But, Gross reports, therapists who haventhemselves undergone therapy are subsequentlynless effective at “curing” patients.nControlled studies show thatngroups of patients kept on “waiting lists”nto see psychiatrists get better in thensame proportion as those who arrivenin time to tell their troubles. This isnhardly encouraging, suggesting stronglynthat time heals psychic wounds regardlessnof the psychiatric couch. Psychiatristsn(whose suicide rate is seven timesnthe rate of the general population) likentheir patients not to be too sick, thenprofile of their ideal patient being thatnof “an unusually productive and creativenperson,” Gross says. He alludes to thenYAVIS syndrome: psychiatrists like patientsnwho are young, attractive, verbal,nintelligent and successful. “One suspects,”nwrites Gross, “that psychiatrynmay be a cultural, symbolic ritual ofnthe newly sophisticated middle and uppernclasses, for whom it is a mysticalncorroboration that one is indeed anYavis.” Amen to that.nGross reserves his heaviest fire fornFreudian psychoanalysis, quoting HobartnMowrer, former president of thenAmerican Psychological Association asnsaying that “there is not a shred of evidencenthat psychoanalyzed individualsnbenefit from the experience,” and Dr.nHans J. Eysenck as saying, more disturbingly:n”Few patients are warnednbefore undergoing analysis that not onlynis there no evidence that it will improventheir status, but there is evidence thatnit may actually make them worse.” Othernstudies quoted by Gross have shown thatna patient is just as likely to be “cured”nby an untrained layman as by a psychoanalyst.nI believe, then, that it is high time tonsay about Dr. Freud just how much fraudncan be found in his theories. I am notninterested in how “sincere” he may havenbeen. Folly is not exonerated by sincerity,nany more than evil. It does no goodnto claim that Adolf Eichmann believednin what he did. Ditto the Viennese “authority”nwhose tales of the unconscious,nthe id, the Oedipus Complex, and so on,namount to the most successful impositionnof charlatanry in the past hundrednyears of Western civilization—perhapsnever. Charlatans have always abounded,nof course, in the territory occupied bynDoctor Feelgood, and there are quite annumber of them practicing today (dissectednby Gross in a chapter entitledn”The New Messiahs”), but none hasnachieved the quite astonishing degreenof acceptance of Freud—his writings,nfor example, published by the EncyclopedianBritannica ‘s Great Books.nEmpirically, as Eysenck says, the evidencenagainst Freud is devastating,nwhile theoretically the Freudian mumbonjumbo can lay no greater claim to beingnscientific than can the incantations ofnAfrican witch doctors. All “insights”nby analysts are protected from the risknof falsification by the saving clause ofn”reaction formation.” If the patientnagrees with the insight, the insight isncorrect. If he doesn’t, then he is exhibitingn”reaction formation,” which alsonproves that the analyst is right. As KarlnPopper points out, this protection fromnfalsification excludes Freudian theorynfrom the realm of the scientific, althoughnfor some reason psychoanalysisnstill has a vaguely scientific ring to it.nGross suggests at one point thatnFreud’s influence may be increasing, butnI am not so sure I agree here. When Inwas at Oxford 16 years ago he was regardednas a joke by both psychology andnphilosophy departments (I majored innpsychology and philosophy). Today, Inwould imagine that his star has fallenneven further. I don’t think that manynpeople really believe in the Freudiannthaumaturgy any more, even thoughnmillions do go to “shrinks.” Gross doesnpoint out that patients undergoingnFreudian analysis “are surprisingly fewnin number: currently only 30,000 patientsnin the United States, perhapsn40,000 world wide.” (But they do represent.nGross adds, “a cross section ofnthe upper echelon neurotic populationnof the Psychological Society.”)nMost people, I feel sure, go to see annn”shrink” for a few heart-to-heart talksnbecause their husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriendsnhave left them, andnthere are very few patients with the illusionnthat their personalities are beingnremade. Probably not much harm isndone or money wasted even if Blue Crossninsurance is paying the bill, as is thencase with government employees innWashington. The psychiatrist hasnusurped the role of the priest for thenupper middle class. This is one of thenfundamental cliches of our times, but itnis true all the same.nOf course, one can’t afford to becomentoo complacent about the abundant psychiatrizingnof our day. As the examplenof Washington amply demonstrates,nthere are plenty of people in our societynwho are eager to make voluntary actionsncompulsory, and the mental health establishmentjnI am sure, is no different.nIn 1977, the President’s Commissionnon Mental Health warned “that up to 32nmillion Americans are in need of professionalnpsychiatric help.” The egregiousnRosalynri Carter is pushing hardnfor an expanded state “mental health”napparatus. Stay out of her way if younsee her coming down the street. Someonenshould point out to her—as I amnsure no one has—that the KGB regardsnSoviet dissidents as having mentalnhealth problems, too.nAs for the millions who are unnecessarilyna part of the PsychologicalnSociety, one has little sympathy fornthem. Over the centuries, men havenalways devised elaborate ways of conjuringnmoney out of the pockets of thengullible, and our age is no different;nindeed, there are more of the gulliblenthan ever, as G. K. Chesterton foresaw,nwhen he remarked that “a man whonceases to believe in God doesn’t believenin nothing; he believes in anything.”nIf Freud ever read those true words,nhow he must have smiled to himself!nGo out and buy Martin Gross’ book.nIt is packed with useful informationnand it deserves to be read as widely asnpossible. Dni31nChronicles of Culturen