Administrator
Review of Why We Lie: Financial Times (Jun 10)
Why We Lie, by Dorothy Rowe, Fourth Estate RRP£18.99, 384 pages
Review by Hilary Spurling, Published: June 12 2010
Lies, in Dorothy Rowe's book, form the basic coinage of human exchange. She investigates the catastrophic lies elevated to mythological status by the Nazis, and by Joseph Stalin with his army of assiduous western apologists headed by Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. But Rowe is most disturbing when she concentrates on the everyday fibs we all tell, the little white lies defined by Louis Aragon - another French master of the arts of deceit and betrayal - as "the words we put on like gloves, to hide torn hands, for fear of gossip".
Torn hands, and the cover-ups devised to conceal them, constitute Rowe's special subject as a psychologist. In Why We Lie she strips down our inner safety mechanisms with methodical acumen. Nuts and bolts are exposed. Weaknesses, failures and fault lines are traced back to source. Rowe explores the reasons why we need to deny truths too painful to face, and lays bare the dangerous, sometimes devastating consequences for ourselves as well as for others.
Her analysis is gripping, astute and incisive. Parts of this book are hilarious, especially its side swipes at contemporary father figures from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Jeremy Clarkson, "a man unable to entertain any new ideas apart from those relating to cars". Other parts - in particular Rowe's account of the duplicity and evasiveness implanted by parents in children from infancy onwards - make grim and persuasive reading.
Rage, shame, guilt and the terror of disintegration override under stress human intelligence and honesty. This rule-of-thumb is amply borne out by the behaviour of power-brokers from bankers, politicians and government departments to religious believers and the CIA. "I have reached an age where I no longer need to pretend I know everything," writes Rowe, who is 80 this year. Nor is she any longer prepared to put up with the narrow orthodoxies of her own profession. Scientific argument has, she crisply points out, much in common with religious war. Open dissent from entrenched belief puts careers and livings, if not lives, at stake: "Reputations can be ruined, and prestigious jobs and research grants lost."
Psychologists come in for even more scathing treatment than the city financiers whose arrogance, ambition and contempt for truth Rowe dissects. Therapists speak a turgid jargon devised "to exclude and deceive". Their research is too often trivial, their deductions superficial and self-serving, their dogmatism based on "habit and professional laziness". They feel superior to patients perceived as so many clinical symptoms rather than as people whose underlying problems nobody wants to confront. Their unavowed intent, she says, is to ignore and, where possible, suppress "the irresolvable dilemmas and inevitable misery of human life".
No wonder Rowe's colleagues responded uneasily to her first arrival in this country at the end of the 1960s ("they may have discussed together the possibility of getting me deported back to Australia", she remarks). At a time when mental disturbance was routinely treated with drugs and electro-convulsive therapy, Rowe caused consternation by listening to her patients instead.
Her conclusions, laid out in a series of veracious, intelligible and immensely popular books, call in question the concept of mental illness itself. They also effectively subvert the routine practice of prescribing harmful, addictive chemicals to deal with disorders for which "no physical cause ... has been found to exist". This book is an alarming antidote to public and private doublethink, fudge, waffle, PR and the ability to hold two or more contradictory beliefs simultaneously, the cognitive dissonance of our time neatly summed up by Barbara Tuchman: "Don't confuse me with the facts."
Hilary Spurling is author of 'Burying the Bones: Pearl Buck in China' (Profile)
Review of Why We Lie: Evening Standard (May 10)
New truths about why we lie
by Melanie McDonagh, published in the London Evening Standard 19th May 2010
As the new Government discovers its predeccessors were less than honest about the country's finances, new research shows that children as young as two know how to lie. So psychologist Dorothy Rowe couldn't have chosen a more apt time to write a book, Why We Lie, examining why even the most truthful among us tell fibs.
Lying is a subject in which we all have a stake, which is why Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Augustine, Aquinas, Bacon and more moral philosophers than you would care to mention have given serious thought to it, not to mention Oscar Wilde.
So what does Dorothy Rowe have to bring to the party? Well, at 80, this frank Australian brings a wealth of clinical experience as a psychologist for more than 50 years, a prolific author and an authority on depression.
And if her reputation is to be believed she is certainly worth listening to. Fay Weldon describes her as a "seer ... with qualities that place her between sainthood and genius". Nigella Lawson declares that "she is a giver of courage".
Rowe doesn't define lying in the book. She is concerned with the motivations behind telling untruths.
She declares: "I am concerned with why we lie, and the consequences of our lies. We are very foolish indeed if we lie and fail to think about what the consequences will be."
Logically, it might seem impossible to approach the subject of lies without discussing truths — which complicates matters because, according to Rowe, truth is something we construct for ourselves. You tell lies because you want to conform reality to the way you regard yourself and the world.
So, if you tell a white lie to avoid hurting someone's feelings, Rowe says, you're probably shoring up your own gratifying view of yourself as a kind person. You want people to like you so you don't tell them what they don't want to hear. To which Rowe would ask: "Why is it important to you to be liked by other people?" Her answer is that lots of people don't want to upset feelings because "any disturbance can threaten chaos, and chaos is what they fear".
Indeed, her answer to her own question, Why We Lie, is that "every lie we tell, no matter how small and unimportant, is a defence of our sense of being a person". Possibly. But this still leaves the question of whether it's a good thing to spare people's feelings by softening the truth.
What about the doctor who lies to a patient for the patient's own good, which Plato thought was allowable? The Victorians used to agonise endlessly about whether it was right to tell lies or suppress the truth to preserve life; they took the question of truth and untruth far more seriously than we do.
Truth, Rowe says, is subjective, which is itself a subjective view. The older generation of men, she says, "still fear women because the threat is that women always see things differently from men. This is not to say that a woman's point of view is closer to the truth but simply that a woman's point of view is always different from a man's."
Coming from a male psychologist this would be hair-raising sexism; what do we call it coming from liberal Dorothy Rowe? I can think, off the top of my head, of about 100 issues, matters of fact and opinion, on which I would take the contrary view to many women and side instead with men on the other side.
By the end of the book, we are left to reflect that "a truth we all seem to agree on is that we exist and so does our planet...
"If this is perhaps the only truth on which we can agree, then would it not be sensible if we looked after one another and the Earth which is our home?"
Well, you can't argue with that.
Why We Lie by Dorothy Rowe is published by Fourth estate on May 27.
CELEBRITY LIES
"I lied about my age on my CV and to my future husband, saying I was born in 1963 when I was five years older. I wanted my husband to desire me rather than think me an old hag. I wanted to beat younger rivals to the job as a magazine editor. I realised that to lie was stupid and exhausting (I had to hide my passport on holiday), and that if people don't want me for who I am, tough."
Liz Jones, author of The Exmoor Files: How I Lost A Husband And Found Rural Bliss, out now.
"As a DJ, the biggest lie I've told is I love your tune as I'm sent music constantly. I wouldn't want to upset anyone knowing they've put their heart into a track."
Judge Jules, playing at SW4 Festival at Clapham Common on August 28.
"Aged 12, I stole my mum's fake tan and applied it liberally. It turned out well except for an orange smear on my arm, which I covered with a plaster, claiming I'd cut myself. Later, realising there'd be nothing under the plaster when it came off, I made a nick with the bread knife. Days later I was rushed to hospital with blood poisoning and nearly died."
Elizabeth Hurley, Elizabeth Hurley's Guilt Free Snacks available from Selfridges.
Sibling Article: Washington Post Express (May 09)
Roomies? Oh, Brother: Why Some Siblings Are Opting to Live Together
WE STOOD AT the Home Depot paint-mixing counter in an exasperated stalemate, paper samples of "Village Square" and "Toffee Crunch" shades clenched in our fists.
Then she said it. "I ... hate ... you." Her voice was flat and even, as frustration culminated in those three words. Then, to the horror of the salesman helping us, Tracey burst into tears.
Uh-oh. Maybe living with my sister wasn't such an inspired idea.
It was May 2008 and we were two weeks away from moving into the two-bedroom condo we'd bought together in Clarendon. How was I going to survive living with my younger sibling of three and a half years if we couldn't agree on how many gallons of paint we needed for our pad? But the contracts were signed, the mortgage loan ratified — I looked at Tracey and knew there was no turning back.
Of course, if I'd consulted roommate and sibling relationship experts before signing the lease, they would've predicted potential disaster.
"Our relationships with our siblings are very passionate ones," says Dorothy Rowe, a psychologist whose book, "My Dearest Enemy, My Dangerous Friend" ($18, Routledge), focuses on the dynamics of sibling relationships. "We care enormously about what our siblings think of us: their praise, their approval," Rowe says. "At the same time, we're scared of their criticism. If you've grown up together, your sibling knows just what to say to upset you, tease you or really hurt you. It's a very complicated relationship that doesn't get simpler as you get older."
In other words, even at 24 and 28, respectively, Tracey and I can revert back to whining kids.
"You developed a relationship with your sibling from such a young age where you learned to fight in a certain way," says Amy Zalneraitis, author of "Room for Improvement: The Post-College Girl's Guide to Roommate Living" ($14, Simon Spotlight). "You might think you've gotten over it as you've gotten older, but if you put yourself back in a situation that you were in up until you were 18 years old, you'd probably start fighting."
Even worse, the fight fodder has grown exponentially, thanks to adulthood. There are still squabbles over who left the dishes in the sink. But this time, say Rowe and Zalneraitis, there are additional triggers that can range from financial management to learning more than one would ever want to know about a relative's sex life.
This may explain why Bank of America Mortgage vice president and senior loan officer Christian Hartung, who has financed home loans in the D.C., Maryland and Virginia region for the last seven years, isn't seeing many joint home loan applications from siblings.
Another buying pattern has caught his eye, however. "I have seen a lot of friends who have bought property together ... like current roommates who are renting that don't qualify [for a loan] as an individual — they decide this is a great time to buy."
After an extensive search for D.C.-area siblings who lived together, I found just a few pairs. Yet, whereas Tracey and I had bought a place together, these sibs all rented, cautiously opting for temporary situations instead.
Take Chris Shattuck, 32, and his 29-year-old sister Marsy Shattuck. It's impressive that the pair continue to live together after all they've endured over the last few years.
They lost their mother to cancer in 1999 and in 2003 moved their 84-year-old father from their childhood Rockville home to a full-time Alzheimer's care facility in Friendship Heights. They'd inherited a mortgage and a houseful of memories at an age where "responsibility" usually means grappling with car payments. Chris Shattuck lived in Dupont; Marsy Shattuck was in Manhattan. Soon, it became clear that selling the house from afar wasn't going to work.
"We said, 'OK, let's move back there," says Chris Shattuck, a teacher at Rosslyn's Inlingua English Center. "There's no rent, and we can get things settled."
So, in September 2005, they resettled under the same roof they'd lived under until they were 18 — minus Mom and Dad. Well, that's not entirely true. As they sifted through memorabilia and readied the house for sale, the Shattucks realized the parental roles were still being played.
"We'd have an argument and then look at each other and be, like, 'Oh, my god, we just had an argument Mom and Dad would have had,'" says Marsy Shattuck, an interactive Web designer at the Discovery Channel.
There were lots of those fights. "You've heard stories about how dealing with a house or an inheritance breaks up families," says Chris Shattuck. "I know people who are 20 years older than me who are in court with their siblings over this stuff."
A year and half later, in June 2007, they did get something in writing: another lease. This time it was for a Columbia Heights townhouse.
"It was much more than either of us could afford on our own," explains Chris Shattuck. "We said, 'Maybe we can just live together a little while longer.'"
Two years later, things are going swimmingly for the duo and roommate Jessica Blond.
"There have been times when I've wanted to kill them both because they're screaming at each other and I'm in the middle," admits Blond, 29, a management consultant at BDA Global, who has lived with the pair since those first tumultuous days. "I'll think, 'Why do I have to deal with this stress?'"
Before signing on to live with the Shattucks a second time, Blond briefly considered moving into a seven-person house she'd found on Craigslist, but she ended up nixing the idea. "They needed somebody else to be a reason to move," she says, "so, it really wasn't a question. It was three bedrooms. ... I felt like I played a really important part by being able to diffuse situations."
Things were slightly less complicated for Dan and Dominik Heynen.
After growing up in Greenwich, Conn., the 26-year-old identical twins went to separate colleges. Yet when both graduated in 2005 and got consulting gigs at Corporate Executive Board that August, chipping in on a two-bedroom Dupont Circle apartment was a no-brainer.
"He interned the summer before graduating in D.C., and he crashed at my apartment in Georgetown," says Dan Heynen. "We'd [lived together] for 18 years, so I pretty much knew what to expect."
This time, they had the added bonus of not sharing the bunk beds they did as kids. And they discovered plenty of other unexpected perks of living together.
One example is when Dominik Heynen tore his left ACL playing ultimate Frisbee last summer. After knee surgery, he was bedridden for four days before being able to hobble on crutches. "Two days after his surgery, he couldn't really bathe himself," says Dan. "So, I'd help him get into the tub. Stuff you don't think twice about" — but probably not a job for a random roomie.
It also doesn't hurt to have a confidant you've known since, well, birth. "When I'm having a bad day, I can call Chris and say, 'Chris, I need help. I'm struggling,'" says Marsy Shattuck. "He's so good. He's right there.'"
The downside? You have a confidant you've known since, well, basically birth. When it's a sibling, there's less likely to be a guard at the gate if that dirty pile of laundry is grating on your nerves or, says Dominik Heynen, you feel like venting. "You're more willing to talk even if the other person isn't listening. It's like, 'Oh, whatever, he can put up with this. He's not going anywhere; he's my brother.'"
And since you've come from the same background, having too much in common might not be the best for one's personal growth. Dominik Heynen acknowledges it's cool that he and his brother share some interests — both play on the same ultimate Frisbee team — but at times he wonders whether "maybe living with someone else brings in new experiences."
Will this be the case for everyone? It depends, author Rowe says. "There's only one thing you can say about all siblings," she laughs. "There's no one thing you can say about all siblings."
The reason co-habitation works for some and not for others basically boils down to one simple fact: It depends on who you are and where you are in life.
The situation works for Dan and Dominik Heynen because the young Washingtonians had a readily available support system as they began post-collegiate careers. Chris and Marsy Shattuck's move, on the other hand, was precipitated by the pressure of familial responsibility — and being able to support one another in its aftermath.
In the case of Tracey and me, living together was also a conscious choice, but for a different reason. We'd both lived separately in various roommate situations during and after college, but as the housing market continued to drop in January 2008, we realized we had an opportunity to invest in a condo that would have been inconceivable a couple years earlier. This was our chance to have a stylish "grown-up" home of our own. We took it.
That's how we found ourselves at Home Depot on that fateful May afternoon.
It was a split-second after Tracey's tears began that I noticed something peculiar: She was also hysterically laughing. She was still bleary-eyed when she looked at me and smiled. "I really do hate you, you know." This time, her voice was broken by giggles.
"I know," I replied. In those few seconds, the tension between us evaporated. We stood there — in the paint department — cracking up. Customers heading to checkout lines gave us quizzical looks. They'd never get the unspoken joke only two sisters could understand.
That's when I knew moving in with Tracey wasn't such a bad idea.
To this day, I can't remember how much paint we bought.
SAGE SIBLINGS: SHARE FAIR
You're thinking of moving in with a bro or sis (maybe both!). One prerequisite? Well, actually liking each other is key. What else do you need to consider after you've finished squabbling over the larger room? We asked those who have been there for advice.
» Separate Your Stuff
Whether it's laundry or leftover pizza, it doesn't hurt to mark your turf. "We don't do food shopping or anything together. We're pretty territorial about that sort of stuff," says Dan Heynen, who lives with his brother, Dominik. "But we probably were for the first 18 years."
» Go the Distance
Just because you're related and live together doesn't mean you need to be BFFs. "We have our own separate social lives," says Chris Shattuck, who lives with his sister, Marsy. "She might go out and do something and I don't have to talk to her for a couple days to know what's going on. Having that distance can be really good."
» Patience is a Necessary Virtue
Even if it's your bratty bro, manners and respect still matter. "Remember, you're an adult," says Dominik Heynen. "Try not to look for excuses to fight with each other. Be more patient. You might have to be even more patient with someone you know than with someone you don't know."
» Schedule Cleaning Time
Whether you keep up with it or not, at least attempt to share responsibility for your mess. "We try to set some ground rules," says Dan Heynen, "[but] we're not that great at following them. For example, we'll say, 'You're in charge of cleaning up the bathroom on this day, and you're in charge of cleaning the kitchen.' Sometimes it turns into a free-for-all. You clean up after yourself. ... We generally try to watch out for ourselves, and if someone isn't doing it, you point it out."
Photos by Kevin Dietsch for Express
Review of What Should I Believe? Church Times (May 09)
What Should I Believe? Why our beliefs about the nature of death and the purpose of life dominate our lives
(978-0-415-46679-0)
Church Times Bookshop £9
On account of this,
(I would call these meanings "inventions", if only because the word "invention" implies a productive discovery, whereas "fantasy" often connotes the chimerical and capricious.)
Dorothy
Everyone has to face the fact that all die, but no one knows what death actually is. Is it the end of our identity, or a doorway to another life? If death is the end of our identity, we must strive to make this life satisfactory. If it is a doorway to another life, what standards must we reach to go to that life? For many of us, what we were taught about a religion diminished our self-confidence and left us with a constant debilitating feeling of guilt and shame.
Our greatest fear is annihilation — not physical death, necessarily, but annihilation as a person. It is the desire to avoid this that motivates us throughout our lives. For some, religion is the answer, not least because it tends to suggest quite straightforwardly that life carries on after death. Continuation of our existence is what we all desire, religious or not: parents hope their world-view will shape the lives of their children; some take comfort from the fact that their "blood" or "genes" will be around after they have gone. Artists imagine their work will stand as an enduring monument. Ordinary mortals hope they will live on at least in their friends' memories, or in the effects of the good things they have done.
Into this cocktail goes the caste of each person's personality — introvert or extrovert. The author's explanation for religious belief is a question of individual psychology, and cannot be "educated" away.
The questions addressed in this book remind me of
If God is God He is not good,
If God is good He is not God.
Take the even, take the odd,
I would not sleep here if I could,
Except for the little green leaves
in the wood
And the wind on the water.
The drama's expressions of frustration, jealousy, and rage were made to fit into a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethic. It is clear, however, that the evils of religious bigotry can flourish without any belief in the supernatural. Such behaviour-patterns antedate and outlive the beliefs that prompt them.
Someone once said, and I paraphrase, that atheism is the normal outcome of a happy childhood. Not so for
Linda
Published in the Church Times, Issue 7624, 1st May 2009
Review of Wanting Everything. (Apr 09)
I found this a totally liberating book. Rowe begins by showing how our unhappiness is born of the frustration of not getting everything we want, a process which starts as we move on from the newborn state in which all our needs are instantly met. This lack continues to disappoint us throughout life as we continue to make unreasonable demands of life. We then blame life for not giving us what we want, and we become more and more frustrated and bitter. We give the power to an external source - society or the Church, God, parents, or just some abstract power which is beyond us and which we do not even consider we can level with.
She then subtly shows how we can shift the source of power to the centre of ourselves, that power is about defining reality and that we can do this every minute of our lives. With a new perspective we can find new happiness - not just in accepting what we have, although that is a part of it, but in changing what we do not want in our lives. She is big on distinguishing between those things which are really outside of our control and those which we choose to put out of our control. She encourages us to take responsibility for our decisions, thoughts and actions.
It reminds me of a prayer I saw once:
Give me the courage to change the things I can,
the serenity to accept the things I can't,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
This book definitely gave me the courage to change certain things in my life - sarting with my outlook. It has made the world of difference.
Her style is intelligent and engaging, which is a great relief after some of the books I have read recently in this category, which although they may be initially comforting, are really unsound and exploitative - telling you to manifest your own reality by visualising it etc, which in the end, only succeeds in getting people to wish their lives away and buy more self help books.
I have not felt the need to look at any other self-help books since I read this one. Doesn't that say it all?
Heartfelt thanks to Dorothy Rowe!
Review of What Should I Believe? The Guardian (Oct 08)
May your god go with you.
Understanding why people are religious isn't hard, and it has little to do with the existence of God
guardian.co.uk, October 24 2008
David Shariatmadari
At the launch of her new book, psychologist Dorothy Rowe said she intended it to act as a sequel to The God Delusion. Dawkins, she said, had posed the question: "Why do intelligent people believe this garbage?
" In What Should I Believe?, Rowe gives an answer, though with less of a blanket judgment as to the rubbishness or otherwise of the religious outlook. In fact, her explanation could be used to understand any form of belief, Dawkins' included.
She starts from the premise that our greatest fear is annihilation, not physical death, necessarily, but annihilation as a person. It is the desire to avoid this that motivates us throughout our lives. For some, religion is the answer, because it tends to suggest quite straightforwardly that life carries on after death.
But a continuation of our existence is what we all clamour for, religious or not; parents hope their worldview will shape the lives of their children; some take comfort from the fact that their "blood" or "genes" will be around after they've gone. Artists imagine the work will stand as a monument to them. Humbler people hope they'll live on, at least, in their friends' memories or through the effects of the good things they've done.
To live without any hope of projecting one's soul is, Rowe argues, mpossible. Test yourself, if you believe you do. So why be the Pope rather than Picasso? Why choose religion as your balm, rather than some other route to eternal life? According to Rowe's model, that decision is the result of a kind of cost-benefit analysis for the individual - and those costs and benefits can come from absolutely anywhere within the arena of personal experience. And into the mix goes the cast of your personality - introvert or extrovert. Will my father beat me if I'm not devout? Well I had better believe then. Or not, depending on which is worse, giving in to dad or getting hit. Is it easier for me to believe that despite the dead-end job that absorbs all my time I will receive a reward in heaven, or to take the huge material risks involved in pursuing self-expression? Again, it depends. All this presents a bit of an obstacle for those who think that the problem of religion can be "solved". When the explanation for religious belief is a question of individual psychology, there's little room for the argument that it can be educated away. There are always going to be situations where it makes (personal) sense to be a Muslim, Catholic or Hindu.
All this reminds me of Aldous Huxley, and the best book I've ever read on the psychology of religion, the Devils of Loudun. In it Huxley tells thestory of the most notorious mass-possession in French history. A bunch of sexually and emotionally thwarted nuns and some jealous politicians join forces to destroy a liberal, charismatic priest, Urbain Grandier. Along the way, the drives that exist within us all manifest themselves in some particularly bizarre ways.
I say it's a book about the psychology of religion, but we could leave out the religion part. It so happened that at the time of the events at Loudun, society was ordered, nominally at least, along religious lines (in fact it was ordered like any pre-industrial socially conservative society anywhere). So the expressions of frustration, jealousy and rage were made to fit into a religious - in this case, Catholic - framework. Grandier was tortured and burnt at the stake in the name of the Catholic God. But
it would be a mistake to assume that had religion not been there to justify the execution, it wouldn't have happened. Some other justification would, of course, have been found (as Arthur Miller showed by linking witch-paranoia and anti-communism - and before you counter that it wasn't as bad, remember that people were put to death as a result of the red scare). As Huxley puts it: All the evils of religion can flourish without any belief in the supernatural … Such behaviour patterns antedate and outlive the beliefs which, at any given moment, seem to motivate them.
What do Huxley and Rowe's messages have in common? Both say: if you want to know where the trouble lies, look at the person and the reasons they have come to interpret the world in a particular way. Most critics of religion don't - they jump straight to content of the interpretation and become convinced that's the root of whatever disaster has occurred. It is a classic case of barking up the wrong tree.
Book Launch: What Should I Believe? (Oct 08)
London Metropolitan University, in association with Routledge Publishers, hosted the book launch to celebrate the publication of What Should I Believe? Why our Beliefs about the Nature of Death and the Purpose of Life Dominate our Lives by Dorothy Rowe, Honorary Professor, London Metropolitan University.
 |
 |
|
|
Catherine Griffith (Computer Scientist), DR and Tim Lott (Author) |
DR and Hilary Spurling (Biographer) |
|
 |
 |
|
|
DR and Rob Inglis, Actor and Composer |
Jane Priestman, OBE and William, Lord Howie of Troon |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Tim Lott, Adrian Weston of Raft PR and Clare Alexander, DR's agent |
DR and her editor, Joanne Forshaw |
|
 |
 |
|
|
DR and Katharine Grummett from Routledge Publishers. |
DR and her PA, Louise Burgess. |
Photos taken by Angela Inglis.
Ilkley Gazette: Dorothy Rowe is a calm voice in a mad world (Oct 08)
Ilkley Gazette: Published Thursday 23rd October 2008
By Annette McIntyre
She has been listed as one of the six wisest people in the
With a renown that stretches across the world, she has been described as the psychologist who has changed how we understand depression and happiness It's enough to turn anyone's head really, but clinical psychologist Dorothy Rowe comes across as pleasant, polite and incredibly well-balanced.
The author Sue Townsend has described Rowe as "the calm voice of reason in an increasingly mad world" - and after chatting with the psychologist and writer, it is easy to see why.
The Australian, who has lived in
And last week she was in Ilkley to publicise her latest work, What Should I Believe?
Rowe's own early life was not the best start. Her own mother was a depressive, who would tell her young daughter that she was fat, ugly and lazy, before threatening to kill her. She went on to marry a man who cheated on her soon after their son was born and who fathered a child with another woman.
She decided to come to
After making a massive impact on our understanding of depression, Rowe has now turned her attention to religion.
Despite joining the local Methodist church when she was 14 - "because they had boys" - she now does not follow any religion and does not believe in an afterlife. Indeed, she believes religion is now a political issue and that interpretations of religion can be dangerous.
"If you believe that you are a superior person simply because you hold certain beliefs and because you are so superior you are entitled to punish other people, then you cause pain and disaster for other people."
Genius: Australian Press Release (Nov 07)
The psychologist who has changed how we understand depression and happiness
Dorothy Rowe, world-renowned Australian psychologist and writer, has recently been listed as one of the greatest living thinkers of our time.
The list of top 100 living geniuses was compiled by a panel of six experts in creativity and innovation from Creators Synectics, a global consultants firm.
The company emailed 4,000 Britons this summer and asked them to nominate up to 10 living people who they considered geniuses.
Each genius was then awarded scores out of ten against criteria which included: paradigm shifting; popular acclaim; intellectual power; achievement and cultural importance.
Dorothy Rowe is renowned for her work on depression. She has shown how depression is not an illness but an intolerable prison we build for ourselves out of how we see ourselves and our world, and that we can escape this prison by choosing to change the way we interpret our lives.
She has written many books over the years, including Beyond Fear, Friends and Enemies, Dorothy Rowe's Guide to Life, The Real Meaning of Money, Time on our Side, Courage to Live, Successful Self, and Choosing Not Losing.
Dorothy Rowe will be visiting
For further information or to request an interview, please contact Dorothy Rowe at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or visit her website at http://www.dorothyrowe.com.au/
Named as one of 100 Living Geniuses (Oct 07)
PSYCHOLOGIST IS
Australian psychologist, Dr Dorothy Rowe, has been elected as one of the world's 100 Living Geniuses and the Newcastle-born depression expert is the highest placed Australian on the list.
Creators Synectics, a global consultants firm, chose their geniuses by awarding scores out of 10 to each entrant against a number of factors: paradigm shifting; popular acclaim; intellectual power; achievement and cultural importance. Dr Rowe is placed in 72nd position in a list headed by Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web.
Dr Rowe owes her status as a living genius to her radical work on depression, which she started studying long before it was recognized as a global health issue. Her ground-breaking book "Depression: The Way out of your Prison" was the first competent handbook to provide guidance on how to escape the prison of depression. She showed that drugs cannot be the sole solution to depression. Her work now encompasses a wide range of social and psychological issues and how to resolve them. Most recently she has tackled the issue of siblings. Her book 'My Dearest Enemy, My Dangerous Friend' presents a radically new way of thinking about siblings that unites the many apparently contradictory aspects of these complex relationships.
"It is a tremendous honour to be placed amongst such an outstanding group of people who have had such a profound effect on the world," says Dorothy Rowe. "It also represents a clear recognition of the much wider understanding of the importance of psychological issues, how we interpret the world and how this, in turn affects our ability to change things for good - or bad. These range from the enormous health challenge depression presents the world, through to how we understand the challenges of global warming and the changes we must all make to deal with it."
Dorothy Rowe was born in
(ends)
See full article here
(Australian Press Release: Oct 30th 07)