Final Response to J 
To J one more time, I promise:My brother and I have had a good laugh at your latest response, not that your other responses weren't just as laughable. But your latest was the most sweeping and most revealing and therefore the most pathetic. This will, however, be our last effort to have a reasonable discussion with you. We see no reason to continue a conversation with someone who reveals his ignorance and arrogance in almost every sentence. You love Jim Morrison, you love his poetry, you dismiss entirely psychiatry and psychology, we are completely wrong about everything. You're the only one who apparently can KNOW anything. And you think we don't understand you? In the cute way that people who really don't understand a discipline do, you accuse us of psychoanalyzing you. There's no doubt that you do not understand the fields of psychology or psychiatry, and psychoanalysis-they are all very different modes of investigation, not that you would trouble yourself with such distinctions since you already know everything you need to know from the misreadings of Szasz, and Laing. You might try reading pioneers in the field, who really do KNOW something from extensive empirically-based and theoretically well-grounded research. Read John Gunderson's work from Harvard, Otto Kernberg's from Cornell, James Grotstein from Stamford, to name a few. But of course they are all part of the psychobabble industry to you, aren't they. You ask us to stick to what we know best, rather than critique your hero's poetry? You don't appear to impose any restrictions on your statements about psychology and psychiatry. That must be because you think you already KNOW. Right? Wow. Must be comfortable to live in such a fatuous world. Since you don't appear to know anything about serious empirical research in psychiatry, although I'm sure you think you're a quick study, in the absence of that knowledge you don't appear to be in any position to comment on what we can or cannot know. Borderline personality disorder is now one of the most carefully researched, empirically confirmed diagnoses available to us today. And the possibility for moving backward, historically, to look at what we do know about popular figures and legends, although messy and complicated is not IMPOSSIBLE (Should I drop the caps?) and can be very helpful in popularizing such a disorder to the public. Nor is it unethical to do so. Among the reasons we believe so confidently that you are only superficially familiar with these fields rests fundamentally on your citation of Szasz, and Laing, for example, not to mention your wild-eyed claim that one cannot really KNOW anything (your emphasis) about the psychology of other people. Szasz and Laing, the most often misunderstood and at the same time most often cited by those pseudo critics, hostile in the extreme to psychiatry and psychology, would never have made such silly claims that we can never KNOW. You wrote that "the entirely subjective nature of your science," as if there's no such thing as major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders, anxiety and panic disorders, posttraumatic stress disorders, identity disorders, to cite a few. These diagnoses are neither subjective nor unscientific. Your dismissal of them as such reveals such ignorance that we choose not to bother you with more complete accounts of the works of brilliant clinical researchers, especially since you appear to have a comic book view of Szasz and Laing as dismissing those serious folks. And we believe any further conversation with you is both pointless and distasteful. P.S. I am not a therapist, my brother Gerald is, a fact you would have known if you had read our book-not to trouble you with a little thing. This was our last response but we are sure that the hero-worshipper within you will compel you once again to respond.
March 07, 2004 | |
