It's a good article but there's a strong message that these terms are okay for the professionals to use, it's just when amateurs start diagnosing the people around them that there are problems. I don't think the "professionals" are immune from causing harm. This reminds me of a recent post on the FND thread, where professional guidance on diagnosing FND notes that it is commonly found in people with certain named pathological personality types. Signs of one of these types are wanting to be the centre of attention, wearing brightly coloured, revealing clothes, blindly following people they put on a pedestal, and gullibility. The result of course is that the prejudice of the medical professional then has a lot of scope to play a part in diagnosis. When I read those signs, the image of a certain very well known BPS proponent playing in a band in a short bright yellow dress came to mind. I obviously can't diagnose someone based on a picture, a few interview videos and some papers she has co-authored. That's my point. What I am saying is that many people would qualify for ticks in some of the frankly ridiculous checklists for pathological personalities. But who then gets the label in their medical records depends a lot on who is in a vulnerable position, asking for help. It depends on their social status and who they have to stand up for them and how comfortable they make their assessors feel. I suspect that this might be why young women, especially young women who have made life difficult for people with power over them, are so often the ones ending up with the pathological personality labels and FND diagnoses.
obviously an expert such as a “celebrity psychologist” knows more about ordinary young adults lives than they do themselves
I would think that the use by patients of "therapy-speak" has risen in tandem with the regular diagnosis of anxiety, depression, and FND by doctors, particularly in female patients. Patients that get told they are mentally ill in some way or other and many of them are almost guaranteed to go and do some googling on the subject. I would do it in such circumstances, and I would do it as a form of self-protection. For example, if I know what drugs are likely to be shoved at me, I can decide for myself what I will say No to (which realistically in my case is all of them).
In other words the Telegraph has fallen for the con by the professionals just like every one else. The Guardian is the same.
All industries, trades and professions have 'special language' which involve both unique terms and special meaning given to otherwise every day language. When elements of these special languages, either a special term or otherwise unfamiliar meaning given to otherwise ordinary speech is found to be useful in the everyday, that term or meaning quickly transfers to common use with inevitable confusion between the everyday and the special - often to the annoyance, irritation and exasperation of those who are protective of 'their' special language' as well as to the disapproval of language puritans and pedants*. That quoted 'text dumping' "I've been talking to my sisters ....." made me laugh out loud. The response to that is obvious though the specifics would need to be rendered in appropriate vernacular or argot. I've been hearing therapy talk in everyday speech since at least the late 70s, mostly I suspect derived from magazine self help and agony aunt verbiage. People are (hopefully) free to use the words and language they want, but talking bollocks is talking bollocks, either point it out or walk away whenever you hear it - or er um nod sagely and say just with hint of a patronising sigh ... "yes dear". * Spoiler "I can't make this any more clear, decimation means loss of a tenth, it is not a synonym for annihilation - what is wrong with you people !"
I personally feel a debt to those like Jonathan who have pointed out that this is crap - or at least to consider whether there is any evidence to support these views. Also for pointing out that they were invited to participate in these shams and ducked out --- to embarrassed to offer this to vulnerable ill people. If this stuff works then explain who they have helped & how ---? Thought occurs that you used to go to someone in a caravan who told you the future --- following Jonathan's advice you have to have an open mind re whether the professional in the health centre is really a more elaborate version of the person in the caravan - potentially more dangerous too! Sad --- but sometimes funny --- as per the auspicious title "celebrity psychologist Esther Perel in Vanity Fair".
Interesting how celebrity psychs can turn out to be very messed up people indeed. We had two here in Australia – Bob Montgomery and Paul Wilson – who both ended up in jail for child sex crimes. Guess which areas of psych they worked in?
Wow, that Bob Montgomery wikipedia entry link in your post is almost incredible, President of The Australian Psychological Society and all.
Grim stuff, isn't it. I didn't know of this link with Wilson: "In 1994, he became head of the psychology department at Bond University after being recruited by criminologist Paul Wilson, who was later convicted of child sex offences."
