While this poorly written diatribe contains a few kernals of truth, the logical conclusions it then arrives at from those kernals are simply laughable. There is so much here that is so much nonsense that I wouldn’t know where to begin, so I won’t.
Been a psychiatrist (not the same as a psychologist, BTW, dear author - at least get that right!) for several decades, board certified since 1993, and worked in a variety of settings with all sorts of patients. In other words, I know whereof I speak, but the charges in the article are so ludicrous I’m not speaking: I’m laughing - and heading off to the clinic to relieve some suffering.
I would think that a “few kernels of truth” might have some intrinsic value.
But then I don’t have special letters after my name, either.
However, I do remember Dr. John Rosemond saying something that may give all of us a point of view to consider seriously: “there’s nature, nurture and free will, and the greatest one of these may well be the last.”
(paraphrasing)
You stated, quite nicely, my take on this very early in the reading. Loose associations and weak conclusions based on thinly connected premises made this a poor work of fiction from the start.
If one is going to put something like this forward with hopes for even the slightest bit of credibility, I’d think that she’d at least get some of the terminology correct! “Conditional reflexes” and “classic conditioning” indeed! She clearly hasn’t a true clue about diagnostic criteria, either.
I can see, however, how someone with a bit of a paranoid character, along with an inability to think in abstract terms may take this seriously. Wait.....I just described a liberal!!
Militant