for ourselves and vice versa. There should not be different moral standards for people with the same cognitive ability. To be an adult we have to be comfortable passing judgment by applying our moral standards to ourselves and others consistently. That means that we must judge the parts of some people that make us feel icky and bad. Sometimes that icky, bad, guilty feeling will lead you into facing your own trauma in therapy. Where you are afraid to go is where you were hurt before. 
That means you have to judge even those we love and would rather make excuses for. Even the parts of loved ones that we would rather not notice. If you can’t discerningly notice where your children or family are failing to grow and be authentic maybe they have become an extension of your own ego in an unhealthy way. If you find yourself saying things like “but she was from a different time…” or “but you don’t understand how…” then this is a good place for you to look at your own avoidance in therapy. 
How do we know the whole person honestly without noticing all their parts? Much of adult reality comes down to a simple binary. Would you rather live in denial of reality comfortably or would you rather live honestly even if that causes anxiety. The easy thing to do and the right thing to do are very rarely the same thing. We would all prefer to live in the myopic comfort of childhood where everything that makes us feel  bad is bad. Unfortunately that is not reality. Many of the things that feel bad are invitations for you to grow up. 
One of the most frequent times that my patients tell me they feel known and loved is when I point out their self deception in a loving way. They feel both seen and known. No one’s flaws mean they are undeserving of being loved. It is that love that invites our friends, family and patients into change. I tell people frequently that we can love others only as much as we love ourselves. The places where parents failed us say nothing about us. More often they are places where our parents stopped growing and refused criticism. They could not heal past that point, and so, could not love parts of us past the blank edge of the map they refused to chart. Parents can’t always come with us or even understand the places we are going but that does not make growing up a bad place to go. 
It is perfectly acceptable and adult to admit that there are bad parts of good people. Depth psychology frees us in interpersonal relationships because I don’t have to either “cancel” grandpa at thanksgiving or lie to myself about who parts of what he chose, and still chooses to be. We should examine ourselves and our lives as good decisions that we want to repeat and bad decisions that we don’t want to repeat. A long time ago someone told me “My boyfriend keeps cheating on me and I keep forgiving him. I asked them if they could not forgive their boyfriend and they told me they could not refuse to ignore bad behavior. “That is not forgiveness then” I told them. That is enabling. Forgiveness is always a choice.  
We should have grace and forgiveness for our own and others’ mistakes. Judgment should not make you feel like God by proxy. Forgiveness comes after honesty always though. You can’t forgive me for the crime I committed, am still committing, and plan on continuing to commit. That is not how grace works. Continuing to let someone off the hook for behavior they refuse to change might make us feel less “icky” but it also means that we have no integrity. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If I will not admit I have a problem then I likely am not going to change and you are within your rights as an adult to point that out to me. 
When people make objective statements about you or other people then that cannot be “mean” or “hateful”. Those statements are either true or false. That is true even when those statements are about patterns or projections from someone’s psychology. One of the places where I see people have the hardest time accepting reality is when people point out, honestly and without judgment, the patterns and preferences with which a friend or family member thinks. The values we identify with say something about us. How could they not? 
We don’t pick our theology, philosophy, politics, or beliefs randomly. We do that as a projection of our own psychology and unresolved trauma. You can’t say “well they were raised to” or “told to believe that” to let someone off the hook. We have to be accountable for our own lives and the things we do. If there is an unhealthy unconscious process in someone you love, then you are not being honest if you avoid or ignore it. You are enabling yourself if you attack others that are simply pointing out facts you would rather ignore. 
If someone has become an extension of an unhealthy belief system or if their actions become unhealthy because of something they were told to believe, that is still absolutely that person’s fault and responsibility. Whose else would it be? Our actions, beliefs, self image, religious beliefs and even modalities of therapy are projections of our own psychology. How could they not be? We pick them. If you are spinning your tires in the mud trying to justify intellectually something that you don’t want to face emotionally, you are being avoidant and enabling. 
If you can’t refute the truth of what someone challenging you is saying, notice where your own emotional self wants to say “yeah, but…”. That is the beginning seed of avoidance that leads us to enable the brokenness of this world.  Face this stuff.  Watch your own reactions and notice where it is hard for you to not attack others when they state facts. That is where your psychology is still operating like a child’s. If you hear yourself making excuses for someone when someone points out something that is simply true  then it is time for  that part of you to grow up. 
Fighting evil starts with your ability to look into your own eye. Most religious traditions start trying to challenge the ego and then later are co-opted by those that want to enable it. Don’t misuse your own spiritual or philisophical tradition to this end. 
In relationship counseling the biggest predictor of success is not the size of the problem. You will see giant problems like drug addiction or serial adultery that a couple heals from. You will also see small problems like avoidance and white lies that end a marriage. The biggest predictor of success is whether or not all parties are willing to accurately label the problem and agree that it should change. When you face your own shame, remember that it is not the size of the error but the elaborateness of the defense mechanism(s) you enable. 
Evil is created when we rationalize and avoid labeling bad behavior so we can insulate ourselves from the need to change. We all have the responsibility to change. If someone willfully chooses to make themselves and the world a worse place, be honest about that fact. Defend their soul’s potential but not their behavior and refusal to actualize that potential. If someone tells you not to speak ill of the family or the dead, tell them that you would rather be honest. If not authentic honesty what else do we have?
Maya Angelou was a wise woman. When she said that “When people tell you who they are, believe them” she was talking about challenging your ego and the manners, and traditions that you were told made you noble and good. Where people show you their real values don’t defend them. If anyone defend their own or others bad behavior by misappropriating her second most popular quote: “People don’t remember what you said, they remember how you made them feel” write them off, that is not what it means. If someone consistently thinks what you said is irrelevant, but how they feel is your responsibility, then they have a personality disorder. That was never your fault. Stop quoting Maya Angelou on instagram when you want other people to take responsibility for your emotions. It IS your job to remember and think about the points others make not blame them for how those points make you feel. 
I know that trauma plays a part in our beliefs about ourselves and what we do. I know it informs religion, philosophy and taste in culture. I know that there are reasons that people make the choices that they do, but we are the ones responsible for our own life and development. Ultimately our lives are the sum total of our choices. As a friend, as a family member, as a therapist, you are not doing anyone any favors by pretending that that is not the case. Patient’s know that on some level before they come to see you. Ultimately patients will leave if you fail to point that out as a therapist. 
People come to therapy for many reasons. Underneath all the choices that we make we are really only making one choice. Do you go into the parts of yourself that you were afraid of? Do you face them and do you grow and change? Faced with that choice directly most people will choose to run. I understand the tragedy of that but that does make that decision or its consequences any less real. Most biographies are a tragedy, but that is not your fault. The only biography you have control over is your own autobiography. 
Everyone has the ability to heal and change. You are not doing yourself or others any favors when you make excuses or make an argument that lack of growth is just part of someone’s implicit nature.That’s just how she is. That’s just how I am. No it’s not. That’s just how you or they chose to be and keep choosing to be. If that makes you feel icky to sit with, go to therapy. They could change if they wanted too. You did. You are not doing them any favors by indulging the belief that they can’t change in order to make them feel better. The parts of ourselves that defeat our authentic self should make us feel bad. That anxiety is what propels change if we don’t ignore it or turn it off. 
The reason that the people who hurt you did that was because they were afraid to face their own fears. Your only choice is to face your own. When you don’t believe you can change, then constructive criticism is an attack because all intonations of what you could be are a reminder that that is not who you are right now. If this is all I think I can be then all I can take from the most constructive of criticism is that what I am is wrong. It is wrong because I was made to believe that what I am is all I can be. In screen writing they teach that the antagonist cannot change. The protagonist changes and the antagonist gets stuck somewhere on the path to self actualization, attack those that try to advance beyond that point. The antagonist has no possibility of change. When I start to change I can become the protagonist. 
For real change to take place the other party has to understand themselves as a series of parts and decisions. Who they authentically are is not bad. Just because my behavior was bad does not mean I am bad. Behavior is a choice I can change. Most people will never know who they are and that is a tragedy. They will never face the parts of self they are afraid of and in avoiding them they will project them on you and me. This lack of self awareness and self discovery is a tragedy that effective therapy, healthy spiritual practices and loving families are seeking to remedy by expecting you to change. If you refuse to change then, yes, you are the bad guy. If someone chooses that, let that be their choice. Let them be the antagonist. They could understand what you were saying if they wanted to understand themselves. 
You can absolutely invite people into growth and change in a loving way. Whether someone accepts the invitation is up to them. Their reaction says nothing about you. If you exist authentically with love and honesty anyone’s reaction to that is up to them. If they dislike your honesty it is the same thing as someone yelling at a mountain or a rainstorm. Maybe the weather, terrain or honesty inconveniences someone. That is not your fault so don’t let yourself feel guilty. You are only an advocate on behalf of reality. You will not win every court case. Reality just is what it is and we all must choose how to cope with it. Do your own journey and let others choose if they want to do theirs. Beneath all our choices that are really the only choice we make. Face yourself or die never knowing what you are. 

Nothing Gold Can Stay: A thought experiment about money, wealth, power and the psychology of economy.

Nothing Gold Can Stay: A thought experiment about money, wealth, power and the psychology of economy.https://gettherapybirmingham.com/blog/What do we value?
It is important to note that this article is only a thought experiment for the purposes of reconsidering our implicit assumptions and societal conceptions of the necessities for civilization and what is “normal” behavior for humans. In the article about mysticism I pointed out that I was a psychotherapist not a theologian. Here I need to point out that I am not an economist either. This thought experiment is not advocating for any kind of specific new political or economic reality. Instead it is a way to reconsider the things we take for granted and meditate on new ideas that might allow us to conceive of a healthier and more stable society.
If we didn’t have gold what would money look like?
If we didnt have nonperishable precious metals like gold and silver, what would money look like. There are not many other goods we can make hold value in such a small and convenient package like gold, platinum, and silver to a lesser extent do. All the noble metals have a high luster, malleability, and do not spoil with age. How would society store value without them?
Well there are a couple examples of how money developed in places without gold. My favorite is an island called Yap where there was little to no money. Instead native Yapese used 20ft tall limestone disks that weighed hundreds of pounds. So how did this money work? How do you put a 200 lb stone in a vending machine or slide it across a bar?
The Yapese never moved the stones they used as money. Instead they kept an oral and collective ledger of who owned what stones. Money that can’t fit in your wallet might seem like a crazy idea, but think of how your debit card works. There is a collective ledger somewhere out there that changes every time you slide your card even though no physical money is moved.How did Yap money work?
On the island of Yap, the acquisition and distribution of rai stones were closely tied to prestige and social merit. The process of awarding rai stones was based on various factors that reflected an individual’s status, achievements, and contributions to the community.
The primary means of acquiring rai stones was through social recognition and acknowledgment of an individual’s accomplishments. These accomplishments could include successful leadership, acts of bravery, or notable achievements in various fields such as agriculture, craftsmanship, or diplomacy. The more esteemed and respected an individual was within the community, the higher the likelihood of receiving rai stones.
The recognition and awarding of rai stones were often carried out through public ceremonies and gatherings. These events provided a platform for the community to acknowledge and celebrate the achievements of an individual. The stones were typically presented by influential community leaders or elders who acted as the arbiters of social merit.
It’s important to note that the awarding of rai stones was not a purely individualistic pursuit but rather a collective decision that reflected the consensus of the community. The opinions and judgments of community members, particularly those in positions of authority or with significant influence, played a crucial role in determining the social merit of an individual and their eligibility to receive rai stones.
The rai stones bestowed upon an individual were not meant to be hoarded or accumulated solely for personal wealth. Instead, they served as symbols of prestige and social standing. The possession of rai stones demonstrated an individual’s contributions to the community and their ability to garner respect and admiration.
The Yapese monetary system served as tangible representations of honor and status, reinforcing the social fabric and common good of Yapese society.
So in answer to the original question “How could society store value without gold?” We would store it through a reputation system rewarding benevolence, generosity and innovation. The people who gave back to society the most would be awarded the most value in the form of reputation, not by how many precious metals they owned.
How did gold change our conceptions of society and culture?
I’m panning fer some understandin of my self!
 
Gold has long fascinated humanity with its allure and intrinsic non-perishable value. The presence of gold on Earth almost did not happen at all. If there were a few changes to astrophysical geometry you may not have been able to buy gold jewelry in the store. So, why is there gold on earth?
The symbolism of gold in mythology usually relates to to the concept of the Self, a central archetype in Jungian psychology representing the totality of the psyche. Because the ancients associated gold with being so rare and so precious, it came to represent knowledge of the authentic and hiddens self. Fair tales that have to do with reclaiming a lost treasure are metaphors for self discovery and reclaiming lost parts of our identity. In fairy tales, gold often appears in the form of a golden key, a golden crown, or a golden apple, serving as a powerful symbol of the transformative potential of self-knowledge. These objects are typically guarded by mythical creatures or hidden in remote locations, emphasizing the arduous nature of the journey towards self-understanding.
The origins of gold as an element on planet earth trace back to the formation of the universe itself. In the earliest moments following the Big Bang, only light elements such as hydrogen and helium were present. It was within the cores of massive stars, through the process of stellar nucleosynthesis, that heavier elements like gold began to take shape. These elements were forged through the fusion of lighter nuclei in the intense heat and pressure of stellar environments.
As these massive stars reached the end of their lives, they supernovae explosions. These scattered their noble metal enriched contents into space. The remnants of these supernovae, containing elements like gold, spread across the cosmos in the form of dust and gas. This dust and gas later condensed into rocky masses of meteors that had high concentrations of gold.
The earth itself almost had no gold. While the primordial Earth held minuscule amounts of gold, it was not until later stages of our planet’s evolution that the precious metal became concentrated enough for us to mine or value them. The late heavy bombardment period, around 4 billion years ago, witnessed a barrage of meteoritic impacts bombarding the Earth’s surface. These meteorites, originating from various sources within the solar system, carried with them a wealth of elements, including gold.
If it was not for this coincidental bombardment of asteroids there never would have been enough gold on earth for you to wear gold jewelry. There certainly would not have been enough for us to use as money, let alone build a monetary system around. So what would have happened if we never associated gold with money, power, or value?
Why is gold associated with money and currency?
Gold is durable, divisible, and portable, making it an ideal medium of exchange. Additionally, gold has intrinsic value due to its luster malleability and non reactivity to other elements, which further contributed to its use as a form of currency.
The use of metal coins as a form of money emerged around 600 BCE in ancient Lydia (present-day Turkey). These coins were made from precious metals like gold, silver, and bronze, and their value was determined by their weight and purity. Gold, due to its scarcity and durability, became a preferred choice for coinage.
Over time, gold became widely accepted as a standard for money. Its scarcity, divisibility, portability, and resistance to corrosion made it an ideal medium of exchange. Gold coins became a trusted and standardized unit of value in many ancient civilizations, including the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and Persians.
In medieval Europe, goldsmiths played a crucial role in the evolution of money and debt. People entrusted their gold and other valuable assets to goldsmiths for safekeeping. In return, the goldsmiths issued receipts, which could be used as a claim to the deposited gold. These receipts gradually started circulating as a form of paper money or representative money. This practice laid the foundation for early banking systems and the issuance of paper-based instruments representing value.
The concept of the gold standard gained prominence during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Under the gold standard, the value of a country’s currency was tied to a fixed amount of gold. Governments held gold reserves to back their currency, and individuals could exchange paper money for gold at a predetermined rate. The gold standard provided stability and confidence in the currency, as the money supply was limited by the availability of gold.
The gold standard era began to decline during the 20th century, particularly after World War I. The need for increased flexibility in monetary policy, and the costs associated with maintaining gold reserves led many countries to move away from the gold standard. Gradually, most countries shifted to fiat money, where the value of the currency is not backed by a physical commodity but rather by the trust and confidence in the government issuing it. This meant that even though there was scarcity and competition for money like there had been for gold, money was no longer backed by anything real.
Put simply, even though we do not use gold as currency or the basis for the economy any more, gold still informs our ideas about money and power. Even new forms of money like crypto currencies and NFTs are based on these old notions of scarcity that come from our ancient relationship to gold. Our ideas about money, debt scarcity and our relationship to power are informed greatly by the function that gold has played in our economy.
What does money without gold look like?
In isolated or preindustrial societies, without gold, people had an understanding that resources were meant to be shared and distributed evenly. When a need arose in society others met the need with gifts or loans. The understanding in these cultures was that safety was found in generosity and compassion not hoarded material goods. They took care of others because when they need help others will take care of them. Social merit functioned like a kind of insurance.
In these barter, communal, and gift economies power does not become the most precious resource. Instead reputation and social merit become the most precious resources. Because wealth and value cannot be hoarded materially then society allows for individuals to accrue value by being useful, inventive and generous. These systems reward people who innovate and live compassionately because societal regard becomes the most important resource, not electronic debt or precious metals.
This is because things like food, clothing and tools often degrade and lose value over time. There is no way to horde wealth because all things that contain value slowly lose that value if they are hoarded. When there is no way to horde wealth with precious metals or an electronic debt ledger, then everything is depreciating all the time. In these cultures money and value are always trending back to equality because everything is losing value all the time.
People are incentivized to share and live communally in gift economies because clout and reputation become more valuable than any good or service. These systems are empowering because when needs arise society is naturally incentivized to meet those needs not ignore them. Material wealth is always decreasing in value so social wealth has more value. Value is stored in the social ledger of reputation not a material ledger of debt.
In debt and precious metal based systems value is disempowering because wealth tends to snowball. The people with more money have access to more power and likely use that power to get even more money ad infinitum. In these systems society is incentivized to ignore others’ problems because the endless competition is for non-perishable money that increases in value, not reputation for being a benefit to society. Actually, in this system other people’s problems are a GOOD thing for me because they mean others have less power and are less likely to get the money we are all in competition for.Why does the non-perishable nature of precious metals like gold lead to scarcity, competition and inequality?
The scarcity of precious metals allowed individuals and institutions to accumulate and hoard wealth, creating disparities in the distribution of resources. The accumulation of gold and other precious metals became a means of showcasing one’s economic power and social status. This concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals or entities often led to economic inequality, with limited access to resources for the majority of the population. It also led to imperial wars and conflict. This happens when the purpose of a society becomes hoarding power instead of building sustainable or equitable systems.Is there an alternative system?
What did non industrial societies do before there was gold?
Barter and gift economies operate on different principles that can have positive psychological and environmental effects. In a barter economy, individuals engage in direct exchange, which fosters social interaction and builds relationships within communities. The act of bartering requires individuals to negotiate and understand each other’s needs, creating a sense of cooperation and interdependence.
Gift economies, where goods and services are given without the expectation of an immediate return, promote social cohesion and reinforce communal bonds. By focusing on reciprocity and sharing, gift economies prioritize the well-being of the community as a whole rather than individual accumulation of wealth. This can contribute to a sense of psychological well-being and social harmony.
Moreover, both barter and gift economies can be more environmentally sustainable compared to the hoarding of precious metals or debt based systems. These systems rely on the utilization of resources within the community, promoting local production and reducing the environmental impact of long-distance trade. In debt based systems production is outsourced to the cheapest place where the workers have the least power.
While the nonperishable nature of precious metals like gold has shaped a scarcity-based money system conducive to wealth hoarding, alternative economic systems such as barter and gift economies offer psychological and environmental advantages. These systems promote social cohesion, reduce economic disparities, and foster sustainable resource utilization.Key Characteristics of a Gift Economy:
Gift Circulation:The primary mode of exchange in a gift economy is the circulation of gifts. People give goods, services, or resources to others without an explicit agreement for immediate return or compensation. The act of giving is motivated by social bonds, altruism, and the desire to contribute to the well-being of others.
Social Relationships and Trust:Gift economies are deeply rooted in social relationships. Trust and reciprocity play a vital role in sustaining the system. Gifts are not seen as isolated transactions but rather as a way to build and maintain social connections within a community or group.
Non-Monetary Transactions:Unlike traditional market economies where goods and services are exchanged for money, a gift economy operates outside the realm of formalized monetary transactions. The value of gifts is not determined by their market price or exchange value but rather by the relationships and meaning attached to them.
Abundance Mindset:A gift economy often operates on the assumption of abundance rather than scarcity. It is based on the belief that there are enough resources and goods to meet the needs of individuals and the community as a whole. The act of giving is seen as a way to create and reinforce a sense of abundance and well-being.
Social Obligations and Prestige:In gift economies, there are social obligations and expectations associated with giving and receiving. Individuals are motivated to contribute and give back to the community, as failing to do so can lead to reputational consequences. The act of giving and generosity often brings prestige, respect, and social recognition within the community.
Reciprocity and Sharing:While direct reciprocity is not expected or demanded in a gift economy, there is a general understanding of the importance of reciprocity over time. Recipients of gifts may feel an obligation to reciprocate or share their own gifts with others in the future, creating a cycle of giving and receiving.
In Conclusion:Economic systems that prioritize collaboration, generosity, and a departure from the notions of individuality, competition, ego, and scarcity can indeed contribute to mental well-being and foster a more harmonious society. One such alternative economic concept is the idea of gift economies, which emphasizes the practice of generosity and the exchange of resources without the expectation of immediate reciprocation.
What’s the point?
We assume that ways that our culture and systems works are the only ways it can work. This can limit our intuition, creativity, and stifle our ability to imagine a better world.  What if those asteroids had missed our planet billions of years ago and dumped that gold into the black void of space? Would our culture or monetary system look anything like it does now? Again the point of this article is not to change the monetary system. Instead it is to reflect about how and why we assign value and purpose in our lives and culture. It is a reflection on what money means to a society and the way those implicit assumptions affect our psychology and well being.
Many people misquote the bible that “money is the root of all evil” however that is not what it says. The quote is that the “love” of money is the root of all evil. We all interact with money daily but rarely think about what it is and that the way we think about money changes the role it plays in our lives and how we behave.
We often talk about values in an abstract and hollow way in politics, religion and identity. We seldom talk or think about what value itself actually is. How do we decide what has worth to us and what doesn’t. These assumptions about what is valuable and good and what the point of our societies should be is often based on outdated and unhealthy assumptions it does not occur to us to reconsider. By moving away from a mindset that prioritizes individual accumulation, gift economies encourage a sense of collective responsibility and interconnectedness. This shift in perspective can have positive effects on mental health, promoting a sense of belonging, trust, and reduced feelings of isolation, paranoia or competition.
Most of the patients that I see suffer from a profound sense of separation and disconnection. Our civilization would benefit from assuming the intrinsic value of all beings and the importance of meeting collective needs rather than amassing individual wealth. Not just in economics but in our lives we should prioritize collaboration, generosity, and move away from the emphasis on individuality, competition, ego, and scarcity. What a person or society values is one of the best indicators of who they are. Reflect on where you unconsciously place value and what that says about you. We have limited time on earth and it is important to stay in touch with what we want the purpose of our life to be. Where does your worth lie?

Brain Mapping: What is Neurostimulation and Neurofeedback?

Find out more: https://gettherapybirmingham.com/neurostimulationand-qeeg-brain-mapping/
 
What You Need to Know About Neurostimulation and Brain MappingNeurostimulation is a state of the art new therapy technique that can open new neural connections and rewire “stuck” passage ways in the brain to help you grow and heal. Unlike other forms of brain feedback, neurostimulation is a natural process that mimicks the way we learn as children to help the brain regain plasticity and form new neural networks. Trauma, brain injury, aging and neurodevelopmental conditions can stop brain growth. Brain mapping is the most temporally accurate method of analyzing brain function and personality. It can give more useful information than therapy or psychometrics alone. You can use the information from your brain map to validate your intuition about your diagnosis, plan treatment with your therapist, make decisions about medication, and know what you need to heal and grow. 
Peak Neuroscience uses your brain map to create a neurostimulation plan that can help your brain become alive and grow and heal. The brain map shows places where trauma, injury, mental health diagnoses, and aging have hurt the brain. Neurostimulation utilizes the brains natural healing processes to restore the capacity for growth like when you were a child. Neurostimulation lets our neural cap become part of the brain and “talk” to it’s neurons directly so we can teach it how to heal. The results of this process can be permanent and indefinently reduce or eliminate the need for medication in certain disorders. Many therapists and clinics dont listen to you, but brain mapping can give you direct proof of what is happening in the brain. 
Neurons think in frequencies. When neural networks and conections from durring learning these neurons frequencies harmonize. When the brain’s normal functioning is interupted these frequencies break and no longer communicate. This makes the brains normal communication channels break down.  Peak Neuroscience’s clinicians call these frequencies “phases” and use them to understand how your personality operates and what your brain needs to heal. Neurostimolation is the only method of stimulation or feedback that can gently stimulate your brains neural network in a way that is unique to your brain. It is the only kind of feedback or stimulation that helps you grow and heal based on your unique diagnosis and needs. This stimulation is not based on a clinicians opinion or testing taking measurements from outside the brain. It is based on a brain map taken fro your brains unique fingerprint with all parts of treatment catered to the unique you.  
For more technical information about neurostimulation and brain mapping, click here. 
VPost Partum DepressionVASD Autism Spectrum Disorder in ChildrenVAthletic PerformanceVAcademic ProblemsVTreat ADHD Without MedicationVCognitive DeclineVFastest TherapyVBoost CreativityVChronic PainVArt & CreativityVOCD Obsessive Compulsive DisorderVMap the Brain With qEEG MRIVBipolar and Manic Depressive without MedicationVDissociative DisordersVComplex PTSD and DIDVAnxietyVDepressionVBrain Based Medicine in the Subcortical BrainVScan the Brain
What Kind of Brain Waves Can QEEG Detect?qEEG brain mapping is a powerful tool used by healthcare professionals to analyze various types of brain waves, including delta, alpha, theta, beta, and high beta waves. These waves, with their unique frequencies, provide valuable insights into a person’s neurological functioning and potential cognitive or mental health issues. In order to rank highly on Google SEO, we will delve deeper into what these waves feel like and how they impact thinking.
Delta Waves:Delta waves are the slowest brain waves, with a frequency of 0.5-4 Hz. They are typically associated with deep sleep and can also be present in coma patients. The sensation of delta waves is often described as a profound state of relaxation, where the mind is in a state of rest and rejuvenation.
Alpha Waves:Alpha waves have a frequency of 8-12 Hz and are usually observed when a person is awake but relaxed. They are commonly experienced when closing the eyes or practicing meditation. Decreased alpha waves may be linked to anxiety or depression, while increased alpha waves may indicate improved relaxation and stress reduction. The sensation of alpha waves is often described as a state of calmness and peacefulness.
Theta Waves:Theta waves have a frequency of 4-8 Hz and are typically observed during light sleep or drowsiness. They may also be present during meditation or creative activities. In qEEG brain mapping, an increase in theta waves may be associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), while a decrease in theta waves may be associated with cognitive decline in older adults. The sensation of theta waves is often described as a dreamy, introspective state.
Beta Waves:Beta waves have a frequency of 12-30 Hz and are usually present when a person is awake and engaged in cognitive or physical activities. They are associated with alertness, focus, and concentration. Abnormalities in beta waves can be linked to conditions such as anxiety, depression, and insomnia. The sensation of beta waves is often described as a state of heightened awareness and mental activity.
High Beta Waves:High beta waves have a frequency of 30-40 Hz and are often associated with intense cognitive or physical activities, such as problem-solving or exercise. An increase in high beta waves in qEEG brain mapping may be associated with conditions such as ADHD or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The sensation of high beta waves is often described as a state of heightened mental alertness and intense focus.
Summary of How QEEG Uses Brain WavesThe analysis of delta, alpha, theta, beta, and high beta waves in qEEG brain mapping can provide valuable information about a person’s neurological functioning and potential cognitive or mental health issues. The nuance in the brain map is about the way we use these types of thinking and the interplay between them. By identifying abnormalities in these brain waves, healthcare professionals can develop more targeted and effective treatment plans for their patients. By understanding the unique sensations associated with these waves, healthcare professionals can gain insights into a person’s brain activity and develop targeted treatment plans for improved cognitive function. Stay informed and take charge of your brain health with qEEG brain mapping.
A typical QEEG map brain map contains color coding for brain waves, relative and peak power amplitude, and information about connections between different parts of the brain. What are the Parts of the QEEG Brain MapThe QEEG brain map results provide information about different brain speeds, such as delta, theta, alpha, beta, and high beta, which correspond to different states based on circadian rhythms. Colors on the map indicate whether the brain is using these speeds at higher or lower levels than optimal. The top row of heads on the map represents the overall power of each speed, while the relative power shows which speed is being used the most and the least in comparison to others.
The parameters at the bottom of the map, including amplitude, asymmetry, coherence, and phase lag, represent the communication between different brain areas, similar to networks in the brain. The dots on the map represent different areas of the brain, labeled with F for frontal areas responsible for attention and executive function, C for central areas, T for temporal areas responsible for auditory processing and emotional regulation, and O for occipital areas responsible for visual processing. A close-to-optimal map with minimal lines indicates efficient communication between brain areas in this example. Overall, QEG provides valuable information about the functioning of the human brain and can help in understanding brain patterns and states.
f hHow is the QEEG Brain Map Analyzed? By capturing functional images of the brain’s electrical waves, QEEG brain maps offer valuable information about brain patterns and states. Many people are currious how the brain maps are interpreted.  The process of interpreting and analyzing QEEG brain maps takes years to learn and the technology is so new that few peole have been trained in reading them. Interpreting the maps is half art half science. Dr. Jason Mishalanie, PhD, BCN was an early adopter of the technology and has more experience than almost anyonein the field. 
Interpretation of QEEG Brain Maps:QEEG brain maps are generated by analyzing the electrical activity of the brain recorded through specialized caps with multiple electrodes placed on the scalp. These maps typically display different brain speeds, including delta, theta, alpha, beta, and high beta, which correspond to different states based on circadian rhythms. Interpretation of these brain speeds involves analyzing the colors displayed on the map, which indicate whether the brain is using these speeds at higher or lower levels than optimal.
Colors on the QEEG brain map:The colors on the QEEG brain map play a crucial role in interpreting the brain’s activity. Yellow, orange, and red colors indicate that the brain is using one to three levels too high of a particular speed, while blue colors suggest that the brain is using one to three levels too low of that speed. This color-coded information helps in identifying any imbalances or irregularities in brain activity, providing valuable insights into the functioning of the brain.
Overall power and relative power:The top row of heads on the QEEG brain map represents the overall power of each brain speed, indicating how charged up the brain is overall. This information helps in understanding the overall activity levels of different brain speeds. Additionally, the relative power displayed on the map shows which brain speed is being used the most and the least in comparison to others. This data provides important clues about the brain’s dominant and less dominant activity levels, aiding in the interpretation of QEEG brain maps.
Parameters at the bottom of the map:The QEEG brain maps also include parameters at the bottom of the map that provide insights into the communication between different brain areas. These parameters, including amplitude, asymmetry, coherence, and phase lag, represent the networks in the brain and how different areas communicate with each other. For instance, frontal areas responsible for attention and executive function are labeled with “F,” central areas with “C,” temporal areas with “T,” and occipital areas with “O.” The analysis of these parameters and the lines connecting different areas on the map help in understanding the efficiency of communication between brain regions.
Implications of QEEG Brain Map Interpretation:Interpretation of QEEG brain maps can have significant implications for understanding brain function and identifying any abnormalities or imbalances in your brain. By analyzing the brain’s activity levels, dominant and less dominant patterns, and communication between different brain areas, QEEG brain maps can provide valuable insights into the functioning of the human brain. This information can be used in various clinical and research settings, such as identifying neurological disorders, monitoring treatment progress, and optimizing cognitive performance.
Summary of how the QEEG map is analyzed:QEEG brain maps are a powerful tool for interpreting and analyzing the functional activity of the brain. By analyzing the colors on the map, overall power and relative power of brain speeds, and parameters related to communication between brain areas, QEEG brain maps can provide valuable insights into brain function. Understanding the interpretation of QEEG brain maps can help in optimizing brain health, identifying neurological disorders, and improving cognitive and athletic performance.
Neurostimulation,Brain Mapping and NeurofeedbackTherapy FAQsJungian Therapy - Image of One of Taproot Therapy's Therapists Contemplating Depth Psychology in the Office
Our brain is mapping the world. Often that map is distorted, but it’s a map with constant immediate sensory input. 
– EO Wilson  
How do I use the Brain Map?Therapy and psychometric testing is an imperfect attempt to see inside the brain from the outside. qEEG brainmapping can allow you to see inside the brain with less uncertainty, subjective error and clinical  bias. The brain map can be used to create a neurostim plan but it can be used to do many other things to. Your brain map helps you and your therapist understand the way you think. It can provide objective proof of suspicions that you have about how your brain works and what it needs to heal. 
The brain map can help your therapist understand what is happening in your brain and what treatment is best. Your thereapist is welcome to join us for the presentation of your brain map. You can do this virtually or in person. You can even do therapy with your therapist during neurostim, even if they are not at Taproot, while you recieve neurostimulation to reinforce the brain training. 
Your brain map can help you understand yourself and your life in a different way. It can help you love and accept parts of you that you did not not understand and point you on the path to growth and healing.  You can use it in therapy or individually to finally find what you are missing to grow and heal. 
What are the Benefits of Neurostimulation?Is neurostimulation evidence based? Is there research about neurofeedback?What does Neurostimulation feel like?Is neurostimulation and neurofeedback safe?How much does Neurostimulation cost?First Name
Last Name
Email
SubscribeBook NowWhat is the History of Neurostimulation?In the ancient worldThe earliest documented use of neurostimulation dates back to the ancient Greeks, who used electric sea creatures to treat ailments such as headaches. There is some evidenc that lead acid batteries in ancient Iran and Iraq were also used in health care. However, it wasn’t until the 18th and 19th centuries that experiments with electricity and the nervous system became more widespread. By the 20th century, neurostimulation was being used in clinical settings to treat chronic pain, laying the foundation for further advancements in the field.
In the EnlightenmentOne of the most attractive new therapies in the mid-1700s was “medical electricity,” which involved the application of electric shocks and sparks to the treatment of various diseases, particularly nerve disorders.
Johann Gottlob Krüger, a professor of medicine and philosophy, reported in 1744 that repeated exposure to the “electric kiss” resulted in small red spots on the hands, which disappeared after several hours. Krüger also anticipated that electricity could have therapeutic applications in medicine due to its effects on the human body.
Matthias Bose was instrumental in bring public awareness of electricity and its mediical applications in the 1800s. Bose concluded that electrification of the human body increased blood circulation, perspiration, and pulse rate, and therefore could be used to treat diseases. Kratzenstein also reported that electricity produced tiredness and could be helpful for those who suffer from sleeplessness due to riches, sorrows, and worries.
The medical applications of electricity, including the possibility of using it for healing, became known in Europe through the work of Kratzenstein and others, and news of prodigious cures spread through popular magazines. The medical applications of electricity added to the attractiveness of electrical demonstrations, and Bose’s “experiment of the pulse” became a popular attraction during electrical soirées. The concept of “electricity made useful” became synonymous with medical electricity in various publications on the healing properties of electricity. During the War of the Austrian Succession, Wabst, an army physician, settled in Venice and began astonishing local audiences with his electrical machine, initiating a new fashion of electrical demonstrations in Italy.
In the Twentieth CenturyIn the 1920s, the first attempts at neurostimulation were made using crude devices such as large electrodes and batteries. Early experiments focused on understanding the effects of electrical currents on the nervous system and exploring potential therapeutic uses. In 1928, Dr. Albert Grass developed the first neurostimulator, known as the “Grass Stimulator,” which was used to treat a variety of conditions, including epilepsy and chronic pain.
In the 1930s, further progress was made in the field of neurostimulation. Dr. G. W. Crile, a prominent surgeon, introduced the use of electrical currents for the treatment of chronic pain, particularly in patients with inoperable cancer. Crile’s work led to the development of the “Cleveland Clinic Pain Relief Machine,” a portable neurostimulator that could be used for pain management in clinical settings.
In the 1940s, neurostimulation continued to evolve with the introduction of more sophisticated devices and techniques. Dr. Hans Selye, a renowned endocrinologist, conducted experiments using electrical stimulation to study the physiological responses of the nervous system to stress. His work laid the foundation for the field of psychoneuroimmunology, which explores the relationship between stress, the nervous system, and the immune system.
In the 1950s, neurostimulation saw significant advancements with the development of implanted neurostimulators. Dr. William Sweet, a neurosurgeon, introduced the use of implanted electrodes for the treatment of chronic pain, marking a major milestone in the field of neurostimulation. These early implanted devices were large and bulky, but they paved the way for further advancements in the field.
In the 1960s, the development of implantable electrodes revolutionized neurostimulation by allowing for more precise and targeted stimulation. In 1967, the first implantable spinal cord stimulator was introduced, delivering electrical impulses to the spinal cord and providing relief for chronic pain sufferers. This marked a significant milestone in the field of neurostimulation, opening up new possibilities for treating various conditions.
In the 1980s, deep brain stimulation (DBS) was introduced as a groundbreaking treatment for Parkinson’s disease. DBS involves implanting electrodes deep in the brain and delivering electrical impulses to specific areas, improving motor function and reducing tremors. This breakthrough has had a profound impact on the lives of Parkinson’s patients, enhancing their quality of life and opening the door for further advancements in neurostimulation.
Modern Health CareAdvancements in neurostimulation have continued to progress over the years. In the 1990s, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was introduced as a non-invasive alternative to DBS. TMS uses a magnetic field to stimulate the brain and has shown promising results in treating depression, providing a less invasive option for patients who may not be suitable candidates for DBS.
In the early 2000s, the first non-invasive spinal cord stimulator was introduced, allowing for targeted pain relief without surgery. This advancement has been particularly beneficial for patients with chronic pain who may not be candidates for invasive procedures. Furthermore, recent advancements in technology have led to the development of closed-loop systems, which use sensors to monitor brain activity and adjust stimulation in real-time. This has opened up new possibilities for personalized and adaptive neurostimulation, providing more effective and precise treatment options for patients.
Today, neurostimulation is widely used to treat a broad range of conditions, including chronic pain, epilepsy, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and more. As the field continues to evolve, it is likely that we will see even more advancements in neurostimulation technology and its applications in the future, providing hope for improved treatments for patients suffering from neurological disorders. From ancient remedies to cutting-edge innovations, the history of neurostimulation is a testament to the progress and potential of this field in providing relief and improving the lives of patients.
Pioneers in the field of NeurostimulationMany renowned pioneers have contributed to the field of neurostimulation. One notable figure is Dr. Benjamin Franklin, who conducted early experiments with electricity and the nervous system in the 18th century. His work laid the foundation for future advancements in neurostimulation.
Another pioneer in the field is Dr. Melvin D. Yahr, who is considered the father of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson’s disease. In the 1960s, Dr. Yahr conducted groundbreaking research on the use of electrical stimulation to alleviate motor symptoms in Parkinson’s patients, paving the way for the development of DBS as a standard treatment for Parkinson’s disease.
Dr. Alim-Louis Benabid is also a notable pioneer in the field of neurostimulation. In the 1980s, he developed the concept of high-frequency DBS for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, which has since become a widely used technique in neurostimulation therapy.
Dr. Mark S. George is another influential figure in the field of neurostimulation. He is known for his work on transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a non-invasive form of neurostimulation used in the treatment of depression. Dr. George’s research has contributed to the development of TMS as a promising alternative to traditional treatments for depression.
In recent years, researchers and engineers from various institutions and companies have made significant advancements in neurostimulation technology, including the development of closed-loop systems, wireless and miniaturized devices, and novel stimulation techniques.
Summary of the History of NeurostimulationNeurostimulation has a rich history that dates back to ancient times and has undergone remarkable advancements in recent decades. Pioneers in the field, such as Dr. Benjamin Franklin, Dr. Melvin D. Yahr, Dr. Alim-Louis Benabid, and Dr. Mark S. George, have made significant contributions to the development of neurostimulation as a valuable treatment option for neurological disorders. With continued advancements in technology and research, neurostimulation is poised to revolutionize the field of medicine and provide new hope for patients suffering from various neurological conditions.

Interview with Psychotherapist Win Schepps on Why Children Need to Know it’s Ok to Cry

Read More at https://gettherapybirmingham.com/blog/
Win has been a lifelong friend and mentor. At 86 he is still working because in his words "I love doing therapy so damn much". He has practice at his Homewood office for 57 years and recently published the children's book that it has been his life's dream to publish. He wants children to know that it is ok to cry. Win is now a local Alabama author. If interested, you can check out the book here: 
https://www.amazon.com/-/zh_TW/Winston-Schepps/dp/1098302710
 
 
 
 
https://gettherapybirmingham.com

Corporate Tech Monopolies are Going to Ruin Therapy

Read the article here: https://gettherapybirmingham.com/corporate-tech-monopolies-are-going-tto-ruin-therapy/
 
Last weekend BetterHelp, the online subscription therapy company, settled with the FTC for almost 8 million in fines for selling therapy patients confidential information to Facebook and Snapchat. This isn’t justice, so hold your applause. 
The company, whose name really is the word better and help smashed together with no space between them has had issues before. A quick google search reveals customer reviews claiming the company is as good at therapy as it is at punctuation. The company previously faced controversy for allegedly paying youtube influencers to vlog about invented mental health conditions that they claimed the company's treatment had “cured”. Since these influencers have and audience of children and young adults who look up to them, these potential lies are especially worrisome. Some of these influencers purportedly received thousands of dollars in compensation for the alleged lies. 
Real patients seeking a cure from better help have reported getting hit with recurring subscription fees, therapists that repeatedly no show and charge you anyway, as well as getting slammed with hours of paperwork that takes up all the allotted time. If true, this is a shady practice but not illegal. 
So why is the sale of data such a big deal? Put simply it's a big deal because if I did it to one patient I would lose my license and potentially get sued. The FTC has just set a precedent that big companies can now do this to millions of people with impunity. Fines, like the 7.8 million that BetterHelp is returning to consumers is a cost of doing business for these companies. They take the risk because they make more money breaking the law than they pay in fines. 
Because this would have put anyone else in court. 
When you go to therapy there is more than just an expectation that what you talk about will be kept private. HIPPA laws mean that if your therapist knowingly discloses information about you they are breaking the law. You can sue them, their board can take their license, insurance panels can drop them and you can sue them civilly. This is if one therapist knowingly shares the data of a single patient. 
Here it happened to millions of people. This was not an accident either. BetterHelp intentionally did this WHILE telling customers specifically that they would never do the thing that they were secretly doing. 
BetterHelp removed all of the links I posted to these news articles from their social media in an effort to not have to be associated with their own behavior. That is strange since BetterHelp also claims that they did nothing wrong in their statement about the settlement. 
“This settlement, which is no admission of wrongdoing, allows us to continue to focus on our mission".
You read that right. Either BetterHelp misspelled “I’m sorry” or they really think they did nothing wrong. Let's hope they are as bad at spelling as punctuation. People with antisocial personality disorder have no regard for right and wrong despite getting caught and experiencing consequences. People with this disorder need therapy but here a possible inference is that they appear to be providing it.  
BetterHelp also goes on to say in their statement that all the information sold to Facebook was encrypted and non identifiable despite the fact that they released the emails of users. My email address, JoelBlackstock@GetTherapyBirmingham.com, is pretty effective at letting someone identify who I am. 
Betterhelp released emails of users. If they are using betterhelp, they are seeking mental health treatment. They also released information regarding prior mental health treatment. According to the complaint:
Some of the intake questions that BetterHelp sold to facebook identified whether patients had been in therapy before. Below is from the official complaint:
“For example, though an affirmative response to the question “Have you been in counseling or therapy before?” was coded as “AddToWishlist,” the analyst revealed to Facebook that this event meant that the “user completes questionnaire marking they have been in therapy before, thereby disclosing millions of Visitors’ and Users’ prior therapy to Facebook.”
BetterHelp claims this is not protected information because it didn't come from actual sessions, just the intake to an app that gets you therapy. This is absurd. I am not allowed to tell you who comes into my waiting room or who emails me about therapy because it is readily apparent that those people are trying to receive healthcare. 
While the legal burden of responsibility lies with the seller, the buyer bears some ethical responsibility in my mind. Facebook and Snapchat knew what the data was they were buying. If you knowingly buy stolen goods you are culpable. If you get caught stealing you get a punishment in addition to having to give back what you stole. Here the FTC has merely made BetterHelp return the ill gotten gains but there are no consequences. There is no punishment that any single other therapist would face. 
THEN BetterHelp released a statement saying they didn't do anything wrong. Is that justice?
These corporate monopolies are ruining therapy and it is not talked about enough. The parent company of BetterHelp is another giant monopoly, Teladoc. Even if this gets publicized, even if CNN and Fox News deign to care about potentially criminal invasions of privacy, the parent company can just dissolved the brand and use the same practices under the larger corporate umbrella. This is increasingly worrisome as insurance companies are making moves to make Teladoc the mandatory go between software for patients to receive teletherapy. 
As a patient, as a provider, as a legislator, refuse to participate in these things. They are a bad precedent taking the industry into a bad place.  
Anyone who wants to say that this is wrong and condemn these practices has to make the intellectual leap that the only way to make it stop is to force these companies to face legal consequences. Not fines. Fines are baked into the cost of doing business. If you say you care about this then you have to accept that the only way to stop these companies is to break them up and send people to prison.
Companies like this can make more money breaking the law than they have to pay back. Executives who signed off on this deserve jail time and these companies need to be taken apart. Let's see how frequently this happens when people start looking at prison time. 
Many podcasters pretend to be allies for mental health yet shill for these companies. If you listen to an influencer who shills for BetterHelp it is your responsibility to hold them accountable.
I am not making this post to condemn BetterHelp therapists. I know some who are good people and talented. I do not believe these practices are their fault. Noone becomes a social worker to get rich and finding ethical employment is a luxury that comes secondary to paying your mortgage. Good therapists work there; it drives the better people further away from competitors. Responsibility lies with the people with power not those subject to its whims. Although, you should know if you work for BetterHelp that your contract makes you personally liable for patient outcomes, even outcomes caused by following company policies. 
I’ve been careful to limit my own liability in this article and without going through any more specifics, if you are a patient or a provider I am happy to guide you through how to succeed in this industry. The vast majority of people who contact Taproot Therapy Collective receive a high quality personalized referral to another local provider. 
We genuinely want you to get therapy at the best place for you. We recognize that we are not the right provider for every need. We treat the therapists in our collective well even though we could make more money if we didn’t.  We call every person who contacts us back even when we are full. We don’t do that because it makes us money. We do it because providers of mental health services have a responsibility to ethical behavior even when our legislators have decided there won’t be legal consequences if we don’t. 
Choosing ethical behavior is not something that should be up to the clinician. Our legislators should enforce existing laws even if it means sending their campaign donors to jail. We are in a mental health crisis and practices like these give people valid reasons to be afraid of getting mental health care. 
GetTherapyBirmingham.com

J.F. Bierlein on Poetry, Myth, and Metaphor

The author of Parallel Myths and Living Myths, J. F. Bierlein wrote the books that first started my interest in depth psychology when I was in middle school. J.F. teaches in the Washington Semester and World Capitals Program at American University in Washington, and also works for a social sciences consulting firm. Multilingual, he is deeply interested in theology, existentialism, art, opera, and the study of classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Hebrew, as well as other languages. 
Here we talk about myth, poetry and psychology. Check out J.F's website and poetry here:
https://www.jfbierlein.com/
Read More at https://gettherapybirmingham.com/blog/
 
 
 

Lament for the Dead Psychology After Jung’s The Red Book Review; By James Hillman Sonu Shamdasani

Read More at https://gettherapybirmingham.com/blog/
 
“The years, of which I have spoken to you, when I pursued the inner images, were the most important time of my life. Everything else is to be derived from this. It began at that time, and the later details hardly matter anymore. My entire life consisted in elaborating what had burst forth from the unconscious and flooded me like an enigmatic stream and threatened to break me. That was the stuff and material for more than only one life. Everything later was merely the outer classification, the scientific elaboration, and the integration into life. But the numinous beginning, which contained everything, was then.”
 
― C.G. Jung, preface for The Red Book: Liber Novus
 
James Hillman: I was reading about this practice that the ancient Egyptians had of opening the mouth of the dead. It was a ritual and I think we don't do that with our hands. But opening the Red Book seems to be opening the mouth of the dead.
 
Sonu Shamdasani: It takes blood. That's what it takes. The work is Jung's `Book of the Dead.' His descent into the underworld, in which there's an attempt to find the way of relating to the dead. He comes to the realization that unless we come to terms with the dead we simply cannot live, and that our life is dependent on finding answers to their unanswered questions.
Lament for the Dead, Psychology after Jung’s Red Book (2013) Pg. 1  
 
Begun in 1914, Swiss psychologist Carl Jung’s The Red Book lay dormant for almost 100 years before its eventual publication. Opinions are divided on whether Jung would have published the book if he had lived longer. He did send drafts to publishers early in life but seemed in no hurry to publish the book despite his advancing age. Regardless, it was of enormous importance to the psychologist, being shown to only a few confidants and family members. More importantly, the process of writing The Red Book was one of the most formative periods of Jung’s life. In the time that Jung worked on the book he came into direct experience with the forces of the deep mind and collective unconscious. For the remainder of his career he would use the experience to build concepts and theories about the unconscious and repressed parts of the human mind. 
In the broadest sense, Jungian psychology has two goals. 
 
Integrate and understand the deepest and most repressed parts of the the human mind 
 
and 
 
Don’t let them eat you alive in the process. 
 
Jungian psychology is about excavating the most repressed parts of self and learning to hold them so that we can know exactly who and what we are. Jung called this process individuation. Jungian psychology is not, and should not be understood as, an attempt to create a religion. It was an attempt to build a psychological container for the forces of the unconscious. While not a religion, it served a similar function as a religion. Jungian psychology serves as both a protective buffer and a lens to understand and clarify the self. Jung described his psychology as a bridge to religion. His hope was that it could help psychology understand the functions of the human need for religion, mythology and the transcendental. Jung hoped that his psychology could make religion occupy a healthier, more mindful place in our culture by making the function of religion within humanity more conscious. 
 
Jung did not dislike religion. He viewed it as problematic when the symbols of religion became concretized and people took them literally. Jungian psychology itself has roots in Hindu religious traditions. Jung often recommended that patients of lapsed faith return to their religions of origin. He has case studies encouraging patients to resume Christian or Muslim religious practices as a source of healing and integration. Jung did have a caveat though. He recommended that patients return to their traditions with an open mind. Instead of viewing the religious traditions and prescriptive lists of rules or literal truths he asked patients to view them as metaphors for self discovery and processes for introspection. Jung saw no reason to make religious patients question their faith. He did see the need for patients who had abandoned religion to re-examine its purpose and function. 
 
The process of writing The Red Book was itself a religious experience for Jung. He realized after his falling out from Freud, that his own religious tradition and the available psychological framework was not enough to help him contain the raw and wuthering forces of his own unconscious that were assailing him at the time. Some scholars believe Jung was partially psychotic while writing The Red Book, others claim he was in a state of partial dissociation or simply use Jung’s term “active imagination”. 
 
The psychotic is drowning while the artist is swimming. The waters both inhabit, however, are the same. Written in a similar voice to the King James Bible, The Red Book has a religious and transcendent quality. It is written on vellum in heavy calligraphy with gorgeous hand illuminated script. Jung took inspiration for mystical and alchemical texts for its full page illustrations.
 
It is easier to define The Red Book by what it is not than by what it is. According to Jung, it is not a work of art. It is not a scholarly psychological endeavor. It is also not an attempt to create a religion. It was an attempt for Jung to heal himself in a time of pain and save himself from madness by giving voice to the forces underneath his partial psychotic episode. The Red Book was a kind of container to help Jung witness the forces of the deep unconscious. In the same way, religion and Jungian psychology are containers for the ancient unconscious forces in the vast ocean under the human psyche.  
 
Lament of the Dead, Psychology after Carl Jung’s The Red Book is a dialogue between ex Jungian analyst James Hillman and Jungian scholar Sonu Shamdasani about the implications the Red Book has for Jungian psychology. Like the Red Book it was controversial when it was released. 
 
James Hillman was an early protege of Jung who later became a loud critic of parts of Jung’s psychology. Hillman wanted to create an “archetypal” psychology that would allow patients to directly experience and not merely analyze the psyche. His new psychology never really came together coherently and he never found the technique to validate his instinct. Hillman had been out of the Jungian fold for almost 30 years before he returned as a self appointed expert advisor during the publication of The Red Book. Hillman’s interest in The Red Book was enough to make him swallow his pride, and many previous statements, to join the Jungians once again. It is likely that the archetypal psychology he was trying to create is what The Red Book itself was describing. 
 
Sonu Shamdasani is not a psychologist but a scholar of the history of psychology. His insights have the detachment of the theoretical where Hillman’s are more felt and more intuitive but also more personal. One gets the sense in the book that Hillman is marveling painfully at an experience that he had been hungry for for a long time. The Red Book seems to help him clarify the disorganized blueprints of his stillborn psychological model. While there is a pain in Hillman’s words there is also a peace that was rare to hear from such a flamboyant and unsettled psychologist. 
 
Sonu Shamdasani is the perfect living dialogue partner for Hillman to have in the talks that make up Lament. Shamdasani has one of the best BS detectors of maybe any Jungian save David Tacey. Shamdasani has deftly avoided the fads, misappropriations and superficialization that have plagued the Jungian school for decades. As editor of the Red Book he knows more about the history and assembly of the text than any person save for Jung. Not only is he also one of the foremost living experts on Jung, but as a scholar he does not threaten the famously egotistical Hillman as a competing interpreting psychologist. The skin that Shamdasani has in this game is as an academic while Hillman gets to play the prophet and hero of the new psychology they describe without threat or competition. 
 
Presumedly these talks were recorded as research for a collaborative book to be co authored by the two friends and the death of Hillman in 2011 made the publication as a dialogue in 2013 a necessity. If that is not the case the format of a dialogue makes little sense. If that is the case it gives the book itself an almost mystical quality and elevates the conversation more to the spirit of a philosophical dialogue. 
 
We are only able to hear these men talk to each other and not to us. There is a deep reverberation between the resonant implications these men are seeing The Red Book have for modern psychology. However, they do not explain their insights to the reader and their understandings can only be glimpsed intuitively. Like the briefcase in the film Pulp Fiction the audience sees the object through its indirect effect on the characters. We see the foggy outlines of the ethics that these men hope will guide modern psychology but we are not quite able to see it as they see it. We have only an approximation through the context of their lives and their interpretation of Jung’s private diary. This enriches a text that is ultimately about the limitations of understanding.
 
One of the biggest criticisms of the book when it was published was that the terms the speaker used are never defined and thus the book's thesis is never objectivised or clarified. While this is true if you are an English professor, the mystic and the therapist in me see these limitations as the book’s strengths. The philosophical dialectic turns the conversation into an extended metaphor that indirectly supports the themes of the text. The medium enriches the message. Much like a socratic dialogue or a film script the the authors act more as characters and archetypes than essayists. The prophet and the scholar describe their function and limitations as gatekeepers of the spiritual experience. 
 
Reading the Lament, much like reading The Red Book, one gets the sense that one is witnessing a private but important moment in time. It is a moment that is not our moment and is only partially comprehensible to anyone but the author(s). Normally that would be a weakness but here it becomes a strength. Where normally the reader feels that a book is for them, here we feel that we are eavesdropping through a keyhole or from a phone line downstairs. The effect is superficially frustrating but also gives Lament a subtle quality to its spirituality that The Red Book lacks.  
 
Many of the obvious elements for a discussion of the enormous Red Book are completely ignored in the dialogue. Hillman and Shamdasani’s main takeaway is that The Red Book is about “the dead”. What they mean by “the dead” is never explained directly. This was a major sticking point for other reviewers, but I think their point works better undefined. They talk about the dead as a numinous term. Perhaps they are speaking about the reality of death itself. Perhaps about the dead of history. Perhaps they are describing the impenetrable veil we can see others enter but never see past ourselves. Maybe the concept contains all of these elements. Hillman, who was 82 at the time of having the conversations in Lament, may have been using The Red Book and his dialogue with Shamdasani to come to terms with his feelings about his own impending death. 
 
Perhaps it is undefined because these men are feeling something or intuitively, seeing something that the living lack the intellectual language for. It is not that the authors do not know what they are talking about. They know, but they are not able to completely say it.  Hillman was such an infuriatingly intuitive person that his biggest downfall in his other books is that he often felt truths that he could not articulate. Instead he retreated into arguing the merits of his credentials and background or into intellectual archival of his opinions on philosophers and artists. In other works this led to a didactic and self righteous tone that his writing is largely worse for. In Lament Hillman is forced to talk off the cuff and that limitation puts him at his best as a thinker. 
 
In his review of Lament, David Tacey has made the very good point that Jung abandoned the direction that The Red Book was taking him in. Jung saw it as a dead end for experiential psychology and retreated back into analytical inventorying of “archetypes”. On the publication of The Red Book, Jungians celebrate the book as the “culmination” of Jungian thought when instead it was merely a part of its origins. The Red Book represents a proto-Jungian psychology as Jung attempted to discover techniques for integration. Hillman and Shamdasani probe the psychology’s origins for hints of its future in Lament.
 
HIllman and Shamdasani’s thesis is partially a question about ethics and partially a question about cosmology. Are there any universal directions for living and behaving that Jungian psychology compels us towards (ethics)? Is there an external worldview that the, notoriously phenomenological, nature of Jungian psychology might imply (cosmology)? These are the major questions Hillman and Shamdasani confront in Lament.Their answer is not an answer as much as it is a question for the psychologists of the future. 
 
Their conclusion is that “the dead'' of our families, society, and human history foist their unlived life upon us. It is up to us, and our therapists, to help us deal with the burden of “the dead”. It is not us that live, but the dead that live through us. Hillman quotes W.H. Auden several times:
 
We are lived through powers that we pretend to understand.
 - W.H. Auden
 
A major tenant of Jungian psychology is that adult children struggle under the unlived life of the parent. The Jungian analyst helps the patient acknowledge and integrate all of the forces of the psyche that the parent ran from, so they are not passed down to future generations. A passive implication of the ethics and the cosmology laid out in Lament, is that to have a future we must reckon with not only the unlived life of the parent but also the unlived life of all the dead. 
 
It is our job as the living to answer the questions and face the contradictions our humanity posits in order to discover what we really are. The half truths and outright lies from the past masquerade as tradition for traditions sake, literalized religion, and unconscious tribal identity must be overthrown. The weight of the dead of history can remain immovable if we try to merely discard it but drowns us if we cling to it too tightly. We need to use our history and traditions to give us a container to reckon with the future. The container must remain flexible if we are to grow into our humanity as a society and an aware people. 
 
If you find yourself saying “Yes, but what does “the dead” mean!”  Then this book is not for you. If you find yourself confused but humbled by this thesis then perhaps it is. Instead of a further explanation of the ethical and cosmological future for psychology that his book posits I will give you a tangible example about how its message was liberatory for me. 
 
Hillman introduces the concepts of the book with his explanation of Jung’s reaction to the theologian and missionary Albert Schweitzer. Jung hated Schweitzer.  He hated him because he had descended into Africa and “gone native”. In Jung’s mind Schweitzer had “refused the call”  to do anything  and “brought nothing home”. Surely the Africans that were fed and clothed felt they had been benefited! Was Jung’s ethics informed by racism, cluelessness, arrogance or some other unknown myopism?
A clue might be found in Jung’s reaction to modern art exploring the unconscious or in his relationship with Hinduism. Jung took the broad strokes of his psychology from the fundamentals of the brahman/atman and dharma/moksha dichotomies of Hinduism. Jung also despised the practice of eastern mysticism practices by westerners but admired it in Easterners. Why? His psychology stole something theoretical that his ethics disallowed in direct practice. 
 
Jung’s views on contemporary (modern) artists of his time were similar. He did not want to look at depictions of the raw elements of the unconscious. In his mind discarding all the lessons of classicism was a “cop out”.  He viewed artists that descended into the abstract with no path back or acknowledgement of the history that gave them that path as failures. He wanted artists to make the descent into the subjective world and return with a torch of it’s fire but not be consumed by it blaze. Depicting the direct experience of the unconscious was the mark of a failed artist to Jung. To Jung the destination was the point, not the journey. The only thing that mattered is what you were able to bring back from the world of the dead. He had managed to contain these things in The Red Book, why couldn’t they? The Red Book was Jung’s golden bough. 
 
Jung took steps to keep the art in The Red Book both outside of the modernist tradition and beyond the historical tradition. The Red Book uses a partially medieval format but Jung both celebrates and overcomes the constraints of his chosen style. The Red Book was not modern or historical, it was Jung’s experience of both. In Lament, Hillman describes this as the ethics that should inform modern psychology. Life should become ones own but part of ones self ownership is that we take responsibility for driving a tradition forward not a slave to repeating it.
 
Oddly enough the idea of descent and return will already be familiar to many Americans through the work of Joseph Campbell. Campbell took the same ethics of descent and return to the unconscious as the model of his “monomyth” model of storytelling. This briefly influenced psychology and comparative religion in the US and had major impact on screenwriters to this day. Campbells ethics are the same as Jung’s. If one becomes stuck on the monomyth wheel, or the journey of the descent and return, one is no longer the protagonist and becomes an antagonist.  Campbell, and American post jungians in general were not alway great attributing influences and credit where it was due. 
 
Jung was suspicious of the new age theosophists and psychadelic psychonauts that became enamored with the structure of the unconscious for the unconscious sake. Where Lament shines is when Hillman explains the ethics behind Jung’s thinking. Jung lightly implied this ethics but was, as Hillman points out, probably not entirely conscious of it. One of Lament’s biggest strengths and weaknesses is that it sees through the misappropriations of Jungian psychology over the last hundred years. Both of the dialogue’s figures know the man of Jung so well that they do not need to address how he was misperceived by the public. They also know the limitations of the knowable. 
 
This is another lesson that is discussed in Lament. Can modern psychology know what it can’t know? That is my biggest complaint with the profession as it currently exists. Modern psychology seems content to retreat into research and objectivism. The medical, corporate, credentialist and academic restructuring of psychology in the nineteen eighties certainly furthered that problem. Jung did not believe that the descent into the unconscious without any hope of return was a path forward for psychology. This is why he abandoned the path The Red Book led him down. Can psychology let go of the objective and the researchable enough to embrace the limits of the knowable? Can we come to terms with limitations enough to heal an ego inflated world that sees no limits to growth?
 
I don’t know but I sincerely hope so. 
 
I said that I would provide a tangible example of the application of this book in it’s review,  so here it is:
 
I have always been enamored with James Hillman. He was by all accounts a brilliant analyst. He also was an incredibly intelligent person. That intellect did not save him. Hillman ended his career as a crank and a failure in my mind. In this book you see Hillman contemplate that failure. You also see Hillman attempt to redeem himself as he glimpses the unglimpseable. He sees something in the Red Book that he allows to clarify his earlier attempt to revision psychology. 
 
Hillman's attempt to reinvent Jungian psychology as archetypal psychology was wildly derided. Largely, because it never found any language or technique for application and practice. Hillman himself admitted that he did not know how to practice archetypal psychology. It's easy to laugh at somebody who claims to have reinvented psychology and can't even tell you what you do with their revolutionary invention.
 
However, I will admit that I think Hillman was right. He knew that he was but he didnt know how he was right. It is a mark of arrogance to see yourself as correct without evidence. Hillman was often arrogant but I think here he was not. Many Jungian analysts would leave the Jungian institutes through the 70, 80s and 90s to start somatic and experiential psychology that used Jung as a map but the connection between the body and the brain as a technique. These models made room for a direct experience in psychology that Jungian analysis does not often do. It added an element that Jung himself had practiced in the writing of The Red Book. Hillman never found this technique but he was correct about the path he saw forward for psychology. He knew what was missing. 
 
I started Taproot Therapy Collective because I felt a calling to dig up the Jungian techniques of my parent’s generation and reify them. I saw those as the most viable map towards the future of psychology, even though American psychology had largely forgotten them. I also saw them devoid of a practical technique or application for a world where years of analysis cost more than most trauma patients will make in a lifetime. I feel that experiential and brain based medicine techniques like brainspotting are the future of the profession. 
 
Pathways like brainspotting, sensorimotor therapy, somatic experiencing, neurostimulation, ketamine, psilocybin or any technique that allows the direct experience of the subcortical brain is the path forward to treat trauma. These things will be at odds with the medicalized, corporate, and credentialized nature of healthcare. I knew that this would be a poorly understood path that few people, even the well intentioned, could see. I would never have found it if I had refused the call of “the dead”. 
 
Lament is relevant because none of those realizations is somewhere that I ever would have gotten without the tradition that I am standing on top of. I am as, Isaac Newton said, standing on the shoulders of giants. Except Isaac Newton didn't invent that phrase. It was associated with him but he was standing on the tradition of the dead to utter a phrase first recorded in the medieval period. The author of its origin is unknown because they are, well, dead. They have no one to give their eulogy. 
 
The ethics and the cosmology of Lament, is that our lives are meant to be a eulogy for our dead. Lament, makes every honest eulogy in history become an ethics and by extension a cosmology. Read Pericles eulogy from the Peloponesian war in Thucydides. How much of these lessons are still unlearned? I would feel disingenuous in my career unless I tell you who those giants are that I stand on. They are David Tacey, John Beebe, Sonu Shamdasani, Carl Jung, Fritz Perls, Karen Horney, and Hal Stone. Many others also.
 
I would never have heard the voice of James Hillman inside myself unless I had learned to listen to the dead from his voice beyond the grave. It would have been easy for me to merely critize his failures instead of seeing them as incomplete truths. Hillman died with many things incomplete, as we all inevitably will. Lament helped me clarify the voices that I was hearing in the profession. Lament of the Dead is a fascinating read not because it tells us exactly what to do with the dead, or even what they are. Lament is fascinating because it helps us to see a mindful path forward between innovation and tradition. 
 
The contents of the collective unconscious cannot be contained by one individual. Just as Jungian psychology is meant to be a container to help an individual integrate the forces of the collective unconscious, attention to the unlived life of the historical dead can be a kind of container for culture. Similarly to Jungian psychology the container is not meant to be literalized or turned into a prison. It is a lens and a buffer to protect us until we are ready and allow us to see ourselves more clearly once we are. Our project is to go further in the journey of knowing ourselves where our ancestors failed to. Our mindful life is the product of the unlived life of the dead; it is the work of our life that is their lament. 
 

Interview with John Beebe on the MBTI Typology

Read More at https://gettherapybirmingham.com/blog/
 
A popular lecturer in the Jungian world, Beebe has spoken on topics related to the theory and practical applications of Analytical psychology to professional and lay audiences throughout the United States and around the world. He has been especially active in introducing training in Jungian psychology in China. Beebe is the founding editor of The San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal, now called Jung Journal: Culture & Psyche.[2] He was the first American co-editor of the London-based Journal of Analytical Psychology.
Beebe has also published in The Chiron Clinical Series, Fort Da, Harvest, The Inner Edge, Journal of Jungian Theory and Practice, Psychoanalytic Psychology, Psychological Perspectives, The Psychoanalytic Review, Quadrant, Spring, The Journal of Popular Film and Television, Theory and Psychology, and Tikkun among others. He has contributed book chapters to The Anne Rice Reader, The Cambridge Companion to Jung, From Tradition to Innovation, House, Humanizing Evil, Initiation, Jungian Perspectives on Clinical Supervision, New Approaches to Dream Interpretation, Post-Jungians Today, Psyche & City, The Psychology of Mature Spirituality, Same-Sex Love, The Soul of Popular Culture, and Teaching Jung.
With Donald Sandner, Beebe is the author of "Psychopathology and Analysis",[3] an article on Jungian complex theory used in many training programs, and with Thomas Kirsch and Joe Cambray the author of "What Freudians Can Learn from Jung".[4] He is the author of the book Integrity in Depth, a study of the archetype of integrity, and of Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type: The Reservoir of Consciousness.