Robert's Reviews > Sudden Mischief

Sudden Mischief by Robert B. Parker
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1433865
's review
Oct 14, 13

bookshelves: crime-detective
Read from July 15 to 20, 2012

My second encounter with Parker's Boston PI, Spenser, was OK but it has some flaws.

THIS REVIEW HAS BEEN CURTAILED IN PROTEST AT GOODREADS' CENSORSHIP POLICY

See the complete review here:

http://arbieroo.booklikes.com/post/33...
10 likes · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Sudden Mischief.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-7 of 7) (7 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Traveller (new)

Traveller The whole-sale Freudian psychology of characterisation and character analysis also bugs me, which - bringing us full circle - is the main reason Wunder-therapist, Susan Silverman, irritates me.

I find myself agreeing with that comment as a generalization.

I've always preferred a Jungian approach to a Freudian one, anyway.


message 2: by Robert (new) - added it

Robert I prefer a scientific approach...


message 3: by Traveller (new)

Traveller Robert wrote: "I prefer a scientific approach..."

Oh, of course (and yes, that's how i've come to know you), but keep in mind that Freudians believe that they are using a scientific approach. I suppose it's a question of perspective.
You often find scientist that disagree, even to a point of becoming passionate about their disagreements. :)


message 4: by Robert (new) - added it

Robert I've never heard anybody claim that Freudians are scientific before; they certainly can't prove that Freudian psychotherapy has any positive benefit. Academic psychology these days, whilst respecting Freud's historical status, seems not to believe him (or Jung) on faith and don't like to rely on case studies, as far as I can tell.


message 5: by Traveller (last edited Jul 21, 2012 05:16AM) (new)

Traveller Scientific in terms of mapping the human psyche. I doubt that it's possible to conclusively 'prove' that one or another medical or psychological treatment 'works' as an absolute, objective assertion.

What works for one patient might not work for another patient; plus there are so many variables present, that one cannot say for sure what it is about the treatment that has been working.

That said, i personally am not a fan of Freudian psychoanalysis, neither am i of all of Freud's theories; however, one has to accede that Freud did a lot to advance knowledge of and study of the human psyche.

At least he got people thinking, and changed the way people thought about pshycology - the latter was not even really a proper 'scientific' discipline before Freud.


message 6: by Robert (new) - added it

Robert Traveller wrote: "Scientific in terms of mapping the human psyche. I doubt that it's possible to conclusively 'prove' that one or another medical or psychological treatment 'works' as an absolute, objective asserti..."

It is possible to apply some methods of assessing efficacy adopted from other areas of medicine to psychotherapy and if you do, you find that CBT techniques can be beneficial, where-as traditional psychotherapy cannot be shown to have any positive effect.


message 7: by Traveller (last edited Jul 21, 2012 09:07AM) (new)

Traveller Robert wrote: "It is possible to apply some methods of assessing efficacy adopted from other areas of medicine to psychotherapy and if you do, you find that CBT techniques can be beneficial, where-as traditional psychotherapy cannot be shown to have any positive effect. ..."

Without getting bogged down in too much detail, let me first affirm with you that I know CBT is the 'in' thing, and psycho-analysis is old hat.

What i had meant to say, however, was that when it comes to techniques of psychotherapy or psychiatry or even physical actual medical practice, there are no absolutes and no definite 100% sure therapy that 100% of patients or 100% of a population of organisms will respond to. There's simply too much randomness, too many variables involved when it comes to living matter. Living creatures cannot be reduced to mathematical formulas.

...but i do agree with you that CBT tends to be more efficient than 'traditional' psychotherapy, and i personally also agree with the temporal focus of the present and future that behavioural and cognitive therapies tend to embrace; more than an endless digging up of the past which may or may not be relevant to a patient's present problems, as the focus tends to be with 'traditional' psycho-analysis.

In any case, i think everyone can agree that there are a lot of gaps and errors in Freud's model of the human psyche, especially with regards to gender and his (in my opinion) over-emphasis of the importance of libido in shaping the human personality.


back to top