Dr Jess Taylor on Woman's Hour

[CirrusCumulus]

I feel very conflicted about her. She seems a massive self-publicist who has stretched her qualifications and clinical experience in psychology, and reportedly betrayed women who confided in her, for content. She states there is no mental illness, I think. It's all trauma? Sets herself up as an expert but seems quite dodgy. Definitely doesn't respond well to criticism. Now she's branched out (inevitably) into poverty porn. Am I being harsh?

Can't link to her Woman's Hour interview today but you can listen to it on the Sounds app (which I just can't get on with)

I don't think it's "poverty porn" if it's your own experience, surely? Her new book is autobiographical.

I know she is not well-liked in some circles.

I find her interesting, I might not agree with what she posits but her insights into trauma and mental illness should not be dismissed out of hand.

I object to anyone calling her account of her early life 'poverty porn', that's a horrible phrase.

You don't seem that conflicted OP.

I listened to most of that interview in the car and must admit that some of the things she reported, specifically what others said about her, had the air of being exaggerated or embroidered in the re-telling, to make her story more convincing and compelling. She strongly reminded me of an old friend of mine who is very intelligent but had a turbulent childhood, inadequate parents and some damaging relationships who does that.

I find her interesting, I might not agree with what she posits but her insights into trauma and mental illness should not be dismissed out of hand. I love MN for the posters who articulate exactly what I'm thinking in a more clear and concise manner.

Thank you, that's very kind

I listen to her and thought she was interesting. I did think she was exaggerating some things but not the important things. I certainly don't think she was exaggerating what happened during that absolutely shocking rape.

Have to admit my first thought was that I bet she comes on here!

She isn't a practising clinical psychologist - though you'd be forgiven for assuming she was, the way she talks. So I find that quite iffy!

Longer, older thread about her previous book linked below.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4501519-Dr-Jessica-Taylor-New-Book

Has anyone read the autobiography? Is it good?

I don't like her, I think she's a grifter.

I've been following the book's release as I think I might buy it. However, I'm wondering if any of the people/ institutions she's criticized in the book have responded? The email sent to her colleagues about her upbringing are shocking, but I would like to hear the other side of the story here?

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13379091/Im-leading-psychologist-faced-prejudice-university-council-house-upbringing.html

Am off to google her. There is no mental illness is clearly nonsense though. Trauma obviously can cause or exacerbate mental illness but some are completely unrelated. Without wanting to say that one anecdotal experience proves any theory I had a friend who had bi-polar and had the best childhood, zero trauma. One of his sisters had it too and an Uncle. Obviously a genetic factor there.

@TERFCat, that email rang alarm bells with me in the Woman's Hour interview too. It seemed so unlikely, like something from the 1950s! I also know some psychologists and they are among the least likely people I know to come out with something like that, they'd bend over backwards to avoid it! I imagine they might have issues with some of her ideas but not her background.

Agree about the supposed email. There obviously is prejudice and classism in the professions but if it's there, it's not going around announcing itself in a widely circulated email briefing. (The tweet she posted about growing up poor AF, might have been what prompted it, in terms of how she was expressing herself, but if from her own account, not sure what it would have to do with the whole department. The other things she claims were said were separate to the email, if I follow correctly)

Part of the major problem with all this is the term psychologist and how sometimes there is no clarification on what that means. To most people the term psychologist means someone who is helping/counselling/assessing individuals on a day to day basis.

For example - I am studying a PhD which is largely situated within the discipline of psychology but is investigating domestic abuse. Once I'm finished I'll be able to use the title of Dr and send my work off to the BPS. If they are happy there is enough psychology in my work then they will award me chartership and I will classed as chartered psychologist (CPsychol). However, all this means is that I am an expert in this particular area. The same as Jess.

This is vastly different to chartered clinical psychologists and a chartered forensic psychologists who work with clients/patients on a day to day basis in most cases. This is most likely what people think when they hear the term psychologist.

I will say that I think her work on victim blaming (her area of expertise) is brilliant. However, I've said for a while she is deliberately misleading people as to what her area of expertise is and the title of psychologist and confusion over this helps to facilitate that. People in the field have called her out and she just either ignores them or blocks them on Twitter. It is extremely dangerous to talk outside of your area of expertise and this in particular was drilled into us on our MSc course due to the weight the title of Dr or psychologist can have.

I apologise for any typos I'm tired

Jess blocked me, a tiny, anonymous 70 follower account on Twitter. She'd written a post "did you know x about schizophrenia?" and I very nicely asked a question citing an expert in that particular area as she'd got something, can't remember what, completely wrong. I was a bit surprised that she immediately blocked me but realise now that's her way.

I don't know if it's her anti-academia stance or her general narcissism, but her lack of crediting other people for their ideas that she's regurgitated and refusal to engage in discussion with anyone who disagrees with her makes it quite difficult to take her seriously.

I tried reading Sexy but Psycho but found her writing style too unengaging.

Having said that ,I wish her all the best (although not at others's expense would be good).

@backfromouterspace Thanks for explaining, and good luck with your research / studies. It's a bit like the titles of nutritionist or counsellor. There's a world of difference between those who are registered and overseen by professional bodies and those who have done a certificate etc

I think she's dangerously overstepping her area of expertise, and I don't know why, when so many are vulnerable to quacks & skeptics telling us to throw away meds and rely on rubbing leaves on our heads, or just pull ourselves together.

Those of us with ongoing issues connected to trauma aren't being let down by the system because of the various labels in the DSM. A lot of us have to fight for the conditions we have to be recognised and acknowledged, let alone find appropriate support.

Does she think just calling everything 'a normal response to trauma' is going to magically create health service systems to help. I've looked at her website and that 'diagnosis' app she did. The idea that flashcards and online questionnaires will help me through a visceral response to a trauma based trigger is the kind of thing I'd expect from a secondary school student doing a GCSE business project, tbh.

@BobsyaRuncle Strewth, is that what she offers to support traumatised women? Very poor. How can you advocate for women who've experienced trauma but leave them high and dry like this?

She really isn't qualified to be offering diagnostic tools or manufacturing online coping strategies. Even if she was a qualified clinical psychologist, she'd have no business doing this.

Actually, as I wrote that I realised that if she was a qualified clinical psychologist she probably wouldn't do this, as she'd understand the potential for harm that it has.

And she certainly wouldn't have made the ethical blunders around consent that she has, because that is drilled into clinical psychology training.

Using the title of Dr of psychology to promote this merch is deliberately misleading, so also highly unethical.

I don't think she's done any of this out of a desire to harm others, but neither has she acknowledged that she's doing that when those harmed have explicitly told her.

Yes, and a very poorly trained academic. I am surprised she got her PhD, given her sketchy understanding of consent and citations.

Well, she was awarded a PhD by Birmingham University, I believe, so I have no doubt that she did the work for that.

It is very unconventional that she rarely if ever cites anyone or gives other people credit for ideas that have been knocking about for decades (the notion that psychiatry pathologies people and that the real problem is society not individuals is over 60 years old for example). Although I only see her stuff on Twitter as I find her writing really tedious, so she may well reference properly in her books.

This essay is great.

whatwouldjesssay.substack.com/p/stop-asking-me-what-about-men