As with his last piece, this author spoils a good argument with unsubstantiated ad hominem attributions. How does he know that Fonargy (who I do not know and have no brief for) has influenced the Royal College of Psychiatrists and British Psychological Society? As an activist involved with BPSWatch.com (you can see it online) I know for more tha author about the BPS and its dangerous guidance on gender. From the knowledge, key transgender players from the BPS have been involved with trans=capturing the organisation (and many others). I am fairly certain that Peter Fonargy is not one of those players. He may want to consult his lawyers about unfounded claims.
Professor Pilgrim now appears to say that I have made 'a good argument' in this and my previous piece. Of course, I welcome that.
I wrote that Peter Fonagy is 'likely' to have been a key influence on the BPS and other bodies.
No doubt Professor Pilgrim knows many details of BPS politics that I do not, but his own strong defence of psychoanalysis, in his response to my previous piece, is in itself evidence of the influence of psychoanalysis on the BPS. Professor Pilgrim clearly shares the belief, prevalent among many mental health professionals, that psychoanalysts who have resisted extreme biopsychiatry, such as RD Laing, have been typical. My previous piece briefly set out why that is incorrect.
Finally, my belief that the BPS is a relatively uninfluential body is partly based on my experience as a mental health professional myself, but also of the anti-diagnosis extremist group of which Professor Pilgrim is a part. The BPS actually published and promoted the group's 2018 'alternative to psychiatric diagnosis' (1): despite that, and energetic promotion by the group as well, the roles of psychiatrists and psychiatric diagnosis in UK mental health services remain unchanged. See also my previous comment on the group's failed ECT petition.
Until this author drops his scatter gun personalised attacks (such this one on me for raising the one he was making about Fonagy, who I do not know) I would urge the editor not to dignify his opinion pieces anymore. Ad hominem logic does not take any of us very far in serious debate; otherwise Savage Minds will degnerate into a version of Facebook in my view..
Professor Pilgrim has failed to find any errors of fact in my comments about him and his antipsychiatry associates, who are more used to mutual admiration as they 'peer review' each others often poor quality, error prone, and even fraudulent academic texts. In referring to me as 'this author' he has resorted to their default mode, in response to criticism, of cult-like behaviour. I have little doubt he is truthful in stating that he has not heard of Peter Fonagy, but that only confirms the hermetic nature of his work.
I have already pointed out to two of the psychiatrists in CANSG (the UK based Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (1)) that Professor Pilgrim's advocacy of anti-diagnosis extremism and of recovered memory is likely to be a liability for them. I will continue to do so, despite the bogus claim that I have been unfairly 'ad hominem'. Progress on pushing back against transgenderism, and extreme biotechnology more widely, has already been obstructed far too much by undue deference to academics.
As with his last piece, this author spoils a good argument with unsubstantiated ad hominem attributions. How does he know that Fonargy (who I do not know and have no brief for) has influenced the Royal College of Psychiatrists and British Psychological Society? As an activist involved with BPSWatch.com (you can see it online) I know for more tha author about the BPS and its dangerous guidance on gender. From the knowledge, key transgender players from the BPS have been involved with trans=capturing the organisation (and many others). I am fairly certain that Peter Fonargy is not one of those players. He may want to consult his lawyers about unfounded claims.
Professor Pilgrim now appears to say that I have made 'a good argument' in this and my previous piece. Of course, I welcome that.
I wrote that Peter Fonagy is 'likely' to have been a key influence on the BPS and other bodies.
No doubt Professor Pilgrim knows many details of BPS politics that I do not, but his own strong defence of psychoanalysis, in his response to my previous piece, is in itself evidence of the influence of psychoanalysis on the BPS. Professor Pilgrim clearly shares the belief, prevalent among many mental health professionals, that psychoanalysts who have resisted extreme biopsychiatry, such as RD Laing, have been typical. My previous piece briefly set out why that is incorrect.
Finally, my belief that the BPS is a relatively uninfluential body is partly based on my experience as a mental health professional myself, but also of the anti-diagnosis extremist group of which Professor Pilgrim is a part. The BPS actually published and promoted the group's 2018 'alternative to psychiatric diagnosis' (1): despite that, and energetic promotion by the group as well, the roles of psychiatrists and psychiatric diagnosis in UK mental health services remain unchanged. See also my previous comment on the group's failed ECT petition.
(1) https://www.bps.org.uk/member-networks/division-clinical-psychology/power-threat-meaning-framework
Until this author drops his scatter gun personalised attacks (such this one on me for raising the one he was making about Fonagy, who I do not know) I would urge the editor not to dignify his opinion pieces anymore. Ad hominem logic does not take any of us very far in serious debate; otherwise Savage Minds will degnerate into a version of Facebook in my view..
Professor Pilgrim has failed to find any errors of fact in my comments about him and his antipsychiatry associates, who are more used to mutual admiration as they 'peer review' each others often poor quality, error prone, and even fraudulent academic texts. In referring to me as 'this author' he has resorted to their default mode, in response to criticism, of cult-like behaviour. I have little doubt he is truthful in stating that he has not heard of Peter Fonagy, but that only confirms the hermetic nature of his work.
I have already pointed out to two of the psychiatrists in CANSG (the UK based Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (1)) that Professor Pilgrim's advocacy of anti-diagnosis extremism and of recovered memory is likely to be a liability for them. I will continue to do so, despite the bogus claim that I have been unfairly 'ad hominem'. Progress on pushing back against transgenderism, and extreme biotechnology more widely, has already been obstructed far too much by undue deference to academics.
(1) https://can-sg.org/about-us/