What do you think?
Rate this book
The Selfish Capitalist - Origins of Affluenza
The scientific companion to the bestselling Affluenza. This book provides hard evidence that Free Market Economics causes mental illness: that prevalence of mental illness in the english-speaking developed nations which are neoliberal is twice that of the relatively unselfish capitalist mainland western european nations.
292 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 2, 2008
25 people are currently reading
1264 people want to read
About the author
Oliver James
26 books152 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Oliver James is a clinical psychologist, writer, broadcaster, and television documentary producer. He frequently broadcasts on radio and acts as a pundit on television.
He is the author of several books, including Affluenza, which examines the role that consumerist aspirations play in making us miserable.
In 1997 he presented The Chair for BBC 2, a series that put celebrities on the psychologist's couch, and in which Peter Mandelson famously shed a tear.
Oliver has produced and presented several other television series about the issues surrounding mental illness, and various psychological aspects of British society. He also presented a series for This Morning on child development and is a regular contributor to several broadsheet newspapers.
He is a trustee of the Alzheimer's charity, SPECAL and lives in Oxfordshire with his wife and two small children.
Oliver James is a clinical psychologist, writer, broadcaster, and television documentary producer. He frequently broadcasts on radio and acts as a pundit on television.
He is the author of several books, including Affluenza, which examines the role that consumerist aspirations play in making us miserable.
In 1997 he presented The Chair for BBC 2, a series that put celebrities on the psychologist's couch, and in which Peter Mandelson famously shed a tear.
Oliver has produced and presented several other television series about the issues surrounding mental illness, and various psychological aspects of British society. He also presented a series for This Morning on child development and is a regular contributor to several broadsheet newspapers.
He is a trustee of the Alzheimer's charity, SPECAL and lives in Oxfordshire with his wife and two small children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
December 18, 2013
NEO-LIBERALISM MAKES YOU NUTS
Well ones thing for sure, Oliver James must be doing something right - he's obviously irritated some individual enough for them to post five 1-star reviews of his book. Needless to say not one of which would appear to have the resulted from an actual reading of the book - well maybe they read the blurb on the back cover?. "The Selfish Capitalist" is a post-script to his earlier "Affluenza" and contains further thoughts and data related to the effects of what James calls "selfish capitalism" (more or less a synonym for Neo-Liberalism) on our societies. He also reflects on what other writers and political thinkers from Karl Marx to David Harvey have had to say about his area of investigation: the links between the mental health of individuals and the economic organization of society.
In line with more orthodox thinking on Neo-Liberalism, James asserts that selfish capitalism is a phenomenon that has risen to prominence in the English-speaking world since the 1970's. While it has been a growing phenomena in other developed and non-developed countries, it is in the developed economies of the English speaking world that it goes deepest into the fabric our societies. Using data from WHO studies and other sources he demonstrates a clear correlation between income inequality (one of the pertinent and pernicious features of Neo-Liberal economies) and emotional distress. For the English-speaking world (Britain, U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia) the average incidence of emotional distress in the last 12 months is 21.6%, nearly double the level of other countries (Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands and France) that average 11.5%.
James questions the standard shoulder-shrugging view that is disproportionately popular amongst those on the right: that mental health problems are in large part of genetic origin. The evidence he cites seem to indicate that this link is greatly exaggerated and environmental factors are of crucial importance. He also presents a variety of data on related issues that raises serious questions about how our society is structured vis-à-vis materialism and how this effects our mental well being. One interesting fact he brings up is that the greater part of the growth of economies and household income in the Selfish Capitalist world results from an increase in second earners and hours worked.
The few people whom I have known that work in Psychology seem to get bogged down in their own specialty for a whole variety of reasons. They appear to be shy - certainly in their professional capacity - about making explicit links to the bigger picture of how society is organized. With that in mind, it is refreshing to hear a professional psychologist discussing these issues in a holistic manner and not avoiding issues that are generally seen to be in the political realm.
James makes clear that there are elements of his thinking that he is pretty convinced of, and others that he is fairly sure of, but does appreciate that more research is needed to confirm his and others hypothesis and provide a more detailed picture. Despite the, in part, tentative nature of his findings this is a fascinating book. A strong case is made for the need to question the manner in which our society is developing and the values it promotes if it is serious about the mental well being and real development of all people, rather than peculiarly attending to the interests (to quote Adam Smith) of the few whose wealth has risen geometrically while for most earners wages have barely risen at all. In common with his earlier works it is written in an accessible manner for those who are not academic psychologists. For those with a phobia of statistics they should be reassured that they are explained in a clear and straightforward way and have been leavened with a healthy dose of anecdotal material for further clarity. Well worth reading.
Well ones thing for sure, Oliver James must be doing something right - he's obviously irritated some individual enough for them to post five 1-star reviews of his book. Needless to say not one of which would appear to have the resulted from an actual reading of the book - well maybe they read the blurb on the back cover?. "The Selfish Capitalist" is a post-script to his earlier "Affluenza" and contains further thoughts and data related to the effects of what James calls "selfish capitalism" (more or less a synonym for Neo-Liberalism) on our societies. He also reflects on what other writers and political thinkers from Karl Marx to David Harvey have had to say about his area of investigation: the links between the mental health of individuals and the economic organization of society.
In line with more orthodox thinking on Neo-Liberalism, James asserts that selfish capitalism is a phenomenon that has risen to prominence in the English-speaking world since the 1970's. While it has been a growing phenomena in other developed and non-developed countries, it is in the developed economies of the English speaking world that it goes deepest into the fabric our societies. Using data from WHO studies and other sources he demonstrates a clear correlation between income inequality (one of the pertinent and pernicious features of Neo-Liberal economies) and emotional distress. For the English-speaking world (Britain, U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia) the average incidence of emotional distress in the last 12 months is 21.6%, nearly double the level of other countries (Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands and France) that average 11.5%.
James questions the standard shoulder-shrugging view that is disproportionately popular amongst those on the right: that mental health problems are in large part of genetic origin. The evidence he cites seem to indicate that this link is greatly exaggerated and environmental factors are of crucial importance. He also presents a variety of data on related issues that raises serious questions about how our society is structured vis-à-vis materialism and how this effects our mental well being. One interesting fact he brings up is that the greater part of the growth of economies and household income in the Selfish Capitalist world results from an increase in second earners and hours worked.
The few people whom I have known that work in Psychology seem to get bogged down in their own specialty for a whole variety of reasons. They appear to be shy - certainly in their professional capacity - about making explicit links to the bigger picture of how society is organized. With that in mind, it is refreshing to hear a professional psychologist discussing these issues in a holistic manner and not avoiding issues that are generally seen to be in the political realm.
James makes clear that there are elements of his thinking that he is pretty convinced of, and others that he is fairly sure of, but does appreciate that more research is needed to confirm his and others hypothesis and provide a more detailed picture. Despite the, in part, tentative nature of his findings this is a fascinating book. A strong case is made for the need to question the manner in which our society is developing and the values it promotes if it is serious about the mental well being and real development of all people, rather than peculiarly attending to the interests (to quote Adam Smith) of the few whose wealth has risen geometrically while for most earners wages have barely risen at all. In common with his earlier works it is written in an accessible manner for those who are not academic psychologists. For those with a phobia of statistics they should be reassured that they are explained in a clear and straightforward way and have been leavened with a healthy dose of anecdotal material for further clarity. Well worth reading.
August 29, 2018
Half of the book is references, but they aren’t cited in the actual text. So you see things like “A study found that …” with no citation, and little information on the research.
The writer doesn’t seem to have much knowledge of feminism. He seems to be under the impression that feminism is pro-capitalism, and states that feminists wanted women to "aspire to be like men in skirts".
"I put the view that men and women have never got on worse in the history of the world"
More nonsense.
"In two-thirds of cases it was the wife (now more assertive) who filed for divorce, with abusive behaviour by husbands probably increasing"
Another possibility: divorce becoming easier to obtain and more commonplace means women can more easily divorce abusive husbands now. The rate of serious intimate partner violence against females declined by 72% between 1994-2011 (source: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/i... )
The basic argument behind this book is this: People in the UK and the US are more likely to suffer from emotional distress than mainland Europeans in part due to Thatcherite and Reaganite politics. eg. the loss of job security. That, alone, sounds like an interesting topic for a book. Unfortunately the writer jumps from topic to topic and sometimes they don't seem to have much relevance. For example, there's a section about girls with absent fathers starting puberty earlier. What? This is not what I signed up for.
Sentences like this are eye-roll worthy:
"The travails of post-feminist modern womanhood are many and irksome, from the role strain created by motherhood and careers, to the pressure to look like Maria Sharapova."
This made me pause.
"Male American secondary school and university teachers have higher divorce rates than primary school teachers. The higher rate was ascribed to the contrast the men were experiencing between the nubility of their pupils and the relative undesirability of their wives, causing dissatisfaction."
There's a lot to unpack with this paragraph. Firstly, correlation =/= causation. I found this whole idea dubious at best (how can they possibly come to this conclusion with any assuredness? did they ask male teachers about this?)
The study isn't cited so I just googled it for more information:
"although male high school teachers and college professors may or may not be more likely to get a divorce than others"
What? So they're not actually more likely divorced.. "may or may not be more likely"
"- they are statistically significantly slower to remarry or more likely not to remarry subsequent to their divorce. We believe that there are two possible interpretations for this finding. First, subsequent to divorce, male teachers and professors may remain unmarried because they prefer to pursue a series of affairs with female students without marrying them. Second, they may remain unmarried because, due to the cumulative contrast effect, any adult woman they might meet and date after their divorce would still pale in comparison to the young attractive women with whom they come in daily contact."
Sounds like a lot of nonsense and guesswork, "male teachers don't get married because they're too busy having sex with their students". Then, I noticed the name Satoshi Kanazawa
After the talk of "studies" in the first 60% or so, we get to casual conspiracy theories, which are again jarring because they seem unrelated to the topic of the book:
"Given the number of other books by ex-agents since then suggesting such things did and do go on, it is at least possible that Roldós Aguilera was bumped off."
There are some reasonable ideas:
"Consumption causes the pathology partly because it holds up the false promise that fixing an internal lack can be done by an external means, and partly because the process of working, by which we earn the money to pay for the goods, is itself alienating."
It would have been nice to see this expanded upon.
There's a large section devoted to the effects of materialism. Materialism is linked with depression, low-self esteem, unrealistic goals, poorer relationships etc. Again, a lot of the claims seemed exaggerated, it wasn't clear where this research was coming from so there was no chance to check it independently.
The writer doesn’t seem to have much knowledge of feminism. He seems to be under the impression that feminism is pro-capitalism, and states that feminists wanted women to "aspire to be like men in skirts".
"I put the view that men and women have never got on worse in the history of the world"
More nonsense.
"In two-thirds of cases it was the wife (now more assertive) who filed for divorce, with abusive behaviour by husbands probably increasing"
Another possibility: divorce becoming easier to obtain and more commonplace means women can more easily divorce abusive husbands now. The rate of serious intimate partner violence against females declined by 72% between 1994-2011 (source: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/i... )
The basic argument behind this book is this: People in the UK and the US are more likely to suffer from emotional distress than mainland Europeans in part due to Thatcherite and Reaganite politics. eg. the loss of job security. That, alone, sounds like an interesting topic for a book. Unfortunately the writer jumps from topic to topic and sometimes they don't seem to have much relevance. For example, there's a section about girls with absent fathers starting puberty earlier. What? This is not what I signed up for.
Sentences like this are eye-roll worthy:
"The travails of post-feminist modern womanhood are many and irksome, from the role strain created by motherhood and careers, to the pressure to look like Maria Sharapova."
This made me pause.
"Male American secondary school and university teachers have higher divorce rates than primary school teachers. The higher rate was ascribed to the contrast the men were experiencing between the nubility of their pupils and the relative undesirability of their wives, causing dissatisfaction."
There's a lot to unpack with this paragraph. Firstly, correlation =/= causation. I found this whole idea dubious at best (how can they possibly come to this conclusion with any assuredness? did they ask male teachers about this?)
The study isn't cited so I just googled it for more information:
"although male high school teachers and college professors may or may not be more likely to get a divorce than others"
What? So they're not actually more likely divorced.. "may or may not be more likely"
"- they are statistically significantly slower to remarry or more likely not to remarry subsequent to their divorce. We believe that there are two possible interpretations for this finding. First, subsequent to divorce, male teachers and professors may remain unmarried because they prefer to pursue a series of affairs with female students without marrying them. Second, they may remain unmarried because, due to the cumulative contrast effect, any adult woman they might meet and date after their divorce would still pale in comparison to the young attractive women with whom they come in daily contact."
Sounds like a lot of nonsense and guesswork, "male teachers don't get married because they're too busy having sex with their students". Then, I noticed the name Satoshi Kanazawa
After the talk of "studies" in the first 60% or so, we get to casual conspiracy theories, which are again jarring because they seem unrelated to the topic of the book:
"Given the number of other books by ex-agents since then suggesting such things did and do go on, it is at least possible that Roldós Aguilera was bumped off."
There are some reasonable ideas:
"Consumption causes the pathology partly because it holds up the false promise that fixing an internal lack can be done by an external means, and partly because the process of working, by which we earn the money to pay for the goods, is itself alienating."
It would have been nice to see this expanded upon.
There's a large section devoted to the effects of materialism. Materialism is linked with depression, low-self esteem, unrealistic goals, poorer relationships etc. Again, a lot of the claims seemed exaggerated, it wasn't clear where this research was coming from so there was no chance to check it independently.
November 18, 2013
James attempts to critique positive thinking but concludes his book with something that looks rather like it: "Sooner or later a politician or party will emerge who offers a radical alternative to the hollow materialism of the present lot..." This isn't dialectics because James understands nothing of negation. He doesn't want us all organising against capitalism now - he wants everyone to passively wait for some hierarchical leadership to emerge from somewhere (perhaps from Bakunin's 'lower depths') to tame the excesses of capitalist system in order to save discredited capitalism. So like a 19th century Russian nihilist or 20th century Bolshevik (but with even less panache), James gives us the old idealist fallacy of Holy Spirit descending into unconscious matter, of 'consciousness being brought in from outside'. His poorly written nonsense is designed to appeal to the same status threatened, anxious and reactionary middle-class morons who waste their time on cretins like Alain de Botton.
August 24, 2023
This is a superb book and should be required reading for all.
I haven't read Affluenza the book that preceded this one, but I definitely will now.
Selfish capitalism is neo-liberalism that started with Thatcher and Reagan. The basic idea of neo-liberalism was to make the rich richer and our society in the English-speaking world has been set up to achieve this narrow aim ever since at the expense of everyone else.
The greatest damage that has been done in the last thirty years has been the pressure for both parents to work during the early years of their children's upbringing. The foundation of emotional well-being is nurture received during the first six years of life, the earlier the care, the more vital.
Selfish Capitalism loathes family life, hastening its decline, because family life poses an authentic alternative for workaholic parents. Selfish Capitalism prefers nurseries to care for babies and toddlers, so that the parents can swell the labour force making it easy for employers to keep wages low. This produces insecure and miserable children who grow into needy consumers who use materialism to fill the void, which never works, but the selfish capitalists don't care because they're making money from this misery.
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) has been suggested as a possible solution and in the UK the Blair government intended to train 3000 therapists to provide a nationwide network. Unfortunately CBT doesn't resolve the main issue as it discourages patients considering the childhood origins of their problems and it actively rejects analysis of how the person's society could be making them ill, which is probably why it appeals to Selfish Capitalists.
I haven't read Affluenza the book that preceded this one, but I definitely will now.
Selfish capitalism is neo-liberalism that started with Thatcher and Reagan. The basic idea of neo-liberalism was to make the rich richer and our society in the English-speaking world has been set up to achieve this narrow aim ever since at the expense of everyone else.
The greatest damage that has been done in the last thirty years has been the pressure for both parents to work during the early years of their children's upbringing. The foundation of emotional well-being is nurture received during the first six years of life, the earlier the care, the more vital.
Selfish Capitalism loathes family life, hastening its decline, because family life poses an authentic alternative for workaholic parents. Selfish Capitalism prefers nurseries to care for babies and toddlers, so that the parents can swell the labour force making it easy for employers to keep wages low. This produces insecure and miserable children who grow into needy consumers who use materialism to fill the void, which never works, but the selfish capitalists don't care because they're making money from this misery.
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) has been suggested as a possible solution and in the UK the Blair government intended to train 3000 therapists to provide a nationwide network. Unfortunately CBT doesn't resolve the main issue as it discourages patients considering the childhood origins of their problems and it actively rejects analysis of how the person's society could be making them ill, which is probably why it appeals to Selfish Capitalists.
September 4, 2009
I'm still processing this book. On the one hand I loved how it included feminist issues and language in his analysis. On the other, it made a few too many broad stroke claims with too many elements that I don't think can be as easily established, agreed upon and tested as he suggested. As with anyone who does the same, I appreciated his own self-criticism, reflection on the shortcomings he could account for, it strengthens one's argument more often than not.
I'm not springing to read the prequel given that this one is suppose to explain much of the even broader strokes of the prior one, so I'm reasonably confident I won't find in it the pieces I find missing from this one. But there's a better than good shot I'll read the follow up if he tackles it on. It certainly gave lots of food for thoughts and expressed ideas that have floated around my own mind (always nice to know I'm not the only one with such insatiable knee-jerk reflections on certain aspects of the English speaking dominated world.)
I'd love to discuss it with others who have read it.
I'm not springing to read the prequel given that this one is suppose to explain much of the even broader strokes of the prior one, so I'm reasonably confident I won't find in it the pieces I find missing from this one. But there's a better than good shot I'll read the follow up if he tackles it on. It certainly gave lots of food for thoughts and expressed ideas that have floated around my own mind (always nice to know I'm not the only one with such insatiable knee-jerk reflections on certain aspects of the English speaking dominated world.)
I'd love to discuss it with others who have read it.
December 4, 2010
It's alright but it descends into ridiculous conspiracy theories.
August 16, 2018
great example of fitting data into a theory (and terrible example of using 'data science' / statistics, when you don't seem to even understand how linear regression works. I don't think I've spotted one counter-argument (which then could be refuted of course), almost as if applying critical thinking would render the book worth reading but much, much harder to write ;-) To be clear, IMHO it's a bit in a style and level of a rant at a Islington pub, performed by an erudite and well read academic. That is we have it all: repetitions, opinions, hearsay, mixing dated (70's) research with recent results made on small population of students with fictional histories (e.g. referring stories depicted in movies isn't too convincing for me). Clearly we are onto something, i.e. we seems to have more mental issues (or maybe we just started diagnosing more of these?) and that might be caused by purely hedonistic / materialistic live-style (or by access to communication tools allowing us to see clearly how we have always been?), but to discuss that is one thing, whilst blaming politicians and 'reach' for coordinated and deliberate actions to drive society into that ditch sounds to me a bit to far fetched.
Anyhow, was worth a very quick scan, some source research papers aren't to old and quite interesting.
Anyhow, was worth a very quick scan, some source research papers aren't to old and quite interesting.
June 22, 2021
This might be more suited to a long essay than a full book, and the theory isn't fully worked out (as he acknowledges). But still extremely interesting and changed the way I think about mental illness. In essence: as English-speaking countries took a turn toward neoliberalism starting in the '70s, accelerating under Reagan and Thatcher, and through the '90s, rates of mental illness grew at astonishing rates. Moreover, the correlation between mental illness and neoliberal political economies is very strong - mental illness rates are much higher in English-speaking countries than in mainland Europe & Japan, and much higher in English-speaking countries today than in English-speaking countries of 50 years ago.
It makes sense: design an economy where everyone's wellbeing is precarious, inequality is extreme, competition is fierce for a limited supply of decent jobs, a large percentage of people are one health emergency away from absolute destitution, you can be evicted or fired at basically any time --people might be more anxious and depressed in a country like that.
It made me want to re-read The Spirit Level, a much more in-depth examination of the relationship between income inequality and public health.
It makes sense: design an economy where everyone's wellbeing is precarious, inequality is extreme, competition is fierce for a limited supply of decent jobs, a large percentage of people are one health emergency away from absolute destitution, you can be evicted or fired at basically any time --people might be more anxious and depressed in a country like that.
It made me want to re-read The Spirit Level, a much more in-depth examination of the relationship between income inequality and public health.
June 9, 2025
Slightly odd book, this. James presents a plausible hypothesis about the connection between "selfish capitalism" (as defined by himself) and "mental distress" (mental illness), then spends quite a large part of the book pointing out that he hasn't presented arguments against it and that it needs a lot more research. Which is intellectually honest, but just odd.
James contends that in the Anglophone world government policies have tended to make the rich (vastly) richer, while real wages for the majority haven't risen since the 1970s. There's a lot of stirring condemnation of the enablers of "selfish capitalism" in British politics, not least Thatcher, Blair and Brown.
James' conviction that all mental illness is due to early trauma came a cropper some years ago when he told everyone that it was the cause of schizophrenia -- he was shot down in flames.
But despite that, and despite his own reservations, this is a persuasive call for a less materialistic, more compassionate and more egalitarian society.
James contends that in the Anglophone world government policies have tended to make the rich (vastly) richer, while real wages for the majority haven't risen since the 1970s. There's a lot of stirring condemnation of the enablers of "selfish capitalism" in British politics, not least Thatcher, Blair and Brown.
James' conviction that all mental illness is due to early trauma came a cropper some years ago when he told everyone that it was the cause of schizophrenia -- he was shot down in flames.
But despite that, and despite his own reservations, this is a persuasive call for a less materialistic, more compassionate and more egalitarian society.
February 19, 2023
An unfortunate misfire from the reliably trenchant Oliver James. His heart and mind are in the right place. And what a promising thesis! Take Erich Fromm's criticisms of mid-century America and use this to show how income inequality is locked hand in hand with national epidemics of emotional distress. Except that James is his own worst enemy in dredging up these studies. Aside from his argument lacking a particular focus, he then tries to rebrand criticisms of neoliberalism that we've already read as "Selfish Capitalism," which further gets away from potential insights about emotional distress and the affluenza he has covered before. He also pads out every citation because he needs to write a 200 page book rather than the short essay that this volume really should have been.
March 28, 2023
Interesting takes on evolutionary psychology and modern forms of therapy. Draws a coherent link between sociopolitical changes and declining mental health, integrating loads of research.
BUT, the last 25 pages or so are a bit off. James ventures past his expertise and, while stating the hypothetical nature, arrives at conspiracy theories. I think this irritates many readers and does not add much to the book's main points.
However, with that in mind, i would suggest reading this book.
BUT, the last 25 pages or so are a bit off. James ventures past his expertise and, while stating the hypothetical nature, arrives at conspiracy theories. I think this irritates many readers and does not add much to the book's main points.
However, with that in mind, i would suggest reading this book.
May 28, 2022
Cool book-summed up into these points:
-People just want to live calm and pleasant lives but the government is not on the same page “80% of us (Britons) said we would prefer if our government put well-being ahead of wealth in formulating policy”
-Materialists suck and aren’t happy and => our society makes us materialistic (Tv, ads, inequality) => society is messed up because of our systems of government
-The status quo is a disaster- people don’t save, they are worked to exhaustion and death to make money to buy things they don’t even want and the system is fixed on short term, unstable goals and economic growth.
-We need to leave this system of “selfish governance” or we will likely continue this trend of being emotionally distressed and living unfulfilling lives.
-People just want to live calm and pleasant lives but the government is not on the same page “80% of us (Britons) said we would prefer if our government put well-being ahead of wealth in formulating policy”
-Materialists suck and aren’t happy and => our society makes us materialistic (Tv, ads, inequality) => society is messed up because of our systems of government
-The status quo is a disaster- people don’t save, they are worked to exhaustion and death to make money to buy things they don’t even want and the system is fixed on short term, unstable goals and economic growth.
-We need to leave this system of “selfish governance” or we will likely continue this trend of being emotionally distressed and living unfulfilling lives.
November 1, 2022
James writes with all the enthusiasm of a recent convert but reading it is like being stuck in a pub with a stranger describing their new hobby.
There's nothing to learn here and you likely already agree with the premise. Move on.
(Actually, the worst thing about this book is in the closing chapter and it amounts to little more than the following: "I know this guy, right, in the military? High up, like, y'know, not just anyone? And he told me that this war on terror is, like, y'know, just made up, right, and he says there isn't really any real threat. And this is true, yep, because, y'know, if people really did want to do it, they'd have done it." I must have suppressed this. At this point, I thought I was just trying to finish. There may be a case to be made that governments manage populations through fear but, crikey, do your homework or risk sounding like a crank.)
There's nothing to learn here and you likely already agree with the premise. Move on.
(Actually, the worst thing about this book is in the closing chapter and it amounts to little more than the following: "I know this guy, right, in the military? High up, like, y'know, not just anyone? And he told me that this war on terror is, like, y'know, just made up, right, and he says there isn't really any real threat. And this is true, yep, because, y'know, if people really did want to do it, they'd have done it." I must have suppressed this. At this point, I thought I was just trying to finish. There may be a case to be made that governments manage populations through fear but, crikey, do your homework or risk sounding like a crank.)
August 22, 2022
Of course capitalists are "emotionally insecure, have poorer quality personal relationships, are more inauhentic and lacking in a sense of autonomy, and have lower self-esteem".
All the social contradictions and material discrepancies we suffer are a reflection of their spirit.
All the social contradictions and material discrepancies we suffer are a reflection of their spirit.
February 10, 2020
There were some good ideas and thoughts but also a lot of very questionable ones.
December 28, 2010
I too have a psychology degree and for the first half of the book Mr. James just takes something with a grain of truth in it (the basis of what he says, it is in those psychology journals) but then expands it to something beyond, and then expands yet further so it becomes ridiculously fanciful and I wonder who is taken in by it, had I not studied psychology before, I fear it would have been me!
The Daily Mail reviewer on the back of the book says we must listen to what Oliver James is trying to tell us, after finishing the book, I am wondering what that is?! His message to us?
He seems to be anti CBT but pro Freud (now take that scientific community!)
Teetering on the edge of vilifying Dawkins..
Some sense in this book (Norway's oil vs. Scottish sea oil) but also quite a lot of nonsense. The two get muddled in and I wonder what the overall message was intended to be?
The Daily Mail reviewer on the back of the book says we must listen to what Oliver James is trying to tell us, after finishing the book, I am wondering what that is?! His message to us?
He seems to be anti CBT but pro Freud (now take that scientific community!)
Teetering on the edge of vilifying Dawkins..
Some sense in this book (Norway's oil vs. Scottish sea oil) but also quite a lot of nonsense. The two get muddled in and I wonder what the overall message was intended to be?
August 6, 2011
Complete rubbish! James has basically decided that materialism the biggest cause of emotional distress in the world today and has pieced together whatever evidence he can to support this theory. He doesn't actually seem to care that most of the evidence he presents doesn't prove what he says it does - I think the thinks his readers will be too stupid to notice. You've also got to love (not) the flippant attitude with which he makes such statements as 'being a low-income, uneducated mother makes you more likely to hit your children' or the way he pretty much dismisses the entire Human Genome project as a waste of time. There simply isn't enough room here to critique all the things i seriously dislike about this book!
March 21, 2012
The central tenet of this book seems to be on firm ground and it makes some excellent points e.g. those in power only really have an interest in women working to swell the labour supply and force down wages, but it's a real shame the author wastes pages pushing a 9/11 conspiracy theory because a 'friend' he knows in the intelligence services told him so (might as well have been a bloke in the pub). Ditto the attack on Cognitive Behavioural Therapy seems very tacked on and a complete tangent as CBT and other therapies are there to treat the symptoms of 'Affluenza' and aren't the causes. Other stats such as Spanish workers are happier partly because of their protective labour laws seem a little pointless in 2012 when that country has almost a quarter of it's labour force out of work.
January 22, 2008
The clinical child psychologist Oliver James is an enemy of evolutionary psychology and CBT among other things. In this book he considers how the English-speaking countries are experiencing much greater mental problems in their populations than their European neighbours at a time when their material desires are part of the neo-liberal revolution that has overtaken them the past thirty years. Only the rich get richer and the public sphere is privatised. He believes that the project was initiated thirty years ago by Corporate America to promote neo-liberalism. An entertaining read detailing the thinking behind his bestseller Affluenza.
Read
May 15, 2022I gave it three stars because it is a little overly academic and because it has failed to change the world. Then I considered how long I will be mulling these ideas over for and upgraded the book to four stars. Really interesting research but to be honest, if you've willingly picked this book up then Oliver James is probably preaching to the converted. Highly recommended for swing voters.
January 5, 2014
Read this after Affluenza. Maybe I've got a bit of James-fatigue, but I thought it was a bit 'samey'. Didn't really add anything that wasn't in They f*** you up or Affluenza.
Interesting enough read, makes you think about approaches to life.
Interesting enough read, makes you think about approaches to life.
July 6, 2014
After reading this book you'll likely want to move to western Europe, where you'll have better public infrastructure, a more representative government, less risk of mental health problems, better healthcare, less inequality and more vacation days.
January 28, 2010
Waste of time.
July 29, 2011
Powerful in patches, but for my taste spends too much effort knocking 'geneticism'
March 6, 2012
Average read with a great title. Kind of falls apart on itself but some good information
September 10, 2015
Never has a book made more sense. What a shocking eye opener and a must read for everyone!
February 7, 2016
Drivel......
October 28, 2016
Important subject.
December 28, 2021
Waffles far too much, slow to the point and the conclusion seems to only focus on one area of his discourse rather than bring it all together. Bit of a disappointment.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews