SW appointed as President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

[leela]

I suggest a name change to Royal College of Psychotics.

 

[Sidereal]

 

[SOC]

I listened to the audio of one of his presentations, and he is very charismatic. It's pretty creepy, if you've read some of the nasty things he's said.

Hitler also had some weird kind of charisma that's hard to imagine looking at him or knowing what he did. The video of him giving speeches and the audience response is really creepy.

Some people have the ability to lead people by the nose with the way they present their arguments. When you listen in a calm quiet situation, or read the words without the delivery, you can see the logical flaws and manipulation, but it seems that when such people present to a large group, they manage to take everybody for a ride. It looks like SW has that same talent.

I find it sickening, but many people seem to love being addressed by these emotional manipulators. And to give them crowns, titles, and lots of money.

 

[biophile]

They chose a good representative for the psychiatric establishment. A fitting post after a life of service. Think of everything good and bad about the profession, and you will probably find that in Wessely in a similar proportion of what exists.

Psychiatry is based on a bulk of mediocre and poor science, evidence often promoted beyond its worth, with some good research, some hard day to day work dealing with the pragmatics of mental health issues, well meaning intentions potentially causing harm in the face of ignorance, careers built on fads or paradigms that get largely discredited in the fullness of time, occasional questionable sectioning, unsupported hypotheses passing as matters of fact, spin and political maneuvering etc.

 

[Sean]

Always said that Wessely's main talent is for political manipulation and propaganda, in particular for priming (i.e. prejudicing) a debate.

So, in a perverse kind of way, it is the ideal job for him.

 

[maryb]

and is a sociopathic psychologist a psychopath?

In his case definitely.......
it makes me laugh all of us well educated, professional people resorting to name calling
Well I hold him partly responsible for ruining my life so I think its okay in this instance.

 

[Roy S]

from the Lady Mar correspondence with Wessely, 2012
　
"I think you need to understand that this encounter left a rather enduring and nasty taste in my mouth, not least because I had to buy my own lunch when you had invited me to lunch. Neither was I impressed by your deviousness in response to straightforward questions. This caused me to look more deeply into what you were doing and into your associations, most of which are now public knowledge. This, in part, helps to explain why I have reason to criticise some of your work."
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Lady-Mar-to-Simon-Wessely.htm
　
　

 

[MeSci]

In his case definitely.......
it makes me laugh all of us well educated, professional people resorting to name calling
Well I hold him partly responsible for ruining my life so I think its okay in this instance.

Who says I was name-calling by using the word psychopath, although with a pun? Have a read of this. It's a link from the previous page I linked to.

And here is another, referring to the terms sociopath and psychopath meaning essentially the same thing:

First a bit of terminological history, to clear up any confusion about the meanings of “sociopath,” “psychopath,” and related terms. In the early 1800s, doctors who worked with mental patients began to notice that some of their patients who appeared outwardly normal had what they termed a “moral depravity” or “moral insanity,” in that they seemed to possess no sense of ethics or of the rights of other people. The term “psychopath” was first applied to these people around 1900. The term was changed to “sociopath” in the 1930s to emphasize the damage they do to society. Currently researchers have returned to using the term “psychopath.” Some of them use that term to refer to a more serious disorder, linked to genetic traits, producing more dangerous individuals, while continuing to use “sociopath” to refer to less dangerous people who are seen more as products of their environment, including their upbringing. Other researchers make a distinction between “primary psychopaths,” who are thought to be genetically caused, and “secondary psychopaths,” seen as more a product of their environments.

 

[Roy S]

This is a previous thread here for anyone who needs more convincing that Simon is not a saint. I think Dr. Cook would agree since she got fired.

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...ons-of-threats-issued-by-simon-wessely.11631/

 

[Hell...Hath...No...Fury..]

SOC took the words out of my mouth. Everything used to describe that man reminds me of the descriptions used for hitler. Gives me a chill.

 

[Roy S]

Google produced this about psychopathy (antisocial personality disorder) and the archetypal psychopath Adolf Hitler. With all the speculation on what made Hitler so good at what he did, this is one that I have never seen. It is known that psychopaths can learn to be extremely manipulative by receiving psychotherapy and/or learning psychotherapeutic techniques. One might have thought Simon would be interested in young Churchill.
　
»Historians agree that the Hitler who came back from the Great War was a very different creature from the one who joined up – but why? Using an intriguing blend of historical scholarship and poetic licence Claus Hant suggests that the origins of Hitler’s diabolical mission and character lie in his treatment for a hysterical condition in Pasewalk Military Hospital at the end of the war. Hant constructs a circumstantial but plausible case to explain how an incompetent, irritating Austrian down and out was transformed into a charismatic leader who believed he was touched by providence.«



By Simon Wessely

http://www.younghitler.com/Simon_Wessely.htm

 

[Hell...Hath...No...Fury..]

Charismatic, manipulative monsters creating charismatic, manipulative monsters. The wessley school of manufacturing... Think we could all do with a class or two of this to deal with the cards we've been dealt! Shame the classes would probably kill us

 

[MeSci]

This is a previous thread here for anyone who needs more convincing that Simon is not a saint. I think Dr. Cook would agree since she got fired.

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...ons-of-threats-issued-by-simon-wessely.11631/

You have to be dead to be a saint, and hopefully the current Pope is immune to the 'charms' of such people.

 

[Snowdrop]

The webpage says that one of his priorities, as President, will be to: "Improve the image of psychiatry and psychiatrists."

That process will be interesting to witness! (In a slow-motion train wreck kind of way.)

Clearly he's seen the writing on the wall. Now he understands he needs this particular position at this point in his career to do damage control.

Like a deer in the headlights. . .

 

[Snowdrop]

I suggest a name change to Royal College of Psychotics.

 

[Snowdrop]

Who are the people behind the appointment?

 

[Snowdrop]

. . . and let's not forget as evil as Hitler was his days were numbered.

 

[biophile]

His priorities as president are to:

1) "Make parity between mental and physical health a reality."

We have been told over and over by Wessely that the distinction between mental and physical health is illusionary and that we should not make such a distinction because it is unhelpful. Is he perpetuating dualism now?

2) "Improve the image of psychiatry and psychiatrists."

What would really help is steering the profession towards properly embracing science and reason over ideology and spin and politics. If he could do that, I would respect him more. However, doing so would decrease the credibility of proportions of his work on CFS which helped him get the position in the first place, so is that a conflict of interest?

Wessely once spoke of CFS patients calling a halt to the loss of face, picking up the pieces, and taking responsibility for their own improvements. It is about time the profession did these things for the sake of their own credibility.

3) "Improve recruitment into psychiatry and encourage medical students to discover the unique qualities of psychiatry."

OK, but let us hope that quantity does not drown out quality.

4) "Ensure excellence in education, and put high-quality training delivered by psychiatrists for psychiatrists at the heart of education."

Obviously important for clinical work. But what would also help is educating research and academic psychiatrists about advanced trial design, critical thinking, controlling for biases, and how to read and interpret papers for accurate citation. There is currently too much mediocrity, sloppy research, and misleading citations.

Would additional education have prevented White et al from making basic schoolboy errors in the PACE Trial? What kind of education intensity is required to ensure that an entire team of supposedly qualified researchers do no confuse a mean average score for a median score in a 5 million pound study funded by the MRC? (yes that actually happened).

Perhaps some tutoring in the English language may help too. For example, a "strict", "accurate" and "conservative" criteria for "recovery" does not mean an overlap with "significantly disabling fatigue", and using mean minus 2SD on scales where a higher score is better is certainly not a "more conservative" threshold of normal than using mean minus 1SD.

 

[MeSci]

What would really help is steering the profession towards properly embracing science

I initially read that as 'embracing silence'. It might help a great deal if they just shut the £*$# up!