Hi Awais, thanks for the AMA and I have appreciated your nuanced and thoughtful takes! You seem to have a diverse readership, which is great. But almost as great is the generative cross-dialogue between this blog and other clinicians, philosophers, psychiatrists, service users and advocates on adjacent newsletters and platforms. So it fe…
Hi Awais, thanks for the AMA and I have appreciated your nuanced and thoughtful takes! You seem to have a diverse readership, which is great. But almost as great is the generative cross-dialogue between this blog and other clinicians, philosophers, psychiatrists, service users and advocates on adjacent newsletters and platforms. So it feels like a node of sorts helping to connect people closer to the center with people "at the margins" of psychiatry.
I know there has been some disagreement and infighting recently, which makes it harder to know what to take entirely at face value. But it looks to be a useful overview of the big issues and concerns.
More generally, I would love to see posts devoted to OCD or related issues, as this is a remarkably heterogenous condition that often gets shoved into a box, and in my experience leaves many sufferers falling through the cracks. The "gold standard" of exposure therapy is not as gold as many would have you believe (though obviously very helpful for some), and psychodynamic approaches simply dismissed. Psychedelic research aside, the field can feel narrow and insular, with little awareness of critical or conceptual issues. But I think it lends itself to philosophical questions and really deserves more qualitative accounts (Dana Fennell's recent book is a rare exception). It was great to see the Rose Cartwright article come up here.
I read that first post on Mad in the UK, and I was rather annoyed by it. I find it increasingly difficult to take MITUK seriously. I have rather pro-neurodiversity, but I have some reservations about aspects of neurodiversity myself, and it might be good to discuss this in more detail.
Hi Awais, thanks for the AMA and I have appreciated your nuanced and thoughtful takes! You seem to have a diverse readership, which is great. But almost as great is the generative cross-dialogue between this blog and other clinicians, philosophers, psychiatrists, service users and advocates on adjacent newsletters and platforms. So it feels like a node of sorts helping to connect people closer to the center with people "at the margins" of psychiatry.
I would be interested in your thoughts on the upcoming series of blog posts from Mad In The UK critically examining the neurodiversity concept and the related movement (1st one here: https://www.madintheuk.com/2024/07/part-1-neurodiversity-what-exactly-does-it-mean/
I know there has been some disagreement and infighting recently, which makes it harder to know what to take entirely at face value. But it looks to be a useful overview of the big issues and concerns.
More generally, I would love to see posts devoted to OCD or related issues, as this is a remarkably heterogenous condition that often gets shoved into a box, and in my experience leaves many sufferers falling through the cracks. The "gold standard" of exposure therapy is not as gold as many would have you believe (though obviously very helpful for some), and psychodynamic approaches simply dismissed. Psychedelic research aside, the field can feel narrow and insular, with little awareness of critical or conceptual issues. But I think it lends itself to philosophical questions and really deserves more qualitative accounts (Dana Fennell's recent book is a rare exception). It was great to see the Rose Cartwright article come up here.
Thanks for the kind words, Chris!
I read that first post on Mad in the UK, and I was rather annoyed by it. I find it increasingly difficult to take MITUK seriously. I have rather pro-neurodiversity, but I have some reservations about aspects of neurodiversity myself, and it might be good to discuss this in more detail.
OCD, good suggestion! Thank you.