Talk:John Bradshaw (author)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Isn't it supposed to be called theologist? Mgm|^(talk) 15:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 "theologian"? 2 POV/bias 3 pop psychology 4 POV 5 " Self-identified theologian"? 6 Pre PBS John Bradshaw 7 Simpsons

[edit] "theologian"?

Where is the evidence that John Bradshaw is a theologian? I recognize he often refers to himself as a theologian but promoting ones self as a theologian does not does not make one a theologian. For instance claiming I am a rocket scientist does not make me a rocket scientist. And having a divinity degree does not make one a theologian.

Has he published books on theology? Has Bradshaw been published any theology articles in any theological journals? The leaders of pop psychology movements often embellish their contribution to various fields to bolster their credentials. Unless we can find evidence to the contrary, this would appear to be such a case. He could probably more accurately be described as a pop-psychology guru or pop-psychology advocate. If anyone is working on this article I'd like to get their opinion (and especially evidence of Bradshaw's contribution to the field of theology) before I remove the "theologian" description. Mr Christopher 17:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV/bias

I just tried to remove some of the glaring POV in this article. This is supposed to be an article about John Bradshaw and not a pamphlet promoting John Bradshaw yet the article read just the opposite in places. It could probably use some more fine tuning Mr Christopher 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

He currently seems to be working at the Meadows if anyone is interested in mentioning it. He's a licensed counselor and lecturer. I don't know why he is described as a theologian. --DanielCD 18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good info and point. I saw that the Meadows also calls Bradshaw a theologian, but again other than self-promotion where is the evidence he is a theologian? If we are going to call him a licensed counselor I think we should include what specific counseling discipline he has a license for. For instance is he a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, a Marriage Family Child Counselor, a licensed psychologist, etc? I think asnwering who gave him what license should be answered prior to calling him a licensed counselor. Mr Christopher 18:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, just a matter of looking it up. If I find the time today I'll try to look at it. --DanielCD 19:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for the 12 step wiki link help :-) I thought I was losing my mind. And yeah if we can identify what license he may have that would certainly be good info for the article. Mr Christopher 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of work to remove the POV-like language. His ideas are not all completely dismissable, and he has done a great deal to bring awareness of some valid ideas in psychology. The article seems to make like eveything he did was bunk. "Wounded inner child" is tacky and pop, but that's only one small aspect of his larger work. What about family systems theory? Need to mention that, as they is his lynchpin. --DanielCD 14:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, after formulating a theory about the effects of childhood events on adult behavior, he devoted himself to advocating this theory, describing it as championing the concept of "reclaiming" the self through a process of making changes one step at a time.

I'm not sure about this. Funny wording? I don't think he made any theories. This sentence is uncited, so I removed it as highly questionable. This whole article needs a re-write. --DanielCD 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that sentence is the result of my bungled attempt to remove the previous POV in it. I am not attached to it in any way. Mr Christopher

If anyone chooses to check out his CV which is available online at the Center For Creative Growth website it is obvious how/why he can be called a theologian. Shaynes2006 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)shaynes2006

[edit] pop psychology

Daniel, I feel strongly that the term "pop psychology" belongs in this article. Not enough to make a big deal out of it but here are my reasons. Bradshaw, like most recovery/pop psychology writers is a self proclaimed expert. Bradshaw has never contributed anything to thre field of clinical psychology. He has never been published in any peer reviewed psychology journals, he has never offered any data to support his claims and theories. His work has never been subject to any kind of peer review or peer analysis. His theories are not taught in psychology classes. There are no clinical diagnosis for any of the things Bradsahw calls "diseases" (or "dis-ease" as Bradshaw describes them) or conditions. Bradshaw is not synonmyous with an Albert Ellis or Abraham Maslow.

And as an example, Bradshaw's latest book is called something like "Post Stress Romantic Syndrome" well that certainly sounds like psychology but again this "syndrome" is simply a make up term (diagnosis?) for which Bradshaw outlines a solution in his book. Other than Bradshaw's imagination, there is nothing in the field of psychology know as post stress romantic syndrome. This is another reason why I think Bradhsaw's contributions should be considered pop psychology. Pop psychology fad(s) even. For example there was a time when codependency was all the rage, We seldom hear about it nowadays nor is the inner child thing very prominant anymore. The concept of "toxic shame" hit its peak a decade ago. These are all concepts that exist only within the recovery and pop psychology movement. Once the pop psychology popularity fades a new book and "concept" is introduced. These "concepts" are not the result of testing or observations, or data analysis, they come from people like Bradshaw's imagination. Post Romantic Stress Syndrom is not a legitimate psychological concept, it is a make up term with make up symptoms and a make up solution. Generally these symptoms are so utterly vaugue that most anyone can be diagnosed with them (thus anyone should buy the book).

Pop psychologists tend to be self described experts whose work and theories are not the result of peer review and lack a testable hypothesis and their proponents are typically self proclaimed experts. Melody Beattie is a perfect example. One day she is an unemployed mother of two who is a member of a 12 step group. The next day she is a leading "expert" on a make up concept called "codependency." The primary difference in Melody Beattie and Bradshaw is Bradshaw has a couple of degrees.

Pop psychology is variable - Bradshaw wrote numerous books on healthy family and then he divorced his wife (for a younger stewardess) and then wrote a book on healthy divorce. So his theories tend to center around what he's doing at the moment and not the result of testing or observation a real hypothesis. These pop psychologists make up concepts and sell the solutions. Their work is never subject to peer review and they never provide any actual testable theory. They simply make stuff up. Obviously their ideas make a lot of people feel better and there is nothing wrong or bad about this, it is simply to be distinguished from mainstream psychology which is rooted more in scientific and testable notions versus feel good fads couched in clinical jargon.

There is no debate that Bradshaw is popular and his ideas, no matter how unscientific they are, enjoy the same popularity. And there is nothing wrong or sinister about being a prominant pop psychology leader and selling books is not a crime. But Bradshaw is about book sales and not about making a contribution to the field of psychology. If he wanted to (also)contribute to the field of psychology he'd be submitting papers to peer reviewed psychological journals where his ideas would be tested and scrutinized and attempts to replicate his findings would be made. But that is not where Bradshaw's interest lie. He is a book and lecture seller. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. I think it is important that the article reflect these realities in a NPOV manner.

The article looked like a pamphlet for Bradshaw when I first dropped by here. Lots of hype I thought. And I have concerns about the theologian description (I know you are not defending that, I am just making the same point) Where is the evidence (other than his own self promotion) that suggests Bradshaw is a theologian? I cannot find any articles he has had published in any theology journals or theology books. I know of no actual theologians who have quoted or cited Bradshaw. I think the article should say that Bradshaw describes himself as a theologian versus Wiki making that same unsubstantiated claim. Anyhow,what's your take on my rambling? :-) Mr Christopher 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to be sure it doesn't go too far the other way either. There is unquestioably a lot of pop-psychology here, and I'm not meaning to remove that. But I think one can contribute to psychology by teaching as well as by doing research. Many of his ideas are pop to the point of nausea, like the inner child and romantic syndrome stuff. But family systems theory has a lot of validity, and there is research on this (though not by him).

I know he's not a contributor to psychology, and I don't think that's implied anywhere. If anything, I think I removed one idea about him theorizing above. But I don't think we can go so far to say he's just out to sell books. He's never called himself an expert on anything, as far as I can see. He talks, people listen, and he has a passion for spreading these ideas. Inner child wasn't so nausiating when he first came up with it (though it is now!).

I agree with you. Let's find a compromise that speaks of pop-psychology, but doesn't make out like he's a complete clown either. Many of his ideas are old and silly-looking now, but were not so silly ten-twenty years ago. And I agree that he is in no way akin to Maslow and the others, and in no way should be made to seem so.

So yes, he's pop. But he is also largely well-intentioned in his efforts. 12-steps made him an evangelist for that movement because it had a powerful effect on him. He genuinely wanted to get the message out, but got caught up in the goopyness of the pop-psy market. Later in his career he became a bit more (perhaps too) goopy. I just want a balance. And as I said before, I have no idea what the terms theology and theologian are doing here, let's just get rid of it. --DanielCD 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally these symptoms are so utterly vaugue that most anyone can be diagnosed with them (thus anyone should buy the book).

I agree with that.

You might even give "pop-psychology" its own section and discuss some of these ideas.--DanielCD 16:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't know what "codependency" means. I think this word is dying out as it is so poorly defined. The self help article needs more mention of pop psychology as well. --DanielCD 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also: you may know more than me. He started out well-intentioned, but I lost interest in him when the "lists" of crap books started appearing. I read your older comment and didn't see the new one 'till now, so I'll re-read it. --DanielCD 16:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And I certainly don't want to imply that the fact he is a pop psychologist means he is acting on bad faith or has bad intentions. I do not feel that way. I think we should somehow mention he is a leader within the pop psychology and recovery movement in the opening paragraph. And because there are other John Bradshaw wiki articles we have to differentiate him from the others. "Theologian" is what he is called now, what do you propose we use as a substitute? "Author"? "Lecturer"? Mr Christopher 17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Author would probably be best. I didn't mean to get into this so deep. He became a "leader" because he was a powerful speaker and others with crazy ideas latched onto his boat and got him to endorse all their ideas. Amend it as you see fit; I certainly trust your judgement. (But please don't use the word "guru", if for nothing else than to save my ears from bleeding.) :). --DanielCD 17:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Move complete. --DanielCD 17:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I reworked some of the opening paragraph. I removed the word "extreemly" because it seem, well, extreem :-) I also removed the 1990s reference because he is still doing what he did then, just on a smaller scale. Also this sentence:

"and many of the ideas presented in his works are now considered highly questionable.

Might seem somewhat POV without some clarification. I'm going to think on it some and see what I can come up with, but I think the new references to pop psychology are good and NPOV. Mr Christopher 17:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I figured that sentence would need to be amended, but I threw it in anyway as a stop-gap until we could come up with something better. Article's looking good to me: at least the best that can be done without doing more research and adding more detail. But looks good for this level of detail. I'll try to tweak that sentence. --DanielCD 21:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts on the matter. I have added the sentence that he self-identifies as a Theologian (I didn't want to use the phrase "claims to be a Theologian" as that makes it seem that somebody is questioning his credentials - I can't find any evidence of that) - Also this sentence "Many of the ideas presented in his works have been challenged by mainstream, academic psychology" was crying out to be veirifed so I sourced it - I'm only partly happy with this source and will try and find a better one - thoughts, anybody ? No Guru 17:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

DanielCD, I think this is too strongly worded. I guess you think so, too, unless you've already taken down a notch. --FloNight ^talk 08:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm just not up to competing over it right now. Being burnt at both ends. I just don't want to see him get trashed too much cause he's a good man. Any help appreciated. Many of the ideas in the books are dated, but at the time they may have turned out to be good ideas. I said highly questionable just until we could come up with something else. Even then, it would need to be cited. Family systems theory and other ideas though are still valid. I'll have to do some thinking. I'm trying to stick to simple stuff until I get over this cold I have (and till this F-ing semester ends. Classes are killing me).

--DanielCD 14:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Y'all, when we talk about POV it would be helpful if something more specific than "this is POV" were given. All I see in this artricle that is questionable is the one sentence that Daniel recognizes needs some fine tuning. There may be other parts that are POV that I am overlooking. So being specific will greatly help my efforts and I'm sure others will benefit as well. FloNight, could you shed some light on some specifics in the article, and feel free to make a contribution to the article while you're here :-) Mr Christopher 14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand completely; I often say the same thing to others. I would defer to Flo as to what she is seeing. I think it's passable as it is, other than that one sentence. Until someone wants to do some real research, I think it'll work for the time being. I think that the discussion at this article is going into overkill for now. --DanielCD 14:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

DanielCD and Mr Christopher, it was that one sentence and MAYBE the way pop-psychology is used. I'm not going to elaborate because you both know what I mean. One of us needs to fix it by re-wording that sentence. I know you are busy so I'll be glad to do it or Mr Christopher can. FloNight ^talk 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few resources that relate (equate?) John Bradshaw and pop psychology. When I get a little time I will add some of those cites and keep an eye on how it is portrayed in the article. I'll let Daniel work on that one sentence but I am not sure if it is even needed. And there are a few resources that say pretty much the same thing that one sentence implies. I might substitute a credible outside source for Daniel's sentence. This seems to be the theme of my life this week, a lack of cites and a lack of time. I need to work on both! Mr Christopher 20:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

ps: Do not wait on me to fix it though, if you have a fix by all means impliment it. Mr Christopher 20:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My thinking: First, some people still like and support his work. It is not highly questionable to them. Their pov needs to be addressed if this wording stays. As the rest of the article shows, he is not a kook. If he did something to discredit his work, the article needs to say so. If not the wording is too strong. I see it more a matter of time marching on. In with the new, out with the old. Second, pop-psychology is often used as a derogatory term. Popular psychology has more legitimate usage in an academic sense. (Even that term is somewhat derogatory.) We need to consider all the meaning of the word when we use it. I think we can use other words and say the same thing. Remember, WP:BLP urges editors to choose the least harmful route to get the point across if we can be true to the the meaning. FloNight ^talk 21:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I added my try at a temp fix. Need to read more about him to get better perspective. --FloNight ^talk 21:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say it was all highly questionable. I knew Flo would come in and fix it anyway (lol). not really. Perhaps I made a boo boo. Sowwy. --DanielCD 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Flo I hear what you are saying about pop psychology and popular psychology yet I don't think we should be overly sensitive to the use of those terms. Here's why - the simplest way for one who proposes new theories in behaviour, psychology and mental health to avoid the impression that their ideas are more pop psychology than the result of psychological research and tested hypothesis is for them to actually present those theories to mainstream, peer reviewed psychological journals and publications where those theories (and data if any) are subject to peer review, testing, and critical analysis. I have yet to find any evidence that Bradshaw has ever made any such attempts (or values that process and scrutiny of his own ideas).

And many professionals have taken Bradshaw's untested (and unsupported) claims to task (which I think should be included in this article in a typical "criticisms" section). In fact he has gone on record saying that many his critics are simply jealous of his success or they basically just don't get it. I'll see if I can dig up some of his responses to criticism as well. This doesn't make him a bad guy, or mean his ideas are not worthy or popular (or helpful), it just means his ideas fall outside the scope of scientific rigor and he has apparantly never made any attempts to change that. I think that is one of the hallmarks of what constitutes pop psychology. Having said that I think we are now using the popular psychology description in this article in a NPOV manner. What's your take on the current version of the article? Mr Christopher 16:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. If we only accepted knowledge generated purely by research, we would know next to nothing about anything. But if this is going to get into an epistemological discussion, I don't want any part of that. Just because someone hasn't done research doesn't mean they are clueless. --DanielCD 21:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll stay practical. Most clinical practitioners use a mixture of scientific, peer-reviewed plus non-research methods in their practice. You would be quite surprised by the number of treatments that have never been tested yet are accepted in clinical practice. Staying practical, I remind that he never had a problem getting a licence to practice (most states have these requirements for everyone that does counseling and rehab) or meeting credentialing requirements. Being a tad epistemological, remember that there is a differnce between research case definitions and clinical diagnosis. Let's even throw in self diagnosis. They all have their place in the scheme of things. --FloNight ^talk 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The article looks good now. We need to be careful about introducing controversy into the article. I don't think there much controversy. FloNight ^talk 22:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Colleagues, if my statements suggest I think Bradshaw is clueless than I am guilty of doing a bad job of articulating my position. That would not be a shocker. Rather than restate my position can I just say I like the current article as it is concerning this subject? Mr Christopher 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm clueless thie week. Just ignore me for now. --DanielCD 00:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] " Self-identified theologian"?

The source that was removed may not explicitly state that he self identifies as a theologian but almost any promotional web page that carries information about him refers to him as a Theologian [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. So no, none of those pages contain the phrase "I John Bradshaw self-identify as a Theologian" but he allows all of his marketing material to refer to him that way so how could he not be seen to self identify as one ? I find it difficult to imagine that he never reviewed and approved any of his promotional material. No Guru 16:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the statement. --DanielCD 16:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

He asserts that he is a Theolgian. Other people (interviewers, reviewiers, etc) refer to him as such [11] [12] [13] so I think not including some reference to it is a dis-service to the article. No Guru 16:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that wording is better. --DanielCD 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. No Guru 16:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre PBS John Bradshaw

As amazing as it might seem, Bradshaw was once a humble counselor with a typical private practice in Houston, Texas. Finding information about that era (pre PBS) has been an empty well for me so far. From original research I know he was a counselor with a masters in psychology who blended Ericksonian hypnotherapy with NLP (and A.A./12 steps) as his primary counseling approach. I cannot find anything to support this (other than positive remarks regarding Erickson/NLP and of course A.A. as a theraputic approach) but if anyone else comes accross something about his ealier years it might be noteworthy. He had been counseling people a very long time prior to his best selling author and lecturer status. And if anyone comes accross any licensing info (such as an LCSW, MFC, etc) that would probably make sense too. I am under the impression he has never had any sort of license but I think he was certified in NLP and maybe a few other disiplines. None of this is a big deal, but it might be noteworthy if anyone stumbles upon something that sheds some light on his earlier history. Mr Christopher 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons

Hi there. Do others agree with Christopher's decision to remove the reference to John Bradshaw as the inspiration for the "John Goodman" character on the classic Simpsons? I thought it was noteworthy, at least as an aside, though perhaps I should have listed it under trivia. I watched the PBS series and read the book Healing the Shame that Binds You and the Goodman character (voiced by Albert Brooks) is bang on. Just curious, Shawn Goldwater, Montreal.

I think it would need a reference and a bit more elaboration as to its importance. --DanielCD 17:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I had included a citation. Regarding importance, I figured that the Simpsons appearance was a testament to his prominence in pop culture (though the honour of being on the Simpsons has, I grant you, diminished greatly since then). Anyway, disregard if you think it's too trivial. Shawn in Montreal 20:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't helped my case by getting the character's name wrong. It wasn't John Goodman it was Brad Goodman! I'll show myself out now... Shawn in Montreal 20:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)