Stitching Ghost's Reviews > Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren't Growing Up
Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren't Growing Up
by
by
Ok I have to preface my review with the caveat that I didn't realize who the author was before picking up this book and that I was very predisposed to agree with her given my habit of being critical and suspicious of psychology and psychiatry as industries thanks to both my personal and professional experiences. Even with that in mind it was an underwhelming read, to put it politely.
I have several pages of notes detailing minor issues I had with this book which I am far too lazy to organize in a proper review and this book is, frankly, not worth the effort since it's both lazy and disingenuous.
Shrier puts research (which she always bring up free of actual citations) on the same standing as anecdotes which often sound entirely made up in their excess. Even when I agreed with her (after all a lot of her takes validate certain aspects of my parenting style which I now have to question) I had to cringe at how poorly supported her opinions were. The few times she provides sources to support her assertions they range from dubious (why would The New Yorker be your source regarding the prevalence of teen suicide?) and questionable (let's not talk about considering Peterson as a valid source) to passable but uncited.
She seems to have a strange fixation on Israel and inserting the fact that someone is Jewish in the conversation even when seemingly irrelevant.
Even when she comes close to recognizing that hyper-individualism and the lack of community are a big part of why both parents and children seem to be so miserable, she remains determined to ignore what incentivizes these situations and why individualized action are unlikely to solve them. She also appears to be entirely oblivious to the many ways in which she affirms one thing and its opposite whenever convenient for her arguments.
Ultimately my conclusion regarding this book, in a move that will surprise exactly no one who knows me, is: Citation needed!
I have several pages of notes detailing minor issues I had with this book which I am far too lazy to organize in a proper review and this book is, frankly, not worth the effort since it's both lazy and disingenuous.
Shrier puts research (which she always bring up free of actual citations) on the same standing as anecdotes which often sound entirely made up in their excess. Even when I agreed with her (after all a lot of her takes validate certain aspects of my parenting style which I now have to question) I had to cringe at how poorly supported her opinions were. The few times she provides sources to support her assertions they range from dubious (why would The New Yorker be your source regarding the prevalence of teen suicide?) and questionable (let's not talk about considering Peterson as a valid source) to passable but uncited.
She seems to have a strange fixation on Israel and inserting the fact that someone is Jewish in the conversation even when seemingly irrelevant.
Even when she comes close to recognizing that hyper-individualism and the lack of community are a big part of why both parents and children seem to be so miserable, she remains determined to ignore what incentivizes these situations and why individualized action are unlikely to solve them. She also appears to be entirely oblivious to the many ways in which she affirms one thing and its opposite whenever convenient for her arguments.
Ultimately my conclusion regarding this book, in a move that will surprise exactly no one who knows me, is: Citation needed!
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Bad Therapy.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
March 20, 2024
–
Started Reading
March 20, 2024
– Shelved
March 20, 2024
–
Finished Reading
November 12, 2024
– Shelved as:
walking-red-flag-dnr
Comments Showing 1-10 of 10 (10 new)
date
newest »
message 1:
by
inciminci
(new)
Mar 21, 2024 12:50AM
Great review, STitch, I totally agree - I'm tired of pseudo-scientific books who present their own facts as universal, like if it all were that easy and doable with reading a book, people wouldn't study at all.
reply
|
flag
Peterson as a source after every other psychology she asked didn’t give her the answer she wanted, no less. So she decided it had to be that they didn’t care about kids at all and just cared about their data, and only Jordan Peterson could tell the truth. I’m writing this blind because my eyes rolled out of my head.
Jocelyn wrote: "Peterson as a source after every other psychology she asked didn’t give her the answer she wanted, no less. So she decided it had to be that they didn’t care about kids at all and just cared about ..."
Of course, how else is one going to get to the conclusion they decided upon before starting their investigation if they don't reject and deride any sources that disagrees with them until they're left with the guy who has an internet beef with a Muppet!
Of course, how else is one going to get to the conclusion they decided upon before starting their investigation if they don't reject and deride any sources that disagrees with them until they're left with the guy who has an internet beef with a Muppet!
I hate when scientific books cite media outlets instead of primary sources! I think the premise of this book is sort of interesting, but based on every review I’ve read, it sounds like the execution is lacking! I’ll be skipping this one 😂
Jillian wrote: "I hate when scientific books cite media outlets instead of primary sources! I think the premise of this book is sort of interesting, but based on every review I’ve read, it sounds like the executio..."
There was not a shred of scientific approach to be found in this book. The premise being so interesting is probably why I was so frustrated with it to be honest, I wish someone more serious would do something with the topic.
There was not a shred of scientific approach to be found in this book. The premise being so interesting is probably why I was so frustrated with it to be honest, I wish someone more serious would do something with the topic.
inciminci wrote: "Great review, STitch, I totally agree - I'm tired of pseudo-scientific books who present their own facts as universal, like if it all were that easy and doable with reading a book, people wouldn't ..."
Exactly, if you're going to pretend to be an investigative journalist, please, actually investigate instead of just dropping a fluffed up opinion piece. My library did me dirty with this one.
Exactly, if you're going to pretend to be an investigative journalist, please, actually investigate instead of just dropping a fluffed up opinion piece. My library did me dirty with this one.
Shrier puts research (which she always bring up free of actual citations) on the same standing as anecdotes which often sound entirely made up in their excess.
I had the same issue when I read "Irreversible Damage." I didn't know how to describe it but you just hit the nail on the head.
I had the same issue when I read "Irreversible Damage." I didn't know how to describe it but you just hit the nail on the head.
That was my problem too. I jumped into this book without knowing the author. I won't be making that mistake again. Her citations were horrible. While news sources are okay at times, we all know they're not the most reliable and are often biased. For me I just could not get around her views. I finished the book because I don't like to DNF, but it was a pain-fest.
Why wouldn’t you trust the New Yorker for something like the rate of suicide? It’s one of the finest publications we have for serious, deep reportage.
Andrew B wrote: "Why wouldn’t you trust the New Yorker for something like the rate of suicide? It’s one of the finest publications we have for serious, deep reportage."
It's not about not trusting The New Yorker, they're just not the primary source of the information, they're not compiling the stats on the prevalence of teen suicide, they're reporting someone else's numbers. Attributing information to a secondary source instead of to its original source is a convenient way to obfuscate when a piece of information is of dubious quality or misrepresented.
It's not about not trusting The New Yorker, they're just not the primary source of the information, they're not compiling the stats on the prevalence of teen suicide, they're reporting someone else's numbers. Attributing information to a secondary source instead of to its original source is a convenient way to obfuscate when a piece of information is of dubious quality or misrepresented.