Hi Paula, I really appreciate you commenting; I admire your work.
Thanks for your feedback. I think the lack of validity was addressed in Facts 1 and 2, and one of the potential harms (e.g. increased stigma) was covered in Fact 9. Perhaps I could have been clearer, though.
‘rarely helpful (except for requirements for “services” the person might want and need)’ – I agree with this and perhaps should have touched on it more overtly.
By “none of my business,” my point is simply that people should be free to decide for themselves how best to handle their own issues, whether that be by taking psychiatric drugs or through some other means.
I sympathize with all of the misinformation laypeople have to wade through. One of the reasons I wrote the article was to highlight the risks these drugs pose so that people are able to make more informed choices.
To clarify, an individual’s decision to voluntarily take psychiatric drugs is none of my business. It would be prudent to become aware of their risks before using such drugs but regardless, it’s up to the individual whether or not to take them.
“Should we be diagnosing more aggressively?” Psychiatric diagnoses are neither valid nor reliable (see Fact 1).
“If psychiatry disappeared it would most likely have a negligible effect.” This assumes the medical profession would continue believing psychiatry’s theories are valid.
“I would imagine the problem of industry sponsored trials, ghostwritten papers etc, are not limited to psychiatric drugs.” Indeed, which is why the first sentence of Fact 5 states, “In the United States, corruption pervades the research and approval of drugs.”
“Psychiatry never enters the picture.” The “treatments” GPs rely upon are undergirded by flawed theories propagated by psychiatry.
You go on to describe Peterson’s unfortunate encounter with clonazepam. I was expecting more evidence and empirical data to support your theory … but it seems you are arguing that his (traumatic) experience could change his view on hitting children.”
To clarify, the sub-heading “But Wait… There’s More!” is a reference to Peterson’s planned-for sequel, tentatively titled “Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life.” His adverse reaction to psychiatric drugs was merely mentioned to help explain why his new book has been delayed, not because I expect this experience to change his views on parenting.
Sorry Bradford, but “over-intellectualizing” and “misunderstanding” aren’t arguments. Neither is playing the parent card. Being a parent has no bearing on the empirical and ethical cases against corporal punishment outlined in my article. By your logic, only psychiatrists should be permitted to write about psychiatry, for only they have the “real, lived experience” associated with the diagnosis and treatment of people deemed “mentally ill.”
I’m sorry to hear about the violence you experienced as a child. I’m glad your parents eventually intervened.
I think you raise an interesting question, regarding whether children are more likely to be hit by women versus men. I am not aware of research addressing this question. If anyone is, feel free to share it. That said, if it were found that mothers are more likely to hit their children compared to fathers, it may be simply due to the fact that mothers are more likely to be the primary caregiver and thus, have more time spent with their children.
Kudos to you for apologising to your child and explaining what happened.
I like the Golden Rule, too, but after reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s “Skin in the Game,” I think I like the Silver Rule even better:
The Golden Rule wants you to Treat others the way you would like them to treat you. The more robust Silver Rule says Do not treat others the way you would not like them to treat you. More robust? How? Why is the Silver Rule more robust?
First, it tells you to mind your own business and not decide what is “good” for others. We know with much more clarity what is bad than what is good. The Silver Rule can be seen as the Negative Golden Rule, and as I am shown by my Calabrese (and Calabrese-speaking) barber every three weeks, via negativa (acting by removing) is more powerful and less error-prone than via positiva (acting by addition)…
Nobody embodies the notion of symmetry better than Isocrates, who lived more than a century and made significant contributions when he was in his nineties. He even managed a rare dynamic version of the Golden Rule: “Conduct yourself toward your parents as you would have your children conduct themselves toward you.” We had to wait for the great baseball coach Yogi Berra to get another such dynamic rule for symmetric relations: “I go to other people’s funerals so they come to mine.”
More effective, of course, is the reverse direction, to treat one’s children the way one wished to be treated by one’s parents.
Taleb, N. N. (2018). Skin in the game: Hidden asymmetries in daily life. London: Allen Lane.
Thanks for your kind words, Brett – and for the laughs; Michael’s reaction in that scene is priceless.
Report comment
Thank you, Rosalee.
Report comment
Hi Paula, I really appreciate you commenting; I admire your work.
Thanks for your feedback. I think the lack of validity was addressed in Facts 1 and 2, and one of the potential harms (e.g. increased stigma) was covered in Fact 9. Perhaps I could have been clearer, though.
‘rarely helpful (except for requirements for “services” the person might want and need)’ – I agree with this and perhaps should have touched on it more overtly.
Thanks again and keep up the good work.
Report comment
By “none of my business,” my point is simply that people should be free to decide for themselves how best to handle their own issues, whether that be by taking psychiatric drugs or through some other means.
I sympathize with all of the misinformation laypeople have to wade through. One of the reasons I wrote the article was to highlight the risks these drugs pose so that people are able to make more informed choices.
Report comment
To clarify, an individual’s decision to voluntarily take psychiatric drugs is none of my business. It would be prudent to become aware of their risks before using such drugs but regardless, it’s up to the individual whether or not to take them.
Report comment
A response to a psychiatrist’s criticisms of the article: https://talkwithjon.com/response-to-a-psychiatrist/
Report comment
Haha – doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue but I appreciate your feedback, Steve.
Report comment
No problem, you make some good points. Indeed, I also find the term ‘mental health’ problematic.
Report comment
“Should we be diagnosing more aggressively?” Psychiatric diagnoses are neither valid nor reliable (see Fact 1).
“If psychiatry disappeared it would most likely have a negligible effect.” This assumes the medical profession would continue believing psychiatry’s theories are valid.
“I would imagine the problem of industry sponsored trials, ghostwritten papers etc, are not limited to psychiatric drugs.” Indeed, which is why the first sentence of Fact 5 states, “In the United States, corruption pervades the research and approval of drugs.”
“Psychiatry never enters the picture.” The “treatments” GPs rely upon are undergirded by flawed theories propagated by psychiatry.
Report comment
Thanks – feel free to share.
Report comment
Thanks for your feedback and encouragement!
Report comment
Thanks for your kind words, Jim.
Report comment
“Is it not illegal to hit children in Canada (as in most western countries)?”
According to endcorporalpunishment.org, “Prohibition is still to be achieved in the home, some alternative care settings, day care and some schools.”
You can read the Country Report for Canada here: https://endcorporalpunishment.org/reports-on-every-state-and-territory/canada/
Report comment
Thanks Steve
Report comment
“‘But wait, there’s more …’
You go on to describe Peterson’s unfortunate encounter with clonazepam. I was expecting more evidence and empirical data to support your theory … but it seems you are arguing that his (traumatic) experience could change his view on hitting children.”
To clarify, the sub-heading “But Wait… There’s More!” is a reference to Peterson’s planned-for sequel, tentatively titled “Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life.” His adverse reaction to psychiatric drugs was merely mentioned to help explain why his new book has been delayed, not because I expect this experience to change his views on parenting.
Report comment
Thank you very much for your kind words and feedback, Magdalene.
Report comment
“Public shaming Jordan Peterson for his honesty won’t make parents who abuse their children stop”
I do not consider critiquing sections of an author’s book to be a form of “shaming.”
Report comment
Sorry Bradford, but “over-intellectualizing” and “misunderstanding” aren’t arguments. Neither is playing the parent card. Being a parent has no bearing on the empirical and ethical cases against corporal punishment outlined in my article. By your logic, only psychiatrists should be permitted to write about psychiatry, for only they have the “real, lived experience” associated with the diagnosis and treatment of people deemed “mentally ill.”
Report comment
I’m sorry to hear about the violence you experienced as a child. I’m glad your parents eventually intervened.
I think you raise an interesting question, regarding whether children are more likely to be hit by women versus men. I am not aware of research addressing this question. If anyone is, feel free to share it. That said, if it were found that mothers are more likely to hit their children compared to fathers, it may be simply due to the fact that mothers are more likely to be the primary caregiver and thus, have more time spent with their children.
Report comment
Kudos to you for apologising to your child and explaining what happened.
I like the Golden Rule, too, but after reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s “Skin in the Game,” I think I like the Silver Rule even better:
The Golden Rule wants you to Treat others the way you would like them to treat you. The more robust Silver Rule says Do not treat others the way you would not like them to treat you. More robust? How? Why is the Silver Rule more robust?
First, it tells you to mind your own business and not decide what is “good” for others. We know with much more clarity what is bad than what is good. The Silver Rule can be seen as the Negative Golden Rule, and as I am shown by my Calabrese (and Calabrese-speaking) barber every three weeks, via negativa (acting by removing) is more powerful and less error-prone than via positiva (acting by addition)…
Nobody embodies the notion of symmetry better than Isocrates, who lived more than a century and made significant contributions when he was in his nineties. He even managed a rare dynamic version of the Golden Rule: “Conduct yourself toward your parents as you would have your children conduct themselves toward you.” We had to wait for the great baseball coach Yogi Berra to get another such dynamic rule for symmetric relations: “I go to other people’s funerals so they come to mine.”
More effective, of course, is the reverse direction, to treat one’s children the way one wished to be treated by one’s parents.
Taleb, N. N. (2018). Skin in the game: Hidden asymmetries in daily life. London: Allen Lane.
Report comment
To confirm, the statement “here’s hoping that decline continues” is a reference to the aforementioned decline in approval for corporal punishment.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Report comment