From the 'Feedback' section of last week's New Scientist:
"Thanks to Helen Simmons for drawing our attention to 'Pathology in the Hundred Acre Wood: a neurodevelopmental perspective on A.A.Milne'(Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol 163, p1557). The first paragraph gives a flavour of this study: 'On the surface it is an innocent world: Christopher Robin, living in a beautiful forest surrounded by his loyal animal friends. Generations of readers of A.A.Milne's Winnie the Pooh stories have enjoyed these seemingly benign tales. However, perspectives change with time, and it is clear to our group of modern neurodevelopmentalists that these are in fact stories of Seriously Troubled Individuals, many of whom meet DSM-IV criteria for significant disorders. We have done an exhaustive review of the works of A.A.Milne and offer our conclusions about the inhabitants of the Hundred Acre Wood in hopes that our observations will help the medical community understand that there is a Dark Underside to this world.'
As we read on, we discover that Winnie the Pooh was suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, inattentive subtype, and possibly obsessive compulsive disorder. Is nothing sacred?"
I have read many journal papers in the medical and pyschology fields. There always seems to be an attraction to researchers finding examples of mental disorders in common i would say healthy child playing and fariy tales.
As a researcher I am glad that I am not in the filed of child psychology because it has to be very sad for someone to pull apart something so beautiful for generations and turin it into a dark inhuman analysis.
I am not a psychologist but I do have a working knowledge of phsychology related to the work I do. Because of personal interest I also have some knowledge of the classic definitions of ADHD & Obsessive compulsive disorder. Whilst I might appreciate how such a line might be drawn between the behaviour of the animals as the real world psychopathology I definitely have no respect for it.
In other words this is a very verbose post basically saying i think that study is trash.
Originally posted by trekkieWhat's wrong with being a tubby little bear of very little brain who loves to have a smackeral of something sweetish every now and again?
I have read many journal papers in the medical and pyschology fields. There always seems to be an attraction to researchers finding examples of mental disorders in common i would say healthy child playing and fariy tales.
As a researcher I am glad that I am not in the filed of child psychology because it has to be very sad for someone to pull apart someth ...[text shortened]... it.
In other words this is a very verbose post basically saying i think that study is trash.
Originally posted by elvendreamgirlNothing. That is my point. However I am also saying that there is a culture among researchers in fileds like this to gravitate towards topics that will grab headlines. Then once they have the money for such research they need to come up with results to justify the time spent. That does not mean I am critising their research without reading it but I am saying that a research conclusion can be drawn on almost anything by the way you word the aim of the study and what assumptions you draw on n your analysis.
What's wrong with being a tubby little bear of very little brain who loves to have a smackeral of something sweetish every now and again?
-mike
Originally posted by jimmyb270That's, simply put, stupid.
From the 'Feedback' section of last week's New Scientist:
"Thanks to Helen Simmons for drawing our attention to 'Pathology in the Hundred Acre Wood: a neurodevelopmental perspective on A.A.Milne'([i]Canadian Medical Association J ...[text shortened]... , and possibly obsessive compulsive disorder. Is nothing sacred?"
I'm a researcher myself (but nothing to do with psycology or the like).
It is very sad to see such lack of seriouness.
Today, every so called "researcher" would write a paper, containing only trash, blaming the work of others only to gain some points for his curricula.
I'm very dissapointed.
Make a little research for yourself on Milne, his work and life.
Then, tell me what your opinion is.
Michael (A *very* dissapointed LittlrBear 😳 )
EDIT!
Or how to make money publishing sh*t:
See this (by *really* SICK people... (people?):
Shea, Gordon, Hawkins, Kawchuk, and Smith have provided an maginative analysis of the Dark Underside of Hundred Acre Wood. However, they fail to acknowledge the prior work of Karl Anschaaung, who, many years earlier, had courageously deduced that all was not well among the superficially happy creatures of Hundred Acre Wood. Dr. Anschaaung insightfully pointed out that Pooh's creator, A.A. Milne, suffered from a honey-balloon-pit-gun-tail-bathtubcomplex. As a result, Dr. Anschaaung concluded 'His case is a relatively simple one of advanced animal-phobia and obsessional defense, somewhat complicated it is true by anal-sadistic and oral-helpful phantasies, skoptophilia and secondary exhibitionism, latently homosexual trends in identification with the mother, severe castration anxiety and compensatory assertiveness, and persistence of infantile misconstructions of birth, intercourse, and excretion (p. 136).'
At the least, Shea et al might have reviewed this seminal work before proceeding to their own analysis.
Oh my :'( :'( :'(