Making the biopsychosocial model more scientific—its general and specific models, Smith, 2021

[Mithriel]

In the original FND papers Jon Stone said that an important clue was a woman who had an attentive husband come with her.

 

[Sean]

The blame for this situation increasingly lies with the rest of medicine for failing to pull their colleagues into line.

 

[Barry]

A more scientific approach would be to identify each patient's personality style by referring to their astrological chart

Don't forget tea leaves .

 

[Barry]

If you are having to use such phrases in the sales pitch, chances are you don't have the evidence.

Very true. Indeed it's Parker's propaganda style for the LP.

 

[rvallee]

From chapter 9:

Literally magazine quizz level of pseudoscience. Which Beatles are you or what you had for breakfast says about your negotiating style.

It's the firm conviction these people have about being able to read other people, when they absolutely cannot, that destroys the entire system. Comedians genuinely have a more realistic understanding of human behavior. But these people are fully convinced they can do what they cannot. Dunning-Kruger maxxed out in the very people who should beware of it.

 

[Arnie Pye]

From post #16

Because personality manifests itself in relationships, it is part of the relationship story. Make your observations throughout the interview and identify the patient's dominant personality style as dependent, histrionic, obsessive, self-defeating, narcissistic, paranoid, or schizoid (or other types), as outlined in Chapter 8.

So if a patient visits the doctor they get pre-judged as being mentally ill before they've even said hello? That sounds about right to me actually - anyone who sees a doctor probably is mentally ill these days for being so deluded as to believe a doctor would help them. Why can't patients [be assumed to be] completely mentally balanced but just physically ill?

Edit : Bit in square brackets

 

[leokitten]

Here’s the paper

 

[Sean]

It's the firm conviction these people have about being able to read other people, when they absolutely cannot,

IIRC, the studies on who can best pick out liars show only one group scoring much more than random guesses. You won't be surprised to learn it wasn't psychs.

It was spies working in the field, whose lives depended on it.

 

[TiredSam]

Some aver

I stopped reading there. Sadly 2 words in isn't my record for deciding not to carry on reading a BPS paper.

Make your observations throughout the interview and identify the patient's dominant personality style as dependent, histrionic, obsessive, self-defeating, narcissistic, paranoid, or schizoid (or other types), as outlined in Chapter 8.

To be fair I have an analogous test for categorising BPS papers, they don't really stand a chance either.

 

[rvallee]

I stopped reading there. Sadly 2 words in isn't my record for deciding not to carry on reading a BPS paper.

Hey, when your ideas aren't worth a dime, always use $100 words to make stuff up about what those ideas would be if you had any. It's just academia things to use obscure words where common ones are perfectly cromulent.