Jay, great article: let’s prove you right! A (scientific) Study of Identical Twins Separated at Birth and Reunited in Adulthood (AFTER the study) will prove Jay correct; this has proven impossible with human subjects (as Jay has clearly explained previously and herein) but can be done easily with primates. With support from the community, scientists at primate research centers can easily disprove Behavioral Genetics and promote a breakthrough in “mental health” care.
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.
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?”
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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?
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”).
“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 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.”
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for the community service of speaking the truth about your life. Psychiatry is “trauma denial” in support of existing social structures; it falsely advocates that distressful experiences are an anomaly in an otherwise friendly environment. Psychiatry is trauma denial when advocating that people should “recover” from traumatic experiences without justice and often without cessation of the traumatic experiences. Psychiatry shames the victims of trauma by advocating Pollyanna and a fairy tale world of fairness and goodness; the truth about distressful human experience is antipsychiatry.
Your comment is confusing: my comment supports the main theme of the blog that criticizes blaming the “mentally ill” for mass shootings instead of blaming a societal failure. Criticizing a culture does not address the behavior of an individual within a culture. I believe that our epidemic of mass shootings is caused by an increasingly hateful and violent culture- a societal failure that includes sedating natural emotions and non-conforming behaviors with neurotoxins.
Thank you for this articulate and timely blog. It is unfortunate that the obvious truth is currently so difficult for so many people to see: “This blaming ultimately prevents us from acknowledging the obvious truth: the regular presence of mass murders in our society needs to be seen as a societal failure.”
Thank you for your community service in articulately advocating against how standard “mental health” care harms society by pathologizing suicide.
Since psychiatry pathologizes suicide consistent with other natural behaviors that it pathologizes, I am confused about why psychiatry does not include suicide ideation as another mythical DSM diagnosis.
I am troubled by psychiatry harming the community with the myth of “mental illness”- by pathologizing natural emotional suffering and natural, non-conforming behaviors. I am also trouble by the term “neurodiversity” when it advocates that “mental illness” is a passageway to special spiritual enlightenment; this puts a positive spin on a harmful myth. I support “neurodiversity” in some contexts but not as a new myth that supports a few people while obscuring the source of a calamity for a multitude of others.
Thank you for your response; I believe that I am using the term “neurodiverse” in a different context than others. I now understand you and others to use the term “neurodiverse” in a social context about what is “normal” brain functioning (wherein “normal” is understood as common or average). In contrast, I was focusing on a medical context about what is “natural” brain functioning. I agree that there is no “normal” brain functioning but believe that there is “natural” and “unnatural” brain functioning- natural and pathological functioning. I thought that advocates of “neurodiversity” were trying to put a positive spin on “mental disorders” that pathologize natural behaviors through the myth of “mental illness.” It now seems like the term is gaining a wider usage.
Perhaps victims of psychiatry may rally around the concept of “cognitive liberty”; as you say, time will tell. Most people exclude cognition considered “diseased” when considering “cognitive liberty”; my problem with advocating “cognitive liberty” is that it side-steps addressing the Disease Model that is causing the harm.
I believe that I misunderstood your previous comment; do you mind me asking about whether you believe that the terms “mad” and “neurodiversity” are without connotations of pathology?
Advocating cognitive liberty may be more inclusive of all critics of psychiatry but it does not address my fundamental criticism of psychiatry. Thus I support cognitive liberty but cannot rally behind it to challenge the harm caused by the myth of “mental illness”; it is too intellectually abstract to promote political action. I cannot imagine Jews rallying behind cognitive liberty with reformists to challenge the Holocaust or Abolitionists rallying behind cognitive liberty with reformists to challenge slavery. Isn’t advocating cognitive liberty for those suffering from coerced drugging or imprisonment based on a myth insulting to those without physical liberty?
I consider “neurodiverse” to be similar to “mad”; both terms put a positive spin on a harmful myth that pathologizes natural emotional suffering and other natural “problems in living.” I do not criticize oppressed people for naturally seeking a more positive self-image but doesn’t advocating a positive spin on an oppression detract from a political challenge?
Thank you for all of your community service in challenging psychiatry.
However, I am concerned that your posted advocacy of “cognitive liberty” discounts the context of psychiatry functioning as a medical science. The community supports human rights violations (and violations of “cognitive liberty”) as unfortunate parts of “medical treatment” for those with “cognitive impairments” that interfere with “sound” judgment. The community generally considers psychiatry to be an altruistic enterprise (albeit with problems).
In contrast, I consider psychiatry to be an illegitimate medical science advocating that natural emotional suffering and other natural problems in living are instead unnatural- medical problems. Psychiatry denies our humanity by advocating the myth of “mental illness”- that emotional suffering is unnatural regardless of cruel and unjust life circumstances. I consider the foundation of all of psychiatry’s harm to be the Myth advocating Pollyanna and a fairy tale world of goodness and fairness (in support of existing social structures). Doesn’t a reformist perspective of psychiatry imply that it has a legitimate goal that deserves reforming rather than being an illegitimate medical science pathologizing social welfare problems?
I agree that it seems critically important to have at least one person in your life who can affirm your personal value, but it also seems important to have some additional luck in navigating through life after such horrific childhood experiences.
Interesting point about free will; psychiatry is illogical, socially-constructed science that shifts positions about free will. Psychiatry implies that behavior it deems prosocial is a function of free will and behavior it deems antisocial is a function of genetics (unless the “antisocial” behavior is deemed criminal wherein it is again a function of free will).
Thank you for your community service in addressing harmful pseudoscience.
When a scientific inquiry is described as “political”, most people think of a disagreement between two different perspectives of an issue, but this is not the case with twin studies. The politics of twin studies is the worst in science because it is one-sided. The politics of twin studies is a “confirmation bias” that is so strong that almost anything passes for scientific support (as you well document in your books on behavioral genetics).
I appreciate Robert Whitaker responding to comments.
My preceding comment about MIA not rejecting the “fundamental legitimacy” of psychiatry references psychiatry’s legitimacy as a medical science. My opinion is based on MIA’s mission statement that seeks the goal of “remaking psychiatry.” Seeking to “remake psychiatry” implies that psychiatry’s goals warrant pursuing- that “mental disorders” are medical problems and the legitimate purview of medical science.
Thank you, Dr. Caplan; this excellent post is a valuable community service. I also want to thank Robert Whitaker for his support in its publication as well as his extremely valuable community service.
However, I believe that Dr. Caplan misunderstands MIA and its policies. Whitaker’s comments in this article and the MIA mission statement are extremely critical of psychiatry but do not describe psychiatry and its DSM as lacking fundamental legitimacy. Consistently, Whitaker is quoted as saying that MIA uses common diagnostic terms without intending to support their validity; he does not say that diagnostic terms completely lack validity. The myth of “mental illness” is a classical paradigm with deep roots; we should expect quotation marks around “psychiatric disorders” in the introduction to the MIA mission statement before expecting quotations in their blog postings.
Psychiatry is “trauma denial”; “trauma informed care” is dishonest. A trauma is a distressful experience of a distressful environment; in contrast, psychiatry implies that a trauma is a distressful experience of an otherwise friendly, supportive environment. Psychiatry denies trauma from bullying, discrimination, poverty and sexual assault by advocating that victims “recover” from their legitimate fears while their environments remain dangerous and hostile. Psychiatry similarly denies trauma from child abuse and the sorrow of war by advocating that victims “recover” from their distressful experiences while the community ostensibly ignores its reality.
Psychiatry believes that they are “working with a body” that is not affected by personal experience. Psychiatry denies our humanity when it relegates lived experience to “triggers of an underlying genetic time bomb.”
Psychiatry is a secondary police force that manages “non-productive, non-conforming and disruptive behaviors” with little legal restraint; it is unusual to obtain legal redress from the abuses of psychiatry. The World Health Organization supports psychiatry by defining “mental health” as a function of productivity- emotional well-being from productivity. The predominance of survivors of psychiatry were seen as “ne’er do wells” in order to qualify for psychiatric abuse.
Yeah_I_Survived, Szasz’s libertarianism has never been a problem for me; it seems like a natural reaction to his experiences of oppression and authoritarianism. Szasz understood the term “therapeutic state” to describe a secondary police force to manage dissent of authoritarianism; he was addressing social control rather than social welfare. The term “therapeutic state” is now more often used to describe a government that believes in social welfare; this is not how Szasz used the term.
Thank you for allowing me to comment. I believe that you and the book about Szasz misunderstand his greatness and legacy: he is the first to articulate that “mental illness” is a “myth.” The authors deny Szasz’s true legacy by denying that this is a medical issue of catastrophic proportion. Psychiatry has power as science- a medical science; Dr. James Knoll ignores this fact when he claims that psychiatry is “a hybrid profession of clinical science and humanities.” Consistently, Dr. Haldipur does Szasz a disservice when he states that “Szasz’s own writings are best read as philosophy rather than as psychiatry.” This misunderstanding of Szasz’s legacy permits the author to review a book from one of the greatest medical doctors in history as if it was a purview of the humanities. Szasz was the first articulate medical doctor to describe psychiatry as addressing a myth; this challenge to psychiatry’s legitimacy as a medical science will be his legacy!
This is really an excellent comment for two reasons: it articulately addresses Psychiatry’s advocacy of Pollyanna and how the community re-abuses those who have experienced childhood trauma. Psychiatry advocates Pollyanna in a fairy tale world of goodness. Psychiatry falsely implies that Adverse Childhood Experiences are an anomaly in a world of fairness and altruism wherein cruelty and social and economic injustice are successfully redressed through established social structures. Psychiatry denies the reality of trauma; it is an experience of a distressful environment rather than a distressful experience in an otherwise friendly environment. Also, I read an article at this website that described how adults who were “diagnosed” with Adverse Childhood Experiences were considered risky candidates for adoption; the cruelty and injustice are staggering.
Thank you for your painful community service. The thought of attaching electricity machines to children’s foreheads to address emotional suffering or other natural “problem with living” while disrupting needed sleep makes me cry too.
Anatomy of an Epidemic documents the epidemic of “mental illness” associated with an explosion of psychiatric drug prescriptions but does not focus on childhood statistics. The epidemic of autism for younger children and ADHD for older children is a greater epidemic than the epidemic for the general public. This is an iatrogenic public health crisis of historic proportions that lacks a historical perspective; anyone who grew up in the fifties can inform the community that childhood “mental illness” is a substantially modern invention.
Thank you for years of community service in challenging the harm of psychiatry.
Psychiatry has power in the community because it purports to be scientific; in contrast, the “mind-body problem” is a philosophical problem. This blog is an interesting philosophical commentary on human nature but our community considers science to be our best way to understand ourselves and our environment. The power of psychiatry to harm the community with the myth of “mental illness” rests substantially on a community belief that psychiatry is a legitimate biological (medical) science. Unfortunately, as a medical doctor discussing the “mind-body problem”, you create the implication that psychiatry has some legitimacy as a biological science.
“Life events have been relegated to the role of triggers of an underlying genetic time bomb.” I consider this an impactful quote and would like to quote the phrase. Read stated that “I stole that phrase. I have to give credit where credit’s due. That came from the chair of the American Psychiatric Association that year – Steven Sharfstein – who was a very brave psychiatrist and wrote a piece in Psychiatry News.” However, Sharfstein has only one article in Psychiatry News and it does not include the quote.
I believe that there is some truth in your anecdotal evidence but do not understand how the rate of autism has increased disproportionate to the rate and dosage of vaccinations. Trauma causes “problems with living” and a shot of toxins can be traumatic; therefore, I believe that doses of MMR should be reduced with more frequent injections. Thank you for your community service in supporting suffering parents.
Approaching a 100-fold increase in the rate of “Autism Spectrum Disorder” is a staggering epidemic of diagnoses! We have a substantial increase in childhood “problems with living’ but I do not believe that the problems are caused by screen time (or vaccines). I contend that the increase is substantially due to the increase in pediatric intervention in childhood since 1980, the shift in psychiatry to increased medicalization of all “problems with living”, and the substantial increase in childhood stress. Psychiatry and “childhood development” specialists are harming our children; no one can learn anything with someone watching over their shoulder, second-guessing every move!
I oppose the myth of “mental illness” as well as coerced “treatments” and do not believe that coerced treatments can be prevented without challenging the myth. Psychiatry advocates that natural emotional suffering (and other natural “problems with living”) is a medical problem that causes a loss of normal brain function wherein a moral society should intervene to assist. False medical legitimacy promotes the myth of “mental illness” that promotes the standard coercive “treatments” of psychiatry. Get rid of the medical science legitimacy of psychiatry and I have no problem with it operating as a philosophy or theology.
I believe that we will need a Truth and Reconciliation commission to figure how to go forward after Psychiatry has been delegitimized as a medical science.
I definitely believe that our society should provide social services to those who suffer emotionally or struggle with other natural problems with living.
Psychiatry pathologizes natural emotional suffering (and other natural problems with living); it advocates a Pollyanna World. Pathologizing sadness with the myth of “mental illness” is a crime against humanity; it causes increased emotional suffering (and other natural “problems with living”). Understanding psychiatry as a tool that delegitimizes natural emotional suffering in support of cultural practices is critical for challenging this harmful narrative.
Psychiatry pathologizes emotional suffering and other natural “problems with living”; this is a harmful, false narrative that causes more “problems with living” than could possibly be remedied by any “mental health” technology.
Sam and Rachel, my apologies; I state that “The myth of ‘mental illness’ serves the function of social control for a secular world consistent with ‘demonic possession’ for a theological world.” Thereafter, I erroneously (and misleadingly) substituted “exorcism” for “demonic possession”; exorcism is a “cure” for “demonic possession” similar to burning possessed people.
Our community believes in the myth of “mental illness” that advocates a Pollyanna World. Our culture believes that emotional suffering is unnatural regardless of cruel and unjust life experiences- regardless of predominately distressful life circumstances. The myth of a Pollyanna World must be exposed.
The myth of “mental illness” serves the function of social control for a secular world consistent with “demonic possession” for a theological world. Exorcism is difficult to understand as a means of social control for someone who believes in the myth of “demonic possession.” Exorcism is BOTH a “false” theological belief intended to “help people” AND a tool of social control. Consistently, psychiatry is both a false medical science intended to help people and a tool of social control. The myth of a Pollyanna World must be challenged.
I disagree with this post of mine. I defined psychiatry in a way that is both (A) and (B) and thereafter described these two definitions as “perceptions.”
Perhaps my problem comes with the term “assigned” in definition (B) above. I believe that psychiatry is “assigned” to help people but “serves” a controlling and repressive function like exorcism for “demonic possession.” We live in a community that predominately believes in the myth of “mental illness.”
“A key issue to be sorted out is exactly what IS psychiatry? Is it A) A rogue or “failed” branch of medicine meant to help people or B) A parallel police force assigned to control and repress people?” These are two different questions that are confusing because they are posed as one question; the first addresses psychiatry and the second addresses perceptions of psychiatry.
Psychiatry is an illegitimate medical science that pathologizes painful emotional suffering and other natural “problems with living” with the myth of “mental illness”; this serves community leaders as a tool of social control. Most people believe that psychiatry is meant to help people until it is understood as a harmful, false myth. Even when people understand the myth, it is so ingrained that people often have difficulty considering it as having the purpose of delegitimizing suffering for social control.
“Would the anti-psychiatry folks like those who are severely out of it (“mentally ill”) wandering around homeless muttering to themselves?” Psychiatry pathologizes emotional suffering and other natural “problems with living”; it worsens natural problems with living by defining them as diseases. Challenging this erroneous narrative will reduce community problems with living and promote assistance to the most needy in the community.
I do not believe that my comments were an “official narrative” but do agree that pathologizing emotional suffering (and other natural “problems with living”) is a tool of social control (and repression), and should be described within this context.
Thank you for your community service in challenging the harm of psychiatry. I agree that “the huge expansion of the mental health enterprise began in 1980, with the APA adopting its disease model, and that is the enterprise that swept Laura into its midst.” However, I disagree with connotations related to psychiatry’s “medical model” as if its previous model was not a “medical model.”
Prior to 1980, psychiatry advocated a “medical model” based on Freudian theory. Psychiatry is considered a medical profession; their previous model was therefore also a “medical model” albeit less expansive. Psychiatry’s current “medical model” was a response to criticism of its theoretical foundation on Freudian theory. The Freudian model was problematic for psychiatry because it was an indefensible narrative (ids, egos and superegos); it also described the vast majority of “mental disorders” (“neuroses”) as non-medical problems. Psychiatry was rightly criticized for an indefensible narrative and over-reach. Psychiatry was in trouble in 1980; it could stick with Freudian theory and loose domain over “neuroses”, or dump Freud and claim that all “neuroses” were thereafter medical problems (under their purview).
With the DSM-III, psychiatry abandoned an underlying (Freudian) theory and reasserted itself as a medical profession with its “medical model” as if the abandoned “Freudian model” was not a “medical model.” It is true that after 1980, psychiatry and Big Pharma cast a much wider net that is causing catastrophic harm but psychiatry’s model has always been medical; its survival depends upon it. All medical sciences consider themselves to be biological sciences; only “biological psychiatry” uses redundancy to promote legitimacy. Consistently, all medical sciences consider their models to be “medical models”; only psychiatry uses redundancy to promote legitimacy.
The legitimacy of psychiatric coercion is based on the legitimacy of psychiatry as a medical science addressing “broken brains” that cause personal and public harm. Based on the prevailing psychiatric narrative, psychiatric coercion is humane treatment since individuals have lost their ability to make sound judgments about their own behavior. The harm of psychiatric coercion will continue as long as psychiatry is an accredited medical science; only through delegitimizing psychiatry will its coercion become obvious human rights violations.
In reference to “abolishing” psychiatry, I want to delegitimize psychiatry as a medical science. Psychiatry advocates a harmful philosophy of “mind”; it should not be considered a medical, biological science since it does not address the physical world. I have no problem with psychiatry continuing as a philosophy or religion; I have a problem with psychiatry passing as a medical (biological) science.
It seems that initial targets of abolitionists should include the definition of “antipsychiatry” that instead defines “critical psychiatry”; Wikipedia for instance hardly mentions abolition in its definition. It seems difficult to “grow” a “movement” to abolish psychiatry as long as “antipsychiatry” does not mention abolition.
Thank you for this post and allowing comments; you make some good points but miss others. I believe that you misunderstand the problems caused by pathologizing natural emotional suffering. Most of your patients (and the community) believe that anxiety and depression are caused by a mythical “mental illness”; affirmation from a diagnosis is therefore often empowering. People have faith in medical treatments including medicines; a diagnosis is a cause for celebration when patients believe that it is the first step in identifying and resolving the cause of anxiety and depression. This is problematic because anxiety is caused by distressful experiences and depression is caused by depressing experiences rather than medical problems.
Please allow me to join the chorus of those praising this article as a valuable community service; “the message” is important and you are an articulate spokesperson.
My criticism of psychiatry focuses on medical schools who legitimize its harmful “medical model” narrative as medical science; a (harmful) philosophy of “mind” is not a biological, medical science. The “medical model” is actually the “disease model” since it has no medical legitimacy.
Pathologizing natural emotional suffering is a crime against humanity!
I do not understand how “the influence our bacterial makeup (microbiome) has on our thoughts, feelings and behaviors” implies that “the brain is not the sole (or perhaps even the primary) ‘home’ of cognition and affect.” Brain “health” (from nutrition, bacteria balance, rest, etc.) affects thoughts and behaviors.
I disagree with the underlying premise that supports this study; it is a generally accepted foundation for much of Behavioral Neuroscience but should not qualify as real science. Studying animal behavior to glean an understanding of human behavior and human genetic influences is based on two generations of abstractions. First scientists must decide how to model human behavior to study it; modeling human behavior is a difficult abstraction since scientists do not understand human behavior. Thereafter, behavioral scientists often attempt to apply the modeled human behavior to an animal population for research; this is so fraught with wild assumptions that the description of “wild abstraction” is an extreme understatement. Studying human psychology and genetic influences from an animal population is two levels of abstraction from directly studying human psychology and genetic influences; it should not qualify as real science.
“Biological” psychiatry replaced Freudian psychiatry but has now become synonymous with “psychiatry that pushes drugs hard” vs. “psychiatry that pushes drugs with more finesse.” As along as psychiatry is an accredited medical (biological) science, “biological psychiatry” is redundant and all psychiatry is biological psychiatry- a “medical science” that pathologizes natural behaviors.
Yes; I am opposed to psychiatry. Its existence as a medical science promotes the myth of “mental illness” that pathologizes natural emotional suffering or other natural problems with living.”
“Alarmingly, between 2005 and 2017, the occurrence of a major depressive episode in the last year leapt 52% among adolescents, and 63% among young adults.” This epidemic of “mental illness” represents either an alarming increase in depressing experiences among our adolescents and young adults or an alarming public health crisis. We must immediately consider whether an enemy has released some kind of mysterious pathogen targeting our youth or whether their “major depression” is caused by their “majorly depressing experiences.”
The researchers are unable to replicate any support for genetic causation of depression consistent with their inability to replicate any genetic causation for any “mental illness”; the inability to replicate is the story here. Jay Joseph has written books and blogs on this subject; genetic research is bad science based on failure to do “double-bind studies” and control for the confirmation bias (besides failure to replicate). Depressive experiences cause depression; unfortunately, researchers cannot quantify this hypothesis nor falsify it.
I am sorry that I was slow to realize that you responded here to my letter.
I believe that your blog post is exceptionally articulate and that you speak professionally on your YouTube productions; I want to encourage you further. I believe that there is a problem with publishing on YouTube; once a video is published, there is no opportunity to further edit it. I would like to suggest considering a video streaming website like Vimeo where you can publish, edit and republish for increased impact. You have excellent presentation skills; my criticism of psychiatry (https://vimeo.com/185916512) has improved substantially with editing but would nevertheless be much improved if I possessed your on-camera talent.
I look forward to your MIA interview and hope to discuss psychiatry with you further.
I agree that capitalism causes “problems with living” but you are implying that it is the only cause (and that only people in capitalist countries have “problems with living”).
What is wrong with Szasz’ term “problems with living” and “people experiencing ‘problems with living’?”
I contend that psychiatry pathologizes expressions of natural emotional suffering. The World Health Organization supports psychiatry by defining “mental health” as “emotional well-being” and thereby implying that natural emotional suffering is pathological. I like the term “problems with living” because it is broad enough to go beyond emotional suffering to include other natural problems with living that the DSM pathologizes as unnatural.
I mostly agree with you and admire your approach; it seems valuable for replicating. I believe that all emotional suffering is natural based on personal experience. I specify emotional suffering from “cruel and unjust life circumstances” as a means to challenge psychiatry’s advocacy that emotional suffering is unnatural regardless of life circumstances.
However, you seem to support my point about distressful life circumstances with this concluding remark: “Sometimes, we do it to ourelves, with our own critical and self-judgmental voices, which would be what we carry inside of us due to early trauma.” It seems like a distressful, “unjust life circumstance” to carry critical self-judgement due to early trauma.
Steve just said: “the problem with ‘mental health’ is that it implies that people who are suffering are somehow ‘ill'”; I agree totally. “Mental health” implicitly legitimizes “mental illness” and “mental illness” pathologizes natural emotional suffering (emotional pain) from distressful personal experience- from cruel and unjust life circumstances.
Steve also said that “mental health” “means not being upset in any way with the status quo.” I agree assuming that “the status quo” references the cruel and unjust life circumstances that cause natural emotional suffering.
Steve also said: “controlling language is part of controlling the narrative”; I totally agree. I have experienced extreme emotional suffering from cruel and unjust life circumstances that naturally promoted behaviors that the DSM describes as “bipolar disorder.” My emotional pain caused me to react in ways that others might consider “irrational” but this is unfair focus since expressions of physical pain are generally irrational and not judged as pathological. People experiencing physical torture see visions and hear voices but are not judged as “mentally ill.” Personally, I relate to having been an “emotional sufferer”; I consider terms like “crazy” or “nuts” or “bonkers” to falsely imply that my thinking or behavior was less than natural.
Thank you for this article; it is a community service. I contend that neuroleptics have a sedative affect that naturally causes a loss of brain volume (nervous tissue volume) through atrophy. Neuroleptics have a sedative effect that reduces nervous tissue usage; reduced nervous tissue usage causes atrophy consistent with how reduced usage causes atrophy of all other body tissues. Increased brain activity from cessation of neuroleptics will increase nervous tissue volume (brain volume) consistent with rebuilding muscle tissue when a cast is removed. It is illogical for scientists to attribute loss of brain volume to a mythical disease when it is readily understandable through basic physiology theory.
Psychiatry is a nocebo by advocating the myth of “mental illness”; a nocebo promotes negative health outcomes through negative thinking (consistent with how a placebo promotes positive health outcomes through positive thinking). Testing for “problems with living” that are intended to predict “psychosis” (increased “problems with living” pathologized by psychiatry) creates a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that harms health- real (physical) health.
This is an excellent article; thank you Bruce. I would like to add that psychiatrists are often more authoritarian than other “doctors” because they do not know what they are doing, have little success in their “practice”, and resent their patients for not affirming their medical school “expertise.” This is also the reason psychiatrists have a higher rate of suicide than other “medical” professions.
My previous post was intended for William but I now want it directed to you as well because a note that I emailed to your address at “Nyghtfalcon.com” was rejected by them.
I have a couple ideas that I would like to discuss with you about what I think that individuals can do to challenge the legitimacy of psychiatry. You can contact me through “Contact” information provided at an online therapy program that I administer at UnifiedAlternatives.org
I consider your blog post to be articulate and am interested in more of your work but find it difficult to follow. I expected your website to be collections of your criticisms of psychiatry; instead it looks like a “fabulous” collection of home furnishings for sale. You speak well on your 50 YouTube videos but they do not appear to be categorized or integrated so their relative value is hard to determine. Is there a way to contact you for more information about your work?
Psychiatry has reified the metaphor “mental illness” into a subject addressed by a “medical science”; the “debate” I envision addresses the illogic of reifying a metaphor. “Mental illness” is one of the few metaphors (together with “mental health”) that is considered literally true; this foolishness needs to be identified.
I consider the “debate” about whether human suffering is due to a “neurological problem” or “social conditions” to be equally foolish in nature but also equally important. The disconnect between distressful experiences and emotional suffering seems foolish but this denial of our basic humanity is widely accepted and needs challenging.
Nevertheless, I agree that the most important debate is about “messaging”- how best to expose the truth about psychiatry.
I agree that you are in excellent company in the belief that the biggest problem with psychiatry lies with its police power but the source of that power lies with its false scientific (medical) legitimacy. I agree that psychiatry would collapse from the weight of the truth if it lost its police powers but I do not believe that society will restrain psychiatry as long as medical science legitimizes the myth of “mental illness.” If a medical science tells society that “diagnosed people” are a “danger to themselves and others”, coercive “treatments” are a natural result… to protect “patients” from themselves (as well as protecting society). There may be plenty of situations where an MD might be helpful with “diagnosed people” but the legitimacy of psychiatry and its myth of “mental illness” seem like their biggest problem.
I find this article to be one of the more compelling and articulate that I have read here at MIA; thank you for your community service. Nevertheless, I have some disagreement with your conclusion.
“If it were recognized by our people that science is irrelevant to the debate over whether society’s fears should trump individual rights to liberty, then we could begin what will be the long struggle to win such a debate.”
I do not believe that “the debate” has ever been about whether “society’s fears should trump individual rights to liberty”; the debate is about whether “mental illness” is a real medical problem or a myth. You articulately argue that “mental illness” is a myth but do not advocate for the abolition of the “medical science” that legitimizes the myth. Psychiatry does substantial harm to the community by advocating that natural emotional suffering is a medical problem that inhibits “healthy” thinking and the ability to make “sound” judgments; this legitimizes the coercion. I contend that the issue is about “science”: a harmful narrative about natural emotional suffering that passes for medical “science.”
Please allow me to amend my above statement to: “With psychiatry and its myth of ‘mental illness’, the logic goes that life is fair and just (in the community) and therefore emotional suffering must be caused by a malfunctioning ‘mind’- with a medical (biological) problem.” Pathologizing natural emotional suffering is a tool that delegitimizes personal traumas (like child abuse) as well as political and economic injustice and alienation.
I disagree with your analogy; I consider psychiatry to be a fear mongering, secular religion that addresses emotional suffering (emotional pain) consistent with the way “demonic possession” is a fear mongering religious belief that addresses emotional suffering. With “demonic possession”, emotional suffering is considered an affront to religion; the logic goes that if people truly believe, then they would not be suffering emotionally. With psychiatry and its myth of “mental illness”, the logic goes that our culture is fair and just and therefore the marginalized and disenfranchised must be malfunctioning “mentally” with a medical (biological) problem.
Antipsychiatry is rejected by most anti-capitalists; it cannot become “closely linked” to anti-capitalism.
“Psychiatry is a harmful narrative, metaphor, oxymoron and pseudo biology”; that is the message that I believe will best promote antipsychiatry (as well as better economics and politics).
How far from an understanding of basic humanity must psychiatry move before it becomes a bad joke? Psychiatry is absurd in proposing that loneliness is a disease that causes isolation (a disconnect from the community) rather than isolation naturally causing loneliness.
I do not know about your experiences of the 1990’s, but it seems obnoxious to claim that “I was never a racist until that decade came along” in commenting about a tribute to Dr. King. Consistently, yes, I believe that racism had something to do with Trump winning.
Painfully true: “a guaranteed income would alleviate the need for many to identify with a “mental illness” label in order to receive receive sustenance.” I spoke with a woman this week who was struggling for sustenance; they would not give her food stamps because she could work even though she could not find employment and was hungry.
Open Dialogue is more successful than other “treatments” because it addresses “mental illness” like it is a myth (a social problem with living). It is more successful when addressing emotional suffering within a community that has more empathy for emotional sufferers. It is less successful within the US because the larger community is more hostile, and the program is more “technical” (like it is addressing “mental illness” rather than a problem with living) and therefore more expensive.
Please consider a different perspective: Your life experiences including your experiences with your “ex” are extremely distressful; your distress causes emotional suffering that is painful. It is natural for people in extreme fatigue and people in extreme pain (both physical and emotional) to have delusions and hallucinations. Unfortunately, you believe the accepted medical model paradigm led by psychiatry that advocates that delusions and hallucinations are symptoms of a pathology. It is hard to understand how psychiatry pathologizes sadness because its “medical model” is a classical paradigm. A classical paradigm is accepted by most people without question; our community generally believes that sadness is unnatural regardless of cruel and unjust life circumstances. The least fortunate 2% of the population have a human right to avoid abuse and a human right to suffer from abusive experiences according to the UN commission on human rights.
All emotions are natural; they are direct reflections of personal experience. Your fear of your ex is natural regardless of an “objective analysis”; you earned your fear the hard way. It is a crime against humanity to pathologize sadness.
Your husband comes from a family rife with emotional suffering from distressful circumstances (rather than “mental illness”). He learned empathy for emotional suffering including the suffering of an uncle who took his own life when the natural emotional pain (and hopelessness for relief) became overwhelming. He understands the value of emotional support for symptoms of emotional suffering rather than treat the behaviors as symptoms of “mental illness.” Supportive environments promote emotional well-being; in contrast, pathologizing natural emotional suffering worsens distress.
It sounds like “what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.” “Writing a memoir for years” is a great idea and will help you better understand yourself and the world around you. Your courage in addressing hostile comments will serve you well; you will become wiser in “learning to be less offensive” as you better understand views that “are difficult to explain.” I am looking forward to reading more of your perspective. Please feel free to use me for a sounding board if you like; I can be reached through a free therapy program that I administer at UnifiedAlternatives.org.
I experienced post-trauma stress; I suffered emotionally for years after the trauma. My response was a “normal” reaction to my unique experiences with the wrongful deaths of over a half million people. Instead of acknowledging my natural reaction to my life circumstances, psychiatry invented PTSD. “Personality disorders” exist like PTSD exists; they are made-up diseases that pathologize natural reactions to trauma.
I might add to Steve’s great description of the scientific method that hypotheses are to be stated in advance of research (to be proved or disproved) rather than concluded from research. Research on identical twins that legitimizes behavioral genetics is substantially based on a confirmation bias that accepts coincidences as science.
People seek emotional well-being (positive emotions) and avoid emotional suffering (negative emotions). Happiness and confidence are expressions of emotional well-being while sadness and fear are expressions of emotional suffering (and related coping styles deemed disabling). Consistently, common behavior patterns that express emotional suffering are described in categories by the DSM. Loving someone generally promotes emotional well-being for the person being loved; in contrast, psychiatry generally promotes emotional suffering for clients by pathologizing their natural emotional suffering.
The “scientific method” is the same in “hard science” and “soft science”; the difference is that “social science” applies the method to social philosophy while “real” science applies the method to the “real” (material) world.
This is a discussion of “Hard Science vs. Soft Science.” “Hard Science” is real science; it uses the “scientific method” to address the physical world. “Soft Science” is “sciency”; it uses the “scientific method” to address the non-physical world. Soft science contradicts the most fundamental principle of science (parsimony) and cannot be falsified (in contrast to the philosophy of science). Medical sciences are biological sciences- real science that addresses the physical world; actually, medical science is real science except for psychiatry that addresses a philosophy of “mind.” Psychiatry is soft science (“social science”) that masquerades as hard science- real science.
“If one takes the work of these researches work to ALL its ultimate conclusion (looking at the social and political role of psychiatry in today’s world), there is NO OTHER justice worthy conclusion than to *abolish* psychiatry.”
Richard, this makes perfect sense if the researchers were not hedging their bets with their terminology and thus implying that there is still some kind of medical “disorder” being addressed consistent with KindredSpriit’s larger comment above.
I wish that I had saved a post at MIA by a psychiatrist who described the brain volume loss as due to atrophy from under-utilization of nervous tissue. He described how brain volume loss was only common in older institutionalized patients until “biological” psychiatry replaced “Freudian” psychiatry with more drugs. Since then, he is witnessing brain atrophy in “patients” at substantially earlier ages based on sedating nervous tissue with neuroleptics.
I believe that “sad” and “frightened” better describe most people identified as having a “mental disorder”, but I cannot imagine feeling pride in my experience of extreme sadness (regardless of the righteous causation).
This may be a valuable intermediary step but the logic is difficult to understand. When the absurdity of PTSD addresses all “mental disorders”, pathologizing natural reactions to trauma should seem wrong. It is unfortunate that “trauma-informed-care” critically ignores the obvious- that distress is the natural (rather than pathological) reaction to trauma.
I am not uncomfortable with what you say; I am a neuroscientist who would love to talk neuroscience with an informed critic. Please consider my criticism of the “neuroscience” of psychiatry at (http://delegitimizepsychiatry.org/pdf/Coalition_Neuroscience.pdf); I seek feedback of the “real” science.
“From the very beginning, psychiatry was co-opted by governments to do the dirty work of eliminating people who are different from some arbitrary “norm.”
Not true: from the very beginning, religion was co-opted by governments to do the dirty work of eliminating people who are different from some arbitrary “norm” through accusations of “demonic possession.”
“It’s easier to call for the destruction of something than to engage in the process of inventing something new.”
I call for the destruction of “arbitrary ‘norms'” (both secular and non-secular); I do not want to “engage in the process of inventing something new” that can define “arbitrary norms.” Psychiatry pathologizes natural emotional suffering (and coping methods deemed disabling- non-conforming, non-productive and/or disruptive) consistent with “exorcist” priests who advocate against “demonic possession.” Actually, destroying psychiatry by exposing the hoax will “invent something new”: an understanding of our humanity (the expression of extreme emotional suffering from extremely distressful experiences).
This is a great article for parents who attend your workshop (parents with “regrets” or “shame”); parental honesty about shortcomings and weaknesses empowers children with more truth about their distressful experiences. Parents who care about their children and try to be nurturing deserve sympathy and more resources; parents who promote the myth of “mental illness” as a defense against parental shortcomings do not deserve sympathy.
Twin studies are the ultimate support for popular theories about genetic links to behavior; thank you for exposing the pseudoscience of this false, harmful narrative.
And if your life circumstances were traumatically cruel and unjust (creating a living hell for you and “causing severe disabling anxiety”), psychiatry would “gaslight” you by attributing causation to a mythical “mental illness.”
Scientology is an increasingly corrupt cult; conflating antipsychiatry with Scientology is psychiatry’s best defense so I consider any association problematic.
I consider myself a natural scientist so I appreciate the effort by Enrico to consider a natural science perspective of anxiety; I also appreciate his allowing me to offer a different perspective. In contrast to the most fundamental principle of science- parsimony, I believe that Enrico is presenting an “Evolutionary Psychology” perspective of anxiety that lacks “parsimony.” Parsimony is the principle of Ockham’s razor: “all other things being equal, simpler theories are better” (“Fewer assumptions make better science”). “Evolutionary Psychologists” freely move from general evolutionary theory to explaining specific behaviors while they do not understand the process; making broad assumptions about the product of an unknown mental process is not science.
Thereafter, Enrico shifts from a pseudo natural science perspective to a humanistic-existential perspective that describes anxiety as “signifying something of significance that is being emotionally disavowed, or that life-enhancing sources of self-fulfillment are not being attended to.” A simple evolutionary perspective seems like better science: anxiety is the negative feeling (emotion) of distressful experiences that promotes their avoidance.
“So you’ve got a depressed man with delusions and hallucinations – what’s the plan?” Since depression is a naturally painful expression of depressing life circumstances, I would ask if there was anything that I could do to help. I would promote more justice if possible, but since I would probably have little ability to promote more justice, I would generally offer empathy. I would also reference a therapy program that understands emotional suffering as natural consistent with Unified Alternative Therapies (free online at UnifiedAlternatives.org), Open Dialogue and e-CPR.
Psychiatry is the “main”, medical “means” of “dealing” with “mental/emotional distress”; this is harmful since emotional suffering is not a medical problem. An “alternative” to understanding emotional suffering as a medical problem is understanding emotional suffering as a spiritual problem as with “demonic possession.” A more truthful “alternative” to psychiatry and its medical interpretation of emotional suffering is understanding emotional expressions of distress as natural. I think people need to understand this alternative to psychiatry in order to understand psychiatry.
I thought that Abu-Jamal was widely heralded for justifiable homicide in response to racist police violence rather than for mistaken identity; I will investigate further.
I am a US citizen; any specific reason why you considered me to be Canadian?
I understand that Wikipedia is not an academic reference but I was criticized for not knowing “common” knowledge about racial injustice rather than “deeper” knowledge.
Annette’s list of icons all practiced non-violence; I assume that Abu-Jamal endured great injustice but do not believe he was framed for murder (and do not believe that he is white).
Numerous “survivors” may want to promote such a cause. Legal folks might have trouble with Miranda rights for a “psychiatric hold” since Miranda rights address an “arrest” and a “psychiatric hold” is not an “arrest.”
Therapists/counselors “take” money to “give” emotional support to “clients”; this obligates them to cease this business relationship before “taking” emotional support from “clients.”
I used the term “client” to address the “business” obligation of a “therapist/counselor” in our (capitalistic) society. Lawyers and therapists are contracted to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own interests related to the type of work provided. Sexual behavior is about self-interest so this type of relationship should not qualify for “tough love.”
I agree that this should not be about personalities and that Will could improve his “‘therapeutic’ skills” with more insight into psychiatry, but I sought more sensitivity to what I perceived as an expression of deep emotional suffering from a person working hard to do right by others.
I thought that the term “patient” was the worse term because it implied a business relationship based on medical science. I thought that “client” referenced the fact that counselors/therapists have a fiduciary (business) duty to people that they “counsel.” I assume that you dislike the term “client” because it implies a balanced relationship when many (most?) people do not voluntarily seek counseling (and fewer are treated with the respect that “clients” are due and generally are afforded). I believe that I used the term properly in the above context but agree that it hardly applies to most situations as counselors/therapists rarely respect the business relationship. What is your preferred term to reference those in “counseling/therapy”?
You have worked tirelessly in support of the marginalized; I am sorry that your work does not give you more comfort. The abuse that you have experienced in your life seems to make you especially sensitive to the emotional suffering of others. This seems to make you an especially good therapist for everyone but yourself; you are not protecting yourself from abuse.
Abused people often seek pure honesty and fail to notice the standard social practice of criticizing friends and colleagues with a “good cop, bad cop” routine. In other words, when a friend says something objectionable while thinking that you are supportive, people often respond about how others now consider the comment objectionable. This leaves your personal criticism vague while supporting the general criticism of the transgression. “Bold” people may consider this a “weak” approach to conflict resolution but I consider it a communication tool. It is easy to be bold with strangers and others’ companies but difficult to criticize friends and one’s business colleagues.
Abused people also tend to seek redemption for transgressions through public “confession”; I understand your article to promote this policy. I do not believe that most people are willing to avail themselves of honest confessions; it exposes them to more public ridicule. Most people seek redemption through private acts to protect themselves from criticism. Thus standard “office politics” promotes criticizing colleagues (or the company) in private and complimenting them in public. I believe that your old company feels like it provides the community a valuable service that is compromised by your public criticism; I believe it will focus more on protecting itself than on your criticism.
I have admired your work for years and am sorry to hear that you are not comforted more from your legacy of “giving.” I contend that all emotions are natural and that the DSM pathologizes the natural emotional suffering of the marginalized; I am sorry that your suffering has been pathologized and that you are sensitive to these false labels. You deserve to be appreciated for your commitment to justice and to live in a world with more justice.
Right on!
Report comment
Jay, great article: let’s prove you right! A (scientific) Study of Identical Twins Separated at Birth and Reunited in Adulthood (AFTER the study) will prove Jay correct; this has proven impossible with human subjects (as Jay has clearly explained previously and herein) but can be done easily with primates. With support from the community, scientists at primate research centers can easily disprove Behavioral Genetics and promote a breakthrough in “mental health” care.
Report comment
Thank you for addressing this crisis in medical science integrity especially related to psychiatry.
Report comment
I salute a leader in defense of the marginalized.
Report comment
Right on!
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
Right on.
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
There’s only one expert so there is no “match”; my honorary “BS” opens no doors.
Report comment
I agree; “scientism” has now replaced “science” in the community.
Report comment
My foul; I thought that you asked about “conscious evolution” as a joke since it seems self-contradictory to me.
Report comment
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?”
Report comment
Yes, we need “conscious evolution” consistent with the goals of many MIA commenters.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
Thank you, Steve
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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.”
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
Thank you; I remain confused about “mental illness” and about how a philosophy (of “mind”) can possibly have physical health or physical illness.
Report comment
I totally agree: the best Anti-Psychiatry book would be some mostly edited comments and segments of the great articles posted at MIA.
Report comment
Right On!
Report comment
Right On!
Report comment
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.
Report comment
Right on!
Report comment
Thank you for the community service of your advocacy.
Best wishes, Steve
Report comment
Good point: that was a tragic chapter in the history of psychology.
Report comment
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
Report comment
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%)?
Report comment
“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.
Report comment
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.”
Report comment
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.
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
Thank you for this science; a confirmation bias is powerful for those seeking fame.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
Thank you Robert Whitaker for bringing real science to the discussion of antipsychotics.
Report comment
I agree; it deserves re-printing!
Report comment
“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.”
Report comment
Thank you for your critically important community service in advocating for the marginalized and disenfranchised.
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
Real science reads like “therapy” to me; thank you.
Report comment
Right on!
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
Thank you for this insightful blog addressing the issue of “status”; psychiatry should be defined as “gatekeepers of status.”
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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?
Report comment
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!”
Report comment
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.
Report comment
“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.
Report comment
“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.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
Thank you for this response, Steve
Report comment
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?
Report comment
Your blogs are a community service; thank you.
Report comment
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?
Report comment
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.
Report comment
This is a good example of “scientism”: the “science” of investigating a completely abstract, undefinable concept like “vulnerability” to “psychosis” (“ontological insecurity”).
Report comment
What a radical idea these researchers are proposing; who would have thought that depressing experiences could cause depression?
Report comment
Well said; the systemic lack of caring in our foster “care” programs is a crime against humanity.
Report comment
“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.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
“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.
Report comment
Thank you for the community service of continuing to campaign against medical ghostwriting; it is astonishingly sad that this fraud continues.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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.”
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
“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.
Report comment
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.”
Report comment
I do not know if I have read as articulate a description of iatrogenic harm!
Report comment
Right on!
Report comment
“When psychiatry decided to become a laboratory science”, it is was still a medical science harming the community by pathologizing natural human suffering.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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.”
Report comment
I also found her comments insightful and am sorry to hear of her passing.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
At this time of reflection, I salute the community service of this website and its evolving mission statement!
Report comment
Thank you for the community service of articulately describing the “scientism” of psychiatry.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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).
Report comment
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.
Report comment
Depressing life circumstances do not induce depression?
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
I agree; they are denying our humanity by “relegating personal histories to ‘triggers’ of an underlying genetic time bomb.”
Report comment
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.”
Report comment
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.
Report comment
Real biology explains depression as the natural expression of depressing experiences; psychiatry increases prognosis pessimism by pathologizing natural emotional suffering.
Report comment
Removed at request of poster.
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
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?
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
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.
Report comment
Whitaker and Kindredspirit, Right On!
Report comment
Right on!
Report comment
Thank you for the community service of speaking the truth about your life. Psychiatry is “trauma denial” in support of existing social structures; it falsely advocates that distressful experiences are an anomaly in an otherwise friendly environment. Psychiatry is trauma denial when advocating that people should “recover” from traumatic experiences without justice and often without cessation of the traumatic experiences. Psychiatry shames the victims of trauma by advocating Pollyanna and a fairy tale world of fairness and goodness; the truth about distressful human experience is antipsychiatry.
Report comment
Your comment is confusing: my comment supports the main theme of the blog that criticizes blaming the “mentally ill” for mass shootings instead of blaming a societal failure. Criticizing a culture does not address the behavior of an individual within a culture. I believe that our epidemic of mass shootings is caused by an increasingly hateful and violent culture- a societal failure that includes sedating natural emotions and non-conforming behaviors with neurotoxins.
Report comment
Thank you for this articulate and timely blog. It is unfortunate that the obvious truth is currently so difficult for so many people to see: “This blaming ultimately prevents us from acknowledging the obvious truth: the regular presence of mass murders in our society needs to be seen as a societal failure.”
Report comment
Well said: “Of course all psychiatric terminology is hate speech.”
Report comment
Thank you for your community service in articulately advocating against how standard “mental health” care harms society by pathologizing suicide.
Since psychiatry pathologizes suicide consistent with other natural behaviors that it pathologizes, I am confused about why psychiatry does not include suicide ideation as another mythical DSM diagnosis.
Best wishes, Steve
Report comment
Right on!
Report comment
I am troubled by psychiatry harming the community with the myth of “mental illness”- by pathologizing natural emotional suffering and natural, non-conforming behaviors. I am also trouble by the term “neurodiversity” when it advocates that “mental illness” is a passageway to special spiritual enlightenment; this puts a positive spin on a harmful myth. I support “neurodiversity” in some contexts but not as a new myth that supports a few people while obscuring the source of a calamity for a multitude of others.
Report comment
Thank you for your response; I believe that I am using the term “neurodiverse” in a different context than others. I now understand you and others to use the term “neurodiverse” in a social context about what is “normal” brain functioning (wherein “normal” is understood as common or average). In contrast, I was focusing on a medical context about what is “natural” brain functioning. I agree that there is no “normal” brain functioning but believe that there is “natural” and “unnatural” brain functioning- natural and pathological functioning. I thought that advocates of “neurodiversity” were trying to put a positive spin on “mental disorders” that pathologize natural behaviors through the myth of “mental illness.” It now seems like the term is gaining a wider usage.
Report comment
Perhaps victims of psychiatry may rally around the concept of “cognitive liberty”; as you say, time will tell. Most people exclude cognition considered “diseased” when considering “cognitive liberty”; my problem with advocating “cognitive liberty” is that it side-steps addressing the Disease Model that is causing the harm.
Report comment
I believe that I misunderstood your previous comment; do you mind me asking about whether you believe that the terms “mad” and “neurodiversity” are without connotations of pathology?
Report comment
Advocating cognitive liberty may be more inclusive of all critics of psychiatry but it does not address my fundamental criticism of psychiatry. Thus I support cognitive liberty but cannot rally behind it to challenge the harm caused by the myth of “mental illness”; it is too intellectually abstract to promote political action. I cannot imagine Jews rallying behind cognitive liberty with reformists to challenge the Holocaust or Abolitionists rallying behind cognitive liberty with reformists to challenge slavery. Isn’t advocating cognitive liberty for those suffering from coerced drugging or imprisonment based on a myth insulting to those without physical liberty?
Report comment
I consider “neurodiverse” to be similar to “mad”; both terms put a positive spin on a harmful myth that pathologizes natural emotional suffering and other natural “problems in living.” I do not criticize oppressed people for naturally seeking a more positive self-image but doesn’t advocating a positive spin on an oppression detract from a political challenge?
Report comment
Thank you for all of your community service in challenging psychiatry.
However, I am concerned that your posted advocacy of “cognitive liberty” discounts the context of psychiatry functioning as a medical science. The community supports human rights violations (and violations of “cognitive liberty”) as unfortunate parts of “medical treatment” for those with “cognitive impairments” that interfere with “sound” judgment. The community generally considers psychiatry to be an altruistic enterprise (albeit with problems).
In contrast, I consider psychiatry to be an illegitimate medical science advocating that natural emotional suffering and other natural problems in living are instead unnatural- medical problems. Psychiatry denies our humanity by advocating the myth of “mental illness”- that emotional suffering is unnatural regardless of cruel and unjust life circumstances. I consider the foundation of all of psychiatry’s harm to be the Myth advocating Pollyanna and a fairy tale world of goodness and fairness (in support of existing social structures). Doesn’t a reformist perspective of psychiatry imply that it has a legitimate goal that deserves reforming rather than being an illegitimate medical science pathologizing social welfare problems?
Report comment
Thank you for this post; I am also uncomfortable with the term “neurodiverse” for all of the reasons that you articulately state.
Report comment
I agree that it seems critically important to have at least one person in your life who can affirm your personal value, but it also seems important to have some additional luck in navigating through life after such horrific childhood experiences.
Report comment
Interesting point about free will; psychiatry is illogical, socially-constructed science that shifts positions about free will. Psychiatry implies that behavior it deems prosocial is a function of free will and behavior it deems antisocial is a function of genetics (unless the “antisocial” behavior is deemed criminal wherein it is again a function of free will).
Report comment
Thank you for your community service in addressing harmful pseudoscience.
When a scientific inquiry is described as “political”, most people think of a disagreement between two different perspectives of an issue, but this is not the case with twin studies. The politics of twin studies is the worst in science because it is one-sided. The politics of twin studies is a “confirmation bias” that is so strong that almost anything passes for scientific support (as you well document in your books on behavioral genetics).
Report comment
I appreciate Robert Whitaker responding to comments.
My preceding comment about MIA not rejecting the “fundamental legitimacy” of psychiatry references psychiatry’s legitimacy as a medical science. My opinion is based on MIA’s mission statement that seeks the goal of “remaking psychiatry.” Seeking to “remake psychiatry” implies that psychiatry’s goals warrant pursuing- that “mental disorders” are medical problems and the legitimate purview of medical science.
Report comment
Thank you, Dr. Caplan; this excellent post is a valuable community service. I also want to thank Robert Whitaker for his support in its publication as well as his extremely valuable community service.
However, I believe that Dr. Caplan misunderstands MIA and its policies. Whitaker’s comments in this article and the MIA mission statement are extremely critical of psychiatry but do not describe psychiatry and its DSM as lacking fundamental legitimacy. Consistently, Whitaker is quoted as saying that MIA uses common diagnostic terms without intending to support their validity; he does not say that diagnostic terms completely lack validity. The myth of “mental illness” is a classical paradigm with deep roots; we should expect quotation marks around “psychiatric disorders” in the introduction to the MIA mission statement before expecting quotations in their blog postings.
Report comment
Psychiatry is “trauma denial”; “trauma informed care” is dishonest. A trauma is a distressful experience of a distressful environment; in contrast, psychiatry implies that a trauma is a distressful experience of an otherwise friendly, supportive environment. Psychiatry denies trauma from bullying, discrimination, poverty and sexual assault by advocating that victims “recover” from their legitimate fears while their environments remain dangerous and hostile. Psychiatry similarly denies trauma from child abuse and the sorrow of war by advocating that victims “recover” from their distressful experiences while the community ostensibly ignores its reality.
Report comment
Your comments are staggeringly articulate!
Report comment
Psychiatry believes that they are “working with a body” that is not affected by personal experience. Psychiatry denies our humanity when it relegates lived experience to “triggers of an underlying genetic time bomb.”
Report comment
Psychiatry is a secondary police force that manages “non-productive, non-conforming and disruptive behaviors” with little legal restraint; it is unusual to obtain legal redress from the abuses of psychiatry. The World Health Organization supports psychiatry by defining “mental health” as a function of productivity- emotional well-being from productivity. The predominance of survivors of psychiatry were seen as “ne’er do wells” in order to qualify for psychiatric abuse.
Report comment
Removed for moderation.
Report comment
Removed for moderation.
Report comment
Yeah_I_Survived, Szasz’s libertarianism has never been a problem for me; it seems like a natural reaction to his experiences of oppression and authoritarianism. Szasz understood the term “therapeutic state” to describe a secondary police force to manage dissent of authoritarianism; he was addressing social control rather than social welfare. The term “therapeutic state” is now more often used to describe a government that believes in social welfare; this is not how Szasz used the term.
Report comment
Thank you for allowing me to comment. I believe that you and the book about Szasz misunderstand his greatness and legacy: he is the first to articulate that “mental illness” is a “myth.” The authors deny Szasz’s true legacy by denying that this is a medical issue of catastrophic proportion. Psychiatry has power as science- a medical science; Dr. James Knoll ignores this fact when he claims that psychiatry is “a hybrid profession of clinical science and humanities.” Consistently, Dr. Haldipur does Szasz a disservice when he states that “Szasz’s own writings are best read as philosophy rather than as psychiatry.” This misunderstanding of Szasz’s legacy permits the author to review a book from one of the greatest medical doctors in history as if it was a purview of the humanities. Szasz was the first articulate medical doctor to describe psychiatry as addressing a myth; this challenge to psychiatry’s legitimacy as a medical science will be his legacy!
Report comment
This is really an excellent comment for two reasons: it articulately addresses Psychiatry’s advocacy of Pollyanna and how the community re-abuses those who have experienced childhood trauma. Psychiatry advocates Pollyanna in a fairy tale world of goodness. Psychiatry falsely implies that Adverse Childhood Experiences are an anomaly in a world of fairness and altruism wherein cruelty and social and economic injustice are successfully redressed through established social structures. Psychiatry denies the reality of trauma; it is an experience of a distressful environment rather than a distressful experience in an otherwise friendly environment. Also, I read an article at this website that described how adults who were “diagnosed” with Adverse Childhood Experiences were considered risky candidates for adoption; the cruelty and injustice are staggering.
Report comment
Thank you for your painful community service. The thought of attaching electricity machines to children’s foreheads to address emotional suffering or other natural “problem with living” while disrupting needed sleep makes me cry too.
Anatomy of an Epidemic documents the epidemic of “mental illness” associated with an explosion of psychiatric drug prescriptions but does not focus on childhood statistics. The epidemic of autism for younger children and ADHD for older children is a greater epidemic than the epidemic for the general public. This is an iatrogenic public health crisis of historic proportions that lacks a historical perspective; anyone who grew up in the fifties can inform the community that childhood “mental illness” is a substantially modern invention.
Report comment
Thank you for years of community service in challenging the harm of psychiatry.
Psychiatry has power in the community because it purports to be scientific; in contrast, the “mind-body problem” is a philosophical problem. This blog is an interesting philosophical commentary on human nature but our community considers science to be our best way to understand ourselves and our environment. The power of psychiatry to harm the community with the myth of “mental illness” rests substantially on a community belief that psychiatry is a legitimate biological (medical) science. Unfortunately, as a medical doctor discussing the “mind-body problem”, you create the implication that psychiatry has some legitimacy as a biological science.
Report comment
“Life events have been relegated to the role of triggers of an underlying genetic time bomb.” I consider this an impactful quote and would like to quote the phrase. Read stated that “I stole that phrase. I have to give credit where credit’s due. That came from the chair of the American Psychiatric Association that year – Steven Sharfstein – who was a very brave psychiatrist and wrote a piece in Psychiatry News.” However, Sharfstein has only one article in Psychiatry News and it does not include the quote.
Report comment
I believe that there is some truth in your anecdotal evidence but do not understand how the rate of autism has increased disproportionate to the rate and dosage of vaccinations. Trauma causes “problems with living” and a shot of toxins can be traumatic; therefore, I believe that doses of MMR should be reduced with more frequent injections. Thank you for your community service in supporting suffering parents.
Report comment
Approaching a 100-fold increase in the rate of “Autism Spectrum Disorder” is a staggering epidemic of diagnoses! We have a substantial increase in childhood “problems with living’ but I do not believe that the problems are caused by screen time (or vaccines). I contend that the increase is substantially due to the increase in pediatric intervention in childhood since 1980, the shift in psychiatry to increased medicalization of all “problems with living”, and the substantial increase in childhood stress. Psychiatry and “childhood development” specialists are harming our children; no one can learn anything with someone watching over their shoulder, second-guessing every move!
Report comment
I oppose the myth of “mental illness” as well as coerced “treatments” and do not believe that coerced treatments can be prevented without challenging the myth. Psychiatry advocates that natural emotional suffering (and other natural “problems with living”) is a medical problem that causes a loss of normal brain function wherein a moral society should intervene to assist. False medical legitimacy promotes the myth of “mental illness” that promotes the standard coercive “treatments” of psychiatry. Get rid of the medical science legitimacy of psychiatry and I have no problem with it operating as a philosophy or theology.
Report comment
I_e_cox,
I believe that we will need a Truth and Reconciliation commission to figure how to go forward after Psychiatry has been delegitimized as a medical science.
I definitely believe that our society should provide social services to those who suffer emotionally or struggle with other natural problems with living.
Report comment
In this Comments section of this blog on this website, this post seems like a troll.
Report comment
Psychiatry pathologizes natural emotional suffering (and other natural problems with living); it advocates a Pollyanna World. Pathologizing sadness with the myth of “mental illness” is a crime against humanity; it causes increased emotional suffering (and other natural “problems with living”). Understanding psychiatry as a tool that delegitimizes natural emotional suffering in support of cultural practices is critical for challenging this harmful narrative.
Report comment
Your comment makes sense; I cannot imagine slaves discussing reparations before they were freed.
Report comment
Psychiatry pathologizes emotional suffering and other natural “problems with living”; this is a harmful, false narrative that causes more “problems with living” than could possibly be remedied by any “mental health” technology.
Report comment
I agree; expecting an “alternative” to psychiatry implies that there is a valuable service provided.
Report comment
Sam and Rachel, my apologies; I state that “The myth of ‘mental illness’ serves the function of social control for a secular world consistent with ‘demonic possession’ for a theological world.” Thereafter, I erroneously (and misleadingly) substituted “exorcism” for “demonic possession”; exorcism is a “cure” for “demonic possession” similar to burning possessed people.
Report comment
Our community believes in the myth of “mental illness” that advocates a Pollyanna World. Our culture believes that emotional suffering is unnatural regardless of cruel and unjust life experiences- regardless of predominately distressful life circumstances. The myth of a Pollyanna World must be exposed.
The myth of “mental illness” serves the function of social control for a secular world consistent with “demonic possession” for a theological world. Exorcism is difficult to understand as a means of social control for someone who believes in the myth of “demonic possession.” Exorcism is BOTH a “false” theological belief intended to “help people” AND a tool of social control. Consistently, psychiatry is both a false medical science intended to help people and a tool of social control. The myth of a Pollyanna World must be challenged.
Report comment
I disagree with this post of mine. I defined psychiatry in a way that is both (A) and (B) and thereafter described these two definitions as “perceptions.”
Perhaps my problem comes with the term “assigned” in definition (B) above. I believe that psychiatry is “assigned” to help people but “serves” a controlling and repressive function like exorcism for “demonic possession.” We live in a community that predominately believes in the myth of “mental illness.”
Report comment
“A key issue to be sorted out is exactly what IS psychiatry? Is it A) A rogue or “failed” branch of medicine meant to help people or B) A parallel police force assigned to control and repress people?” These are two different questions that are confusing because they are posed as one question; the first addresses psychiatry and the second addresses perceptions of psychiatry.
Psychiatry is an illegitimate medical science that pathologizes painful emotional suffering and other natural “problems with living” with the myth of “mental illness”; this serves community leaders as a tool of social control. Most people believe that psychiatry is meant to help people until it is understood as a harmful, false myth. Even when people understand the myth, it is so ingrained that people often have difficulty considering it as having the purpose of delegitimizing suffering for social control.
Report comment
“Would the anti-psychiatry folks like those who are severely out of it (“mentally ill”) wandering around homeless muttering to themselves?” Psychiatry pathologizes emotional suffering and other natural “problems with living”; it worsens natural problems with living by defining them as diseases. Challenging this erroneous narrative will reduce community problems with living and promote assistance to the most needy in the community.
Report comment
What a touching tribute; we should all celebrate such community service!
Report comment
“Failure to replicate” is an often repeated phrase in psychiatry research; perhaps they should reconsider the hypothesis.
Report comment
Psychiatry is a strong nocebo.
Report comment
I did not intend to make light of psychiatric abuses prior to 1980.
Report comment
I do not believe that my comments were an “official narrative” but do agree that pathologizing emotional suffering (and other natural “problems with living”) is a tool of social control (and repression), and should be described within this context.
Report comment
Thank you for your community service in challenging the harm of psychiatry. I agree that “the huge expansion of the mental health enterprise began in 1980, with the APA adopting its disease model, and that is the enterprise that swept Laura into its midst.” However, I disagree with connotations related to psychiatry’s “medical model” as if its previous model was not a “medical model.”
Prior to 1980, psychiatry advocated a “medical model” based on Freudian theory. Psychiatry is considered a medical profession; their previous model was therefore also a “medical model” albeit less expansive. Psychiatry’s current “medical model” was a response to criticism of its theoretical foundation on Freudian theory. The Freudian model was problematic for psychiatry because it was an indefensible narrative (ids, egos and superegos); it also described the vast majority of “mental disorders” (“neuroses”) as non-medical problems. Psychiatry was rightly criticized for an indefensible narrative and over-reach. Psychiatry was in trouble in 1980; it could stick with Freudian theory and loose domain over “neuroses”, or dump Freud and claim that all “neuroses” were thereafter medical problems (under their purview).
With the DSM-III, psychiatry abandoned an underlying (Freudian) theory and reasserted itself as a medical profession with its “medical model” as if the abandoned “Freudian model” was not a “medical model.” It is true that after 1980, psychiatry and Big Pharma cast a much wider net that is causing catastrophic harm but psychiatry’s model has always been medical; its survival depends upon it. All medical sciences consider themselves to be biological sciences; only “biological psychiatry” uses redundancy to promote legitimacy. Consistently, all medical sciences consider their models to be “medical models”; only psychiatry uses redundancy to promote legitimacy.
Report comment
This is well written and deserved to be published.
Report comment
I agree that “if people are being given drugs for fraudulent and deceptive purposes, THAT should be the issue.”
Report comment
Good point; psychiatry is a powerful nocebo!
Report comment
“People are living up or down to expectations.” The power of placebos and nocebos is vastly underrated.
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
The legitimacy of psychiatric coercion is based on the legitimacy of psychiatry as a medical science addressing “broken brains” that cause personal and public harm. Based on the prevailing psychiatric narrative, psychiatric coercion is humane treatment since individuals have lost their ability to make sound judgments about their own behavior. The harm of psychiatric coercion will continue as long as psychiatry is an accredited medical science; only through delegitimizing psychiatry will its coercion become obvious human rights violations.
Report comment
In reference to “abolishing” psychiatry, I want to delegitimize psychiatry as a medical science. Psychiatry advocates a harmful philosophy of “mind”; it should not be considered a medical, biological science since it does not address the physical world. I have no problem with psychiatry continuing as a philosophy or religion; I have a problem with psychiatry passing as a medical (biological) science.
Report comment
It seems that initial targets of abolitionists should include the definition of “antipsychiatry” that instead defines “critical psychiatry”; Wikipedia for instance hardly mentions abolition in its definition. It seems difficult to “grow” a “movement” to abolish psychiatry as long as “antipsychiatry” does not mention abolition.
Report comment
Right on!
Report comment
Thank you for this post and allowing comments; you make some good points but miss others. I believe that you misunderstand the problems caused by pathologizing natural emotional suffering. Most of your patients (and the community) believe that anxiety and depression are caused by a mythical “mental illness”; affirmation from a diagnosis is therefore often empowering. People have faith in medical treatments including medicines; a diagnosis is a cause for celebration when patients believe that it is the first step in identifying and resolving the cause of anxiety and depression. This is problematic because anxiety is caused by distressful experiences and depression is caused by depressing experiences rather than medical problems.
Report comment
Please allow me to join the chorus of those praising this article as a valuable community service; “the message” is important and you are an articulate spokesperson.
My criticism of psychiatry focuses on medical schools who legitimize its harmful “medical model” narrative as medical science; a (harmful) philosophy of “mind” is not a biological, medical science. The “medical model” is actually the “disease model” since it has no medical legitimacy.
Pathologizing natural emotional suffering is a crime against humanity!
Report comment
I do not understand how “the influence our bacterial makeup (microbiome) has on our thoughts, feelings and behaviors” implies that “the brain is not the sole (or perhaps even the primary) ‘home’ of cognition and affect.” Brain “health” (from nutrition, bacteria balance, rest, etc.) affects thoughts and behaviors.
Report comment
I disagree with the underlying premise that supports this study; it is a generally accepted foundation for much of Behavioral Neuroscience but should not qualify as real science. Studying animal behavior to glean an understanding of human behavior and human genetic influences is based on two generations of abstractions. First scientists must decide how to model human behavior to study it; modeling human behavior is a difficult abstraction since scientists do not understand human behavior. Thereafter, behavioral scientists often attempt to apply the modeled human behavior to an animal population for research; this is so fraught with wild assumptions that the description of “wild abstraction” is an extreme understatement. Studying human psychology and genetic influences from an animal population is two levels of abstraction from directly studying human psychology and genetic influences; it should not qualify as real science.
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
“Biological” psychiatry replaced Freudian psychiatry but has now become synonymous with “psychiatry that pushes drugs hard” vs. “psychiatry that pushes drugs with more finesse.” As along as psychiatry is an accredited medical (biological) science, “biological psychiatry” is redundant and all psychiatry is biological psychiatry- a “medical science” that pathologizes natural behaviors.
Report comment
Well said, Kindredspirit, and great followup Steve.
Report comment
Yes; I am opposed to psychiatry. Its existence as a medical science promotes the myth of “mental illness” that pathologizes natural emotional suffering or other natural problems with living.”
Report comment
Right on.
Report comment
Consistent with Steve’s comment below, drug abuse from neuroleptics causes “majorly depressing experiences”- majorly depressing iatrogenic harm.
Report comment
I agree and appreciate the clarification.
Report comment
“Alarmingly, between 2005 and 2017, the occurrence of a major depressive episode in the last year leapt 52% among adolescents, and 63% among young adults.” This epidemic of “mental illness” represents either an alarming increase in depressing experiences among our adolescents and young adults or an alarming public health crisis. We must immediately consider whether an enemy has released some kind of mysterious pathogen targeting our youth or whether their “major depression” is caused by their “majorly depressing experiences.”
Report comment
The researchers are unable to replicate any support for genetic causation of depression consistent with their inability to replicate any genetic causation for any “mental illness”; the inability to replicate is the story here. Jay Joseph has written books and blogs on this subject; genetic research is bad science based on failure to do “double-bind studies” and control for the confirmation bias (besides failure to replicate). Depressive experiences cause depression; unfortunately, researchers cannot quantify this hypothesis nor falsify it.
Report comment
Sounds great… and I’ll definitely check out your Reign of Error; sounds like you’ve been a heavy hitter for decades.
Best wishes, Steve
Report comment
I am sorry that I was slow to realize that you responded here to my letter.
I believe that your blog post is exceptionally articulate and that you speak professionally on your YouTube productions; I want to encourage you further. I believe that there is a problem with publishing on YouTube; once a video is published, there is no opportunity to further edit it. I would like to suggest considering a video streaming website like Vimeo where you can publish, edit and republish for increased impact. You have excellent presentation skills; my criticism of psychiatry (https://vimeo.com/185916512) has improved substantially with editing but would nevertheless be much improved if I possessed your on-camera talent.
I look forward to your MIA interview and hope to discuss psychiatry with you further.
Best wishes, Steve
Report comment
I agree that capitalism causes “problems with living” but you are implying that it is the only cause (and that only people in capitalist countries have “problems with living”).
Report comment
What is wrong with Szasz’ term “problems with living” and “people experiencing ‘problems with living’?”
I contend that psychiatry pathologizes expressions of natural emotional suffering. The World Health Organization supports psychiatry by defining “mental health” as “emotional well-being” and thereby implying that natural emotional suffering is pathological. I like the term “problems with living” because it is broad enough to go beyond emotional suffering to include other natural problems with living that the DSM pathologizes as unnatural.
Report comment
I mostly agree with you and admire your approach; it seems valuable for replicating. I believe that all emotional suffering is natural based on personal experience. I specify emotional suffering from “cruel and unjust life circumstances” as a means to challenge psychiatry’s advocacy that emotional suffering is unnatural regardless of life circumstances.
However, you seem to support my point about distressful life circumstances with this concluding remark: “Sometimes, we do it to ourelves, with our own critical and self-judgmental voices, which would be what we carry inside of us due to early trauma.” It seems like a distressful, “unjust life circumstance” to carry critical self-judgement due to early trauma.
Report comment
Steve just said: “the problem with ‘mental health’ is that it implies that people who are suffering are somehow ‘ill'”; I agree totally. “Mental health” implicitly legitimizes “mental illness” and “mental illness” pathologizes natural emotional suffering (emotional pain) from distressful personal experience- from cruel and unjust life circumstances.
Steve also said that “mental health” “means not being upset in any way with the status quo.” I agree assuming that “the status quo” references the cruel and unjust life circumstances that cause natural emotional suffering.
Steve also said: “controlling language is part of controlling the narrative”; I totally agree. I have experienced extreme emotional suffering from cruel and unjust life circumstances that naturally promoted behaviors that the DSM describes as “bipolar disorder.” My emotional pain caused me to react in ways that others might consider “irrational” but this is unfair focus since expressions of physical pain are generally irrational and not judged as pathological. People experiencing physical torture see visions and hear voices but are not judged as “mentally ill.” Personally, I relate to having been an “emotional sufferer”; I consider terms like “crazy” or “nuts” or “bonkers” to falsely imply that my thinking or behavior was less than natural.
Report comment
Thank you for this article; it is a community service. I contend that neuroleptics have a sedative affect that naturally causes a loss of brain volume (nervous tissue volume) through atrophy. Neuroleptics have a sedative effect that reduces nervous tissue usage; reduced nervous tissue usage causes atrophy consistent with how reduced usage causes atrophy of all other body tissues. Increased brain activity from cessation of neuroleptics will increase nervous tissue volume (brain volume) consistent with rebuilding muscle tissue when a cast is removed. It is illogical for scientists to attribute loss of brain volume to a mythical disease when it is readily understandable through basic physiology theory.
Report comment
Steve, well said.
Report comment
Psychiatry kills more with its nocebo effect than with its drugs.
Report comment
Psychiatry is a nocebo by advocating the myth of “mental illness”; a nocebo promotes negative health outcomes through negative thinking (consistent with how a placebo promotes positive health outcomes through positive thinking). Testing for “problems with living” that are intended to predict “psychosis” (increased “problems with living” pathologized by psychiatry) creates a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that harms health- real (physical) health.
Report comment
This is an excellent article; thank you Bruce. I would like to add that psychiatrists are often more authoritarian than other “doctors” because they do not know what they are doing, have little success in their “practice”, and resent their patients for not affirming their medical school “expertise.” This is also the reason psychiatrists have a higher rate of suicide than other “medical” professions.
Report comment
My previous post was intended for William but I now want it directed to you as well because a note that I emailed to your address at “Nyghtfalcon.com” was rejected by them.
Report comment
I have a couple ideas that I would like to discuss with you about what I think that individuals can do to challenge the legitimacy of psychiatry. You can contact me through “Contact” information provided at an online therapy program that I administer at UnifiedAlternatives.org
Report comment
I consider your blog post to be articulate and am interested in more of your work but find it difficult to follow. I expected your website to be collections of your criticisms of psychiatry; instead it looks like a “fabulous” collection of home furnishings for sale. You speak well on your 50 YouTube videos but they do not appear to be categorized or integrated so their relative value is hard to determine. Is there a way to contact you for more information about your work?
Report comment
Psychiatry has reified the metaphor “mental illness” into a subject addressed by a “medical science”; the “debate” I envision addresses the illogic of reifying a metaphor. “Mental illness” is one of the few metaphors (together with “mental health”) that is considered literally true; this foolishness needs to be identified.
I consider the “debate” about whether human suffering is due to a “neurological problem” or “social conditions” to be equally foolish in nature but also equally important. The disconnect between distressful experiences and emotional suffering seems foolish but this denial of our basic humanity is widely accepted and needs challenging.
Nevertheless, I agree that the most important debate is about “messaging”- how best to expose the truth about psychiatry.
Report comment
I agree that you are in excellent company in the belief that the biggest problem with psychiatry lies with its police power but the source of that power lies with its false scientific (medical) legitimacy. I agree that psychiatry would collapse from the weight of the truth if it lost its police powers but I do not believe that society will restrain psychiatry as long as medical science legitimizes the myth of “mental illness.” If a medical science tells society that “diagnosed people” are a “danger to themselves and others”, coercive “treatments” are a natural result… to protect “patients” from themselves (as well as protecting society). There may be plenty of situations where an MD might be helpful with “diagnosed people” but the legitimacy of psychiatry and its myth of “mental illness” seem like their biggest problem.
Report comment
I find this article to be one of the more compelling and articulate that I have read here at MIA; thank you for your community service. Nevertheless, I have some disagreement with your conclusion.
“If it were recognized by our people that science is irrelevant to the debate over whether society’s fears should trump individual rights to liberty, then we could begin what will be the long struggle to win such a debate.”
I do not believe that “the debate” has ever been about whether “society’s fears should trump individual rights to liberty”; the debate is about whether “mental illness” is a real medical problem or a myth. You articulately argue that “mental illness” is a myth but do not advocate for the abolition of the “medical science” that legitimizes the myth. Psychiatry does substantial harm to the community by advocating that natural emotional suffering is a medical problem that inhibits “healthy” thinking and the ability to make “sound” judgments; this legitimizes the coercion. I contend that the issue is about “science”: a harmful narrative about natural emotional suffering that passes for medical “science.”
Report comment
Please allow me to amend my above statement to: “With psychiatry and its myth of ‘mental illness’, the logic goes that life is fair and just (in the community) and therefore emotional suffering must be caused by a malfunctioning ‘mind’- with a medical (biological) problem.” Pathologizing natural emotional suffering is a tool that delegitimizes personal traumas (like child abuse) as well as political and economic injustice and alienation.
Report comment
I disagree with your analogy; I consider psychiatry to be a fear mongering, secular religion that addresses emotional suffering (emotional pain) consistent with the way “demonic possession” is a fear mongering religious belief that addresses emotional suffering. With “demonic possession”, emotional suffering is considered an affront to religion; the logic goes that if people truly believe, then they would not be suffering emotionally. With psychiatry and its myth of “mental illness”, the logic goes that our culture is fair and just and therefore the marginalized and disenfranchised must be malfunctioning “mentally” with a medical (biological) problem.
Report comment
Antipsychiatry is rejected by most anti-capitalists; it cannot become “closely linked” to anti-capitalism.
“Psychiatry is a harmful narrative, metaphor, oxymoron and pseudo biology”; that is the message that I believe will best promote antipsychiatry (as well as better economics and politics).
Report comment
How far from an understanding of basic humanity must psychiatry move before it becomes a bad joke? Psychiatry is absurd in proposing that loneliness is a disease that causes isolation (a disconnect from the community) rather than isolation naturally causing loneliness.
Report comment
I do not know about your experiences of the 1990’s, but it seems obnoxious to claim that “I was never a racist until that decade came along” in commenting about a tribute to Dr. King. Consistently, yes, I believe that racism had something to do with Trump winning.
Report comment
Painfully true: “a guaranteed income would alleviate the need for many to identify with a “mental illness” label in order to receive receive sustenance.” I spoke with a woman this week who was struggling for sustenance; they would not give her food stamps because she could work even though she could not find employment and was hungry.
Report comment
“Picking up trash and raking leaves” has not brought the community much justice since Dr. King passed.
Report comment
Thank you Cat and Steve for your community service.
Report comment
Right on.
Report comment
Open Dialogue is more successful than other “treatments” because it addresses “mental illness” like it is a myth (a social problem with living). It is more successful when addressing emotional suffering within a community that has more empathy for emotional sufferers. It is less successful within the US because the larger community is more hostile, and the program is more “technical” (like it is addressing “mental illness” rather than a problem with living) and therefore more expensive.
Report comment
It is really hard to understand something when your livelihood depends on not understanding it.
Report comment
Please consider a different perspective: Your life experiences including your experiences with your “ex” are extremely distressful; your distress causes emotional suffering that is painful. It is natural for people in extreme fatigue and people in extreme pain (both physical and emotional) to have delusions and hallucinations. Unfortunately, you believe the accepted medical model paradigm led by psychiatry that advocates that delusions and hallucinations are symptoms of a pathology. It is hard to understand how psychiatry pathologizes sadness because its “medical model” is a classical paradigm. A classical paradigm is accepted by most people without question; our community generally believes that sadness is unnatural regardless of cruel and unjust life circumstances. The least fortunate 2% of the population have a human right to avoid abuse and a human right to suffer from abusive experiences according to the UN commission on human rights.
All emotions are natural; they are direct reflections of personal experience. Your fear of your ex is natural regardless of an “objective analysis”; you earned your fear the hard way. It is a crime against humanity to pathologize sadness.
Your husband comes from a family rife with emotional suffering from distressful circumstances (rather than “mental illness”). He learned empathy for emotional suffering including the suffering of an uncle who took his own life when the natural emotional pain (and hopelessness for relief) became overwhelming. He understands the value of emotional support for symptoms of emotional suffering rather than treat the behaviors as symptoms of “mental illness.” Supportive environments promote emotional well-being; in contrast, pathologizing natural emotional suffering worsens distress.
Report comment
It sounds like “what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.” “Writing a memoir for years” is a great idea and will help you better understand yourself and the world around you. Your courage in addressing hostile comments will serve you well; you will become wiser in “learning to be less offensive” as you better understand views that “are difficult to explain.” I am looking forward to reading more of your perspective. Please feel free to use me for a sounding board if you like; I can be reached through a free therapy program that I administer at UnifiedAlternatives.org.
Report comment
This website does not appear to welcome “spammers and scammers”; I assume that they would manage the site better with more volunteers.
Also, the moderator seems apolitical; perhaps more than “leftists” found your comments “offensive.”
Report comment
Thank you for your community service.
Report comment
Your first post was right on.
Report comment
I experienced post-trauma stress; I suffered emotionally for years after the trauma. My response was a “normal” reaction to my unique experiences with the wrongful deaths of over a half million people. Instead of acknowledging my natural reaction to my life circumstances, psychiatry invented PTSD. “Personality disorders” exist like PTSD exists; they are made-up diseases that pathologize natural reactions to trauma.
Report comment
I might add to Steve’s great description of the scientific method that hypotheses are to be stated in advance of research (to be proved or disproved) rather than concluded from research. Research on identical twins that legitimizes behavioral genetics is substantially based on a confirmation bias that accepts coincidences as science.
Report comment
People seek emotional well-being (positive emotions) and avoid emotional suffering (negative emotions). Happiness and confidence are expressions of emotional well-being while sadness and fear are expressions of emotional suffering (and related coping styles deemed disabling). Consistently, common behavior patterns that express emotional suffering are described in categories by the DSM. Loving someone generally promotes emotional well-being for the person being loved; in contrast, psychiatry generally promotes emotional suffering for clients by pathologizing their natural emotional suffering.
Report comment
Right on.
Report comment
The “scientific method” is the same in “hard science” and “soft science”; the difference is that “social science” applies the method to social philosophy while “real” science applies the method to the “real” (material) world.
Report comment
This is a discussion of “Hard Science vs. Soft Science.” “Hard Science” is real science; it uses the “scientific method” to address the physical world. “Soft Science” is “sciency”; it uses the “scientific method” to address the non-physical world. Soft science contradicts the most fundamental principle of science (parsimony) and cannot be falsified (in contrast to the philosophy of science). Medical sciences are biological sciences- real science that addresses the physical world; actually, medical science is real science except for psychiatry that addresses a philosophy of “mind.” Psychiatry is soft science (“social science”) that masquerades as hard science- real science.
Report comment
“If one takes the work of these researches work to ALL its ultimate conclusion (looking at the social and political role of psychiatry in today’s world), there is NO OTHER justice worthy conclusion than to *abolish* psychiatry.”
Richard, this makes perfect sense if the researchers were not hedging their bets with their terminology and thus implying that there is still some kind of medical “disorder” being addressed consistent with KindredSpriit’s larger comment above.
Report comment
Interesting point; I embraced the term in the sixties as empowering.
Report comment
Language is about usage; I personally consider the terms “mad” and “crazy” to have negative connotations about experiences that are labeled as such.
Report comment
I wish that I had saved a post at MIA by a psychiatrist who described the brain volume loss as due to atrophy from under-utilization of nervous tissue. He described how brain volume loss was only common in older institutionalized patients until “biological” psychiatry replaced “Freudian” psychiatry with more drugs. Since then, he is witnessing brain atrophy in “patients” at substantially earlier ages based on sedating nervous tissue with neuroleptics.
Report comment
I believe that “sad” and “frightened” better describe most people identified as having a “mental disorder”, but I cannot imagine feeling pride in my experience of extreme sadness (regardless of the righteous causation).
Report comment
“Dementia” is substantially “old age denial”, but who cares about (non-productive) old people?
Report comment
This may be a valuable intermediary step but the logic is difficult to understand. When the absurdity of PTSD addresses all “mental disorders”, pathologizing natural reactions to trauma should seem wrong. It is unfortunate that “trauma-informed-care” critically ignores the obvious- that distress is the natural (rather than pathological) reaction to trauma.
Report comment
I would value your feedback.
Report comment
I am not uncomfortable with what you say; I am a neuroscientist who would love to talk neuroscience with an informed critic. Please consider my criticism of the “neuroscience” of psychiatry at (http://delegitimizepsychiatry.org/pdf/Coalition_Neuroscience.pdf); I seek feedback of the “real” science.
Report comment
“From the very beginning, psychiatry was co-opted by governments to do the dirty work of eliminating people who are different from some arbitrary “norm.”
Not true: from the very beginning, religion was co-opted by governments to do the dirty work of eliminating people who are different from some arbitrary “norm” through accusations of “demonic possession.”
“It’s easier to call for the destruction of something than to engage in the process of inventing something new.”
I call for the destruction of “arbitrary ‘norms'” (both secular and non-secular); I do not want to “engage in the process of inventing something new” that can define “arbitrary norms.” Psychiatry pathologizes natural emotional suffering (and coping methods deemed disabling- non-conforming, non-productive and/or disruptive) consistent with “exorcist” priests who advocate against “demonic possession.” Actually, destroying psychiatry by exposing the hoax will “invent something new”: an understanding of our humanity (the expression of extreme emotional suffering from extremely distressful experiences).
Report comment
“Voice hearing simulations” are problematic because they falsely imply that voices do not have personal meaning.
Report comment
This is a great article for parents who attend your workshop (parents with “regrets” or “shame”); parental honesty about shortcomings and weaknesses empowers children with more truth about their distressful experiences. Parents who care about their children and try to be nurturing deserve sympathy and more resources; parents who promote the myth of “mental illness” as a defense against parental shortcomings do not deserve sympathy.
Report comment
There is none.
Report comment
Twin studies are the ultimate support for popular theories about genetic links to behavior; thank you for exposing the pseudoscience of this false, harmful narrative.
Report comment
And if your life circumstances were traumatically cruel and unjust (creating a living hell for you and “causing severe disabling anxiety”), psychiatry would “gaslight” you by attributing causation to a mythical “mental illness.”
Report comment
Scientology is an increasingly corrupt cult; conflating antipsychiatry with Scientology is psychiatry’s best defense so I consider any association problematic.
Report comment
I consider myself a natural scientist so I appreciate the effort by Enrico to consider a natural science perspective of anxiety; I also appreciate his allowing me to offer a different perspective. In contrast to the most fundamental principle of science- parsimony, I believe that Enrico is presenting an “Evolutionary Psychology” perspective of anxiety that lacks “parsimony.” Parsimony is the principle of Ockham’s razor: “all other things being equal, simpler theories are better” (“Fewer assumptions make better science”). “Evolutionary Psychologists” freely move from general evolutionary theory to explaining specific behaviors while they do not understand the process; making broad assumptions about the product of an unknown mental process is not science.
Thereafter, Enrico shifts from a pseudo natural science perspective to a humanistic-existential perspective that describes anxiety as “signifying something of significance that is being emotionally disavowed, or that life-enhancing sources of self-fulfillment are not being attended to.” A simple evolutionary perspective seems like better science: anxiety is the negative feeling (emotion) of distressful experiences that promotes their avoidance.
Report comment
“So you’ve got a depressed man with delusions and hallucinations – what’s the plan?” Since depression is a naturally painful expression of depressing life circumstances, I would ask if there was anything that I could do to help. I would promote more justice if possible, but since I would probably have little ability to promote more justice, I would generally offer empathy. I would also reference a therapy program that understands emotional suffering as natural consistent with Unified Alternative Therapies (free online at UnifiedAlternatives.org), Open Dialogue and e-CPR.
Report comment
Psychiatry is the “main”, medical “means” of “dealing” with “mental/emotional distress”; this is harmful since emotional suffering is not a medical problem. An “alternative” to understanding emotional suffering as a medical problem is understanding emotional suffering as a spiritual problem as with “demonic possession.” A more truthful “alternative” to psychiatry and its medical interpretation of emotional suffering is understanding emotional expressions of distress as natural. I think people need to understand this alternative to psychiatry in order to understand psychiatry.
Report comment
I thought that Abu-Jamal was widely heralded for justifiable homicide in response to racist police violence rather than for mistaken identity; I will investigate further.
I am a US citizen; any specific reason why you considered me to be Canadian?
Report comment
I understand that Wikipedia is not an academic reference but I was criticized for not knowing “common” knowledge about racial injustice rather than “deeper” knowledge.
Report comment
Oldhead, I am not a racist for disagreeing about Abu-Jamal; his extensive Wikipedia article does not mention a “passenger in Mumia’s brother’s car.”
Report comment
Annette’s list of icons all practiced non-violence; I assume that Abu-Jamal endured great injustice but do not believe he was framed for murder (and do not believe that he is white).
Report comment
Numerous “survivors” may want to promote such a cause. Legal folks might have trouble with Miranda rights for a “psychiatric hold” since Miranda rights address an “arrest” and a “psychiatric hold” is not an “arrest.”
Report comment
Well said, Out and LavenderSage.
Report comment
Well said.
Report comment
Therapists/counselors “take” money to “give” emotional support to “clients”; this obligates them to cease this business relationship before “taking” emotional support from “clients.”
Report comment
I used the term “client” to address the “business” obligation of a “therapist/counselor” in our (capitalistic) society. Lawyers and therapists are contracted to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own interests related to the type of work provided. Sexual behavior is about self-interest so this type of relationship should not qualify for “tough love.”
Report comment
I agree that this should not be about personalities and that Will could improve his “‘therapeutic’ skills” with more insight into psychiatry, but I sought more sensitivity to what I perceived as an expression of deep emotional suffering from a person working hard to do right by others.
I thought that the term “patient” was the worse term because it implied a business relationship based on medical science. I thought that “client” referenced the fact that counselors/therapists have a fiduciary (business) duty to people that they “counsel.” I assume that you dislike the term “client” because it implies a balanced relationship when many (most?) people do not voluntarily seek counseling (and fewer are treated with the respect that “clients” are due and generally are afforded). I believe that I used the term properly in the above context but agree that it hardly applies to most situations as counselors/therapists rarely respect the business relationship. What is your preferred term to reference those in “counseling/therapy”?
Report comment
You have worked tirelessly in support of the marginalized; I am sorry that your work does not give you more comfort. The abuse that you have experienced in your life seems to make you especially sensitive to the emotional suffering of others. This seems to make you an especially good therapist for everyone but yourself; you are not protecting yourself from abuse.
Abused people often seek pure honesty and fail to notice the standard social practice of criticizing friends and colleagues with a “good cop, bad cop” routine. In other words, when a friend says something objectionable while thinking that you are supportive, people often respond about how others now consider the comment objectionable. This leaves your personal criticism vague while supporting the general criticism of the transgression. “Bold” people may consider this a “weak” approach to conflict resolution but I consider it a communication tool. It is easy to be bold with strangers and others’ companies but difficult to criticize friends and one’s business colleagues.
Abused people also tend to seek redemption for transgressions through public “confession”; I understand your article to promote this policy. I do not believe that most people are willing to avail themselves of honest confessions; it exposes them to more public ridicule. Most people seek redemption through private acts to protect themselves from criticism. Thus standard “office politics” promotes criticizing colleagues (or the company) in private and complimenting them in public. I believe that your old company feels like it provides the community a valuable service that is compromised by your public criticism; I believe it will focus more on protecting itself than on your criticism.
I have admired your work for years and am sorry to hear that you are not comforted more from your legacy of “giving.” I contend that all emotions are natural and that the DSM pathologizes the natural emotional suffering of the marginalized; I am sorry that your suffering has been pathologized and that you are sensitive to these false labels. You deserve to be appreciated for your commitment to justice and to live in a world with more justice.
Report comment