Mental Health Gabor Maté, Addiction Expert

[AbbeyLee]

I just want to share this video with everyone. This guy is one of our greatest allies in the ridiculous War on Drugs.

 

[Mjäll]

I like that guy. He fights the good fight as far as i can tell. Trying to lift up sensitive and caring people and increase mental health. Good therapeutic approach with zero condescension or pressure.

 

[Eligiu]

Gabor Mate is a legend. One of the first people to link trauma with drug use in a really profound and impactful way which more people can understand. I wish more people read about his work and listened to his videos to better understand the reasons the vast majority of people use substances. I'm sure some people do purely for recreational purposes, but in my experience a great many more do so due to trauma, and especially early childhood trauma. Another expert to listen to and read is Dr. Bruce Perry, who talks about how we should be asking people 'what happened to you' instead of 'what's wrong with you' in relation to behavioural difficulties, as most difficult behaviours are caused by adverse childhood experiences or other types of traumas.

 

[TheUltimateFixx]

I find this bloke over-hyped and also irritating. He has this fixation on the idea that any and all addictions HAVE to have some root in trauma. Obviously many traumatized people wind up addicted to one thing or another in an attempt to compensate for / cope with present or past suffering. But then there's people who never significantly suffered in their life and get stuck on something because they find it literally just too much of a good thing, have obsessive appetites, or just are bored with life being 'too good' and can't think of what to do with themselves other than get off their nuts.

Another fact he routinely ignores is that while you will find proportionately more traumatized people among heavy drug users than the general population (surprise surprise, who with 3 functioning brain cells needs someone like Mate to tell them the bleeding obvious like it's some kind of revelation), the great majority of traumatized or mentally ill people are NOT also heavy drug users. Insisting on trying to reduce a complex and highly individualistic human behaviour to one single absolute 'cause' is not scientific.

 

[nznity]

I find this bloke over-hyped and also irritating. He has this fixation on the idea that any and all addictions HAVE to have some root in trauma. Obviously many traumatized people wind up addicted to one thing or another in an attempt to compensate for / cope with present or past suffering. But then there's people who never significantly suffered in their life and get stuck on something because they find it literally just too much of a good thing, have obsessive appetites, or just are bored with life being 'too good' and can't think of what to do with themselves other than get off their nuts.

Another fact he routinely ignores is that while you will find proportionately more traumatized people among heavy drug users than the general population (surprise surprise, who with 3 functioning brain cells needs someone like Mate to tell them the bleeding obvious like it's some kind of revelation) the great majority of traumatized or mentally ill people are NOT also heavy drug users. Insisting on trying to reduce a complex and highly individualistic human behaviour to one single absolute 'cause' is not scientific.

I 100% disagree with you. You've never even stepped foot on a rehab facility, chu dun know wha yer talking bouttttttt. Srry but Maté is the shite.

 

[n3ophy7e]

But then there's people who never significantly suffered in their life and get stuck on something because they find it literally just too much of a good thing, have obsessive appetites, or just are bored with life being 'too good' and can't think of what to do with themselves other than get off their nuts.

I disagree, and I would say that ALL addicts have some kind of trauma(s) that lead them to addictive behaviour. Nobody who has effective and adaptive coping skills is going to resort to addiction.

Another fact he routinely ignores is that while you will find proportionately more traumatized people among heavy drug users than the general population (surprise surprise, who with 3 functioning brain cells needs someone like Mate to tell them the bleeding obvious like it's some kind of revelation) the great majority of traumatized or mentally ill people are NOT also heavy drug users. Insisting on trying to reduce a complex and highly individualistic human behaviour to one single absolute 'cause' is not scientific.

Hmmmm, I don't think he IGNORES this fact, he simply doesn't address it in his particular research...there is a big difference.

 

[TheUltimateFixx]

I was maybe too kind in my initial comment. This addiction 'expert' is very much self - proclaimed, and I in fact flat - out think the guy's a charlatan.
I tried to watch one of his lectures because people I knew kept gushing over him, and found myself unable to stand more than 10 mins of his pseudo-scientific, pseudo-intellectual claptrap.

For all the inevitable fans here, let's just consider the following shall we -?.

- he WAS a staff physician at PHS Vancouver, but is no longer licensed.
Yet he still calls himself a physician and a doctor.
- neither is he a licensed psychiatrist yet presumes to speak on various psychiatric conditions.
- he says he's a psychotherapist, but if he DOES have any official training or accreditation in that regard, he conspicuously neglects to mention it in his otherwise extremely self - promoting ads.


Here's ONE direct quote of his I completely agree with :

"in succumbing to the urge to absolve ourselves of responsibility and seeking easily disguisable rationales for complex phenomena, our culture has too avidly embraced genetic fundamentalism."

True. But what does he do instead, but replace 'genetics' with 'childhood trauma' as THE thing which will forever IRREVERSIBLY doom you to, and trap you in, disastrous levels of substance use.
Instead of being stuck with our genetic heritage, according to his reductive model we're stuck with our 'trauma' (define trauma ; nobody's life is free of pain, it's the human condition) which supposedly somehow permanently impairs our brain chemistry (not that there's a shred of creditable evidence for this but HEY!, the comforting emotional appeal of such a notion, no ill-advised self - destructive action you take will ever be your fault again).

AHH and also if you cannot for the life of you RECALL any significant 'trauma' then it's just 'hidden' and it will be found (or imagined ). NEVER FORGET THAT YOU OWE YOURSELF A TRAUMA.

He's worse than Nora Volkow, the woman who's got brains on the brain. Why he's an HR 'champion' is beyond me. He may have started out with the right intentions but he DIRECTLY contradicts the fundamental principles of HR. (ie addiction is no permanent fate; self - directed change is not only possible but the norm; drug use need not be detrimental per se; we should teach drug COMPETENCE over blind abstinence).
Whereas he's the ULTIMATE disease proponent.
He not only thinks that addiction is a literal disease, he apparently thinks EVERYONE has it.

Since there is no possibility of human life without adversity and suffering, and this is what 'makes' one an addict, then shouldn't we be ALL addicted -? A nonsensical conclusion right.
Oh but "90 % of people are addicts and the other 10% are lying". Another direct quote of his.


To sum up:

- Gabor Mate DOES NOT leave room for the possibility that anyone might use drugs in a non - addictive, non - detrimental way.
- he equates ANY AND ALL drug use with fundamental dysfunction.
- he doesn't believe there's any solution to addiction problems except full abstinence.
- he does not believe drug use can be a part of a life well - lived.
- he thinks conditions as diverse as arthritis and diabetes are 'auto immune disorders' (he'd be laughed out of the lecture hall if he tried to sell that half - digested garbage to a class of epidemiologists)
- he thinks autism and various learning disabilities are caused by parental mistreatment (a notion long since debunked, with a very ugly and damaging history of blaming 'refrigerator mothers' for their child's autistic tendencies) .
- he thinks you can develop prostate cancer from 'not knowing how to express anger in a healthy way'.
- he uses cold - reading techniques in his 'therapy',
I watched him do this in a documentary, and that's nothing better than manipulative funfair quackery.
-he's simplistic, reductionist and promotes an eternal victim complex that troubled drug users need like they need a spike up their arse.

- he's as much of a 'drugs are evil' fundamentalist as any blanket prohibition proponent.
... EXCEPT for the use of ayahuasca which he likes to peddle as some miracle cure for all of life's ills.

.. Yeah I can see the appeal. To anyone who's been hurt and neglected, and then here comes this guy who seems so compassionate, telling you he 'sees your pain' blah blah. Throwing out emotionally charged, over - generalized platitudes that just about ANYONE can latch onto and convince themselves they're being directly spoken to. Cheapest trick in the book. He uses the insecurities of vulnerable people in order to massage his saviour complex. He's an egotist (even if a well - meaning one) with a great sales pitch but questionable methods and ZERO scientific backing to any of his assertions. I could list off the cuff about a dozen other professionals working in the field with better credentials but less sophisticated PR, that anyone would be better off paying attention to. Rant over.

 

[AbbeyLee]

I find this bloke over-hyped and also irritating. He has this fixation on the idea that any and all addictions HAVE to have some root in trauma. Obviously many traumatized people wind up addicted to one thing or another in an attempt to compensate for / cope with present or past suffering. But then there's people who never significantly suffered in their life and get stuck on something because they find it literally just too much of a good thing, have obsessive appetites, or just are bored with life being 'too good' and can't think of what to do with themselves other than get off their nuts. Insisting on trying to reduce a complex and highly individualistic human behaviour to one single absolute 'cause' is not scientific.

Well psychology is an art not a science. They tried turning it into a science, which meant dismissing people like Carl Jung (bc he's a "mystic" ). Even Freud became a bit of a joke. The current psychology and psychiatry professions don't seem to be working too well do they? Combine that with the War on Drugs mentality and you've got drug addicts just thrown in jail or dying on the street.

Gabor Mate is one of the new breed trying to swing things back to a more humane (and effective) approach. Sure there might be a few exceptions but this guy worked for ten years in Vancouver's Skid Row. His patients were at the end of the line. So there probably weren't too many who were just "bored with life being too good".

 

[AbbeyLee]

If anyone's interested -- this book is about his work in Vancouver. It's pretty full-on. I read it years ago.

 

[AbbeyLee]

I find this bloke over-hyped and also irritating. He has this fixation on the idea that any and all addictions HAVE to have some root in trauma. Obviously many traumatized people wind up addicted to one thing or another in an attempt to compensate for / cope with present or past suffering. But then there's people who never significantly suffered in their life and get stuck on something because they find it literally just too much of a good thing, have obsessive appetites, or just are bored with life being 'too good' and can't think of what to do with themselves other than get off their nuts.

Another fact he routinely ignores is that while you will find proportionately more traumatized people among heavy drug users than the general population (surprise surprise, who with 3 functioning brain cells needs someone like Mate to tell them the bleeding obvious like it's some kind of revelation), the great majority of traumatized or mentally ill people are NOT also heavy drug users. Insisting on trying to reduce a complex and highly individualistic human behaviour to one single absolute 'cause' is not scientific.

If you don't like him, just move on? Why waste time and energy picking him apart?

Oops wrong quote. Either way, I'm not going to argue his case.

 

[nznity]

I was maybe too kind in my initial comment. This addiction 'expert' is very much self - proclaimed, and I in fact flat - out think the guy's a charlatan.
I tried to watch one of his lectures because people I knew kept gushing over him, and found myself unable to stand more than 10 mins of his pseudo-scientific, pseudo-intellectual claptrap.

For all the inevitable fans here, let's just consider the following shall we -?.

- he WAS a staff physician at PHS Vancouver, but is no longer licensed.
Yet he still calls himself a physician and a doctor.
- neither is he a licensed psychiatrist yet presumes to speak on various psychiatric conditions.
- he says he's a psychotherapist, but if he DOES have any official training or accreditation in that regard, he conspicuously neglects to mention it in his otherwise extremely self - promoting ads.


Here's ONE direct quote of his I completely agree with :

"in succumbing to the urge to absolve ourselves of responsibility and seeking easily disguisable rationales for complex phenomena, our culture has too avidly embraced genetic fundamentalism."

True. But what does he do instead, but replace 'genetics' with 'childhood trauma' as THE thing which will forever IRREVERSIBLY doom you to, and trap you in, disastrous levels of substance use.
Instead of being stuck with our genetic heritage, according to his reductive model we're stuck with our 'trauma' (define trauma ; nobody's life is free of pain, it's the human condition) which supposedly somehow permanently impairs our brain chemistry (not that there's a shred of creditable evidence for this but HEY!, the comforting emotional appeal of such a notion, no ill-advised self - destructive action you take will ever be your fault again).

AHH and also if you cannot for the life of you RECALL any significant 'trauma' then it's just 'hidden' and it will be found (or imagined ). NEVER FORGET THAT YOU OWE YOURSELF A TRAUMA.

He's worse than Nora Volkow, the woman who's got brains on the brain. Why he's an HR 'champion' is beyond me. He may have started out with the right intentions but he DIRECTLY contradicts the fundamental principles of HR. (ie addiction is no permanent fate; self - directed change is not only possible but the norm; drug use need not be detrimental per se; we should teach drug COMPETENCE over blind abstinence).
Whereas he's the ULTIMATE disease proponent.
He not only thinks that addiction is a literal disease, he apparently thinks EVERYONE has it.

Since there is no possibility of human life without adversity and suffering, and this is what 'makes' one an addict, then shouldn't we be ALL addicted -? A nonsensical conclusion right.
Oh but "90 % of people are addicts and the other 10% are lying". Another direct quote of his.


To sum up:

- Gabor Mate DOES NOT leave room for the possibility that anyone might use drugs in a non - addictive, non - detrimental way.
- he equates ANY AND ALL drug use with fundamental dysfunction.
- he doesn't believe there's any solution to addiction problems except full abstinence.
- he does not believe drug use can be a part of a life well - lived.
- he thinks conditions as diverse as arthritis and diabetes are 'auto immune disorders' (he'd be laughed out of the lecture hall if he tried to sell that half - digested garbage to a class of epidemiologists)
- he thinks autism and various learning disabilities are caused by parental mistreatment (a notion long since debunked, with a very ugly and damaging history of blaming 'refrigerator mothers' for their child's autistic tendencies) .
- he thinks you can develop prostate cancer from 'not knowing how to express anger in a healthy way'.
- he uses cold - reading techniques in his 'therapy',
I watched him do this in a documentary, and that's nothing better than manipulative funfair quackery.
-he's simplistic, reductionist and promotes an eternal victim complex that troubled drug users need like they need a spike up their arse.

- he's as much of a 'drugs are evil' fundamentalist as any blanket prohibition proponent.
... EXCEPT for the use of ayahuasca which he likes to peddle as some miracle cure for all of life's ills.

.. Yeah I can see the appeal. To anyone who's been hurt and neglected, and then here comes this guy who seems so compassionate, telling you he 'sees your pain' blah blah. Throwing out emotionally charged, over - generalized platitudes that just about ANYONE can latch onto and convince themselves they're being directly spoken to. Cheapest trick in the book. He uses the insecurities of vulnerable people in order to massage his saviour complex. He's an egotist (even if a well - meaning one) with a great sales pitch but questionable methods and ZERO scientific backing to any of his assertions. I could list off the cuff about a dozen other professionals working in the field with better credentials but less sophisticated PR, that anyone would be better off paying attention to. Rant over.

Y are you ranting over something this stupid, what a waste of time.

 

[AbbeyLee]

If I saw a thread "Donald Trump: Leadership Expert" I would just scroll on by.

 

[n3ophy7e]

I was maybe too kind in my initial comment. This addiction 'expert' is very much self - proclaimed, and I in fact flat - out think the guy's a charlatan.
I tried to watch one of his lectures because people I knew kept gushing over him, and found myself unable to stand more than 10 mins of his pseudo-scientific, pseudo-intellectual claptrap.

For all the inevitable fans here, let's just consider the following shall we -?.

- he WAS a staff physician at PHS Vancouver, but is no longer licensed.
Yet he still calls himself a physician and a doctor.
- neither is he a licensed psychiatrist yet presumes to speak on various psychiatric conditions.
- he says he's a psychotherapist, but if he DOES have any official training or accreditation in that regard, he conspicuously neglects to mention it in his otherwise extremely self - promoting ads.


Here's ONE direct quote of his I completely agree with :

"in succumbing to the urge to absolve ourselves of responsibility and seeking easily disguisable rationales for complex phenomena, our culture has too avidly embraced genetic fundamentalism."

True. But what does he do instead, but replace 'genetics' with 'childhood trauma' as THE thing which will forever IRREVERSIBLY doom you to, and trap you in, disastrous levels of substance use.
Instead of being stuck with our genetic heritage, according to his reductive model we're stuck with our 'trauma' (define trauma ; nobody's life is free of pain, it's the human condition) which supposedly somehow permanently impairs our brain chemistry (not that there's a shred of creditable evidence for this but HEY!, the comforting emotional appeal of such a notion, no ill-advised self - destructive action you take will ever be your fault again).

AHH and also if you cannot for the life of you RECALL any significant 'trauma' then it's just 'hidden' and it will be found (or imagined ). NEVER FORGET THAT YOU OWE YOURSELF A TRAUMA.

He's worse than Nora Volkow, the woman who's got brains on the brain. Why he's an HR 'champion' is beyond me. He may have started out with the right intentions but he DIRECTLY contradicts the fundamental principles of HR. (ie addiction is no permanent fate; self - directed change is not only possible but the norm; drug use need not be detrimental per se; we should teach drug COMPETENCE over blind abstinence).
Whereas he's the ULTIMATE disease proponent.
He not only thinks that addiction is a literal disease, he apparently thinks EVERYONE has it.

Since there is no possibility of human life without adversity and suffering, and this is what 'makes' one an addict, then shouldn't we be ALL addicted -? A nonsensical conclusion right.
Oh but "90 % of people are addicts and the other 10% are lying". Another direct quote of his.


To sum up:

- Gabor Mate DOES NOT leave room for the possibility that anyone might use drugs in a non - addictive, non - detrimental way.
- he equates ANY AND ALL drug use with fundamental dysfunction.
- he doesn't believe there's any solution to addiction problems except full abstinence.
- he does not believe drug use can be a part of a life well - lived.
- he thinks conditions as diverse as arthritis and diabetes are 'auto immune disorders' (he'd be laughed out of the lecture hall if he tried to sell that half - digested garbage to a class of epidemiologists)
- he thinks autism and various learning disabilities are caused by parental mistreatment (a notion long since debunked, with a very ugly and damaging history of blaming 'refrigerator mothers' for their child's autistic tendencies) .
- he thinks you can develop prostate cancer from 'not knowing how to express anger in a healthy way'.
- he uses cold - reading techniques in his 'therapy',
I watched him do this in a documentary, and that's nothing better than manipulative funfair quackery.
-he's simplistic, reductionist and promotes an eternal victim complex that troubled drug users need like they need a spike up their arse.

- he's as much of a 'drugs are evil' fundamentalist as any blanket prohibition proponent.
... EXCEPT for the use of ayahuasca which he likes to peddle as some miracle cure for all of life's ills.

.. Yeah I can see the appeal. To anyone who's been hurt and neglected, and then here comes this guy who seems so compassionate, telling you he 'sees your pain' blah blah. Throwing out emotionally charged, over - generalized platitudes that just about ANYONE can latch onto and convince themselves they're being directly spoken to. Cheapest trick in the book. He uses the insecurities of vulnerable people in order to massage his saviour complex. He's an egotist (even if a well - meaning one) with a great sales pitch but questionable methods and ZERO scientific backing to any of his assertions. I could list off the cuff about a dozen other professionals working in the field with better credentials but less sophisticated PR, that anyone would be better off paying attention to. Rant over.

Okie dokie

 

[n3ophy7e]

- he WAS a staff physician at PHS Vancouver, but is no longer licensed.

Yet he still calls himself a physician and a doctor.

- neither is he a licensed psychiatrist yet presumes to speak on various psychiatric conditions.

- he says he's a psychotherapist, but if he DOES have any official training or accreditation in that regard, he conspicuously neglects to mention it in his otherwise extremely self - promoting ads.

Just because he's no longer licensed doesn't mean that his knowledge and experience gets magically wiped clean out of his brain.

Here's ONE direct quote of his I completely agree with :

"in succumbing to the urge to absolve ourselves of responsibility and seeking easily disguisable rationales for complex phenomena, our culture has too avidly embraced genetic fundamentalism."

THAT'S the one quote you agree with??? Have you read literally anything that he has ever written?

True. But what does he do instead, but replace 'genetics' with 'childhood trauma' as THE thing which will forever IRREVERSIBLY doom you to, and trap you in, disastrous levels of substance use.

Instead of being stuck with our genetic heritage, according to his reductive model we're stuck with our 'trauma' (define trauma ; nobody's life is free of pain, it's the human condition) which supposedly somehow permanently impairs our brain chemistry (not that there's a shred of creditable evidence for this but HEY!, the comforting emotional appeal of such a notion, no ill-advised self - destructive action you take will ever be your fault again).

AHH and also if you cannot for the life of you RECALL any significant 'trauma' then it's just 'hidden' and it will be found (or imagined ). NEVER FORGET THAT YOU OWE YOURSELF A TRAUMA.

That's actually 100% NOT what he says, at all. Even a quick google search of "Gabor Maté addiction" will bring up a bunch of quotes from books and websites that say that he proclaims that it is not necessarily abuse and trauma that lead to addiction, but can be merely past painful experiences and negative childhood environment that can lead to addiction too.

He not only thinks that addiction is a literal disease, he apparently thinks EVERYONE has it.

The addiction as a disease model is not his idea, it has been around for a long time and is widely accepted as one approach to addiction treatment.

- he doesn't believe there's any solution to addiction problems except full abstinence.

I 100% agree with this.

- he thinks conditions as diverse as arthritis and diabetes are 'auto immune disorders'

Not sure what diversity has to do with it, but diabetes and arthritis are both 100% autoimmune disorders, this is scientific fact.

.. Yeah I can see the appeal. To anyone who's been hurt and neglected, and then here comes this guy who seems so compassionate, telling you he 'sees your pain' blah blah. Throwing out emotionally charged, over - generalized platitudes that just about ANYONE can latch onto and convince themselves they're being directly spoken to. Cheapest trick in the book. He uses the insecurities of vulnerable people in order to massage his saviour complex. He's an egotist (even if a well - meaning one) with a great sales pitch but questionable methods and ZERO scientific backing to any of his assertions. I could list off the cuff about a dozen other professionals working in the field with better credentials but less sophisticated PR, that anyone would be better off paying attention to. Rant over.

Why do you feel like he has some kind of ulterior motive for his approach to addiction treatment? Do you think you'd be able to come up with a better way?

 

[Kellsee]

I LOVE Mate. I soak up everything I can from him.


“Not all addictions are rooted in abuse or trauma, but I do believe they can all be traced to painful experience. A hurt is at the centre of all addictive behaviours. It is present in the gambler, the Internet addict, the compulsive shopper and the workaholic. The wound may not be as deep and the ache not as excruciating, and it may even be entirely hidden—but it’s there. As we’ll see, the effects of early stress or adverse experiences directly shape both the psychology and the neurobiology of addiction in the brain"
Gabor Mate

"The difference between passion and addiction is that between a divine spark and a flame that incinerates.”
Gabor Mate


“It is simply a matter of historical fact that the dominant intellectual culture of any particular society reflects the interest of the dominant group in that society. In a slave owning society the beliefs about human beings and human rights and so on will reflect the needs of the slave owners.

In a society which is based on the power of certain people to control and profit from the lives and work of millions of others, the dominant intellectual culture will reflect the needs of the dominant group. So, if you look across the board, the ideas that pervade psychology, sociology, history, political economy and political science fundamentally reflect certain elite interests.

And the academics who question that too much tend to get shunted to the side or to be seen as sort of 'radicals'.”
Gabor Mate

 

[n3ophy7e]

Well psychology is an art not a science. They tried turning it into a science, which meant dismissing people like Carl Jung (bc he's a "mystic" ). Even Freud became a bit of a joke. The current psychology and psychiatry professions don't seem to be working too well do they? Combine that with the War on Drugs mentality and you've got drug addicts just thrown in jail or dying on the street.

Gabor Mate is one of the new breed trying to swing things back to a more humane (and effective) approach. Sure there might be a few exceptions but this guy worked for ten years in Vancouver's Skid Row. His patients were at the end of the line. So there probably weren't too many who were just "bored with life being too good".

I've got a BPsych and throughout the entire degree they very much tried to emphasise that psychology is a science and that they were teaching it as such. Is it not a science now?

 

[AbbeyLee]

I've got a BPsych and throughout the entire degree they very much tried to emphasise that psychology is a science and that they were teaching it as such. Is it not a science now?

I don't mean the way academia classifies it, I mean the human psyche isn't an objective thing which can be hypothesised about, tested and proven as fact.

I actually remember when psychology was moved from Arts to Science. When I was at high school Science was Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Then I learned they'd added Psychology and that seemed very strange.

I did Business at Uni, so I wasn't involved in Arts or Sciences, but I vaguely remember Psychology was somehow half and half. That was the early-mid 90s. Interesting that they emphasised it being a science.

 

[AbbeyLee]

Hmm well maybe I'm talking shit a bit and that it is both art and science. The two didn't used to be so separate eg. Philosophy and Science went hand in hand.

Jordan Peterson is a Psychologist I really admire.. He's big on Jung, mythology, and various philosophers and writers, and he has this to say:

 

[Jabberwocky]

If anyone's interested -- this book is about his work in Vancouver. It's pretty full-on. I read it years ago.

i read this in early recovery and often recommend it to people. its brilliant. i loved his chapter about fnding a higher power.

people like him are doing brilliant work in destigmatising addiction and promoting compassion.

re whether psychology is a science or an art. i don't think the two are mutually exclusive. i've never studied psychology seriously but i've had numerous psychologists. the best i've had mixed evidence base and intuition. which is exactly the way that brilliant researchers in the more traditional sciences operate. science is an extremely creative endeavour, its just gone about in a different way, but you can't discover new things without creativity. its not a traditional art, obviously, but the greats have artistic flair.

 

[n3ophy7e]

i read this in early recovery and often recommend it to people. its brilliant. i loved his chapter about fnding a higher power.

people like him are doing brilliant work in destigmatising addiction and promoting compassion.

re whether psychology is a science or an art. i don't think the two are mutually exclusive. i've never studied psychology seriously but i've had numerous psychologists. the best i've had mixed evidence base and intuition. which is exactly the way that brilliant researchers in the more traditional sciences operate. science is an extremely creative endeavour, its just gone about in a different way, but you can't discover new things without creativity. its not a traditional art, obviously, but the greats have artistic flair.

Beautifully said!!