What do you think?
Daydreaming
Discuses the psychological nature of daydreams, looks at sexual, distractive, obsessive and frightening daydreams, and describes the benefits of daydreaming, including relaxation, creativity and mental stimulation rehearsal
- GenresPsychology
1 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1990
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 16, 2020
It's a real shame that there has been so little published research on the practice and impulse of daydreaming, considering it's something every one of us does every single day. I was impressed with how Dr. Klinger was able to fuse together the various studies that had, up to that time, been conducted to give us at least some insight into why we develop these alternate realities in our minds. I give Daydreaming full credit as one of the trailblazers in this area of cognitive research.
And I appreciate that Dr. Klinger is a champion for the values of daydreaming. And yet. And yet I found myself on occasion struggling to reach the same confident conclusions as him. For one thing, he draws what I find to be a bit of a false dichotomy between "pleasant" daydreaming and "worrying" daydreaming to conclude that the former is a practice that, by its nature, cannot lend itself to negative excess; while, on the other hand, it is too much of the latter that can. I am by no means an expert as he is on the subject, but on a visceral level, I disagree with the point he reaches. Indeed, I think that too much of a good thing CAN be damaging. A person CAN AND WILL indulge in a practice of "pleasant" daydreaming whereby they escape to a world of their own devising in an effort to avoid or temporarily ignore the realities that they may be facing. Too much of this, surely, can be a real drawback in allowing the person to find solutions to the real-world problems they are facing. He DOES get at this to some extent in Chapters 8 & 9, but I was left unsatisfied by his scant focus, as if to imply this particular behavior wasn't worthy enough of closer investigation.
I was furthermore perplexed where he concluded on page 250 that "[o]bviously, lonely people do not create many escapist daydreams for themselves, and the ones that occur to them spontaneously are nothing to escape to." What? Why? He makes reference to ONE study to reach this conclusion before moving on. This outcome, again, seems far from the truth. And I feel some confidence to declare this because I myself will use pleasant daydreams as an escape when I am feeling lonely. I construct little worlds in my head where people are around to support and appreciate me. In this way, I can exercise the control that I feel I may be lacking in my own life. I don't come away feeling bad, though perhaps deluded. This seems only natural in these circumstances, and I'm sure I am far from the only person to indulge in this kind of practice. Again, Dr. Klinger seems to be avoiding engaging with this counterpoint, for reasons unknown.
Finally, I would be interested to know how much of this research stands the test of time. The world is a fairly different place from the one Dr. Klinger found himself in at the time this was first (and last?) published. I wonder what a different tableau might be painted from the input of more recent research and inquiry (I know for one thing that Klinger has expressed strong opposition to Dr. Eli Somer's thesis around "maladaptive daydreaming," which first hit the scene around 2001); and yet, as far as I can tell, Klinger has not revised or updated his work to-date, at least not through a medium like this accessible to us laypeople. (I could be wrong here.)
Altogether, this is a very informed piece of work that I'm glad to have come across, though it's certainly not the only view on these matters out there, and I would love to see a more dynamic discussion on the subject - especially with the potential consequences of internet and social media rife for adding more nuance to the mix.
And I appreciate that Dr. Klinger is a champion for the values of daydreaming. And yet. And yet I found myself on occasion struggling to reach the same confident conclusions as him. For one thing, he draws what I find to be a bit of a false dichotomy between "pleasant" daydreaming and "worrying" daydreaming to conclude that the former is a practice that, by its nature, cannot lend itself to negative excess; while, on the other hand, it is too much of the latter that can. I am by no means an expert as he is on the subject, but on a visceral level, I disagree with the point he reaches. Indeed, I think that too much of a good thing CAN be damaging. A person CAN AND WILL indulge in a practice of "pleasant" daydreaming whereby they escape to a world of their own devising in an effort to avoid or temporarily ignore the realities that they may be facing. Too much of this, surely, can be a real drawback in allowing the person to find solutions to the real-world problems they are facing. He DOES get at this to some extent in Chapters 8 & 9, but I was left unsatisfied by his scant focus, as if to imply this particular behavior wasn't worthy enough of closer investigation.
I was furthermore perplexed where he concluded on page 250 that "[o]bviously, lonely people do not create many escapist daydreams for themselves, and the ones that occur to them spontaneously are nothing to escape to." What? Why? He makes reference to ONE study to reach this conclusion before moving on. This outcome, again, seems far from the truth. And I feel some confidence to declare this because I myself will use pleasant daydreams as an escape when I am feeling lonely. I construct little worlds in my head where people are around to support and appreciate me. In this way, I can exercise the control that I feel I may be lacking in my own life. I don't come away feeling bad, though perhaps deluded. This seems only natural in these circumstances, and I'm sure I am far from the only person to indulge in this kind of practice. Again, Dr. Klinger seems to be avoiding engaging with this counterpoint, for reasons unknown.
Finally, I would be interested to know how much of this research stands the test of time. The world is a fairly different place from the one Dr. Klinger found himself in at the time this was first (and last?) published. I wonder what a different tableau might be painted from the input of more recent research and inquiry (I know for one thing that Klinger has expressed strong opposition to Dr. Eli Somer's thesis around "maladaptive daydreaming," which first hit the scene around 2001); and yet, as far as I can tell, Klinger has not revised or updated his work to-date, at least not through a medium like this accessible to us laypeople. (I could be wrong here.)
Altogether, this is a very informed piece of work that I'm glad to have come across, though it's certainly not the only view on these matters out there, and I would love to see a more dynamic discussion on the subject - especially with the potential consequences of internet and social media rife for adding more nuance to the mix.
November 7, 2012
Was very interesting, maybe a little outdated. But very little reserch has been done in the field of daydreams so there is not other options out there.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews