People in quandaries Book

The first 50 pages suggested, like many books, that clarifying insight would answer restless questions harbored by many of us about "the problems we have in trying to live with ourselves and with each other" (first sentence).

"The ideals of the maladjusted are high in three chief respects. In the first place, they are high in the sense that they are vague. Being vague, they are difficult to recognize; being difficult to recognize, they appear to be elusive. It is the consequent misfortune of the individual whose ideals are vaguely defined that he has no sure way of determining whether or not he has attained them. He maintains, therefore, the disquieting belief that he has failed and he becomes increasingly convinced that his ideals are difficult to reach. Ideals that are difficult to achieve, although it may be primarily because one remains uncertain of whether or not one has achieved them, have the practical effect of high ideals."


IFD disease: idealism to frustration to demoralization (Common among college students! Hahaha)

The "Verbal Cocoon" derives from bad questions, based in either/or, absolutist, "Aristotelian" A/not A questions. Johnson goes on to define what makes a good question (not constituting: should, ought, how, right, wrong, cause why and "is" questions - hard to summarize here), good science, and qualities of behavior observed in verbal communication that show a disconnect between words and specific nature of problem in reality.

For example, speaking about "Content Rigidity," in which one is detached from reality in only being able to converse about specific topics, I enjoyed Johnson's sentence: "It is not merely a mark of 'culture' or a badge of leisure. It is downright healthy, to express and cultivate a wide range of interests." (Pg 254)...."The most highly developed verbal specialists in the world are to be found in the insane asylums"

Or, about the semantic disconnect of "Evaluational Rigidity," in which chronic pessimists and perennial Pollyanas project unconsciously, and to extraordinary degrees the same overall opinion regardless of the specifics of the circumstance, he writes, "We see as it were through verbal filters" (Pg 261)

One must ask, "What sort of observations, or reported observations, would serve to answer [such and such:] a question?"

The second half of the book is largely outdated science, giving a point of comparison of "normal" by contrast with extreme cases of maladjustment found in psychoses and pyschoneuroses. Overall, the practical application of Johnson's semantics gave less than the theory initially bode. It also didn't seem to hold itself to the scientific standards he had proposed. Well, I'd recommend the first 80 or so pages.