Scan barcode
abstab's review
4.0
This title came up on my recommended books and I thought I'd give it a go. I found the concept of "pseudopatients" very interesting and thought it was a great test on psychiatric hospitals. Pseudopatients were the individuals who presumably had no mental illnesses but had to convince admissions specialists that they had something; the goal of their trials were to see if they could get discharged and see if they would be outed as "sane". I liked this premise but I became a bit confused because there seemed to be some inconsistencies within the main psychiatrist leading the studies and I didn't understand what exactly was going on. Overall, an interesting read for insight into the mental health system and the definition of "sanity".
Important Quote:
“‘I talked and acted just like I do in ordinary life. Yet strange to say, the more sanely I talked and acted, the crazier I was thought to be’” (19).
Surprising Fact:
Hospitals were notified that there was the possibility of pseudopatients admitting into their hospitals, but the man who was supposed to admit ended up not going, yet the hospitals reported that they believed that 23 actual admits could have been pseudopatients.
Key Takeaway:
Mental illness is complex and our current mental health system doesn't address or take care of individuals correctly while stigmatizing many.
Important Quote:
“‘I talked and acted just like I do in ordinary life. Yet strange to say, the more sanely I talked and acted, the crazier I was thought to be’” (19).
Surprising Fact:
Hospitals were notified that there was the possibility of pseudopatients admitting into their hospitals, but the man who was supposed to admit ended up not going, yet the hospitals reported that they believed that 23 actual admits could have been pseudopatients.
Key Takeaway:
Mental illness is complex and our current mental health system doesn't address or take care of individuals correctly while stigmatizing many.
sarahmcgurren13's review
3.0
This book was interesting. I thought the writing was all over the place, bouncing from one historical reference to the next (like this review). I found myself struggling to finish the last 100 pages. A few discussions I found interesting:
(1.) Rosenhan's study had a direct effect on the creation of the DSM-III.
(2.) The number of false studies mainstreamed into public knowledge and psychology coursework is astounding.
(3.) The closing of psychiatric hospitals in the 70's and 80's and its correlation with incarceration rates: I initially thought that the closing of psychiatric hospitals was a positive consequence of the study, however the author made me aware that psychiatric patients today are more likely worse off than psychiatric patients during this time period. It is more difficult to get a bed in a public psychiatric hospital than it is to get into Harvard. Instead, psychiatric patients are spending the time waiting for an open bed in jail. There is a reason why the incarceration rates of individuals with psychiatric disorders have risen is that there is no where for them to go to receive help and support for their troubles.
(1.) Rosenhan's study had a direct effect on the creation of the DSM-III.
(2.) The number of false studies mainstreamed into public knowledge and psychology coursework is astounding.
(3.) The closing of psychiatric hospitals in the 70's and 80's and its correlation with incarceration rates: I initially thought that the closing of psychiatric hospitals was a positive consequence of the study, however the author made me aware that psychiatric patients today are more likely worse off than psychiatric patients during this time period. It is more difficult to get a bed in a public psychiatric hospital than it is to get into Harvard. Instead, psychiatric patients are spending the time waiting for an open bed in jail. There is a reason why the incarceration rates of individuals with psychiatric disorders have risen is that there is no where for them to go to receive help and support for their troubles.
bethmara's review
3.0
Authored by the woman who gained well-deserved acclaim following paneer fatal psychiatric misdiagnosis, Cahalan delves into the dirty laundry of psychiatry and people who pose as mental patients.
In her first book, Brain on Fire, Cahalans brand of journalism, neurology/psychiatry and social insight reminded me of Oliver Sacks and I was excited for this book.
Landmark studies in psychology and psychiatry were conducted out of Stanford in the 1970s and The Great Pretender claims to do a deep dive into circumstances that allowed neurotypical individuals to pass as psychiatric patients and remain in mental institutions for weeks to months even though they stopped presenting false symptoms as soon as they were admitted.
The idea of how even the most normal conversations and actions can be interpreted as signs of mental dysfunction when you assume someone is mentally ill guides the narrative.
While I was hoping for a deep dive into the experiences of the individuals who participated in the study and their reflections decades after the experiment had ended, that was not what this book was. Moreover, I kept reading the summary in the dust jacket trying to align what was happening with what was supposed to be a synopsis of the book.
What I got was a book that too often centered the author and her prior experiences with being misdiagnosed with primary mental disease. I very much wanted to read about the advertised 'great pretenders' but alas Calahan spends an unpleasant amount of time discussing the history of psychiatry, her path to find the research study directors notes and anecdotal information about the research director.
This book reads like a journalist who was trying hard to get a scoop and came up way short in their research. I kept feeling like this could have been compressed into an essay in The Atlantic.
Overall, very disappointed and wondering if the person who wrote the synopsis and titled the book bothered to read it.
In her first book, Brain on Fire, Cahalans brand of journalism, neurology/psychiatry and social insight reminded me of Oliver Sacks and I was excited for this book.
Landmark studies in psychology and psychiatry were conducted out of Stanford in the 1970s and The Great Pretender claims to do a deep dive into circumstances that allowed neurotypical individuals to pass as psychiatric patients and remain in mental institutions for weeks to months even though they stopped presenting false symptoms as soon as they were admitted.
The idea of how even the most normal conversations and actions can be interpreted as signs of mental dysfunction when you assume someone is mentally ill guides the narrative.
While I was hoping for a deep dive into the experiences of the individuals who participated in the study and their reflections decades after the experiment had ended, that was not what this book was. Moreover, I kept reading the summary in the dust jacket trying to align what was happening with what was supposed to be a synopsis of the book.
What I got was a book that too often centered the author and her prior experiences with being misdiagnosed with primary mental disease. I very much wanted to read about the advertised 'great pretenders' but alas Calahan spends an unpleasant amount of time discussing the history of psychiatry, her path to find the research study directors notes and anecdotal information about the research director.
This book reads like a journalist who was trying hard to get a scoop and came up way short in their research. I kept feeling like this could have been compressed into an essay in The Atlantic.
Overall, very disappointed and wondering if the person who wrote the synopsis and titled the book bothered to read it.
aliyahovert's review
3.0
a cool summary of a very interesting study. i did find it a bit hard to get into though.
jessplayin's review
2.0
Very scattered. Several minor mistakes in details that call into question larger sections of the book and an unsatisfactory conclusion. I enjoyed doing research on the subjects in the book while reading but cannot recommend as a book by itself