Leon Hoffman on Lieberman's Shrinks

I would like to thank Richard C. Friedman for his positive comments about my review of Jeffrey Lieberman's Shrinks: The Untold Story of

Psychiatry. In essence, I agree with Friedman's additional commentary. I would like to highlight one point in his letter. He states that Lieberman populates the universe with ‘“heroes’ and ‘shrinks’ (biological versus psychodynamically oriented psychiatrists),” noting that this way of thinking “promotes divisiveness rather than bridge building.”

To me, Lieberman's depiction of “good guys” and “bad guys” is reflective of the all-too-human susceptibility of promoting identification with a particular group by casting out those who think differently. Those who violate the norms of the group are extruded from it. In fact, even young children may actively enforce group norms by extruding those who violate them (Schmidt, Rakoczy, and Tomasello 2012).

Lieberman stabilizes his identification as a biomédical psychiatrist by denying the contributions of those who do not subscribe to his credo. Obviously, a more scientific approach to the subject of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment would have involved a careful assessment of contributions from a range of theoretical perspectives. Lieberman's identification with his group seems more important to him than an objective, deliberative approach to the complex topic of mental disorders and mental health treatment.

Ever since the Enlightenment there have been periodic ebbs and flows of theories about the human mind and how to alleviate its suffering. Clearly, no one has yet found the “magic bullet” with which to address all of its complexities. None of us should delude ourselves into thinking that our pet theory is the only way to understand the mind or the only way to help those who suffer (Hoffman 2014, p. 143).

It is unfortunate that Jeffrey Lieberman, a leader in psychiatry, seems to believe that he has found that magic bullet. The problem with this approach is illustrated by his two case example