Duendy, do you suppose that Huwy here is proud of not having studied the work of Thomas Szasz? Maybe he is proud of getting his information second and third hand instead of going to the source? It's always possible to find someone on the net who called any given philosopher wrong. I don't know who would have proven his theories wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that I've seen good science "disproven" by what amounts to mental abuse of both the proponent and the audience. I'm reading his site. He makes a lot of sense. I can't agree with absolutely everything he says. Maybe I'm misreading some of it because he didn't quite say what he meant. It's really hard to do that sometimes. I like his essay about Rush Limbaugh. It's a good illustration of how someone like Rush is incapable of learning any lessons from real life or from any form of scientific knowledge.
i deeply respect Thomas Szasz's courage and integrity. It cannot be underestimated the power of what he has systematically debunked--Science&State&PSychiatry. As he points out, it is the very paradgim we are all immersed in. And like the previous paradgim of Church&State, to criticize and defy its authority takes a lot of guts. I'm curious---and i dont mean to imply i also agree with everything Szasz says, though i Do that mental illness as defined by medical scince is a myth---wht hve YOU not agreed with of what you've read of his?
My problem is not with his ideals of self-responsibity, his advocation of the rights of individuals to choose or deny treatment, or any of his other opinions i've read about. People who are 1. capable of making an informed decision about their health 2. adults 3. not at risk of hurting OTHERS should be entitled to make their own choices about any treatment they receive. If those people don't want any drugs, hospitalisation, or people to talk to then thats their choice. Changes have occurred since in the policy of institutionalisation. If people are capable adults who aren't going to hurt other people or commit crimes, then what institution these days (now, not in the 60s) would lock them up? My criticism is regarding his denial of the existence of mental illness. "I don't know who would have proven his theories wrong. " All of the research (since he wrote his book in 1961) proves the existence of mental illness. Thousands and thousands of studies. EEG, fMRI, PET scans, as well as the evidence of the affectiveness of all of the prescription medications made today. Millions of people choose to take these medications, and most benefit. So his theory that mentall illness does not exist, is proven to be wrong. Evidence which duendy is so willing to ignore and disregard. Sure duendy, and there is no such thing as the motor car - or car accidents. If Szasz he really cared about the rights of patients he would acknowledge psychiatry, but then continue to advocate and fight for the rights of individuals, which is a WORTHY CAUSE. That way at least people would respect him and not dismiss him as a croc of shit.
it may take some time for it to sink in for you Huwy.....but let me repeat......i already have informed you that te so-called scans for determining mental illness?..have been found NOT to show mental illness at all. Even some mental health profesionals are having to agree, but as is their stubborn determination to proliferate the myth they still insist that as soon as technology improves it WILL 'prove' their surities. meanwhile people are still getting the phony hype alond with the drugs. drugs which are HO cure, because there is NO real Disease. And these drugs are toxic and damage the organism! And you critiqe of Szasz's view of 'psychiatry' are also of course wrong. Szasz himself is psychiatrist ad has spoken to poeple wit various problems. what he IS fervently against is BIO-psychiatry. The insidious amalgamation of the pharmaceutica industry, governmet and psychiatry, which he terms the PHARMACRACY! As you may know, as you are studying psychology....? psychologist are wanting to go the drug route now. 'bio-psychology'.....tis shit is spreading every fukin where, and also has got our children in its viscious-grasp with its phony 'ADHD' labels etc.
your ignorance is offensive. these scans have proven mental illness does exist - showing significant statistical differences between those with an illness and those without (control group). i've seen these machines work first hand. you don't even know what they mean, how they work, you would have to look up the acronyms to find out what they even stand for. wouldn't you? can you even cite 1 reference? If its wrong, why are they teaching it at university? You and your hate whitey conspiracy theories. These drugs have been shown statistically, to reduce suicide rates. Don't you even give a fuck about people who kill themselves? Or cut themselves? How insensitive. ADHD is over diagnosed I think, but it does exist in some children. But thats one illness.
Title: EEG coherence in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A comparative study of two DSM-IV types. Author(s): Barry, Robert J., U Wollongong, Brain & Behavior Research Inst & Dept of Psychology, Wollongong, NSW, Australia, robert_barry@uow.edu.au Clarke, Adam R., U Wollongong, Brain & Behavior Research Inst & Dept of Psychology, Wollongong, NSW, Australia McCarthy, Rory, Private Paedicatric Practice, Sydney, NSW, Australia Selikowitz, Mark, Private Paedicatric Practice, Sydney, NSW, Australia Address: Barry, Robert J., U Wollongong,Brain & Behavior Research Inst & Dept of Psychology, Wollongong, Australia, 2522, robert_barry@uow.edu.au Source: Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol 113(4), Apr 2002. pp. 579-585. Journal URL: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/601528/description#description Publisher: Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publisher URL: http://elsevier.com ISSN: 1388-2457 (Print) Digital Object Identifier: 10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00036-6 Language: English Keywords: EEG coherence; combined-type vs inattentive-type ADHD; delta & theta & alpha & beta rhythms Abstract: Compared differences in EEG coherence of individuals with combined-type (COM) and inattentive-type (IN) attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). EEG data of the delta, theta, alpha, and beta bands were recorded as 80 individuals (aged 8-12 yrs) diagnosed with either COM or IN ADHD rested. Results show that all ADHD Ss exhibited elevated intrahemispheric coherences in the theta band and reduced lateral differences in the theta and alpha bands compared to normal control Ss. At longer inter-electrode distances, ADHD Ss had lower intrahemispheric alpha coherences than did controls. ADHD Ss had intrahemispheric coherences elevated in the delta and theta bands, and reduced in the alpha band. Also observed were an alpha coherence reduction in temporal regions and a theta coherence enhancement in central-parietal-occipital (CPO) regions. COM Ss displayed greater intrahemispheric theta and beta coherences than did IN Ss. COM Ss had higher levels of intrahemispheric coherences than did IN Ss for the delta and theta bands. In CPO regions, beta coherences were elevated in COM Ss. It is concluded that EEG coherences indicate reduced cortical differentiation and specialization in individuals with ADHD, particularly in cortico-cortical circuits involving theta activity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)
Title: Simultaneous EEG and EDA measures in adolescent attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Author(s): Lazzaro, I., Westmead Hosp, Dept of Psychiatry, Cognitive Neuroscience Unit, Westmead, NSW, Australia Gordon, E. Li, W. Lim, C. L. Plahn, M. Whitmont, S. Clarke, S. Barry, R. J. Dosen, A. Meares, R. Source: International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol 34(2), Nov 1999. pp. 123-134. Journal URL: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/506061/description#description Publisher: Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publisher URL: http://elsevier.com ISSN: 0167-8760 (Print) Digital Object Identifier: 10.1016/S0167-8760(99)00068-9 Language: English Keywords: theta & alpha1 & alpha2 & alpha & delta & beta brain activity & skin conductance level, 11-17 yr old adolescent males with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Abstract: Analyzed simultaneous EEG (delta, theta, alpha1, alpha2, alpha, and beta activity) and electrodermal activity (EDA) measures in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). EEG and EDA data were collected from 54 unmedicated ADHD males (aged 11-17 yrs) and age- and sex-matched controls in a resting, eyes-open condition. ADHD adolescents showed increased absolute and relative theta and alpha1 activity, reduced relative beta activity, reduced skin conductance level, and a reduced number of non-specific skin conductance responses compared with controls. Results indicate the continuation of increased slow-wave activity in ADHD adolescents and the presence of a state of autonomic hypoarousal. It is concluded that elevated theta activity may reflect a neurodevelopmental delay in ADHD Ss, which may be associated with reduced cortical metabolic activity.
A biased person is someone who refuses to look at the drawbacks or fallibility of his beliefs. I am willing to discuss my issues and open to criticism based on logic. I am quick to retract when I see the fallibility of my arguments. A fanatic person is someone who will not change his opinion inspite of evidences to the contrary. He will easily ignore them and stick to his arguments. This is an attitude you have shown. I have given you the evidences of a flaw in the methodology of science, but you brush them off and still believe that science is perfect. Equally bad is a situation where a person sticks to an argument, inspite of logical opposition, because he stands to benefit from status quo, as the above statement shows. (not that I totally agree with Duendy here but it seems that you are sticking to your argument that institution of science is infallible and that it is completely equipped to understand non-physical aspects of life including emotions, for no other reason but that you are studying psychology) None of the above is in keeping with the spirit of science.
Huwy your effort--intended to blind people with science is NOT a science, but subjective opinion about brain waves, and thus their vile evil justification for makin lots and lots and lots of dosh from druggin children. did you know they are druggin pre-kindergarted kids too? yes so they drug. they threaten parents, and stigmatize children for life ...AND seriously damage their natural health. for what? to fit them into te indoctrintion system school, collee, UNIVERSITY. all indoctrinating factories whose intention is for te dumbing down of the natrually inquisitive creative individual.......they are hookin you already, i ca tell wit you arrogance. IMAGINE what you'll be like in 5, 10, etc years. you will have a permanent sneer--if ya havn't got one already. and will be prepared tohave your lackies drag some unfortunate victim o te ECT room, and drug drug drug. all te time rakin te money in wake up now. nowhere in your posts is theere any humanity. no mention of VALUE of nutrition, lifestyle, freedom, backgrounds of the children labelled ADHD.......utterly horrible
Here I have shown evidence supporting the biological existence of mental illness. This evidence has been completely ignored. So thats that argument over. Emotions are based on the interaction of neurons in the nervous system, involving electro-chemical signals - they feel magical, even if they aren't. Thats the magic of life. Obviously IF these electro-chemical signals become unbalanced, people can become genuinely ill. If that scares you Buddha1, stick your head in the sand. Or go meditate, and induce a nice emotional state for yourself - nothing wrong with that. My only agenda is to show the benefits of morally sound, ethically practiced scientific medicine in its ability to relieve the suffering of the genuinely ill, and to try and contribute to solving the problem of the high rate of self harm and suicide (which have been shown to be reduced by therapy and medication). Neither of you have given any consideration to the concept of helping people who self harm or suicide - one of my main motivations for my study. (NOT MONEY) I have pointed out that the mental health system has changed since the 60's when it was admittedly too authoritarian. People have more rights now, if they don't commit crimes that is. I have already said that is my intention to support and advocate the rights and freedoms of others, particularly those who are suffering. It would certainly upset me if I thought that an individual who poses no threat to others, and is capable of making their own informed decisions, was deprived of their right to make choices and their human rights in our society. So there is no way I am going to practice any science in an inhumane, immoral fashion. That would violate my very aim, which is to help others. Duendy if you don't believe in the educational system I suggest you retreat to a primitive society where there is no education, and no support for people who are sick, so you can go and write rap music or something. Haven't you heard of subjects like art, drama, music, or any of that in school? What about entire degrees based on art, sculpture, design, music performance etc? I live with 3 young musicians who are entering the professional sphere. Aswell as a Irishman with a degree in design specialising in photography. If thats not creativity then what is? Duendy you are the one with the racist ideas of persecution, and the bias and agenda. You are the one with the stigma. I completely acknowledge the value of nutrition, healthy lifestyle, and personal freedoms, yet you are willing to deny the existence of a problem (mental illness) which deprives so many people of a healthy lifestyle and the freedom to make choices which benefit their lives? Thats cold. By saying that mental illness does not exist, that the millions who are suffering - their problem "is not real" you deny them of all these rights you are fighting for, offer them no solution, and leave them to suffer with something YOU can't explain. What if I was to say the problem of african poverty, hunger and disease is not real? Its just a "lie" told by charities and poor people to milk other people of their money? That these people are not really dying of hunger and disease, they need to take their own responsibility, and learn how to farm their land properly, and take care of their countless health problems properly, without being constantly propped up by charity and relief from western countries??? What If I was to say, that they need to establish a democracy instead of fighting guerilla wars all the time? What if I was to say that they simply need to change their way of life? To stop killing each other in such unbelievable numbers, to stop having unprotected sex - spreading disease, to stop having too many children - that they can't feed? That those problems aren't REAL, they are just their own fault, they just need to change their behaviour. All the money in the world wouldn't help. You'd find that offensive wouldn't you. Well so do I. I hope you find some way of helping others in your life time duendy, contributing something positive to your people. Neither of us have anything to gain by arguing further. Hence my putting you on my ignore list. I think we should go both find something more constructive and positive to do. Seriously, go and help the kids in Africa. Sudan for example. They are suffering at the hands of religious violence and conflict, dying at the hands of their own people.
A biased person is someone who refuses to look at the beliefs of OTHERS, let alone to realize his own fallies when they are shown to him/her. Science is not God, and God is certainly not science.
Sometime ago I had seen a programme on the Travel channel --- about unsual homes. There was this plush residence created by an architect deep within the forest into a large cave, up a mountain. It was beautiful. And the interiors were so plush, you'd think it was a five star hotel. What could be wrong with this. It seemed like a perfect merger of nature and science. Until they showed us their shining bathroom. The bathroom was built inside a natural, small waterfall inside the cave. The huge rock that formed the wall of the bathroom kept getting wet from the seeping water and green algae kept mushrooming there. The owners would daily clean the rock with large amounts of chemicals. Because, they were working against natural forces and nature has a way of asserting itself. And guess where did all the chemicals go? into the water reservoir below. The architect and his family did not deserve to live in nature. And that is the difference between humans before the advent of science (and heterosexuality!). Earlier the humans used their brain to work with nature --- even when they invented things and used nature for their advantage. Science works against nature --- and this is the biggest drawback of science. All scientific processes work against nature. Humans are part of nature. They can't forever go on working against it. One day when they realise things, it will be too late.
""Science works against nature --- and this is the biggest drawback of science. All scientific processes work against nature. Humans are part of nature. They can't forever go on working against it. One day when they realise things, it will be too late."" Humans are part of nature, science is a method used by humanity, therefore science is part of nature. I mean ok, you've got your weed killer and your fly spray and your insecticide etc, How do scientific processes work against nature? How is understanding that our respiratory systems breath oxygen (and what oxygen is) and absorb it through our lungs into our blood stream, and pump it around our bodies with our heart (in a specific way), and exhale carbon dioxide - how is that working against nature?? Especially considering the lives that have been saved by knowledge of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems? What a polarised point of view! Not all nature is "good" you know, and I'm not saying all nature is bad, its just nature, and we are a part of it. I agree in many parts of the world we have chopped down too many trees, but thats not science, thats business, money, and unsustainable industry. But how would you like a cluster of little cancers living in some of your organs? What about the molaria mosquito? Is it against nature to kill it in our interests? Part of nature is the desire to have power over other nature, and reproduce etc, we are following a natural course of evolution. How is that wrong?
Science DOES NOT work against Nature. Science is a tool used by humans to explain nature. Technology is developed through scientific discoveries. I think this is what you mean. Technologocial inventions then sometimes work against Nature: like pesticides.
You are a reasonable guy huwy, only you need to stop to take things personally and debate with an open mind --- even if things go totally against what you have read or known so far!
Perhaps you should tell that to the likes of 'light' who only consider published papers and external proofs by those having degrees as 'science'.
