First, while replicability is a problem in psychology, and it’s actually a problem for many fields. In our research, we actually reach the same effect sizes an replicability percentages than many other major fields (e.g. medicine). This is not something that has hit psychology specifically; this is a problem that spans across science. When you’re working with people as your subjects, the amount of challenge that you encounter while trying to design a sound experience is quite significant. How can you measure change within a person? What amount of change is reasonable? How do you interpret that change? How do you identify the elements that drove that change? This are major questions that are rife with complexity
Perhaps most importantly, you are taking the challenges in research as an indication that we should all just throw away our research findings and use our intuition. Further, I’m very concerned by the phrase, "Hopefully you have a therapist that mostly gives you emotional support and uses their intuition to guide you”. Yes, you should have a psychologist who provides you with emotional support and uses their professional experience and intuition to a degree. However, the centuries of theory-building, models of care, ethical standards, and research should not be completely ignored. If they are, then the psychologist has no idea whether what they are doing has the potential to be harmful. That’s unethical care and I would not support it.
I find it interesting that you’re actually guiding people to resources that have NO empirical evidence at all (psychics and energy healers). That doesn’t make sense to me. While our research in psychology is not necessarily consistently concluding that our approaches to treatment work (which is the case for treatment literature across health fields), we do have really good evidence that our approaches, when guided by research, have an extremely low risk of harm. When people use techniques that have no empirical research, it opens up the possibility of doing harm. That is completely unacceptable
Second, psychologists are deeply concerned about the replicability crisis and have taken MAJOR steps over the last several years to address this concern (something that many other fields have yet to do). (it’s actually a lot more complicated than “bad methodology” in many cases. This is an issue that we care deeply about
Third, it seems like you’re attacking psychologists because of the problems that have come up in psychology research. This is interesting for two reasons. First, you seem to be confusing psychology research with psychologists. I think when you talk about psychologists, you’re talking about clinical psychologists (the people to treat mental disorder through psychotherapy). Indeed, the clinical psychology research has some problems, but the vast majority of psychology research is not in clinical psychology. The psychology field includes social psychology, clinical psychology, developmental psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, forensic psychology, cognitive science, neuropsychology, etc. These are are very different fields, and they all hold very different standards for science, so to lump us all together also tells me that you’ve not spent much time exploring our literatures
Here is my final thought. To alienate people from psychologists is unethical. When you point to “therapists” as being great, after having attacked psychologists, it will likely make people extremely confused. The most rigorously trained therapists are clinical psychologists. Any other person calling themselves a “therapist” has less training, and likely much less evidence-based training (they come from fields that are not based on science at all, like social work)
There are a few things that came to mind when I saw your model of personality disorders. First, I think the right side makes more sense than the left side. How are you operationalizing "empowering"? I’m not sure that people with avoidant or dependent personality styles are empowering (could you clarify?). People with dependent styles have almost no control over their interpersonal style (it’s completely dictated by whomever they are dependent on) and people who are avoidant have complete control (because they don’t get close to people), but I’m not sure how either of those presentations is empowering. I’m also not sure what you mean by having the schizoid and schizotypal groups under empowering and logical. Often these personality profiles are defined by magical thinking, unique ways of exploring the world (e.g., odd theories about the world). I wouldn’t see them as logical. If you’re talking about logical in terms of “fitting with the evidence” or having “balanced thought processes”, I’m not sure that would fit any of the personality disorders. That’s why we consider them to be disorders.
I'm really concerned about your support of Psych drugs. While it's absolutely true some people find them beneficial and manage to move through a stage where they are helpful more often people get stuck on drugs and the level of toxicity and subtle structural changes gets so out of control they can't even get off the drugs. And then if they get off the drugs they are literally brain-injured I'm not talking about psychosis I'm talking about brain injury and it's very much like traumatic brain injury when one gets in a car accident or something. It's actually often worse because it's so deeply ingrained when people have been on multiple drugs for many years. Not mentioning this possibility is a frank insult to people who are living this reality. Anyway my work is about helping validate people who are living this reality and part of that is staying away from Pharmaceuticals because they will continue to harm otherwise and sometimes they kill us too. This may sound hyperbolic but it's common in the world I serve and it's heartbreaking.
Insanity is not a term I resonate with except in my most trusted spaces to be used in an intimate sense a word to explain the enormity of consciousness and the process of coming to know how to stand still in the midst. "Insanity" in my experience is too gravely misunderstood to call it something that has become attached with all manner of misconceptions. I do think that using that term so explicitly will be off-putting for some.
I have one suggestion...rather than telling people what to do stick with your experience. Many of those folks need to learn to trust themselves and so I avoid telling them what to do at all costs...if they ask I make suggestions. Infantilization is probably one of the most egregious things the system does. Undoing that internalized toxicity takes time.
Keep in mind that you are speaking from personal experience, which has its pro's and con's. The pro is that it's not some neurotypical shrink or self-help guru preaching on something they've never actually experienced; the con is that this experience is subjective. You are not an expert in the domain of psychology or healing. So your writing style, which is very How-To, self help guru at times, might fall into fall into an over-zealous trap and defeat the purpose of this book. Constantly remind yourself as you're writing that your experience won't apply to everybody. Good advice for one person might be bad advice for another person (like your experience with energy healing). This is such as personal, subjective process so you need to be careful with what you're telling people to do. Collaborating and talking to other people will help minimize this bias.