unscience at its finest -the modern "psychiatry industry

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by gamelord, Jul 3, 2018.

  1. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    It has always perplexed me why the science community has either accepted or tolerated the insane delusions of the modern (and even the ancient) "psychiatry" industry. Most of the DSM x's are un-science and just randomly thrown together by a bunch of egoists who like to use fancy sounding words. The science community ought to express the same negative rigor it has towards religion as it does the psychiatry industry. Religious community is generally the laughing stock of the science community and shamed. Yet somehow the psychiatry community is put on a government pedestal and given respect and serious reverence. For example you will have an incident of gun-violence, and then some scientist will say "We need more mental health treatment in this country". As if mental health treatment is to be taken seriously and that the psychiatric industry is not utter and absolutely modern motivated quackery which it is and always has been historically. In essence they have a picture of what the ideal citizen (read, obedient drone) should be and anyone outside of the norm is labelled ill. And they brace their lies with credible illnesses such as depression, and say "Oh look, we are real, depression is a real illness, that we want to cure" even though their modern close-minded ideologies are the cause of the depression in the first place.


    From Quora:
    "The DSM is actually compiled by a group of clinicians that meet and discuss what will and won’t be included in the next edition. One person isn’t the deciding factor, they haven’t that kind of power. And in fact, the main person that might be considered as the factor of discluding psychopathy would be Lee Robins, a sociologist.

    Why have these things all been lumped together? Well, there is an interesting history lesson to be had in the creation of the DSM. This was well described in the book by Jon Ronson, The Psychopath Test.

    In it he talks about the original DSM only being sixty five pages. A small drop in the bucket compared to the 947 page monster the DSM-V has become. The original was used for state hospital statistical reporting reasoning, not as an important research tool.

    Psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, who was responsible for the lobbying against, and subsequent removal of homosexuality as a mental condition from the DSM gave him the opportunity to be on the editing team for the DSM-III. Spitzer was irritated the overall handling of psychiatry. He found the diagnostic process to be inefficient, and respected people like Robert Hare, who had taken Hervey Cleckley’s psychopathy checklist, edited it slightly, and rebranded it as his own. Spitzer thought that it was a far better choice to be have checklists that psychiatrists could go through and know if a patient had a disorder.

    For the next six years over a collection of meetings with the rest of the editing team the DSM-III took form. This was done in way that then appeared to be rather pragmatic, and now appears to be rather cavalier. The group of clinicians would throw out names of proposed conditions, like PTSD, ADD BPD and then the traits that in their minds defined these conditions. The reasoning for this was that this would eradicate the guesswork. A clinician could pick up this bible of disorders, find the proper checklist and help the patient sitting before them. Sounds wonderfully scientific. At least it did to them at the time.

    This is also how nearly every single mental condition that most people that know of was decided on, the overt traits that define it, and the treatment plans that ended up arising out of it.

    So, now we fast forward to the DSM-V and psychopathy. Robert Hare went toe to toe with a sociologist Lee Robins. Robins contended that empathy was not something that could be quantified by a doctor. That it was too subjective and that sticking to the overt traits that had been decided on for the ASPD definition was what should be all that is offered. The editing team agreed with Robins, and psychopathy was therefore lumped under the ASPD diagnosis, much to Robert Hare’s enraged chagrin.

    So, it is because of an arbitrary assignment of traits that a group of people decided on themselves in a room that turns into the mental disorders that we all know so well. If your symptoms do not match, you are out of luck, it’s not on the list. I often think of people that have conditions that don’t precisely fit the checklists to be standing outside the very hot nightclub wanting to go in and get the privileges that those that do fit get, like treatment, financial help, validation. You can’t get any of those things because the DSM is the bouncer, and you’re not on the list. Sorry.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,088
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Basically, Im cool with neuroscience, but psychiatry seems different than it, it seems like a bunch of kids thinking of labels and names to call each other, and occasionally looking up a little bit of neuroscience to try and validate their names.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,434
    Psychiatry is more like political science and economics, it's a soft "science".
     
  8. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Politics tends to be the opposite of science, and economics tends to be a manipulation game by the elite...
     
  9. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906


    A family friend got off psych meds after about 20 years with the help of this guy. In short, the advancements of modern psychiatry involve bombing the hell out of the frontal cortex with drugs. Strait jackets and frontal labotomies have been replaced by chemical equivalents. I believe there is a huge court case underway in the states against a drug company by victims of the side effects.
    BTW just a disclaimer, solving mental health problems is not as simple as stopping meds. It is a health problem, and like all serious health issues, it requires professional assistance.
     
    gamelord likes this.
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,434
    There is a difference between political science and politics and there is a difference between economics and what the elite do.

    Those subjects are "soft" science in that there are rules that you can derive from observations but they aren't strictly predictive. It's like music theory. The theory is derived from music and not the other way around. Music is good if it sounds good, even if it deviates from "theory".
     
    gamelord likes this.
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,088
  12. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Yes I agree in that case.
    But I see the psychiatry industry so bizzarrely removed from any basis of real reality that it cannot even be classified as a soft-science, rather it is more like a religion or an un-science. Like religion it doesn't even seem coherent in it's own framework.

    For instance, according to them and their tests I am an absolute psychopath, except which I'm not, because they have another guideline which classifies me as a total empath and the exact opposite of a psychopath. Its mostly absolutely nonsense.

    For instance, I was at my grandpa's funeral, and I was one of the only people who cried, there was like only 3 other people that cried besides me. So in my view of the world, everyone else is a psychopath, except according to psychatry, I am a psychopath, and the rest of the world is sane, except of course when I'm not, which is some other criterion deemed me to be the exact opposite of a psychopath.

    Its like how the bible says you are a bad person, born a bad person and will go to hell, but if you ask for jesus forgiveness you are all of a sudden a good person who will go to heaven, its like why not just do as much bad stuff as you like, cause a castrophy, then right before the cops come and kill you just ask jesus for forgiveness, in fact why are there any rules in the bible at all for that matter.

    And everything about it is always such an agenda too, like dogma, they can't think outside of the little box they've put themselves in, for instance in PTSD it says you have to be a victim of a violent crime, obviously they have some agenda to crack down on the police state prison system and violent crime, because they litterally dont list any form of PTSD other than that of a violent crime or violence in a warzone, for instance if you lose your life savings, or get utterly abused and discarded by a woman you were in love with, according to that none of any that could cause PTSD, in their minds the only thing that can cause some form of PTSD is physical violence. Even if you have constant, unending flashbacks of your ex who discarded you, coupled with feelings of loss and suicidal thoughts, even if these flashbacks operate the exact same way as typical forms of PTSD, nope its not classified as PTSD, because it wasn't caused by physical violence.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018
  13. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    Again, you're almost completely full of shit. The use of drugs to treat mental illness is effective most of the time.
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,434
    "Empath" isn't a medical term. It doesn't matter if PTSD is described in a way that you disagree with. It's just a label. There are other labels for the scenarios that you describe.

    It's interesting that you dismiss psychology and yet quote Freud. It's also interesting in that Freud is hardly cutting edge psychology today.

    As far a labels are concerned, they are usually along a continuum. I doubt that you went to a psychiatrist only to have them label you as a psychopath.
     
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    "motivated " by what ?
     
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,434
    Money, what else?
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    lolz (in the usa? fame?new TVreality show?)

    i dont want to muddy Gamelords answer, im hoping for a real opinion to undertand where he is coming from.
    "absolutely modern motivated quackery" sounds like it has more meaning behind it and lacks specificity of the driving force which is very cause and effect of empirical science.
    e.g ... no motivation, no action etc...
    unless an alternate theorem is proposed, in which case im quite keen to learn(either way).
     
  18. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Effective, in what way?

    Effective in turning them into vegetables, yes.

    Effective in altering their minds and changing their personalities, yes.

    Effective in causing a host of negative and unforeseen side effects, yes.
     
  19. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    I meant motivated by modern ideals, and yes one of those ideals is money.

    But I meant other things such as, "the ideal citizen", do not complain, obey the rules, be a model citizen, never make a fuss, be pacifist, docile, a good little slave, watch TV, be "normal", etc.

    Empath may not be a medical term, but neither is psychopath and much of the other psychobabble that passes for modern psychiatry.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,614
    I'm not sure if I have the right perspective on this, but I believe that "empathy" is associated with the "mirror neural network" of the brain.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

    and
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/empathy

    Of course that may not necessarily mean there are true Empaths, who can consistently place themselves in another's shoes and feel their emotions.
     
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,434
    What you are saying just isn't accurate. For instance, some people are afflicted by generalized anxiety. This is just a chemical imbalance in the brain, not unlike high blood pressure. There are medications that correct these imbalances with very few side effects in most people.

    There are people who are clinically depressed, there are people who are compulsive, medications generally help those people without turning them into vegetables or changing their personalities.

    Regarding your comments about motivations in psychology...making people "normal", good little citizens, watch TV...that's both true and ridiculous at the same time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yes, there are some broad norms that are a given (be able to fit into society, don't be violent, don't kill yourself) but the rest of your comments are more your view of society rather than any goals of psychology.

    As a body of knowledge, psychology is pretty good. It's good to know about the range of human behaviors, causation, etc. It's good to study abnormal psychology to learn about psychosis, neurosis and other personality disorders. It's good to understand schizophrenia.

    It's when you place labels on people that it becomes more problematic. You could decide that I was a well-adjusted person well within the norms of behavior and personality types. You could then unfairly place me in prison and decided that I had issues with authority, wasn't dealing well with reality, was becoming violent, etc.

    All that changed was that I was accused of a crime that I didn't commit and was then deprived of my freedom.

    Having said all that, it doesn't invalid all of psychology. People who were having a problem entering into relationships due to a problem with compulsions or anxieties or whatever are still being helped with medications that do make their lives better.

    Just because that isn't the case for everyone doesn't invalidate psychology.
     
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,434
    Empaths as a term was first brought up (I believe) from Star Trek.
     
  23. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    True. Because to empath you need to simulate. Human brains are mostly similar, and it is easier for bisexuals to be empaths. The more divergence in dna the harder to empathize, for instance easy to empathize a human, harder to a dog or elephant, slightly harder a reptile, but almost impossible to empathize a fungus. That is why there is no fungus rights movement, yet dog rights movements.

    In terms of this, I am one of the few people who feels empathy for prisoners, 60% of prisoners are illiterate and mentally handicapped. Rather than try to hate them and torture them in a cage I believe we should have more compassion of these mentally unfit folks. So you could argue I am an empath, or argue I am a psychopath for feeling sorry for criminals and wanting to free them of prison.
     

Share This Page