PhD of anecdotes, no scientific backing and is extremely biased. Definitely focused on introspection which I personally don’t care for and it’s something that has been debunked in the field long ago. I thought I could get some insight on psychoanalysts from this book but not really, all just anecdotes. Absolutely no scientific backing, which is what I was hoping to read at least something that backs her field of study. But no, stories of her own experiences and patients. Lol and her sources seem to be Freud… which is so wrong on so many levels, I was under the impression the field expanded a bit farther than him but maybe not? Idk, do you see how uninformative it is?
She briefly mentioned epigenetic’s at the beginning which is cool, but she failed to touch up on the science aspect of it and it’s relation with the book (hence the title) and her research. She would offhandedly mention how everything was inheritable but nothing deep, super super brief.
With the anecdotes with her patients, she seems to stick with her own paradigm and doesn’t expand into others, which I question (I find that to be quite dangerous actually). How does she know how her patients are feeling 100% just be analyzing their current circumstances? She is quite conclusive on all of assumptions and I find it quite criticizable. All of the puzzle pieces seem to fall right into the missing puzzle frames which is just sooooo wrong, psychology is not a simple field. The author is self-promoting herself so hard it’s actually wrong.
She promoted the book by saying she had a PhD but idk, absolutely no research in it. Nothing too informative, just a biography which is cool but it’s definitely click bait which I don’t appreciate. Her conclusions and analysis on peoples experience seems to stem from her own experiences.
I don’t know why this book got such high reviews, it’s actually questionable. Is highly biased, not good, and lacks all scientific evidence. I guess this is the distinction between a clinical doctor and a therapist, which is alright. My biggest issue is her conclusive statements from this, she doesn’t explain any other paradigm, she frames the most pseudoscience paradigm in psychology as a science in this book, which is definitely isn’t. She seems to be a good storyteller and that’s it, I question the integrity of this author. She seems to romanticize a lot of these anecdotes and traumas and turns them into stories, also I questioned it at the beginning but by the end I felt sure, she feels to be promoting propaganda for Israel which I have a problem with because she’s doing it in a psychology self-help book.
Science should be taken off the genre tag for this.