Dr Jessica Taylor #4 Consent is for losers, not for me. Ignore that journalist spilling the tea.

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
For all her pretentions of being politically astute, she's actually just part of the neoliberal machine with her wannabe influencer vibes and positive affirmation tat. As previously noted, she's not very bright.
This. This is what fell into place for me several months ago. She is absolutely using all the tools she claims to want to destroy to gain power, success, money and influence. Once that clicked it all became clear and I understood the frequent niggles and uneasy feelings with her posts. Try as she might, she struggles to come across as authentic, as someone with depth and empathy. She thinks she does it well but so many came here because if that same feeling of uneasiness.

The more you look at what she actually does - how she treats people she considers vulnerable / less powerful / of little use or no to her - the more you realise she is full of tit - and dangerous with it. Because she doesn’t care who is harmed as long as she succeeds.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 14
I'm surprised the post from the niceish psychologist is still there and she hasnt blocked him to be honest. £15 for trauma flashcards with no after support in place. They are basically positive affirmation cards so why cant she just sell them as that?! Rather than cashing in on someone elses trauma YET AGAIN. God this woman is really getting on my tits!
I think she also sells affirmation cards. Cashing in twice.
 
  • Like
  • Sick
  • Angry
Reactions: 5
Her ignorance about the history of mental illness and its treatment was laid bare in Why Women Are Blamed for Everything. On buying the book I was unimpressed to find it was her PhD thesis with some blog posts mixed in, especially as the blog posts contained so many errors. The bibliography doesn't contain one single source on history of medicine: she just spouts a bunch of personal opinions without any attempt to show how she arrived at those conclusions and what the evidence is. She just relies on the fact that she has a PhD on a completely different topic to rubber stamp her opinions on everything under the sun.

One other incoherent thing about her views, which I don't think has been discussed here yet, is the way she dismisses the existence of mental illness yet uses the term 'trauma' uncritically, as if it's an objective phenomenon with universally applicable definitions. Yet the very idea of trauma as we think and talk about it in the global north has modern roots (it grew out of military psychiatry and humanitarian medicine), and this understanding of what it means to be traumatised is not shared by all cultures - in fact, it has sometimes been actively rejected by survivors of war and natural disaster in the global south. So if we're taking a social constructionist approach, Jessica's idea of herself as speaking a controversial but universal truth (can we ever forget her excitement that her book might be read in "regions of Africa", and the GoFundMe to translate her work?) is itself deeply flawed and ahistorical.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
  • Wow
Reactions: 14
Here's the full tweet thread on it for anyone who'd blocked.

To me, this says naff all about the diagnosis itself and an awful lot about things far more complex than this thread. Yes, there's an element of racism, there's also a lack of understanding about certain aspects of culture (ie. non-white cultural aspects being unhelpfully pathologised), and a real lack of awareness of wider societal factors (for example, some drugs (cannabis is one) can induce psychosis in those pre-disposed and it may be that some cultures or sectors of society are more likely to use certain drugs than others).

The inequality of diagnosis is an issue. It does need more research. We do need to be critical of diagnostic practices and listen to those with lived experience, as well as looking at it all within an anti-racist framework. But none of that means that Schizophrenia isn't a very real, potentially very scary illness that may or may not be able to be managed according to a large variety of environmental and biological factors.

1669574058863.png
1669574080538.png
1669574103415.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Medicine has very often been a vehicle for racism. In nineteenth-century Europe and the USA, for example, eugenics was considered a respectable scientific discipline that was vital to public health, an attitude that flourished for much of the twentieth century. (Traces of it still exist in the twenty-first century - forced sterilisation of Roma women was going on in the Czech Republic as recently as 2012.) But pseudoscience is only half the story: legitimate medical specialties also promoted racism. Lots of people are probably aware of the famous case of Henrietta Lacks, a black woman who died of cervical cancer and whose harvested cells were used without her knowledge or consent in countless medical studies. She was given substandard treatment in a segregated hospital under Jim Crow, and her family remained in poverty while doctors and other scientists built their profitable careers on the back of HeLa cells. Is Jessica going to turn round and say that oncology as a discipline is worthless? The fact that a black woman was exploited by white doctors does not change the fact that she did have cancer - that just makes the exploitation all the worse. Jessica's basic argument here seems to be, "Doctors have been racist, therefore the diagnoses they issue can't exist," which just doesn't make sense. She really seems to struggle with the most basic applications of logic, and I'm not saying that to be snarky - she honestly doesn't seem to understand the problem with the extrapolations she makes.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 13
I'm surprised the post from the niceish psychologist is still there and she hasnt blocked him to be honest. £15 for trauma flashcards with no after support in place. They are basically positive affirmation cards so why cant she just sell them as that?! Rather than cashing in on someone elses trauma YET AGAIN. God this woman is really getting on my tits!
She deleted the comments on her post without replying to the Nice-ish psychologists very well founded questions. She really is full of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Those cards are terrifying and I'm sorry for any person genuinely attempting to work on their recovery who invests in these cards as a cute or not-too-intense starting point.

Infuriating


Makes it sounds like she could choose to be a practising clinician but prefers research. She does the work she's only qualified to do, she can't do anything else, unless in a volunteer or admin or managerial capacity. She can't work frontline with patients.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 8
Those cards are terrifying and I'm sorry for any person genuinely attempting to work on their recovery who invests in these cards as a cute or not-too-intense starting point.

Infuriating


Makes it sounds like she could choose to be a practising clinician but prefers research. She does the work she's only qualified to do, she can't do anything else, unless in a volunteer or admin or managerial capacity. She can't work frontline with patients.
Again, being as economical with the truth as she can without just answering the bloody question! Yes, you can choose to do a PhD within the disciplines of forensic, clinical, or educational psychology for instance, but then you would not be qualified to practice clinically. This is not 'two routes' into those professions; it is having a PhD in that field. Having a PhD in Clinical Psychology does not mean you could go and get a job as a Clinical Psychologist, and so on for all the other disciplines. People who choose the PhD route normally do so because they want a career in academia. Perhaps the most crucial fact is that clinicians are regulated by the HCPC, which we know she has avoided so she can continue promoting her quackery unchecked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
Those cards are terrifying and I'm sorry for any person genuinely attempting to work on their recovery who invests in these cards as a cute or not-too-intense starting point.

Infuriating


Makes it sounds like she could choose to be a practising clinician but prefers research. She does the work she's only qualified to do, she can't do anything else, unless in a volunteer or admin or managerial capacity. She can't work frontline with patients.
One of her tweets from that thread annoyed me, she's basically saying people who disagree with her arguments just do it out of fear or "total panic" as she puts it, and so they can validate how they feel ...it has nothing at all to do with the fact that they think she's just full of tit!
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: 5
One of her tweets from that thread annoyed me, she's basically saying people who disagree with her arguments just do it out of fear or "total panic" as she puts it, and so they can validate how they feel ...it has nothing at all to do with the fact that they think she's just full of tit!
Yes, she conveniently reduces legitimate concerns as kneejerk reactions to the 'truth' provided by her 'profound psychological insights', rather than outrage at her unsubstantiated and foolish claims. Everyone is just jealous, less intelligent and nowhere near as progressive as her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
It really shows her up to be someone who has a PhD, and therefore has surely criticised other people's arguments in her own work, only to go on and say 'anyone who disagrees with my arguments does so out of panic'. It's just so unscholarly and tbh, childish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9
It was a different disorder given to slaves, and schizophrenia was weaponosed against black people during the civil rights movement, which was already over by the 1970s when Jess' quote on Instagram says it happened. Before then Schizophrenia was largely given to white women.

Jess' instagram quote seems off, I can't find the quote itself and the information in it is based in truth but all a bit out, like dates. Making up quotes would serve Jess in a few ways - it's lends credence to what she's saying and if it's proved wrong she can blamed the person she cited. It also proves everyone on tattle life wrong that she never quotes other people's work.

As someone with a close relative sectioned several times with schizophrenia her latest FB post has me raging. Sure the black history is awful, but….View attachment 1763997
* to be fair, I just read it back and Jess said 'by the 1970s', so 'Smith' was right. See how easy that was for me to do Jess.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3


Makes it sounds like she could choose to be a practising clinician but prefers research. She does the work she's only qualified to do, she can't do anything else, unless in a volunteer or admin or managerial capacity. She can't work frontline with patients.
For clarity, what Jess calls a "practice doctorate" is the DForensPsy. It has a different name from a PhD because it is different thing from a PhD. A DForensPsy qualifies you to work therapeutically with people, a PhD is a research qualification that does not equip you for that. Once again she is bluffing and blustering to hide the truth. Her insinuation here is that forensic psychologists (she can't call herself that as it's a protected title) can't "create change", that the only way to do that is to pursue a PhD, which isn't true - forensic psychologists and other practitioner psychologists can also carry out research alongside their roles and it forms part of their training, even though the dissertation isn't as lengthy as a PhD.

I suspect the simple truth is that she did a PhD because unfunded PhD programmes are easy to get into, whereas practitioner doctorates are extremely competitive. Only 15% of applicants will be successful in gaining a place on the doctorate in clinical psychology, for example, but for an unfunded PhD all you need is a 2:i undergraduate degree. (Funded PhD projects are much more competitive, but we know Jess didn't have funding.) I don't think Jessica could bear to put herself through a process where 85% of applicants fail. There will often be additional selection tests (research skills, mainly) along with a clinical skills interview and a personal suitability interview. She wouldn't get in and on some level she probably knows it.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 10
She deleted the comments on her post without replying to the Nice-ish psychologists very well founded questions. She really is full of it.
I suppose it would make people question her all the more if people saw his comment one time, then gone the next.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
And forensic psychologist is a protected title so she can't call herself that, nor can anyone else with an academic PhD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5
Like a lot of U here it honestly disgusts me how she positions herself....

Here she is feigning transparency and even openness on the issue :

 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 2
Yeah 'feigning transparency'! The whole point of psychologist not being a protected title is that absolutely anyone can call themselves a psychologist, not just 'anyone with a PhD'. She has also grouped 'chartered' in with clinical, forensic etc. without saying what it means--as if it's a kind of branch in itself. It's almost giving the impression it's some kind of extra special category that trumps all the others! It's a shame the academic on his thread didn't pursue this because for once she was replying to her questions, and she too 'hasn't undergone the relevant clinical training or supervision'. Interesting that it was the BBC who questioned her---that's probably why she only seems to appear on Ch 5 and Netflix; presumably there is a little bit more accountability from a publicly funded broadcaster.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
1669637186258.jpeg



1669636970324.jpeg
1669636978053.jpeg
1669636983508.jpeg

She has also deleted the nice-ish psychologists comment - and she's restricted him from her posts after he questioned her some more about these cards. She's also added more cards such as:
- is my relationship healthy?
- theories of human psychology
- "trauma-informed" sentence completion cards
- Breaking down your self blame - 40 helpful quotes and questions
- Exploring your sexuality - 40 inspirational quotes and questions
- learning about myself - 30 questions to learn more about yourself
- my ideal relationship - qualities & boundaries
- Becoming the best version of yourself - 40 inspirational quotes and questions
- Processing your trauma - 40 helpful quotes and questions...

Is she for real? Also, they're all on offer for £7.49 because clearly no one was buying them for £15 a pack!
 
  • Like
  • Angry
  • Sick
Reactions: 7
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.