“Disorders”

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29827, 21 May 1962, Page 3

“Disorders”

Sir,—ln today’s issue Is a review of a book, “Mental Health and Personality Disorders.” This review was written by “M.R.” Though “M R.” is, as he himself admite, angered by the book, it does not seem wise or just for him to begin his criticism with a false statement. In the review he states that the author claims that the book “is indispensible to parents and expectant parents, teachers, doctors, social workers, in fact all people who wish to understand more about human relationships.” Nowhere does the author make such a statement It appears on the cover-flap and In the foreword, but it is well understood by knowledgeable people that these are not the statements of the author.—Yours, etc., CLAUD R. DUNFORD. Publisher. May Iff, 1962. [Unless attributed to someone else, the foreword of a book can only be assumed to be written by the author.—Ed., "The Press.")

Sir,—ln reviewing Dr. M. Bevan Brown’s book, "Mental Health and Personality Disorders,’’ your contributor, “MR.,” writes: The general standard of the book is indicated by his definition of psychology as the science of the soul, mind or spirit. One can forgive a layman this error but surely a psychiatrist ought to know better.’’ Like Dr. Bevan Brown, the Oxford Dictionary defines psychology as the science of the nature, functions, and phenomena of the human soul or mind. This is the original and historical definitiion. It te a general one, embracing child psychology, abnormal psychology, genetic psychology, social psychology, and all other of the many branches of the subject Will "M-R." explain why he so scornfully rejects it?—Yours, etc., L.H.B. May 19, 1962.

Sir, —' ‘Mental Health and Personality Disorder” has been reviewed by “M.R.” in a manner suggesting he is not competent for the task. After attributing to the author claims written by the publisher, the extravagant exaggeration of his second sentence indicates that he is irresponsible in using words. He then disparages the standard of the book and castigates the author simply for using a definition of psychology almost identical with that of the Pocket Oxford Dictionary. Having become angry, he distorts and ridicules some of the author’s opinions, based on a lifetime’s experience with mental health problems. The reviewer speaks as if with superior knowledge. Can he provide scientific evidence which absolutely refutes one of the author's opinions? Studying rate and monkeys may not provide the last word on human problems. Has your reviewer competence or practical experience in the field of personality disorders on which to base his remarks?—Yours, etc., A PSYCHIATRIST. May 19, 1962.

Sir, —Your reviewer “M.R.” in discussing the book. "Mental Health and Personality Disorders,” makes many sweeping statements which, as a layman, I feel should be left to a more knowledgeable protagonist than myself to refute. Hi* criticism makes one think that fashions in psychology are as prone to change as those in women's dress. But if your critic’s knowledge of psychology is as hazy as his knowledge of what is fitting or in good taste, as shown by his deliberate or unconscious misuse of Dr Bevan - Brown's name (a name to be remembered with respect • and gratitude by many generations of Christchurch citizens) I should doubt if his criticism is of any real value. —Yours, etc., WONDERING. May 20, 1962.