I like the article and agree with a lot of the logic. I have to confess I am sometimes accused by activists here (oldhead!) of being a bit contaminated by middle groundism, so I’ve asked myself why this is and I can think of quite a few reasons: 1. In order to retain the audience whose opinion you want to influence, you need to be reasonable and hold open the possibility that their point of view has some validity, even as you believe it will be dismantled. 2. Its actually easier to prove a middle grounder incorrect. Frances gets stuck on the idea that meds work for some not for others, which researchers from both sides of the argument can disprove. I think some smart bio Psychiatrists see this danger and dig in, because once on middle ground their position is weaker. 3. My personal feeling is that Psychiatry will not collapse but will bend. I am hopeful that in the next 10 years it might move 50% towards an acceptable evidence based position and this is a better result than entrenchment. So middle grounding can be, I’m sad to say, a tactic towards trying to reduce the damage in the here and now rather than pushing the abolition case. 4. I also have to entertain the idea that the flat Earthers might be right about one or two things until I’m sure. There are lives in the balance. Where you cannot middle ground is on the basic evidence, which is drugs appear to work very slightly in trials, but this plainly so slightly that they are probably simply damage creating. My problem with middle grounding is that you can forget that you are in the end trying to seek the truth, not a political compromise. So I accept that when I’m putting a case to those in the profession I am mincing words. But I have someone listening. I feel a right old machiavelli now!