Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 24, 2026

Book Review: Best Friends

Title: Best Friends 

Author: Cheryl DaVeiga

Date: May 2026 (I lost track of some review copies in the transition from Kindle to NetGalley Reader software; sorry!)

Publisher: Waterhole

ISBN: 978-1-958050-26-2

Quote: "For weeks, these messages pop up out of nowhere, always from different phone numbers I don't recognize. Always signed J." 

Orion is going through the shy stage of adolescence. She doesn't even want to be a Munchkin in the school's production of The Wizard of Oz because her worst friend might make fun of her. Orion likes music and likes an older boy called Jesse who sings in a band. Could he be the one sending her the mysterious messages, which are always encouraging?

Shyness helps Orion play it cool and be friendly, rather than making a fool of herself, when she actually gets a chance to jam with Jesse and they become friends. They write a song together called "Best Friends." "I would never do anything so stalker-ish," Jesse declares when he hears about the messages. It's up to Orion and Izzy, her best friend, to find out who sent the messages. 

This is a happy story with a sound track. Teenagers who like pop music should enjoy it. I could wish that Orion had learned something beyond the "just dare to be loud, be a fake extrovert who embarrasses everyone around you" message she seems to have heard somewhere. What works for her is daring to be her nice, quiet self, listening to and encouraging Jesse. She could try that with other people, too; even with parents and teachers. But kids like Orion don't always have to spell everything out. At her age, two best friends are probably enough.

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

Book Review: Life 101

Book Title: Life 101

Authors: John Roger and Peter McWilliams

Date: 1991

Publisher: Prelude Press

ISBN: 0-931580-97-8

Length: 400 pages

Quote: "We call this book Life 101 because it contains all the things we wish we had learned about life in school but, for the most part, did not."

In the 1980s, stores near my school sold a book of practical advice for young students. I don't remember whether Life 101 was in its title, or subtitle, or blurb-on-the-jacket. I remember that it discussed things like changing tires and cleaning filters, and other things people renting their first furnished rooms needed to know.

Many years later, I found this rather large paperback book and wondered whether it was an expanded version of that practical little book I remembered. The simplest way to review Life 101 is to say that it wasn't.

What the McWilliams brothers have to offer is a philosophical outlook on life that was popular with New Agers and the human potential school of psychotherapists in the 1980s and 1990s. By 1991 a backlash had begun. Some Christian groups had pronounced the McWilliams' philosophy heretical; I'd already reality-checked it and found it unhelpful.

"Accept reality." Why is that not helpful? First of all, this phrase uses the word "accept" in an incorrect way. To accept something literally means to pick it up in your hands, as when you pick up a package at the post office and take it home. Neither a situation, nor a person, nor "reality" can be accepted in the literal sense, so what is "accept reality" supposed to mean, and why can't the person speaking use the verb that fits whatever is in his or her mind? The McWilliams brothers are using "accept" as an alternative to "deny"; they're advising readers not to live in denial, like a sick patient who may actually believe that he's gone back fifty years in time and that the grandson to whom he's speaking now is the brother who died forty years ago, or like an alcoholic who won't admit that she drinks too much. The average person reading Life 101 is probably not living in denial. The reader of this book may be more interested in changing tires than in trying to change his or her emotions, but probably perceives reality about as efficiently as the rest of us do.

Several words that describe things most of us do, relative to "reality," would fit this context better than "accept." What about "acknowledge," "perceive," "face," "consider," "evaluate," "understand," or "be aware of"? Those words didn't sound "dynamic" enough for the philosophy the McWilliams brothers are preaching. Preachers of this philosophy wanted a word that seemed to mean something active and cheerful. And why was the subjective emotional tone of the word so important? Because what they were actually about to say was something like "Just tell yourself you like whatever's on your mind, because I'm emotionally enmeshed with your moods but I don't intend to do anything to help with your actual situation."

In a word: unhelpful. I think Life 101 is likely to be most useful to the critical reader who wants to write a study of "Lies My Therapist Told Me, or Feel-Good Ideas That Leave People Feeling Bad." Life 101 is a great source of the quotes, the oh-so-insightful bad puns, and the whole popular philosophy of the 1980s. It is valuable for studying this period in historical perspective.

If you're looking for advice you can use in your life, this web site recommends that you read the Bible.

Wednesday, March 18, 2026

Book Review: Crazy Love

Title: Crazy Love

Author: Phyllis Reynolds Naylor

Date: 1977

Publisher: William Morrow & Cmpany

ISBN: 0-688-03178-1

Length: 192 pages

Quote: “Didn’t Ted’s background give me pause...? No. Seventeen is the time when life is eminently conquerable.”

In this memoir Naylor, best known as a writer of children’s stories, makes a plea for acceptance of insanity as grounds for divorce. Since most states and even most churches now accept insanity as grounds for divorce, who else needs to read this book? Readers of the magazines that printed Naylor’s short pieces, or of novels like The Agony of Alice, The War Between the Boys and the Girls, or The Witch Herself, who have grown up and would like to read what Naylor had to say to adults?

Definitely not children. This is not a children’s book. Marital relations are discussed, not in gross physical detail but with clinical precision, and they do belong in this story; sexual behavior reveals clues in the diagnosis and treatment of psychoses. The rest of the story is about the adult world of business, money, teaching, college textbooks, hospitals, prejudice, and the Cold War. Nothing in Crazy Love would interest a child. This is not a complete autobiography (Naylor’s memoirs of her own career have been published as a separate book), but strictly a memoir of a brief, painful marriage.

The horror of life with “Ted,” as recounted by his ex-wife, does not involve domestic violence. Ted tries to protect his wife from the “They” he imagines stalking the couple. His efforts to defend his loved ones from this “They” may become dangerous, but Ted always means well.

What was it in Ted’s background that should have made his bride, young Phyllis, think twice? That his Italian/Jewish parents were more likely to express emotions, including frank self-appreciation, than Phyllis’s English/German relatives? This cultural difference generated the sort of hostility among in-laws that wasn’t as funny in the real life of this period as it’s made to seem in contemporary comedy. In some ways Phyllis’s relatives seem to be right, although, of course, they’re the kind of bigots of which Archie Bunker was a parody. The cultural difference kept Phyllis from recognizing what a contemporary reader may recognize as important clues to Ted’s diagnosis and treatment.

Ted’s half sister, who died in a mental hospital, was diagnosed as schizophrenic. Ted’s mother was legally sane, but obese, and obsessed with her irritable bowels. After praying for success on the toilet, “she once remarked to Ted that her excrement, miraculously, had no odor.” In 1949 Phyllis mistook this for a cultural characteristic; even today a nineteen-year-old bride could be excused for mistaking it for the kind of eccentricity that was then called “neurotic.” Odorless excrement is, however, neither a miracle nor a neurosis. It is a symptom. Probably Ted’s mother has one of the genetic digestive disorders that cause the malabsorption and malnutrition associated with some paranoid-schizophrenic psychoses. 

Ted does not have what Freud insisted was the “true” schizophrenia. True schizophrenics don’t have orgasms; this observation was responsible for Freud’s, and to a much greater extent his followers’, overemphasis on sex. Ted enjoys sex.

His behavior is classic “paranoid-schizophrenia,” a different disease according to Freud, and fits the general description of paranoid-schizophrenic disorders associated with enzyme deficiency. First there is general anxiety and tension, superstitious ritualistic behavior, nightmares and sleep disturbance., Then there is the chronic fear that his food has been poisoned—the recognition that something is badly wrong with Ted’s digestion, which is true. Then the brain really starts to break down, and it becomes impossible for anyone, least of all Ted, to predict what Ted may do next.

Ted’s tragedy is that he developed this disease thirty or forty years before doctors began to have a hope of treating it. Today not all, but some, people like Ted can be helped. But, by the time research had worked up to the point where insanity could even have been forestalled for a few years, Ted’s brain would have deteriorated beyond the point at which even a temporary return to sanity would have been likely for him.

Meanwhile Ted’s story illustrates the flaw in the otherwise sound thinking of counsellors like Wayne Dyer or Jay Addams, who believed that the problems people brought into psychologists’ officers could be solved by straight talk and thinking. Many people who consulted psychologists in 1977 could solve their problems with a little straight thinking. But coping with psychosis is not as simple as Addams made it sound in some of his writing. Simple neurological disorders that cause one or two simple, persistent distortions of perception are not psychoses; people do learn to adjust their interpretations of their perceptions to allow for misperceptions like ringing in the ears or “floaters” in the eye.  People who have psychoses like Ted’s don't necessarily misperceive the same thing twice, and since the common denominator among all their delusions is anxiety, they don't just sit back and watch the delusions like a movie (as Lauren Slater, being aware that an antidepressant she used can produce delusions, apparently did).

The young bride Phyllis wants to be a good wife to Ted, but she can’t cope with his disease. In the end she leaves him in a hospital, remarries, and becomes Mrs. Naylor, the successful author. For her this seems to be the right solution, yet it remains tragic and continues to give her pain. Knowing that her tragedy was to some extent a matter of timing makes the happy ending Crazy Love has for Phyllis—but not for Ted—a sad read.

Monday, March 16, 2026

Book Review: The Seven T's

Title: The Seven T’s

Author: Judy Collins

Date: 2007

Publisher: Tarcher (paperback)

ISBN: 978-1585424955

Some books are so lyrical that they suggest song lyrics by way of a review. Judy Collins, whose son had died long before my husband died, wrote two books on the grief experience that I read during my own grief experience. This one is recommended; the other one is not.

Many people have appreciated this book in the last twenty years, and this year the paperback edition is available as a "purchase" for thirty days with free returns.

When I read this book, a summary of its contents popped out in verse form:

Judy Collins
long bereaved
gives seven T’s
to those who’ve grieved:

Tell the Truth
yes, he was fine
but wasn’t perfect
or divine

Trust good friends
this too will pass
light a candle
say a Mass

Get Therapy
don’t have to pay
for the best, but get
some anyway

Treasure the memories:
good times gone,
unlike the dead,
live on and on

so don’t drown memories
stay alive
care for yourself
stay sober, Thrive

Treat yourself well
get food and rest
a good turn daily
and all the rest

Transcend the grief
that never dies
but it can brighten
not dim eyes
 

Wednesday, January 7, 2026

Book Review: Stop Living on Autopilot

Title: Stop Living on Autopilot

Author: Waleska Curvelo

Quote: "Why does it feel like no matter how hard I work, I can't make progress toward what I really want?"

In the 1980s the authors of books like this one had degrees in psychology, the books were called self-help books, and their content usually contained a lot of theoretical blather about the emotional roots of all of our problems. Some things have improved since then. The authors are now called life coaches and the content of the books is now frankly just inspirational pep talks. You can do whatever you want to do! If you make the right choices! What choices that are, only you can say! If you're wrong about the steps to take to get what you want, it's not my fault! 

I've certainly read self-help books that were worse than this one. Curvelo at least writes good clear English, instead of inventing a technical-sounding jargon all her own, as some of the psychological self-help guides used to do.

Better? What is better, in the context of self-help books? What is worse? Because these books try to be so open-ended and valuable to everybody, any of them might deserve credit for encouraging someone to run with a brilliant idea, or blame for encouraging someone to cling to a terrible idea. 

For better or worse, both when I've been pointed out as an example of success and when I'm probably being pointed out as an example of failure...the "just set goals and stick to them" approach to life has never really worked for me. The Bible advises us not to attach ourselves to "Tomorrow we shall go to a certain city, and stay there for so long, and do such and so," but to allow for the vicissitudes life tends to have: "If God wills we shall go to a certain city..." We can buy tickets with a certain destination on them, but if a snowstorm blows up in the way, we may be spending the night somewhere other than that destination. I suspect God has a big laugh at the expense of the very "goal-oriented" Type A who forms attachments to goals and steps. 

I even remember, in my early twenties, a few experiments with thinking the "goal-oriented" way. "I currently have this job, where I'm making this amount of money and can afford to use this much to pay off my college loan debt. I've applied for this other job, where I'll be making this amount of money, but I'll have these expenses, but anyway I should be able to set aside this much to pay off my college loan debt." I may still have the old notebook where I wrote that kind of thing down. So what happened next? In that particular case, I thought I had recovered from "chronic mononucleosis"; I was wrong. The disease flared up. I lost the job I had and someone else was hired for the other one. My college loan debt was eventually paid off, but not that year and not that way.

I do believe it's a good idea to have some idea where we would like to go in life, but it's also a good idea to notice how much our goals and steps have in common with sand castles on the beach.

You may have better luck than I had at "goal-orienting" Say you want a college degree. That's a nice goal that many people find achievable, although I didn't happen to be one of them. You want a college degree, so you enroll in a college, confer with an adviser, plan the courses you need to take, register for the courses, do the course work while setting aside enough of your paycheck to pay for them, or pay as much as you can of the cost of them...This feels good to the orderly and logical part of your brain, it's almost certain to be useful at some time in your life, and actually the odds are that you'll get the degree for which you're studying. Even in the 1980s most people didn't get "chronic mononucleosis," nor, when most people go back for a second try at a degree they didn't finish in their teens, do they find both of their parents in separate hospitals within the year. Most people who register for college courses and do the assignments will, in a few years, have a college degree. It's a good credential to have and represents valuable learning experiences...whether or not you ever work for even one year in the job that college degree was meant to prepare you for...

When I was growing up, detachment from career goals, specifically, was considered a wonderful thing for girls to have. Because of course everyone knew that most girls who prepared for jobs in teaching or bookkeeping or nursing or whatever were really going to get even better opportunities...what a wonderful surprise! how special!--to get married and have babies. And some of us are still today in denial about how much harm the idea of everyone having multiple babies has done to this world. 

But does that mean that it's good to plan our lives in any expectation that life is ever going to be orderly and logical? Meh. It never hurts to plan for the possibility that the chaos in our lives will subside enough for some steps we might take toward goals to lead us in the direction of those goals, but I think most authors of self-help books could be more realistic about the fact that life is chaotic. 

Curvelo does suggest, in a lovely tactful non-evangelical way, that steps toward goals should be congruent with being the kind of person you want to be. If you earn a degree that qualifies you for a job that ceases to exist as of three weeks before you receive your diploma, at least you learned things and you probably met people you appreciate having the chance to know. If, in the name of steps toward the goal, you told lies or cheated people, that will affect your self-image...

I think Curvelo errs on the side of sanctimony in saying that women shouldn't talk about the harmful consequences of a hundred and fifty years of preferential treatment for men. Of course all men are not our enemies. Of course most of us love our husbands and brothers and fathers and sons...though some of us have learned the hard way that men who behave well toward us, because they respect our physical relationships to them or our families' wealth and status or it might even be our characters, don't behave so well toward "outsider" women, or poor women, or younger women who are more easily intimidated. Of course we want, in any case, to help our men do the best they can. I don't think that means pampering their ego defenses. I think men need to face the facts: If you think your teenage daughter is in any danger of being raped, then you know, deep down, that a curfew on men would be a good thing. 

I enjoyed Curvelo's comments on social media, especially the advertising these days, from people whose thinking seems to go "After you used the 'skip' button to tune out my ad once and listen to what you wanted to listen to, I'll then leap in and interrupt what you were listening to, just in case you've changed your mind in the last five minutes!" Yes. Social media had the potential to do advertising much less offensively, more effectively, than television simply by recognizing the different conditions under which people use computers and watch television. Computer users may be bored but we tend to be awake, usually doing some sort of paid work, whereas TV watchers are often using TV as a sort of loud white noise and/or asleep, or trying to sleep. Being noticed as a vague annoyance by someone who's not thinking may sell a few more products than being noticed more consciously as having crafter a clever advertisement. Being noticed as an interruption by people who are working, or taking breaks from work, does not go so well. Youtube and Rumble could have opted to offer ad filtering in such a way that viewers never heard the same advertisement twice in a year, or that advertisements consisted of ten seconds of silence or instrumental music while the product logo or image was on the screen. Instead they've chosen to advertise more annoyingly than commercial television. Yes, we can all reduce the level of annoyance in our lives by reducing the number of videos we watch, or watching only the least popular channels on which Youtube and Rumble don't place advertisements. This will eventually be good for Youtube and Rumble, too. 

I think Curvelo honestly intends to coach readers toward success in life. Life and readers being what they are, sometimes she'll succeed, sometimes not. 

Thursday, January 1, 2026

When Are You Old Enough to Post Your Teachers' Real Names on the Internet?

At a blog I follow, someone posted the names of several former teachers. 

I was tempted, because I do remember all of their names--mine and my brother's.  But I'm not quite old enough yet. Although those of my classmates who became teachers are retiring now, some of my teachers are still alive. 

All teachers had nicknames. Most of these nicknames were just whatever look-or-sound-alike things suggested themselves to childish minds. Relatively few teachers made enough of an impression to earn really spiteful nicknames, and I know for sure that those of mine who were really hated are dead by now. So I suppose it might be safe to reminisce a little if I use their nicknames. 

The point of my e-friend's post was that those who taught baby-boomers got away with lots of things that would get them barred from teaching, or visiting schools, or trading at stores across the street from the schools, now. Punishment was considered an effective teaching technique, because sometimes it was. Most elementary school teachers displayed "the paddle" of their choice at the front of the room and would whack somebody, in front of the rest of the class, during the course of every year. Verbal abuse occurred regularly. Kids were more likely to say more hateful things to other kids than teachers were, because teachers were supposed to show that they were thinking on a higher level, but teachers would tell kids what they thought was wrong with us, loudly and publicly. If they really hated a particular student, teachers might pitch into someone else and then let that person hear them say something nice about that student. 

If they felt totally at a loss, teachers might ignore a student altogether. This was done after the "special" school was closed and most of the kids who were officially considered "retarded" joined regular classes with the rest of us. A boy in one of my classes didn't seem stupid to me, but apparently he had severe dyslexia or farsightedness or something. He came to school almost every day, sat down at the same desk every day he was there, and just sat there, not called on, not given test papers. I never saw him looking at a book or a piece of paper. He was strictly serving time in that classroom, like a convict, although so far as I knew all he'd ever done wrong was to have a learning disability the teachers didn't know how to deal with. 

Peer tutoring was another teaching technique that some teachers thought was great. Meh. I was sometimes ordered to tutor somebody. "Be sure you don't do his assignment for him. Show her how to do the work." Bleep does an eight-year-old child know about how to do that? Most teachers limited peer tutoring to having students mark each other's homework papers, which undoubtedly reduced boredom and eyestrain for the teachers. It also gave smaller, cleverer little monsters a chance to get back at bigger, rougher ones. I enjoyed peer tutoring for that reason but I don't believe I ever taught anybody anything--except, of course, not to mess with nerds, which may have been the point, all along. Some teachers wouldn't even double-check the marks a student put on another student's papers. 

People found ways to game the system. In grade three I was often ordered to "tutor" a boy who was spending the second of three legal years in grade three. He might have already spent an extra year in grade two, as well. He was big enough to have been in grade five, but it was a rare day when he answered any question correctly--if answers were written down and graded. We didn't have a lot of open discussions in grade three, but when we had them, he sounded as if he belonged in grade five. His rate of incorrect answers was so high that the only explanation was that he knew what the correct answers were, and was avoiding giving them. But why would anyone subject himself to that? It all became clear the year I went to college, when he joined the Junior Varsity team. JV was supposed to be for thirteen-year-olds, and he was eighteen. Home team fans loved him. He was the star quarterback all the way through high school. He was too old to be legally allowed to attend high school without paying tuition but nobody paid too much attention to that, especially in the case of the star quarterback.

Anyway, the teachers...I don't remember the substitute teachers. I didn't pay enough attention to most of them to know their names on the days when they were teaching. I do remember a few who filled in for the same teacher for a week or more, or were later offered full-time jobs.

And a note about titles: Teachers were called by titles. Women's titles had to be spelled either "Miss" or "Mrs.", although they were pronounced "Ms." (Nobody at the elementary school was a "Dr.") Janitors, librarians, and secretaries were also called by titles. High school students were called by titles in academic classes, though we could use given names in arts or trade school classes. Bus drivers, whether they were high school boys or grandfathers, were called by given names or nicknames. Cafeteria servers were called by the kind of food they dished out. If there was or had ever been any logic to these traditions, it was never explained to me.

Grade 1. For the first two years students were expected to be so tiny we weren't even required to walk down a corridor to the multi-user restrooms. To keep us out of the way of bigger kids, there were single-user restrooms in each classroom. So we had only one teacher to put up with, all day long, except for the music teacher who visited once a month. Mrs. Fatso was most memorable for locking horns with my Indiana-raised mother about my alleged Northern accent. Mrs. Fatso was from Georgia so her accent might have been rated even lower in status than a Northern one, by some people. Mother "won" an argument with her and I don't think Mrs. Fatso ever forgave me. She was one of the less abusive teachers but she never missed a chance to find fault with anything I did.

I will say, to Mrs. Fatso's credit, that she was the only teacher I ever had who never sent in a substitute. Every day when I was in that room, she was there too.

Also, Miss Music. "Musick" is a local family's real name, but "Music" was the nickname for the visiting music teacher, every year. The one who visited during my first year was young and pretty and nice, the daughter or granddaughter of one of the middle school teachers. She didn't give out grades but just led sing-alongs. Who could have not liked her?

Also, for one and a half marking periods, my grandmother, Texas Ruby, who had also done a teacher training course though I'm not sure whether she was ever employed as a full-time teacher. She married young. Anyway she made sure my education was not neglected while we spent the winter in Florida. Aunt Dotty would later let us be vacationers in peace, but Grandmother had me working ahead of grade two before I went back to grade one.

Grade 2. Mrs. Ratfink really hated that I'd learned to write cursive from Grandmother and spent a good part of the year we were officially supposed to start writing cursive finding fault with the way I'd learned to make every....single...letter. Grandmother hadn't taught me to put enough of a flourish on the ends of lower-case letters like "e" at the end of a word. I am not making this up. Mrs. Ratfink thought her mission in life was to correct students of being too intelligent by making sure we went back and re-learned everything in her way. It did not help matters that this was the year my "celiac disease" started to kick in. I had some sort of cold-and-flu symptom all winter long and stayed home until Mrs. Ratfink warned Mother that if I missed another day I'd have to repeat the year. My favorite part of that whole year was spending two weeks in quarantine with mumps. I didn't feel any pain from mumps, didn't mind if I looked a little worse than usual, was glad of a two-week vacation from Mrs. Ratfink's company, and, on top of everything else, some relatives sent us a tame bantam hen with baby chicks to distract my brother and me from the boredom. Lovely.

Also, Mr. Music. He was an older man who brought the wonders of new technology to the public schools, meaning that he brought tape recorders in and made recordings of our sing-alongs, which would later be broadcast on local radio and used to lead subsequent classes' sing-alongs. 

Grade 3. Mrs. Moose wasn't all that big. I don't remember her being fat enough to have gallbladder surgery, but she did, that year. She had long golden blonde hair with black roots and heavy black eyebrows, which I thought made her look sort of mean, but most of the time I liked her. She let me read chapter books after doing all the homework assignments in class. She also added sing-alongs to the visits from Mr. Music, whose hours and salary were under review.

Also: Mr. Smarter. He read John Holt and did open discussions. Unfortunately we didn't have him for most of the time Mrs. Moose was recovering from surgery. 

Also: Mrs. Failing. She was easy to hate.

Also: Horrible Hornrims. She was even easier.

Grade 4. This was the year Dad taught a trade school course in Sacramento, so we lived out there all year. Grade four still counted as primary school in the neighborhood where we rented half of a duplex house. Kids could walk to and from school--it was one of those suburban neighborhoods Boomers reminisce about--and even walk home for lunch. The school was well funded, with all kinds of sports and playground equipment, and the school even provided books, pencils, and paper, but it didn't have a library. What it had were bullies. This was the year I would still have to say that sending me to that school, which adults thought was an excellent one, qualified as child abuse. Even in grade four kids would make ourselves sick rather than go into the group bathrooms. Enough harassment, if seldom real beatings-up, took place on the playground and in the cafeteria. I thought I was the most despised and persecuted of the victims but, from an adult perspective, I think a few others may have had a worse time even than I had. One girl was picked on for half a day, went home, and never came back.

Homeroom teacher: Mr. Ed., who would probably have been banned from teaching today due to political incorrectness and verbal abusiveness, and was frankly incompetent to teach most subjects, but he did teach all of us all the math we'd need in elementary school or, probably, in adult life.

Reading was taught by a different one of the three fourth grade teachers for one third of the year. The other two were women. I liked both of them better than Mr. Ed. Mrs. Gooey was the old, grim, Slavic one who threatened to knock two boys' heads together if they didn't stop fighting, so they did. Mrs. Snorkeldorf was the one who immersed her homeroom in The Phantom Tollbooth. 

Grade 5. Dad was not asked to teach again. Mother got my brother and me into the Seventh-Day Adventist school, which might have been nice if it had had a bus or a car pool to haul us across the city, but it didn't. Going to school there meant we had to move to Southgate, which, as anyone who knows anything about Sacramento will remember, was a terrible neighborhood. Among other things some older kids, who were Black, knocked my brother off his bicycle and whacked him with picket signs for supporting the protest they were doing. It was September, so they thought we were Mexican. They might have shown even more hate if they'd realized we were legally White.

Anyway, my teacher there was Mr. Tall, one of the few of his generation who were taller than Dad. He wasn't a great teacher but he didn't rely on verbal abuse, and did have a well-filled bookshelf at the back of the room. My brother's teacher didn't have a nickname so far as we knew, because this was a church school. She wasn't great, either, but my brother developed the ability to read large print for short amounts of time in that season, so she claimed the credit for teaching him to read. Grades five through eight also had formal classes in church music taught by the headmaster, who didn't have a nickname either.

Then we inherited the house later to be known as the Cat Sanctuary and moved back home. The principal didn't like us so, right away, I was assigned to the homeroom of Ms. Gooseneck, a.k.a. Old Miss Mean and some other nicknames that were even worse. Everyone really hated her. One way to spot a Boomer in my town was that we all remember her as The. Worst. Teacher. Ever.

In the case of Old Miss Mean ugliness and spitefulness probably were connected--by untreated diabetes. When glaring with special hostility at students she tended to stick out her goitred neck and throw back her head with the chronic scowl on her face. She was hardly five feet tall when she started teaching, and shrank with age. She was flabby. Sometimes she'd take a notion to get fit and order everyone to do calisthenics on the paved parking lot that was what we had for a playground, and everyone would show off how much better they could do all the exercises than she could. Most of us were stronger and faster than she was. Some were taller, and Miss Mean seemed particularly hostile to them. 

She had a classroom rule that seemed as if it would be strictly fair. Everyone in turn, except the "retarded" boy she pretended wasn't in the room all year, was called on to answer questions and demonstrate math problems, going up and down the rows in strict order all morning. That by itself wouldn't have been so bad, although now it's considered emotionally abusive because a student might have to be corrected in front of the class. Hah. Old Miss Mean 's idea of correcting a math or spelling mistake was not just something like saying "No, three fives are fifteen." Punishment for wrong answers seemed to be her favorite part of her job. She was not above dragging a student's personal habits, known or imagined, or family into the verbal abuse. The worst part of grade five was when Miss Mean finally said something nice about me--in front of the class. For the next six weeks everyone hated me, and it was a very brave cousin who spoke to me in a friendly way at school, on a Monday, after we'd shared a particularly enjoyable weekend. 

But the closest Old Miss Mean came to physical abuse, in my year with her, was the day the girl with lovely long blonde hair pleaded that she was feeling too sick to demonstrate a math problem. On went the verbal abuse machine that was Old Miss Mean. "Everyone else is sick of showing their stupidity too. Get up there and do the best you can." So the blonde, whose hair had never been cut and hung down to her waist, went up to the chalkboard, wrote sloppy numbers with a trembling hand--Miss Mean commenting all the way--turned around to explain what she was demonstrating, and was sick. Her breakfast dripped through her beautiful hair. "So, you really are sick. You didn't have to come to school and make everyone else sick too! Go to the nurse's office." Miss Mean made it sound like punishment. When the blonde came back to school a week or two later (it had been swine flu) her hair was short and she was so traumatized that you could induce visible sweat and tremors by looking at her sidewise. I knew this because I was one of the little monsters who did look at her sidewise. She'd try to be brave, saying nasty things that egged me on to repeat the treatment, but in a few minutes tears would well up in her blue eyes. And then the teachers in their wisdom made her repeat grade five, spending another year with Miss Mean as math teacher, only in a different home room. I am not making this up.

If that blonde is still alive somewhere...I thought of most of the hostility I dispensed so freely in school as self-defense, and it probably did protect me from having a worse time than I had and I wouldn't blame or punish a child for doing it today, but the way I tormented you was pure cruelty. It was one of the sins I had to repent of when, as a "cradle Christian," I made my personal commitment to be a Christian adult. I've regretted it for fifty years. 

Anyway: In the middle grades each class had four teachers and each specialized in one major subject, Math, English, Science, and History. Grade five spent the first half of each day doing reading, writing, spelling, and their homeroom teacher's major subject, and the second half rotating among the other three teachers. 

So: Mrs. Brick, who taught science. She was a good teacher. She had all of us drawing diagrams of the inner structures of eyes and ears, synthesizing peat and knowing in theory how to refine a dog dropping into a very small diamond. People who still enjoyed learning and thinking loved her. I did.

Mrs. Smelly, whom I never noticed as smelling worse than other people but who did have a tempting name, taught English. The other possible nickname to go with her name didn't fit; that year, she had a waist but no other visible curves. Next year, as if to prove something, she quit teaching and had a baby. She had no particular talent for teaching and I didn't like her, but she did stock the whole collection of Scholastic paperbacks for the middle grades and spend enough time reviewing things with slow learners to give me a chance to read them all. 

Mrs. Snodgrass--you can guess what her nickname was, she's been dead long enough that there's no real need to use it, and this web site wouldn't display it anyway--taught history. She liked history and geography. The school board made everyone carry around big clunky "social studies" books that didn't teach us much of anything, and for most of the year Mrs. Snodgrass ignored them and drilled us on the facts of history and geography. Peace to her ashes, she defined the facts as including our short answers to the question "Why did the South have better soldiers and officers?" in the chapter on the Civil War, but they also included the dates of important inventions, the names of all the Presidents, and the capital cities of all the States. She even found time to get into a few of the "social studies" issues, such as its being legal to belong to a labor union (and she did), how landlords might balance profitability with decent housing conditions, and how none of us had psychic powers because we couldn't even guess what she was thinking by gazing into her eyes. Not everyone liked her but I did. One of Ogden Nash's more memorable "Nasheries" divided humanity into "Swozzlers" who were greedy and wasteful and "Snodgrasses" who were nice and respectful of others. It always seemed to fit her.

This was the year the school board decided the middle grades could do without Mr. Music. He was still in town but the "enrichment program" the board had voted to use didn't have room for him. It was "enrichment" for most of us to cover up the "remedial" classes some of us had been found to need. I followed the kid ahead of me to Mrs. Brick's room for remedial reading for a month or so before anyone officially noticed me doing this and said "Oh no, you must go to Mrs. Smelly's room for enrichment." I enjoyed remedial reading more than enrichment, though both classes featured a lot of self-chosen reading with shiny new paperback books. Well...in enrichment the selection did include The House of Dies Drear, the most challenging and therefore enjoyable book I'd ever been allowed to read at school.

Grade 6. Mrs. Dunce really did have some sort of neurological issues, and died young. She might have been classified as a high-functioning autistic patient if she'd been born later. She would have noticed me because Mother packed either peanut butter or fish sandwiches every day, and Mrs. Dunce had reactions to the mere smell of peanuts. She didn't like fish, either, but she leaned back and fanned away the odor of peanuts. 

Anyway she started the year trying to kill me with kindness. Among other things she offered to buy me a poster. I didn't want to hang a poster on my wall where it would soon show smoke damage in a wood-heated house, but thought I could keep a notebook-sized one in my notebook, so I chose a notebook-sized poster. "Oh, if you want the small size, you may have two!" So I chose another poster. The posters were meant to introduce art appreciation into a grade where none of the teachers felt qualified to teach "drawing" as required by law; they were prints of photos of famous paintings. The two I chose were of horses. I figured my brother could have one, and I could have one, to paste into the backs of our notebooks and enjoy looking at or copying for a few years. But then for a surprise Mrs. Dunce changed the order to two wall-sized posters. And scolded me, at length, in front of everybody, for not being grateful for this wonderful improvement over what I had actually wanted. For the rest of that year, I'd gone from being her favorite to being her least favorite, and everyone knew.

Mr. Music was restored to the middle school that year, but grades five through eight had a brass band, for those who chose to join. In grade six I wanted to join the band and was issued a French horn and had something to do with the time in between arriving at school and being admitted to the classroom in the morning. I thoroughly enjoyed the band and liked the teacher. Everyone else in my family hated the sound of a brass band, but Mother said the family had to put up with it because playing a brass instrument might help push my front teeth in a little way. They were beyond the orthodontist's hope. What correction they got, which wasn't much, they got from the French horn (and from the early removal of the cuspids, which really did grow in like vampire fangs).

Mr. Gopher taught science. I was never sure whether he had a speech impediment or just thought sounding a bit tongue-tied was trendy and London-esque. I disliked him. It was mutual; he sent home my very first failing grade and my parents made sure I wrote out the answers to his boring "study questions," after that, though as a protest against their inanity I was allowed to use my typewriter and make my snarky answers easy to read. I don't think Mr. Gopher actually read the answers. I think he just looked for some minimum amount of verbiage as a basis for grades.

Coach Smith, whose given name was Gilbert so non-athletes called him Mr. Filbert or Mr. Nut, taught "social studies" from the lame-brained book. I don't suppose it did anyone any harm since we'd already learned the basic facts of US history and geography as they were taught at the time, but it might have been worthwhile to have learned something about the history and geography of the rest of the world. I don't think even Coach Smith cared anything about the worthless contents of the social studies book, though they did include a chapter on the value of formal education in preserving Jewish culture to which he seemed to be paying attention enough to give me peculiar "Have you anything to add?" looks throughout that week. His heart was in coaching JV football. He was indisputably good at that.

Mrs. Staplegun walked us through a review of the math concepts I'd learned from Mr. Ed. and others had been traumatized about by Miss Mean. I remember her class as supremely boring but recognized that most kids seemed to need it. She was there to mop up emotional mess. Sometimes if everyone paid attention and got through the lesson Mrs. Staplegun, who had been a bit of a singer, would sing popular songs to us. Her favorite song, that year, was "Delta Dawn." Parents might not have approved of this choice to entertain grade six, but it was more fun than math.

Mr. Music came back that year and led monthly sing-alongs, having added a transparency projector to his cartload of tapes and tape recorder. Middle grades got to sing along with popular hits instead of Sam Hinton and The Baby-Sitters. The list of songs I learned at school included "Country Roads," "Lonely Teardrops," and "Let Your Love Flow." 

Secondhand: My brother's teachers: Grade 1. Mrs. Snickers. Her daughter was in my class. Neither of us disliked Mrs. Snickers.

Grade 2. Mrs. Yoicks. I had remembered her as "the pretty one" before the school hired Ms. Linda, but by the time my brother came along she'd already become frumpy. She hadn't been teaching long enough to be really tired of it. Neither of us disliked her either.

Grade 3. Miss Window. Grade three had two teachers whose given name was Linda. The one who looked Cherokee was beautiful, popular, and fun, if she did model herself a bit on Buffy Sainte-Marie. My brother got the one who looked White. She was a snippy young thing neither of us liked. "Window" was short for "Do you hate your teacher, dear? Then throw her out the window." She didn't teach long; she latched onto the son of an old friend of Dad's, and no child had to put up with her any more, except that I caught a sort of parting blast--"She asked if you wanted some clothes she'd worn, but they looked too small. What a tiny waist she has." Right. Miss Window was the sort of girl who would make a point of calling a teenaged girl's attention to her having a tiny tapered waist.

Grade 4. Mrs. Potatoes. My brother didn't think much of her, but didn't really hate her either.

Also: Mrs. Whackem. In grade one my brother's commitment to nonviolence was revised and amended by a distant cousin, a hulking repeater who, I reported at home, was at least as tall as I was and quite a bit heavier. He endured some punches and kicks until the day Big Billy the Bully and his little henchboy decided to give my brother a swirly. They had used the toilet first. My brother didn't think they were really going to risk dunking his head in it until it happened. Then he rose up dripping, kicked the smaller boy out of the bathroom, dunked Billy, and had made a good start on mopping the bathroom with him when the teacher walked in.  Later Big Billy grew up, joined the police force, and went on record as saying that my brother had taught him about respect for others. 

But not enough, because later, during Big Billy's second year in grade two, my brother caught him bullying a closer relative, Tiny Tiresome Timmy. My parents didn't have a telephone--even the old durable ones didn't work well enough to be worth paying for--so Mrs. Whackem vented her agitation to me in the cafeteria. "Your brother beat up a second grade boy."

"Why?  Which one? What did the second-grader do?"

"Well, it was Big Billy. Apparently there's an old grudge..."

"Oh, well, that second-grader. He's older than he is and bigger than I am."

"But he is handicapped! He's not bright!" wailed Mrs. Whackem.

Neither of us ever had any respect for her, ever again. Nor did our parents. Beating up Big Billy the Bully was the sort of thing for which boys get told, "Brawling is a very bad habit," and given new bicycles.

Also: Ms. Pain. I didn't hear much about her.

Also: Mrs. Ungodly. Mother used to say "Nobody deserves a nickname like that." Grade four thought she did. She and Mrs. Whackem looked a bit alike--young, slim, with short black hair--and memory tends to conflate them. For the first half of the year my brother said that at least they were easy to look at. For the second half he despised them.

Grade 5. My brother was also assigned to Old Miss Mean's homeroom. He said that by that time she was really sick, and her outbursts of bad temper often escalated into violence. There was a fad for wearing rotten cotton shirts to school; Miss Mean reportedly tore boys' shirts to get their attention. Sometimes, he said, she grabbed students by their hair. On the first day of school, he said, she kicked the biggest boy in the class in the shins. My brother was only the second or third biggest, but he was still taller than Old Miss Mean, and he still reminded her of me. 

So, one day the janitor cleaned the floor while everyone was out to lunch. Finding somebody's homework paper on the floor, he placed the paper on the nearest freshly polished desk. My brother came in and found this paper on his desk. "He got all the answers wrong and he hadn't even signed his name, whoever it was. I wouldn't have wanted to sign my name to that paper either. So then Joe Blow said it was his, and Miss Mean says I was copying Blow's paper." 

Another day some of the boys were scuffling. My brother didn't say he'd picked up his math book to hit someone with, but that seems the most likely reason why another little brat grabbed his math book and threw it out the window. The roof of the school office projected out below Miss Mean's window, flat, tarred, with puddles here and there. "If I hadn't had this cold I would've thrown him out the window after it. In came Miss Mean and said, "You threw your book out there! You climb out and get it!" I said, "John Doe threw it. Make him get it." So they're not going to let me borrow books from the school any more." Climbing out on the roof was perfectly safe, though my brother suffered from vertigo, but he did have a cold and it was a cold, wet day with a lot of water on the roof.

The kids went on strike and refused to do homework or study, hoping to get Miss Mean fired. It didn't work. It was a difficult year for everybody.

Also: The Brick. My brother liked her too. She was a class act. She stayed out of students' personal concerns and stuck to science facts.

Also: Mrs. Newby. Nobody liked her.

Also: Mr. Smarter was hired as a full-time teacher that year. Grade five adored him. 

Grade 6. As a result of having led the strike against Miss Mean my brother was assigned to Coach Smith's Special Class for Problem Boys, which he'd been warned was going to feature severe discipline and football. Coach Smith saw my brother as a quarterback for a year or two. My brother saw himself as a runner--a cross-country runner, not somebody who was going to have to spend the year either running and hiding from, or being beaten up by, or having to learn to fight with, real juvenile delinquents who carried knives. 

So instead he was enrolled in a tiny, not really legal, Baptist school program where his teacher was a church lady I'll call Mrs. Hassle. I don't know that she actually taught anything. I think what she did was check homework papers, the way schools use computers to do now. My brother did well, though, because he was allowed to do independent study after rushing through the homework papers. He made studies of several subjects that were well covered in books at the public library, and did projects, genetic experiments with plants, tutoring, recycling...he had a great year. But all Mrs. Hassle did was step out of his way.

This is long enough for a blog post. Memories of junior high and high school teachers will have to wait for another day. Suffice it to say that although "brick" used to be a slang word for a thoroughly decent human being, and I think the Brick was one, the best teachers I had were my parents. Most of the learning I did, as a child, I did at home, more or less in spite of school. 

I think elementary school did me more harm than good. Dad blamed the virus-laden air for making me unathletic; as a celiac I think that would have happened if homeschooling had been legal in my time. Then again, although I didn't take correction particularly well, I wasn't cruel at home. I'm pretty sure that, if Miss Mean hadn't chosen to subject me to another six weeks of feeling like the most despised and persecuted person on Earth, I wouldn't have found it entertaining to torment a wretched child who probably felt sick when people looked at her for years after grade five...and she was the sort of girl people always had looked at, and always would, which probably made things even worse.

I've often thought that most of my generation's "emotional problems" had less to do with abuse in early childhood (though many of us were at least neglected in early childhood) than with the trauma of being packed together into public schools. Some people may have found some relief in group therapy where they all pretended they'd been abused by family members in early childhood as an excuse for having "emotional problems." I never did. I didn't choose psychology as a major in search of "help for my problems," because psychology, at that time, was not offering any; I knew that because I knew I had problems--with behavior patterns I'd learned at school. Growing up helped. The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense helped. Psychology that focussed on emotions was something I learned quickly and easily, and was able to use to help other people, but it had little to offer me. But my early adult years were still a crash course in unlearning the unhelpful mental attitudes and language habits I learned at school.

I think I feel inclined to mention this because, back in my home town, I know so many people who learned the same bad habits at the same school. They have not lived in a big city and had to work their way out of learned behavior patterns that express hostility, or out of the perception that hostility needs to be expressed, in order to pay the rent. Ooey-gooey, emotion-focussed psychology does not appeal to them and wouldn't help them if it did. Admitting that they may indeed be expressing more hostility than they even feel because they learned the importance of scoring off and putting down, at school, is what might help them. Though of course they can say "Well I'm retired now, and I don't plan to talk to a lot of tourists, and the people I talk to are used to the way I talk," and that's true. All they'd gain by learning to feel and express sincere good will, primarily as the kind of respect that may mean not saying much at all, is that I or someone like me might enjoy their company. "So why bother? I am or have been married, I have children, I have parents--I don't have time for friends" is also true in many cases. But they never know when it might be useful for them to know how to make conversation without hostilely defending themselves against anticipated hostility that might not even exist.

So, to all those teachers...only a few of whom are still alive...Most of you were honestly trying to teach some people something. Most of you would have had something to teach me, if you'd allowed yourselves to get beyond drilling into the slow learners what normal minds absorbed from reading the textbook in the first week of each year. All I can say I actually learned from you was a little math from Mr. Ed, a little geography from Mr. Tall, a little anatomy from Mrs. Brick, and how to play the French horn (badly); but that's not your fault. Wherever you are, I thank all of you for putting up with the little monster I was and the miserable factory-line-based system that made me it. 

Monday, September 29, 2025

Book Review: The Mindset of Focusing for Succss

Title: The Mindset of Focusing for Success

Author: Jane Holder

Publisher: Mixed Bag

Quote: "Time killers are activities that distract us from what we really need to do ."

For some people it's enoough to tell ourselves "Finish trhis, then do that." For some it's necessary to isolate ourselves so that we can finish one thing at a time. For some, the whole idea needs to be explained in a book.


The trouble may be that people who need the explanation can't focus long enough to read a book. 

Holder makes it as easy as possible. This e-book is short. For some specific situations there are specific suggestions, like using apps that limit time spent on social media. Unfortunately the most helpful ways to focus, like getting the material to be learned taught in a completely different way, may be beyond the scope of this book. Still, these suggestions are worth trying. 

Wednesday, September 24, 2025

How I Get Through Bad Days

Well, for a start, I acknowledge that there are bad days. Since I've written about my bad days before, this time I'd like to consider the importance of recognizing that bad days exist.

Early in life I was exposed to Seventh-Day Adventists. 

Seventh-Day Adventists want to be "God's peculiar people," in the sense of the Chosen Few, the Remnant Who Are Not Deceived. In some ways this is good, and in some ways it functions to encourage some behaviors that are very peculiar indeed and would not be encouraged in most social groups. One of these kinds of behavior might be called spiritual one-upsmanship. Adventists just love to find a theological error in anything someone else says. 

For example: Ellen Harmon White achieved fame through what can only be described as a series of dramatic healing visions during which her lungs collapsed and recovered from tuberculosis. If you think being scolded by Greta Thunberg was bad, imagine hearing real fire-and-brimstone sermons coming out of a thirteen-year-old who was sick, anyway, and ought to have been in bed. That she was having healing visions was certainly true--the sickly little girl nobody expected could live to grow up became a remarkably tough, energetic, long-lived woman. That her visions of the Apocalypse, the Resurrection, Heaven, and Hell were also true in some way seems likely; that they were literally true seems, to me, less likely. Anyway, people flocked to learn what a tuberculosis survivor could teach them about health. 

The only way to account for the legacy of Ellen White's writings on this topic does involve some sort of inspiration beyond what a fourth grade dropout could learn from Sylvester Graham, although she was among the first to agree that Graham was right about whole grain being better nourishment than refined flour. She anticipated what it took the AMA another hundred years to learn about immunology. 

And, as a little girl who naturally wanted to live and grow up and study and travel and have children and all that, and was often told that she never could do any of those things, one of the things little Ellen Harmon had found to be true was that "It is a positive duty to resist melancholy." The highs and lows of her adolescent moods interacted biochemically with her heroic immune system. Ellen was not, in fact, the only teenager who ever observed that they have fewer "energy spoons" and are more likely to go down with infections if they give full vent to a mood of adolescent despair, or that some teenagers say "I shall die" or even "I want to die" when what they really mean is "I'm growing fast and fighting an infection at the same time, so I'm exhausted. I need extra sleep." And they can save themselves some pain if they recognize how the feeling that "I shall die" can be cut off at the pass by just saying "I need extra sleep," and taking it. 

But Ellen White wrote down that early insight before Emile Coue and some other true believers in what is actually an antichristian cult made their splash on the American scene. Ellen White wrote about the medical benefits of solving the problem of physical exhaustion rather than aggravating it by staying up and talking about it. Auguste Comte had written about the philosophical idea of "positivism," focussing on what physically exists in the material world. It remained for Coue, Madame Blavatsky, Mary Baker Eddy, and their followers to declare that unpleasant things don't really exist, because there is no external reality shaping what goes on in our minds, but rather in some mystical way our minds create what we encounter in what seems to be external reality, and so nice things could be ruled "positive" and people could be advised to put all their energy into "positive thinking" and trying to believe that what they wanted was true. 

In a series of "Read-Aloud Books" that used to be sold in supermarkets, I remember, one volume contained a story about some children who wanted a pony. So instead of going out to earn the money, clear out the space, and buy the pony, like the much nicer child in Fly by Night, they just went outside and visualized the pony, even visualized riding on it. And one day one of them really thought he felt its mane in his hands! And then one of them thought she heard it whinny! And at the end of the week they went out and saw--a real live pony! 

It might have happened. Someone might have decided to give them a pony, since they wanted one so badly. The pony might have been hidden in someone's shed for a day or two while adults were preparing a home for it; the child might really have heard it whinny. But if children's wishes for ponies caused ponies to exist, a lot of ponies would be living in urban apartments as well as back yards.

For most of us, most of the time, it's quite easy enough to focus on the aspects of anything that we like to think about, see what we want to see, and convince ourselves that we can do what we want. Our self-serving bias leads us into enough difficulties without being aggravated by Positive Thinking. People who advise us to imagine only the best results of any course of action are very popular, and people love the stories of times when that way of thinking led someone to success of any kind. Unfortunately it has also led people to bankruptcy, divorce, and untimely death. 

 It is not always possible to know what the outcomes of different courses of action will be. It is possible to know, however, that the emotions people feel about possible outcomes do not determine the outcomes. Squealing happily, like children trying to bring a pony into existence by fantasizing, er, visualizing, people who thought the force of their emotions could change the market led many American businesses straight into bankruptcy. And some of us had the memorable, miserable experience of watching it happen. 

"The product is good, but the market's not great," we might have warned friends in the 2000s, or even in the 1990s. "Walk before you run. Add a few dozen, or better yet a few hundred, more small retailers before you put every penny you have into the insurance policy the big protectionist stores demand, not because any product needs that much insurance, but most specifically to keep themselves from retailing products like yours--at the behest of the huge corporations whose products they market." And our friends said, "Oh, that's just 'negative thinking'!" as they threw everything, even their own homes, out the window in one foredoomed grab at wealth. A little Positive Thinking may be a safe risk for a student salesman to take in working up the nerve to make a sales pitch to unfamiliar adults, but a little more Positive Thinking has ruined many lives. Including the lives of some relatives of mine. Including one who had accumulated a little wealth she'd always intended to leave to me. And many's the day when, in order to stretch my pathetic income to fit my expenses, all I've had to eat have been the memories of how happily the poor dear cackled as she zeroed out her legacy to me and then let a bank throw her out of her house. She thought, God help her, that fantasizing might make it pay... 

Positive Thinking is not of Christian origin at all. It has a base in Hindu philosophy, though in North America it's metastasized beyond anything Hindus ever imagined. It was brought into the English-speaking countries for the specific purpose of displacing Christian faith and Christian teachings. Like other ideas imported for that purpose, it is not pure unmitigated evil, but it has had evil effects on Christians who probably ought to have recognized and rejected it. 

In real life ordinary middle-class people (and their adorably poor, hardworking, yet still privileged young) don't hear Positive Thinking preached by Bob Schuller or Napoleon Hill or whoever may be taking their places in today's publishing world. Why would they talk to us? Their own doctrine tells them to cultivate friends who have more than they have. They're not interested in us. So we hear Positive Thinking coming from people who may be very proud of having started out with more than we had (I knew one who belonged to one of the "sixty rich families"), but may seem somehow to be earning less, and borrow a lot of our stuff. If they are fun, which most of them are not, they're certainly not our very favorite people to know. 

"Believe in yourself! Admit you like X, and ask X for a date!" they screech, when although the evidence you've seen of X's future bad character is trivial stuff X might outgrow, you're still far from sure that you like X more than Y or Z. 

"If your mind can believe it, then you can achieve it! Go for that Rhodes scholarship!" when, if you focussed on an alumni scholarship that's available at your own school, you might actually get it. 

"You can if you think you can! Oh, do put all your eggs in one basket, and then throw that basket across the river!" Probably anyone who listens to an idea as blatantly bad as that deserves it.

Most of these people are only mildly toxic, but they do fit into the general category of toxic friends. 

Not all or even most of these toxic friends are extroverts, but Positive Thinkers always seem to want to be extroverts. Like the ancient Greeks they think the best temperament to have is obviously the "fire" temperament of a tribal warlord. Waiting and thinking things through, they have let themselves be told, are weak. They want to be bold! They want to be strong! Often they want us to be those things for them. If the bold, "strong" decision turns out to be wrong, they'll let us take the consequences. If it turns out to be right, they'll expect a share of the rewards. 

And part of their notion of strength is a strange belief that we should be too "strong" to acknowledge a bad day. "Why would you want to make it a bad day by calling it one?" They don't want to admit that, regardless of what you want, it is one. They say, "If you get up in the morning and choose to have a good day, you will! You'll visualize good things in your mind, and that will attract them to you!" Most of these toxic friends' sentences seem to end with exclamation marks, at least when they are exhorting someone else to be more schizoid on their behalf. 

During the last year when I still talked to this kind of toxic friend, I think it was 1985, I said, "Two years ago, about this time of year, a high school boy got up in the morning expecting to have a good time with the college crowd at the park. Maybe he did have a nice time on the bus ride out to the park. When we got there, right away he wanted to climb a steep cliff above the river--no gear, just clinging to the rock with his hands. He thought he could do that. He had that picture in his mind. Then he fell down the cliff and broke his neck, and none of us had a good day." 

"Did he survive? With a broken neck?" the Positive Thinker screeched. He did. "Well then he should have felt very 'positive' about that!" 

 All I know about the boy's feelings is that he didn't come to our school, as planned; his brother graduated and nobody I knew stayed in touch with the family. And all I know about the Positive Thinker is that she didn't stay at our school very long, but the reason for her leaving was, perhaps unfortunately, something normal--nobody had pushed her down the cliffs above the  river to see how "positive" she felt about breaking her neck. 

The vast majority of my days stand out in memory as neither good nor bad. Since about age twenty-two I've had few of those adolescent mood swings that color our memories ecstatic or miserable. Most days in my life have contained something to laugh about. Sometimes it was a moment of real comedy; sometimes it was "You might as well laugh as cry." 

Often I wish, for people who are still pitching and yawing through a life of emotional moods, the bliss of being able to remember the facts of what happened on a given day without the need to attach emotional feelings to them. Sometimes I remember some part of a day as having an emotional mood, but rarely one that dominated the entire day. Most of the things that happen in the course of the day just are what they are. The morning walk was pleasant, say. I got something done on the computer, which is always nice. An e-friend lost a family member, which is never nice. 

And then there are a few days that just went from bad to worse, in an objective way--days that could not be reframed as good in any emotional mood. The one that will probably stand out in memory is the nineteenth of April, 1995. I went to work while tired and slightly sick, had an unprofitable day working on disagreeable chores, heard very bad news on the way home, then found a family member unexpectedly looking for a fight at home. If you want to dredge a "Positive Thought" out of that, why don't you take a sledgehammer and break your leg so you can be glad it's broken. 

I see no need to blather on about the fact that, at that time, some people were still alive. Some other people weren't yet alive, or I hadn't met them. That's not the point. If we're talking about my experiences on the nineteenth of April, they were bad. I can see no possible benefit in trying to deny that. Being or sounding like a Positive Thinker is not a benefit. 

How do I, how does anyone, handle a day like the nineteenth of April of 1995? As little as possible. Why would one want to handle it? I survived without doing any real harm. That's as much as can be expected. For as much of the day as I had any immediate choice about, I slept. 

I worked my way through most of these writing prompts in advance, while the computer ought to have been connected to the Internet but wasn't. The day on which I wrote the first draft of this post was, emotionally, below average--for me. My Bad Neighbor had sprayed poison on the ground again. The sky was promising to rain the vapors out of the air but hadn't done it yet. My poisoned insides were cramping. That kind of thing might be offset, in my subjective emotional balance, by any small accomplishment, like finishing this post; it is not and will never be good

I shared this day, however, with the Queen Cat Serena. Serena chose to spend much of this day indoors, just because the air outside was worse. She probably wanted to stay with the three kittens who were born alive four days before. On this fifth day of their lives, one positively died, one went into a coma from which it never awoke, and one was conscious but not well. They were reacting to the toxic chemical vapors in the air, just as I am.

Serena loves kittens. Her prolactin reactions soften her coat and mellow her personality; only while she's nursing tiny babies does she purr and cuddle. Serena rarely shows a glyphosate reaction herself, but after exposure to "pesticide" vapors she's given birth to kittens who either were born dead, or died during their first direct exposure to "pesticide" vapors. Serena doesn't seem to care about the ones who are born dead but she seems to grieve when kittens come out alive, start to bond with her, and then die. On this day she hovered. She went to the Pet Taxi I call the kitten box, where they were resting on a little crocheted cat blanket, and looked in making the softest, most affectionate-sounding chirrups a cat can make. Newborn kittens' ears are folded in and they are usually imagined to be deaf, but Serena heard words before her ears unfolded and the smallest kitten answered her chirrups. Still alive. She sniffed and licked it. It squeaked peevishly, not digesting milk, not wanting to be fed or washed. Sometimes kittens survive a few days like that, shake off infections or poison, and live. More often they don't. 

Serena left it in the nest box and circulated around the office. Was there anything worth licking in the trash bag? Had I changed my mind about her climbing on computers? She considered curling up beside me for an afternoon nap, twice, and decided against it, before coming back to curl up beside me, holding my toes under her forepaws. When you're losing someone you care about, it can be comforting to be close to another friend who has some idea how you feel. Serena lay beside me, showing what was on her mind by the way she moved while dreaming. Cats often dream of fighting or fleeing. Serena dreamed of her kittens. 

So passed this mild and cloudy afternoon. My glufosinate reaction, currently going on, made excretion difficult and painful, while also urgent; hence the cramps. I couldn't un-imagine the way such a reaction must feel to a kitten who still needs help to excrete. If that was what was wrong with the kittens they probably didn't want to survive. I loved Serena and I would have given a lot, if such bargains were possible, for Death to take the "pesticide" sprayer and leave her kittens. 

For me, this was not a day of emotional havoc like the nineteenth of April of 1995. Neither was it an especially pleasant day. The emotional energy we have to feel about the goodness or badness of days is a physical condition. I had reached the blessed detachment of middle age. What was happening on this day was not good. 

I accepted that, for Serena, this was probably a horrible day. 

I accepted that I could add a hint of pleasure to this day, for myself, just by finishing this blog post (or finishing some other task). Serena probably did not have that option. Letting her nap beside me was probably making it fractionally easier for Serena to get through this terrible, horrible, awful day. I accepted the minor discomfort of holding a position so as not to disturb Serena, not as a peace offering on behalf of the loathsome rest of my species, but as an act of friendship. 

I think, philosophically, that a day that includes an act of friendship is not an altogether bad day.

Monday, September 8, 2025

Book Review: For the Many

Title: For the Many

Author: "Not Applicable"

Date: 2025

Quote: "Living as plural is often a paradox. You are never alone, yet the experience can be profoundly isolating...Take what works. Leave the rest." 

I think this is the most unusual book I've read this year. My generation learned about what's now called dissociative identity disorder, because after all "multiple personalities" could just mean the way other people see us when we're bored or interested or informed or uninformed or whatever, from sensationalized stories like Sybil and The Three Faces of Eve. Most people never know anyone who actually experiences "life as plural," who not only dramatizes emotional conflicts as "part of me wants to do this, and part wants to do that" but really does both "this" and "that" while experiencing perself as two different people, using different parts of the brain, one personality not remembering what the other one did or wanted or why. The assumption was that, in order for the brain to organize itself in this way, someone who started out with one consistent "normal" personality and brain like everyone else must have been horribly traumatized in some way, the person's story would have to be a melodrama, at least one aspect of the person would have to be "tortured," and the person would be "healed" and terribly grateful if those personalities could meld back together into something "normal." This turned out not necessarily to be true. Brains, we learned around the turn of the century, react to physical conditions as well as to the emotions of love and fear. What we now know about DID is that we don't know and never did know much.

Here, however, is the first guidebook for fellow "systems" written by a person who feels capable of accepting perself as "a system" in which three "persons," Ann, Wheel, and Echo, occupy the same body. The three coexist like roommates. They have had the experience of fusing together and dissociating again. Fusing the "alters" together is not a solution to every difficulty, they warn. Nor is it harmful to any of the personalities. The compartmentalized brain works in its own way. If one aspect of the person dumps out food that another aspect wanted to eat, now and then, the whole system seems to have learned to cope with that. Probably Ann, Wheel, and Echo are all perceived as unusual by the other people they know, but they cope. Therapists and therapy techniques have helped them maintain calm, patient acceptance of one another. They warn readers, though, that it may be best not to disclose to people who have some kind of authority over you if you experience yourself as a "system." "System" people may be able to function on their own in society more effectively when others may suspect, but don't know, how far from typical their consciousness really is.

How many readers will ever find a use for this book in real life? Who knows? It's free for the downloading from https://beingmany.net. It's an interesting, strange read. Anyone might meet a person with DID some day so who knows when, or to whom, or how much, this book may be useful.