How do you tell a good friend he's full of crap?

[Tharmas]

I’m reading a book (which shall remain nameless) written over thirty years ago (so late eighties) by a high school classmate who apparently earned a PhD in clinical psychology. This book was recommended to me by a good friend, another former classmate, who described a sort of life changing experience in reading it, and actually sent me a copy.

The book is absolute dreck. It uses a lot of alchemical vocabulary and other metaphysical metaphors for the journey of the soul, which longs for re-unification with the One, etc. I studied alchemy and other Western mystical traditions in graduate school, and read enough Jung back then, to appreciate the metaphors, but it soon becomes apparent that to the author, these are not mere metaphors. He writes a chapter developing the “hypothesis” that the soul must perforce reincarnate multiple times, and in the process accumulates good and bad karma.

Now this guy is a practicing clinical psychologist. His practice evidently concerns helping straighten out the bad karma a patient has accumulated in previous lives. There can be a problem if the therapist and patient have had a run in in previous lives and established bad karma between them. Unbelievable. People pay for this.

So my problem now is how do I let my friend know my actual opinion without ruining our friendship?

 

[Lion IRC]

Why would your friendly critique of the claims in their book ruin the friendship?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think you have to pick, your friendship or integrity. Or sincerity, or whatever you want to call it.
How do you deal with a friend who is making a horrible mistake in how they are raising their kid?

 

[rousseau]

If he can't take your honest opinion without ruining your friendship, you can't. Just passively tell him you enjoyed it, and let life carry on like it would otherwise.

Nothing is really gained by giving your honest opinion, except a bruised ego.

 

[Toni]

I’m reading a book (which shall remain nameless) written over thirty years ago (so late eighties) by a high school classmate who apparently earned a PhD in clinical psychology. This book was recommended to me by a good friend, another former classmate, who described a sort of life changing experience in reading it, and actually sent me a copy.

The book is absolute dreck. It uses a lot of alchemical vocabulary and other metaphysical metaphors for the journey of the soul, which longs for re-unification with the One, etc. I studied alchemy and other Western mystical traditions in graduate school, and read enough Jung back then, to appreciate the metaphors, but it soon becomes apparent that to the author, these are not mere metaphors. He writes a chapter developing the “hypothesis” that the soul must perforce reincarnate multiple times, and in the process accumulates good and bad karma.

Now this guy is a practicing clinical psychologist. His practice evidently concerns helping straighten out the bad karma a patient has accumulated in previous lives. There can be a problem if the therapist and patient have had a run in in previous lives and established bad karma between them. Unbelievable. People pay for this.

So my problem now is how do I let my friend know my actual opinion without ruining our friendship?

Has the author *asked* your opinion of the book?

If the answer is no, then keep your opinion to yourself. If asked by anyone, you can maintain your integrity by praising what you can—how well it was written, its use of metaphor, the masterful explanation of Jung’s theory of... and leave off your strong philosophical and intellectual disagreements. If pressed or if you feel you must, you can say you really liked /admired/appreciated X but you differ sharply about the significance/importance/interpretation of X. Or Y.

Be prepared for anything other than full throated praise to dramatically and negatively affect your relationship. And keep your negative opinions to yourself and don’t share with mutual friends and acquaintances.

Speaking from experience. Was asked to read a self published book written by an old friend. Fiction/not my favorite genre and a bit of a difficult read because of the graphic nature of the overall storyline. Also because main character’s background was largely based on my friend’s childhood and detailed what any of us would describe as abuse but was re-characterized as just male humor. I spent some time praising what I could and offering gentle critique where I thought the story could be stronger.

I avoided asking or commenting on passages I believed detailed my friend’s treatment/abuse by his father who he had had a terrible relationship with but then somehow recast the entire abusive person who I actually knew as a good man. He wasn’t. My perceptions were shared by other mutual friends although I very pointedly did not tell them about those passages in the book. And I admit I told a couple of people not to read the book due to the content which was about a good guy tracking down a serial rapist/murderer. I knew the topic would be hard for them and when I told them it was about a serial rapist, they decided to pass without my urging.

I ran my review past a mutual friend and my spouse to see if it was harsh in any way. They told me it was fine and so I hit send on that email. And yes, it did affect the friendship.

Now your friend is not my friend but in my experience, academics who wrote books are extremely invested in their POV.

 

[JohnG]

I play music with a guy who is a truther, believes in illuminatti, and whole bunch of mystical crap. Whenever he brings it up I let him know respectfully about my difference of world view. He is a good guy, but not a great critical thinker. He knows not to discuss the "things he learns on Youtube" with me.

 

[southernhybrid]

I agree with Toni. Unless he specifically asked for your opinion, I wouldn't say anything about the book. Instead I would concentrate on the things that you have in common.

My next door neighbor believes in all kinds of weird woo. She knows that I don't share her beliefs, but I tell her as long as she's not pushing her beliefs on anyone else, they seem pretty harmless to me. That's one option if he asks you what you thought of the book, since I doubt your opinion is going to change his mind.

Or, if your friend asks your opinion, I think I would just say that there are too many things in the book that you don't agree with based on your own studies. If your friend is super sensitive, I'd leave it at that. If he can take criticism well, and the two of you enjoy debating without getting angry, then go for it.

The bottom line is, if this person is really a "good friend", then he should be able to agree to disagree with you, without taking it personally.

 

[Lion IRC]

It might be your friend's inevitable rebuttal of your critique that ruins the friendship.
Can your friendship with this person survive the potential sting when they...return serve?

Maybe you should rehearse your anti-karma arguments here in this thread first.

In other words be careful you don't reap what you sow.

 

[steve_bank]

With a good friend you should be able to be direct.

 

[Toni]

With a good friend you should be able to be direct.

You should be, I agree.

BUT a book is like the beloved child of the author. Plus in this particular case, it seems the book departs from orthodoxy of the discipline straight into some serious woo. Those are enormous landmines. There are a lot of deeply held personal feelings involved with both aspects of this. It's not merely an intellectual disagreement between two equals.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If they had some level of a positive epiphany, then there really isn't much that needs to be said, other than you actually did read it. If they push, you can indicate you feel the hypothesis lacks any ability to be falsified, however, you can *grit teeth* understand how some people could find the metaphors provided within it useful and constructive.

 

[southernhybrid]

So Tharmas, did you talk to your friend yet? Was our advice helpful or not so much?

 

[Tharmas]

I'm taking everyone's good advice into consideration. I haven't communicated with my friend yet. I still have a few pages to read to finish up the book, so that's my excuse for putting it off.

I plan to say there were interesting and helpful ideas in the book about psycho-therapy and self help (there were a few), and expand about how I studied alchemy and other forms of Western mysticism in grad school, so much of it was familiar to me. I'll go on and expound a bit about different philosophies that those mystics believed, and point out that practicing alchemists thought their beliefs could be replicated in the laboratory, but that they all failed. I even have an anecdote about how one of the Jungian scholars quoted extensively in the book had a minor role in the events that led me to meet my wife.

I don't intend to say anything about past lives and bad karma affecting psycho-therapy, or reincarnation. or cosmic energy levels, or the One, aka the Source.

If he asks, I'll weasel a bit, perhaps in the direction Jimmy Higgins suggests.

 

[southernhybrid]

Thanks for getting back to us. I've come to the conclusion that some people need some woo in their lives. It doesn't seem to matter how highly educated or smart they are. Some people just find comfort in their woo. Hope it works out for you.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm taking everyone's good advice into consideration. I haven't communicated with my friend yet. I still have a few pages to read to finish up the book, so that's my excuse for putting it off.

I plan to say there were interesting and helpful ideas in the book about psycho-therapy and self help (there were a few), and expand about how I studied alchemy and other forms of Western mysticism in grad school, so much of it was familiar to me. I'll go on and expound a bit about different philosophies that those mystics believed, and point out that practicing alchemists thought their beliefs could be replicated in the laboratory, but that they all failed. I even have an anecdote about how one of the Jungian scholars quoted extensively in the book had a minor role in the events that led me to meet my wife.

I don't intend to say anything about past lives and bad karma affecting psycho-therapy, or reincarnation. or cosmic energy levels, or the One, aka the Source.

If he asks, I'll weasel a bit, perhaps in the direction Jimmy Higgins suggests.

A friend of mine wrote several books that were totally crap. Absolutely totally crap, but I never told him I thought they were crap because that would have ended our friendship. Actually I was much closer to his wife, as a friend, than I was to him. He has since died of a massive heart attack and she is still trying to get hold of those necessities in life. He did not leave a will. His obsession with woo never enters into our discussions. We talk more about making bread and how to get the best out of our I-pads.

When I look back at those youtube videos that he made it is painful to watch him, and I know she shares the same sentiments. So that is done and past.

You are absolutely taking the most productive and responsible path. Kudos to you for having the self control and intelligence to make the world a more peaceful and productive place.

 

[Toni]

I'm taking everyone's good advice into consideration. I haven't communicated with my friend yet. I still have a few pages to read to finish up the book, so that's my excuse for putting it off.

I plan to say there were interesting and helpful ideas in the book about psycho-therapy and self help (there were a few), and expand about how I studied alchemy and other forms of Western mysticism in grad school, so much of it was familiar to me. I'll go on and expound a bit about different philosophies that those mystics believed, and point out that practicing alchemists thought their beliefs could be replicated in the laboratory, but that they all failed. I even have an anecdote about how one of the Jungian scholars quoted extensively in the book had a minor role in the events that led me to meet my wife.

I don't intend to say anything about past lives and bad karma affecting psycho-therapy, or reincarnation. or cosmic energy levels, or the One, aka the Source.

If he asks, I'll weasel a bit, perhaps in the direction Jimmy Higgins suggests.

It sounds like you have this pretty well under control. I hope he is as reasonable as you are, woo aside.

 

[southernhybrid]

Be thankful that your friend wasn't the one who wrote the book. A person who used to be a member here, asked me to review a book he wrote. The book was awful. The writing was on the level of a high school student. He thought his fiction book might change the world. It left me cold. and bored. I tried to give him some advice as to how to improve his writing skills. He thanked me, but I don't think I heard from him more than once or twice after that. Thankfully, he and I didn't know each other very well. He posted here for a few years, but I had only met him in person once. I will never agree to review a book for anyone again.

Looking back on that experience, I think the guy had some delusions of grandeur when it came to his influence on others.

Since I don't know your friend, who knows how he might react if. he was told the truth. It wouldn't bother me in the least if a friend didn't like a book that I loved. In fact, I once gave a copy of "Women without Superstition" to an atheist friend who is much younger than me. That is my favorite book. She never read the book and later told me she doesn't enjoy reading books. Too bad. She might have enjoyed learning about strong historically important atheist women. She's still my friend.

 

[steve_bank]

You make eye contact nd say 'Hey buddy, you are full of crap'.

 

[Tharmas]

Here's a first draft of what I'll send him. Any comments?

I finished F’s book, BTW, and I wanted to comment on it a little.

First, thanks for sending it to me - It was an interesting read. I’ll get it back to you soon.

Reading it took me back to graduate school, when I read all sorts of Christian and pagan mystical philosophy in research for my Master’s thesis on the works of the mystic poet William Blake. In particular I read Plato (particularly his Timaeus); various Gnostic texts; Neoplatonists like Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus; and European alchemists and mystics like Paracelsus, Agrippa, Jacob Boehme, and Swedenborg. I even read more modern mystics who could not have actually influenced Blake, like the late 19th century Madam Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society (which still exists, and I note are the publishers of F’s book), Crowley, and Gurdjieff, to name a few, not to mention Jung and even Joseph Campbell.

So I found F’s book right up my alley, so to speak. I enjoyed how he used different sections of The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus as chapter introductions. That’s one of the foundational texts of alchemy.

The basic myth of Gnosticism and Neoplatonism is that there is one, Perfect Supreme Being from whom creation emanates into a series of lesser beings. Ultimately one of these beings, the Demiurge, creates the physical earth we live on. Earth is seen as dross, as the flawed and imperfect reflection of the divine ideal. The desire of the human soul should be to escape this imperfect world and re-unite with the Ideal, with the perfect Supreme Being.

You see how this fits with F’s perceptions, I take it. It also aligns with Christianity, at least in the basic sense that the world is Fallen, but that Redemption is possible. The alchemist, then, in trying to convert dross matter into gold, is trying to effect this return to perfection on a material level.

F applies these beliefs to clinical psychology. That’s where I become skeptical. Despite the power of the alchemical metaphor, it is nevertheless a metaphor. No alchemist ever actually created material gold, or a philosopher’s stone capable of curing all disease. In terms of F’s book, to be blunt, I don’t believe our souls are recreated through multiple lives, and that karma accrued in one life carries over into the next. There was a fad in the eighties, popularized by celebrities like Shirley MacLaine, to blame past lives on all sorts of things, and to practice some sort of regression therapy to get in touch with them. Actually, a quick check on Google indicates that the belief is still very much alive. Well I for one ain’t buying it.

However I will admit I have assimilated a great deal of Boehme and Blake into my own personal philosophy, which I will be glad to expound upon at some point if you are interested.

 

[Toni]

Here's a first draft of what I'll send him. Any comments?

I finished F’s book, BTW, and I wanted to comment on it a little.

First, thanks for sending it to me - It was an interesting read. I’ll get it back to you soon.

Reading it took me back to graduate school, when I read all sorts of Christian and pagan mystical philosophy in research for my Master’s thesis on the works of the mystic poet William Blake. In particular I read Plato (particularly his Timaeus); various Gnostic texts; Neoplatonists like Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus; and European alchemists and mystics like Paracelsus, Agrippa, Jacob Boehme, and Swedenborg. I even read more modern mystics who could not have actually influenced Blake, like the late 19th century Madam Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society (which still exists, and I note are the publishers of F’s book), Crowley, and Gurdjieff, to name a few, not to mention Jung and even Joseph Campbell.

So I found F’s book right up my alley, so to speak. I enjoyed how he used different sections of The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus as chapter introductions. That’s one of the foundational texts of alchemy.

The basic myth of Gnosticism and Neoplatonism is that there is one, Perfect Supreme Being from whom creation emanates into a series of lesser beings. Ultimately one of these beings, the Demiurge, creates the physical earth we live on. Earth is seen as dross, as the flawed and imperfect reflection of the divine ideal. The desire of the human soul should be to escape this imperfect world and re-unite with the Ideal, with the perfect Supreme Being.

You see how this fits with F’s perceptions, I take it. It also aligns with Christianity, at least in the basic sense that the world is Fallen, but that Redemption is possible. The alchemist, then, in trying to convert dross matter into gold, is trying to effect this return to perfection on a material level.

F applies these beliefs to clinical psychology. That’s where I become skeptical. Despite the power of the alchemical metaphor, it is nevertheless a metaphor. No alchemist ever actually created material gold, or a philosopher’s stone capable of curing all disease. In terms of F’s book, to be blunt, I don’t believe our souls are recreated through multiple lives, and that karma accrued in one life carries over into the next. There was a fad in the eighties, popularized by celebrities like Shirley MacLaine, to blame past lives on all sorts of things, and to practice some sort of regression therapy to get in touch with them. Actually, a quick check on Google indicates that the belief is still very much alive. Well I for one ain’t buying it.

However I will admit I have assimilated a great deal of Boehme and Blake into my own personal philosophy, which I will be glad to expound upon at some point if you are interested.

Excellent!