They F*** You Up: How to Survive Family Life (Hardcover)

James tries to get away from the default idea that there is a balance between nature and nurture in determining personal identity, thinking it’s a cop-out, arguing instead that by far the most determinant factor is upbringing before the age of six. It’s all very well to escape the scientism that says everything we are is dictated by genes, but James runs wildly in the other direction and is far too schematic in his isolation of various types of person that ‘result’ from different family contexts. As a psychologist, he falls into the classic trap of extrapolating from the kind of extremes he sees in his patients to general statements about the bulk of the population, whose indistinct neuroses and general ability to muddle along won’t fit his fixed patterns of ‘punitive’ or ‘benign consciences', etc. Trying to answer his questionnaires at the end of each chapter, I never identified with any of the types he thought I must belong to.

As well as failing to take proper account of life-events in later childhood and adulthood, James also seems too influenced in his argument by what he sees as the effect of his own upbringing, and pays too much attention to celebrities, never good case studies for making judgements about people in general. He uses Elton John, for example, to back-up the old chestnut about men being made gay by over-protective mothers and emotionally distant fathers: he doesn’t consider that these characteristics could be the result rather than the cause of having a gay child; he makes no attempt to explain the enormous amount of gay people whose parents aren’t like this; and he ignores lesbians completely.

The book does have some interesting things to say, but you have to wade through a lot of waffle and skewed logic to find it.

Oliver James, a child psychologist and sometime TV presenter/producer/etc. takes this basic idea and puts some flesh on the bones. The big problem is that when he's finished he still only has a corpse rather than a living being.

When it comes to research, James is the original busy bee. The Bibliography of this book is 24 (twenty-four) pages long, whilst the Notes & References are another 18 pages long.
In fact James provides research evidence for every key point he makes.

Impressive?

Actually, no. Because James is very careful that the points he makes, and the evidence he quotes is all aimed to prove one point: You wanna get your head straight? Then you gotta go to a "psychoanalyst". He does seem to qualify this in a couple of places, but a statement like:

"For all their shortcomings, I do believe that psychoanalytic treatments remain the ones most likely to produce enduring and profound change." page 255

Just two points here that potential readers might want to consider:

1. Numerous surveys, over many years, have shown that ALL forms of non-physical mental therapy as more or less equivalent in their effectiveness. What counts, it seems, is not so much the methodology as the relationship between the therapist and the client. I wondered how this author, having done so much research, managed to overlook THAT piece of evidence. But only for a page or so.

2. Although the whole of this book encourages the reader to delve into their own childhood experiences to understand their current behaviour, and to free themselves to feel OK about having opinions of their own, the author shows that he has not necessarily gained any such freedom for himself. On the contrary, he writes:

"Whilst I would like to think that I have managed to make their interest my own, my desire to persuade you of the importance of parenting for your own mental health and for that of our society as a whole is the direct consequence of their having been psychoanalysed. It was this which enabled them to parent me in such a loving way that I have pursued what mattered so much to them." page 256

If we take these words literally, our "guide" has based his own opinions primarily, and largely uncritically, on the opinions of his own parents. He is doing what he is doing, first and foremost, not for himself but for them!

We know this because he tells us that both parents were psychoanalysed before he was born, and therefore he cannot have made any first hand assessment of what sort of people they were before and after the psychoanalysis.

This claim that psychoanalysis is THE reason for the quality of his own parenting is, I'm afraid, pure flim flam, and we have to ask why, in advocating self-awareness in his readers the author didn't first try it out on himself.

But does it really matter? I might give you a tip on a certain horse, and you could still make a profit if it wins, even if I change my mind and back something else, or don't have a bet at all.

True. Unfortunately that doesn't apply here.
For example, because the author has such strong views about psychoanalysis he omits important evidence from other areas. Thus he talks about the comparative value of IQ in the business world, yet doesn't mention a single thing about Daniel Goleman or Emotional Intelligence. Not one word. On the contrary, according to James:

"Far more important than a gargantuan IQ score are Machiavellianism and being prepared to work hard" page 275

Well, hard work certainly helps, but "Machiavellianism"? According to Daniel Goleman ("Emotional Intelligence", etc.) - also an expert collector of supporting evidence - what really counts are positive social/communication skills, NOT deviousness and back stabbing.

Regardless of the extent to which either writer is correct, that James would venture into this area without even a brief consideration of Goleman's work suggests a serious case of tunnel vision, and calls the objectivity of the whole book into question.
Which is a real shame, because I think James does have some important points to make.