I have only listened to a few minutes, and to the promo, and am looking forward to the whole episode. Thank you for discussing this.
I can't know for sure, but I have a feeling you're going to touch on something I have believed is true for years:
No, it's not "autism," it' s not "ADHD," it's not "bipolar." It's Cluster B/Axis II. It's borderline and narcissism and histrionics. It's personality disorders.
Cluster B personality disorders have been socially and medically laundered into what I call "sympathetic diagnoses" that make unstable and variously anti-social and manipulative people into appearing to be the victims.
Yes, many, including especially the young people, have indeed been traumatized and victimized. But when the resulting psychology is Cluster B, they move into the "exploitative perpetrator" category as life goes on and they age.
I appreciate your saying that especially as a professional psychologist. Too few will do so, and lay people (with personal family experience with CB/Axis II) are often told we aren't qualified to point this out.
"We have such a fear of being Hitler, it castrates us.… The people speak not what they think." Self-censorship is a plague of this era. Thanks go to both of you for pushing back against the thought police.
The activists you talk about are equivalent to the Stasi and perhaps just as invisible.
I am familiar with Erin Pizzey and what happened to her. Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinzmentz, and many others have been subjected to the same attempts to get them.
Jordan Peterson was subjected to the same attempts to cancel him.
Excellent and important conversation. Thank you Hannah. Simply amazing at how caustic and barbed their responses to Dr Richter while at the same time being so petty and totally untrue. God bless Dr Richter for standing up for what is right.
Thanks for the video. At its core, I believe we need fewer diagnoses, not more, to explain mental illness. Many conditions can be grouped under what I call “Faulty Perception Syndrome.” Disorders like narcissism, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, and even general anxiety disorder can all be understood through this lens, though to varying degrees.
• Anxiety—A person feels fear and danger in situations where none should exist.
• Narcissism—A person experiences anger when they feel criticised, not necessarily when they are criticised.
• Borderline Personality Disorder—A person feels abandoned when their partner doesn’t respond to a text, interpreting a harmless action as rejection.
Who we are today is the product of our history. Our thoughts and emotions have been shaped by thousands of choices—both those we’ve made and those made for us. We do not inherently know right from wrong; we are guided by instinct, shaped by experience. This is why so much of psychiatric work involves helping patients recognize the flaws in their thinking.
We often assume that psychiatrists and psychologists hold all the answers. But what if they, too, are influenced by faulty perceptions? This is where the greatest danger to society emerges—when distorted perceptions are accepted en masse, not because they are based on fact, but because they are amplified by those with the loudest voices.
Take, for example, the recent rallies across Australia calling for an end to domestic violence against women. Protesters decried what they labeled a “man’s problem,” citing the 180 women killed by male partners last year. But the statistics also show that 50 men were killed by female partners. This is not just a men’s problem, yet those victims are overlooked, drowned out by the dominant narrative.
When these loud voices shape political policies and laws, they often do so at the expense of fairness, creating systems that disadvantage male victims—men who are already suffering violence and abuse, yet now must also fight against a society that dismisses their plight. Faulty perceptions have moved beyond individual mental illness; they have taken root in society itself.
This is why your work is so important. You understand the danger of distorted thinking, yet even as a psychiatrist, you are shaped by your own life story—your own experiences of what is true and just. At times, it must feel like banging your head against a brick wall, wondering why others can’t see what you see. The simple answer? They perceive the world differently.
Thank you for all this, you are spot on about perceptions, also the motivations behind maintaining such perceptions are important. I think the biggest problem is the status society has given doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists. We have elevated them so they now have the authority to give moral judgements. I see it get to their heads. Why should they re-examine if their worldview is correct? Not treating 70% of patients coming in? The patients are wrong, couldn’t possibly be the method or the worldview or moral framework in which they are treated.
Thank you for your response. I must say that what you mention is something I have often thought about. In recent years, mental health has taken center stage, with increasing recognition that psychological injuries can be just as damaging—if not more so—than physical ones. However, mental health assessments are often subjective, relying heavily on personal experience, observation, and interpretation.
Yet, many graduates enter the field with only an academic understanding of mental health, often shaped by prevailing public opinions on topics such as gender identity, toxic masculinity, and social justice. The danger in basing decisions on societal norms is that these norms are not always grounded in objective truth or individual circumstances. History has shown us how societal consensus can be deeply flawed—slavery was once widely accepted, yet today we recognize it as a profound moral failure. Have we truly evolved to the point where we can claim absolute certainty about what is moral or immoral?
Consider, for example, the case of gender reassignment in teenagers. In modern society, it is widely accepted that a man can become a woman and vice versa. A psychologist might recommend gender transition based on this acceptance without fully exploring the underlying reasons behind a teenager's feelings. But what if those feelings are influenced by external factors—family dynamics, bullying, or undiagnosed mental health struggles? If the same child had been raised in a different environment, would they still feel the same way?
Psychologists have a moral duty to act in the best interest of the individual while also acknowledging that they, too, can be wrong. No one has all the answers, yet psychologists are often placed in positions of authority, making life-altering decisions in courtrooms and clinical settings. Sometimes they are right; other times, they are tragically mistaken. This is why a deeper, more nuanced approach—one that considers both personal and societal influences—is essential in the field of mental health.
This is why I follow your substack. A person who challenges popular opinion because it is right and moral to do so despite the negativity and attacks I'm sure you must face.
I have only listened to a few minutes, and to the promo, and am looking forward to the whole episode. Thank you for discussing this.
I can't know for sure, but I have a feeling you're going to touch on something I have believed is true for years:
No, it's not "autism," it' s not "ADHD," it's not "bipolar." It's Cluster B/Axis II. It's borderline and narcissism and histrionics. It's personality disorders.
Cluster B personality disorders have been socially and medically laundered into what I call "sympathetic diagnoses" that make unstable and variously anti-social and manipulative people into appearing to be the victims.
Yes, many, including especially the young people, have indeed been traumatized and victimized. But when the resulting psychology is Cluster B, they move into the "exploitative perpetrator" category as life goes on and they age.
That's what I think.
I appreciate your saying that especially as a professional psychologist. Too few will do so, and lay people (with personal family experience with CB/Axis II) are often told we aren't qualified to point this out.
"We have such a fear of being Hitler, it castrates us.… The people speak not what they think." Self-censorship is a plague of this era. Thanks go to both of you for pushing back against the thought police.
Thank you for your support Fergus!
The activists you talk about are equivalent to the Stasi and perhaps just as invisible.
I am familiar with Erin Pizzey and what happened to her. Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinzmentz, and many others have been subjected to the same attempts to get them.
Jordan Peterson was subjected to the same attempts to cancel him.
Excellent and important conversation. Thank you Hannah. Simply amazing at how caustic and barbed their responses to Dr Richter while at the same time being so petty and totally untrue. God bless Dr Richter for standing up for what is right.
The results of feminism which you allowed to happen.
Hi Hannah,
Thanks for the video. At its core, I believe we need fewer diagnoses, not more, to explain mental illness. Many conditions can be grouped under what I call “Faulty Perception Syndrome.” Disorders like narcissism, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, and even general anxiety disorder can all be understood through this lens, though to varying degrees.
• Anxiety—A person feels fear and danger in situations where none should exist.
• Narcissism—A person experiences anger when they feel criticised, not necessarily when they are criticised.
• Borderline Personality Disorder—A person feels abandoned when their partner doesn’t respond to a text, interpreting a harmless action as rejection.
Who we are today is the product of our history. Our thoughts and emotions have been shaped by thousands of choices—both those we’ve made and those made for us. We do not inherently know right from wrong; we are guided by instinct, shaped by experience. This is why so much of psychiatric work involves helping patients recognize the flaws in their thinking.
We often assume that psychiatrists and psychologists hold all the answers. But what if they, too, are influenced by faulty perceptions? This is where the greatest danger to society emerges—when distorted perceptions are accepted en masse, not because they are based on fact, but because they are amplified by those with the loudest voices.
Take, for example, the recent rallies across Australia calling for an end to domestic violence against women. Protesters decried what they labeled a “man’s problem,” citing the 180 women killed by male partners last year. But the statistics also show that 50 men were killed by female partners. This is not just a men’s problem, yet those victims are overlooked, drowned out by the dominant narrative.
When these loud voices shape political policies and laws, they often do so at the expense of fairness, creating systems that disadvantage male victims—men who are already suffering violence and abuse, yet now must also fight against a society that dismisses their plight. Faulty perceptions have moved beyond individual mental illness; they have taken root in society itself.
This is why your work is so important. You understand the danger of distorted thinking, yet even as a psychiatrist, you are shaped by your own life story—your own experiences of what is true and just. At times, it must feel like banging your head against a brick wall, wondering why others can’t see what you see. The simple answer? They perceive the world differently.
Would love to hear your thoughts
Thank you for all this, you are spot on about perceptions, also the motivations behind maintaining such perceptions are important. I think the biggest problem is the status society has given doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists. We have elevated them so they now have the authority to give moral judgements. I see it get to their heads. Why should they re-examine if their worldview is correct? Not treating 70% of patients coming in? The patients are wrong, couldn’t possibly be the method or the worldview or moral framework in which they are treated.
Thank you for your response. I must say that what you mention is something I have often thought about. In recent years, mental health has taken center stage, with increasing recognition that psychological injuries can be just as damaging—if not more so—than physical ones. However, mental health assessments are often subjective, relying heavily on personal experience, observation, and interpretation.
Yet, many graduates enter the field with only an academic understanding of mental health, often shaped by prevailing public opinions on topics such as gender identity, toxic masculinity, and social justice. The danger in basing decisions on societal norms is that these norms are not always grounded in objective truth or individual circumstances. History has shown us how societal consensus can be deeply flawed—slavery was once widely accepted, yet today we recognize it as a profound moral failure. Have we truly evolved to the point where we can claim absolute certainty about what is moral or immoral?
Consider, for example, the case of gender reassignment in teenagers. In modern society, it is widely accepted that a man can become a woman and vice versa. A psychologist might recommend gender transition based on this acceptance without fully exploring the underlying reasons behind a teenager's feelings. But what if those feelings are influenced by external factors—family dynamics, bullying, or undiagnosed mental health struggles? If the same child had been raised in a different environment, would they still feel the same way?
Psychologists have a moral duty to act in the best interest of the individual while also acknowledging that they, too, can be wrong. No one has all the answers, yet psychologists are often placed in positions of authority, making life-altering decisions in courtrooms and clinical settings. Sometimes they are right; other times, they are tragically mistaken. This is why a deeper, more nuanced approach—one that considers both personal and societal influences—is essential in the field of mental health.
This is why I follow your substack. A person who challenges popular opinion because it is right and moral to do so despite the negativity and attacks I'm sure you must face.