Raj Persaud in conversation - the podcasts
Are we all narcissists now? 'The Americanization of Narcissism'

Are we all narcissists now?

 

Discussing her new book with psychiatrist Raj Persaud, Professor Elizabeth Lunbeck explains 'The Americanization of Narcissism' published by Harvard University Press.

 

This is an important tome because it critically tackles the way the modern age thinks of itself. 

 

Lunbeck identifies some key moments in the notion that this is a particularly narcissistic age. One seems to be the publication of Christopher Lasch’s ‘Culture of Narcissism’, while another is Jimmy Carter’s late 1970’s, so called ‘malaise’ speech, which was a critique of modern North America. 

 

Lunbeck documents that the popular media seems to have got somewhat obsessed with the idea we are more narcissistic than ever before, but she also points out that psychoanalysts contend, there is this thing called healthy narcissism. 

 

We seem currently caught between two ideas – that high self-esteem is good for you but narcissism is bad? Are these contradictory positions resolvable?

 

We also now seem to believe that wealth inevitably leads to narcissism? And also that capitalism inexorably encourages narcissism? 

 

Given that narcissists are generally found good company and attractive, is it possible that the real problem is the 'failed' narcissist? 

 

There is also an important chapter in the book on identity  - perhaps what is genuinely different about the modern age is we are freer to choose our identity more than ever before? 

 

Is there a national anxiety about this?

 

To purchase this fascinating book visit these sites:

 

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674724860

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Americanization-Narcissism-Elizabeth-Lunbeck/dp/0674724860

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dr-Raj-Persaud-Latest-Users/dp/B0082XNF40

 

 

A related article from The Huffington Post which may be of interest: 

 

'I Should Like to Thank the Academy...' - The Psychology of Acceptance Speeches at the Oscars

 

Raj Persaud and Peter Bruggen

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/the-oscars-psychology_b_4886414.html

 

http://rajpersaud.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/i-should-like-to-thank-the-academy-the-psychology-of-acceptance-speeches-at-the-oscars-raj-persaud-and-peter-bruggen/

 

A recent study by Cheryl Morrier at Adelphi University, USA, investigated student and semi-professional female and male actors. Actors emerged as significantly more narcissistic than the general population. Entitled 'Success in acting: The roles of narcissism, depression and attractiveness', the research found the more narcissistic actors were also more physically attractive.

 

So those most in love with themselves maybe had partly an objective reason to be so?

 

Narcissism consists of feeling superior to everyone else, accompanied by a sense of entitlement to success and accolades.

 

Possibly the highest concentration of narcissism in the world each year assembles on the red carpet at the Oscars ceremony, because narcissists believe they are special people deserving of fame and recognition. As a result they tend to pursue careers where they are the centre of attention. Narcissists suffer an unrequited need for admiration, so their choice of work usually serves these ends. But after a while, they become difficult to bear because they are so grandiose, self-centred and demanding.

 

Narcissists are great on a first date but terrible at marriage.

 

It is precisely because they tend to score low on being team-players that they become eventually unpopular with those close to them. This might also partly explain the notoriously high divorce and relationship breakdown rate in Hollywood.

 

So a hidden pressure of Oscar night is the psychological tightrope narcissists tread on the red carpet. Convention requires they give an acceptance speech which thanks others and indicates humility - acknowledging the contribution of colleagues to their own success.

 

But deep down do narcissists really believe this?

 

Yet they must give an acceptance speech which makes them look good. So they should appear surprised at winning when the cameras turn to them, and they mustn't seem bitter at losing. Acting humble serves the inevitable narcissistic project of seeking admiration.

 

They mustn't in their acceptance speech, at all costs, inadvertently go over to the 'dark side'. Psychologists refer to the 'dark triad' of personality features likely to be found in this group as being manipulative (acting humble), psychopathic (no remorse over back-stabbing) and narcissistic (self-obsession).

 

A clue as to how difficult is the paradox narcissists must confront in the acceptance speech comes from a recent study entitled 'Are Narcissists Sexy? Zeroing in on the Effect of Narcissism on Short-Term Mate Appeal'. 61 single hetero-sexual men were asked to approach on the street 25 women whom they would genuinely like to get to know better.

 

The men had the aim to gather personal contact information from the women. In the experiment, published in the journal, 'Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin', research assistants debriefed the women after the study, collecting ratings about the man and the interaction. The higher the approaching man scored on narcissism, the more personal contacts they received from unacquainted women, and the more appealing they were rated by these women.

 

The authors of the study, Michael Dufner , John Rauthmann, Anna Czarna and Jaap Denissen found that it was the social boldness and their tendency to 'self-enhance' while in conversation that explained their greater appeal for a romantic relationship. So 'bigging yourself up' in fact does seem to make you more attractive - at least in the shorter term.

 

Psychologists Robert Raskin and Robert Shaw, then at the University of California at Berkeley, found those who score higher on narcissism tend to use more first-person-singular pronouns (words like 'I', 'me' and 'myself') compared to other pronouns. So this study entitled 'Narcissism and the use of personal pronouns', published in theJournal of Personality, suggests that how narcissistic the actor giving the acceptance speech really is, despite their best efforts to manipulatively hide it, may be revealed by how often they use first person singular pronouns.

 

Perhaps a new psychology game on Oscar night is for the audience to count the number of references to 'I', 'me' and 'myself', as the acceptance speaker apparently eats humble pie.

 

A study entitled, 'I'd Like to Thank the Academy, Team Spillovers, and Network Centrality', analysed films released between 1936 and 2005, used Academy Award nominations for acting, to investigate how much an actor really owes their success in the Oscars to colleagues and collaborations.

 

The authors of the study, Gabriel Rossman, Nicole Esparza and Phillip Bonacich, argue that narcissists might be right - it could be their 'star power' which determines whether they get an Oscar or not. Star power might be measured by prominence in credits and billing on Film Posters for example.

 

The study published in American Sociological Review found actors' billing could be vital. For example, Judi Dench had only eight minutes of screen time in the filmShakespeare in Love (1998), but nonetheless was one of only five names on the film's poster, and she won an Oscar for her performance as Queen Elizabeth I.

 

The rank order in credits, the authors of the study argue, represents a casting director's estimate of an actor's star power and bargaining clout in negotiating rank. It's therefore a good measure of status.

 

However, there is competing theory which is that it's working with the right people which helps you get the Oscar.

 

The authors of the study, based at the University of California - Los Angeles and the University of Southern California, consider the actor Robert Forster, who had a long but mostly obscure career as a character actor. Yet in 1998 he was nominated for the best supporting actor Oscar for the role of bail bondsman Max Cherry in the movieJackie Brown (1997). The film was written and directed by Quentin Tarantino who had previously been nominated for best director and best original screenplay (winning the latter) for Pulp Fiction (1994).

 

Forster's co-stars included prior nominees Samuel L. Jackson and Robert DeNiro. Forster's career apparently immediately returned to relative obscurity after Jackie Brown, demonstrating how much his nomination for that film benefited from Tarantino, Jackson, and DeNiro.

 

However, even actors who are themselves major stars may benefit from working with strong teams, argue the authors of the study.

 

Leonardo DiCaprio might be an A-list actor, but his first nomination came from collaboration with an Academy-nominated director (Lasse Hallstrom) and his second from collaboration with Hollywood's top director (Martin Scorsese) and an Academy-nominated writer (John Logan).

 

The study found star power did have an effect on Academy Award success, but that the prestige and merits of a film actor's collaborators, particularly the writer and director, greatly increased chances for Academy recognition.

 

The authors of the study conclude that there is a very good reason that Academy Award acceptance speeches are so long--they should be - an actor's collaborators might be largely responsible for the achievement.

 

On the other hand, maybe the narcissists have the last laugh - you earn good team-mates by being seen as worthy of them.

 

But before we look down on narcissists and their mind games, perhaps due humility would suggest we all acknowledged the role of others in any success of ours.

 

Yet how often do we do that?

 

Read more on the hidden psychology of the Academy Awards:

http://rajpersaud.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/hidden-psychology-of-the-academy-awards-reveals-a-bias-against-actresses-by-raj-persaud-and-adrian-furnham/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/oscars-2013-bias-against-actresses_b_2757259.html

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Motivated-Mind-Raj-Persaud/dp/0553813455/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411993712&sr=1-1&keywords=the+motivated+mind

 

This podcast has been made on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (UK) by Raj Persaud and Peter Bruggen

If you are interested in further information on CPD Online or wish to earn CPD credit points, please visit the Royal College of Psychiatrists CPD Online website for further information at www.psychiatrycpd.co.uk

 

For more general podcasts visit: www.rcpsych.ac.uk/discoverpsychiatry/podcasts.aspx


When planes go missing. Psychology explains missing Malaysian Airlines Jet?

Should the mental health of pilots be of more concern? 

Dr Raj Persaud in conversation with Professor Robert Bor - a Professor of Aviation Psychology

Pilot suicide has been implicated in the controversy surrounding the missing Malaysian Airlines Jet and one of the foremost world authorities on pilot psychology, Professor Robert Bor, discusses with Raj Persaud the nature of Pilot Suicide.

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aviation-Mental-Health-Psychological-Transportation/dp/0754643719/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411244735&sr=1-12&keywords=robert+bor

 

A related article on The Huffington Post which may be of interest:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/pilot-suicide_b_5027742.html

 

How Likely Is Pilot Suicide a Cause of the Malaysian Airlines Crash - In the Opinion of Mental Health Experts?

Dr Raj Persaud and Dr Peter Bruggen

The current theory apparently being promoted by officials is that the crash of the Malaysian plane may have been an act of suicide, most probably by a pilot.

 

But do mental health experts agree that this is the most likely explanation of this deepening mystery?

 

Professor Robert Bor is a Clinical and Specialist Aviation psychologist, co-editing with Todd Hubbard, the key book on the subject of pilot mental health: entitled 'Aviation Mental Health'. It is published by Ashgate.

 

The book considers the psychological assessment, management, treatment and care of pilots as well as other professional groups within aviation.

 

Professor Bor, in response to the latest theory of pilot suicide in the case of the Malaysian Airlines Jet, is careful not to rule out the suicide possibility, but cautions that this is incredibly rare. When it happens, it is much more commonly in private pilots, who are not licensed to carry passengers.

 

But Professor Bor concedes that incidents involving commercial pilots are not unknown, and he points to the example of an Air Botswana pilot, who in 1999 crashed his plane into other aircraft on the ground of an airport in an apparent suicide mission.

 

The act appeared to be by a disgruntled employee, angry with the airline and his employers, wanting to take revenge. This suggests that if a commercial pilot kills themselves in this way, grievance towards the airline could be a key motivation.

 

This is probably being covertly investigated right now in the Malaysian Airlines case.

 

The Air Botswana pilot flew a commercial plane without permission and without passengers. He may have been angry and despairing that he had been grounded due to ill health. He may have thought he was never going to fly again. During negotiations with the tower, as he flew around the airport, he was said to have threatened to fly into the Air Botswana Office Building.

 

Within 24 hours of the Air Malaysian Flight going missing, Professor Bor explains that inquiries into the backgrounds of the two pilots would have been initiated, to investigate a similar suicide motive.

 

He elaborates that investigations into the pilots' mental health profiles would review spending patterns, possible relationship difficulties, drug use and any other behavioural disturbances.

 

But the Air Botswana incident involved a key life event, being grounded and discovery of a career-threatening health problem, none of which appears to have yet emerged in the Malaysian scenario. This reduces the possible likelihood of suicide, in Professor Bor's opinion. However, he concedes anything, at this stage, is possible. 

Another problem with the suicide theory is that, in the Air Botswana case, as reported by sources quoted by Reuters news agency, the pilot threatened suicide not just during the flight itself: he had repeatedly warned authorities that he was going to kill himself.

 

Professor Bor points out, 'no one wakes up one morning and suddenly decides to kill themselves', usually the intent emerges over a longer time. Yet given pilots are probably the most scrutinised profession on earth, it seems unlikely that even minor aberrations would have gone undetected before.

 

Commercial pilots don't just have frequent medical checks, they are being closely observed by colleagues on the flight deck as well as by other professionals, during, before and after flights. (Some planes haven't been allowed to leave the ground because the dispatcher smelt alcohol on the breath of a pilot.)

 

Professor Bor points to another case which may provide clues as to what happened.

 

In 1994, a Federal Express cargo Flight flying across the USA became the victim of an attempted hi-jacking by an employee facing dismissal. He boarded as a passenger with a case hiding several hammers. He intended to disable the aircraft's systems so that events were not properly recorded and, once airborne, to kill the crew using the hammers so injuries would appear caused by the crash. The plan was then to collide the aircraft, so the perpetrator would appear just another employee killed in an accident. His family would become eligible for a $2.5 million Federal Express life insurance policy.

 

But despite severe injuries, the crew fought back, restrained the perpetrator and landed the plane safely.

 

Dr Jennifer Morse, a consultant in Aerospace Psychiatry and Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at University of California San Diego Medical School, co-authored with Professor Robert Bor the chapter on the mental health of pilots in the book 'Aviation Mental Health'.

 

In their joint chapter they draw attention to Egypt Air Flight 990 which crashed in 1990, and where the relief first officer was recorded as saying 'I rely on God' just before disengaging the autopilot. He then went on to make the statement 11 times during the plane's impending crash, without any apparent emotion. While suicide seems the most likely cause, the precise motive remains mysterious.

Morse and Bor report an estimate between 0.72% and 2.4% of general aviation accidents are as a result of pilot suicide, and a history of psychiatric or domestic problems have been found in such post-crash inquiries and investigations.

 

Morse and Bor point out that one possible reason why a commercial suicidal pilot might choose to crash their plane, is that the evidence it was a suicide might be thus destroyed, so protecting their family, and the memory of the pilot, from the 'shame' of suicide. 

 

Using the plane as the instrument of death might also be psychologically entwined with resentment against the stress of the job, or grudges against the airline employer.

 

But Professor Bor also points out that psychology is crucially involved in the search for the plane and investigation of the cause, given the danger of a psychological phenomenon termed 'confirmation bias'.

 

Confirmation Bias occurs when you've already made your mind up and this biases the way you approach the evidence. The search for this plane may have been fatally hampered by a series of 'confirmation biases'.

 

It's vital, Professor Bor argues, that crash investigators remain open-minded and don't start looking merely for confirmation of a prior held theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This podcast has been made on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (UK) by Raj Persaud and Peter Bruggen

If you are interested in further information on CPD Online or wish to earn CPD credit points, please visit the Royal College of Psychiatrists CPD Online website for further information at www.psychiatrycpd.co.uk

 

For more general podcasts visit: www.rcpsych.ac.uk/discoverpsychiatry/podcasts.aspx


Russia abuses psychiatry. Russia Returns to Political Abuse of Psychiatry?

Is Psychiatry a Political Tool of the State?

 

Why are professional psychiatric organisations in the rest of the world reluctant to be critical of Russian Psychiatry, when it abuses diagnosis and turns it into a political tool?

 

A new paper in the academic journal 'International Psychiatry' published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists explores the issue: 'Is there a resumption of political psychiatry in the former Soviet Union?' by Robert van Voren

 

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PUB_IPv11n3.pdf

 

Robert van Voren (1959) is Chief Executive of the Federation Global Initiative on Psychiatry (FGIP) and Professor of Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies at Ilia State University in Tbilisi (Georgia) and at the Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas (Lithuania). He is a Sovietologist by education and graduated from Amsterdam University (modern and theoretical history + Russian language) in 1986, and defended his doctoral dissertation in Kaunas (Lithuania) in October 2010. 


Starting in 1977 he became active in the Soviet human rights movement. For many years he traveled to the USSR as a courier, delivering humanitarian aid and smuggling out information on the situation in camps, prisons and psychiatric hospitals. The information was used in Western campaigns for the release of Soviet dissidents. Van Voren led the international campaigns against the political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR, as well as in defense of individual political prisoners such as Irina Grivnina and Anatoly Koryagin. He also organized eight annual Sakharov Congresses in Amsterdam as a contribution to the campaign to bring about the release of this Nobel Peace Prize winner.

 

In 1980 Robert van Voren co-founded the International Association on Political Use of Psychiatry (the predecessor of GIP) and became its General Secretary in 1986. He was Director of the Second World Center in Amsterdam and board member of many organizations in the field of human rights and mental health.

 

In 1997 Robert van Voren was elected Honorary Fellow of the British Royal College of Psychiatrists, and in 2003 he was given Lithuanian citizenship in recognition of his contribution to a democratic Lithuanian State. In 2005 he was knighted in the Order of Oranje-Nassau on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of GIP. Van Voren has written extensively on Soviet issues and, in particular, issues related to mental health and human rights, and published more than a dozen of books.

FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION OFFICIAL DOCUMENT:

PSYCHIATRY AS A TOOL FOR COERCION IN POST-SOVIET 

COUNTRIES 

Abstract

During the 1960-1980s in the USSR, psychiatry was turned into a tool of repression. Soviet psychiatry was cut off from world psychiatry and developed its own - highly institutional and biologically oriented – course, providing at the same time a “scientific justification” for declaring dissidents mentally ill. Since the collapse of the USSR there have been frequent reports of persons hospitalized for non-medical reasons, mostly in the Russian Federation and Ukraine. 

 

 

The abuses are caused by an underdeveloped mental health profession with little knowledge of medical ethics and professional responsibilities of physicians; by a system that is highly abusive and not able to guarantee the rights of patients; because of corrupt societies where also psychiatric diagnoses are for sale; because of lack of financing and interest by the authorities and in some cases because of a deteriorating political climate in which local authorities feel safe to use psychiatry again as a tool of repression. 

 

 

Through targeted interventions from outside the situation could be considerably ameliorated and a clear break with the past could be made possible. In this respect the European Parliament can play a crucial role in empowering those who wish to make a clear break with the Soviet past.

 

Is there a resumption of political psychiatry in the former Soviet Union?

 

Robert van Voren

 

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHIATRY VOLUME 11 NUMBER 3 AUGUST 2014

 

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PUB_IPv11n3.pdf

 

ABSTRACT

 

After the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis in 

the spring of 2014, the former Soviet Union 

again became front-page news. The sequence 

of events led to an atmosphere reminiscent of 

the Cold War. In Russia itself it led to a hunt 

for ‘national traitors’ and ‘foreign agents’ and 

observers both inside the country and abroad 

fear a return to Soviet-style repression. For the 

outside world this may come as a surprise, but 

human rights activists have been ringing the 

alarm bells for a few years. Ever since Vladimir 

Putin took power, the human rights situation 

has deteriorated. One of the warning signs was 

the return of the use of psychiatry for political 

purposes, to ‘prevent’ social or political activism 

or to ostracise an activist.

 

A RELATED ARTICLE IN THE HUFFINGTON POST WHICH MAY BE OF INTEREST

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/ameila-earhart_b_4964304.html

 

Does the Disappearance of Ameila Earhart's Aeroplane, and Similar Enigmas, Reveal Your Psychology?

 
RAJ PERSAUD
 
When puzzling things happen which cannot be readily explained by official accounts - how does the public decide what to believe? What you end up accepting as true, about what really happened when a plane goes missing, for example, might reveal more about your personality, than you realise.

New research has examined in unprecedented detail the public's beliefs over the disappearance of famous aviator Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan, 70 years ago. This remains one of the most notorious flight disappearances. Speculation over what happened to their missing plane has spawned a small industry in books and theories.

Psychologists investigating pubic beliefs about what truly happened to Amelia Earhart have now found that conjecture over similar events, is associated with your intelligence, and even how agreeable your personality is.

Amelia Earhart, was an aviation pioneer, the first woman to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross; setting numerous aviation records. In 1937 Earhart attempted to fly around the world with second navigator Fred Noonan. On July 2, Earhart and Noonan departed from Lae, New Guinea, destined for Howland Island in the central Pacific Ocean. But radio transmission with them was lost, and, despite an unprecedented search, no physical evidence of Earhart, Noonan, or their aircraft was found.

Explanations for the disappearance range from those generally accepted by researchers and historians (that they ran out of fuel and crashed at sea, or landed on an uninhabited island), to unsupported claims (that Earhart and Noonan were in fact spying on the Japanese in the Pacific), to the bizarre (that they landed safely and assumed new identities or were abducted by aliens).

Viren Swami and Adrian Furnham investigated the beliefs, over what really happened to Amelia Earhart's missing plane, of 433 women and 481 men from London.

The study entitled 'Examining Conspiracist Beliefs About the Disappearance of Amelia Earhart', found that only 32% of participants in fact selected the most plausible explanation, as ranked by experts with knowledge about Earhart or aviation history. This theory is that their aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed at sea, not far from Howland Island.

The research published in 'The Journal of General Psychology', found just under 13% of the public shun this most accepted view, and believe instead that the pair survived the flight, returned to the United States, and assumed new identities (a theory deemed relatively implausible by historians), while 4.5% believed that Earhart and Noonan were abducted by aliens.

Almost 10% of the public believe Earhart and Noonan intentionally downed their aircraft near Japanese occupied territory, so that the US Navy could spy on the Japanese during the subsequent rescue mission, and were safely picked up by the Navy.

When official or mainstream accounts struggle to account for a significant event, so-called 'conspiracy theories' offer alternative explanations.

Conspiracy theories might offer a voice for the powerless or disadvantaged, particularly during crises when mainstream accounts have become erroneous or unreliable - a chink in the armour of the oppressors.

On the other hand, 'conspiracy theories' may serve to bolster self-esteem - 'I'm cleverer than the official man on TV because I can work out what's really going on'. The ability to express an arresting alternative account might impress an audience, and gain attention as well as respect socially.

But do such alternative theories about what really happened merely reveal the believer to be paranoid?

This study suggests it is personality and other psychological traits that are associated with conspiracist ideas.

Perhaps the more mistrustful believe in a vast, insidious, effective international conspiratorial network, perpetrating fiendish acts. Evidence that believing in conspiracy theories simply means more paranoia, rather than deeper insight, comes from studies which find those who subscribe to conspiracy theories, are more likely to start believing plots that are definitely fictional. These are conspiracy theories that have been made-up for the purposes of conducting psychology experiments on them, but do not in fact exist outside the laboratory.

Previous psychological research has found that being attracted to conspiracy type theories, for example, over what really happened when a plane goes missing, might be associated with greater alienation from those around you, more distrust in authority, elevated political cynicism, a deeper sense of powerlessness and lower self-esteem.

The new study, from authors based at University College London and the University of Westminster, on what people consider really happened to Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan, found that believing in less plausible, or less accepted, theories was associated with your personality being more 'disagreeable', which means your character could be more suspicious and antagonistic.

The study also found that that trust in less reputable explanations for the disappearance of the plane was associated with faith in other conspiracies, and possibly with lower intelligence.

It has been suggested that the more simplified explanations of complex phenomena offered by conspiracy theories, are more readily accepted by those with lower intellectual ability.

Perhaps the most sobering finding of the Amelia Earhart study is that only 32% of participants selected the most plausible explanation for her missing plane, as ranked by Earhart or aviation experts.

This minority might indicate a significant, and even growing gap, between official or expert accounts of mysterious or unexplained phenomena, and what the public believe.

One should be cautioned against drawing links between the Amelia Earhart example and the missing Malaysian Airlines Jet, as they are very different types of event.

But Governments are concerned about the spread of rumours, when official explanations struggle to convince. This can cause panic, undermining public confidence in leaders and social order. 'Someone's suppressing the truth' begins to grow as a conviction explaining this type of enigma.

So significant puzzles that gain world attention, even after the mystery is resolved, could have wider repercussions.

Perhaps missing planes and similar incidents are evidence that the authorized versions of reality need to be scrutinised a lot more closely, than we would otherwise routinely feel comfortable, given how much we rely on official reassurance over what is safe, and what isn't.

It's only if we are prepared to confront this discomfort, that we might discover, the truth is not always as it is presented.

 

WANT TO LISTEN TO THIS ON YOUR MOBILE PHONE OR DEVICE? DOWNLOAD THE FREE APP - Raj Persaud in Conversation

 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rajpersaud.android.rajpersaud

 

This podcast has been made on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (UK) by Raj Persaud and Peter Bruggen

If you are interested in further information on CPD Online or wish to earn CPD credit points, please visit the Royal College of Psychiatrists CPD Online website for further information at www.psychiatrycpd.co.uk

 

For more general podcasts visit: www.rcpsych.ac.uk/discoverpsychiatry/podcasts.aspx

Direct download: DR-100_0064.mp3
Category:(2) General Podcasts -- posted at: 12:00pm UTC

1