Psychology - Articles: Mental health of Jehovah's Witnesses

by AndersonsInfo 19 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  The author of the original article is not particularly neutral from the start off, is he - he is not exactly on Jung's side, it seems he is more is a firm supporter of the Marxist view of religion as opium for the people. But that put aside, and the findings are as they are - just a question: I remember a discussion of this article around 1980, and there were some psychiatrists - among whom a priest (!) - that critizised the study and stated it was poor from a methodology point of view. That it was flawed. I do not remember the particulars, but remember there were some discussions about it. And it was also stated that the JWs in Western Australia were not respresentable of Australian JWs as a whole, because the young male JWs refusing military service were sent to isolated outposts or prisons in Western Australia and so suffered isolation for a longer period, resulting in mental problems. I repeat I am not trying to say the results tell something dofferent from what they do - but it sould have been interesting to see the tabulations or figures broken down by age and sex, and if the younger male group was predominant, the isolation because of imprisonment would be a contributing factor. That point of view, as I recall, was the major point of critisim against the study.

  Such a long time has elapsed sice the 70s that it probably is far-fetched to believe anyone else has a slight recollection of this, but there might be an oldtimer or two remembering it ................

  I was around in the 70s and do not recall the above. Specifically I am unaware of any reputable source that has suggested John Spencer other than neutral on his subject as though he held some conflict of interest.

  On the other hand, the original article by John Spencer has gotten quite a bit of traction over the years from other reviews of mental health in relation to religion. When I have time I’ll publish some of this. Spencer is not alone in finding a correlation between mental disease and religions like the one constructed by Watchtower.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  Glander

  Where do YOU belong on the continuum compared to a devout JW. Throw in a notch for Catholics and Muslims

  Crazy, must have assistance to survive---------I------------I-----------I-----------I----------I----------I----------In perfect balance of mind and body
• 

  FlierMate

  I am a schizophrenic back in 1999, but the other way round. Two witnesses walked from home to home, I accepted their literature, and few weeks later, a Bible teacher came and visited my home. During the conversation, he suspected I had some forms of mental disorder. I was later diagnozed as Schizophrenia (and recently corrected to Schizoaffective Disorder). Nine months later, I was baptized.
• 

  slimboyfat

  The Spencer article was notoriously biased against the Witnesses. Even Penton was somewhat scathing about it.

  Over the years many have expressed their own experiences and view that JWs seems to have a problem with mental illness, and that impression may be correct, but unfortunately there is not enough scientific data to draw firm conclusions. Not least because the Watchtower Society strongly resists any attempts by outside scholars to gather empirical data on the membership.

  I remember reading somewhere that the Society conducted an internal investigation of the extent of mental illness round about the late 1980s or early 1990s, and that their stance on Witnesses seeking professional psychiatric help softened as a result, but I can't remember now where I read that.
• 

  Earnest

  In Spencer's article his case is based on the admittance of 50 JWs to the West Australian Health Service Psychiatric Hospitals in a 3-year period in the early 70s. However, he then goes on to say that "the admission rate for paranoid schizophrenia appears to be higher in Western Australia than in a comparable English area". So it is difficult to see how these findings can be extrapolated to apply to Jehovah's Witnesses as a whole.

  Further, he says that the figures are statistically significant at the .001 level by X 2 (chi square) test, which basically means they could not happen by chance. I fail to see how any statistics based on 50 people and applied to several million can be statistically significant.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “The Spencer article was notoriously biased against the Witnesses. Even Penton was somewhat scathing about it.”

  Slimboyfat,

  I’m aware of Penton’s view of the Spencer article. A couple years ago I learned from Penton that he was under a misimpression of Spencer’s article. Specifically Penton was misunderstood the article as based on the number of patients professing themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses when in fact the number is based on those professing themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses who are active members in the religion.[1] When I pointed this out to Penton his response was something along the lines of ‘I’ll have to review the article again’. Since then it seems he’s went out of his way to avoid interacting with me. It’s almost as though I’m shunned. Maybe it’s just my imagination. But that was the point at which Penton ceased responding to me directly on any subject.

  But getting back to the Spencer article, why do you say it was “notoriously biased against the Witnesses”. I’ve read the article many times and find no hint of bias. Also, since publication of his article many well respected authorities on the subject of mental health have read and cited Spencer’s article as authoritative. And, to be sure, in the genre of “respected authorities” I surely do not include writers with known bias regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, such as Jerry Bergman (including his authorship as “Havor Montague”).

  So why do you say Spencer’s article was notoriously biased against the Witnesses?

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

  _____________

  References:

  1. See Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mental Health available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/05/jehovahs-witnesses-and-mental-health.html
• 

  slimboyfat

  Sociologist James Beckford wrote a short note in response to Spencer that is well worth checking out. He is very damning of Spencer's methodology and approach.

  Beckford J.A. (1975) ‘Correspondence. Psychiatry and Sectarians’. British Journal of Psychiatry, 127: 414

  Describing Jehovah's Witnesses as an "extreme religious sect" and "discourteous" and Russell as having "doubtful integrity" doesn't set up the Spencer article as terribly objective.

  Although the article states the who were counted were "reported to be active members", it is not clear that this definition corresponds to the JW practice of counting only publishers who submit reports.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Slimboyfat,

  Thanks for your feedback.

  I have read Beckford’s remarks in the 1975 article you cite.

  Beckford begins by expressing three errors of fact made by Spencer. It does not appear to me that Beckford communicated at all with Spencer regarding those comments. In each instance there is support for what Spencer wrote, and what Beckford wrote. This leads me to believe that, for whatever reason, Beckford wrote somewhat of a diatribe.

  Beckford then moves on to what he terms two methodological shortcomings of Spencer’s presentation.

  Of the first, Beckford claims Spencer never questioned the reliability of the process whereby hospital staff attributed membership to the JWs in Spencer’s article. But Beckford never suggests how he would know this. This lack of information is, apparently, what Beckford complains of Spencer. Yet Beckford has the same lack of information by not saying just how he knew what he wrote was true. That is, if what Beckford wrote was true!

  Of the second, Beckford points out that a schizophrenic's self-reported religious status cannot be taken at face value. But, who says Spencer did this? Beckford? Who? Other than Beckford suggesting as he did, there is no evidence Spencer made this blunder.

  Other than Beckford no one else has suggested Spencer made methodological mistakes suggested by Beckford. This includes the hospital that was the main focus of the study. And, it includes two named individuals credited by Spencer who had every reason to complain in print had Spencer done as claimed by Beckford.

  In the end, Beckford’s complaints are a bit suspect. It also comes across as though Beckford thinks Spencer has infringed on his space. I don’t understand why Beckford made the accusations he made without sharing the slightest bit of evidence to support his claims. To me, Beckford’s article is preposterous.

  I do not think it a signal of bias that Spencer refers to JWs as an extremists. They are. Spencer shared the commonly held view, which as it turns out is earned and easily demonstrated.

  I do not find any place where Spencer suggested JWs are discourteous. Can you clarify this for me. Where did Spencer say this?

  As for Russell proving to be a man of doubtful integrity, why do you think this a biased thing to say of the man tagged as having started the religion? Russell predicted Armageddon would culminate in 1914. Russell shifted his wealth to the Watchtower corporation to shield it from his wife’s reach during divorce proceedings, an action that at least one judge severely castigated Russell for. Need I go on? For a man who’d be tagged as THE Laodicean Messenger, Russell had quite a reputation otherwise.

  Are you aware the many academics who’ve used Spencer’s findings as authoritative?

  Are you aware of more contemporary articles addressing the higher instance of certain psychiatric disorders among extreme religious groups, including JWS?

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  Even psychologists are not inmune to cognitive dissonance, the irony lol. Criticism is important, also the background of the person who created the critic, for example Hassan only speaks about cognitive dissonance (directly from Festingers material) in his second book and little mentioned about it (2 pages), at the end he wrote:

  "Of course, cognitive dissonance theory is a gross simplification of a highly complex phenomenon. I am sure tha in the future, there will be even better scientific theories to help explain this phenomenon"

  Aronson gives a more updated version of dissonance and he describes it as a simplistic theory at first glance but paves the way to many complex methods of studying dissonance.

  Now why did Hassan use the word "gross" and a little touch of wishfull thinking? Could it be that Hassan does not have a problem of young defenceless baby boys having their penis foreskin mutilated? Could it be his religious views? What are the reasons that religions are only considered destructive cults when they meet all five elements of the B.I.T.E. model and not just one of them? ;)

  Never stop asking questions.

  What has this to do with critical analysis? Almost nothing but its good to keep cognitive dissonance theory in mind
• 

  discreetslave

  The link below is to an article titled "Psychopath's in Sheeps Clothing" and this describes the way the WT operates as well as many of the rank and file

  http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopaths_in_sheeps_clothing.htm

  There are two basic types of aggression: overt-aggression and covert-aggression. When you're determined to have something and you're open, direct and obvious in your manner of fighting, your behavior is best labeled overtly aggressive. When you're out to "win," dominate or control, but are subtle, underhanded or deceptive enough to hide your true intentions, your behavior is most appropriately labeled covertly aggressive. Now, avoiding any overt display of aggression while simultaneously intimidating others into giving you what you want is a powerfully manipulative maneuver. That's why covert-aggression is most often the vehicle for interpersonal manipulation.