Showing 100 of 670 comments.
Thank you for addressing this crisis in medical science integrity especially related to psychiatry.
I salute a leader in defense of the marginalized.
A year ago, I asked a behavioral neuroscience lecturer about depression being genetic: isn’t it normal for a child falsely accused of seeking attention for reporting regular incestuous rapes to feel depressed? I wish that I had taped his confusing answer.
Good nutrition and good sleep are the foundation of emotional well-being so in that sense I agree, but “resilience” is far more a function of personal histories than diet. “Resilience” is a weapon to “blame the victim” for their traumas rather than address the injustices of most personal traumas.
Thank you for another science blog, Jay; I always enjoy them.
Have you considered proving yourself right? Theoretically speaking, a real study of reared apart identical twins (separated at birth and reunited by the study) would prove you correct: the environment rather than genetics predominately shapes behavior. While this seem impossible with a human population as witnessed by the details of the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, it should be rather easy with non-human primates. Miniature monkeys regularly have twins that can be separated at birth and raised in different families; this would easily prove the critical importance of the environment.
Our national primate research centers annually accept citizen ideas about primate research; I hope you consider asking them to do an experiment to validate their behavioral genetics research.
I was thrown by your term “conscious evolution” because it seemed self-contradictory to me, but upon reconsideration, it actually better describes popular evolutionary theory.
There’s only one expert so there is no “match”; my honorary “BS” opens no doors.
I agree; “scientism” has now replaced “science” in the community.
My foul; I thought that you asked about “conscious evolution” as a joke since it seems self-contradictory to me.
Thank you for directing me to Sterling’s theory of allostatic load; it supports my criticism of his definitive neuroscience text: The Principles of Neural Design. Consistent with your better understanding of evolutionary theory, Sterling addresses specific details of an ambiguous theory before any agreement on general principles (I consider reproduction fundamental to survival). I asked Sterling but I should’ve asked you: doesn’t my science at NaturalPsychology.org explain and resolve anomalies of current science theory while explaining human psychology including “mental disorders?”
Yes, we need “conscious evolution” consistent with the goals of many MIA commenters.
This is one of the most important blogs ever published at MIA! This blog was not properly introduced; Peter Sterling is one of the most eminent neuroscientists in the world and he just called “bullshit” on psychiatry! An international leader in neuroscience just said that natural stress (especially work alienation) causes the predominance of health problems (and all “mental health” problems?).
However, Peter Sterling expresses a typical “subjectivity” problem with understanding evolutionary theory when he states that: “Finally, evolution gave us the capacity to grow our skills over decades. Our species core need is to fulfill these capacities.” Like most neuroscientists, Peter fails to understand that evolution gave us “our species core need” of survival.
Thank you, Steve
If the definition remains the same but who qualifies has completely changed, I retract my previous comment and defer to Steve’s previous comment (wisdom). Thank you for clarifying the issue for me, Marie; the definition of autism is too ambiguous to debate.
The definition of autism has not changed in the last fifty years but who qualifies has changed dramatically. Autism was holding steady at 1:2500 fifty years ago according to the CDC; it is diagnosed at nearly FIFTY TIMES that rate now (1:56). However, “autism spectrum disorder” no longer includes children who are “very severely disturbed”; they would now be described as “mentally ill.”
Thank you; I remain confused about “mental illness” and about how a philosophy (of “mind”) can possibly have physical health or physical illness.
I totally agree: the best Anti-Psychiatry book would be some mostly edited comments and segments of the great articles posted at MIA.
Ouch! I am sorry Robert Whitaker for the disappointment I share with you about the state of journalism; the corruption of a journalistic ethic that you describe is staggering.
Although I agree with much of Oldhead’s criticism, it seems like a heavily edited version of this blog should be widely published as a query about the state of journalism elsewhere.
Thank you for the community service of your advocacy.
Best wishes, Steve
Good point: that was a tragic chapter in the history of psychology.
I do not have a license to practice medicine so nothing that I say should substitute for professional medical advice: I believe that you describe a pattern of behaviors that suggest that your time with Jim was extremely traumatic – too painful for recall.
“I keep getting told by professionals that if anything had happened, I would have remembered it.” This is confusing to me; I thought that most psychologists and psychiatrists believed in “repressed memories” of extremely traumatic experiences.
Have you read any of the books by Jennifer Freyd? I understood her to be the daughter of parents who started one of the original “False Memory Syndrome” groups and a leading advocate of “repressed memories.”
Best wishes, Steve-2
Good point: a philosophy cannot be quantified.
My question: can a science theory predict an outcome percentage less than the percentage of their predicted fallibility rate? If the fallibility rate of data is plus or minus 5%, can it predict data less than 5% (like 0.5%)?
“Neuropsychiatry” is another word-game like “biopsychiatry”; if you want to make a philosophy of “mind” (psychiatry) appear more like a science, add a “sciency” prefix.
Although there is plenty wrong with the current state of neurology, I describe it as a “real medical science” in contrast to psychiatry because it addresses human physiology rather than a philosophy of “mind.”
Another great article that addresses the pseudoscience of psychiatry. I find this is the most telling comment from Dr. Pies: “One of us (Ronald Pies), a psychiatrist, has spent a large part of his career thinking and writing about the philosophical foundations of psychiatry…” Psychiatry is a pseudo medical science that causes the community historic harm by pretending to be a real science; a real medical science should be defended by science rather than philosophy. Neurology is the real medical science that addresses the brain and nervous system; psychiatry is pseudo medical science – pseudoscience.
Thank you for this science; a confirmation bias is powerful for those seeking fame.
Dr. Puras did great community service through the UN but I do not understand how it could be described as “Bringing Human Rights to ‘Mental Health’ Care.” The UN Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that it is a Human Right for people to have “freedom to make sense of experiences in their own way.” I do not understand human rights in any “mental health” care that accepts “coercive treatments”; Dr. Puras does not seem to address this fundamental human rights violation.
Thank you Robert Whitaker for bringing real science to the discussion of antipsychotics.
I agree; it deserves re-printing!
“Mental health” care harms the community by pathologizing painful social welfare problems – “sadness”; pathologizing sadness (the natural expression of sad experiences) with terms like “moral injury” denies our humanity. Employed “mental health” care workers will harm their desperate, unemployed clients by advocating that their painful sadness (from rightfully fearing that their children will go hungry and live destitute) is instead a pathology caused by a “genetic predisposition.”
Thank you for your critically important community service in advocating for the marginalized and disenfranchised.
Real science reads like “therapy” to me; thank you.
Dr. Rashed’s article that describes identity problems for psychiatry from challenges to its legitimacy is confusing to me. Dr. Rashed advocates that clinicians obscure this crisis by distancing themselves from medical science rather than addressing logical criticisms to psychiatry’s validity.
Thank you for the community service of advocating that emotional suffering is natural rather than pathological; it is a critically important point for improving the quality of life in the community. What is difficult to understand about natural emotional suffering is how painful it can be when distressful experiences become extreme. I would not have believed that emotional pain could be as strong as physical pain until after experiencing trauma in early adulthood; for the following decade, I could no longer feel physical pain because the emotional pain was so strong. Thereafter, I came to believe that a prerequisite for discussing emotional suffering is to state outright that current theory discounts its painfulness.
Kenneth Blatt, MD, I believe that you underestimate the power of psychiatry to dominate the “mental health” care industry based on its purporting the “hard” sciences of biology and physiology – natural science. But while neurology is the medical science that addresses the biology and physiology of the brain, psychiatry is philosophy – an illegitimate medical science advocating the Myth of “mental illness.”
We are not “free of the medical model” when the pain of social, economic and/or spiritual distress causes sleep deprivation and resulting disorientation. The coerced “medical” treatment that results is a harmful violation of human rights as mandated by the UN Commission on Human Rights (1948). Until medical schools stop accrediting psychiatry as a medical science, it will continue iatrogenic harm of historic proportions.
I am a neuroscientist who can explain the theoretical problems with current neuroscience theory in a sidebar if you are interested.
Thank you for this insightful blog addressing the issue of “status”; psychiatry should be defined as “gatekeepers of status.”
Your writing is a valuable community service since it is articulate and insightful; you should be broadly published. Consistently, I believe in the natural science advocacy of our natural motivation to seek well-being (social affirmation and support) and that people generally seek “status” to promote well-being when the community is stingy with its affirmation and support.
What confuses me about your article is the apparent, standard disconnect between distressful experiences and stress. I understood you to describe brutal, distressful experiences as stressors and that the “potential impact of stressors like these on mental well being is shocking.” I am confused by your shock and our cultural belief that distressful experiences are not the sole cause of anxiety and stress. I believe that “mental health” is an oxymoron that effectively pathologizes natural emotional suffering from distressful experiences (social, economic and/or spiritual distress). By defining “mental health” as emotional well-being, psychiatry implies that emotional suffering is a sickness (regardless of predominately distressful experiences). While this is illogical, it is a common perspective on emotional suffering. Thus if you tell someone that you are considering killing yourself, they do not hear the obvious (that you are suffering emotionally); instead, they hear that you have a disease that worries them. They are afraid that your disease will kill you, that you lack insight about your need for professional help, and that they do not want to mistakenly appear to have any valuable expertice into your disease.
I believe that we all seek well-being (affirmation and social support) and that we all feel some degree of stress from cultural values. But I also believe that status anxiety is generally significantly greater for those without status and that there is substantial injustice around that issue.
I agree that the vast majority of people in the “mental health” care industry have good intentions. I also totally agree that the culture should become more civil to meet the needs of the community.
My problem is that I believe that the “mental health” care industry pathologizes social, economic and/or spiritual distress and denies basic human rights for suffering emotionally. As long as the industry believes that anxiety and depression are diseases rather than natural responses to distressing and depressing experiences, they could not possibly “see me.” As long as the industry cannot “see me”, they cannot possibly understand the impact that they are having on me and thus I would consider an apology not relevant.
I believe that if you want to understand someone, you must understand who they are arguing against. I am arguing against psychiatry for advocating the harmful Myth of “mental illness” that pathologizes natural “problems in living” and for their human rights abuses. Are you arguing against the general level of incivility in our culture, or how would you describe the community’s over-riding social problem related to “mental health” care?
I believe that apologizing is a nice thing to do after transgressing; it promotes a more civil society. However, our community is embattled so I agree with Oldhead that the issue lacks critical importance to me. I believe the slogan was: “I don’t care if The Man likes me; I just want his boot off my neck!”
Your ideas are not that radical; many non-clinicians similarly believe that current psychiatric drugs do not solve loniliness nor increase a sense of belonging. Some radicals even go as far as saying that pills will never solve loniliness and that we should instead consider a more civil, inclusive culture to promote a sense of belonging.
“Scientism” is a widespread problem but behavioral genetics takes it to the next level; what it passes off for science is ludicrous starting with the Minnesota Study of Identical Twins Reared Apart.
“EI refers to the ability to interpret, process, and apply understanding of emotion”: emotion that expresses the suffering of abuse from injustice will be pathologized by psychiatry.
Bonnie will be remembered as a courageous advocate for the marginalized who left a great legacy with her groundbreaking scholarship. RIP Bonnie; you led a noble life.
Thank you for this response, Steve
I believe that you misunderstand the blog: “If I’m reading this correctly, this is just another way of saying ontological insecurity is the result of major, entrenched dissociation caused by trauma.” I understand “ontological” to mean that something exists independently… not caused by experiences like trauma; I believe that it supports psychiatry in advocating a “genetic predisposition” for insecurity. The article is advocating that trauma does not cause the insecurity expressed in “mental illness”; it advocates that trauma does not impact human psychology. Instead, the article is advocating that the insecurity expressed in “mental illness” is caused by a genetic predisposition for insecurity that they label “ontological” insecurity. I believe that the article advocates “Pollyanna”; do others agree?
Your blogs are a community service; thank you.
I have been confused about why psychiatry does not include suicide ideation in its DSM as a “mental disorder”; it seems most consistent with their pathologizing of social, economic and/or spiritual distress. I can only imagine psychiatry wanting to avoid criticism of its ineffectiveness… but that seems critical; can anyone provide a better explanation?
Thank you for your community service in leadership of important challenges to abuses by psychiatry.
“I often share my personal experiences to make clear that we are all much alike in both misery and recovery.” Do you believe that children experience similarly distressful experiences? Might being a financially secure, widely admired community leader make your “recovery” from “helplessness” appear more atypical than exemplary?
I really appreciate the emphasis of the post on promoting love and a more kind, caring community to reduce human suffering; thank you again for your community service.
This is a good example of “scientism”: the “science” of investigating a completely abstract, undefinable concept like “vulnerability” to “psychosis” (“ontological insecurity”).
What a radical idea these researchers are proposing; who would have thought that depressing experiences could cause depression?
Well said; the systemic lack of caring in our foster “care” programs is a crime against humanity.
“It is never an answer to remove children from their parents”; I agree with the sentiment of the post except in cases where parents continue to cause significant harm to their children.
Thank you for this wonderful tribute to Del; he bore witness to the cruelty of addressing childhood trauma with critical labels and drugs for the victims.
“We live in a trauma based society, and the Medical Model does everything to steer us away from understanding the connection between psychological pain and the surrounding environment.” Well said.
Thank you for the community service of continuing to campaign against medical ghostwriting; it is astonishingly sad that this fraud continues.
Thank you for your community service and your efforts for informed-consent. I believe that informed-consent should include the truth about psychiatric drugs as “medicines”; they subdue emotions rather than address a biological dysfunction.
The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart is the greatest fraud in history since the twins in the study were not actually reared apart (as documented in the study) and since it is the fulcrum of “scientific” support for the “medical model.”
“It is difficult to understand something when your livelihood depends upon you not understanding it”; I blame medical schools for accrediting the pathologizing of natural human suffering.
Well said. They believe that they will be vindicated for their scientific transgressions when biology finally proves them right about their erroneous medical model. Their mantra: “fake it till ya make it.”
I do not know if I have read as articulate a description of iatrogenic harm!
“When psychiatry decided to become a laboratory science”, it is was still a medical science harming the community by pathologizing natural human suffering.
Thank you for continuing to engage with commenters.
Until I experienced trauma in early adulthood, I could not have imagined how painful “sadness” can feel and how desperate for relief I could feel. After the trauma, my life became a living nightmare and I was becoming disoriented from fatigue; I could not sleep because all dreams were nightmares. I desperately needed drugs to sleep and drugs to kill the pain so I could think “straight”; my situation was desperate and I needed sleep if I hoped to resolve real problems in living.
My experiences taught me that I had not understood sadness in my life before I experienced trauma, that it was far more painful than I imagined, and that psychiatry pathologizes it. Thereafter, I experienced suicidal ideation because it appeared to be the only logical path for relief from my pain. I could not access heavy enough drugs to promote sleep without a psychiatric label and a psychiatric label would have made my “recovery” impossible.
I believe that you misunderstand the importance of the validity of psychiatry and its labels. If psychiatry lacks biological validity in addressing human suffering, its theory is causing iatrogenic harm of historic proportions. Psychiatric drugs may provide short-term relief that clients seek, but convincing a culture that sadness is a disease promotes widespread drug abuse from believers and suicide from non-believers.
I also want to salute another articulate post by someone bringing clarity to the world. I especially appreciate the clarity of this comment: “Meanwhile, the true causes of these human concerns are hiding in plain sight: loss; inadequate training; traumatic history; painful events; etc.”
I also found her comments insightful and am sorry to hear of her passing.
Thank you for articulating your perspective and for permitting comments.
“I propose that critiquing biological psychiatry is a straw man… as it is but one player in the crowded mental health industrial complex.” I believe that you underestimate the supreme power that psychiatry has in the “mental health industrial complex” based on its purported foundation on biology and physiology. Consistently, I consider “biological psychiatry” to be misleadingly redundant: all medical sciences are considered biological sciences by the community whether psychiatry is based on Freudian theory or is without an underlying theory. Psychiatry may be mocked by other medical science specialties but the community considers it a medical science and considers medical science to be the “holy grail” for addressing health problems. Medical schools are ultimately responsible for the calamity that psychiatry causes the community by accrediting a philosophy of “mind” as a medical (biological) science.
“Does this mean mental illnesses don’t exist?… Are you saying that people aren’t suffering?” People are suffering extreme pain from social, economic and/or spiritual distress (natural, painful emotional suffering) but their suffering is natural rather than a disease. Psychiatry advocates Pollyanna and a fairy tale world of kindness and goodness.
Thank you for your articulate comments about the relationship between emotional distress and pain; I believe that you understand more about pain than most physicians.
At this time of reflection, I salute the community service of this website and its evolving mission statement!
Thank you for the community service of articulately describing the “scientism” of psychiatry.
I agree. Since psychiatry pathologizes natural emotions and behaviors, the alternative is to stop pathologizing natural emotions and behaviors. Existing social services are intended to “support” people with social welfare problems but are totally inadequate to meet the crisis of human suffering caused by the economic and political system.
I consider myself a scientist who is alarmed at the absurdity of the scientism of psychiatry and its advocacy that lived experience hardly affects emotions. Thank you for articulately addressing this issue.
This “psychosis” study concludes that positive social relationships are helpful and negative social experiences are unhelpful; this supports the contention that lived experience affects human psychology. This is an astonishing prerequisite for considering whether “psychosis” pathologizes natural emotional suffering (sadness).
Excellent article. Unfortunately, the New York Times is running a simultaneous article today that celebrates DBS as a potential game changer; it does not mention the failure of research trials.
Depressing life circumstances do not induce depression?
I agree; they are denying our humanity by “relegating personal histories to ‘triggers’ of an underlying genetic time bomb.”
I respectfully disagree; our community considers science to be our best way of understanding ourselves and our environment. Consistently, psychiatry dominates the “mental health” care industry based on its false claim of being a biological science. Hence, I appreciate Joseph’s challenges to their pseudo genetics- to their garbage “science.”
Well said Rachel 777. It seems therapeutic to understand that depression is a natural reaction to depressing experiences so that depressing experiences can be addressed and countered. Consistently, if depression is understood as the natural reaction to depressing experiences, assistance would take the form of empathy and support rather than drugs and coercion.
Real biology explains depression as the natural expression of depressing experiences; psychiatry increases prognosis pessimism by pathologizing natural emotional suffering.
Removed at request of poster.
In 1984, the Thought Police force Happy Pills on everyone; in 2019, the Thought Police only force Happy Pills on people when they act unhappy. Beware.
Steve McCrea is a smart fellow; you could learn a great deal by clicking on his name and reviewing some of his previous comments to other blogs. Steve said that there is no organic criteria for any DSM diagnoses and you disagreed with a link to the National Institute of Health that provides no organic criteria for any DSM diagnoses. The DSM criteria that you referenced are all descriptions of behavior patterns; there are no biological criteria for any DSM diagnoses.
Your satire is funny because it is articulate and painfully true. However, I thought that I understood the blog completely until Slayer questioned how the blog specified “biological” psychiatry; thereafter, I was confused about the distinction. As an accredited medical science (albeit an illegitimate medical science), all psychiatry is “biological” psychiatry. However, most people who use the term intend to make some distinction from “mainstream” psychiatry; what was your intent?
I was supporting this comment “thread” that I understood to address how our culture uses fear to pit people against each other – uses fear to “divide and conquer.” I did not understand this thread to challenge my contention that psychiatry pathologizes natural emotions and behaviors, and that this serves as a political tool to delegitimize criticism of social and economic injustice.