You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
21 reviews for:
How the Brain Lost Its Mind: Sex, Hysteria, and the Riddle of Mental Illness
Brian Burrell, Allan H. Ropper
3.39 AVERAGE
21 reviews for:
How the Brain Lost Its Mind: Sex, Hysteria, and the Riddle of Mental Illness
Brian Burrell, Allan H. Ropper
3.39 AVERAGE
slow-paced
sometimes this book is about syphilis. sometimes it's about neurobiology. sometimes it's about how any patient without an observable physical cause for their symptoms is obviously just hysterical, and that's confusing for doctors. this was published in 2019! it's too bad this guy (an MD!) has so many dismissive opinions wedged in here, because there's some interesting historical tidbits, when he feels like talking about history.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
The first half of this book was intriguing as someone with degrees in psychology, counseling, a neuroscience. I liked the way the information was presented in anecdotes. However, the latter half of the book fell short for me, apart from a few interesting chapters on Tourette’s Syndrome, due to it feeling repetitive in nature. I also disagreed quite largely with statements made in the last two chapters. For a book written in 2019, the authors still seem to be rather conservative in their view of disorders and diseases. One particular part that didn’t sit well with me was the mentioning of there being a lack of data to back up addiction being a disease – this is just wholly incorrect and only contributes to the stigma. Overall, I’m disappointed in how much this book didn’t hold up to what I thought it would be about.
informative
medium-paced
informative
slow-paced
One of the worst writing styles I've ever encountered. I had to read nearly every sentence twice - due to an overcomplicated sentence structure, undefined words or sheer fatigue of it all. The structure of the book is even worse - no clear time-line, jumping back and forth and no conclusion.
Definitions of words that were used throughout the book (such as etiologies, and biopsychosocial model) and the differences between disease, disorder and syndrome were explained on the last 7 pages of the book - if you are trying to confuse the reader the first 205 pages why bothering to explain things at the very end? I'm so frustrated with this book. I didn't learn anything.
Definitions of words that were used throughout the book (such as etiologies, and biopsychosocial model) and the differences between disease, disorder and syndrome were explained on the last 7 pages of the book - if you are trying to confuse the reader the first 205 pages why bothering to explain things at the very end? I'm so frustrated with this book. I didn't learn anything.
Well, I fell for the old click bait title and I really wish I had just kept on scrolling, metaphorically speaking. What I mean to say is that I was excited to read this book and thought that it would highlight the challenges of treating mental illness and neurological disorders. I was mistaken. In reality, this book is a history of syphilis. Well, in some respects. The sections on the origins of syphilis are woefully inadequate and privilege only one hypothesis: that explorers brought the plague back from the New World (70). There is no mention of current research into the skeletons found to have syphilis in Austria in the 1300s.
This is not surprising given that the authors paint a whitewashed history of the disease. In an entire book about the supposed "scourge" that laid waste to hundreds of thousands of lives over many centuries, there is a single paragraph on Tuskeegee (145). Not only is there scant discussion of the ways in which syphilis was allowed to ravage families denied access to treatment, the paragraph frames the study as a "taint" on the reputation of the researchers. Forgoing, of course, any commentary at all on the devastating effects the research had on the lives of the Black sharecroppers who formed the basis of the study with zero knowledge or opportunity to give consent. Not to mention the racism embedded within that study and many other medical experiments in the past.
The authors also gloss over the ways in which psychiatry harmed more than it helped (lobotomy, electroshock therapy, ice water baths...) and barely mention that the basis for Freud's theories was fabricated (189) and that he never treated "Patient Zero" (104).
Mostly, this book contains a number of romanticized stories and anecdotes about artists, actors, and famous figures and very little clinical data. I found that surprising in a book that uses jargon without explanation and seems to assume the reader has a base familiarity with medical and psychiatric terminology. This patronizing practice also applies to the discussion of hysteria and the authors' insistence that the hugely problematic and troubling term still be used.
Perhaps most disappointing, is that by the end of the book, the authors have little to show for the claim that the book "tells the rich and compelling story of the intersection of two confounding ailments..." This is a story of syphilis and a list-based history of the intersections of early neurology and early psychiatry. I do not recommend this book.
This is not surprising given that the authors paint a whitewashed history of the disease. In an entire book about the supposed "scourge" that laid waste to hundreds of thousands of lives over many centuries, there is a single paragraph on Tuskeegee (145). Not only is there scant discussion of the ways in which syphilis was allowed to ravage families denied access to treatment, the paragraph frames the study as a "taint" on the reputation of the researchers. Forgoing, of course, any commentary at all on the devastating effects the research had on the lives of the Black sharecroppers who formed the basis of the study with zero knowledge or opportunity to give consent. Not to mention the racism embedded within that study and many other medical experiments in the past.
The authors also gloss over the ways in which psychiatry harmed more than it helped (lobotomy, electroshock therapy, ice water baths...) and barely mention that the basis for Freud's theories was fabricated (189) and that he never treated "Patient Zero" (104).
Mostly, this book contains a number of romanticized stories and anecdotes about artists, actors, and famous figures and very little clinical data. I found that surprising in a book that uses jargon without explanation and seems to assume the reader has a base familiarity with medical and psychiatric terminology. This patronizing practice also applies to the discussion of hysteria and the authors' insistence that the hugely problematic and troubling term still be used.
Perhaps most disappointing, is that by the end of the book, the authors have little to show for the claim that the book "tells the rich and compelling story of the intersection of two confounding ailments..." This is a story of syphilis and a list-based history of the intersections of early neurology and early psychiatry. I do not recommend this book.
3.5, interesting but got a little boring towards the end.
Such an interesting subject but so unsuccessfully executed. I'm having a hard time believing this made it past an editor. It reads more like a first draft than a final published work. It is so poorly organized, jumps all over the place, and fails to provide a coherent narrative or clear thesis. Such a pity as it had the potential to be a very interesting book. I think I would really enjoy it two or three rewrites from now.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Content Warnings
Graphic: Chronic illness, Mental illness, Terminal illness, Forced institutionalization, Medical content, Dementia
Moderate: Addiction, Drug use, Misogyny, Panic attacks/disorders, Sexism, Religious bigotry, Schizophrenia/Psychosis
Minor: Death, Emotional abuse, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Abandonment, Sexual harassment