Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
collecting the greatest anti-scientific nonsense of the network, the text towards an intelligent
distinction between inculture, and stupidity, making this wise observation:
[... when you don't know, you inform yourself, you dare to inquire. And banish that ignorance.
With these people you can talk, you can debate, and you can exchange impressions. These
people respond to the information, read it, process it, and ask what they do not understand.
Finally, if they have said a nonsense, correct it ...] (Source, wordpress of Borregos Illuminati)
Stupidity, however, is more a matter of attitude, it is to insist, reaffirm again and again in the
wrong data, holding it against all odds, despite the evidence, despite the suffering it may
cause in the followers of the idea . You will have undoubtedly noticed the existence of
certain characters, very popular today in Spain, whether in networks or in the media, whose
only objective seems to be to hold on to that stupid position, insisting again and again on
something obviously wrong. It would not be so serious if the invention affected only one
individual and did not pass from there, the problem is when one of these people is given
access to a public pulpit, so the case of Enric Corbera, founder of the pseudo-therapeutic
group called Bioneuroemoción, attending the Spanish Television program "The adventure of
knowledge" or also the Psychologist Rafael Santandreu, who in "A punto con la 2" starred in
a famous interview in which he praised "Hitler has a great potential" among others many
things.
But what is striking is not only the lack of filters in the public television, but the claim of
Rafael Santandreu, who said he based the content of his speech on cognitive psychology,
many believed him and still defended him obstinately, but Santandreu perpetrated that day a
real folly, obvious to all of us dedicated to Psychology in Spain, and evident to anyone with a
little common sense; That is why in this article I am going to clarify some of his phrases, all
literal, and extracted from the interview in question, and explain the harmful consequences
that can be derived from following the line of thought he preaches. In the first place, and if
you have not seen it, here you have the video in question, which was an important topic,
forgiveness. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAWd380gFNc)
"We should never forgive, because in reality there is nothing to forgive" (Rafael Santandreu)
This leads to a preaching that seeks to numb the subject:
"What we have to work is that it does not affect what others do about us" (Rafael
Santandreu)
Please take care about it, because this, contrary to what some people think is not a
breakthrough, there are in fact exercises in many cults, which deliberately train the ability to
not to react to the offense, seeking that the adept be freed from what they call the "reactive"
mind, and that is not an evolution at all, on the contrary, it is the deliberate search for a state
of desensitization, dissociation, and stopping of thought. The subject can live it as a
revelation, but the real effects drag towards a disconnection from reality, not to react
adequately to others, and to sink into a sort of trance that eventually makes people more
manipulable, and has consequences on the state of mental health of the subject, peace is
not obtained, anesthesia is obtained, the position of Psychology is never to achieve this
effect, on the contrary, we work on cognitive contents and distortions to bring the person
closer to a person. posture increasingly closer to reality, so that it learns to detect and
correct the frequent biases that plunge us into unwanted behaviors, emotions or thoughts,
from which consequences such as addictions, feelings of guilt, or obsessions that stolen our
life quality.
"I need everyone to treat me well all the time and I can't stand it" (RS)
Attention to this quote from Santandreu, this quote comes from the line of Rational
Emotional Therapy, a line created by the renowned psychotherapist Albert Ellis, a quote that
any first-year psychology student will recognize, but hardly misunderstand in the way Rafael
Santandreu does, the irrational ideas Ellis emphasized were aimed at avoiding neurotic
states, so he enunciated them in a general way , what Ellis wanted to highlight with the
enunciation of these ideas was to highlight the cognitive distortions to which we human
beings, for example, it is frequent to fall into unrealistic dichotomies, the temptation to see
everything or White or black in an extremist way ends up harming us and hurting those
around us, and it is a tendency that precipitates people to discouragement or mania.
Well, Rafael Santandreu's use consists in distorting this quote, making it dichotomous,
precisely what Ellis was trying to avoid, then understands the opposite, and as a result he
falls into an absurd and potentially dangerous relativism, minimizing physical aggressions:
"Nor is it so serious that someone hits you with a smack, because bad luck is not the end of
the world." (Regarding physical aggressions, robberies and betrayals)
If something goes wrong frustation is totally normal, if you just left your couple and you loved
her, it is normal to be sad, if a close relative has died, it is normal to have a grief. However
Rafael promotes a vital position pro-anesthesia, lacking empathy. no Ph.D or psychology
professional who knows what he does looks at his clients in a flash, says quotes like "oh you
have many problems, did you realize that we are all going to die someday" this same quote
Santandreu often uses in his interviews, and does not help at all, there are more things that
for people not involved in mental health can be absurd from the perspective of a person
without that problem, for example some specific phobias developed to objects, or pets for
example, but our work as behaviour proffesional is to address these problems and to
dissolve them through the knowledge we have, not to relativize what is brought to us.
That is why maintaining this type of affirmation is not a sign of superiority, but of insensitivity,
a way of taking Psychology as a game, without the slightest contemplation or respect
towards the people who are treated, something that is obviously not a good quality for a
Psychologist.
"I don't need to apologize because in reality practically nothing affects me" (RS)
As you can see the result is more typical of a psychopathic behavior than of good mental
health, with a Inhumanity and lack of empathy quite serious. But that's not all, in addition
Santandreu is removed from the sleeve in the interview a four-step “process”, whose source
I have not been able to find in any type of recognized publication, I suppose it will be
self-made, he calls it “the steps of forgiveness ”and consist of the following:
1) GIVE UP
2) UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE
3) LAUNCH OF "LOVE RAYS"
4) LEARN TO BE BETTER
Give up, according to Santandreu's approach, consists of something like taking for granted
that things are as they are, and that we cannot change them, naturally this is false, it is
possible to change many things, a great variety of them are likely to improve. And in the
case that those that we cannot modify, because they are unsustainable, because they have
to be accepted (a death for example) we can work our emotions and thoughts in order to
minimize their negative impact and continue our lives as best as possible. But Santandreu
does not postulate this, and to exemplify his position he gives us the aberrant example of
being queuing at the bakery, and seeing how a person sneaks into our row usurping the
place that corresponds to us, according to Santandreu that would be the time to practice
kind of resignation that preaches, then we let the person take our place, and we start
listening to music or looking at the shelves, so as to distract ourselves from the logical
indignation that arises at that event.
Not enought with this, Santandreu, to “reinforce” his position he resorts to a valid argument,
but manipulated, interposing the so-called “bias of the just world” that comes to say that
things are not as we would like them to be, and of course not they are, there are injustices,
but we need to get up every day trying to improve ourselves and improve the world in which
we live, to continue acting to make them more and more correct, that is basic, since
otherwise we fall into what Rafael promulgates, the helplessness of react, eventually finding
ourselves in a passive position before all the large and small tasks that we want to do, this
entails a serious situation of learned helplessness, which will not bring us any peace of mind,
but rather lead us to depression, feeling like our external world threatens us due to our
passivity, to then attend the internal collapse, based on so much accumulated frustration and
anger.
The second step observed in the interview is the misinterpretation use of an “unconditional
acceptance” according to Santandreu, this concept implies that “we are all wonderful and
capable of giving much love” a completely wrong conception, this term comes from the
psychologist Carl Rogers who I develop it as a necessary but not sufficient requirement for
therapists, and it tries rather to learn to develop a position of understanding of the client's
mentality to facilitate therapeutic change, for help professionals it is a basic skill, because if
we do not develop that attitude would be impossible to understand the point of view of the
other person, and this would end the empathy of the plane, due to the exposition of
prejudices of all kinds about the actions or ideas of the people with whom we deal, now,
possessing and using this quality does not imply under any circumstances agreeing with the
conduct or ideology Subject's way.
That is why a professional can treat a person accused of gender violence, pedophilia crimes,
and even murder, but this never, I never repeat, implies an apology, nor the legal actions to
be taken, nor encourages that behavior On the contrary, therapeutic progress is usually
shown when the offending person is able to fully recognize their behavior, take responsibility
for it, and not deny or dissociate their role. Rafael Santandreu misunderstands this concept,
perverting its meaning which leads to the development of a kind of generalized universal
tolerance "It is best to forgive the whole world on the planet" (RS) which inevitably moves
you to end up finding inspiration in a way indiscriminate, and to promote justifications of
atrocities and murders such as the German National Socialist Genocide or more recently,
erroneously applying the concept of Diana Queer's murderer, something that is not only
objectionable in the professional ethical sense, but also in a personal sense.
As we see in the video, such a string of barbarities and nonsense ends up alarming the host
of the program, which puts the note of common sense before the statements of Rafael
Santandreu:
-R. Santantareu: I don't need you to treat me well, but I think it's better that you treat me well.
The third step of Rafael Santandreu is a strange reference to the need to launch “rays of
love” (sic) to the people who offend us, which is to wish that “that person has a wonderful
life” I have no record of the usefulness of this although it is quite probable that he has
extracted such ideas from certain practices of the new-age currents with a desire for health
fraud such as Reiki.
The fourth step “learn to be better” is perhaps the only one that has some logic of the “steps
of forgiveness” but in this case it is totally useless since the focus has been placed on the
victim, already destabilized by the previous process in the one who has been told to resign,
accept what has happened to him in a kind of blame, and also urges him to throw love to his
aggressor, the correct process of seeking the contribution must be carried out after going
through reactions adequate and consistent, not in a state of defenselessness, not through
practices that lead to an escape from the reality more typical of a non-processed traumatic
block than a healthy coping, and finally that "learn to be better" must be nuanced that
although sometimes something is removed, it does not have to happen in all cases.
In fact on many occasions the victim does not have to learn from experience, this is more the
result of the desire of certain groups that conceive of life as a classroom, there is no lesson
to learn in enduring the cruelty of another person, Except for learning not to tolerate it for
another second, it is enough to survive and be able to rebuild life, the focus of action should
rather focus on acting against those who perpetrate such acts instead of orienting victims to
perform offensive actions. and re-victimize ("throw rays of love, wish the best for that person,
learn from the experience") is the case for example of the old and wrong interventions in
bullying, which instead of focusing on the antisocial and problematic behavior of the
aggressors made it easier for the victim to change schools.
“The fact that we have different failures does not mean that they are worse failures. you
have others ”(R. Santandreu)
Grades exist, it is not the same to step on someone unintentionally in the street than to hit
him with cruelty, intentionality matters, good or bad faith matters, circumstances matter, and
above all The experience of people matters, always, and more to a professional who has to
work with them, this is something that all the paraphernalia of the new-age, the sects, or all
the self-help in the world will always be unable to face with enough dignity.
Today, we should be able to rejoice that Psychology has achieved so much public visibility,
that it arouses so much interest in society, advances are encouraging, but those advances
are often clouded by cases in which subjects with the degree in Psychology, or either
practitioners of professional intrusion, make erroneous statements, or directly contrary to any
correct therapeutic approach. In pursuit of the image of the profession, Psychologists who
frequent the media must be aware that they have a great responsibility to transfer a true and
adequate image of what is psychological science, the distortion of what has been learned,
the bold ignorance, or worse still, the manipulation of the teachings with unethical purposes
produce consequences, not only to the people who are the object of the message, but to the
image of the entire community of psychology professionals.