4 ms·
I'd expect any paper that shits on an entire field and especially on a massively profitable industry to be controversial. Here is Kirsch's reply to Fountolakis'
by astazangasta 8y ago
I'd expect any paper that shits on an entire field and especially on a massively profitable industry to be controversial. Here is Kirsch's reply to Fountolakis's paper, by the way: https://academic.oup.com/ijnp/article/15/8/1193/659638 https://academic.oup.com/ijnp/article/15/8/1193/659638
- DanBC 8y agoNote that in this case it's psychologists calling the paper controversial. Psychologists in BPS, the organisation that put out shit like Understanding Psychosis[0] or Power Threat Meaning Framework[1] - for an anti-psychiatry organisation to call an anti-psychiatry document "controversial" shows the document is pretty poor. [0]Here are links to critiques of both version of Understanding Psychosis: https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/psychosis/understandingpsychosis/ https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/psychosis/u... https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/schizophrenia/understanding-psychosis-and-schizophrenia-a-critique-by-laws-langford-and-huda/ https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/schizophren... [1] Here's a link to critiques of PTMFramework https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/power-threat-meaning-framework-innovative-and-important-ptmframework/ https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/power-threa...