How to Be Your Own Best Friend

Rating:
Summary: A little good advice
Review: It would be quite easy to mock at this little self - help work with statements like ' You'd better be your own best friend since no one else is ' but in fact this work is a valuable guide to increasing one's own self- esteem. The authors emphasize the importance of the individual valuing their own accomplishments, taking responsiblity for their own life, and using their freedom with wisdom. Berkowitz and Newman who are a married couple of psychotherapists present the work in a very simple and forthright manner, as a kind of conversation in which they answer questions about how to make a happy life. Their stress is on overcoming the routines of past failure and finding new ways to bring satisfaction into one's life. It is hard to quarrel with their prescription.
To put it into practical effect, however, is I think for most of us the real problem and story.

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Gift Book
Review: Reading "How to Be Your Own Best Friend" should be a rewarding self -help exercise. Like all such works, one cannot read it like a novel, to be quickly put aside and hope to gain any benefit. Instead, it should be perused slowly with notes taken of "high points" encountered along the way. The reader must then periodically glance back at the notes. "How to Be" is big on letting go of the past, especially memories of "troublesome" parents. Two of the more helpful aphorisms are "There is no way now to even the score" and "Go forward for happiness-not back". The title may be misleading since "How to" actually calls for some self-discipline as opposed to patting oneself on the back or licking one's wounds: WE are responsible for own good times in life and to "watch and work". WE must remove the roadblocks that others (i.e.": PARENTS) have placed in our paths. This is a solid piece of psycho writing, with no downside risk. At paperback prices, one good idea will pay for itself many times over. This may also be the fastest reading paperback I've ever encountered. Those scrolling through the self-help selections should seriously consider "How to". For those of us with "parent problems" (we know who we are!), this one is strongly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Dated and psychoanalytic
Review: This book was not helpful to me, in fact, it was a little upsetting. It reminded me, with the dialogue format, of some of the "channeling" books (like Seth or the Course on Miracles), but without even the substance of those books.

Rather, the authors seemed to concentrate on people's childhood troubles, just as a psychoanalyst would, regressing them so as to uncover the beginnings of their psychological problems.

This, to me, is not a useful procedure, but obviously, some people are helped by it. For those who cannot afford psychotherapy, maybe this little book is a fair substitute.

I personally would need something a little more substantial and down-to-earth. Diximus.

Rating:
Summary: Short and sweet
Review: This is a wonderful little book. If you're a person frustrated with all the so-called self help books out there then this little gem might be the one you've been looking for. There are some complaints here that it's outdated because the authors don't bow down to the present DSMV standards. So the heck what? If the DSMV says that bestiality is okay does that make it so? God forbid someone disagree with the almighty DSMV (or is it MTV now? It's hard to tell the difference anymore)
The fact that we encourage certain behaviors today only makes books like this, where homosexuality is acknowledged as a mental disease, that much more refreshing.
How to be your Own Best Friend is one of those books that helps to remind us to put things into perspective while at the same time not encouraging us to deceive ourselves with New Age pop psychology.
I thank Mildred Newman and Bernard Berkowitz for writing it.

Rating:
Summary: A Great Book to Wreck Your Life With ...
Review: This is another self-help book that I received from my wife's grandmother's library when she passed away. The book is thin and fairly small, making it a short read (about 40 minutes total). It is set up as a dialogue between a psychotherapist and a patient or perhaps journalist. Before I go any further I should mention that I read the 1971 version rather than the 1990 version, so obviously things are going to be a bit different. With that in mind, the criticisms I have about the book may no longer apply.

First, the criticism...

This book was written during the time period in which the American Psychological Association still recognized homosexuality as a disorder. In this edition of the book it is seen as such and used as an example of people that can change if they really want to. I'm assuming that homosexuality isn't seen as a disorder in the newer editions, but, you'll just have to read it to find out I guess.

The second criticism was the format of the book. Though I recognize it as a tactical device to sell you on the philosophy of the book, the dialogue between the patient/journalist and the psychotherapist is a bit too contrived to be of any real use. The questions asked are very leading and leading in a direction that is always favorable to the answer the psychotherapist has. At the end of the book the questioner admits that they are 'convinced' of the correctness of the philosophy of the book. Please. That kind of stuff never happens in psychotherapy, but it is a good sales tactic - we convinced this person in the book, we should be able to convince you. To make it an even better sales tactic they should have the questioner in the book be a nameless business-world kingpin, or Larry King, or some other hard-nosed reporter, someone that the reader of the book can identify as being very astute and not easily persuaded (not that any of the examples I gave necessarily are). That would work even better.

Third criticism, some times the information is presented as though there is some state of happiness that can be attained. Now, call me cynical, but I don't know that I buy into the 'state of happiness' theory anymore. I used to think that people could 'arrive at' a state of happiness, but I'm just not that sure anymore. However, this review isn't supposed to be a place where I propose my own theories, so I'll just have to write my own book on that topic I guess.

Last criticism. As psychotherapists the authors should know that they can't solve people's problems by having them read books. Psychotherapy involves a lot more than that (I'm not an expert, but a degree in psychology and a year working in a mental institution should be worth something).

Now that I have offered my criticisms, I must admit that the book is very insightful. It is traditional psychotherapy to the fullest extent. There is a lot of talk about exploring childhood problems and overcoming the damage that they did to you. The discussion is very persuasive at times and I found a lot of the advice to be very insightful. Like I said before, I read the 1971 edition so things may have changed quite a bit, but I'll give you some of the quotes I really liked anyway...

Q. Accept the messiness and the mistakes? But I thought the point was to stop making them.
A. If you do, you'll be the only one. (p. 83)

Q. But what if you can't manage everything you'd like to do - few of us can - and you have to make choices? When does doing good things for yourself become pure self-indulgence?
A. Doing what makes you feel good about yourself is really the opposite of self-indulgence... It does mean being self-centered enough to care for yourself and to take care of yourself. If you don't learn how to do that, you can never care properly for others. (p. 35)

Overall, there are a lot of great insights in this book. The reason I rate is as low as I do is because of a fundamental disagreement about happiness and also because of the manipulative format (I'm assuming their views on homosexuality have changed, if not, then it should get a zero). Perhaps things have changed in later editions. If so, great for the authors and I hope someone posts a response to this review letting me know that.

Rating:
Summary: Very insightful, but a bit manipulative
Review: This is another self-help book that I received from my wife's grandmother's library when she passed away. The book is thin and fairly small, making it a short read (about 40 minutes total). It is set up as a dialogue between a psychotherapist and a patient or perhaps journalist. Before I go any further I should mention that I read the 1971 version rather than the 1990 version, so obviously things are going to be a bit different. With that in mind, the criticisms I have about the book may no longer apply.

First, the criticism...

This book was written during the time period in which the American Psychological Association still recognized homosexuality as a disorder. In this edition of the book it is seen as such and used as an example of people that can change if they really want to. I'm assuming that homosexuality isn't seen as a disorder in the newer editions, but, you'll just have to read it to find out I guess.

The second criticism was the format of the book. Though I recognize it as a tactical device to sell you on the philosophy of the book, the dialogue between the patient/journalist and the psychotherapist is a bit too contrived to be of any real use. The questions asked are very leading and leading in a direction that is always favorable to the answer the psychotherapist has. At the end of the book the questioner admits that they are 'convinced' of the correctness of the philosophy of the book. Please. That kind of stuff never happens in psychotherapy, but it is a good sales tactic - we convinced this person in the book, we should be able to convince you. To make it an even better sales tactic they should have the questioner in the book be a nameless business-world kingpin, or Larry King, or some other hard-nosed reporter, someone that the reader of the book can identify as being very astute and not easily persuaded (not that any of the examples I gave necessarily are). That would work even better.

Third criticism, some times the information is presented as though there is some state of happiness that can be attained. Now, call me cynical, but I don't know that I buy into the 'state of happiness' theory anymore. I used to think that people could 'arrive at' a state of happiness, but I'm just not that sure anymore. However, this review isn't supposed to be a place where I propose my own theories, so I'll just have to write my own book on that topic I guess.

Last criticism. As psychotherapists the authors should know that they can't solve people's problems by having them read books. Psychotherapy involves a lot more than that (I'm not an expert, but a degree in psychology and a year working in a mental institution should be worth something).

Now that I have offered my criticisms, I must admit that the book is very insightful. It is traditional psychotherapy to the fullest extent. There is a lot of talk about exploring childhood problems and overcoming the damage that they did to you. The discussion is very persuasive at times and I found a lot of the advice to be very insightful. Like I said before, I read the 1971 edition so things may have changed quite a bit, but I'll give you some of the quotes I really liked anyway...

Q. Accept the messiness and the mistakes? But I thought the point was to stop making them.
A. If you do, you'll be the only one. (p. 83)

Q. But what if you can't manage everything you'd like to do - few of us can - and you have to make choices? When does doing good things for yourself become pure self-indulgence?
A. Doing what makes you feel good about yourself is really the opposite of self-indulgence... It does mean being self-centered enough to care for yourself and to take care of yourself. If you don't learn how to do that, you can never care properly for others. (p. 35)

Overall, there are a lot of great insights in this book. The reason I rate is as low as I do is because of a fundamental disagreement about happiness and also because of the manipulative format (I'm assuming their views on homosexuality have changed, if not, then it should get a zero). Perhaps things have changed in later editions. If so, great for the authors and I hope someone posts a response to this review letting me know that.

Rating:
Summary: A Great Book to Wreck Your Life With ...
Review: This namby pamby slop is just like all the rest of the junk pop psychology from Wayne Dyer, et al., that I used to wreck my life with, starting in the 1970s.

While some of it is not that tragically worthless, it does what all the other poisonous pop-psych. books do: leads you to belive you are a wonderful, warm, cuddly light in the universe, while offering you little or no perspective on how to protect a light like yours, in a world like this one!

Read and enjoy, if you feel you must. Yet, FACE it: if you don't cultivate your community image and gather some social power to yourself, none of this fancy-pants commercialized 'insight' is going to do you a tinkers' damn, and can even lead you to serious misery by virtue of instilling a false or misleading concept about your ACTUAL self in the world.

Being sensitive, wonderful, vulnerable, smiley, friendly, and bouyant all the time shouldn't make you a victim at the whims of bullies and power mongers and all their manipulative little games.

Cultivate some public image and social power for yourself, or your 'new self' found as a result of reading books like this. And find yourself a solid social circle to 'ground' yourself in.

All newly discovered and ready to take a new-found joy and pleasure in life, you may just become a pathetic target for bullies and the envious, who may elect to find some overt, or even very sneaky ways to screw your fragile, new-age life up. Such eventuations can be truly harmful and deeply devastating and depressing, depending on the turns they take. And don't imagine you are resilient and 'enlightened' enough to automatically resist any and all negative impact on yourself. Sorry, but a few scraps of psychological insight and being humane, charming, and 'well-meaning' just aren't enough.

"But I'm a good person!" ...yeah, right! And you'll make a great target, too, for some, I'm sure...

Real strength, power, and positive image projection of the right type, can take some doing. Some real sacrifice.

Some people just naturally smell sensitivity, kindness/friendliness, and happiness on people, and just can't wait, by some animal instinct or inspiration, to wreck it for you. And they'll do it laughing all the way, or by finding a way to be self-righteous about it.

Your 'happy,' positive, enlightened self exists within a context. This is the context of the community that accepts the image you project, the image you have cultivated up to this point. This includes the experiences, positive or negative, that said community has been suitably encouraged to allow you to have, in the way it allows you to have them. This takes some doing, for most, for a positive overall result.

Perhaps I am being to vague and general for some tastes. But I believe I am speaking in the right general direction.

To put it briefly, if you think you and your experiences aren't a product of you, your image, your social power, your environment/community as a whole and how it reacts on you and to you, guess again.

It isn't all in your childhood memories and in how you love yourself, believe me. There's a bit more to all this business, than romanticized, contrived-to-sell-well pamphlets like this one will tell you.

...by the way: that eerie couple on the back cover, really ought to go outside and get some fresh air ... might even clear their heads a bit . . .