Mike Palij (copied below) quotes from an article by the British psychotherapist Oliver James. TIPSters in North America will probably not know that James is a ubiquitous pop psychologist always popping up on the pages of The Guardian or on BBC radio programmes.
His most notable characteristic is that he is highly critical of any published paper that doesn't accord with his own psychoanalytically-oriented views, but blissfully credulous when reporting papers that supposedly lend support to them. According to Oliver James, if all our psychological/psychiatric problems are not the fault of the wicked capitalist system, then it's the fault of our parents (or both, of course): *Affluenza: How to be Successful and Stay Sane* Review: "On every key aspect of his argument he is deluded. His connection with reality is often tenuous." http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2891/ *They F*** You Up: How to Survive Family Life* Judith Rich Harris would have a field day exposing the fallacies (and cherry-picking) in this book! James' views come from a psychoanalytic position. He even endorses Freud's potty-training explanation of the 'anal personality': "How the mother goes about curbing the child's messy pleasures affects his later attitudes to his instincts. If her response is rigid, condemnatory and angry, the child develops an 'anal personality', comprising obsessive orderliness (from being made fearful of mess), obstinacy (still angry at being forced to excrete on demand), and parsimony, especially about money (it becomes equated with faeces, and in later life, being tight about money may symbolize holding faeces in)." (pp. 91-92) While allowing some place for genetic influence, he also endorses a primarily family environment explanation for schizophrenia. In an email to a colleague of mine, Ben Goldacre (Guardian "Bad Science") wrote: >Oliver James says: "There is no evidence that the genetic material of schizophrenics differs in any way from people without the illness." This is ludicrous. Off the top of my head I can think of about ten genes loci that are significantly associated with schizophrenia, and I really do mean off the top of my head, there's a huge load more out there. That isn't to say that schizophrenia is entirely genetic: but it doesn't have to be "one or the other", and on that subject, I've never met a *single* psychiatrist who conforms to James' straw man and believes that schizophrenia is entirely genetic.< More: "In his latest rant against genetics, Oliver James either does not understand, or wilfully misunderstands, the genetic basis of neurobiology, and purposefully overlooks huge swathes of scientific literature." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/genetics-dna-neurobiology-family-parenting Does Oliver James Damage the Brain? http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-oliver-james-damage-brain.html James argues we should look to Freud and psychoanalysis to understand postnatal depression: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/sep/26/oliver-james-postnatal-depression Response: "Is Freud back in fashion?" http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-freud-back-in-fashion-no.html More on James: The bizarre journalism of psychologist Oliver James "The psychologist Oliver James – author of Affluenza, The Selfish Capitalist and innumerable what-does-it-all-mean think-pieces in the press – has recently been churning out a series in the Guardian entitled Family Under the Microscope. Each week James offers a stunning revelation about the psychology of family life. "Some of these revelations are either dubious or just outright wrong. At times the reader is left wondering how much this says about psychology and how much is about Oliver James’ view of the world." http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/09/the-bizarre-journalism-of-psychologist-oliver-james/ Another critic taking James apart: "Well, it *would* be really worrying if it wasn’t a load of complete cobblers. Time for me to go all Ben Goldacre on Mr James’ ass." http://www.mentalnurse.org/2009/07/girls-just-dont-wanna-have-fun/ Same author: Is Oliver James the Gillian McKeith of psychology? http://www.mentalnurse.org/2009/07/is-oliver-james-the-gillian-mckeith-of-psychology/ N.B. Ben Goldacre ("Bad Science") on Gillian McKeith: "Gillian McKeith – or to give her full medical title, 'Gillian McKeith'.” http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/and-then-i-was-incompetently-libelled-by-a-litigious-millionaire/ http://www.badscience.net/2007/02/ms-gillian-mckeith-banned-from-calling-herself-a-doctor/ Back to mentalnurse.org: Oliver James has the answer to Alzheimer’s "You know what, I’d like to formally apologise for saying such nasty things about Oliver James. I may have inadvertently given the impression that he’s a ridiculous snake-oil salesman who cherrypicks and misrepresents research in order to support his own personal prejudices masquerading as academic psychology. "But now, I feel I have to apologise. Oliver James has another article in the Guardian today, and he’s solved a major healthcare problem. He has the solution to the overwhelming psychological distress that often comes with Alzheimer’s Disease. Which is nice, given that doctors, nurses, families and other caregivers have constantly struggled with this, often to the point of desperation and exhaustion. So, it’s good that he’s got it all sorted out. "Oh wait, it turns out he’s talking a load of boswellox. Again. […]" http://www.mentalnurse.org.uk/2009/08/oliver-james-has-the-answer-to-alzheimers/ Enough already! Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [email protected] http://www.esterson.org --------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Palij <[email protected]> Subject: Are Genes Left-Wing? Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:03:45 -0400 The answer to the question in the subject line appears to be "Yes", at least that is the contention of Oliver James in an article that he wrote for the Guardian U.K.; see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/12/why-genes-are-leftwing Quoting the article: |Politics may be the reason why the media has so far failed |to report the small role of genes. The political right believes |that genes largely explain why the poor are poor, as well as |twice as likely as the rich to be mentally ill. To them, the poor |are genetic mud, sinking to the bottom of the genetic pool. And: |Instead, the Human Genome Project is rapidly providing a |scientific basis for the political left. Childhood maltreatment, |economic inequality and excessive materialism seem the main |determinants of mental illness. State-sponsored interventions, |like reduced inequality, are the most likely solutions. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5725 or send a blank email to leave-5725-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
