Dr. Bergman

Jerry Bergman

I have now read the section that deals with me. All I can say is I am amazed!!! Don't my critics have any concern about the facts??? For example, I have tried to respond to Dr. Besier, so wrote him asking if I could send him a response but he did not even have the decency to answer me. Nothing!! I wrote to him several times about his wrong information. No response. It is clear to me that he has no interest in the facts but only in slandering those he disagrees with. I am going to contact my attorney soon and discuss slander charges against him. He has never contacted me and this is a major indication that he is not interested in the facts. Any writing he has done about me is therefore suspect.I also can respond to the other concerns but classes at the college start tomorrow, so it will take a week or so to respond. Also several other studies have been done on the mental health question and found the same thing as did the studies that I reviewed. Jerry Bergman

blondie

Are you the real Dr. Bergman?

Have you posted here before?

Were your ears burning?

Is there some professional avenue to address his statements, some mental health group?

Isn't it like being at the KH? You can be backstabbed, die and be buried before you know it.

Well, I hope for your professional standing that it can be cleared up.

Blondie

larc

Hi Jerry, I am the fellow who wrote the preface to your book. If you want to share ideas, please send me an e-mail. Open e-mails can be found in the yellow envelope under a person's name. Nice to see you here.

Dia

;-)

Farkel

Jerry Bergman,

: . He has never contacted me and this is a major indication that he is not interested in the facts. Any writing he has done about me is therefore suspect.I

Of course, this alone is enough of a logical fallacy to continue to haunt you. It's called a "false dilemma."

"He didn't call me or write me. Therefore, he MUST be a liar."

Of course, your conclusion didn't take into consideration that he:

1) Was dead

2) Was in the hospital and too sick to return your message

or

3) He thinks not you are worthy of response, et. al..

In ANY case, his lack of response doesn't make him suspect at all. His arguments stand or fall on their own. Do yours?

I don't retract a single word I said about your writings. I read them, and I'm not that stupid. I'm only a high-school graduate, by the way. Pity me for being what I could be if I reached your lofty status.

It's one thing to pick on dubs and their problems. I do it all the time, but I'm a self-confessed dummy. It's quite another thing to pick on dubs and their problems with a sheepskin in your hand and do it in a way that embarrasses yourself. And your peers who (I've heard) don't respect your work. It's quite another thing to refer to yourself in a vaingloriously way. Would you like me to present that huge bit of egotism again on this world-wide forum?

Farkel

Edited by - Farkel on 18 August 2002 22:58:19

GermanXJW

I have found the information in the book "Die neuen Inquisitoren - Religionsfreiheit und Glaubensneid - Band II" (The New Inquisitors - Freedon of Religion and Envy of Faith - Vol. II) by Gerhard Besier and Erwin K. Scheuch (Scheuch is a professor for Sociology at Harvard and Cologne).

It says in a footnote on page 8 that Bergman several times used titles he had not achieved (U.S. District Court, Toledo, Ohio No. C 80-390, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 2, Findings of Facts 1; Dec. 6,1985, p.12, Finding of Facts 35).

Bergman falsly claimed to have more than 400 articles published (Source: Memos Background Information and Discrepancies regarding Published Works, pp. 1f., in the archives of Prof. Besier)

Bergman falsly claimed to be the author of books that have never been written (solemn declaration by Harriet P. Stockanes, University of Illinois Press, December 12, 1988, in the archives of Prof. Besier)

GermanXJW

From "Child Custody Decisions and Jehovah's Witnesses' Parenthood" by Richard Singelenberg in: Religion - Staat - Gesellschaft - Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews, 1st issue 2000 (published by Gerhard Besier and Hubert Seiwert), p. 53:

...It should be realised that irrespective of religious or ideological contents, a n y socialisation in a subcultural environment of which the values ar at odds with those of the dominant society may involve cognitive reorientation when the individual disengages himself from the minority group. The suggestion that this will lead to serious psychiatric disorders (Bergman 1996: 1488, 1489) is unfounded. The author refers to studies, which allegedly indicate a high incidence of mental disorders among Jehovah's Witnesses, implying a causal relationship between socialisation into and membership of the movement and psychiatric problems. Opponents of the Watchtower Society often refer to an Australian study, which found that Jehovah's Witnesses are three times more likely to be diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and nearly four times more likely from paranoid schizophrenia than the rest of the population at risk (Spencer 1975). The article received serious criticism on account of its unsound foundation: 'serious errors of facts and method' (Beckford 1975), 'thoroughly unsatisfactory methodology (Penton 1985: 291) and 'questionable findings' (Rothberg 1975). Another example of dubious methodology is Bergman's initial study (written under the pseudonym Montague) on psychiatric problems among the Jehovah's Witnesses. The author, a former Jehovah's Witness and notorious adversary of the movement, concludes that 'the mental illness rate among JW's far surpasses that of the population as a whole', (Montague 1977: 146) and without any argument he advances 'that [this] is approximately 10 to 16 times higher than the rate for the generla, non-Witness population' (ibid.: 139). These statements are illustrative for the questionable methodology basis of the paper. The article is riddled with unfounded assertions such as 'the h i g h murder rate among the Witnesses' (137), 'the rate of mental illness is s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the rate for the population as a whole' (138), 'the writer has worked with a l a r g e number of JW's who were clearly psychotic' (139), ' a b o u t 10%' [...] are in serious need of professional help' (ibid.) et cetera. Furthermore, Bergman quotes from obsolete sources, since to support his argument he refers to psychiatric studies from the 1940s through the early 1960 among Jehovah's Witnesses conscientious objectors. The author seems not to realize that in that period, society considered conscientious objection against the military a mental problem which had to be evaluated as such. No wonder that Jehovah's Witnesses, who constituted the largest segment among conscientious objectors were highly visible in these studies. Even Penton, a fellow-adversary of the Watchtower Society, casted doubt on Bergman's findings. 'Some of the statements in their analyses of Witness men are so extreme that they raise questions regarding their objectivity' (Penton 1985: 290, 291). (Footnote: My emphasis, RS: This questionable methodology may be one of the reasons that Bergman's book "The Mental Health of Jehovah's Witnesses" - an extended version of the "Montague-paper" - has been printed by adversaries of the Watchtower Society rather than by any of the accredited academic publishers.)
In general, scientific research of socialisation practices in religious movements is still in its infancy. Although specific data from Jehovah's Witnesses are lacking, results from similarly sontroversial religious movements such as Hare Krishna, the Rajneesh Movement and The Family (the former Children of God) indicate that child-rearing practices in these groups have no adverse effects on the child's general well-being (Lilliston/Shepherd 1994; Palmer/Hardman 1999). Concerning the question whether religious movements in general and teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses in particular are adverse or beneficial to individual mental health, it is clear that 'contemporary research does not offer an unequivocal answer' though '75% of the studies tend to show that the psychological profiles of individuals tested fall well within the n o r m a l bounds' (Saliba 1993; 106, 110; Cf. Wah 1999: 128, fn. 15). ...

Dia

Could the people involved in this discussion list some credentials, whatever they might be, just so we might know who's speaking here?

And who is Dr. Beiser??

Thanks.

Edited by - Dia on 19 August 2002 11:34:58

MikeMusto

Doesnt bergman work at a tech school?

larc

Dia, some of the people cited did show credentials. It would be safe to assume that the reviewers all have academic crediatials that qualify them to make credible analyses. I can only comment on one. Penton has a PhD in religious history, and was a professor for many years. Since he is an xJW like Bergman, his natural bias would be to favor Bergman's work, yet he did not. I wish Jerry would return and discuss this issue. I like his objectives, but I think his book should be subject to a major revision.

Dr. Bergman

Share this