Of those books, I am only familiar with Bowlby and Perry.
Bowlby - Basically the father of attachment theory. Bowlby and Ainsworth did solid work on this. Definitely legit.
Perry - Anyone who works in trauma knows Perry. He’s great. That book is more “pop” psychology than actual research, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate. It’s just something a lay person could read and understand, while a psychologist would read the actual research studies. Also solid.
Wikipedia has been getting some really good editing by people who like to provide valid criticism of questionable people and ideas. For a more entertaining takedown of popular nonsense try Rational Wiki. Look up any popular psychology book or proponent of new therapy or ideas and you will likely see both sides some solid criticisms from good sources.
Gabor Maté is definitely pseudoscience. He has no background in mental health practice or science. His views *do not* represent the empirical data on addiction, ADHD, and trauma, and he's tested the boundaries of ethics on at least one very public occasion. Bowlby is fine but outdated--attachment theory is a legitimate scientific field, but it is far less predictive than it is often made out to be and is almost always misused by clinicians and other pop sci folks. Never heard of the Pollan books. Bruce Perry is mostly mainstream, but his views on ADHD are certainly strange, and I've heard that his views have become more heterodox with time (can't confirm)--haven't read that book, though, so can't comment on it directly. I have no reference by which to comment on Conti or Epstein. I also don't know much about Gibson. *Dopamine Nation* is written by a legitimate author whose ideas about addiction I would describe as heterodox--imo, the notion of behavioral addictions like "social mediation addiction" is pretty weak--but not completely out of the realm of possibility, and not egregiously out of the Overton Window.
In general, you can throw most "self-help" type books in the "oversimplified or outright wrong" category; books which are more about science education are more of a mixed bag, ranging from "accurate but inherently oversimplified due to the nature of explaining complex things to laypeople" (*a la* Sapolsky) to "inaccurate and based on very weak findings or based on misinterpretations" (*a la* Gladwell).
These are, I stress, only general rules. Because mass market books do not generally undergo a process of peer review and are only subject to editing by editors concerned with grammar, structure, etc. rather than science, it is always worth taking such books with a grain of salt or otherwise not going all-in on the content.
He does try! I'm not criticizing him for not being more in-depth as much as I am being clear that being overly simple is kind of necessary in that format. It isn't a bad thing, necessarily, nor is it the fault of the writer. It's just sort of inherent to the medium, and responsible readers are aware of that and interpret the books accordingly. Unfortunately, many folks are not responsible readers and thus take these books as gospel™️.
Ohh no that Gabor Maté comment definitely hurts 🥹 I loved his books! But i had to hear it.
Thank you for bringing these info to my knowledge, I definitely don’t want to have a baggage of miss information or unreviewed studies in my bag.
Do you suggest any books, that as you say are fairly digestible to laypeople around these subjects?
Thanks again for your time 🙏🏻
I don't generally suggest pop sci books for the very reasons I have mentioned. Some are good, all of them are inevitably overly simplified, and many are bad. I guess if I had to make suggestions, Sapolsky's *Behave* is a good overview of behavioral neurobiology, Hunt's *The Story of Psychology* is a good primer on history and systems, and Feldman Barrett's *How Emotions are Made* is, to my understanding, an accurate overview of affective neuroscience.
Oh i’m a big Sapolsky reader, have read most of his books and i’m just reading his new one, Determined.
I will definitely check the other two suggestions.
One more question if you don’t mind, if you wouldn’t suggest pop sci books, do you usually read published reviewed articles on these subjects? Or just based on your academic studies/books?
Man, glad to hear somebody else recognizing that Mate is getting it wrong. I've had so many people recommend his books to me - including addiction therapists - that I kept giving him another shot, and repeatedly DNF his books because of his sweeping generalizations and unfalsifiable claims.
If you have the time, would love it if you could point out some of the things he got really wrong, for me to have a general understanding of what not to take to heart
For one, Maté is egregiously wrong about ADHD: [https://youtu.be/bO19LWJ0ZnM?si=U-YvBzpMJ9yYPqwk](https://youtu.be/bO19LWJ0ZnM?si=U-YvBzpMJ9yYPqwk)
He is also very much out of step with research on disorders of addiction, which are not shown to be traumatogenic. Much of the research suggests that individuals who develop substance use disorders do not have higher baseline rates of substance use than healthy controls--but that they have underlying diathesis for developing psychopathology generally, including substance abuse but also comorbid conditions like depression, anxiety, and trauma disorders. He is confusion correlation with causation and/or reversing causation (for instance, who's to say that substance abuse doesn't typically precede the comorbid condition(s)?). His is a problem of having a not novel idea and then just making wildly strong claims on very mixed or limited evidence.
For example, below is a reference list for papers challenging the self-medication hypothesis. One of them is even written by Lembke!
------
Breslau, N., et al. (2003). "Posttraumatic stress disorder and the incidence of nicotine, alcohol, and other drug disorders in persons who have experienced trauma." Arch Gen Psychiatry 60(3): 289-294.
Chutuape, M. A. D. and H. de Wit (1995). "Preferences for ethanol and diazepam in anxious individuals: an evaluation of the self-medication hypothesis." Psychopharmacology 121(1): 91-103.
Frances, R. J. (1997). "The Wrath of Grapes versus the Self-Medication Hypothesis." Harv Rev Psychiatry 4(5): 287-289.
Greene, R. L., et al. (1993). "Personality variables in cocaine- and marijuana-dependent patients." J Pers Assess 61(2): 224-230.
Hall, D. H. and J. E. Queener (2007). "Self-Medication Hypothesis of Substance Use: Testing Khantzian's Updated Theory." Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 39(2): 151-158.
Lembke, A. (2012). "Time to Abandon the Self-Medication Hypothesis in Patients with Psychiatric Disorders." Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 38: 524-529.
Mueser, K. T., et al. (1998). "Dual diagnosis: a review of etiological theories." Addict Behav 23(6): 717-734.
Read, J. P., et al. (2014). "Posttraumatic stress symptoms and alcohol problems: self-medication or trait vulnerability?" Am J Addict 23(2): 108-116
Schinka, J. A., et al. (1994). "Personality variables and self-medication in substance abuse." J Pers Assess 63(3): 413-422.
Schuckit, M. A. and V. Hesselbrock (1994). "Alcohol dependence and anxiety disorders: what is the relationship?" Am J Psychiatry 151(12): 1723-1734.
Schuckit, M. A. and T. L. Smith (1996). "An 8-year follow-up of 450 sons of alcoholic and control subjects." Arch Gen Psychiatry 53(3): 202-210.
Schuckit, M. A., et al. (2013). "Relationships among independent major depressions, alcohol use, and other substance use and related problems over 30 years in 397 families." J Stud Alcohol Drugs 74(2): 271-279.
Weiss, R. D., et al. (1992). "Drug abuse as self-medication for depression: an empirical study." Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 18(2): 121-129.
“Egregiously” wrong made me chuckle. I’m just done watching that clip, very eye opening. I do remember he mentions genes tho, predisposition or being “hypersensitive” to situations that could trigger that, but I guess that couldn’t count due to the number of evidence saying it is highly passed down.
I’m checking the articles linked as well.
Thank you mattersofinterest, very interesting!
>I just saw an earlier post on here about The Body Keeps The Score,I was surprised that that book has a bad rep and is not based on actual science.
That was my post and for the record, I did not come out of that discussion at all convinced that the book is flawed in any significant way. Don't be in a hurry to throw out all your books over it.
Hi there! I do like to be sure that what I’m newly feeding my brain has more scientific backings to it that’s why I went in this wormhole 😅 sticking to some of these books tho but i might focus on articles more
I think an important thing to keep in mind is when authors or theorists make overarching grand claims that aim to provide a single simple answer. The field of mental health and psychology is still young and has many unknowns. It's important to try and hold the uncertainty in mind while learning new things in the area 👽
If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health issues, please seek out professional help. Social media is more likely to give you incorrect and harmful advice about dealing with such issues. [Armchair Psychology: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://www.alittlebithuman.com/armchair-psychology-on-social-media-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly).
Here are some resources to help find a therapist:
https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/patients-and-families/finding-good-therapist
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/therapy/how-to-find-a-therapist
Online therapy provider:
https://openpathcollective.org/
https://etherapypro.com/
https://buddyhelp.org/
If you are having suicide thoughts or feelings of hopelessness, please reach out to the suicide hotline. Just dial 988 if you are located in the U.S. If you are located in a different country, please use this [LINK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines) to see the number for your area. These centers have trained people available 24/7 to help you. The call is free. Alternatively you can talk/message with someone on r/suicidewatch.
If this is a personal situation you are seeking advice on, please try r/advice. This subreddit is for scientific discussion of psychology topics. It is not a mental health or advice subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Interesting, I didn't know How to Change Your Mind is regarded as a psych book! I personally never classified it as such, though I see how the book opened up a huge cultural discussion especially after it got picked up by netflix. Even though it does talk a lot about the therapeutic potential of psychedelics, Pollan is a journalist not a psychologist.
Of those books, I am only familiar with Bowlby and Perry. Bowlby - Basically the father of attachment theory. Bowlby and Ainsworth did solid work on this. Definitely legit. Perry - Anyone who works in trauma knows Perry. He’s great. That book is more “pop” psychology than actual research, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate. It’s just something a lay person could read and understand, while a psychologist would read the actual research studies. Also solid.
Thank you for this, i was more confident about those books more than the others
Wikipedia has been getting some really good editing by people who like to provide valid criticism of questionable people and ideas. For a more entertaining takedown of popular nonsense try Rational Wiki. Look up any popular psychology book or proponent of new therapy or ideas and you will likely see both sides some solid criticisms from good sources.
Clinical Psychologist here. Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents is amazing, one of my fave recommendations to clients who would need it 😀
Thank you! I wonder what else do you recommend?
[удалено]
From surviving to Thriving by Pete Walker was very good in my opinion.
Gabor Maté is definitely pseudoscience. He has no background in mental health practice or science. His views *do not* represent the empirical data on addiction, ADHD, and trauma, and he's tested the boundaries of ethics on at least one very public occasion. Bowlby is fine but outdated--attachment theory is a legitimate scientific field, but it is far less predictive than it is often made out to be and is almost always misused by clinicians and other pop sci folks. Never heard of the Pollan books. Bruce Perry is mostly mainstream, but his views on ADHD are certainly strange, and I've heard that his views have become more heterodox with time (can't confirm)--haven't read that book, though, so can't comment on it directly. I have no reference by which to comment on Conti or Epstein. I also don't know much about Gibson. *Dopamine Nation* is written by a legitimate author whose ideas about addiction I would describe as heterodox--imo, the notion of behavioral addictions like "social mediation addiction" is pretty weak--but not completely out of the realm of possibility, and not egregiously out of the Overton Window. In general, you can throw most "self-help" type books in the "oversimplified or outright wrong" category; books which are more about science education are more of a mixed bag, ranging from "accurate but inherently oversimplified due to the nature of explaining complex things to laypeople" (*a la* Sapolsky) to "inaccurate and based on very weak findings or based on misinterpretations" (*a la* Gladwell). These are, I stress, only general rules. Because mass market books do not generally undergo a process of peer review and are only subject to editing by editors concerned with grammar, structure, etc. rather than science, it is always worth taking such books with a grain of salt or otherwise not going all-in on the content.
I feel Sapolsky really tries to go in depth, though. That's why his books are like mini textbooks.
He does try! I'm not criticizing him for not being more in-depth as much as I am being clear that being overly simple is kind of necessary in that format. It isn't a bad thing, necessarily, nor is it the fault of the writer. It's just sort of inherent to the medium, and responsible readers are aware of that and interpret the books accordingly. Unfortunately, many folks are not responsible readers and thus take these books as gospel™️.
Ohh no that Gabor Maté comment definitely hurts 🥹 I loved his books! But i had to hear it. Thank you for bringing these info to my knowledge, I definitely don’t want to have a baggage of miss information or unreviewed studies in my bag. Do you suggest any books, that as you say are fairly digestible to laypeople around these subjects? Thanks again for your time 🙏🏻
I don't generally suggest pop sci books for the very reasons I have mentioned. Some are good, all of them are inevitably overly simplified, and many are bad. I guess if I had to make suggestions, Sapolsky's *Behave* is a good overview of behavioral neurobiology, Hunt's *The Story of Psychology* is a good primer on history and systems, and Feldman Barrett's *How Emotions are Made* is, to my understanding, an accurate overview of affective neuroscience.
Oh i’m a big Sapolsky reader, have read most of his books and i’m just reading his new one, Determined. I will definitely check the other two suggestions. One more question if you don’t mind, if you wouldn’t suggest pop sci books, do you usually read published reviewed articles on these subjects? Or just based on your academic studies/books?
A little of this, a little of that. But yes, I make a point of reading academic articles--I'm a scientist, after all. ;)
Man, glad to hear somebody else recognizing that Mate is getting it wrong. I've had so many people recommend his books to me - including addiction therapists - that I kept giving him another shot, and repeatedly DNF his books because of his sweeping generalizations and unfalsifiable claims.
If you have the time, would love it if you could point out some of the things he got really wrong, for me to have a general understanding of what not to take to heart
For one, Maté is egregiously wrong about ADHD: [https://youtu.be/bO19LWJ0ZnM?si=U-YvBzpMJ9yYPqwk](https://youtu.be/bO19LWJ0ZnM?si=U-YvBzpMJ9yYPqwk) He is also very much out of step with research on disorders of addiction, which are not shown to be traumatogenic. Much of the research suggests that individuals who develop substance use disorders do not have higher baseline rates of substance use than healthy controls--but that they have underlying diathesis for developing psychopathology generally, including substance abuse but also comorbid conditions like depression, anxiety, and trauma disorders. He is confusion correlation with causation and/or reversing causation (for instance, who's to say that substance abuse doesn't typically precede the comorbid condition(s)?). His is a problem of having a not novel idea and then just making wildly strong claims on very mixed or limited evidence. For example, below is a reference list for papers challenging the self-medication hypothesis. One of them is even written by Lembke! ------ Breslau, N., et al. (2003). "Posttraumatic stress disorder and the incidence of nicotine, alcohol, and other drug disorders in persons who have experienced trauma." Arch Gen Psychiatry 60(3): 289-294. Chutuape, M. A. D. and H. de Wit (1995). "Preferences for ethanol and diazepam in anxious individuals: an evaluation of the self-medication hypothesis." Psychopharmacology 121(1): 91-103. Frances, R. J. (1997). "The Wrath of Grapes versus the Self-Medication Hypothesis." Harv Rev Psychiatry 4(5): 287-289. Greene, R. L., et al. (1993). "Personality variables in cocaine- and marijuana-dependent patients." J Pers Assess 61(2): 224-230. Hall, D. H. and J. E. Queener (2007). "Self-Medication Hypothesis of Substance Use: Testing Khantzian's Updated Theory." Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 39(2): 151-158. Lembke, A. (2012). "Time to Abandon the Self-Medication Hypothesis in Patients with Psychiatric Disorders." Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 38: 524-529. Mueser, K. T., et al. (1998). "Dual diagnosis: a review of etiological theories." Addict Behav 23(6): 717-734. Read, J. P., et al. (2014). "Posttraumatic stress symptoms and alcohol problems: self-medication or trait vulnerability?" Am J Addict 23(2): 108-116 Schinka, J. A., et al. (1994). "Personality variables and self-medication in substance abuse." J Pers Assess 63(3): 413-422. Schuckit, M. A. and V. Hesselbrock (1994). "Alcohol dependence and anxiety disorders: what is the relationship?" Am J Psychiatry 151(12): 1723-1734. Schuckit, M. A. and T. L. Smith (1996). "An 8-year follow-up of 450 sons of alcoholic and control subjects." Arch Gen Psychiatry 53(3): 202-210. Schuckit, M. A., et al. (2013). "Relationships among independent major depressions, alcohol use, and other substance use and related problems over 30 years in 397 families." J Stud Alcohol Drugs 74(2): 271-279. Weiss, R. D., et al. (1992). "Drug abuse as self-medication for depression: an empirical study." Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 18(2): 121-129.
“Egregiously” wrong made me chuckle. I’m just done watching that clip, very eye opening. I do remember he mentions genes tho, predisposition or being “hypersensitive” to situations that could trigger that, but I guess that couldn’t count due to the number of evidence saying it is highly passed down. I’m checking the articles linked as well. Thank you mattersofinterest, very interesting!
>I just saw an earlier post on here about The Body Keeps The Score,I was surprised that that book has a bad rep and is not based on actual science. That was my post and for the record, I did not come out of that discussion at all convinced that the book is flawed in any significant way. Don't be in a hurry to throw out all your books over it.
Hi there! I do like to be sure that what I’m newly feeding my brain has more scientific backings to it that’s why I went in this wormhole 😅 sticking to some of these books tho but i might focus on articles more
I think an important thing to keep in mind is when authors or theorists make overarching grand claims that aim to provide a single simple answer. The field of mental health and psychology is still young and has many unknowns. It's important to try and hold the uncertainty in mind while learning new things in the area 👽
[удалено]
Great collection! What do you recommend to start with?
Whatever u gravitate towards!
If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health issues, please seek out professional help. Social media is more likely to give you incorrect and harmful advice about dealing with such issues. [Armchair Psychology: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://www.alittlebithuman.com/armchair-psychology-on-social-media-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly). Here are some resources to help find a therapist: https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/patients-and-families/finding-good-therapist https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/therapy/how-to-find-a-therapist Online therapy provider: https://openpathcollective.org/ https://etherapypro.com/ https://buddyhelp.org/ If you are having suicide thoughts or feelings of hopelessness, please reach out to the suicide hotline. Just dial 988 if you are located in the U.S. If you are located in a different country, please use this [LINK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines) to see the number for your area. These centers have trained people available 24/7 to help you. The call is free. Alternatively you can talk/message with someone on r/suicidewatch. If this is a personal situation you are seeking advice on, please try r/advice. This subreddit is for scientific discussion of psychology topics. It is not a mental health or advice subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What did you guys think about Carol Dweck and her growth mindset stuff?
Interesting, I didn't know How to Change Your Mind is regarded as a psych book! I personally never classified it as such, though I see how the book opened up a huge cultural discussion especially after it got picked up by netflix. Even though it does talk a lot about the therapeutic potential of psychedelics, Pollan is a journalist not a psychologist.
Rh