Not the same book or author, this article references Dr. Rossiter's The Liberal Mind, and yes, he's a real psychiatrist. His website is here: www.libertymind.com
. 
Posted on 03/12/2008 9:18:30 PM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
When the Gallup pollsters asked Americans what they thought about their own mental health, they were intrigued by the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
While 58 percent of Republicans reported having excellent mental health, only 38 percent of Democrats described themselves that way.
The study was no surprise to D. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., a noted psychiatrist and author of a controversial book that makes the clinical case liberalism is a mental illness.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
"The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican," the study concluded.
Hopefully some dumbercrats will happen by long enough to read the points of Dr. Rossiter. I thought the piece was brilliant enough to post in land where people would appreciate it.
and most of them are in denial
Denial permits anything. It allows you to seem sane when needed, while denying any information in conflict with a irrational belief system. This is why debates with liberals are so disjointed; they have an constant need to change the subject to avoid agreeing with you.
If you’ve ever been to a psychiatric ward, or dealt with homeless people on the street, you know that THEY think they are perfectly fine : nothing wrong with ME! Dr Rossiter nails it but the dems will never listen, too devastating to their ego, their self image. Sadly they are children that just got older, still mental infants in the cradle, expecting to be spoon fed. Ah well, MAJOR events will soon transpire, only rugged, self reliant ADULTS will survive, infantile liberals will be GONE.
Not the same book or author, this article references Dr. Rossiter's The Liberal Mind, and yes, he's a real psychiatrist. His website is here: www.libertymind.com
.
And if you divided Republicans into “Moderates” and “Conservatives”, I’ll bet the numbers are even more striking.
Oh great! I can hear the Spitz now: “Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, your Honor and I can prove it”.
"In his fifth and last lecture, the audience asked Jung to depart from his theory of dream analysis and explain instead how to put the transference to "practical use" within the process. Jung's explanation led to a discussion of the role religion served within the various psychotherapeutic systems, particularly his own. He told the audience that throughout thirty-plus years of analytic practice, he had made an informal statistical count of his patients' religious affiliations: most were either Jewish or Protestant; practicing Catholics numbered "about six." It proved to him that the Catholic Church's "rigorous system of confession" was indeed a "therapeutic institituion"....Taken from Jung: A Biography by Deirdre Bair
My sister is a liberal who “learned a lot about psychology during her sessions.” She told me that I can’t love anybody until I love myself.
Hmmm...dear sister, are you saying that narcissism is the key to happiness?
Michael Savage holds master’s degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology and earned a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, in nutritional ethnomedicine.
Liberals are merely physical adults with the reasoning and intellect of an 18-month-old; no more, no less.
Proof: Just look or listen to Rosie.
Here is an excerpt from a paper that I wrote regarding the criminal incompetence of the APA in its approach to diagnosing mental disorders:
"The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) incorporates an outline that includes an “assessment of a patient’s cultural identity… cultural explanations of the client’s illness, cultural elements of the relationship between the client and the mental health professional, cultural factors related to the psychosocial environment and levels of functioning, and the overall cultural assessment for diagnostic care” (APA, 1994, in Campinha-Bacote, pp. 40-41). However, the DSM-IV offers no guidance for the practitioner in assessing culture-bound disorders, and even cautions mental health practitioners against using DSM-IV diagnoses for non-Western patients (Marsella, 2003, in Campinha-Bacote, p. 41). For all intents and purposes, the APA caveat contained in its own diagnostic standard effectively renders the DSM-IV useless for the accurate diagnosis of disorders in the client who has a non-Western cultural background. This leaves the practitioner in a very difficult position in which he or she may be required to utilize subjective data to reach an objective, empiric diagnosis. This situation makes diagnostic clarity all the more elusive and difficult to achieve."
(Yeah, I scored a 4.0 on that paper, plus extra credit for finding that APA caveat. My Psych prof had no idea it existed until I showed it to him. It rocked his world.) Then there are the three letters "NOS." In APA parlance, it stands for "Not Otherwise Specified." What that means is that if you have a mental health problem that they can't figure out, they simply slap a diagnosis on you (that you carry for the rest of your LIFE) like "Mood Disorder," and then add "NOS."
Here's what "NOS" really means: NOS= "I don't know what the f*** I'm doing and I would have been a thoracic surgeon but was too frigging lazy to do my homework. So what if I may ruin some nutjob's life? I still make my Beamer payment."
Your points are well-taken, a bit cynical, but relevant indeed. The psuedo-sciences of psychiatry and psychology are only a bit over a century old, and during that time we have seen theories taken as fact that have later proved egregiously wrong and destroyed people’s lives. However, we’ve also seen the development of therapies and drugs that improve or save lives (sometimes without knowing exactly what the mechanism is that improves the patient).
Psychoneurobiology is more “scientfic” but even there the facts are somewhat nebulous, all the theories about brain chemistry that is the current basis of understanding disorders is not measurable directly, only inferred from physical, mental and emotional symptoms.
Even the new brain scans haven’t “proven” scenario “A” on the scan is definitely disease “A” in the DSM. As you say, diagnosis is very tricky, and probably also influenced by the doctor’s prejudices, ignorance, pressure from the patient or parents, teachers, etc.
I agree with you, much is still unknown, and unfortunately, sometimes, but not always, misconstrued or even misused.
ping
Note: this topic is from 3/12/2008. Figure's even lower now, after a couple of years of Zero.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.