starryeyes
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,561
- Location
- Bay Area, California
In The Fight Is On thread, Esther gave a link and her impressions about an article Simon Wessely wrote which helps one understand where Wessely's coming from a little better:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/1/81
I wrote about my impressions of it here for anyone who is interested.
In the British Journal of Psychiatry Wessely wrote an article where he gives his book recommendations to fellow psychiatrists:
And thus began Wessely's illustrious career in psychiatry. He admits he's a liar from the beginning, which is not too surprising, is it?
Wessely clearly does not like or respect scientific research.
One of the books Wessely recommends is: The Female Malady: Women, Madness and English Culture, 1830-1980
What does this mean, the doctor treated the men like women? How do they do that?
There was only one review for this book at Amazon which is strange but that Reviewer did give it 5 stars.
Another book Wessely recommends is: "Intellectual Impostors"
The real title is: Intellectual Impostures -Did Wessely make a little Freudian slip there?
Here's the first review at Amazon:
Well that's right up Wesselys alley!
This could just as easily say: What Wessely "fails to realize is that philosophy is indeed not science, and should not be read as such...even when it uses the ideas and words of science in new contexts for which they, the scientists, are wholly unfamiliar, and unqualified to judge."
It's becoming pretty obvious that Wessely is no intellectual as this is one of his most highly recommended books to his fellow colleagues.
It's just so funny that Wessely likes and recommends this book!
This Reviewer could easily be writing about Wessely and his cohorts regarding ME. It's just fascinating that this is one of Wessely's favorite books.
Keep in mind now, this is one of 11 books that Wessely likes and highly recommends to fellow psychiatrists.
Maybe not, but somehow I'm pretty sure that Wessely enjoyed that part of the book too.
Thank you for supplying us with this link, Esther. It provides insights into Wessely's mindset and serves to prove that our impressions of him are very accurate.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/1/81
I wrote about my impressions of it here for anyone who is interested.
In the British Journal of Psychiatry Wessely wrote an article where he gives his book recommendations to fellow psychiatrists:
Wessely says: Naturally, when I arrived for interview at the Maudsley in 1984, I professed to Robin Murray, who was the gatekeeper to the rotation, a passionate commitment to research, but I was lying.
And thus began Wessely's illustrious career in psychiatry. He admits he's a liar from the beginning, which is not too surprising, is it?
Wessely continues: Research was what people did when they should have been teaching me. My greatest triumph was to hear a diastolic murmur, albeit after 5 years of trying.
Wessely clearly does not like or respect scientific research.
He continues: It was not clear where the diastolic murmurs of psychiatry lay, but the relevant skills seemed to include talking to patients, an expertise which I arrogantly thought I possessed until I tried it.
In the Dean's presence, I had sworn allegiance on the altar of research, but for a while my heretical views remained constant, if of necessity private.
One of the books Wessely recommends is: The Female Malady: Women, Madness and English Culture, 1830-1980
Here's the synopsis at Amazon: Showalter, well known for her feminist studies of literature, here turns her attention to the history of psychiatry. Approaches to treatment have ranged from kindly paternalism to repressive discipline to psychosurgery to drugs. They have this in common: The treatments are devised by men and inflicted, predominantly, on women. She finds one exception, and a fascinating parallel, in the shell-shocked soldiers of World War I. Men in war, experiencing powerlessness, responded with hysterialike women. The doctors' response was to treat them like women.
What does this mean, the doctor treated the men like women? How do they do that?
There was only one review for this book at Amazon which is strange but that Reviewer did give it 5 stars.
Another book Wessely recommends is: "Intellectual Impostors"
The real title is: Intellectual Impostures -Did Wessely make a little Freudian slip there?
Here's the first review at Amazon:
Its Fashionable to To Praise Non-Thought!, May 5, 2009
By*
Curveball "Curve" (washington dc)
It could only have come in a context such as the 1990's neo-liberal America that non-thinking could be praised and even become fashionable. Derrida to tough to read? Make fun of him! Deleuze's philosophy too non-analytic for you? Make fun of it! Jacques Lacan getting too personal with his appreciation of the psyche? Denounce it as rubbish! You'll have an instant best-seller on your hands and a multitude of people who hate thinking here to cheer you on! Hooooo-ray!!!
Well that's right up Wesselys alley!
Another Reviewer writes:
Unfortunately, the truths of the postmodern movement, as obscured by the common trash as they are, have equally been lost on Mr. Sokal and Mr. Bricmont.
In a word..."hermeneutics."
What the authors fail to realize is that philosophy is indeed not science, and should not be read as such...even when it uses the ideas and words of science in new contexts for which they, the scientists, are wholly unfamiliar, and unqualified to judge.
This could just as easily say: What Wessely "fails to realize is that philosophy is indeed not science, and should not be read as such...even when it uses the ideas and words of science in new contexts for which they, the scientists, are wholly unfamiliar, and unqualified to judge."
The Reviewer goes on to state: Unfortunately, the truths of the postmodern movement, as obscured by the common trash as they are, have equally been lost on Mr. Sokal and Mr. Bricmont.
In a word..."hermeneutics."
The meaning of any text is a function of the interface between reader and writer; i.e. hermeneutics. The authors don't UNDERSTAND the text and they fail to understand the limitations of their own personal, and in this case, failed, reading.
It's becoming pretty obvious that Wessely is no intellectual as this is one of his most highly recommended books to his fellow colleagues.
This Reviewer writes: Is a failure to interpret, an interpretation of failure?
It's just so funny that Wessely likes and recommends this book!
The Reviewer continues: The authors have adopted, and indeed adapted the words of science for their own specialized use.
This Reviewer could easily be writing about Wessely and his cohorts regarding ME. It's just fascinating that this is one of Wessely's favorite books.
Another Reviewer writes: Now we've got that cleared up, let me say it straight: This book takes on some big arguments, but, other than humorously swatting some flies, loses hands down. All it succeeds in doing is illustrating that there are fakers, losers, charlatans and wankers to be found in the Social Sciences departments of any given University.
Keep in mind now, this is one of 11 books that Wessely likes and highly recommends to fellow psychiatrists.
This Reviewer goes on to write: Anyone who's been to university and didn't know that deserves a clip around the ear and to be sent to the back of the class. Now either Sokal didn't know that ( - ~clip~ -), or he's spent half his book shooting fish in a barrel. That might seem like good sport, but before long it becomes obvious it's a cheap thrill.
Having said that, I sincerely doubt that the titillation of seeing dumb French Feminists taken apart is what made this book such a splash:
Maybe not, but somehow I'm pretty sure that Wessely enjoyed that part of the book too.
Thank you for supplying us with this link, Esther. It provides insights into Wessely's mindset and serves to prove that our impressions of him are very accurate.