Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. (psy) - JW insights

by AhHah 54 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AhHah

  Peter,

  I don't remember reading any statement of his that indicated that he was trying to write articles that present an objective view of the entire JW organization. He does not seem to be writing for the same purpose as Ray Franz, whose books I admire. I also would first refer someone to Ray Franz's books.

  However, for someone seeking the specific perspectives Jerry Bergman writes about, I would not hesitate to offer the articles for consideration. Wouldn't you agree that it is helpful for thinking persons to have access to a dissenting opinion -- an opionion that one cannot find in the WT publicatons?

  He forthrightly states his history with the religion which makes his bias very obvious and clear for all to see. Material need not be unbiased to have value. For example, all the posts on this forum are written from the perspective of personal biases. Yet, we all find them valuable enough to keep reading them and posting our own opinions (and biases).

  I did not read anything that made me doubt his credibility. Did you? Just because his conclusions are not objective does not necessarily make them invalid (or valid). A person need not agree or accept every word of every article someone writes to find value in reading it, wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, who would ever read or write anything? The reality is that everything written contains biases. It is wise to consider those biases before forming one's own conclusions.

  As I stated in a prior post, some may find his articles (not necessarily his conclusions I posted) to be helpful in understanding the effects that can come from participation in the cult called Jehovah's Witnesses. I am not attempting to endorse or verify every word that he has written.

  I wonder if the reactions to this thread would have been the same if I had NOT posted a couple of his conclusions (at the end of his articles) and instead let everyone interested enough read through his articles first before reading his conclusions. I did not think that most here would be willing to quickly dismiss his articles (and conclusions) without first reading the supporting arguments for themselves. Since most have not responded to this thread, that may indeed still be the case. Everyone is entitled to dismiss anything they want without ever reading it and to form and express their opinion on that basis. That does not necessarily mean that someone else should do the same.

  Edited by - AhHah on 31 October 2000 16:51:2
• 

  Pathofthorns

  The wording he chooses to use in his articles is extremely negative and hateful. That is his choice to speak that way, but it is not an effective and convincing way to express your viewpoint or opinion.

  He should endeavour to be more objective. Perhaps even mention some positive things about the Witness experience. Obviously six million people feel compelled to stay, and i must say many do enjoy being a witness.

  The appealing way of Ray's writing is that he expressed many positive intentions and motives behind the religion, but also showed how much of that motivation was misplaced. Had Ray wrote in Bergman's manner, likely his books would have been taken as of little account and dismissed by most after a few pages.

  Obviously you find something beneficial to Bergman's writings, and I thank you for posting and sharing the links as well as your thoughts. Personally, I wouldn't recommend his work based on what I have seen.

  I think its both counter-productive to the "cause" and I think it sends people down the wrong path. The path of hate. And ultimately that is why most who post here are here, because they really want to fight the hate. Hence, the minimal support for your links

  Path
• 

  waiting

  Hey AhHah,

  I've read some of Bergman's works before realizing that he was an x-jw. (some months ago.) Naturally, with my background, I was drawn to his work. However, I was drawn to his work as I was aware of the initials behind his name - as a mental health professional.

  After reading some (not all) of his work, I wondered about the black picture he drew of the WTBTS. As the old saying goes: There seemed to be too much anger for the action proposed.

  We had a poster back a while ago with, I think, with the same problem. Something was beneath the surface because the reaction, the anger, did not fit the action, the WTBTS.

  Same with Bergman - then I realized he was an x-jw, and the picture became clearer.

  When I was in therepy for incest, one therepist said that most therepists go through some type of therepy themselves - so that they don't bring in their personal problems overly into the patient's frame of mind. The reason? The professional is supposed to be just that - somewhat objective.

  Bergman doesn't seem to be able to remain objective. When he's writing professional literature, with his initials after his name, or when he's on the witness stand in a court as an expert witness, I believe he should come across as professionally objective.

  As you pointed out, in personal life and correspondence, opinions and anger have much more freedom.

  Ever read the x-jw linguistic therepist on h20? I forget his name. His opinions come across sometimes - and the anger. But normally, he does not post with his initials. When he posts articles on recovering from the WTBTS, normally the anger does not come across.

  Thanks for the links, AhHah, I don't disagree with you (even share my Krispy Kremes?) - I just think Bergman comes off slightly unprofessional. Perhaps he needs a tad more anger therepy, like most of us?

  waiting
• 

  AhHah

  Path,

  I can almost understand your reaction if you have only read the conclusions that I pasted (and subsequently removed from my posts for that very reason). However, I still do not see any evidence of hate, but negativity most definitely. Since the reality is that there is much negative about the JW experience, IMO, there is a real need for the negative information to be made available. Even if his bias and negative opinion make his writings interesting only to ex-JWs then I believe they still have value, after having read his articles. Have you actually read any of them?

  The fact that his training qualifies him to make educated studies of his own experiences as well as the available empirical data, I believe makes them worth some consideration. Also, I have not seen much of a similar perspective available elsewhere.

  Based on your posts I believe that you may be missing the point of his articles and their value. Again, might this be because you haven't read them?

  I think its both counter-productive to the "cause" and I think it sends people down the wrong path. The path of hate. And ultimately that is why most who post here are here, because they really want to fight the hate. Hence, the minimal support for your links

  I don't understand why you equate negative conclusions with a "path of hate". IMO, his writings do not have the earmarks of hate literature. He suggests nothing that I have read that I would consider hateful or reflective of the small-minded bigotry of typical "hate literature".

  If by your quote above, you are suggesting that I personally am advocating hate for the JW org or any of its members, I can assure you that you are mistaken (and I resent the implication). Hate is a very self-destructive and counter-productive emotion. Even justified anger for misrepresentation and injustices endured, should, in my opinion, eventually be replaced by acceptance and one should move on with other positive activities which bring happiness and fulfillment.

  His articles may contain insights for some that have endured negative experiences that will allow them to better understand their effects, and hopefully move on with a productive life.

  What exactly is the motivation for your posts, especially if you haven't read the articles? Is there some specific quote that you found offensive? It was not my intention to offend anyone by posting his conclusions.

  Also, please do not misunderstand my comments on this post to mean that I am necessarily in agreement with all of his conclusions.

  I personally enjoy reading JW relevant research and then drawing my own conclusions. Perhaps others may feel the same way. My only concern here is that you or anyone else might mistake any of my personal comments to be hate-motivated. I assure you that they are not.
• 

  Pathofthorns

  (smiling)

  I randomly clicked on about 3 of the links. I don't think you are at all a hateful person. I just stated my feeling on his writings and you stated yours. Such is the diversity of humanity and of a discussion board. Not everyone will agree with your conclusions, neither will they all agree with mine.

  I believe he is as much qualified as you or I or anyone else for that matter who has been a part of the JW experience to tell his thoughts and experiences. Psychology is not an exact science, and what he states is simply his perspective and his style reflects his own personal experiences and personality. I find him to be no "authority" on the matter. I don't think anyone really can claim to be an "authority" on the human mind.

  His writing probably has some merit. It simply doesn't appeal to me.

  Why not just sit back and let the people here express their views? Perhaps just watch and listen for a while.

  Path
• 

  AhHah

  Path,

  I appreciate the sentiments of your last post.

  However, since I posted this thread, your comments about the articles sending people down the path of hate and being at odds with the reason people post here -- necessarily DOES reflect on me personally. For that reason, I felt compelled to defend my reasons for the post, and my impressions of the articles that I have read, even though I do not enjoy having been put in this position. I hope that I have established some credibility with the readers and the posters on this forum and that my motives are clear to those who have been reading my posts. I would be very disappointed, if by my silence regarding your post, some new reader were to mistakenly conclude that I am hate-motivated. I am glad that wasn't your intention by your post.

  Now that this unpleasant, but necessary business is out of the way, I look forward to doing as you suggested -- listening.
• 

  Xandit

  I've read about everything Bergman has written. His bias is obvious and I've found blatant inaccuracies in some of the things he's written. He's not considered credible by those with much of a leaning toward objectivity. The comparison that has been drawn with Ray Franz is a good one, Bergman is a different kettle of fish.
• 

  waiting

  Hey Xandit,

  Good to see your name. My daughter had C of C years ago. She told me that it was just a disgruntled story (she was df'd at the time - I was active jw) by a former member.

  I read it about 6 mos. ago. I suggested she reread Franz. I told her that his book was, imo, a very "middle of the road" look at the WTBTS's dealings with it's people and God. And for disgruntled, I made him look like a saint.

  Disgruntled? I can't imagine the emotional crush he and his wife had to endure at the hands of the WTBTS. Yet anger (even righteous) doesn't come across in either of his books. He may (should) have anger, but his writings are quite professional, imo, and are shamefully hidden away from the average jw.

  I'm sorry I never had the occasion to hear Ray Franz speak. I think I missed some excellence.

  waiting

  Edited by - waiting on 1 November 2000 11:36:19
• 

  Frenchy

  Ahah
  

  I am a little surprised by your seeming need to quickly dismiss his arguments, especially if (as in Frenchy's case) you have not actually read the basis for his conclusions. What are your motives for doing so?

  
  I don’t have time to read everything. I was under the assumption that your summary was correct and accurate. Am I wrong? As to motive, I disagree with the WTS on many things. That does not mean that I consider them the devil. There are doctrines and organizational procedures with which I do agree. Some people have a difficult time understanding that it would seem.
  

  He also allows for the very likely possibility that persons with mental problems are attracted to join the JW org in the first place -- often because of the acceptance that they cannot find elsewhere.

  My thiry-five plus years of association with the WTS tells me this simply is not so.
  

  Wouldn't you agree that it is helpful for thinking persons to have access to a dissenting opinion -- an opinion that one cannot find in the WT publicatons?

  
  Only if that opinion is accurate. Since he is presenting his opinions as a psychologist it is incumbent upon him to make sure that what he says is accurate and unprejudicial. There is plenty of accurate information that will help a ‘thinking person’ make up his mind on these matters.
  

  Material need not be unbiased to have value. For example, all the posts on this forum are written from the perspective of personal biases.

  
  When you publish as a doctor you have a great responsibility to your readers. No one here is trying to pass himself/herself off here as an authority of that level.
  

  Just because his conclusions are not objective does not necessarily make them invalid (or valid).

  
  Opinions are fine. As long as everyone is aware that it is just that. Why are you so persistent in pushing this man’s opinions? Why did you choose to identify this person as a psychologist if you did not intend for the fact that he has a PhD to lend credence to what he was saying? You again call attention to his credentials in a later reply to waiting. Are his opinions scientific? That is the question that comes up and most posters here seem to feel that the man is not being scientifically objective.
  Personally, I can understand his frustration and his anger. He has a right to express this. But, as a doctor, he does not have the right to present his personal opinions as if they were somehow scientific. He should clearly differentiate between medical and personal opinions. That’s my view of what I have seen, my opinion and the reason for it. I’ m not asking anyone else to share those sentiments and I fully respect everyone’s right to make their own evaluations. I appreciate your zeal in defending yours and thank you for bringing them up on this thread.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  Frenchy

  Hello, Xandit. I echo waiting's sentiments in that it's good to see your name here again.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-