Sunday, November 28, 2021

Comments by l_e_cox

Showing 695 of 699 comments. Show all.

  • Well, I am surprised you have come to such a materialistic conclusion after studying Hinduism! You may believe as you wish, but if you ever run into any real past life phenomena, I hope you recognize it for what it is! I see the idea that Spirit is the ultimate cause of all physical phenomena as much simpler than the circular idea that biology – obviously a created technology – somehow manifests the knowledge necessary to create itself! Past life recall, at least, has been studied in academia and I think the results are convincing. Of course, many others have looked into this phenomenon, too – as it is quite real – and arrived, usually, at similar conclusions. Furthermore, those conclusions are useful, as they have led to workable mental and spiritual therapies, even a solution to the problem of psychopathy.

  • Seeing as you have delved quite a bit to Hinduism, you have undoubtedly been exposed to the phenomenon of past life recall. How do you explain this phenomenon?

    It seems to me that by far the simplest explanation is that the being carries its experiences from lifetime to lifetime through many bodies. For me, this is the jumping off point. There is much more to learn once you decide that it is OK to ask a person what they remember.

  • As of the evening of 21 Oct, the Psychiatric Times website is coming up blank for me. I imagine it will reappear at some point…

    I am not surprised at the content of this “opinion piece.” I would tend to characterize it as a propaganda piece, and a forthright statement of what the psychiatric establishment plans to achieve, not over the next 30 years, but as soon as humanly possible.

    And while it should be spoken against, as so many freedom-loving writers have tried to do over and over for near-on a century now, it should also be confronted and fully understood.

    I know that when I state my own understanding of such matters, I often leave many behind, but I write here in the interest of including a full range of viewpoints, not to be popular.

    Dr. Yager failed to mention certain other aspects of future life on Earth, as they are not part of the current propaganda story. But I trust it will not be too much longer before we are openly dealing with extraterrestrial societies, and most of them, from what I gather, follow a similar social pattern to that outlined in Dr. Yager’s piece. In other words, this pattern is not new, but on the contrary is very very old. And it has been the hope of many Earth-bound visionaries that we, finally, could come up with something better.

    And in fact (in my opinion anyway) we have. It started when we really began to focus on human rights. And with that came the concept of free (rather than closely controlled) markets. These visions led, at least in the United States, to a period of widespread, if unstable, comfort. And in that period things got quiet enough for a while for some great strides forward in the field of mental health and spiritual repair to take place. These advances were, of course, fought against by those who felt threatened by them. That this opposition was based on very irrational ideas was obvious to some, and is only becoming more so. But it also had a lot of wealth, power and influence behind it, and on the surface it seems to be winning out.

    For example, the writer of this article seems totally unaware of the advances made into the spiritual aspects of life and mental health, including the development of many new and robust technologies for working with individuals and groups (even animals) in trouble. In my own vision of our future, these technologies are widely known and used. And psychiatry, as it exists today, is gone. They had their chance and they blew it.

    In my opinion, there are two main reasons why Dr. Yager’s vision of the future persists and in fact is being actively worked towards.

    First, it is the accepted pattern of every “modern” techno-space society that has ever existed. It is brutally dystopian, but is capable of great persistence. Most of us consider those avidly supporting such a vision to be psychopathic. Nothing like turning their own concepts against them!

    Second, accomplishing this vision would “let us in” to the wider space society. At least some of its proponents think so. I am not so sure of that. I don’t think that wider society ever plans to let us in on an equal footing with the older groups. They just need a carrot to dangle in front of Earth’s almost-oligarchs.

    Yes, please, do away with psychiatry! But don’t replace it with the pat-a-cake and maudlin ideas of the New Left psychologists! We can do better than that, and we deserve better than that. We are the people of Earth! We are the people who still believe in basic human freedoms and basic human rights. We may be the old rebels, but we can be the new leaders if we stay true to the principles that made us strong.

  • Hello Jody R! This is Larry. I think that if you are interested in this subject, you should do more research on it. There is lots of evidence for spiritual reality. Of course this “reality” is not physical! So you will not find ordinary physical objects to study, but it can be studied like we study energy phenomena using meters, or by communicating with it directly. We are spirits, so when we communicate it is actually spirit-to-spirit usually via various physical media. If this whole subject upsets or annoys you, I’m sorry. You don’t have to study it if you don’t want to. But don’t dismiss it as a non-subject just because you don’t know that much about it.

  • You are welcome to return to that way of life if that’s what you really want. But I do want to point out that the indigenous peoples have not been able to fend off the incursion of a techno-space society onto their planet, which indicates there could be a chink in their armor.

    We need to be realistic here. People like techno-space societies because that is what they are used to. It is possible we can re-imagine this one to be much more humane than past ones have been. But if we don’t learn to play this game well, we will become enslaved by it. I am quite certain of that. Nothing we can do can change that now. The planet could have 1/2 a billion people on it and be clean as a baby’s butt, and we’d still have to deal with the techno-space problem; it is all around us.

  • I hope it is obvious to all what is missing in this study: That we are talking here about perceptions about the future leading to anxiety (instead of effective action).

    Both the Climate Change issue and various related ones, like pollution, are being driven by propaganda campaigns, not lived experience. And this study measures the effects of those campaigns, not that experience.

    What is most troubling to me is that the people creating these campaigns, being professionals in what they do, probably intended the results that were measured: Anxiety instead of effective action.

    At this point, I think the most effective action would be to shut off the campaigns! They aren’t achieving a better life on Earth and are degrading our mental health. Obviously, a different approach is needed, if we really care about these issues for what they are, and not only for how effectively they can be used to scare people.

  • This appears to be a diatribe typical of socialist or communist ideology.

    If you borrow ten bucks to make a pitcher of lemonade, you are in some sense a “capitalist.” The word has been tossed around until it is nearly meaningless.

    This woman appears to be complaining about psychopathic executives, of which there are far too many. They exist in businesses, in the professions, and in government. They exist in democracies, in socialist countries, and in communist countries. They are the scourge of this earth, and in fact, of this universe. And you will never get rid of them by raving about “capitalism!”

    Psychology has served many masters. Many of those stories live in ignominy. To handle these mistakes we must do more than rave. There is much to learn, both in thinking and in doing.

    Do we really want to go back to living like “our ancestors?” Could we? The modern world requires organizations, and organizations require hierarchies. I have lived in one where all were paid the same, so I know it is not impossible to humanize modern society. I just know that it has rarely succeeded. Great wisdom is needed to make that really happen.

  • This is an important communication.

    The “experts” tend to dwell on problems with drug studies, withdrawal, or living conditions.

    The fact that the psyche is ignored in psychiatry is seldom pointed out, yet to me is the most decisive condemnation of it.

    This observation opens the door to a new approach to the problem, and in fact to life.

  • I did not see this article as an attack on a “community.”

    We are talking about moving these chemicals out of the existing therapy community that has been using them into a larger “community” that does not share the same standards of care and concern. The wider “mental health” community is already broken, and I see no way that a few new medicines will somehow save it.

  • I am not speaking about the effects of drug use per se. I am speaking about the “mindset” and lack of awareness that has allowed so many new chemicals into our bodies, to say nothing of the traditional ones. The mindset is way too mechanistic. There are many higher healing forces that need to be brought to bear on the human situation. Psychedelics are just another distraction along that path.

  • I could argue, though, that enlightenment and mental health aren’t necessarily that different, and that neither belongs in the hands of an MD.

    It was a huge mistake to hand over this sector of human health to medical doctors in the first place, and the sooner that mistake can be acknowledged and corrected, the better.

  • The problem, though, is that you are talking about brain science, not psychology! Don’t you get that there could be a difference? Don’t you believe in any sort of spiritual reality in human life? There is abundant evidence for it. And that such a reality would be the higher factor in human “mental health” should likewise be apparent.

  • The problem remains in thinking that we need ANY drugs to achieve a “healthy brain.” The brain is part of the body and we already know that body health has to do with nutrition, sleep, exercise and light exposure.

    The mind is not resident in the brain, so thoughts and emotions are a whole other realm of health.

    Some think that the fact that some of these substances have been used traditionally make them OK. We venerate tradition, yet how much do we benefit from it? If we still think we need drugs to feel better after all these centuries demonstrating that this isn’t the solution, then how much progress have we really made?

  • All I can add to this is that a lot of people (not a ton, but at least a handful) have studied the psychopath, which is a personality type (for lack of a better description). You can read about or listen to their conclusions in various online sites and videos, and they have also written books.

    So this is a studied subject, but not a well-known subject. These people are like chameleons. They will pick an ideology that seems appropriate to the times or their audience and lean into it. But they don’t believe in it. That’s my main point. Yesterday it was Eugenics. Today it is … chemical imbalance in the brain. Next year it could be something else.

    These people are terrified by life and very conflicted. But given the proper opportunities they can and do take leadership positions because they crave such positions. Some burn out quick once they are “at the top” but others hang on for years and somehow make a career of it. But you will not find any broad improvements resulting from their decisions.

  • This is a well-crafted piece of writing, if (for me at least) a bit over-long. I acknowledge that some courage was involved in revealing the author’s own involvement in that scene for a period of time.

    The points and conclusions of this article are sensible from the viewpoint of anyone who has been involved in the mental health field and actually wants it to achieve its (often only implied) goal of an improved level of sanity on Earth.

    For me, unlike some of my associates, this even includes my sympathy for the decriminalization process. However, those same associates remind me of where that process has taken us with other drugs: to normalization of recreational use, resulting in chronic use (addiction) in some individuals and the various social challenges that result from that.

    We should also remind ourselves that abuse – particularly sexual abuse – in therapy has never been limited to abuse of drugged or drug-dependent clients. It has been a constant problem with therapists which I see as reflecting a larger problem in society, as therapy is not the only social context where sexual abuse exists.

    My current feeling about this whole subject is that if we could get Mr. Hall’s attitude about therapy to prevail, therapy would become a safer and possibly more productive human activity. But it would still fall short of achieving the ultimate goal of improved “mental health” that we all, presumably, seek.

    That is because, to state things crudely, the New Age psychedelic drug pushers are “onto something.” And that thing is spirituality.

    As with every sphere of human knowledge that contains a kernel of truth, the sphere of the spiritual has suffered from continual “abuse” and distortion. I have seldom seen the approach to “spiritual healing” taken by those who I consider actually quite insane as well-recounted as Mr. Hall does in this article. The whole concept of “surrender” and “ego-destruction” is part and parcel of many New Age platitudes, yet has no real conceptual foundation or workability.

    I see the New Age as a curated and carefully maintained pathway into the hearts and minds of people who are too smart or creative or “conscious” to go along with the soggy and cynical teachings of secular materialism. It promotes things like UFOs and ET contact not only because those subjects appeal to the imagination of New Agers but because they are factual. Same with reincarnation. Yet layered on top of all that are frankly bizarre pseudo-scientific theories about brain function and “multiple dimensions of reality.” They also have their own religious beliefs based on a multitude of stories derived from (probably) actual ET contact. As if the Bible should not be trusted while ETs should be! Who do we think the Bible’s “angels” really are??

    So, while I would be happy to see psychedelics taken out of the medicalization pipeline – on any pretext, really – what about mental health?

    I will only briefly restate my basic premise: Real advances in mental health have been blocked – first and foremost – by those I consider as the most insane posing as arbiters of sanity or “correct thought” in this society at this time. Thus those who seek real mental health have two major initial tasks: First, to get themselves and their colleagues totally out of cooperation with the ideologies and methods promoted by the demented “experts.” And second, to seek out and fully explore the areas that have long been deemed fraudulent or off-limits by those same “experts.” Great revelations will greet anyone willing to take these steps. And we will advance, possibly, closer to our real goal of more sanity on this planet.

  • One can view these various approaches to life as “ideologies” but I see them as personality types.

    And the criminal personality type chooses war, terror and indiscriminate killing as his preferred approach to life, then wraps it all up in an “ideology” and tries to sell it to some audience desperate for answers.

    The trick is to keep that personality type out of power. And it is a trick! No one yet has totally perfected how this could be accomplished.

  • Given the track record of “professionals” in this field, I would be suspicious.

    Though a global welfare state would in theory reduce individual suffering, it would also result in these “professionals” being better-paid in many locations where today they struggle to compete with traditional medicine and other approaches that may, in fact, be more workable.

    I can’t believe they want much more than a more secure position for themselves in a future world where the general population starts to turn against the widespread use of drugs to “cure” everything.

    These folks are always trying to think ahead and anticipate the next cool way to convince us they still know what they are talking about, and thus save their sorry asses from being abandoned as a worthless bunch of quacks.

    If they really believed in personal and societal health, they would also be talking about the spiritual aspects of health, and not simply advocating for global health insurance.

  • I don’t agree, either, that we should target “capitalism.” It you have ever saved money or contributed to a 401k, you’ve been a “capitalist.”

    I likewise don’t think that the particular economic or political system in vogue at the moment has much bearing on how this system went down the toilet.

    But neither do I believe this was due to our “biologically inferior human nature.”

    Indeed, it is the non-biological aspect of human life that make it so attractive. It is true, though, that the biological aspect of human life makes it confusing. The solution to that, though, is simply to unconfuse people. Simple. Not easily done, however.

    But if you do successfully travel down that road, you might realize, on the one hand, that we have had a very long time to get as messed up (confused) as we are today, and that on the other hand, some got a lot more messed up (confused) than others. The ones who somehow came up with the short end of that stick we call “psychopaths.” And they push the rest of us down towards their level of confusion, and succeed or not to varying degrees.

    So, yes, with the help of the criminally insane, socialisms have seldom worked out very well for very long. And likewise, systems based primarily on capitalism also have massive flaws. And like the battered wife who does not find relief until she entirely ends the relationship, instead of hoping that somehow he will see the light and get better, we need to end our relationship with the psychopaths that exist around us and let them fall to the levels that they actually exist at. If we did not believe all their deceitful puffery, they would not have the power that belief in their lies gives them.

  • This is a very carefully-prepared article, as is Robert’s standard.

    I could only make it through Part One, however. The detail in Part Two was too minute for me!

    That these payments were so easy to discover, and thus done with a brazen arrogance, one could say, indicates to me how entrenched and confident this industry has become. In our modern society, drugs are a perfect money maker, and even more so with psych drugs, as you can always blame any bad effects of the drugs on the patients.

    How many people today know with any certainty that the mind exists independently of the brain, and that above the mind exists an immortal spiritual being? Most people today, quite to the contrary, are totally convinced that the reverse is true. Thus, to them, the ONLY way out of a recurring or chronic mental problem must be through the use of drugs. While to the confirmed (and educated) dissenters, there is NO WAY that drugs could have a direct impact on mental state, but only indirect impacts, through the being’s close association with a body.

    Though it seems morally necessary to report what amounts to brazen corruption in this industry, in other industries these kinds of relationships between manufacturers and end users are the norm. When it is a car or a shoe or an automation component, it seems normal if not useful to have end users of these products publicly state their experiences using them. Manufacturers openly sponsor conferences and provide perks to their presenters. So when we “expose” this kind of behavior in this industry, the general public reaction could amount to a big “So what?”

    It seems to me our big challenge now is to convince the general public, if not at least practitioners, that an industry that provides products used in the healing arts is not on the same level as an industry that produces equipment or industrial chemicals. That the healing arts are something very different; that they deal with forces that go way beyond the material ones we learn about if we study molecular biology.

    In a world that worships materialism and views people as mere animals, any attempt to return some level of moral awareness to the field of the healing arts (much less to other areas like politics or law) will fall on largely deaf ears. These people have given up, in some significant way, on the whole concept of moral boundaries, just as they have given up on religious belief and other “higher” human pursuits.

    We are blocked in our efforts by the exact mental and emotional deficiencies that the healing arts should be helping us overcome, yet captured, must never be overcome. If the mainstream healing industries were to embrace the higher truths of their own field, their institutions would tend to dissolve, based as they are on lies. If they cannot see their way towards an entirely new vision for their place in society, which would involve a serious devaluation of materialism and a significant elevation of the spiritual, then they can never serve their intended purpose, and the population will continue to slide into greater and greater sickness until the industry itself can no longer remain profitable, at which point it will collapse.

    Though this planet may be fated to follow such a course, I prefer to hold out for an alternative way that might be a bit less disastrous. But it will entail a proper revisiting of the whole question of Spirit, what it is and its role in human (and all) life. I just don’t see any way around that.

  • I don’t know Peter or his work that well. But obviously he is someone who lives within the world where drugs are seen as an important part of healing bodies from all sorts of maladies.

    Well, maybe they should be, but what about psychiatry? Why the heck is psychiatry using drugs at all?

    So while yet another story detailing how corrupt these people are is interesting in some ways, I feel that it is time to move on and start looking at what these long years of neglect of the psyche have missed.

    Though some should argue that perhaps I should move on, I would again like to urge more people who feel they have some skin in this game to step up and take a good look at the basics. These include the matter of how these discussions can easily distract us from more urgent matters. And those more urgent matters include the very realistic observation that this planet, with its modern pressures and technical advancements, is rapidly going to hell.

    Our subject (whether you call it “mental health” or “spiritual freedom”) plays a vital role in whether things get better or continue to get worse. We need to keep that in mind. We aren’t indulging in horticulture or talent contests. The future of mankind is teetering, and mankind is noticing!

    Through a recent friendship, I have been exposed to some popular material that people watch on TV. In a million different ways, the writers and performers are all screaming “we are all going crazy!” And the general public seem to be responsive to this. Are we who have devoted our lives in one way or another to actually doing something about this going to realize that we have to do a lot more than calling out people for doing the wrong thing? We have to figure out what the right thing to do is, and make it the thing to do!

    Yes, drug trials should not be distorted to allow unsafe and ineffective drugs onto the market. But what are we going to do about all those people who have done that, thus compromising their moral integrity to keep a job or whatever? And what are we going to tell them to do instead? Factually, those people need guidance from others who have somehow managed to maintain a higher degree of integrity in their lives. Are we ready to step up to the plate and do that?

  • While any reform that might result in more safe and effective drugs getting approved and used and fewer (or no) unsafe and ineffective drugs getting approved and used would be valuable, this whole topic is virtually meaningless without looking at the larger context.

    First, we have drug companies and others turning “medicine” into a profit-making profession instead of a healing profession. As long as that situation continues, what chance does an individual have of getting better when they go to a doctor?

    Second, we have “doctors” who focus entirely on bodies, leaving out all other relevant factors, of which there are many. When someone gets hurt or sick they should get an ethics interview to see if they are connected to a suppressive person (such as a doctor!). The current system will never stomach that much emphasis on actually getting well!

    Being a corrupt government official has become the norm, as has the practice of bribing or blackmailing government officials. In such a degraded moral climate, how can we expect any of these parties to actually care about those who approach them seeking help?

    People involved in medicine (“body health”) or psychiatry (“mental health”) are in a perfect position to see that these systems don’t work and need to be changed. But they are in a terrible position to have any real concept of how much change is needed. And so “reforms” never are enough to bring real change.

    The concept of “open science” is a bold new idea already being applied in some other areas of study. But if Science never opens itself up to the areas it should study but has chosen to neglect, then nothing much will come of this concept. You don’t effect change by looking at the situation from the same viewpoint that resulted in the problem in the first place. These people need a whole new viewpoint on what science should be and how life really works.

  • The intro using alcohol was very witty!

    No kidding we need a “paradigm shift!”

    But I am unsatisfied with what the authors propose, because, from my point of view, their own paradigm about how life works has not yet shifted enough!

    Their “new” paradigm still implies that people only live once, are basically super-evolved animals, and just need to learn better how to get along. From what I have learned, this is basically incorrect. So the new paradigm, though obviously more humane, would not make that many people feel better. Maybe 25%?

    My own paradigm starts with these “facts of life:” A person is a spiritual being who has lived many multiples of lifetimes in many different places. A person brings all that experience into this life, although usually as forgotten experience. The body is a sophisticated animal which could in theory survive without a human personality associated with it, but rarely does. Thus, the body can be seen to have a “mind of its own” to a certain degree. It also brings experiences from former lifetimes forward into this one, again in a forgotten state. The difficulties a person may encounter in this lifetime are thus an amalgamation of this life’s experiences and the (usually) forgotten experiences of two beings, one an animal-type being and one a human-type being. This can make healing a difficult process for some beings, and likewise requires a well-trained healer or facilitator, should that be desired. The key to unraveling each individual’s personal riddle lies with the person themselves, and how much they are willing to learn about life and about the techniques that have been developed so far to help people heal. This is usually done by learning some of those techniques and then trying them out on someone else.

    Healing from psychic trauma of any sort is not a voyage for the faint of heart. But done by steps that are relatively easy to confront, it can eventually be achieved. Good luck to those who try! For those who don’t feel up to this, just get enough rest, good food and a calm environment. Likely, you will get better if you can just get those things. This is the greatest challenge on Earth today! Those basics of rest, food, environment are unobtainable for so many!

  • Hi Jack, it’s Larry (small L looks like big I).

    Your opinion seems fairly sensible to me.

    Though some insist it should or must be otherwise, we come to this world by numerous different paths and with different sets of abilities. To the extent that human society needs to be organized, some sort of “class system” becomes inevitable. And though it would be most wise and workable to let each individual each lifetime rise to a position where they can serve best, there has always been a tendency for those with more responsibility and control to save their positions for their own family members. This is unfortunate and gives criminals a wedge to pit “classes” against each other.

    Psychiatry is very much a part of this game. And many of us can see this clearly, as they interact with us a lot more than others who are participating in various criminal activities. The situation is truly appalling to me, brought up as I was to trust these people.

  • It isn’t just psychiatrists who may come from privileged backgrounds. I did, too. But isn’t the American Dream to rise to the level of the privileged? Or descend to it?

    I don’t think privilege has as much to do with a person’s character as some would like to believe. But to the extent that privilege engenders a fear of “ordinary” people, it can cause a separation to occur which could lead to an unrealistic view of life. The truly evil rely on that separation and the “class wars” that it can bring about.

  • In the context of the work of Jung, Campbell and other similar explorers, this argument against the ways of psychiatry is well-expressed.

    To me, it gives psychiatry too much benefit of the doubt. To my mind, they have gone way beyond proving themselves simply ignorant and culturally arrogant. They have shown themselves over and over to be greedy, selfish liars, spewing fake theories on purpose simply to impress us and not because they really believe. They have shown themselves quite willing to be tools of the state, including cooperation with some of the most suppressive governments on Earth.

    It would be nice to think that a swift kick in the pants to remind them of their longer tradition as “mystic” healers and spiritual savants would be enough to awaken in them a more sincere desire to help others. I don’t see that ever happening. As healers, they are the most broken of the broken, the most insane of the craven. I don’t see that they deserve any respect at all from us as a profession. There are good individuals among them, yes. And thank goodness for them.

  • Tell your friend that the internal controls built into the body are a whole different subject than attempts by others to control the internal functions of the body. On top of that, most bodies must be fed to stay alive.

    Having an “anti-drug” approach is basically a rejection of the “take a pill to make you feel better” message of modern societies.

    And though I consider that I make wiser food choices, it is unlikely that I avoid all external chemicals, as they are so ubiquitous now.

    I don’t consider myself fundamentally a “drug-induced being.” I consider myself an immortal spiritual being who, in choosing to be associated with a biological body, must learn to contend with the body’s various chemical vagaries.

  • The only other activities I’ve seen come close to the arts are other forms of play: performing arts, non-competitive games, things like that. They key is to create a safe space that encourages self-expression. Of course, we can’t live like that 24/7, but we should all be able to have some time we devote to that, and that is “therapy” for most people.

  • OK! Well, I’m really glad you are thinking about this stuff.

    Just want to point out again, though, that “spiritual” is about something, and that thing is Spirit. And several people who have looked at this subject have concluded that Spirit (and spiritual beings) are immortal (they exist outside of time).

    And some people thought to ask spiritual beings (each other -as we are all spiritual beings) what they could remember. And different researchers found different ways to validate these memories. So, even though they are “only memories” this gives us a history of life and the universe from a spiritual point of view.

    Spirit and its ability to “remember” provides a continuum for living things that helps explain many aspects of life, including mental and emotional difficulties. The stories we get from spiritual memory challenge our teachings about evolution, the brain being “hard wired,” where religion comes from, and where humans come from. In my view it is long past time for those teachings to be challenged. They were inadequate and now we know why.

  • Everything is neurological? Who told you this?

    You are quite aware that people of ill intentions have been interested in psychology for a long time. Well, those guys are the same ones who are trying to convince us that it’s all in the brain. So, if you really think you have a neurological (brain) problem, then see a neurologist.

    The psyche has been defined and has been studied scientifically. Even a few psychiatrists and psychologists have been involved in this!

    Science has the option of using different models for the same phenomena, then by experimentation determining which model predicts behavior the best.

    In the model I believe is the most accurate, the psyche is an immortal spiritual (non-physical) being. Though the human situation is a bit more complex than that, my point is: Why is psychology studying neurology? If someone wants to study the brain, they should study neurology. If someone wants to study the psyche, they should study psychology.

    It makes sense to me.

  • This becomes a problem of circular logic. Many writers and commenters here have pointed this out.

    I have never seen the specific term “social cognition” used before, so this is an interesting slant on the problem that will possibly appeal to other researchers who are more familiar with these terms and concepts.

    Of course, my major frustration continues to come from the focus on brain function and this-life causation. These factors both have much less importance than the field currently assigns to them. Not zero importance, just less. There are many other factors also at play. I have seem many credit Jung with at least being cognizant of these. Too bad that the fuller development of Jung’s ideas has been so thoroughly ignored.

  • It is good to see this contrary opinion on this subject!

    I have exposed myself to hours of glowing interviews about psychedelic experiences, so I know that the marketing efforts for these drugs have reached a high level of sophistication.

    The target audience is more or less obviously New Agers. These are, normally, moneyed individuals with a fervent, if flawed, understanding of the spiritual. They are ready to grow spiritually, yet have that characteristic reluctance to devote the time and resources required to get it right, and, like most of us, hope for a pill or ritual that will help things along.

    Any drug in the hands of the mental health system has resulted in some sort of disaster. So that side of the argument is very clear.

    The societal impact of decriminalization, legalization, and normalization of these drugs is more difficult to assess. It is unprecedented in my lifetime that so many have striven for the barriers to the use of a whole family of extremely psychoactive drugs to be lowered or removed. It’s not that criminalization of these drugs have served society that well. But that doesn’t mean that decriminalization will be better!

    We know that the normalization of the use of drugs in the mental health system has led to widespread off-prescription use of these drugs. We can assume the same pattern will continue.

    I am anti-drug in my basic approach to life. Others still want to see modern drugs as some sort of triumph of science. I am not so sure. They were developed in the absence of a full understanding of life and human beings, and so suffer from that ignorance. I sometimes wish we could start the whole process over again, this time with all the doctors at least as well trained concerning the spiritual side of life as I have been. When reformers advocate for a fundamental shift or change in approach, they are not kidding. The current approach really does not work. And now we want to legalize a whole new class of very potent drugs for general use in society? I don’t see that going well.

  • This is a great personal story, and also informs us of the current level of awareness of possibly most of the people we live and work around.

    My personal interpretation is that so many people have been beaten down by their own experiences that they have lost hope of ever finding a way out. They believe – as they are told over and over – that no one really understands the mind and thus it is impossible to heal it.

    This is a lie. I hope that more people, as we move forward, will realize that there is more that can be understood about all this than those who hover over us (in fear that we will find out) want us to believe.

  • Sam speaks from personal experience, I believe. More personal experience than I have.

    I belong to a “human group” too. But that group taught me about the existence of something that very few other groups ever talk about. In ordinary lingo it is commonly referred to at a psychopath.

    My group has methods for detecting and handling such people. We would prefer to be totally open in our membership policies, but this one is pure poison, so we act to keep them out. Not many other groups even try to do this, or they wait until it is too late and the damage is already done.

    Of course there are good people in psychiatry and psychology. Some of them realize their mistake and leave (Kelly Brogan) and some stay in and try to exert a humanizing influence (Peter Breggin). But all of them have a hard time, per reports submitted to websites like this one, because the group is dominated by a criminal element.

    As much as some would like to leave “politics” behind, it is a part of life; inescapable. So best to know the real situation and confront it. Yes, it is “complicated.” But it is also simple: In the absence of psychopathy people of good will do OK. In it’s presence they become sick or upset, until they come to realize what is really happening. Our challenge is to recognize what is really happening, and decide what to do about it. Staying totally away from psychiatry IS a valid choice at this time.

  • It is true that we could get by very well without this concept of “mental disorder.”
    But things will happen to people and they will reach for words to describe it.

    I recently witnessed a woman read a request from her supervisor to “pick up the pace.” Her reaction was to burst into tears. What are you going to call that? Does this mean she has a “mental disorder?” I would never tell her that. But I would also hope that she could do something to feel less intimidated by her supervisor. So I think the way doctors and others use these concepts is more important than the concepts themselves. I would never tell this woman to go to a doctor or therapist to “get treated.” Yet I imagine others are sent away for reactions much less dramatic than this one.

  • What did Alice Miller have to say about this? Hubbard understood, as well, that there is a reluctance “built in” to the human psyche regarding the whole subject of the spirit.

    My ending question was basically rhetorical, though. Psychology studies the psyche and psychiatry is supposed to heal it. This is a website about those subjects. So let’s talk about the psyche on this website!

  • It is true that that academic studies of paranormal phenomena are very reserved and – you could say – conservative in tone and verbiage. My point is that “science” CAN go there! They – as an institution – just don’t want to. There has been a lot of work done by non-academics in these areas which academics, of course, will tend to characterize as “unscientific.” This is because there are definite and real blocks in the human psyche to unearthing the truth about itself.

    I am happy to live in a time when a large quantity of that truth has been discovered. But frustrated by the human barriers that exist to studying the subject.

  • Of course, but I should make note of the fact that there are a few academics (“scientists”) who ARE researching the paranormal. One group known best to me is the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginian School of Medicine. So, it’s not that these subjects cannot be studied scientifically, it’s that most of science has not been permitted to study these subjects.

    I don’t think the answer is to let “the church” back into the scientific discussion. I think the answer is to expand the scientific discussion into fields that “science” has relegated to the purview of religion. For me, this transition has already been made, but for most people, definitely not!

  • This effect has been known about at least since the publication of Dianetics in 1950. We are only still struggling with this today because of where it leads if you follow the clues. Psychiatry and most of psychology do not want to go there, so have been thoroughly ignoring the “subconscious mind” since Freud (or whoever came earlier) started talking about it.

    If you follow the clues, by the way, you discover that the earliest traumas tend to be the most deeply buried and thus hold the most power over a person. By 1950 is was known that these extended to fetal trauma, perhaps even including conception. Pulling that string led to the discovery of “past deaths” (hey, dying can be pretty traumatic!) which then led to the discovery of past lives, the immortal spirit, and its long and bizarre history.

    We could be discussing traumas that occurred millions of years ago if we just opened the door and followed that hallway to where it leads. But I have yet to see one person on this forum willing to take that step. Why not?

  • OK. Yet another thoughtful person realizing that we aren’t there yet, that the problem is more complex than neurons misfiring, and that our “model of mental illness” is deplorable.

    But this thoughtful person hasn’t bothered to look around a bit and be curious enough to wonder, “is anyone else working on this problem?” And if so, “what models do they use?”

    Because the answer is YES! And I’ll give you a hint of what model is more workable: One that actually attributes psychological phenomena to the psyche (loosely, the Spirit)! And one that respects each person as a spiritual being regardless of their level of difficulty or confusion in handling their current environment (which is often very challenging).

    Psychiatry, and psychology to a lesser degree, dropped studying the psyche for irrational if not stupid reasons which included things like greed and lust for power. Reformers should recognize that, too! It’s not that everyone has had such a difficult time finding their way; it is that so many were purposely avoiding it!

    Good data about the psyche began to be available in the 1950s (and probably earlier). It was offered to academic people who totally rejected it. And that has been their attitude, to their eternal shame, up to and still including the present. If you’re going to discuss this problem at the level of theory, why don’t you? Include, at least, concepts of psyche in the discussion! They DO have something to do with psychology, you know!

  • I don’t believe that the “mental health” system has no understanding of the role of domestic violence and abuse in the lives of their patients. I believe that it understands the situation very well: The purpose of the system is to silence the abused woman (or child or man in some cases) so that the abuser can go on with his (usually, his) life untroubled.

    I believe that this is a very big reason the whole system was set up in the first place, and that all the major players know this perfectly well and cooperate to keep it operating in this manner. Of course it has no interest in healing the victims, and so treats the “mentally ill” as prisoners, as people who are simply disobedient.

    Underneath this is the general fear of anyone operating at the level of psychopath of being discovered and having his “fun” little games brought to an end. This fear has led to much worse systems (if you can imagine such) than the current “mental health” system, and will continue to result in such systems until there are enough clear-minded and courageous people to bring that insanity to an end.

  • I know many think as you do, and that I and “my people” are swimming against a strong current.

    But we see ways to combine the subjective with the objective that seem to work for most people who have tried them.

    A spiritual ability, like, say, going stably exterior, is subjective from the observer’s point of view, but not from the point of view of the person going exterior!

    That said, taking definite steps with definite end phenomena does not guarantee “equal results.” Just compare two people who both took all the same classes in college and got all-A’s. Will they have the same personalities, enjoy the same jobs, have the same friends and family? Of course not. So to me, saying that each person is unique is a lot different than saying you can follow a spiritual path through several definite steps and get a lot out of it that is meaningful to you.

  • I’ve seen the AMA described as a “trade union for doctors.”

    Most professionals like doctors want to be on the side that is winning, even of that side is anti-human!

    It is charitable to say that doctors behave the way they do because they really don’t know how to make people well. However, I am often led to the less charitable conclusion that they don’t want to know; that they just enjoy the power they have over people. When will they prove me wrong?

  • Traditional psychiatry – even of the Jungian variety – is so ignorant on subjects like Spirit, mysticism and memory that this is one of the main reasons I would not trust them with these medicines, any more than I trust them with the drugs they are already using.

    I know psychiatry as one of the biggest roadblocks to the study of spiritual phenomena in academia (thank goodness non-academics did not stop studying it!)

    Jung was an academic and valued his reputation as one. I have read that this is one reason why he refused to dig deeper into the spiritual, even though this is where is work was leading him.

    Though there are some academics that did go ahead and work in the field of “parapsychology,” the only ones known well to me work for the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. This work was started by psychiatrist Ian Stevenson when he agreed to chair this department, which was endowed with funding from Chester Carlson (1906–1968, the inventor of xerography).

    If it weren’t for various non-academics interested in this subject, Dr. Stevenson would have never received the funding he needed to pursue his interests in the paranormal. I imagine this may be true of many academic psychologists and psychiatrists.

    But because of the attitude of traditional psychiatry towards this work, all the important work done in this field was done my non-academics using their own resources. It is that work, not Dr. Stevenson’s, that first convinced me that we are immortal spiritual beings, and that this is the first and necessary step to a better understanding of the human condition, as well as its solution.

    I have seen MANY hours of people talking about their experiences with psychedelics. And though this has made it obvious to me that people really are getting something out of using them in a controlled manner, it is also blatantly obvious how little they know about the spirit and the mind and how these are related to the body.

    Besides the fact that there exist non-drug methods that achieve superior results, I do not consider these people well enough educated to be trusted with these drugs.

  • Here we get into the whole question of cultural traditions and the “popularity” of certain substances. One of the most quick-acting, dangerous, damaging and addictive substances we have is alcohol, yet any attempts to control its use have ended in disaster. There is the clearest example where we must fall back on educational programs and the problem of solving the addictive personality, as our legal system is totally unable to regulate the use of a drug that popular.

    Where substances can be derived from plants that are easily grown, we likewise have difficulty with regulation. Nicotine, caffeine and similar substances are not harmless, but too accessible and popular to be controlled beyond charging taxes on commercial sales.

    So again, education and pursuit of better “mental health” are key to preventing these and many similar drugs from wrecking too many lives.

    I did not decide to lead a no-drug life because I thought it would bring me closer to God, but there are many good arguments for doing so. However, in this world if I had a more addictive personality, I don’t know how I could have restrained myself from getting addicted to something, regardless of personal belief or faith.

  • cabrogal, I am impressed by how well-informed you are on these topics.

    Yes, the use of these substances will definitely be seen as bad by traditionalists, while the more mystically inclined might take a different view.

    We are bound to respect religious beliefs as matters of “faith” but recent research and events have shaken up this whole subject considerably. I feel lucky to have found a viewpoint which is tolerant and not too irrational, though precious few others would accept it as a valid viewpoint.

  • Well, that’s all I’m talking about. What most people call “profoundly spiritual” I see as “out of body.” I realize that most “trippers” don’t have a clear idea of exactly what they have experienced, particularly if they have no prior spiritual training. And we could be talking about what I know of as a “release” in many of these cases, but my point is that the spiritual being finds itself in an experience that it often cannot even find words to describe.

    If they really like that experience, well, there’s your route to addiction. If you get such an experience without using drugs, at least you can’t get addicted to a drug as a result!

  • From what I have gathered from online information and experiencers, psychedelics are particularly effective at promoting an “out of body experience” which I know of as “going exterior.” This can indeed be highly therapeutic, but as Christianity definitely sets limits on what “spiritual” looks like, such experiences are generally seen as beyond the pale.

    It is safer to go exterior without drugs, and the effects of doing so will likely be more profound, but most people in this society are so used to using drugs for everything, that this consideration likely won’t make any difference to them.

    The whole realm of spiritual experience is woefully under-researched and under-reported on this planet. On top of that, there are huge and ponderous belief systems and rituals built upon the “mystery” of spiritual existence. It is no great mystery! But it is indeed ironic that those society has entrusted to study it (psychology) and heal it (psychiatry) are the most insistent that it does not exist!

  • Thank you very much for this! I am confident that you have looked into this carefully. In some circles the CIA gets accused of having its fingers in everything! But if financial documents show the various funding pathways, this is a very solid indication of their involvement, even if it lacks completeness.

    The “New Age” movement in particular has always seemed a bit suspicious to me, not because of its claims, but because of its oversights and prejudices. It is an odd but strangely appealing quasi-religious movement that I have rubbed shoulders with on numerous occasions.

    I am acquainted with a guy who came out of the New Age, did a bunch of his own research, and now vehemently speaks against some of its more fantastical beliefs. I can only hope that more will follow him, or find other reasons to leave the New Age behind and pursue more workable systems.

  • The problem is that there are a whole phalanx (a military term, perhaps appropriate here) of experts, researchers and experiencers (most of whom I would describe as New Age) who are telling everyone they can think of that psychedelics are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

    A lot of these people are a little uncomfortable about handing these drugs over to psychiatrists, but not as uncomfortable as they should be — most of them just aren’t a part of the world of institutionalized psychiatry. Their therapists are in private practice.

    The seemingly unstoppable trend on this planet at this time is to “decriminalize” street drugs (which is seen as ceasing to punish addicts with jail time), and then to “legalize” them, which means in most cases, turning them over to the medical industry. There are some drugs that are considered harmless enough or popular enough that they cannot be controlled by doctors (caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, …).

    This whole issue is difficult for me. I was raised to be a Liberal. But my church (and me) is against drug use. Our approach has been to educate users and potential users about the actual effects of drugs and then let them make an informed choice. But many of my friends would prefer that many drugs remain illegal. It is seen as a deterrent to use. But is it? Or does criminalizing drugs just help ruin more people’s lives and give corrupt state actors another excuse to throw someone they don’t like in jail?

    A lot of it has to do with whether you trust your government to play by the rules. We do NOT have a good experience in that regard when it comes to the mental health system and the drugs that have been approved for use in it.

    In today’s society, anything you make illegal can be used by a bad actor (psychopath) to get rid of an enemy. And anything you make legal can be used similarly. So isn’t the big problem the psychopaths, and not the laws?

  • I think equity by race is the least troubling issue as psychedelics go through the process of being commercialized.

    They “work” best in the hands of shamans and trained facilitators. Psychiatrists are about the furthest from that existing on this planet (except for a very few). NO treatment has been safe in the hands of psychiatrists! And the socioeconomic divide is baked into that problem.

    They will take any beauty and revelation to be gained from psychedelics or any other “medicine” and twist it or destroy it.

    There has always been a problem of getting ANY meaningful help to the “colonized” peoples of this planet. But at this point, we are a planet of colonized peoples!

    You have to be extremely well-informed and extremely smart with your money to escape the predations of psychiatry and their friends on this planet today. And it is true, psychedelics are much more readily available to the more “fortunate” among us. They can get good, clean product for almost anything they want on the Dark Web, and don’t have to rely on the street for things like that.

    One person recently interviewed about psychedelics asserted that everyone in the healing professions should be required to get psychedelic-assisted therapy. What they really meant is that these professions – in mental health in particular – are notorious for their lack of empathy, spirituality, and plain old ordinary love for their fellow human beings. This is the huge problem that the “woke” seem to overlook.

    This whole discussion does not even take into consideration various other problems related to legalizing dangerous drugs. These drugs inevitably bypass the medical system and find their ways into the medicine cabinets of adults and children they were never intended for. They will still be abused by addictive personalities, just as they are now. It is “nice” to decriminalize addiction, but that does not cure it.

  • This is an interesting story, but steeped in the verbiage of “modern” psychology.

    These people take the DSM totally seriously, and love to delve into the complexities of human physiology. They overlook that the “psyche” in psychology means soul, or spirit. And thus they leave out what turns out to be the most important part of human experience.

    We also have the problem of her implied position in life: Working out intensively five times a week? Seeing a therapist regularly, then doing intense physical therapy to recover…what did she do for a living before? Why did she have so much time for training and therapy? How could she afford it?

    That said, it is about time that the more able among us realized that an awareness of mind, body and the emotions and how they work together is important in life. Add Spirit back in, and we’ll be back to where we were ten thousand years ago when the Vedas were brought to Earth.

  • Though this verbiage may sound like music to some people’s ears, will it ever reach beyond the academic halls and actually result in a humanization of psychiatry?

    “Critical thought” has so far failed to humanize politics or business, but rather to cause riots and loss of jobs if one so much as says the wrong thing.

    In my experience, psychiatry and materialistic psychology are at the root of Critical Theory. Is its aim really at reform, or simply destructive?

    Yes, psychiatry does practice a kind of “racism.” It is the “de-humanization” of the human spirit, the psyche that it pretends to treat!

    Is psychiatry really prepared to back away from this “colonial” distaste for the spiritual, and then re-think all its paradigms based on the new data that this fundamental change would reveal? Those paradigms include: Brain equals mind; Genetics replaces past life experience; Evolution is the only explanation for human development. All these assumptions are deeply wrong, and if truly corrected, would change the orientation of psychiatry forever. But do they REALLY want to go there? Even the critical thinkers?

  • Here we have a perfect example of a piece of “scholarship” based on the new theories of Wokeness.

    As a framework for critique, Critical Theory and its corollaries might have its place. But as a basis for political action, it comes very close to the epitome of criminal thinking. And the paper’s authors, in pointing out how well they think psychology could support their goals, pull back the wizard’s black curtain to reveal the theoretical source of these broken ideas: Psychology.

    What “modern” psychology has given us is ZERO insight into the psyche, and thus ZERO insight into how to fix the criminality that plagues this planet. For all practical purposes, it instead suggests that we give up; “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”

    Psychology was one of the earliest fields in the humanities to become infected by criminal thinking. It asserted that people were just animals and that the problems of the mind could be solved by neurologists. What a cop-out! Meanwhile, they helped governments and big business to find more effective ways to brainwash people.

    The only system to suffer more damage from criminal activity might be the criminal justice system itself. It has been broken for a very long time, because it deals directly with broken people.

    Today, we have enough knowledge to turn this scene around for real. But the people who want to keep it broken still have a lot of influence, and currently that is preventing any real improvement. Don’t believe them that we are “doing the best we can with what we know.” That is BS. The system is purposely being held down.

  • My value in this article was to get a little peek into how the “healthcare system” of today operates.

    Back when I was getting therapy, it was a one-hour session every week. Insurance paid for it. Pills were totally out of the picture, as this was a psychologist, not a psychiatrist. And I got to know the person I was working with, and she got to know me.

    What cannot be addressed here, of course, is why the system is so broken. After learning what I have learned (so far) about life, I can say without hesitation that someone wanted to break this system. There are people out there who DO NOT want people to heal. And they have been able to exert sufficient political and financial pressure on the system to break it. I hear that emergency doctors still know how to patch up wounds. But iatrogenic accidents are the 3rd largest cause of death in the United States, by some estimates. And that makes zero sense, unless you factor in this avid (but hidden) desire to break the system on the part of someone who is having a fair amount of success at it.

    I just think there are better ways to die. Why go out of this world convinced that you have been betrayed by your doctors? What kind of attitude towards life will that foster? Just because life is hard doesn’t mean that we all have to suffer through it.

    This story, to me, is one of a partial escape from the system. Now we need to take it the rest of the way.

  • My best understanding of it is that it consists of a loose affiliation of people with criminal minds. Though it’s woo-woo to say this: Off-world influence has also been observed.

    Their only real power is their willingness to perform criminal acts (starting with their current favorite – character assassination) to get what they want. In the past it was thought that they mostly indulged in blackmail, and that may still be true. The stories are pretty grim. But we all know that people really do do this to each other.

  • Well, yes. The example was the first one I thought of. And of course we don’t think of mental health interventions as happening in prisons, normally. But they do, and the psychopaths there (not all prisoners are psychopaths by any means!) will either accept therapy in the hopes they can get an early release, or refuse therapy. But in any case, they won’t make a decision that makes sense, just like their decision to commit a crime didn’t make sense. And that’s my only point; that’s the dilemma.

    Forcing mental health treatment on someone never works for the person it is forced on. But it might “work” for society. So the real problem comes when the person gets arrested and is forced by society to live in prison. Would any mental health intervention actually work under those conditions? I have heard of various training programs working in prison, but it is not an appropriate setting for helping someone to be happy.

  • But in the field of “mental health” we know what the pat answer to this is, and why involuntary treatment is allowed by law in many places, if only for a limited period of time.

    Of course, as people in this community expected, those laws opened a Pandora’s Box of real and potential abuses.

    We have a real dilemma here, in extreme cases. Whereas, in many cases it would be much wiser to let the patient (“client”) decide, there are a few that would not be able to do this.

    In some cases, those extreme cases will involve violence that would justify physical restraint and arrest. However, in other cases, this may not be how it works out. A case that comes to mind was related by Stanton E. Samenow in one of his few lectures posted on Youtube. A crying baby is found on the ground outside an apartment building. (I forget if it was hurt) Locating the old lady who was “taking care” of the child, she asserted that the child wandered out to the balcony and fell off before she could stop it. But further investigation proved that in fact the woman “threw” the baby off the balcony in some sort of fit of anger. In asking such a person how they wished to be treated, she would maintain that there was absolutely nothing wrong with her. This is an extreme case, but they are not that uncommon. So this is a big dilemma in the field of mental health.

  • If you have access to the internet, keep looking around on it. I’m told it is inappropriate for me to suggest the specific groups that I favor on this blog, but search for people who just want to help other people and see if you can find a person or group who you might feel comfortable with. It probably won’t be part of the “mental health” system. That system seems to be quite broken at this point.

  • This looks to me like another great example of thumb-twiddlng. Not that the people who write articles in the journal Psychiatric Services care what I think!

    It’s not that I’m not curious about what people who are prescribed meds like this actually do with them. For that matter, I am also very interested in what people who are NOT prescribed these meds do with them! But the point is that here we are pushing up against the beginnings of a police state, and we are worried about how people take their meds?

    The pro-tyranny folks want to figure out how to monitor everybody 24/7, then make not taking your meds an actual crime so they can arrest practically anyone they want at any time.

    And what do the pro-social justice folks want? That’s not quite clear to me. Equal tyranny for all? It seems strange to me that they aren’t doubling down on the atrocious human rights violations we still see in the field of mental health (and now the field of public health?) and blowing the whistle on it! Who’s side are they on, anyway?

  • Yes, I believe it is very probable there is a hierarchy involved. That is what I was told was found. The secrecy of it makes it difficult to uncover.

    There have been satiric videos made of news anchors or politicians across the nation or the planet all using the same words to convey the same message. So these sorts of activities are being coordinated through some central authority.

  • We have always had difficulty finding physical evidence for things that people want to keep hidden from us!

    But I have looked at the accounts of Svali and many others, the early work of Pie and Mash Films in the UK, and references to studies done on the subject, and it seems pretty real to me.

    I am guessing you don’t believe in spiritual existence, reincarnation, ghosts or anything like that, either?

  • Oh – medical model! It’s in the title of the article! Sorry.

    I have different experiences with models. I used to build them for fun when I was a kid.

    Strictly speaking, a “model” is a mathematical approximation of a physical system used for predicting the behavior of the system.

    I don’t think psychiatrists are very good mathematicians, though. And of course, the guys in charge are not to be trusted no matter what “model” you give them to work with. They can (and have) screwed up a Spirit-Mind-Body model! And that’s one of the best ones we have.

    I think models have their place. But they are useless in the hands of most psychiatrists.

  • It is good to see some dissent in academia on various clinical habits, such as the use of CHR-P.

    Will it have any real effect on practice, though?

    How many in the general public still believe in “chemical imbalance?” The academic world has moved on, but drug company marketing campaigns had the desired effect.

    The whole idea of screenings to identify “at risk” individuals might work for actual metabolic diseases, but in the field of “mental health” they only serve the industry by increasing their list of potential victims.

    The key point remains: Other than making money, they don’t know what they’re doing.

  • Those who have been following these issues are well aware of the pressure put on journalists – and on the general public through the media – to support the message of organized psychiatry.

    The most interesting fact I found in this article was that the Carter Center had put together a “press kit” for writers in the field of “behavioral health.” Boy does the document reek (I found a copy online and went through it) of “we are the experts so you better listen to us.”

    That’s the direction this world is heading right now. We’ve given up on the “expertise” of the democratic process and replaced it with tyranny by “experts” (technocracy). But without any democratizing feedback loop, the people never get to push back with “These ideas don’t work!” And even if all our structural systems for checks and balances were perfect, you’d still need a baseline level of sanity in society for them to work. This is currently lacking.

  • Saying that Braun was inept (as are most psychiatrists) and saying that his ideas and findings were totally incorrect are two different things. There have been many many people who have looked into SRA or reported experiencing it. You can always expect some people will try to ride any bandwagon that comes along. But all of them? There are too many who have looked into this and found evidence for it. It is, however, not strongly supported as a real thing, and there are a lot of people trying to make some person or group look bad who throw around the term too carelessly.

  • I don’t think the most important “mental illnesses” (or whatever we want to call them) have adaptive value. I don’t believe in that line of thinking. Does a broken arm have adaptive value? Something happened and you broke your arm! Get it fixed up so it can heal! That’s how I look at the more important mental problems.

    Some behaviors that are basically normal are condemned by the truly sick as being “mental illnesses.” I think that’s where the real problem lies for most people who get diagnosed as “mentally ill.”

    But I reject the premises of “evolutionary psychology” and wish psychologists would start studying the psyche instead of finding new and creative ways to avoid studying it.

  • This story comes through loud and clear.

    Is this guy “mentally ill?” How would YOU react to those experiences? He survived to speak honestly about what happened. I’d say he is one of the saner ones.

    The sociopathic co-worker, the abusive hospital attendants and psychiatrists. Is this our “normal?” Those people, if anything, had bigger mental health problems. Why weren’t they the patients and Mr. Brown their keeper? Could it be this is a planet that has been turned on its head? Where good works and honesty are looked down on, and rape and murder applauded? It seems so, sometimes. Are those of us lucky or sane enough to have calm productive lives a minority on this planet? Sometimes I wonder. In any case, this story gives us some idea of how far we have to go.

    I like his admonition: “The best drug that helped me was understanding. That’s the best drug.”

  • I hate to support the work of people who so clearly do not understand the basics of their subject. But if we can find some way to cancel the use of antidepressants it would be worth it.

    To take a wild guess, I would think most severe depressive episodes are triggered by severe physical or emotional pain, or some combination of the two. And this pain would most likely be coming from a psychopath in the environment, or in some cases an environmental poison or contaminant.

    Remove the physical or psychological contamination, provide adequate nutrition and rest, and the depression should subside. Then further work can be done to handle the situation more permanently.

    To describe depression as an adaptive response consisting of “analytical rumination” is a bizarre and unnecessary complication. But if a study will demonstrate that drugs make it worse, go for it!

  • I am a bit aghast at the lack of curiosity, or intellectual reach, displayed by so many who have an academic background. It is certainly not in the tradition of classic intellectualism. Though there has always been, perhaps, a sort of exclusivity or “we’re smarter than you” slant in the academic world.

    Academically trained people who still want their information spoon fed to them will of course only get the information that the person holding the spoon wants them to have. We expect this among the general public, but college-educated people seem just as weak on this point, if not worse!

    If this is the legacy of the modern university, then that institution has failed us. I have held this view for at least 40 years. Though occasionally a shining light walks out of college, most graduates seem to be anything but shining to me. And lo and behold! We see yet again the telltale fingerprints of psychology and its dogmas.

  • This message needs to get out as often and as widely as possible. I’m glad to see others working on this.

    I am concerned, however, that so many people will think: “but these drugs are my only option. I use them or I suffer even worse.” People are so used to taking drugs for everything.

    So we must also do what we can to forward the message that drugs are not the way to solve most problems, particularly psychological ones, as preachy as that may sound to people. Then, we need to come up with the other ways.

  • This little summary doesn’t get into what Cameron actually did to people. It was pretty awful! We can think of this as just the excesses of one warped mind. But remember: He was operating in the field of mental “health!” And his colleagues did nothing (that I know of) to stop him. Similar to the original Mengele. It requires a new level of vigilance to guard against such people and their atrocities.

  • rebel, I appreciate the extent of your faith. But I am concerned that the situation we find ourselves in on Earth could last long enough (if not forever) to crush so many of us down that no surviving desire for freedom would be strong enough to be effective.

    In my world and in my group there is an urgency to the situation. We look back at the history of civilizations and we see a long spiritual (not always material) decline. And when we trace this trend forward, it seems to end in what might be called “permanent spiritual death.” We don’t want that for ourselves, our friends or loved ones, so we work with what we have learned so far to confer a sort of immunity to this fate on as many people as are willing to try. It is not a perfect answer but we hope it will result in an ultimate escape and return to freedom.

  • I have words that “know the mind and the body” as well as what is looking at and talking about the mind.

    The only reason “we” don’t have these words and concepts is because we have been told they don’t exist. But they do; we have simply been lied to.

    Some may not agree that those words and concepts are useful or helpful, but until we know that they exist, we can’t have that conversation.

  • I am somewhat familiar with Mel K, but not her guest.

    I am also familiar with Simon Parkes, and many various others. Like Simon and a few others, I believe ETs are involved in the background. I think it is unwise to push against the Catholic Church just because people need some sort of church in their lives, and many are still Catholic.

    These highly-detailed analyses based on various quotes and excerpts and historic details don’t seem quite right to me, but these people are good-hearted and can see what is obvious. There ARE connections between many different groups and businesses. And while it is difficult for me to listen to some of the religious terminology used here, I have no doubt there is a lot of truth in what they are saying.

  • It is always encouraging to see academics discover something that seems true to me, while at the same time discouraging to see them cling to assumptions that are (to me) obviously false.

    It is true that this is just a correlative study. To test more strongly for causation, you would have to request (force?) the group to change their reading habits for a period of time, and measure them before and after. Do I have better “attributional complexity” because I have read more literary fiction, or did that trait attract me more strongly to literary fiction? In the “modern” world of psychology, we do need to recognize the fact that personality traits can be prior to this-life habits.

    Though the authors insist on referring to “evolutionary psychology,” a subject I find singularly useless, I can understand the attractiveness of it, for it furnishes a plethora of superficial explanations. Their ambition to “help society flourish” is intriguing in its uniqueness. Who in these difficult times ever expresses this sentiment? I wish them luck in achieving it!

  • It is always amazing for me to hear from people – often fluent writers – about what life is like in that world. I have never lived there this life.

    My argument against “mental health” drugs has always been stark and didactic: The mind is not part of the body, so how can you make the mind “healthy” by medicating the body? It is a scientific impossibility (assuming you agree with my science). The drugs are doing things to your body. They can make it feel better, or make it feel worse. And so you react mentally to how your body is changing. And that is all that is happening.

    But when someone who has actually been through this tells their story, the situation becomes more nuanced. Certain drugs can make the mind “feel better.” We are very familiar with many of them, as the most popular are legal for casual use. With psych meds, it is not always blatantly obvious that someone is addicted to them, although most who have attempted withdrawal know this is usually the case. And so, they become not only a route to a possible calmness, but also a trap.

    On top of this, there are many things that can happen in life that can separate a person from real mental health treatments, as well as from the feeling of being mentally healthy. I experienced both last year. Things could get so bad that no alternative treatments or teachings will be allowed (or affordable). And that would be full-blown slavery. We are closer to this than most of us think.

    In some ways I feel similar to this writer. I am in a mental, emotional and intellectual quandary. Though I know there is a way out of this quandary, I don’t know if I can succeed to do it. Thus I feel like I’m in a better place than many facing these challenges. But not by much! I am hoping that somehow our efforts will inspire more people to refuse the drugs. That would be a great first step! But it would only be a first step.

  • The people who live by this aphorism force themselves out of their own comfort zones in order to learn a new song, gain a new skill or hone some ability. They might have help from a coach, but they don’t want to be forced to do it any more than anyone else.

    Normally such people have a place where they can be very comfortable, then another place where they work to challenge themselves. They are actually maintaining a balance, but they talk up the side that seems harder to do.

    For a person who is never comfortable, this makes no sense.

    But I know a lot of people who live by this aphorism, so there is a workability to it, when properly balanced.

  • I would welcome more articles on this subject!

    I am perturbed, though, by the authors’ withdrawal into the safe space of present time environment when they should be pushing harder on the work begun by the psychoanalysis people.

    There is something right about both of these “paradigms.” Some people who experience what some call “mental illness” do feel, subjectively, that there is something wrong with them. When you go to the extreme of the psychopath, this becomes more obvious (though the psychopath is likely to consider himself the sanest person in the world). Also, the environment does expose us to many stresses that can overwhelm us to various degrees that have as much to do with physiological limitations as they have to do with “mental health.”

    The possibility that both Freud and Jung were onto something should not be overlooked. Did they fail because they were wrong, or because they didn’t look far enough or hard enough into the human mind? We know now how far the human mind can extend. Someone should be talking about it, and someone in academia (besides Jim Tucker’s group) should be investigating it. There IS more to learn about this, you know!

  • I think some Buddhist practices are closer to qualifying as “treatments” than something like “meditation” “mindfulness” or “yoga.” Especially when they are done under the supervision of a “master.”

    But of course, my objection to articles like these is that they stop at the level of environment (which could be called the source of “triggers”) and fail to go beyond that to discover what is being triggered by all those triggers, and what to do about that.

  • In my circles, these forms of censorship are well-known and considered very common. But in this case, the drug companies are the obvious bad actors, while in other cases this connection is not so easy to make.

    A few have been wise enough to step back and ask: More generally, what does drug treatment do to a person? And the usual answer is: It makes that person totally dependent on those drugs, and thus a kind of slave to them. Then when you look out across the full range of modern censorship, you see all of it as an attempt to replace free thought and action with a dependence on experts and instructions from authorities.

    I believe this points to a broader answer concerning why this censorship exists and why it has recently become so brazen and irrational: There is some group (or collection of individuals) on this planet that is terrified of free thought and freedom of action. And they are trying to run the show. This seems to be the actual situation.

  • Every aphorism has its place.

    “A penny saved is a penny earned.” They have been around a long time, and we occasionally come up with new ones.

    These sayings can always be misused and probably always will be. But there is usually some truth in them or they wouldn’t stick.

    To tell someone who is constantly suffering, “you need to get out of your comfort zone” would be ridiculous. You tell that to people who are more or less obviously so attracted to complacency that they are becoming useless to society, or at least to themselves.

    We could carefully define “success” (attainment of a desired outcome) or “comfort zone” (a level of functioning that is easy and familiar) but would that assist in resolving the problem of the misapplication of this and many other bits of popular advice?

    Most people who experience a “normal” amount of striving in life – someone who is competitive or seeking to constantly improve a skill or a product – knows and lives with this aphorism every day. If they are a good person, they wouldn’t rub it in to someone who is less ambitious, but might do that to a constant complainer. But that would leave out all the other “truths” that such people live by, such as the fact that we determine our own emotions and many of our own outcomes.

    I think the intention of the advisor is more important than the exact advice. And if someone feels harassed by a certain bit of advice, it might be wise to take a look at WHO keeps pushing this at you even though it is obviously not working for you.

    Of course, the truly emotionally unwell are also capable of complaining about advice. So the tables can be turned. In the end, there is no substitute for a good set of life skills and the self-confidence that goes with using them effectively.

  • I have taken so few drugs in my life that it is hard for me to imagine how people survive the kind of treatments that you describe. I can only imagine that you are a strong being.

    If one defines “mental illness” rather loosely, then yes they do definitely exist. The major one, overlooked in the DSM, is Psychiatrist Disorder. Its major symptoms include: Making up disorders to label other people with in order to hide your own, and pretending to be a doctor while actually harming patients.

    We could all do with improved mental health. But if we got that, we would probably figure out how to overturn the corrupt ones trying to control the current system. So, they pretend, but in fact, it’s the last thing they are interested in.

  • I thought this was going to be an article about how to use science to test a hypothesis (or tell if a drug works). It spent very little time discussing that subject, instead focusing of the vagaries of testing drugs. One reason these problems exist, of course, is because the subjects you are testing are humans, and science – a product of human activity – does not even understand humans that well. Thus the physical sciences and engineering tend to be much more successful using the scientific method than do Medicine and the social sciences (like psychology, economics).

    What you should be able to test for in terms of drug reactions is what changes the drug makes to the body. This would keep the tests in the realm of the objective. To test for the suppression or relief of subjective symptoms is a whole new ballgame.

    I think that for any major leaps forward to be made in the physical or the social sciences, a better understanding of how life works will have to be achieved.

    Sorry to be pedantic, but the fact is that the actual healing agent in biology is Spirit. If Spirit decides to heal, then healing will occur, and the experimental subject will normally report an improvement. And if Spirit decides to stay sick, then the subject won’t get better. This is the power of the placebo, and it could be argued that all those RCTs that use placebos have actually proven the healing power of Spirit!

    But more importantly, if life were better understood, doctors and Big Pharma would be forced to admit that their drugs should take a back seat to therapies that address Spirit more directly. A great way to sober up a drunk is to give him a Locational. And if the real cure for psychosis was to “make it difficult for the patient to focus on the psychotic ideation” then a Locational should also work to treat psychotics! Yet, anyone could be trained to help someone in this way, so where’s the profit in it?

    Some would argue that all this really tells us is that help and greed are incompatible. Perhaps science (if it is meant to help) is also incompatible with greed (profit motive). I suppose this was the original idea behind having so much government-sponsored research. But now that the corporate world has nearly captured government and academia, how do we move forward?

    Some of the most important hypotheses of the last century remained untested by science due to the suppressive influence of vested interests. There is no field where this is more evident than Mental Health, with Medicine running close behind. How can we shake these vultures loose and move forward?

  • The article is interesting. I didn’t read the original paper.

    In the context of a website like this, you’re going to have some who will simply assert, “this whole idea is a bunch of BS.” While others will be more willing to explore the nuances a bit, though not with an attitude much more favorable than sarcasm.

    That clinicians still take this whole subject seriously speaks first to the intellectual limitations of their educations and second to their need to have a set of medical-sounding categories for billing purposes.

    The fact remains (as far as I am aware) that the most common way this whole problem starts is when a person approaches a practitioner and says, “doctor I need your help,” or words to that effect.

    A very common variation on this theme is when a friend, family member or government employee approaches the practitioner, rather than the actual patient, and says, “doctor, I need your help with (fill in the blank).”

    The practitioner then starts the process by hearing a story, either from the patient or someone who knows the patient. This story may or may not be factual, but if the patient is telling the story, the practitioner can at least check certain points of the story against direct observation. At that point the practitioner can ask, “what should I do about this?” This is supposedly where the technical data really kicks in and a nosology (list of illnesses) should come in handy. But, the fact is, life often doesn’t work that way.

    I could continue to draw out this whole process, but beyond my own very limited clinical experience, I am really not qualified to do that.

    I do want to note what discussions like this tend to miss:

    1) Intentions. Does the patient really need help, or are they just in need of some attention? Is the “friend” really interested in getting help for the patient, or really only wants to get rid of them?

    2) Psychopathology. Is this person having trouble because of a crazy person in their environment? (This goes for physical injuries, not just emotional problems.) The patient may be unaware that they are connected to someone who is crazy, or may be afraid of “telling” on them. This is a very important missing step, the neglect of which often causes much harm.

    3) Complexities. A practitioner who hopes to narrow every patient down to one “illness” and one treatment is on a losing path before they even start. Chances are very high that the situation is more complex than that. There could be a whole causal chain that could lead back to basics like lack of sleep, poor nutrition, illiteracy, an untreated physical problem, fighting parents, sexual abuse, or some combination of many different situations. The person, in coming into a clinical setting, may temporarily escape the turbulence in their life, but when released go back and “get sick” again.

    In the light of the above points, particularly when addressing behavioral and emotional situations in a person’s life, the concept of a DSM becomes almost laughable. It gives someone like me the distinct impression that the whole group of professions who use the DSM either don’t know what they are doing, really don’t care, or aren’t very bright. I challenge the “mental health system” to prove me wrong!

  • It’s so agonizing to see the snail-pace progress even in people who seem to really want to help others.

    This is because they are being held back (sometimes quite forcibly) by people in those professions and in society who really want to harm others.

    When those restraints are removed, healers begin to look at more workable models, like body-mind-spirit.

    Though I can commend people like Dr. Rush for their work and good intentions, the key to their problems lies in the work of their own colleagues. So they really need to free up their thinking and then just look around more broadly in their own family of disciplines to begin to discover what’s really going on.

  • Though this paper apparently conveys a robust criticism of one of our more protected professions, it seems more like a game of kids throwing rocks at each other than a serious scholarly work.

    In 1980 my psychologist warned me about psychiatry. From that and other data I can assume that the two fields have been in a state of civil war for some time now. To trace back the dehumanization of psychiatry to the Reagan era is totally preposterous. How about the two world wars? Psychiatry was deeply involved in both of them!

    By believing the lie that “Presently, the major causes of mental illness are unknown” the paper leads the reader into believing that we will have to invest yet millions more of tax dollars into research that will help no one except maybe some vested interest’s bottom line.

    For me, this has been the great tragedy of my lifetime. That great strides WERE made in these fields, but were ignored because they threatened vested interests. That was the most obvious evidence that the “mental health system” was constructed for political purposes, and not to help anyone or solve any problems. Since the system became better-funded in the 1960s, societal problems have only been getting worse. Looks a lot more like a protection racket to me!

    Even most readers of this website don’t have any clue that the problem of mental health has largely been solved. Well, I’m not going to be the one to force the solutions down anyone’s throat, but to continue to act like they don’t even exist seems at best a bit negligent. At some point we should get to the point of realizing that some good work has been done on this and is worth discussing. How much longer do you all want to play this game of blind man’s bluff?

  • I found this prose nearly impossible to read.

    The concepts involved here are quite confusing and I think misguided.

    Groups that have been targeted for extermination (to put it bluntly) do face more extreme issues than many of us do. But the fact is, we have all been targeted for extermination.

    So the same basic remedies apply across the planet, to all people, though with certain groups more emphasis might have to be placed on certain aspects of the remediation process.

    The first step for any individual or group is to identify and disconnect from any psychopath who has a significant influence in your life. Although it has been argued that “systems” can become psychopathic (thus, “systemic racism”) there has never been sufficient attention placed on the psychopaths that may be operating or perpetuating such systems. They are the correct targets, not “systems.”

    This can be a difficult step, as psychopaths are masters at hiding themselves. But it is a very crucial step. If any significant psychopathic influence is left in place, it will work very actively to continue the suppression. And if the target individual or group begins to improve and assert itself, this could be met by an increased level of violence from the psychopath.

    Once that toxic connection is handled, these “frameworks” (I have more software training than psych training; to me the term refers to computer software!) can possibly be applied successfully, along with attention to various individual issues that may remain.

    The psychopath has been the “elephant in the room” for decades now! Let’s put some attention on handling that aspect of the problem!

  • The title suggested to me that the point of the study would be that everyone should have equal rights to have their human rights abused by a psychiatrist.

    Maybe African psychiatrists don’t go around abusing their patients like American ones do, but still, is this the real answer to the problems some people have at keeping their jobs? Why don’t more psychiatrists have more problems keeping their jobs? I would guess most of them have severe mental illness.

    Truth is, no employer wants to deal with an employee that is always having problems. It would be great if there were more effective treatments for such people, because then they could more easily hold a job. Barring that, the only effective handling I have seen has been to create some sort of community-based program where people can go and contribute at their ability level and get some sort of recompense so they are seen as useful community members. The general public can also be trained to deal with these problems in a more understanding way.

    The tragedy, of course, is that there ARE more effective treatments for people with problems. They just aren’t normally provided by psychiatrists.

  • It is true. The brain and every internal part of the body deserves to be protected and nurtured, not exposed to harsh chemicals or otherwise abused. If the brain – any body part – has a problem, we can possibly prop it up temporarily with nutrients or sleep or even drugs, but it is ultimately Spirit that will put things right, and we should never forget that.

  • I have seen very spiritual people refer to “brain” when they mean mind. For proper understanding, I think it is important to remember that “the brain is the physiological organ which allows the mind to connect to the body.” We can be sloppy with words if we understand this clearly. It’s important to my understanding of people and of life. Of course, each must develop their own understanding of these things.

  • It is common to think of the fear response as “necessary for survival.” But even in animals, I have seen the fear response paralyze them when they should run. My view is that fear is debilitating. In humans, this is even more obvious. You see a spider, a snake, an angry dog, whatever… you can get a fear reaction or you can know exactly what you need to do to stay healthy and happy in that particular situation and just do it. No fear involved.

    I think someone is selling us fear as necessary when it really isn’t. “Evolution” can explain it, but very poorly, particularly when you take Spirit into account.

    That said, trauma therapy is about trauma. It might often have to do with fear, but not necessarily. It could be from a head injury from sports or something. You’d expect fear to be a part of most incidents that result in emotional trauma. But there could be much more than just that involved as well.

  • I totally missed this when it came out.. going through some stuff of my own at the time. It is a very long article. I didn’t read all of it.

    In the context of more recent discussions (July 2021), it might seem odd, or even misguided, that appearing on a TV show such as this could result in a significant therapeutic change. But it is more or less obvious from this article that this is in fact possible.

    Should this be the new normal for our mental health care system? I must say, it sounds like these shows had a better batting average for positive results than does the conventional system! But from this experience, is it possible to determine which factors were the most important to providing a positive outcome? I don’t think it is. There was a good deal of focus, though, on the role played by the trained psychotherapist. And I think that focus is appropriate.

    This article was thorough enough to provide what amounted to some actual case studies. And what came up over and over what that there was a mental/emotional component to what was going on with these people, and when it was uncovered, they improved. In other words, the makeover itself might not have been enough. I believe these anecdotal examples support my contention that there is more than just an “oppressive system” contributing to common mental health issues; there are also real mental mechanisms at work. And getting “stuck in a past loss” is one of the more common.

    While far from conclusive proof that it will take more than UBI or a utopian level of equity and inclusiveness to make everyone well and happy, I think this article demonstrates that we need to include the role of mental mechanisms, not just social constructs, in attaining mental wellness.

  • I have never encountered these terms and concepts before. It is all part of the “disabilities rights” movement, I guess. In my area (California) this movement has resulted in things like ramps next to stairways, curb cuts at crosswalks, sounds emitting from traffic signals, seating areas on public transit that must be yielded to disabled people, etc.

    This all seems like a good thing. But I am concerned about where this could lead us in the hands of people who don’t really understand the mind and its problems, or just want to “include” as many people as possible on their list of potential victims.

    Who would be the most “psychosocially disabled” person you could think of? For me, it would be the person who compulsively lies, cheats, steals, and wishes harm on others, the psychopath. He might already be incarcerated in jail, or he might be roaming free, being a psychiatrist or doing some other similar job. Don’t we have to draw a line somewhere on the subject of inclusion? We don’t need psychopaths running the show on this planet, and many would maintain that they already are.

    This study concerns the entire planet. And this planet (if I can believe the stories and images I am presented by a group like Human Rights Watch) is in very poor shape! In “backwards” countries, some people who are seen as “unmanageable” by their families or communities are held prisoner in their houses or in “healing centers” or in places like jails. They are being restrained without due process. We see this happening in a more hidden way in “developed” countries where psych hospitals (or even emergency wards in medical hospitals) are also used to restrain “unmanageable” people without due process. This is clearly wrong-headed, as when most of these people are released from their restraints, they feel better and do reasonably well. However, the narrative never seems to take the turn that I might expect it to take: So, what was wrong with the “normal” people who thought their only choice was to imprison the “abnormal” people? Is someone going around telling people that if they can convince themselves that a family member is psychosocially disabled, they then can have that person as a slave?

    I am concentrating on the ambiguities in this subject because I am concerned where it has taken us (so far) here in the United States. The cry for “inclusion” has led to police standing by while rioters loot local businesses, and certain people in positions of power trying to tell me I have no right to speak or be heard because I am too “white.” We cannot be so inclusive and so tolerant that it results in the insane running the show!

  • rebel, I don’t know enough about eyes and drugs to add or subtract anything from your comment.

    But I know that if you want someone to become more awake and more alive, you should try to keep them as awake and aware as possible, then as they run into the mental barriers that tend to shut them down, they will be that much more able to “punch through” those barriers.

    From what I know, I can’t tell others to not try this. But I do really urge practitioners to figure out what they are really doing with people by inducing REM. I know it has to go way beyond mere brain function.

  • I am always happy to hear about a non-drug mental therapy that works.

    However, the theory behind this therapy is brain-based which my training tells me is misguided.

    Additionally, the mention of REM and getting the eyes to follow a moving object makes it more or less clear that a hypnotic state may be induced by this therapy, and my training tells me that this can be dangerous for the patient.

    If the theory of this therapy were re-worked along more modern Spirit-based principles, I think it would become better understood, and fall into its proper place alongside other non-drug therapies. We already know that “talk” (or cognitive) therapy has some effectiveness, and it is only by the longest stretch that we can relate those gains to brain function. It should be obvious to those who don’t have their heads buried that something else is at work here, and that something else is Spirit, the actual causal source in this universe.

  • A man with my last name has made a serious error!

    My understanding is that the mental health system tends to cause homelessness by rendering people less able to take care of themselves as they grow up (or after they start on drugs). Thus, one major target in the struggle to reduce homelessness should be the mental health system!

    If you want to make homelessness illegal, that would force the homeless into the prison system. But it violates basic human rights to force people into the mental health system. We all know this. In addition, many people in the prison system need help with their mental health as well, but the current system cannot provide this help, as it is not really designed to help anyone, but only punish them. Both systems function for similar purposes, but it is, perhaps, easier to get someone committed then it is to get them arrested, tried and convicted.

  • This article by this young student from India is a good synopsis of what continues to be wrong with this “profession.” None of this should be news to us.

    The younger generation still wants to get this right. This young woman plans to study criminal (forensic) psychology. And I know another woman here in California about the same age who also wants to study this subject. I hope they know what they are getting into! This is the legacy of Robert Hare, Stanton Samenow, and some more recent others. It is a rough and unsettling subject. The focus is on psychopathy, as it rightly should be, I suppose. And while I think these people are on the right track, their intellectual boundaries make attaining their goal more difficult, if not hopeless.

    I recently saw sociopathy defined as learned psychopathy. By implication, the sociopath could be “re-educated” and returned to a non-criminal life. This has been accomplished in many prisons, according to reports I am aware of. The psychopath remains the tough nut to crack for this society. He is always taking over the systems we design to restrain him! And this is what we have seen with psychiatry.

  • This article is overall meaningful, but includes a stinging accusation that I see all the time on the internet.

    While young psychiatrists are urged to question or dismiss the false beliefs that are rampant in their profession, the author perpetrates just such a belief about my church!

    And so, in his attempt to bring together or strengthen a coalition that will stand up to the lunacy known as “modern psychiatric practice,” he slaps in the face one of the most important members of that coalition.

    What an irony!

  • At this level (stopping psychiatric malpractice), we are dealing with the subject of Ethics. And according to our Ethics, the suppressives must be removed from the environment before healing can occur (the healing technology, such as Dianetics, can then be applied). The suppressives will not allow healing (repair) to occur! I have become healthier just from knowing this, and dealing with suppressives in my own environment appropriately. I have heard of businesses recovering, and I have seen the stories of people who have recovered from toxic relationships.

    Of course if the systems have become very broken, then much repair will be needed. And there is the promise of a much more rational and creative future, which is what our technologies are all about. But the first step is to get in ethics! And that means getting the suppressives off the lines, and keeping them away. The technology of ethics was not totally put together until the 1970s, while Dianetics came out in the 1950s. An important reason that my group had difficulties in the early years was because its procedures for dealing with suppressives had not been fully developed.

    You may if you wish, edit down or edit out my references to some of these technical details. I was trying to keep my comments on a more broadly understandable level by using only more mainstream terms (like psychopath) and people (like Sandra Brown). But I think it is significant that she gives this problem a similar level of importance to that given to it by the church. She finds psychopathy a very fundamental barrier to healing, and everything I have studied agrees with this conclusion.

    And yes, I do have a “rose-colored” view of society! People are basically good. They are capable of great works and great achievements when psychopaths are not allowed to obstruct them. And while this is little more than a hopeful dream today, I do not put an emphasis on “the system” because I think that without psychopathy, the system would become a rather minor problem.

  • Steve, I think it’s been shown that eliminating sociopathy from a scene improves the scene. You may be aware of something I’m not aware of, but my understanding is that when a person really disconnects from a sociopathic spouse of friend, they actually do heal. If sociopaths were prevented from entering the field of psychiatry, the good-hearted people would take it over, and it would start working for the benefit of all. And I believe the same is true of businesses and governments. It doesn’t happen like a light switch, but it does happen.

    We have to remember that the sociopath does not just work to do evil, but also to hold back those trying to do good. If the ones trying to do good were not held back any more, they would triumph.

    There are documented instances of this, even in history.

    If this is your concern about those that dwell on the problem of sociopathy – the inevitable inertia of the broken systems they leave behind – I invite you to reconsider. A broken system can be repaired, when no one is preventing the repair man from doing his job! That is how I understand life to work. I will not detail examples here, but I believe they can be found.

  • And so we have yet another video warning of the dangers of these drugs.

    So far, though, what we seem to be seeing in the bulk of the population is: “But what else can we do? Don’t we have to take a chance with the drug, as there is no other way for the ill person to get better?”

    This is the next barrier to break through: The belief that drugs are the only road to recovery.

  • I know a very good woman whose marriage was ruined, as far as I can tell, because her husband was taking Adderall long after it had served its intended purpose. He would have fits of rage that really frightened her. The social consequences of using these drugs are extensive. A woman with her two little boys feels forced to leave an otherwise working marriage, loses her job, and must live like an outcast in her parent’s home. How many similar tragedies have resulted from the overuse of these drugs?

  • Thank you! I wish this subject were more routinely discussed here.

    Yes, Spirit is quick, efficient and cheap. Thus, it is a friend to the people, and an enemy to their oppressors.

    But I think we could maintain an economy in quite good shape while also using Spirit much more often and in ways appropriate to life in biological bodies on a planet.

    After all, the oppression of the Spirit deniers has resulted in a population that is much sicker, slower, and dumber than what they could be if they were very healthy. With a healthy population, we could have much more production and much less waste.

    I am not very well-read outside of the subjects I have chosen to focus on. That diet sounds great, but I try to keep my sights not on eating or exercise or all those care-of-body practices but on care-of-Spirit.

  • If we propose that it is “society” that is sick, we have no way out.

    If we can entertain the possibility that just some people in society are sick, and that they are the ones making it hard on the rest of us, then there could be a way out.

    I think everyone here should become more familiar with the subject of psychopathy (the anti-social personality). I think this subject is key to understanding the situation we are in.

  • This whole business is a huge issue in society right now, on many levels.
    My problem with the above is this concept of “system.” What “system?” This is a generalization that leaves us with no target, no way to correct the wrongs or fight back.

    I have been mentioning psychopaths a lot in my recent posts. Yesterday I went back and reviewed the conventional data on this subject. I found new interviews posted, (Sandra L. Brown) and a recently-made documentary on narcissistic abuse in relationships. Sandra asserts that psychopathy “is the biggest public health problem in this country.” So there are some people who are pursuing this subject and are seeing it for what it is!

    What we have when we think in terms of psychopathy rather than “systems” is actual individual targets for correction. And furthermore, all the data I have suggest that psychopaths are what make the “system” seem so oppressive, when it does seem that way. Psychopaths are experts in hiding themselves, of removing themselves from the conversation. Don’t let that happen here! That a certain percentage of people in society are broken makes a lot more sense to me than saying the whole society is broken. And it leads to a possible way out.

  • First I can say this: If a certain number of us can move away from the insanity, particularly on specific issues like Adderall, those who trust us to make smart decisions will go along. This is not ideal, but has been the case on Earth for a long time.

    Second: I have decided to push hard for a better understanding of Spirit on this planet. As long as “mental illness” is seen as a bodily disease, and people agree that drugs are a good way to handle or manage bodily diseases, we will have a terrible time convincing anyone to roll back drug use, even with the horrendous “side effects” that many of us have witnessed or heard about.

    If we can somehow begin to recognize the importance of Spirit in human life, human affairs, and healing, that opens the door to a whole new world of possibilities and understandings. The quantity of data that lies on the other side of that door never ceases to amaze me! And a lot of it IS being talked about on the internet, even if it remains ridiculed in the mainstream.

    The mainstream is wearing out its welcome for other reasons right now. But unless the political structure that supports it totally breaks down, it will never stop trying. And so, we must never stop trying.

    At this point in my life I only have about 20 years left in this body, if I’m smart and lucky. But I fully intend to come back and carry on with what we have started. I have seen others do this, so I am confident I can.

    Though it seems in some ways weak compared to real action, our ability to think and speak freely is the most important weapon we have to fight the insanity on this planet, and particularly in the “mental health” system. Though training in and using proven workable spiritual practices is very important, that others find out that such practices exist and are being used successfully is also very important.

    An example of that is your bringing up Patch Adams. I knew absolutely nothing abut this man, so I am very happy that you do, and referred to him in your article. He is an inspiration for MDs (not just psychiatrists) and though the fact that his approach is very spiritual isn’t that obvious, anyone who bothers to listen to him can clearly see that his is indeed bringing the healing power of Spirit into the realm of medicine, and has done so with great success.

  • This is good news. But…the U.N. has become very adept at marketing. Can they actually DO anything to give some teeth to these more humanistic principles?

    The U.N. is peopled mostly by college graduates and other intellectuals, and while such persons are quite capable of writing high-minded reports, they are also quite capable of letting gross atrocities slip under their noses, then adding the needed spin to deflect their responsibility for what happened. (I am thinking in particular of the story of how cholera was introduced to Haiti.)

    So, this report lands on me similar to how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might have landed on the planet in its day. It is beautifully worded and was signed by almost every nation. But until my church began to broadly publicize its existence, very few people even knew about it. And by the way, how is human rights doing around the world today?

    So, well done on the lip service. Now, could we please see some action?

  • I know, Steve. These ideas which I give voice to are preposterous on their face. But I have seen people maintain these ideas as facts with the utmost seriousness!

    I am not trying to say that these movements, once started, were not supported by people of high integrity and good intentions. I am not saying that anyone who ever thought, “let’s start a movement to improve our situation” was a fool or a criminal.

    But I am saying that many “social movements” have involved a lot of conflict (often to the point of warfare or murder) and making whole groups wrong for their beliefs or attitudes, and such activities, to me, show signs of criminal insanity.

    Following is a typical example of what one can be exposed to if one noses around overmuch into these issues:

    “While trying to recruit Aaron Russo for the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), Nicholas Rockefeller told him that his family foundation created women’s liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity.”

    Do we know that this is true? No, we don’t.
    Does there seem to be some effort on this planet to “enslave” us? There does to me! So, where does it come from? Who’s behind it?

    The Rockefellers are one known family of swindlers. Who knows what motivated them down through the generations? But I know that 1) psychopaths exist in positions of power and 2) if they didn’t, things would be better. So I am willing to stretch a point in the hopes that it will motivate others to stretch their thinking beyond normal limits. Things on Earth really are stranger than they appear! Of that I am quite certain!

  • It is true what you say about these toxic personalities existing everywhere. But in psychiatry, it seems, they find the chance to really “shine.” In many other professions, they merely taint the reputations of others who are trying to do honest work. In the field of psychiatry they have created a “profession” that is universally reviled. At least, this is how I see the situation.

  • I very much appreciate the calmness and simple optimism of this article.

    I wish the data I have been exposed to made me feel as calm as I would like to feel about this subject.

    Activists have made a good start by recognizing the fact that there is wrong-doing in the mental health system, by measure of our own laws, and informing others of this. Groups like mine have focused on tightening the legal noose around psychiatry, in the hopes that we can reduce the damage being done. But the amount of damage being done is now so appalling! And so I am not that calm.

    All change must start with the recognition for the need of change. This article and this site does well on that score.

  • It seems like official organs such as the U.N. are catching up on this issue just in time to be ineffectually contentious about it. MK-ULTRA and similar programs date from the 1950s. Alarms were sounded back then, but not heeded.

    Of course by some great feat of intellect and courage, this whole business could still be dismantled. But as things stand, it is practically built in to daily life.

  • kindredspirit, you have every right to believe as you wish about these issues. But you express the conventional wisdom about how and why these movements came about, and so far, acting on those theories have not effected a lasting change.

    I think it is time to inspect some other theories about this that take deeper causes into account. That’s why I advocate for people to look into the subject of Spirit. It leads to deeper causes.

  • This all fits into why people interested in psychology should also be interested in Spirit. From the data I am aware of, some people, as spiritual beings, became prone to antisocial behavior a long time ago. The cure also involves undoing that ancient problem they are stuck in that makes them fight anyone and everyone around them as if they were enemies. A person who has no reality on Spirit would think these ideas are silly.

    The key, then, is to prevent such personalities from attaining positions is society where they can have undue power over others. This seems “unfair” or “discriminatory.” Well, we do it to people we call “criminals” all the time! It’s just that there are a strata of anti-socials who are smart enough to elude the justice system: psychiatrists and their ilk. It would be unfair to good people who happen to venture into the world of psychiatry to prevent them from continuing with their work. So “are you a psychiatrist?” is not an adequate test. The best test, in our society, involves 1) ascertaining that they have committed crimes and 2) ascertaining that they are of this personality type. There are several tests for it, Robert Hare’s being perhaps the best-known.

    There have been many psychiatrists who have been removed from practice based on their crimes alone, but seeing as how they work to protect each other, and currently control the personality assessment business, the above ideas are currently impractical, and our job becomes trying to convince society that their work is criminal while they busily try to convince society that their work is OK. Though I like to think we are making progress, outwardly we appear to be losing this battle.

  • You should know that I don’t totally agree with this.

    It is a reasonable point of view about life. But my data suggest that anti-social personalities, when protected or supported instead of exposed and hindered, do harm in society way out of proportion to their numbers.

    “Most of the ills of society come from humans making destructive decisions due to their lack of perspective or courage or their fears or desires to dominate others.”

    OK. But what gives them that lack of perspective, lack of courage, fears or desire to dominate? It can often be traced back to an anti-social personality. Psychiatry currently protects such personalities as much as they can. Without that protection, that facade of legitimacy, they would become much less dangerous.

    This is a very important reason why I am against psychiatry. It goes way beyond the fact that they “don’t understand” or are greedy. A lot of people don’t understand a lot of stuff, and a lot of people are greedy. But they don’t do the damage that psychiatry has done on this planet.

  • I agree with you, rebel, in many ways.
    Perhaps when you say “end psychiatry” it means something different to you than what it means to Steve, or others.
    From my perspective, it would be more proper to state the goal as: “Remove all power from the profession currently called “psychiatry” and its practitioners, then find a way to shut out from positions of power all people such as those practitioners, and others in other fields which they have enabled to do harm in the name of help, and find a way for relatively sane people of good intentions to retain power in society, and perhaps some day abolish the madness that motivates those clearly insane beings.”
    The wording needs work.
    But I am trying to convey a concept that I think is correct but that is not totally easy to understand.
    Part of the problem is that many people today have no real concept of Spirit, or if they do, they don’t think it is important. Christians (along with many others who have studied religion) at least have some concept of it. So a Christian can conceive that a person could somehow be convinced to do the Devil’s work. My understanding of how this happens is a little different, as it involves Spirit, but no particular Devil.

    The point is, such persons exist. And they should not be allowed to rule over others! It comes out bad every time. We can imagine that modern psychiatry (known, perhaps, by other names in other times and places) was set up by such people to give them a legitimate facade behind which they could do their evil. And so it, as a profession, attracts such people (along with a few well-intentioned people here and there). Thus to really abolish that profession would deprive such persons of their major power base on Earth. But it would not abolish such persons. Plenty of them, for various reasons of opportunity or intellect, did not make it into psychiatry, and so go about their evil activities in less obvious ways. But to take the power away from psychiatry on Earth would be huge, and to think that psychiatrists, or people very much like them, have not been involved in many of the most despicable activities throughout human history would be naive. If their influence on Earth could be drastically reduced, in theory at least, the planet could become a much calmer place. We might still have all the problems they left us with, but we would have a fighting chance of solving them. If we continue to tolerate such beings in positions of power, I don’t think Earth has a chance.

  • Wow!

    When Britney speaks, CNN listens!

    Take her case and multiply it by a million or more, and you have some idea what is going on on this planet right now. For the criminals these systems serve (or can be persuaded to serve) this is all great “fun.” For the rest of us, this is so deeply disturbing that it’s a little difficult to confront.

    The criminals need this. The mass of humanity does not. But there are few among the saner ones who are courageous enough to stand up to the criminals and call them out. We all know how quickly they will defend their ways with murder. Yet stand up to them we must!

  • Thank you! For me the ultimate argument against the chronic drugging of people is the fact – perhaps it can some day even be proven – that Spirit is the ultimate source of all healing. And Spirit does not need drugs! If anything, Spirit works better without them.

    This is a huge “leap of faith” for most people. Yet I believe that very little traditional faith is actually required to know that this is so. Of course, this is absolutely the last thing any mainstream psychiatrist would want anyone to believe. But I think the few left who kindly practice real therapy would agree with it without hesitation.

  • I am VERY surprised that CNN would cover this!
    What’s going on with that? I have seen the mainstream cover paranormal topics every now and again. Back in the “old days” it was often done in good faith, but more recently it usually has been used as an opportunity to ridicule the assumptions such data tend to support.

    These phenomena sre hard to study because they don’t normally occur under controlled laboratory conditions. But those who wish to study this seriously should do so. Eventually, perhaps, there will develop a basic agreed-upon context for such events. I know I have already formulated such a context, but there is not a lot of agreement on what “flavor” to use, even among those who are quite certain that Spirit is real and should be taken seriously in all aspects of life.

  • I must say, I am leery of any article which starts out with a reference to Benjamin Rush!

    This topic probably deserves more discussion than I am willing to devote to it, but I imagine other readers will extend their remarks far beyond mine.

    I now start (I didn’t always) with the assumption that there are some people who wish to normalize drug use on this planet because it plays into their own plans which are basically political and include no sincere motivation to provide social benefit.

    Anti drug use laws were a crude attempt by others who did have a sincere motivation to provide social benefit to de-normalize drug use. These laws have largely failed. What the people of the world needed was more data (or you could say, an educational program), but the general consensus seemed to be that that was somebody else’s job.

    A lot of people I know not only think drug use is stupid because it does not handle root cause of any condition and poisons the body, but also that it is morally weak. This sometimes gets in the way of their thinking and work in this subject. My group does have the best and most effective drug education program on the planet, as well as the best anti-addiction program, but our resources are not up to the enormity of the problem.

    In this context, “harm reduction” seems like a useful effort on one hand, and on the other hand a cop-out. If it were coupled with an education program designed to inform users of the harmful side effects of drug use, then it would make more sense to me. Without this, it appears that this approach is simply caving in to the interests who want to normalize drug use on this planet. And that very definitely includes psych drug use.

  • Her books are memoirs. They are not “about her personal beliefs.” But if you don’t want to delve into Dena’s work, there is a lot of other material out there on the subject of parapsychology, and reincarnation in particular, done by real academics.

    But you illustrate my point with your own words: “I don’t find that kind of experience very interesting or likely to be credible.” This is the very data we need to understand this whole situation a lot batter, yet you for some reason have little interest in it. This is the conundrum of understanding the human mind! It tends to resist being understood.

  • You aren’t familiar with the quote attributed to a Rockefeller that they started “women’s lib?”

    Or the criminal tactic of throwing the public off their scent by concocting a fake enemy?

    Do you think “racism” against blacks was really caused by whites or “whiteness?” It was caused by criminals (who knows what color they were) to create a never-ending turmoil (they hoped) in the general population. And I’m sure those same criminals had a hand in guiding the civil rights movement.

    I don’t think we credit the criminal class with how much they are actually involved in creating these conflicts through extremely devious means. They can’t do anything useful in society, but they do a great job at muddying the waters around all sorts of issues.

  • Have you read Dena’s books? I don’t care about the religious beliefs in those books. They are about past life recall and the influence of other lifetimes (sometimes called “karma”) on the present lifetime. We can’t get anywhere in psychology unless we realize this. It’s not a matter of “who is right.” It is a matter of what is really true, and what might actually work.

  • This is cool insofar as it is a drugless therapy. But its theory is all brain-based.

    As long as we cling to this failed way of understanding the mind, we risk falling back under the influence of psychiatry and “modern” psychology. There is a whole body of work using Spirit-based theory and practices that needs to be explored.

    When am I going to hear news of someone using a Locational or similar process and what their experiences were with it?

  • Rebel, I speak what I have learned. My sources are “fringe” so I usually don’t mention them. I can’t “prove” what I say. But if my sources are being truthful with me, and if I am relaying what they are telling me faithfully, then I do hope a certain level of validation of basic truth will result.

    I often mention Spirit (one translation for the Greek “psyche”) in my comments. I do hope that at least a few readers will realize I am referring to Ian Stevenson’s group (now led by Jim Tucker) as well as groups more on the fringe, and go ahead and look into some of the subjects they study.

    All the more unbelievable data I relay in my comments comes from either spiritual memory or spiritual perception, so the first thing anyone needs to come to grips with that data is a decent concept of Spirit.

  • The situation she describes is very real.
    If individuals in a local community can’t figure out how to organize and fund a charity clinic that uses workable drugless methods to help people, then those who can’t afford what their insurance will not cover have no choice.
    From other comments, this person sounds like they might be in Florida. I know that CCHR there has a pretty good network of people who help people who have been Baker Acted get out of institutions. But they don’t yet have a network of alternative clinics. And neither does anyone else.

    Being in or near poverty puts you in a different world. Many resources that “average” Americans can afford are not available, and charity resources often serve special interests. The usual advice I hear from my side of the fence is, “figure out how to get out of poverty.” Though there is some validity in that advice, it’s more easily said than done.

    In fact, help in many subjects is weak and hard to come by. This will only get worse the longer psychiatry and its bedfellows continue to poison our thinking and our own self-confidence.

  • These two summary paragraphs are on their face superficial.

    While general social malaise may well be attributable to a “neoliberal economy,” the deepest forms of insanity are also an important contributing factor. Individual insane persons can also cause severe outbreaks of distress among friends and associates. If you then hire the “fox to guard the hen house” you have a perfect recipe for a general emotional – and economic – meltdown.

    I think the “new breed” of rebels need to get their noses out of Das Capital and Critical Theory books and start reading the writings of Dena Merriam!

  • I didn’t read the paper, but this sounds like thumb twiddling to me.

    The Academy has already been “psychiatrized” (“psychologized?”) to such an extent that it has become almost useless as a critic of all motions towards fascism.

    At this point much more than “interdisciplinary research” is needed to move understanding forward. I don’t think anything significant will happen along this line until people are willing to “leave the box” entirely. Will the “disciplines” that participate in this include theology? parapsychology? Would such even be allowed into the discussion? That would be a bare minimum.

    Psychiatry comes from a deep dark place in this universe. It has been in use in one or more forms for more years than you can fit into an Earth calculator (maybe not literally, if you have one that uses scientific notation). Its manifestations here on Earth are actually fairly mild compared to what it has done elsewhere. It is an indispensable tool for control freaks. And if a population can be convinced that “mental illness” is a problem with the brain, as has happened here on Earth, then psychiatry’s dominance can be assured.

    A society has no chance against psychiatry unless it fully embraces the concept of Spirit.

  • Above the level of the case workers and therapists who deal with real people every day and really wish they could do more is a management layer of “professionals” that police their activities and make sure those people don’t get too much real help.

    I knew a social worker who got fired from her job with a non-profit, and I swear it was only because she was trying too hard to help her clients!

    Beyond that, there is a world of useful information out there about how to help other people that is being hidden or held away from helping professionals. I know they exist because I took an extensive course on them. Many have taken this course, but most of them are not in the helping professions because those people have been warned that the group offering this course is “dangerous.” I am sure this is not the only example.

  • Wow.

    We had to read between the lines a bit in this article, but the story is pretty clear: They are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to “genetic biomarkers” and mental health (or “illness”).

    Funny they picked suicide. Suicide is one of the odder human behaviors, and extra difficult to understand since every lifetime ends with death, anyway. So, might not every death, in some way, be a suicide?

    At this point, if psychologists have not figured out the basic mechanisms that push a person down into depression, apathy, self-harm and suicide, then they really need to turn in their sheepskins and go look for another job. It’s really not that hard. Especially if you see a human being as a spiritual being.

    Life in a biological body is degrading even in the best of times. It doesn’t take that many extra personal disasters or extreme pain or just constantly feeling like shit for someone to decide “screw this, I want to start over.” Of course, a lot of suicides don’t realize that they will be starting over. So when they get their new life (new body) and get settled in it, the first challenge that may come up could well be related to the fact that they abandoned the last life early.

    Here I am talking about this as if everyone is on the same page. I do that because that is what I hope to achieve. I realize that almost no one in the community (yet) understands life this way. But, as it is a much closer approximation to how life actually works, I will continue to talk about it. As I see it, we begin to see life this way, or the cult of psychiatric drugs and detention gets stronger and stronger.

  • I think I understand your basic viewpoint on all this.

    But realize: When you mention your desire to “understand how my brain functioned” you indicate that your are using one of the basic premises of “modern” psychology: that it is a question of brain function. Of course there are things that can go wrong with the brain. But that’s neurology. The mind (and spirit) are the proper focus of psychology, not the brain.

    And because psychology has chosen to remain focused on the brain, it has ignored or dismissed all the advances that have already been made in understanding the mind, spirit, and life. Those advances have already led to better treatments. Those treatments already exist! But because psychology is so blindered, most people interested in the subject do not even realize that advances have been made. So they never talk about those advances, they never study them or try them or test them to see if they work. That’s the main point of my comment.

    I know that there is a reluctance to entertain the possibility that people are born with certain tendencies of personality. That’s because this is looked for in the genes and not found there. It’s not in the genes! In every new life, the being brings its personality with it. Though its memory is crippled, and it thinks it is “just a child,” it isn’t just a child. This is why a better understanding of life is so important to understanding personality, and the anti-social personality in particular. “Modern” psychology teaches that the personality “develops” during childhood. That isn’t correct. It has been developing for the entire existence of the being, and can continue to change and develop in this life.

  • Though the interviewer in this podcast was not that astute, this whole issue is very important, and Miranda is quite astute regarding this.

    The big question here is how conservatorship and guardianship law could be misused to benefit people who are operating very close to the level of criminal. And of course the other big issue that is relevant to us is how much power the current messages about “mental health” carry in current society.

    Both of these issues reflect a creeping corruption in society. Psychiatry and psychology, with their morality-neutral teachings, have a lot to do with this creep. Those of us who are here as “survivors” as well as those of us who are merely critics should realize to what extent we have been staring at the beast that has been putting all of us in harm’s way to a greater and greater extent over recent years. How and why our current systems got so bad are just as worthy questions, it seems to me, as how to fix them.

  • “Agree to disagree” and “respectfully” are values increasingly difficult to attain in the world today.

    I believe that one reason this is so is because the idea was used by criminals (anti-social personalities) to convince some portion of society that their “viewpoints” should be respected. The only result of this is that criminals have now walked forward into the light and asked us to accept them as our new leaders.

    When this happened in the past, it had to be done either secretly or with brute force. Now we are expected to greet these aspiring leaders with “kindness” and “respect.” I am not willing to indulge in either with such beings. The only way to “love” such a being is to call them out, and expose their deception.

    Of course, in the context of a forum or other attempt at rational discussion, basic good manners are to be expected. We should realize, however, that these have now been totally laid aside in some arenas. Behind the bad manners of the righteously indignant lie deeper and much more troubling attitudes, beliefs, and actions.

  • Though this prose was a bit dense for me, I can see that there is value in this story and this experience.

    What is frustrating for me is to see how difficult it was for Christine to understand what was going on with “Bill” and with her based only on the theories of “modern” psychology. She was so inclined to give Bill the benefit of the doubt, when what was really needed was a recognition of how insane he was acting and a very firm handling that would put as much distance as possible between him and her.

    Though I am in no position to diagnose, Bill’s behaviors, as portrayed here, were typical of an anti-social personality. Such people are extremely dangerous! There is zero expectation that such an individual will behave or react as “normal” people do. One of the great failures of “modern” psychology is to downplay to the point of utter ignorance the destructive role such personalities play in life.

    You see this, of course, as “stress” in personal relationships, but also in the areas of finance, politics, education, business and religion. Living in constant poverty is a form of stress. Living under a dictatorship is a form of stress. So would be war, of course. Living with a punitive school system is a form of stress. Living under the constant barrage of propaganda from the corporate world is a form of stress. And living in a fanatical religious culture is also a form of stress. What is common to all these problems that cause so many critics to call them “systemic?” The anti-social personality. You get rid of that person’s influence in a group and you get peace, calm, relative sanity.

    A truly modern psychology would recognize this, as well as understand the mind as an energetic structure rather than a biological structure and the personality as a spiritual construct and not just a mental construct. Until psychology (and psychiatry) is willing to advance in these directions, it is much safer to just walk away from it and take up horticulture of solar power or some other subject less warped by the broken understandings of broken beings.

  • I just want to add – since we are getting into this realm – that I don’t believe in the One Creator idea, either. But under the circumstances, it works better than a lot of other belief systems.

    The question of whether or not The Creator gives each of us a “path” goes beyond my scope of interest. As far as I am concerned, we choose our own paths, though some of our choices can be forgotten.

    Free will only becomes an issue in situations where exercising it could be a problem, such as life on Earth. Few people realize how much freedom of action we could have compared to how much we seem to have here on Earth. But to characterize any living thing as having no “free will” seems to me a logical impossibility. You have to make choices in life, even if they are limited.

    Evolution is about as “scientific” as the Christian idea that each soul only visits Earth once. These ideas are based on sets of data that are too limited in scope. From my point of view, they were good guesses, but they are not correct.

  • “Help” will always be an entirely subjective proposition, won’t it?
    While I can imagine what might be most helpful to a person in emotional or mental distress, and might base my attempt to help on my idea, I won’t know if the person has been helped unless I ask them.

    There is, perhaps, a strata in society that is so lacking in self-awareness that they would be unable to tell you if they had been helped or not. And there are others who just wish someone would help them to die. But the great majority have some general concept of what helping and being helped really means.

    So your “measure” in the field of mental health should be: Does the person feel helped? Shouldn’t it be? I suppose a person could become so deluded that he confuses harm for help. But most people should be able to give you a straight answer to this question, and why would we settle for any other measure?

  • I am happy to hear that you have done this work and arrived at the insights you have.

    “Helplessness” I suppose is the emotional description for the condition that so many seem so willing to accept as their easier route to death. I wonder if you would agree that the political corollary to this emotional condition would be “slavery?” One could also describe it as “imprisonment.”

    People (like myself, I suppose) who are more interested in the political ramifications of the human condition tend to miss or pass over some of the emotional (psychological) subtleties involved in the situation. But anyone who has studied modern politics knows the importance that human psychology plays in subjects like propaganda and voting. So the two fields are most closely linked.

    If there were a basic, but hidden, impulse at work on this planet that operated in favor of slavery, that would to some extent explain why so many people succumb to this, and why others strive to resist it with such ferocity.

    In your words, “people used to resourcefully rely on their own capabilities to solve their problems.” This is in fact a saner mental condition, as most people who have studied the problem would probably agree. This expresses not only a desire to be free, but an ability to be. If anything changed on this planet, I suppose it would be that the continual pressure against freedom (and for slavery, in political terms) has more and more convinced greater numbers of persons that, even if they desire freedom, they are no longer able to really attain it.

    Part of the information that I have been studying explains this situation in a very big-picture way. It is unbelievable, so I won’t bother to try to explain it here, but the bottom line is that an impulse towards slavery has been discovered. At the same time, psychological (or one could say spiritual) methods for removing this impulse have been developed. Thus, I see some hope for the situation. If it were not for this, I would be extremely pessimistic about our future. Those who want to enslave us have superior control technologies. Whether we can act quickly enough to successfully stall and eventually overturn their efforts is still very much up in the air.

  • To me this reads like a confession.

    If psychiatrists, or psychiatry, were more self-aware, this is what they would realize they were doing in order to take advantage of other people.

    But if you want to travel down a path of more interest to someone like me, it would be: How did psychiatry get led out of psychotherapy and into drug pushing? What were the forces behind this?

    In some sense, the answer to this question is the same reason that so many people embrace “modern” psychiatry even though it doesn’t work. We all ARE mentally ill, to the extent that we are incapable of taking sufficient personal responsibility to straighten ourselves and others out, but prefer to let “experts” push us into the trap of irresponsibility. If we continue to embrace drug-taking and its associated justifications (in the form of “scientific theories”) we will never exit this trap, but continue to spiral down into less and less liveliness and free will. The fun of living will eventually become totally absent.

  • This is an interesting commentary. It seems to say that people (patients?) are self-diagnosing a panic attack when something else is really going on. Or clinicians might be doing this, too?

    To me, this just continues to betray the enormous lack of knowledge about people and the human mind displayed by most clinicians, and of course, most people who are being informed by these clinicians, or other “mental experts.” How long does this have to continue before someone inside the subject begins to get the idea that they need to figure this out?

    When someone behaves in a way that seems irrational or inappropriate to the situation, we have to realize that the information, instructions or commands that caused that behavior must have come from somewhere. We normally call that place “the mind.” There are two main pathways for information to enter the mind. One is an analytical, rational and conscious pathway. The other is a non-analytical, irrational, and unconscious pathway. The main goal of therapy is to put the being in a position where they no longer need to rely on any of the mental information acquired via the unconscious pathway. That puts them back in full control of their behavior, which is where they ought to be. The apparent fact that most therapists have little or no idea how to accomplish this is a huge condemnation of the subject. They have had ample time to figure this out, and they have failed. We must assume that figuring this out, and thereby really helping people, was not their major purpose in getting into the field of psychology. What, then, was?

  • Is this important, or just some indication of turf wars?

    The doctors want to keep their “patients” on drugs.
    The therapists want a reason to deliver therapy.
    So this “study” is pro-therapy, anti-doctor.

    What about actually helping someone get well? Although this issue is outside of the scope of this little article, it is dismaying how outside the scope of “mental health professionals” it seems to be.

  • Great to hear a little more from you on this! Yes, the physical body and the light body are intimately connected. I have not studied kundalini, but my understanding of it is that it is basically an intermediate energetic system through which the being controls and corrects its body. All power to heal lies completely and solely with Spirit.

    I was raised atheist, too, but not aggressively so. I sort of “backed in” to an awareness of Spirit, and now consider this central to our path to freedom and reawakening. I don’t fret too much over the possibility that I might miss my chance, but some of my friends do.

    I will visit your site. But I am not as thoroughly hopeful about the future. It is true we now have a route to spiritual freedom in place, which is a first for this universe. But it would also be a first if this route actually won out on this planet. From what I know, this has never happened anywhere else. And right now the bad guys still have most of us convinced that Spirit is just a childish fantasy. But we know that’s not true, don’t we?

  • The problem I see with psychiatry is that it was at the right place and at the right time to take advantage of some cultural shifts that have allowed its practitioners to become materially quite opulent. The price they paid was spiritual death.

    I would have liked to hear more about the spiritual experiences. I see this subject as central not only to the problem of “mental health” but to many many other problems (or bad situations) around the planet (and indeed, around the universe).

    At this point, those who want drug-based medicine to rule supreme on Earth are very close to a total takeover. By some accounts, their smugness might be the only road left that could lead to their undoing. A LOT of forces want the general population to be totally afraid of dying and of all things spiritual. This is their path to total control. Our path to total freedom from control has been mapped, but only traveled by a few so far, as under current conditions that journey is expensive and time-consuming.

    I, for example, have probably missed my chance. About all I can do now is sit on the sidelines and cheer on the ones who are making this happen and keeping this road open and workable. There may be other roads to the goal of freedom from tyranny. I don’t yet know what they are. But there are many very intent on achieving this for themselves and their friends and families, so there is always the chance that they will make some surprising advance that will give us all renewed hope.

  • This is fascinating to find out more about the scene in your country!

    My understanding about the people interviewed for this study is that they had their own experience in the system, then went on to become fully-trained psychotherapists (or similar) so they could continue to work in the system.

    From the one woman I know the best who is considering getting a Masters in Psychology, she seems simply very fascinated with people who have emotional problems that affect their cognition and behavior (as she has also experienced in herself). There seems to be an almost magnetic pull to such people. I believe this phenomenon may have something to do with the kinds of people who end up practicing as professionals in this field.

  • I am amazed at how many people do this. Isn’t it almost a Stockholm Syndrome sort of a situation? I know at least one young woman who is considering this.

    What they miss, of course, as patients, is the incredible amounts of pressure within the profession to not step out of line.

    I know of a very few who were trained more or less conventionally and then left. They did OK. They actually found better therapeutic methods outside of the field.

    But to stay in a field that is so broken yet so irrationally defended would seem to me highly unwise.

  • This “inside view” of the practice is very telling.

    What is sad to me is how unaware she is (apparently) of all the alternative ways to help people mentally, emotionally (and spiritually), other than psychiatry.

    This demonstrates how much of a stranglehold psychiatry still holds on the public’s general understanding of what people are, why they suffer, and what should be done to help them.

    What I hope we can do here is end that intellectual tyranny. It is obviously driving the thought and behavior of both therapists AND patients! Should we be surprised that so many people prefer to take a pill over actually doing the tough work to sort out one’s thoughts and emotions with the help of another person? This is the low-confront, low-responsibility answer to all our troubles and has been pushed at us for decades now from all directions. We are inclined towards this “solution” as it is, or we would not be humans living on a planet, but instead spiritual beings playing in the stars.

    This woman in fact has many choices for fulfilling work in the healing professions. That she will need to leave the “mainstream” to do this is just how things are right now. I wish her well.

  • With the accreditation body? I’m not sure if she tells the exact story on that. She was probably getting pushback from them, but I don’t know the details.

    For those who might not be aware: She was a victim of traditional psych treatment. She knew it didn’t work, so she searched out something that would work better and started applying those techniques to her clients, mostly professional women. She decided to stop using psych drugs completely.

  • Oh boy.

    This guy has a good heart, but he’s riding the slow boat to China.
    You can “comb the medical literature for alternative treatments” until the cows come home. You won’t find them, because mental difficulties are not basically medical problems.
    Why did Kelly Brogan give up her Psych license? Because it isn’t needed to heal people!

    The little out-ethics incidents that he brings up here are only symptoms of a giant problem he either refuses to confront or can’t even fathom: Psychiatry is not there to make people well!

    Individual psychiatrists may feel differently. Some take their little wins where they can get them. Others like Kelly end up leaving the profession. I even know a psychologist with clinical experience who finally joined CCHR!

    Without a recognition of the reality of Spirit, psychology and psychiatry are mere hollow shells of what they should be. What the hell does “psyche” mean, after all?

  • It is true that these authors live within the world of academic research and feel somewhat constrained to be “polite” to their colleagues. Others of us, in the field or not, feel the time for politeness has long passed. And in many ways I agree. I see no particular benefit, at this point, in being polite to psychiatry.

  • This does remind me of the book “Looking Backward” which I read with interest when I was much younger.

    It proposed a system of group dining somewhat like we have currently with our massive reliance on dining out (at least among certain socioeconomic groups).

    I have experienced this for real where I used to work, and it did seem to be workable. There is a social aspect to dining out that we miss when we dine apart (or alone) in our houses or apartments. For me, though, it is not financially viable. If it were, I would do it more often. The relative nutritional value of the food, however, I cannot speak to. I would not stop taking vitamins!

  • These are good points. However, I don’t totally share your basic assumptions nor thus your conclusions.

    People’s problems are not caused by an inherent defect (at least not a genetic or biological one) but neither are they really caused by environmental or social factors. Yet if environmental or social factors are too extreme, more mental and emotional problems will trigger.

    So improving environmental factors is therapeutic, but does not handle root cause. How this is best done is open to discussion. The U.S. used to be better at this than it is now, though there were always factors present in the U.S. that weren’t significant in most of Europe.

    I don’t have hard data about Europe, but I share the perception that they are a bit more easy-going than Americans and that their welfare programs seem to be more effective. One possibility I have heard mentioned is that the nationalized health services that exist in most European countries have taken a lot of power and funding away from organized medicine. I’d be interested to learn if that’s a valid line of reasoning. It seems plausible. From the information I am getting, organized medicine is a huge part of our difficulties here in the U.S.

  • This is a good point. The demands from one’s environment can get so onerous that they can begin to become suppressive, or in other words, promote poor mental health.

    These days, I don’t know that it is any longer “normal” to have good body health. It is difficult – possibly even expensive – to achieve. This is a whole issue in itself, yet related to this one of mental health.

    If I had to name a higher-priority factor, though, I would say it was getting enough sleep.

  • These two have been working at this for many years now, and I am certainly happy to hear from them!

    There is not doubt in my mind that a healthy body makes a huge difference in our ability to stand up to the crap that life throws at us.

    As Bonnie has reported in the past, micronutrient supplementation, in one case at least, totally handled a psychotic break problem so that it never recurred.

    But this still leaves us with the whole world of cognition to understand and properly address. The brain and nervous system play a very major role in body health, but in cognitive health, this is not the case (assuming the body IS healthy). And I am still not seeing the discussions that are necessary to bring this subject forward in the direction of a useful resolution.

  • Well! This is a special story!

    One theme that shines through brightest for me is that most people do not have a clue about “mental health” or what to do when someone loses theirs.

    Everyone in this story had something going on. But the author and her friend were obviously still living on the safe side, while the other three (all related) were not. The landlady somehow had the wherewithal to own two houses. Yet she was not competent as a landlord, nor as a parent it seems.

    I am relatively sure that police intervention would have done nothing to improve the situation. There is a possibility that a very skilled and courageous health professional (or a team) could have made a difference, yet such people are a rarity today.

    It is clear to me that basic psychological literacy is as important as the 3Rs. Things happen too fast in interpersonal relations. There is no time to call in “professionals” to intervene when shit happens. Yet we have no system in place that could even remotely provide this, as our current mainstream theories are not even competent ones. Until we have an understanding of human life that is workable and useful, we are probably better off just hobbling along as we always did before the mighty institutions of psychology and psychiatry appeared on the scene. If we are going to have professionals in this field, we must find a way to make them competent. Meanwhile, these “crazy” women did the best they could.

  • My first thought for a very traditional but non-medical healing art is chiropractic. There are also schools that teach Naturopathy, and some centers that practice “functional medicine.” In the pattern of traditional psychotherapy, but drugless (and I hear quite effective), is the work Kelly Brogan is doing. Numerous others have carved out “life coach” sorts of practices along similar lines.

    The traditional spiritual healing practice that I am most aware of is Reiki. There are other centers, usually concentrated in certain geographic areas where more potential customers live, that provide various therapies that are more spiritually-based.

    I personally volunteered to work for my church, and did so for 26 years. But that’s not a normal life by a long ways. However, if you really want to help your fellow human beings, don’t expected to be treated as “normal” (even though you would expect that such an urge is normal). In spite of lip service to the contrary, corporate culture has taken over most mainstream healing practices and by long experience (if not blatant admission) the one being “helped” does not come first in those people’s minds.

  • This is a very perceptive comment on the state of the (mental) healing arts in academia!

    There are several pathways you could follow that are not part of traditional academia. I don’t recommend social work, as it was in the process of being taken over by academic psychology 60-plus years ago when my father got into it! That said, there are many of us who would like to spend at least some part of our lives doing “social work.”

    There is still a lot going on today in the “alternative” healing arts. They range from extremely spiritually-oriented practices to more traditional approaches that simply use different models for how people lose their health and alternative (usually non-drug) therapies.

    If you would prefer to become an activist in the field, there are some people and organizations doing that work, but that’s about all the information I have. I am a member of one such group, and there are others, but I am not that well-informed about them.

    I urge you remain wary of the various “easy” or “sure” paths that may be presented to you. These days, to live with truth, do the right thing, and learn and practice effective help is NOT easy. That doesn’t mean it’s not rewarding!

  • This is an interesting article for me, as I know a young woman in a very similar position who is considering to go back to school to study yet more – psychology.

    I never cease to be amazed at our ability to give other people the benefit of the doubt. Even though it is obvious to most of us now that these fields (psychiatry, psychology) tend to attract the criminally insane, so many continue to hold out hope that they can be “reformed.” In some ultimate sense, they may be right. But I would never set foot in an environment like that now without the knowledge that I gained outside of that environment. And I would know that I was entering into what is basically a traumatizing (we call it suppressive) environment for the purposes of studying it as I would any other dysfunctional group, and with no hope of getting any useful information from it, or even a degree.

    But I think a better use of my time would probably consist of walking away and see if I could find a calling or profession that is actually acting like it still cares about people and is helping others for real.

  • There are some good realizations here!

    I am constantly gobsmacked by how upset people can get about families, organizations and other social necessities. But there is a grain of truth in the attitude that we are all capable of a totally independent existence. It’s just that most of us would find this unbearable, and you can’t do it while coexisting with a human body.

    There are many levels of connectedness – or it could be called interdependence – that we should realize exist and learn to appropriately embrace. Therapy MUST address all of them, and indeed this is one reason I ended my traditional therapy (because it didn’t).
    These levels of connection include: 1) Our body (yes, it is NOT us, but something we are conected to!) 2) Our sexual partner (if we have one) and children 3) The groups we work with and enjoy time with 4) All of mankind 5) The rest of biology 6) The rest of the physical universe 7) The rest of the spirit world and 8) Everything else, often referred to as a Supreme Being or Creator.

    My training involves all these connections to some extent, probably 2) being the weakest one in my own experience.

    I now use a therapy paradigm that involves training a bunch of students to deliver a certain type of therapy, then pairing them up to deliver that to each other. There is one supervisor to watch over us while we do this, and another one to assess our individual technical needs and progress.

    Likewise, all group members, but particularly staff, are trained in group skills and how to be better group members.

    The aim, though, is not to eliminate individuality, which we see as the base or core on which everything else is built. We are expected to, and usually do, become stronger individuals as we become more skilled at being group members and helping each other. If our training left out any of the major kinds of connection, it would be much less effective. It is clear to us that the traditional therapeutic approach of most psychologists, psychiatrists and doctors is far too limited to handle anything other than temporary emergency situations. I used to cut these healers some slack for not yet coming up to speed. But I don’t like to do it any more. Now better alternatives in all the healing arts are everywhere in use, and the traditional people have no excuse beyond laziness or apathy.

    Step out of the way! The alternative mental health practices are HERE and are taking over!

  • This article tells a story of vested interests and corporate greed. It can get published in the Times because it stays away from the more important issues.

    People are suffering and dying because workable solutions are being suppressed or ignored. Is corporate greed involved? Of course. Are vested interests involved? Of course.

    But we are talking about premeditated murder! Willful acts of evil. There HAS to more behind this than the tired old explanations we keep hearing. And there is. We all look to psychology to explain this to us, to give us the answer. And we all look to government to protect us from this, to at least provide adequate regulation. But they don’t, because they were both early victims of this menace which more and more seems ready to ruin an entire planet to accomplish its ends.

    This menace depends upon the probability that not enough people will become aware enough and strong enough soon enough to stop the destruction. Our only hope is to accomplish the improbable.

  • Wow, what a communication!

    I am dismayed, really, at what was accomplished in those 10 years. But I am sure the writer feels a sense of accomplishment. She is obviously thankful for Billie, her therapist.

    How could she have known that Billie, in her training and throughout her career, could have been exposed to all sorts of data that would have made her much more certain and effective as a therapist? She probably could have saved lives and restored abilities far beyond what she, mostly through her loving intention, expected and accomplished.

    Love itself has tremendous healing powers. But today we do have access to material that can augment quite a bit our natural inclination to love and help each other. I certainly hope that some day the stories arising out of our experiences with the “mental health” system will be more stirring and miraculous than what we have read here.

  • To me, this is a rich example – in its verbiage if nothing else – of how far these people can stick their heads up their butts.

    I am convinced that most of these “researchers” would prefer to remain confused and ignorant to the end of time. If this were not their secret goal, wouldn’t they look a little harder in directions that are turning eyes in other fields, such as the ever-growing parapsychology literature, or the results being obtained by some of the more serious spiritual practices, such as fully awake past life recall?

    The issue of child psychology is particularly troubling, as this is a perfect time of life to start getting oneself straightened out and flying right, before the full weight of adult life falls on one’s shoulders. Yet I am sure many kids today, with absent or over-worked parents, feel that weight and need help coping. The field of “mental health” has the potential to help younger people in many ways. But in its current state, it is usually causing more trouble than it is worth. At this point I would not hesitate to council parents and their kids to stay away from the “mental health” system!

  • I have no problem with people discussing how psychology, or the “mental health” system, relate to politics. But my perception is that most people don’t understand the various aspects of politics or the various aspects of spiritual existence well enough to bring much clarity to this issue.

    One meaning of “politics” concerns governance, policy and control. Here we see the interplay between those who see freedom as the more workable principle and those who see slavery as the more workable principle. One of our biggest problems with “mental health” currently is that it appears to be firmly in the slavery camp, even when it gives lip service to the contrary. Blaming it all on the brain is not liberating. Validating the role of Spirit could be liberating.

    Another meaning of “politics” concerns one’s personal sense of power in various situations, whether or not they are overtly competitive. Can one stand up for what one believes is right or best or workable at work or at home? I believe that a central goal of “mental health” should be to increase one’s sense of personal power, or certainty; self control. The current trend seems more geared to “helping” people fit in.

    And then we have the meaning of “politics” involving political parties, social justice issues, and events that come up and affect us in various ways. The amount of deception involved in many of these activities is seldom fully recognized. Here, I think the ideal goal for “mental health” would be to help each individual get up to the point where they can freely make up their own mind about each issue that presents itself, fully cognizant of the likely underlying power plays that result in distorted information (“fake news”) and similar attempts to influence public perception and opinion. Here the actual emotional state of the individual is very important. Someone who is fearful will react very differently than someone who is cheerful, when presented with the exact same event or set of facts.

    All these aspects of politics interact and they are all relevant to the subject of mental health and Spirit. But where discussions of mental health or psychology don’t even take Spirit into account, the likelihood that those discussions will result in any conclusions that are useful or workable is small. We might as well be talking about sports or the weather.

  • I must admit to you that my “question” was somewhat rhetorical.

    But I am dismayed that in this day and age, even an appeal to “freedom” or “human rights” often falls on deaf ears.

    Yes, we certainly need a balance between thinking and doing. Our technical words should be pronouncable and not overly flowery or evasive. Our theories should inform practices that are definite and doable, a bit like we have in the engineering world.

    The current challenge seems to be in the field of ethics. We are allowing certain players to stifle unwanted discussions and punish unwanted activities. It is a very grave situation. It seems we must now appeal to the average man’s most basic sensibilities and repugnance for dishonesty. But if the majority continue to allow themselves to be lied to and mistreated, things could become even rougher for those who can see plainly that this is what is occurring.

    Some think that a fairly major and shocking event will need to happen that will finally force people to realize that they are being horribly manipulated and at the same time give them a sane way to respond. I shudder to think what such an event might look like. Barring that, it seems to me to be very important for those who are more aware to support each other in speaking out and not chop at each other for making minor mistakes (or perhaps handle these things privately). But the forces of “evil” are very great, and we should steel ourselves for some defeats. We can’t give up.

  • What you are saying here is very important!

    After I started to get a better grip on philosophy and older teachings, my favorite word became “love.” I also like “spirit.”

    I wonder sometimes if most modern people have any idea what these words mean!

    Yes, I am “modern” in that I hope for improvement. But not through a drug or some fancy technology.
    How do we convince more “modern” people to reconnect with the wisdom-seeking traditions?

  • How did you learn that we are not born with knowledge? Would you be willing to consider the possibility that this is an incorrect datum? If it were found that beings arrive in this life already equipped with lots of knowledge, would that change your ideas about what factors influence human behavior?

  • Wow. I see you put considerable effort into working out an understanding of all this that made sense to you. I am not familiar with most of your sources, but there are obviously many well-intentioned thinkers out there who actually want to help people, and are arriving at ideas that are a lot more workable than traditional psychiatry or psychology.

    I am personally very convinced that allowing Spirit into the discussion is extremely important. But in my experience many people have a cognitive block or unwillingness on this subject. Others like me introduce the subject indirectly using more pedestrian topics (like assisting someone to recover from an injury, or organize their business better) but I have decided to aim directly at the actual target of the subject, which many of us still call “mental illness.”

  • “John Doe,” these are valuable insights! What study, may I ask, has led you to these conclusions?

    As I acknowledge the existence of Spirit, I can point to “trauma” as a key factor in mental-emotional distress without blaming all the people around me for the rough situations that they have contributed to. We can always look into past lives and find trauma considerably more abusive – and more hidden – than most trauma we see inflicted on others today. And while the same mechanism you detail in your comment also results in the impulse to deny Spirit, it puts everyone on Earth on a more even footing, as the experiences that trouble most of us happened very long ago, and we could in no way point to anyone living today and pronounce, “that’s the guy who made me crazy!” This gives us a path forward, and that path is being followed. I just wish more were aware of it and willing to explore it with more sincerity and less suspicion!

  • This article would qualify as a rant. While Megan’s points are all well-taken, she admits “I don’t know how to change a culture…”

    It should be noted that, besides the fact that cultures on Earth were more diverse in the past, they were also less criminal for the most part. So, someone DID know how to change cultures, and did succeed in doing so!

    The subject we are looking at has a name: ponerology. It is not a well-known subject, as the people currently “in charge” don’t want us to know how they succeeded in accomplishing what Megan describes above. Political ponerology is an interdisciplinary study of social issues primarily associated with Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Łobaczewski. According to Wikipedia, “A form of government interesting to ponerologists is one they have called pathocracy, in which individuals with personality disorders (especially psychopathy) occupy positions of power and influence.”

    So, since socially pathological individuals figured out how to dominate our current culture, it should be possible for saner people to learn how they did this, then invent a parallel movement that could result in the culture being returned to a more sane operating basis.

    It is always a bit excruciating to me to hear someone complain about their cultural (or personal) environment and so hear them describe the various characteristics of the sociopath as I learned them many years ago. What Megan rants against, then, is the same thing that sane beings have always ranted against: The anti-social personality. Until recently (my lifetime) we had no clue how to detect and handle such people, and repeatedly made the mistake of elevating them to positions of power due to their shrewd promises that if they were so elevated, they would handle “everything bad” in life. We have finally learned know how to detect these liars and handle them, and – in theory at least – how to remove their destructive influences from our cultures to attain a saner way of life. If we do not now learn these lessons and use this newly-gained knowledge, we are condemning ourselves to lifetimes more, if not an eternity, of the kind of suffering and abuse that Megan so ably describes above.

  • All I see here is a veiled admission that psychologists and psychiatrists don’t know what they are talking about.

    We already know the major causes of distress and suffering on Earth. To turn the natural reactions of people to the results of the criminal practices of inept leaders into a “global mental health crisis” was one of Big Pharma’s boldest marketing victories. Suddenly all the poor and downtrodden of Earth became clients of the “mental health system!”

    But the ordinary sufferings of life ARE NOT mental health issues! The ones with the issues are the ones causing the suffering! And “solving” human suffering by creating a socialist Utopia won’t solve the mental health problem, because oppression and poverty have nothing to do with why people go insane. At best, they can be triggers. But the rich are just as likely, if not more so, to be deranged than the poor and oppressed.

    I would be most happy if mental health researchers and practitioners would concentrate on the criminally insane and leave the rest of us alone. But they are unlikely to do this, because it is difficult to look in the mirror and honestly see what is really there.

  • For me, an important part in all this is the recognition of the existence of “spiritually destroyed” individuals. They have so turned away from their own spiritual identity that they become disgusted with the subject and violently fight against it. One of the big challenges in returning to a love-centered society is learning how to deal with these spiritually “dead” individuals in a loving way but also in a way that protects society from their irrational destructive impulses.

  • Realize, though, Steve, that pushing the problem away from us and talking instead about “systems” also tends to push the solutions away from us.

    If we can understand that societal systems are composed of individuals, and that through the action of individuals systems can be changed (such as the outlawing of slavery), this gives us a path to change that starts with individuals and goes towards new agreements about what is acceptable and valuable in a society.

    We have seen various systems set up with the best of intentions fail in the hands of people whose awareness had not been elevated enough to operate those systems with honesty and real compassion. (The “mental health system” being perhaps one example.) So, the way I see it, the real work needs to be done at the level of individuals, and as their awareness shifts, they will adjust their systems to align better with the new-found awareness.

  • What a valuable essay! Written with much passion and clarity.
    And yet it begs the question: How do we correct this deficit of love in modern society?
    I can only say that if I did not know what I learned during my lifetime, I would be in despair on this subject.
    We find ourselves in a very tight spot. The criminals of the planet seem poised like vultures, waiting for their prey to buckle and fall under the unbearable pressures of life. Though you may not believe me, I am quite certain we have lived through this sort of situation before. And every previous time, love lost. We only have a chance this time because we have become more certain of some basic truths about ourselves which give us the capacity to rehabilitate our ability to love. Now it is only a question of how quickly we can work to rehabilitate this in people, while the enemies of love work in the opposite direction. I was warned that the road back would not be easy to travel. This is certainly proving to be the case.

  • It is wonderful to hear of your experience!

    I can only suggest that you work to clarify your understanding of Spirit so that you may benefit more from your awareness of it.

    YOU are Spirit! The flow you speak of is something that comes from your interaction with the physical. A harmonious interaction produces a flow of pleasure. A “dissonant” interaction can produce pain.

    You, as Spirit, have the capability of improving your control over your life, so that the flows (emotions) you experience are more balanced and feel right to you. It all depends on what you are willing to learn, what skills you are most interested in developing.

  • This article touches me. I have been involved in many of the forms of music mentioned here.

    It is interesting that it ends with a nod to the importance of Spirit. You know this word in English also has the same root meaning: breath!

    But that brings up the concepts covered in the introductory paragraphs. It refers to our supposed “evolution” from ape-like creatures. To me, that whole narrative was an attempt to demean Spirit and reduce us to animals. It is a false narrative, but today if you are “educated” then you have to believe it! I see our reach for music as a Spiritual yearning for the beauty and harmony of earlier times, now lost. Music, well-made, lends beauty to anything it accompanies, words in particular.

    I was most involved with music in my mid-20s. And those were happy years for me! These days many in that age group are suffering. They should spend more time playing music together!

    For a year I was involved in Gamelan Sekar Jaya. It is a musical non-profit devoted to Balinese music. And indeed I played the gong! And I experienced that “spiritual strength” of the sound first hand.

    I also learned Afro-Cuban dance, which is indeed dominated by clave, which I became very familiar with. And I learned Greek folk dance, which is another community or group participation type of musical experience.

    I have also experienced how group play tends to socialize individuals and to identify those who are having a rougher time. In one work group we had “team games” where we tossed a ball around to each other as we stood in a circle. The ones having a harder time being group members liked to slam the ball high into the air, instead of throwing it to someone else with the intention that they would catch it!

    I studied African music when I was a young teenager and continued to be interested in it. Dance is an important part of the African experience and is traditionally done in large groups. The drumming is important, but if you don’t move to it, it gets boring.

    In our (Western) culture, music as a group experience – and group experience in general – has been devalued in favor of individual experience and personal mastery. There is something to be said for both approaches. The Western approach has its political benefits. The community approach found in so many places has greater emotional and mental benefits. We still need to find a better balance between these. The realization that we are a manifestation of Spirit could, I think, lead us to this better balance.

  • Exiting a decayed body after death normally restores
    any lost ability to remember.

    If you are having an hallucination, that records into memory as an experience. It probably came from a real screw up of the normal mental mechanisms. But whatever earlier incidents might have been involved are still intact, and the hallucination experience is intact, too. Probably just hard to reach.

  • OK, needless to say, you see it as a fairly complex system with recordings scattered all over across numerous physical parts of the body. With that understanding, my concepts won’t make very much sense to you.

    All I can say about my concept of memory is that it is workable from a therapeutic viewpoint. It also explains some of the vagaries of “inherited behaviors” and things like “child geniuses” and similar phenomena.

    I see it as an energetic structure into which experience is recorded more or less automatically. Sort of like an energetic CD. (DVD?). This is maintained by a being, not by a body. When the being leaves the body, so do its memories. The whole process of therapy, and life in this physical world, revolves around how the being uses this energy structure.

    To complicate things a little, there seems to be entities that follow bodies around and maintain their own memories at a physiological level. And a “higher” being that flirts around a bit more who deals with the more conceptual aspects of experience.

    So our difficulties stem largely, I suspect, from how different our models are. Remembering, hypnosis, forgetting, confusions about what really happened, those are all part of a process in my model, not part of memory.

  • Only problem is, memory is not a brain function. I believe what most drugs do is distract or aggravate the being in various different ways, producing emotional reactions and affecting his ability to control his own attention (recall process). To the extent that a drug could “switch on” some sort of neurological or physiological “alarm,” the condition could become permanent.

    But yes, we do know that all sorts of drugs affect ability to remember and many other cognitive functions.

  • oldhead, I know the mind as something actually physical. But it is made out of energy that is not visible to the eye. The being, though, can “see” it (perceive it). That’s a common way we remember things. Experience is stored in the mind as “pictures” and the being can locate pictures he wants and “view” them. So in that sense, I can agree that the mind is as “real as my hand.”

  • Reading through this was painful for me; I didn’t make it all the way to the end.

    Here is one of many areas of psychology (or what I might term the study of human experience), that is in great need of a reevaluation. We need to begin to take the work of parapsychologists such as Ian Stevenson more seriously.

    Once you consider even the possibility that past life experience could have some bearing on this life outcomes, the current version of the “nature versus nurture” debate must be thrown away.

    I am totally persuaded that the “blank slate” idea is a fallacy. Furthermore, genetics are only one factor in what a newborn starts with. On top of this, “environmental factors” (nurture) begin to influence child development at conception, not birth.

    Thus, if we actually want to DO something to improve intelligence in children and adults, we might as well assume that it can be influenced by nurture. Otherwise, why bother with all these studies? And the data I have indicate that nurture can play an important role in intelligence. But so can nature!

    If society weren’t nearing a serious tipping point, perhaps I would be more restrained in my comments. My judgement is that we only have about a year to turn things around and start getting things right. Otherwise, A slick, modern, and covert tyranny will engulf us, and our discussions here will make very little difference. Do we value our freedoms and our human rights enough to defend them in the face of a pompous academia and a corrupt governing structure? If we don’t we will surely lose them.

  • Oldhead, you may remain “unaware” if you so desire!

    Of course, Hubbard’s techniques were never reputably studied in academia, because if they had been they would have found to be workable, and then what???

    Many many people have used these techniques. I have personally met people who have benefited from them or had their lives changed.

    A certain number will sit back in their arm chairs and wait until they see “proof.” When the society falls around them in ruins, they will wish they had acted sooner, “proof” or not!

  • You have skin in this game! Well, so do the rest of us!

    That real incidents can sink totally below conscious awareness should be obvious! I hope we are not questioning this obvious fact here.

    The only question, then, is how to recover them faithfully. Such recovery WILL be therapeutic, or at least of a neutral result. Why aren’t more clamoring for the best way to do this instead of gaslighting those who have such memories? The mentioned “false” incidents are often quite real! To deny this is to deny the reality of living on Earth!

  • This is a sad chronology.

    But, to be complete, it should start earlier.
    In 1950 Hubbard wrote that all significant mental problems are caused by indents that really happened but are not available to normal waking memory. He wrote about discovering many attempted abortions by uncovering dissociated prenatal incidents and then confirming them with the mothers.
    For this work he was soundly roasted by the psychiatric “profession.”
    In fact, he was definitely onto something!

    There has never been any attempt, as far as I know, to duplicate Hubbard’s work in an academic setting. But as the article points out, many studies have been done that demonstrate the validity of the basic mechanism.

    It should be noted, however, that Hubbard found that these dissociated incidents included not just abuse, but incidents all the way down to and including times when the subject had been totally unconscious (such as a severe injury or a surgery). Such incidents can be discovered, and then recovered into conscious memory. This takes very skilled work, however.

    The “puzzle” of memory is one key area that psychology must get right before the subject will be of any great value to the general public. We know damn well that things occur to people that they absolutely cannot remember (because they were unconscious at the time)! Are we really ready to believe that such incidents will have no subsequent effect on a person? What do you think “triggers” is really all about?

  • In my book, the problem with any study that looks at the effects of an “intervention” on the brain is that it is looking in the wrong place! If you want a good indicator of how a person is feeling, just LOOK at him and ask him a few questions! Who cares exactly what the brain is doing if the person is feeling better, getting more competent, or is obviously in better control of himself?

  • I have a young friend who rather carelessly informed me recently that she had once been diagnosed as “borderline.” She knew I was a Scientologist and didn’t believe in those labels. And I ignored the communication for that reason. (I didn’t know what “borderline” meant.) But I didn’t forget it!

    Now this subject comes up in the context of “mental health awareness.”

    What??

    So I looked it up. I read part of the definition of what “borderline” is at PsychCentral then double-checked it at NIMH. While these descriptions describe this young woman quite well, what a trip to lay on a person!

    I can imagine how easy it would be to convince someone that all their reactions and emotions were because they were “borderline,” and so send them on a trajectory of endless self-doubt and basically despair. I can imagine how seriously this woman (being a former psych student) takes this information! I can only imagine how it could make her worry, wonder if she will ever “get better” and impede her from taking the risks we all have to take in life in order to stay alive and fulfill our basic obligations.

    She desperately wants to heal or “get better” without any drugs or other interventions. But if she takes this diagnosis seriously she could find herself back on meds, in endless and costly “therapy” and with her relationships with her children and with me possibly ruined (she has already suffered through a divorce).

    This gives me more reality on what these labels, especially in the absence of fast and effective ways to get rid of them, can do to ruin a life and offload all the responsibility for a person’s upset and suffering onto their own personal world, when only a fraction of that responsibility belongs there. I am glad I stayed away from all that. I am very concerned for my young friend, as she was not able to stay away from it, and she now lives in a world where almost everyone around her thinks that psychologists actually know what they are talking about.

  • Well, I hope this system works for some people.

    But I am still waiting to see a system (besides the one I am trained in) that actually sees people as immortal spiritual beings, which is, after all, the actual truth of our situation.

    RAP, WARS, “dance” are bizarre expressions for a system that is supposed to help families come to peace with each other and with themselves. On top of that, the world is not that peaceful a place, and in recent times in particular, has been at war with families, with parents and with their children. (In short, at war with all of us!) This needs to be taken into account, too, and I don’t see that here. The ENTIRE PROBLEM a family could be running into could be coming from some antagonistic (criminal) element outside the family but lurking in the workplace, the school, or even in the media. These influences on childhood “bad behavior” and parent stress should not be overlooked!

  • That’s right, Steve. This is a marketing campaign. It’s done in the context of other “awareness” campaigns that are a bit more honorable in their purpose and intent. So it takes advantage of that sheen of moral meaning. But it is clear from the careful work of many that the current “mental health” system is a scam designed to make money for certain groups and worse.

  • Yes, this is the same Peter Sterling that stood up against ECT (shock therapy) all those years ago!

    But evolution is a very faulty model. I no longer subscribe to it to any great degree. It only covers the body, for one thing, leaving Spirit entirely out of the equation.

    And what we have learned from Spirit seems to stand most ideas about evolution on their heads. Evolution has been very soundly brought into doubt on its own merits, as well. To me, it’s as old fashioned as a flat Earth.

  • Thank you so much for your story!

    Much like any “fad,” everyone who has benefited from mindfulness techniques thinks everyone should do it. They aren’t really aware of the fact that people are different and some might not be ready for it, or it might just not be the thing for them. Such practices will always be voluntary, so they will never get tested on a wide variety of different people, like drugs are supposed to be.

    Those techniques are not the only non-drug route to emotional healing. All such routes should be discussed and evaluated, not just the ones the mainstream thinks are “cool.”

  • When a “new idea” does not address corruption in the system, or even the potential for corruption, but just assumes that we need “better technology” I get suspicious. That approach fuels the fires of industry without doing anything to protect people for abuses. We are slipping into an age where the “great new technologies” of 20 or 30 or 40 years ago are now being used to enslave us. We need to address that problem first.

  • Anyone except a sociopath should agree with his point of being courteous.

    “The way we treat each other IS the therapy.”
    In most cases, this is absolutely true. Respectful, kind, caring, even loving treatment of one another is a basic of human interaction and some of the best “therapy” that anyone should be able to provide to another. Without this basic in, you can’t make it any farther with another person, if your goal is to help them.

  • A progressive take on the “problem of mental health.”

    Progressives don’t see a huge problem with psychiatry. Except that it costs too much and doesn’t have enough social justice activists in its ranks.

    Handled these problems, and the world will be a better place. Right?

  • The modern work was started by Wilder Penfield. That work is summarized in books like I’m OK You’re OK. It has been continued along one line by hypnotherapists. On a different line, Hubbard used Dianetics techniques to find such recordings around 1950 and subsequently. He later used a meter to separate “real” memories from “dub-in.” Meditators have discovered past life memories using sheer mental focus. The recordings are definitely there, and there are many ways to dig them up in addition to conscious recall.

  • Dr. Sterling returns!

    And though his criticism of our current orientation is incisive, and his recommendations for change fair minded, I am troubled by the introductory sentence indicating that what we are walking into is a “new world order.”

    And I am even more troubled by his reliance on evolutionary psychology as his theoretical basis. It is a false construct.

    While what he says and recommends may be true enough for the human animal, we humans are far more than mere animals! And NO theory based on the idea that we are just animals will open our eyes wide enough to find a positive direction forward.

    If our bodies need regular bursts of dopamine to live well, I am sure the New World Order Technocracy can figure out a way to provide that … to those who survive its vagaries.

    What of freedom? What of higher purpose? What of God or Creator or The Infinite? Are not these, too, real needs? YES! Of animals? Of course not. But that is not what we are; never were, never will be. We are beings, and that has been amply demonstrated, though not amply reported on. And we will seek the future of beings, not of animals. I really hope we do not have to sacrifice another planet to get this right. But if we do, so be it. There will be, perhaps, other chances to get it right. I don’t see the point of waiting, though. The basics of a way forward are clear enough. They are to me, anyway.

  • For many reasons beyond the sphere of “mental health” it is important to get memory right. If it does constitute something along the lines of a “library” of all experience, then that opens up a new way to learn more about our past – our history. Initial results of this are already a part of the materials I am studying, and a different form of the “data recovery” process has been used by remote viewers with very promising (surprising? – not to me) results.

    Developing reliable ways to retrieve memories with the least amount of alteration due to language and other cultural limitations is a whole other subject. But if psychology can’t agree on what memory is, then they can never find ways to use it successfully in therapy (assuming they really want to.)

    A much more perverse, if possibly more accurate, interpretation of what psychology wants to do with memory is find new and better ways to kill it, destroy it, or invalidate it so that we can’t use it to discover their past crimes.

  • Well, there we go. That’s the argument, then.

    My information is that the recording process is entirely below the conscious level, whereas to remember usually takes some amount of conscious effort. They could not possibly operate by similar processes, as various techniques can be used to recover memories of events that the being was never even consciously aware of.

  • I thought I’d read through this, as suggested by the number of comments (zero) no one else has yet. But I can see why.

    I am probably not even an appropriate person to comment on the DSM, or any suggested replacement, as I am of the conviction that the whole system should be jettisoned, and psychologists be encouraged to return to studying rats. The subject has so far been relatively useless to the human race. Maybe they can figure out how to make rats happier.

    I might mention, though, the major “dimension” I have been trained to look for in anybody: Emotional tone, or you might say, “degree of happiness.” It is possible to look at 29 different observable behaviors, plus several more that are observable in therapy, that all correlate to this single dimension.

    If the person improves in this dimension (“gets happier”) then you know you have a workable therapy (at least for that person).

    Psychology has been in its rut for a long time now. As far as I can tell they have gone seriously subterranean! If it weren’t for a few dear people in the field who have helped me, I would be inclined to totally disregard it.

  • This piece is thick with life!

    I believe many more people would write like this if they could find the words and the voice.

    My young friend who has been trying to sort through issues like this is more than ten years younger than Bojana. She knows there is something wrong, but everywhere around her there is agreement that it is she who is wrong, and everybody else is just fine. That it makes perfect sense to take a pill whenever you “feel bad.”

    The social pressure brought to bear on a person who is a bit more perceptive, a bit more sensitive, a bit more creative (a bit more alive?) can be anything from moderate to openly threatening depending on how close one is to the nearest sociopath. In the worst cases the sociopath will try to kill (or bring to death) their target and often succeeds. And so it is that I fear for my young friend, and for so many others like her in similar situations.

    I wish Bojana well, and hope she continues to learn what is most useful to living a full and happy life and manages to do so.

  • Again, you’re talking about the remembering process, not the recording process. I am confident in describing memory itself as simply a huge array of “pictures.” The “pictures” store ALL perceptics, not just sight, including emotions and thoughts.

    The remembering process, on the other hand, is very problematic and can be injured, modified, disabled, and so forth.

    Memory is a little like a huge library. Well, how do you find the book you want (or need?). That’s a whole separate process. What if someone blows up your index card system? Or you never bother to create one? Then your ability to remember accurately will suffer greatly.

  • Sure, but how did the researchers know which objects were recognized and which weren’t? By the people being studied saying so, right? So they don’t know for sure how the perception was stored. They just know that the person couldn’t give it back to them. So, are we studying memory or remembering?

  • Well, I’m no anthropologist, but this is what I have seen: First, the more indigenous or nature-attached cultures tend to make music a big part of their lives. And if I can generalize, Africa has embraced music as a public community activity much more than the West has. I know that public performances have also been a big part of life in Bali. There are probably other places that I am less aware of. There is for instance the way street samba infuses life in the favelas of Brazil, particularly in Rio. I have also heard good things about Puerto Rico. In these places. music can be heard almost everywhere at almost any time. It tends to be celebratory rather than overly introverted and almost everyone is involved with it, including may part time or “amateur” musicians that help during festival times.

  • Well, that may well be the case. But since when is someone who visits Mad In America all the time going to rely on psychological research for the definitive data on how the mind works? I don’t, and that’s for sure.

    How does a person know what he/she has experienced? One way is direct knowingness, without relying on mental recordings (memory). And the other way is through consulting one’s “records” (memories). This is similar to how a historian figures our what really happened a long time ago. But we know this way of discovering data (truth?) has problems, whether the records are in a file drawer or in a mind. The records are what they are. Do they amount to a perfect record of what happened? No. Can they be alterered? Yes. Can they be interpreted different ways by different people? Yes. But the records are what they are.

    So I think psychology has the records themselves (memory) all confused with the process of digging up and interpreting those records (remembering).

    It is in the best interests if criminals, I might point out, to invalidate the reliability of memory as much as possible, as this is quite commonly what is used (in places like courts of law) to get them into trouble. So, unfortunately, the profession as it is currently constituted has a certain vested interest in research findings that show memory to be unreliable. I don’t believe memory is that unreliable. Remembering is another story.

  • Now you are talking about communication, not memory. And I think what this study was really about was how people communicate what they remember. Sure that goes through cultural filters. But we know that communicating involves cultural filters. We see that in how people from different cultures describe their NDEs. That just means language is an imperfect method for describing a memory. It doesn’t mean that the actual contents of the memory depend on the culture the person was a part of when he/she acquired the memory.

  • I didn’t say culture was irrelevant. I said is not key. Spirit is key. Why does an old white man love African rhythms so much? Because he’s a spiritual being! I’ve never been anywhere near Africa this lifetime. That’s not “my culture.” But I love it as if it were. Why? Spirit.

  • Another cutting piece of writing by Megan! Her words tend to make me very emotional. Her generation will shape our future, and so few of them have any certainty yet about what direction to go in.

    She recognizes how much of the messaging we are getting amounts to PR and marketing. Manipulative tools of the large corporate interests. The problem I see is that there is almost NO messaging out there right now that is not of this type. In other words, I find the “progressive” messages meant for the young just as disingenuous as the ones that seem to be promoting “the system” being maintained by their parents or grandparents.

    At this point, all really viable alternative viewpoints, or messages, are almost completely suppressed. Many people who decry the “medical model” still think the brain must have a lot to do with mental and emotional functioning!

    So, what I see is that “the system” has provided us with an entire game, complete with opposing views that seem very contentious but that always leads us back inevitably to … the same system. Megan recognizes that we seem to be confronted with a choice between changing (“reforming”) the existing system and creating a new system. She sees that the need for a brand new approach to almost every aspect of life is required, yet most of us are too embedded in the current system to think in those terms.

    I have my own vision of how things could play out.

    It starts with the realization that we have all participated in creating the current system, that it is an insane system, and that we therefore all must have some degree of a sanity problem, need to take responsibility for that, and stop shopping around for an Oppressor that we can blame for everything that goes wrong.

    Next, a relatively small group of people who realize the above will get together and learn what needs to be done and what has to be done to create a new system, and will quietly go about creating one. The system, when it notices this, will dismiss this work or its people as having its own characteristics – dishonest and criminal. Therefore, recruiting new members into this smaller group will be very difficult to do.

    But, assuming they can get enough people and keep their show on the road, their creations will begin to become more noticeable. Probably at first this will be most apparent as attempts to “clean up” the system, or for calls to restore basic rights and freedoms. Revelations of long-standing systemic wrongdoing may occur. And it will start to become more obvious that this group has a “leg up” for some reason. Popular support will begin to shift to the point that it cannot be hidden by false or wild stories.

    I don’t expect the clamor that can be created by the real crazy people will ever go away. But the rest of us will get better and better at ignoring it, like a few of us do now. Eventually “the system” will become a sideshow, to be amused by or pitied. And it will lose its political power.

    I think it is important to realize that a lot of this madness traces back to the compulsive need for political power. As more people turn sane and learn how to use power properly, Earth could become a formidable force for good in the universe. It actually has that potential.

  • Annie was in the singing group Lambert Hendricks and Ross. She died last summer at the age of 90.
    I always knew “Twisted” as Joni’s song, but it is indeed Annie’s, and many singers have performed it. I always thought it was a delightful little “FU” jab at the whole middle class idea of what is supposed to be “normal.”

    I wonder now how many girls I knew (when I was a boy) had to deal with the sort of emotional torrents that Miranda describes from when she was a teenager! I know one young woman (now a young mom) who still experiences this sort of thing a lot (she is embarrassed by it, I think, and likes to be alone when in the middle of it). But since roughly the 6 month mark of the lockdown in California, there is seldom a day goes by that I don’t cry pretty hard at least once that day.

    Psychiatry (if it were a single being) would be sitting there grinning and rubbing its hands together, I imagine. A new flock of potential victims – I mean patients! – for our operation to chew up and spit out.

    I like to listen to music from places where it is used as their primary route to health. Most of those places trace their musical roots to Africa.

  • Are we really speaking of memory here, or of our interpretations of experience? Memory can be accessed and recovered with a high degree of accuracy, but the ordinary person, when simply asked to recall something they experienced, will ordinarily do this quite sloppily.

    Sloppy stories of past experience are not always therapeutically useful, which is one reason most talk therapies underperform. There are various ways around that problem.

  • Alright, then you are being simply… ???. Just because we are spiritual beings does not mean we can ignore language and the various other mechanisms we use to relate to each other. Sure you can communicate using just telepathy, if you are good, but that is not where most of us are at. Language remains workable, particularly when we include the use of it for expressions of spiritual understanding. I am not aware of any culture that does not have such concepts in its language.

  • That’s the problem with “woke.” There may be a version of it that is authentically sincere. But a lot of people are trying to ride it like a bandwagon, and they have no real sense of how conflicted they sound when they push cultural sensitivity while ignoring the oppressive nature of the medical model (DSM).

  • I agree. The new movement is going to have to look a lot different. Their takeover, you might say, has been executed with a degree of sophistication (and finance) that we have not matched. We can at least become more sophisticated. It will not be easy now. Some of my closest friends and loved ones think psych drugs are totally fine and the way to go. Now we are in a hole that must somehow be climbed out of.

  • Lord! Yet another researcher promoting wokeness!

    This “different” viewpoint might be worthwhile if it really led to any revelations about memory that were useful.

    Memories influenced by culture? Do you think? That’s probably why some people become multilingual more easily – they spoke those different languages in earlier lifetimes. Oops! Not sure the R word is allowed in woke culture!

    I know one person who wrote down almost everything she could remember about her past in a book. I know many more people who have many ancient memories but who aren’t really writers, so they just tell their friends about their memories. But this woman (Dena Merriam) who wrote up all she could remember has been a Norman, an Indian, a Persian, a Japanese, an African, a Russian and an American. So, what “culture” does this woman actually belong to? The only answer is “human culture!” And that does not even include all of her memories, because she also remembers living between lives in a place of Light. So she is part of a non-human culture as well!

    Can we get over Woke and realize that we are spiritual beings? I’m not going to stop writing about this until I either die or get drowned out by others who finally begin to realize that this has something to do with them and their possible futures.

  • I am concerned that this new “study” might basically be just a hit piece.

    However, I don’t think meditation techniques should be mixed up with the field of “mental health” as it currently exists.

    This is possibly, though, a case of meditation teachers seeking a share of the “mental health market” and traditional therapists complaining about it. I don’t think meditation can be practiced non-voluntarily, as mentioned above. So that gives us a different “intervention model” (or whatever they want to call it).

    From a science point of view then, you might be comparing apples to oranges rather than different kinds of apples.

  • I have my own way of expressing the value of music in human experience. It actually goes for any activity that involves “mere entertainment value.” This, oddly, includes many many activities currently considered “non essential:” social gatherings, church, concerts, shows, sporting events, movies…

    My understanding is based on this quote from our Creed: “…the spirit alone may save or heal the body.”

    Spirit, then, is the only true healing agent in life, according to what I have been taught. All other healing modalities ultimately operate through Spirit.

    So my way of understanding this is that all these “non-essential activities” including playing, listening to and dancing to music, have healing power because they validate Spirit. Any activity that validates Spirit should have some healing benefit. This would even include the milder forms of education (or study).

    Activities that validate Spirit “waste” time and money, provide no nutritional or medicinal value, usually involve no physical product at all, but only temporal experience, and often can be indulged in with minimal technological assistance.

    Conversely, activities which invalidate Spirit tend to treat us only as animals or bodies, focus their attention on the brain and chemicals, are seen as “economically essential,” and when put into action tend to enslave and depress.

    I believe this understanding, or model, explains all the experimental observations laboriously described above and points the way to improvements in theory and practice in all the healing arts, as well as the other humanities, and ultimately the physical sciences as well.

    I appreciate this opportunity to comment on this topic. I really hope that in a few short years we will laugh at the premise of this article (why is music so good for us?) and wonder why we didn’t realize the most obvious answer much sooner.

  • If we use a perhaps somewhat limited definition of “politics” as “an attempt to get someone to do something that they didn’t themselves think of doing or might actually prefer not to do,” then we do see that emotions, even using your interpretation, may involve politics.

    One who is honestly experiencing an emotion has little attention on the political aspects of his emotional behavior. But the people on the receiving end of that behavior may see it differently! A crying fit or a tantrum at the wrong time can seem highly manipulative to the person who has to “keep it together” and deal with it. And so with anger, fear, apathy, even enthusiasm. They can all be seen as manipulative in some way, and may even be used that way on purpose.

    But when it’s an honest reaction to a real situation, the first thought of the therapist should be to find out what’s going on, or if it’s obvious, to just let the person get through it. “Give them some space” as the saying goes.

  • I will always see the main problem as their lack of a workable understanding of human experience. This then is often reinforced by not wanting to know, and the preference for using drugs as an “easy fix.”

    As MDs, psychiatrists do about what other doctors do, although they violate their Hippocratic Oath much more thoroughly.

    As healers psychiatrists are a total joke. And that’s what bothers me the most. The name of their profession means “psychic healer” basically. They should be true to that name, or get out!

    The data is out there! Even a psych could probably learn how to deliver a Locational! If they don’t really want to heal souls, what the heck are they doing? Their excuses for their incompetence are all false, from my point of view. They could be honest and effective if they really wanted to be. Most of them really don’t want to be.

  • Perhaps the author will answer.
    I don’t think his language here is very exact.
    If someone says, “I hate being locked down!” that’s politics in emotional expression.
    If the therapist says, “OK, let’s deal with that hatred,” that is psychotherapy ignoring the politics of the situation, which is in fact the dominant suppressor.
    If the therapist says, “OK, let’s see what we can do to got out from under this suppression,” that’s psychotherapy embracing the politics of the situation.

    We see here that the subject is limited in how it expresses itself by its own knowledge limitations!

    “Suppression” or “oppression” are considered by most psychologists to be “political” phenomena. But they are in fact at the core of what triggers misemotion in many people. Psychology thus ignores the central role of the sociopath and his allies in the psychological – not just political – life of people. They thus ignore their own role in this – to the extent that their profession includes some sociopaths, if it is not in fact dominated by them.

  • This therapist should study what I have studied. It’s really not that difficult.

    When you realize that spiritual memory stretches back for billions of years, and that we have all been through times like this before (often not ending well, by the way – a contributor to the current sense of dread) you begin to see the way forward more clearly.

    Mental states and emotions are intimately tied to real interactions between people – most of them in the past. And real interactions between people always involve politics.

    Just as the struggle between our desire for freedom and for the sense of “security” that comes from being dependent manifests itself in politics, so does it in our personal worlds. The discovery of a true psychology results in many unexpected benefits. Better ways to study, better ways to help others, better ways to organize, better ways to stay productive, better ways to govern, better ways to control crime. True psychology is at the core of all human thought and action. We should expect great things from it that would apply to every aspect of life. And that is what a true psychology offers, but not the psychology we have now. Nor, of course, its psychotherapies.

    This therapist is wise to dream; she is unwise to confine herself to the current academic habits. They have led us nowhere. It is time we strayed further from the nest!

  • Wow.
    You needn’t try so hard, though, to save face for the doctors. They should know better.

    Has anyone ever, for example, tried giving you a Locational?

    Indeed, it has done the insane no good to consider insanity an illness. And it has not done all the others who couldn’t even be considered insane any good, either.

    There is a lot known about sleep. Insomnia is not the easiest thing to treat (at least not in my experience) but pills certainly aren’t the answer there, either.

    My teacher tells a funny story about how a doctor observed someone he was helping get overheated in the course of therapy. The doctor wanted to stop the therapy and treat the person for fever! So, yes, they can definitely over-react.

  • I am glad there are a few people still capable of reporting on such research without resorting to satire! I know I couldn’t!

    For some reason I get this image of someone chasing a horse to rescue the rider when the rider, long ago, already fell off.

    If they can’t treat distressing episodes successfully, why should we expect them to be able to prevent them? It goes without saying that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” But when you don’t have a clue, then it won’t matter how much “prevention” or “cure” you pile up, the problem will never go away.

    I wish these learned people would stop acting so helpless and start pushing the envelope a little harder. Better answers exist in this world. Who cares if you lose your job advocating for them? You’re probably better off without a job like that.

  • It’s so funny for me to see this invective couched in terms of Critical Theory and Social Justice, two of the grand intellectual constructs of the last century, created, tailor made, for a new generation of upset youth, by psychologists who should have known better.

    And so this young “queer” person concludes that it is the “system” that is broken, not people! Well, who do you think creates, builds and maintains systems? People! And so if the “system” is not preforming as advertised, the people operating it probably are broken. The people they try to help? Who knows?

    There have been several calls from several observers that we need to de-expert the whole activity of friendship and emotional care. I agree. The current approach is so not working!

    I made it clear on Facebook where I stand on this – what I think the most obvious answer staring us in the face is. But I promised to go light on that at this website.

    But: What if a person could walk into a school, throw down not that much cash, and take a little course that would teach them a social skill, or a way to help others, or something that would help them patch their own life together better? And what if a whole bunch of people took such courses and got more hip to the whole scene and started helping each other dig out of the silly emotional holes that we so often fall into? Would we still need all those white upper middle class female therapists that Devon complains about? (Hey, I had one, too, for a while!) Probably not. And for most of us, it would be good riddance!

    I have seen some stories of some therapists doing some amazing things for some really upset people. And I have heard many more stories of people trained outside the realm of psychology and psychiatry helping others in many amazing ways. So there is an activity that some call “therapy” that is potentially useful. Not, however, in the hands of most people who call themselves “therapists.”

  • First important observation: Grief is occasioned by loss.
    Second important observation: A grief response is triggered. (That means the greater loss is prior.)
    Third important observation: The analytical analog to grief is injustice. Injustice is a powerful motivating idea in the universe! One who feels unjustly treated can be transformed from a happy group member to a destructive rioter.

    After these points are made, her discussion diverges from what I think is most useful.

    Here is what I know that might contribute to this discussion:
    Grief events tend to pile up on a case. The average person brings a lot of stored grief into this lifetime from the past. Incidents of profound loss can be traced all the way back to the “initial separation.”
    Handling stored grief can make a huge difference to a person, as in practical terms it acts as a suppressor on the person’s entire life.
    The various technical ways to do this add up to locating past moments of profound loss and “crying them out” (for lack of a more concise description). More recent incidents tend to mask earlier ones, so it is necessary to work backwards for the most recent loss.
    Another approach to handling grief is to attempt to remove (distract attention away from?) the triggering condition. If that condition is chronic, then the individual will be constantly pushed back into grief as he/she goes about living. Removing such chronic “restimulators” can do wonders for a person. The lowest gradient is to have the person just go outside and walk around and look at things.

    Given the above comments, I will relate my recent personal experience.

    Growing up, I would run into grief every now and then. It would come and go as losses hit me. It seldom hung around for long. I would get busy again, and my attention would come off of it. There were a few times that it hit harder than usual and I would cry for an hour or more.

    When the closures hit, my life suddenly changed from busy to very slow. My regular in-person social contacts went from many to none. At first it was just annoying. But as things dragged on, it started to affect me much more. There was a particular new friend I had grown fond of that I began to miss. My only contact with her was through her work, and she had lost her job. I almost panicked as I tried to reestablish communication with her. I finally did, but my grief was now in full restimulation and I was crying a lot every single day.

    Even though I restored contact with this new friend, it was not enough to turn off the grief. It continues to the present, as I struggle to combat the loneliness of a lockdown that separates me from what was my primary source of human contact. I have written extensively about this on my blog. But writing doesn’t help that much. Going out for a walk is only temporary relief. Going out on a major shopping trip works better, but I can’t afford to do that every day. And it doesn’t solve the isolation. I have resorted to getting onto dating websites – which I have never used before! – just in the hopes that I can find someone to visit with on a regular basis.

    The lockdowns, along with unhandled past incidents of great loss, have pushed me in the direction of becoming an emotional cripple, compared to how I operated before. It has been an instructive experience! But not one I would wish on others, even my enemies. I imagine millions are having similar experiences right at this moment. This is not good for me, for them, or for this world. Grief is a crippling emotion. To get stuck in it is not good for a person.

    I would NEVER take a drug for this condition, but I can understand why someone would be tempted to. Getting stuck in grief is the opposite of fun!

  • Okay, I’ll give a couple of examples. We’ll see if there is any mileage left in pursuing this:
    If you are a tolerant (liberal) sort of person, you’re likely to see it as “common sense” that people should be trusted and if someone is having problems with that there is some stressor in their environment that is probably to blame.
    If you are a little more cautious in your approach to other people, you’ll think it’s “common sense” to check people out before you trust them, because some people just aren’t trustworthy.

    However, this all started with rebel playing around with the phrase “common sense” to suggest a sort of lowest common denominator agreement that “everybody knows” and yet could be totally false. Rebel also argues that “Psychology can’t be science, because nothing is science.” And Truth thought that made “no sense.”

    So we’re just playing around with the meanings of words here. If you keep your feet on the ground you realize that there are processes that people use for obtaining knowledge that they call “science.” But in the case of psychology, this process seems to have totally missed its mark.

    Meanwhile, rebel reminds us that there is some amount of art in everything, which is something that science tends to ignore. (The early scientists, however, tended to believe that their work was helping to reveal the beauty in God’s creation.) You can’t “measure” art, can you? But we are certainly affected or influenced by art. So there seems to be a quality of life that science is simply incapable of embracing. In some ways, that might be true.

    But…I don’t think these shortcomings point to any inherent limitations of science. I think they point to some very baked-in limitations of scientists (us). If we can find ways to “unlimit” ourselves more, we should be more capable of using science to work with subjects like art, beauty and Spirit in ways that are helpful to our fellow humans.

  • And I am asserting that various people using scientific methods ARE understanding human beings and their experiences. The only reason most people still think “we don’t know yet” is because the good research is not being covered by the mainstream. In other words, the mainstream demonstrates a definite impulse to remain ignorant.

  • It is a logical fallacy to assume that just because the mainstream rails against someone, that they must be the opposite. But it IS a distinct possibility! That is how the criminal mind works, and it is criminal minds that are feeding the mainstream many of its stories.

    At this point I would look very carefully at anything hated or ridiculed by the mainstream. There is a good chance it involves something truly valuable to human life.

  • Actually, the new definition of “conspiracy theory” is “any idea that must be wrong because it violates my sense of security too much.”

    In modern usage, there is the thinly veiled implication that the holder of any such theory is a tad paranoid.

    I believe this writer is using it in that way.

    Literally, of course, a conspiracy theory is any theory about the existence of a conspiracy (secret criminal group) that accounts for certain (usually criminal) events. The “original conspiracy theory” is that the JFK assassination was an inside job, which is more or less a proven fact at this point.

    Today it is a term used to gaslight people and for ad hominem attacks. Many “conspiracy theories” are in fact quite accurate and well-documented. Others, of course, are not.

  • Wow, what a lot of mixed messages from my point of view!

    I have never seen the expression “conspiracy theory” used so many times in one piece of writing.

    And I thought the idea that psychiatry was being insincere about its intentions and is being subsumed by Big Pharma was a conspiracy theory!

    I must admit that I am partial to many “theories” finding that various events that turned out bad probably had conspirators behind them. Seems like the more rational and realistic attitude to me.

    Yes, you can get gain on most cases by treating them as victims. Most people benefit from a little understanding and TLC. But that doesn’t exactly solve the problem of the human condition. For the fact is that each being does play a part in his own victimization. It’s not something you go in and beat people over the head about, but sooner or later the causative side of a person’s life needs to be addressed.

    I’m glad this guy knows that the psychiatric story is BS. But that’s just the first step to doing something about it. Let’s continue to understand without the conceptual burden of worrying about conspiracies. They exist! Let’s move on.

  • Well, one exists, so I think it’s realistic, that’s all. Of course the technology is not for controlling human behavior. We already have something that does that – ourselves. But there are workable technologies for helping others become happier, which it seems to me should be the goal of the “mental health” system.

  • Wow! Yet another example of history rewritten or ignored.

    I was invovled in a demonstration held in the Berkeley City Council chambers somewhere around 1979 where I believe a petition was delivered to the council urging them to ban shock treatment in Berkeley. We arrived during a hearing at which a psychiatrist was attempting (rather unsuccessfully) to explain why shock treatment was so necessary. I have no idea who organized that event! I know that Berkeley was one of the few cities to ever enact an ECT ban.

    This was an active, boots-on-the-ground movement back then. I don’t see many activities like that these days (although CCHR does make sure to show up at every major psych convention, and I know that some other groups do this, too).

    But these days most in the mood to protest are spending their street time on other issues. I do hope the focus comes back around to this issue. It is a very central one.

  • Yes, I’m not sure how rebel meant that. But perhaps it has to do with how psychiatry likes to just leave people on their meds for the rest of their lives. Yes, doctors are discovering more diseases that seem to require that. But do they really?

    I know a guy who discovered a lot of cures. He became somewhat rich and famous, but the mainstream treats him very poorly. He wasn’t a doctor! How dare he cure anything?

    This is where all the power structures seem to be right now. Just trying to maintain, to protect or expand their income flows. The enthusiasm for cures is gone, despite any public displays to the contrary. If we don’t find a way to kick the whole system in the butt, it’s going to atrophy totally.

  • If we understood people as well as we do electronics, it should be possible. That’s what my group strives for. 100% good results. If you have a workable technology it should be possible. The problem with psychology is that it doesn’t understand people well enough to develop broadly workable technologies for helping them.

  • This is the classic liberty-based argument for decriminalizing certain “victimless” behaviors.

    Posed as a personal rights issue, decriminalization garners support from liberal-leaning people.

    The argument against such changes usually focuses on how they are perceived as normalizing these behaviors, even though they are known to pose significant risks to “misbehavers” and the people around them.

    This conflict of ideas creates a major quandary to people like myself who recognize the harms committed by our law enforcement system but do not wish to see the mass normalization of dangerous behaviors. Where does such a trend end? Long ago, premarital sex was normalized. Now we have normalized the use of harmful psychiatric drugs, as well as marijuana. What dangerous behavior will be next? Vandalism? Robbery?

    Furthermore, I don’t want to see drug use in particular normalized, and this is definitely the goal of the drug companies, at least regarding “mental health” drugs. I believe the drug company overlords would welcome an increase of all drugs, and would take advantage of the opportunity to market more drugs to the population for “recreational” purposes.

    Calls for decriminalization and leniency seem insincere to me when they focus on turning those committing unwanted behaviors into victims and those wishing to improve behavior into oppressors.

    What I believe is closer to the truth is that populations have been convinced that the only way to guard against misbehavior in their communities is by use of a punishment-based system involving laws, law enforcers, a judicial system, and various forms of punishment. This system has proven to be ineffective. It is in fact based on a criminal control paradigm. But this doesn’t change the fact that a majority of people in a majority of communities want to reduce unwanted behaviors, not increase them. And normalization of such behaviors, particularly when accompanied by Corporate marketing campaigns aimed at encouraging such behaviors, tends to result in an increase in the unwanted behaviors.

    Cigarette smoking is a classic case of society rising up to de-normalize an unwanted behavior. Through a strident marketing campaign, the message got through, and smoking has lessened, though it did not end by any means.

    Conversely, normalizing behaviors that were unwanted signals that those behaviors are no longer unwanted. A consumer market is created, which Corporate then promotes to, usually leading to increases in those behaviors. This has happened with premarital sex, psych drugs, and more recently with marijuana.

    What society needs, then, is a more effective system of controlling unwanted (destructive) behaviors that empowers individuals to make better life decisions rather than delivering up to Corporate new audiences to be marketed to and controlled. This is the societal struggle we see playing out all around us right now. Do we really want Corporate to save us all with more legalized but very dangerous drugs? Or do we want to find structures that will actually help us build saner communities?

  • I know. Sometimes I shudder to think that my experience might have been unusual. What do most children go through? Also, that was the 1960s. We didn’t really even have that much TV back then. The “entertainment” industry has been misinforming people and separating them. This is an effect I experienced more later in life. And now it is almost unbearable! But I got some repair work done along the way. And it wasn’t by way of psychology. If I hadn’t received that help, I don’t know if I’d even be functional today, living almost totally alone as I do.

  • That’s really good! And you aren’t alone by any means. But your story is not yet in the majority. Psychology still lets most people down.

    I work in electronics. And as an example, I have worked with thousands of little parts that light up when you run electricity through them. Almost every single one of these parts worked correctly. We know how to make these things. We can do it with nearly 100% certainty. Why can’t we make happy people with that same certainty? It should be possible.

  • Oh you could be right about that. I am not that familiar with the fine distinctions of how academic subjects are categorized.

    I’m not too concerned about the posing that goes on in academia. I am more concerned with whether or not their findings are useful to anyone.

    We have electronics and better car engines because of the physical sciences. And psychology can only give us Cognitive Behavior Therapy? For psychologists to resort to trying to reason with people to change their behaviors looks a lot to me like giving up.

    I think all they have to do is start taking their Parapsychology colleagues more seriously, and I think they could have a breakthrough. My concern is that the last thing they really want is a breakthrough! To a lot of people, Man looks better as a mystery. Solving Man is like opening Pandora’s box. It’s scary.

  • Yes, Psychology is one of the Humanities. I don’t view it as a bad thing. Did I say I did? But it is under pressure to be “more scientific,” as are economics, sociology, etc.
    And for good reason: The Sciences have produced workable technologies, while the Humanities have not. However, for the Humanities to produce workable technologies, they need to get “human” right, which the Sciences didn’t need to do.
    So…what’s your point? Did I lose you somewhere in the above discussion?

  • Well, I’ll tell you what I know about. Of course, it’s just a backup observation, but it is required. Subjective knowledge has to count for something, too.

    After every time we “help” someone, we have them sit down and attach themselves to a meter. And if the meter gives a certain reaction (and the guy is smiling and looks OK), we know it’s all good. And if it doesn’t we know it wasn’t all good (even if he’s trying to pretend it was). And there’s your objective observation. Anyone who can read the meter can make the observation. It’s a much finer line when dealing with people. But a degree of objectivity should still be possible.

  • Wow. It is interesting to get this viewpoint!

    I had a good round of making friends when I was a pre-teen. It was a VERY natural, easy experience. If you fought too much, you didn’t stay friends. If you adored each other you fell in love, or at least played a lot together. Then I moved from California to Michigan. I couldn’t stand the social scene for kids in Michigan! It was so limited for friendships between the sexes. Same sex friends came and went – no big deal.

    But young adulthood for me was super weird because I hadn’t bothered to “grow up” in high school the way kids are expected to. When you are an adult and you don’t choose the socially accepted avenues for meeting people and so on, it can get pretty lonely pretty fast. On top of that, I moved back to California. That’s when I got some counseling. What my therapist told me didn’t require a PhD in psychology! But why weren’t my own parents more there for me? It’s a whole dynamic of forces that is disempowering people in many ways. And psychiatry (I learned later) is at the center of it.

    I am amazed that Psychology turns out any good people, but it does. Too bad they are so poorly trained. But If I were a professional in that field (as it is, I am a semi-professional) I would spend all my effort getting ordinary people trained in the basics of life and how to interact with people. Since my parents were teenagers, the has been the biggest training need, and the biggest lack. Some cultures and sub-cultures do better with it than others. The academic sub-culture is absolutely terrible at it, and that is in part due to the influence of psychiatric-oriented psychology. It serves the practitioners more than it does the people.

    “Late-stage capitalism” is a typical modern term. It is a terrible misuse of the language! Psychology is fine with people using words however they want to, without looking them up to find out what they really mean. What I am seeing currently is an attempt my Corporate that has been going on my whole lifetime (66 years) to take over the planet, at which they have almost succeeded. If we let them succeed, then that’s game over for freedom and human rights on this planet. I think we have to confront the extent to which psychology (psychiatry of course) has been put there to serve Corporate. If Corporate weren’t here trying to turn the planet into some sort of giant factory, psychology and many other subjects would be in a very different state than they are today. I would like to get rid of Corporate, but that will be VERY difficult. Capitalism, to me, is fine. That’s part of a free economy. Corporate is something else. At it’s worse, it means total control. On this planet currently it means devious control and lots of immoral perks for people who cooperate. Very dystopian.

  • I consider this approach a fatal error on the part of those seeking reform!

    They know there is something wrong. But what they propose, basically, is to turn the tables on their supposed suppressors, and criminalize and suppress them! That won’t work. This uses a brush much to broad and indiscriminate.

    What the social justice warriors miss is that they have been duped into believing the same basic materialistic lies that the “colonizers” forwarded in the recent past. They are, for all intents and purposes, products of the oppressor. Nothing good will come of this.

  • Well done on getting off those drugs, Karin!

    I too live alone and I have no psych diagnoses (unless you count the one I got 40 years ago – depression). I was never on any of those drugs and I have shunned the world of drugs since I was 25.

    But the isolation hit me VERY HARD. I think part of it was that it felt so unjust! The lock downs also deprived me of a personal contact I used to enjoy every week. Then on top of that she somehow lost her job. That’s still a mystery.

    I have struggled very hard to connect to people who seem like they would make good friends, but I have found very few so far. Friendship, it seems, is becoming a lost skill (the topic of another blog post).

    As far as psychiatry goes, this has been its operating basis for decades now, has in not?
    1) Cook up a list of “illnesses” you can accuse (diagnose?) people of having.
    2) Use those illnesses as a pretext to deny personal liberties, then give them “medicines” that actually harm them.
    3) Kill them, or let them back into the world as broken shells of their former selves.

    In the aftermath of the actual pandemic, it seems like this is what “public health” people, with the strong support of many politicians and business people, are trying to do. That’s how I am experiencing this thing now. These people have learned from psychiatry! Or do both realms share a common teacher?

    In addition, the emotional anguish and economic devastation that isolation has put us through, because of the lock downs, is unsustainable. And it seems someone wants it that way. Just like they want the unsustainable practices of psychiatry to continue forever. I had no idea such an insanity could sweep over a population as completely as this one has.

  • John, I don’t understand your reasoning. Working is the traditional way to make money. What the findings say is that having money is more therapeutic than the “therapy” you would spend that money on.

    So, while “get a job to stay mentally fit” might be a bit over-simplified, prosaic, and misapplied by bureaucrats, it is a lot closer to the truth than “get therapy to stay mentally fit!”

  • I don’t agree with this, but would argue that most “scientists” are no longer practicing good science, and have been persuaded away from it by dogmatic pressures coupled with funding.

    Scientific method should be capable of discovering Spirit if it is there (and it is). It has limited itself for irrational reasons. If rationality returned to science, Spirit would become a part of science. It is in most other civilizations (but of course, that finding is currently considered “pseudoscience” as well).

    I don’t think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We just need to find our way to higher level of rationality.

  • I have run into this subject only marginally in my own life, but seen or read some stories about it.

    One set of stories concerned a series of past lives. Most of these lifetimes were ended by the person deciding that they were at a good place to end their life, then getting sick and dying.

    I have also seen at least one person who experienced an OBE talk about despair and suicidal thoughts.

    For the being in the middle of the experience, I think the depth of the mental (and often physical) pain is very hard to describe, along with the despair that results, and the wish to leave.

    We should also recognize that there are beings in our midst who would like nothing better than for us to decide to kill ourselves. It would solve a problem (your aliveness) for them. You can often curb suicidal desires simply by finding who is tormenting the upset person and breaking the connection. Some of these tormentors are extremely skilled at getting others to fall into despair or hopelessness. This is often the principle danger such people pose to a sane society. We need to learn to spot and handle such people. It is really very important.

  • Psychology should basically be one of the humanities, but like all of the humanities, has had pressure brought to bear on it to be something else.

    One such pressure has been from ruling groups who don’t really want to understand people in order to help them, but are simply interested in technologies they can use to change, or control, men’s minds (and women’s and children’s too).

    Another pressure has been from psychiatry which wants psychology to support its perverted view of life and “help.”

    Thus psychology accepted a model of human experience from the natural sciences (neurology and biology) that is incorrect. And they are under constant pressure (as above) to keep this model, even though many of them realize it is wrong. This even affects those few psychologists who study parapsychology, who would like their findings to align with the more “scientific” theories of the mainstream, though they never will because the mainstream is so stubbornly wrong.

    This is terribly frustrating for me, because psychology lies at the center of human thought (as it studies human thought). If psychology gets it wrong, then all the other sciences and humanities get it wrong, too. And so we see today an entire planet desperately wanting to “grow up” but held back by the lack of a workable model. I had to resort to religion to find one. And academia doesn’t want to do that. They pride themselves (nowadays) on being secular. Well, the truth doesn’t care who believes it! Various religions are using more workable models with varying degrees of success. Many of the physical sciences can avoid it and get by, because they only address our desire to master the physical universe, not ourselves.

    But all those studies where Man stands at the center, in particular politics, economics, and medicine are suffering today – and we are all suffering – because psychology is pushing a faulty model. Many who comment here don’t even know what a more workable model is, even though they are damn well sure the current one is wrong! It’s a shame, because a more workable model exists. I hope we will see more discussion of it as our situation becomes clearer.

  • This is interesting academically because other studies have indicated that there are some mental conditions people seem to be born with. The conclusion was that those conditions must have a genetic component.

    This is a false conclusion because genes are not the only way a person can be born with something! Ian Stevenson’s work on strange birth marks makes this very clear. Some of his past life research subjects had odd birth marks. He found, where he was able to find documentation, that these marks corresponded to wounds inflicted on the previous body which led to its death.

    This is only one of many ways that a being can be born with something because of past life experiences. The sooner we can get used to the fact that this is really the way life works, the better off everyone will be!

  • Yes, people still talk about Maslow. Psychologists who are still interested in therapies that work use his ideas, I am sure. But the medical portion of the mental health system only looks at the “basic” needs, and ignores the rest. In fact, society in general is getting pretty good at that. Maslow’s hierarchy is great, but no one ever got the community to really believe in it or apply it. Maslow’s thinking, however, wasn’t totally correct. I have known of beings who concentrated on the highest need while neglecting the lower ones. They are sometimes known as “saints.” But I think we could safely say that to the extent that ALL the needs are being actively worked on, the person will feel the most alive. Cut off the higher needs and a being will feel spiritually dead.

  • Paula, I know I operate from a significantly different paradigm, but I am informed by considerable group experience. The sociopath is quite good and convincing himself that he is “helping” even as he goes about systematically ruining someone else’s life, or convincing some “colleague” that they should. These personalities are a real piece of work, and VERY dangerous people to be around. I have a hard time convincing others of this, but it’s the truth.

    The diagnosis step is a valid step in the resolution of any problem. I used it all the time in my electronics repair work. If the diagnosis is based on a real understanding of the situation, and it is given with the intention to actually resolve the situation, and the technology exists to resolve that situation, then diagnosis is needful and useful.

    I’m saying that it doesn’t work in mental health because the thought leaders in mental health are criminals. That might be an unpalatable message to some, but if the thought leaders in mental health were good people, then mental health patients wouldn’t get sick and die, or never see their condition resolve. If you don’t address intent, you will never get there! I’m not talking about the average practitioner who really doesn’t know his subject that well, but prefers to follow “best practices.” I am talking about the people who decide what the “best practices” are going to be. To the extent that those practices hinge on assigning people labels from the DSM, then yes, diagnosis becomes a huge problem. But if the field were sane, I don’t think it would be.

  • You call your list successes?

    They probably all could have been achieved, maybe even easier and with better social results, with a less materialistic approach. Denying the validity of strict positivism does not deny the validity of physical experience or the role it plays in problem solving.

    Note also, all your listed successes were engineering successes and not really theory or cognitive successes. It’s OK for engineers to be positive; they’re just engineers. We expect more from people who call themselves scientists.

  • I would like to see Iva’s thinking on this simplify a bit.

    Though I have never seen the term “positivism” used this way, for me it is not much different than saying “materialism” or some other way of describing the “modern” approach to scientific knowledge, and to knowledge and cultural norms in general.

    Though this approach has provided “air cover” you might say for modern psychology (and psychiatry), it hits these fields especially hard because it leads to (or justifies) totally unworkable solutions to the problem these two subjects study.

    You can totally objectify a person or an animal for the purpose of medicine or husbandry and still get somewhere. But not a human for the purpose of therapy. Just don’t work!

    This has led the critics of traditional psychologies off into the realm of “context.” While this has some relevance to the problem, it ignores more basic and underlying assumptions that are not only unworkable but really wrong.

    That the mind and personality reside in the brain, for instance, is totally incorrect. There is observable evidence that disproves this. So, no matter how much you work with “context” and “power relationships” and so forth, if you get that basic wrong, it won’t make that big a difference. You’ll still come up with unworkable answers.

    What Critical Theory exposes in these subjects in particular, as well as many others, are their fundamental insincerity and lack of humanity. It was fun finding out about nuclear fission, but did we really need to blow up two Japanese cities in the process? But Critical Theory makes no inroads on basic problems of workability. So I find it also a bit insincere. It is after all, an academic subject.

    When I look out on this world, and especially at the level of the academy and policy making, I see a world in desperate need of plain and simple thinking. The workable answers really aren’t that hard to find, if you sincerely want to find them. Do we?

  • I wanted to leave a supportive comment for this article.
    My first attempt was too emotional.

    I recently entered into a “friendship” with a Millennial who had been a patient in the mental health system when she was younger and has continued to work closely with it even though she disliked many aspects of her own experiences with it. She sees no alternative to understanding one’s inner life other than that offered by psychology. I offered her an alternative, but she has not been persuaded to take me up on my offer.

    Her ideas and experiences of “friendship” have definitely been shaped by the “expertization” of ordinary human life. You can find authoritative articles on the internet about anything from the best ways to brew coffee to the best ways to make love. She would show me the online advice she used in her job as a social worker, and would give me recipes for “healthy desserts” and urge me to try them out and see if I liked them. Her idea of a friend was someone you could chat with all night on your phone using text messages, perhaps while doing this with several others at the same time, from the safety of your bed. I had real conversations with her, but these seemed stressful to her, even though she would put up a good show of enjoying them (only because I did?). She had, it seemed to me, almost lost the skill to look another being in the face and give them a piece of her mind, or let them give her a piece of their mind.

    Our futures, as envisioned by those who are currently working hard to get us to agree to their plans and ideas, are futures of emotional fragility, lack of courage, and docility. Though some may have “studies” that support the need for this type of human population, their actual reason for wanting this is simply that they are extremely afraid of us. All out of proportion, really, to what we would do if we knew what worthless scumbags they really were. My friend gives her spare food to homeless people. She has a big heart. She would probably treat the real criminals of this world about the same. But they are hoping to make her, and all of us, just as scared of each other as they are. We need to realize that this is all they are really doing. There is no other “power agenda” behind this urge, really. They are very lost souls who have managed to ascend to positions of authority on this planet. They can complete their work if they can just get all of us to “believe the experts.” They never will be able to. But meanwhile, our society goes down the drain. And I have problems creating a simple, quiet friendship with a perfectly sweet and precious human being.

    This all just gives me more reason to work to take down the current system, particularly in the area of mental health, as they so clearly are NOT experts in it! But many of us, particularly the younger ones, are very sold on this system. There is a huge job of “unselling” to do if we want to save ourselves from this “progressive” vision.

    I am 66. I could die in 20 years. By that time, her boys could be ready to be fathers. And I could be one of their children! So, what sort of world do I want to be born back into? What sort of beings do I want my future father and mother to be? That’s why I fight for a better understanding of human experience, and a total clean-up in the field of mental health.

    Why do you fight for it?

  • I think you focus too much on the diagnosis step. It is a step in the ritual of harm that precedes harm. If it did not precede harm it would just be a step in a ritual. When the intent is to harm, and society presses for a justification for that harm, doctors can point to the diagnosis. That lessens the harm in their minds and in the minds of those who believe in them.

    But if there were no intent to harm, and diagnosis was not followed by harm, then no one would worry that much about the diagnosis. Just a formality for insurance billing purposes. And if there were no harm done, that’s all it would be!

    So I think the problem to focus on is the intent to harm. Not many find this easy to stomach because that means you have to find the antisocial personalities in the crowd, and that begins to look like a witch hunt to a lot of people (particularly the anti-social personalities!). But if it is done well, and without intent to harm the ASPs (beyond suspending their right to practice medicine), then lasting benefit would be derived.

    Look at this nation today. The founders set up the best “system” they could think of, and yet it is being defeated today. Why? Because it did not take into account that some people live with an intent to harm others. If we do not face this fact of life, all our efforts will eventually become null and void.

  • Thank you for mentioning CCHR.
    For years I thought this was the only group doing anything about this problem.
    I wish we could have a place to discuss the resources it provides more openly.
    I feel the group that supports it (my church) has been demonized beyond all reasonable bounds.

  • You understand that there is a current “law” about how much you will get paid. This is the “law” of free markets. A lot of people swear by this and say it is the best a human society can do. Maybe. Of course, there are other factors at work that distort or evade this “law.”

    The idea is that we all offer ourselves on the “labor market” and employers make offers according to supply and demand.

    I’ve never been comfortable with reducing people to a commodity like oil or cow carcasses or something like that. As people, it seems we should treat ourselves with a little more compassion than that. The “logic” of the business world seems to be preventing these more humane urges from rising to the top.

    But I’m not ready to blame industrialization, or corporate structures, or capitalism or anything like that for the mess we are in today. There were a LOT of people just being too complacent, and willing to tolerate human suffering right in front of their eyes without doing anything effective about it. That is the world we live in. But that nastiness, the tendency to withhold our compassion, I believe is driven my the criminals on this planet. So my suggestion is to concentrate on getting that whole problem under control. I firmly believe that things will work out better if we can get crime under better control in our society. And I mean criminal insanity, the real cause of real crime, not some desperate guy holding up a 7/11 because he’s addicted to cocaine.

  • Yes, poverty is a huge stressor. The Malthusians (or whatever you want to call them) preached that poverty was a motivator. I believe that has been thoroughly disproved.

    A sane society would establish institutions to insure that everyone was as happy and productive as they possibly could be. An insane society doesn’t care.

    Many have the idea that you can force a society to act more sane. I don’t think that’s ever been demonstrated. You can set up guidelines that help (like the founding documents in the U.S.) but that’s never enough where criminal insanity persists.

    We should be working very hard to improve society. It is done through mental and spiritual work. There is no other way that I know of. No legal structure or political mechanism has ever achieved this. We will recognize that we are spirits and that we can help each other to heal, or we can skip it and keep living the way we do now, or worse. We have a choice on this planet. That’s something new, and it’s also something that might not last forever. That’s my message.

  • Whose going to determine the “actual value” of their work? A technocrat?
    Where I used to work, everyone got paid the same. Executives and clerks. Rewards for taking on more responsibility or doing very well on one’s job were either given as bonuses or in some other form of recognition. Management recognized that everyone had basically the same living expenses, so why pay some a lot more just because they had a lot more training or whatever? Well, this worked for an enlightened group, and it would probably work more broadly. But for the whole group to decide it should work that way is a lot different than rigging up some sort of system to force people to agree on something they really think is wrong.

    Does society really need millionaires? Maybe not. It doesn’t really need poor people, either. But to say being rich is illegal the way we now say being poor is illegal I don’t think will get us where we really want to go.

    This is a website about mental health, for goodness sake. And how people live together has something to do with their mental and spiritual states, which could almost certainly be improved. Imposing “equity” on a society that can’t agree to it results in something like the old Soviet Union. Or maybe modern China. Do we really want that result?

  • Because it is. “Wage equity” is the criminal’s code phrase for stealing.
    Paid employment is not the only valid kind of work, but money is the only valid medium for survival for most people. If you don’t live in a society where money is required to survive, that doesn’t mean that no one has to work…unless you are living in a spirit world that doesn’t rely on biology.

    The highly disproportional incomes we often see for work these days do not justify stealing and government handouts. They do point to a broken system. We are facing, currently, a lot of broken systems. But let us not choose “solutions” that only further undermine basic human rights. Basic human rights are not respected because we give too many criminals too much control. That’s my thesis and that’s what I think needs to be fixed. If you use criminal means to handle criminality, that doesn’t result in less criminality, does it?

  • To me this conversation illustrates the struggle that younger generations are going through in discovering that yet another round of technological innovations has not resulted in a fairer or more livable society. If anything, the opposite.

    In the case of academia this struggle has tended to produce a generation of young thinkers whose vocabulary and conceptualizations have become so complex and obtuse that they can talk together for an hour (say) without really saying anything substantively important beyond making the more or less obvious point that things are fucked up.

    In the case of non-academia, this struggle has tended to produce a generation of young thinkers who extol earlier beliefs and values as more familiar and workable, and simpler, than what is being proposed as “new” or “progressive” through the academic process.

    And these two groups end up at each other’s throats, as they each see the other’s approaches as extremely dangerous.

    In the case of psychology, the most obvious thing that is missing for me is that the “new” generation of psychologists/students has blindly, or without inspection, taken the most basic assumptions of the older generations to be at once both given and unimportant. In other words, they seem to be making no attempt to look at the thing that psychology is supposed to study (the psyche) and to see if the problems with the subject might lie in false assumptions made about that thing.

    I did not suspect or realize that people studying psychology were not getting a well-rounded education in the other humanities. This is unconscionable and certainly part of the problem with psychology, and with those other subjects. There is a reason they are called the “humanities,” after all!

    Bringing up the whole problem of “neoliberalism” in Western culture is important, but will get us absolutely nowhere without better basic understandings about life. This even gets into questions that some are trying to answer through physics (of all things). What is consciousness, and so forth.

    The basic problem I see with Critical Theory is that all it has done is give people a new vocabulary of criticism without any more workable understandings about life. As a result, it is only contributing to the disintegration of civilization on this planet, making life even more untenable than it already was. As such, I see it aligned best with the goals and purposes of people who want that result on this planet. Others may have other names for them. I call them “criminals.”

  • What are we doing with an economy full of bad jobs? If this place were a little saner, employers would care more about the quality of the jobs they offered to people. But people can’t wait to choose a better job if they need income now.

    Stealing from some people in order to keep others unemployed because they can’t find a “good” job only works if there are a lot more jobs than people seeking work or if you think that the people working are somehow morally deficient and thus need to be stolen from in order to provide charity for choosy job seekers.

    I’m sorry if this sounds a little “harsh.” But we are living in biological bodies on planet earth! I’m sure there are a lot of people out there who wish this weren’t so, but it’s a basic fact that tends to prevent life from being fun and rewarding all the time. A saner planet, however, would be a happier planet. We are here to attest that the “mental health system” is not achieving that. In fact, it would probably be more easy to achieve if said system were totally nonexistent.

  • I hope this work gets interpreted correctly.

    While it clearly demonstrates the benefits of at least one kind of therapeutic intervention to be zero, it does not explore the full range of different ways to alleviate what was evidently bothering these people the most – living in poverty.

    While the financial pressures associated with poverty can be relieved through government payments, the emotional and economic pressures associated with poverty cannot be. Thus, we don’t know from this study if providing a person with a reasonably secure and well-paying job would be even more emotionally beneficial that simply being paid not to work. It would certainly be more economically beneficial, as every job in theory translates to production in economic terms, while charity payments translate only to consumption, or expense.

    Also, while the emotional effects of reliance on government charity (or any form of charity) have not been much investigated as far as I know, there is voluminous argument that being actually employed is more psychologically beneficial than simply getting paid as if you were employed.

  • It is good to see this is still an issue in this community!

    My group submitted a bill to the California legislature that would have made the use of ECT a felony crime, but it died with the arrival of COVID.

    I tried to get data on usage rates or outcomes and could not find it using normal channels, though the online space is full (if not actually congested) with similar reports from various California agencies. Most of the reports seem to be concerned with money flows. Typical.

  • Of course, I think this is a regrettable and incorrect viewpoint. For better or worse, I have no idea what the problem is, other than the fact that organized psychiatry doesn’t like my church and the feeling being mutual. For me, if you stand against my church you stand for psychiatry. To me, that logic makes more sense.

  • For me the telling thing about this work is that these are elite white males indulging is this form of “preparedness.”

    These guys don’t know what’s actually going to happen on this planet, but this gives you some idea what people in this echelon of society are being told is going to happen on this planet. In a couple words, they appear to be scared shitless. And that’s just where their overlords want them.

    This is the “warrior” solution to a bad future scenario. It is very materialistic. You dig in, you tough it out, and you literally fight to defend your position. In the past this has to some degree worked. After all, we ARE living in a material world. If you can come out on top materially, you might survive. This is the “religion” of an entire culture. It is associated with Western White Males, but others have been drawn into it. There is a certain logic to it. It is implicit in our modern hero stories, even in our stories of female heroes.

    It, of course, leaves out the Spiritual (except in a kind of offhand way), the other important aspect of life. So we are left with an elite of spiritual cripples who can see no alternative BUT to dig in and fight if things get bad. No other more creative alternatives offered or entertained. Yet that is where our survival lies. If we can come up with some creative alternatives that combine obvious spiritual facts of life with obvious material facts of life, we might have a small chance of making it through all this with an intact planet and a reasonably free population living on it.

  • My impression of the source piece is of intellectual sponginess. Foucault was known for this, too. I see Foucault as one in a long line of intellectuals who hoped to use their theories to normalize their sub-optimum behaviors while categorizing more and more normal behaviors as illnesses.

    To ignore the fact that mental illness has become big business, in the same way that physical illness has, is to ignore one of the most obvious situations in society today. Some marginal group dreams up some problems and sells them, and their “solutions” to the public as real – using “experts” or whatever – in the hopes of making some money or driving some peole crazy.

    Then to point (quite conveniently it seems to me) to Climate Change while barely mentioning the slow creep into our lives of criminal operations like war, drug pushing, human trafficking, the widening wealth gap, and many other less overt but just as morally questionable practices is at best horrendously shallow. The biggest driver of mental and emotional stress are the pressures brought to bear on us by the criminally insane. To ignore this obvious fact at this point in history is to practically confess that you are being part of that problem.

    From what I have seen, we are going through a period when no one in the academic community who actually has something intelligent to say will be able to get published. We are expected to take drivel like this paper seriously. Sooner or later this will have to come to an end!

  • You gotta realize, though, that psychiatry reacts the way it does to Hubbard’s work because it poses a real threat to them. It demystifies the mind and mental phenomena for the masses and promises to teach anyone who wants to learn how to be a counselor. No more medical school or college degrees needed to help your fellow man! What he did could destroy all their plans.

  • My definitions are per Webster’s New World, 2nd Ed., 1984. Dictionaries vary. The “soul” is sometimes thought of as the spirit-mind complex.

    Most psychologists believe in mind=brain in spite of what psyche means.

    Hubbard also proposed a unifying model. Jung, I am told, was interested in Spirit, but afraid to go there for reasons of his professional status. Failure to address Spirit and Spiritual memory has been the downfall of psychology. It is key to understanding the human experience.

  • I see all this as a form of elaborate avoidance of the true issues.

    The truth is that most medical doctors don’t know what a mind is, and would prefer not to. Yet they want to retain their eminence in the field of “mental health” regardless of their failures at “reducing suicide, reducing hospitalizations, improving recovery for the tens of millions of people who have mental illness.”

    This is because – and it is obvious to me just from the language used – you can’t get a mental result by simply treating the body. Medicine should walk away from this subject. They can’t make themselves do it because they are addicted to the high profits they can steal from us by pretending to know what to do about something they are actually totally ignorant about. The gullibility of the public in this regard, by the way, is truly stunning!

    Can we, as observers of this scene, refuse to give these sorts of debates our energy and attention? They are deeply meaningless and fail to address any concerns outside of the profession. It does nothing to change the fact that these are charlatans, fakers, criminals.

  • To me, a “depression” was always a low-pressure air mass in the middle of a mass of higher-pressure air. What it means psychologically I never totally figured out. But it seems sort of over-general to me.

    Popularly, it is associated with sadness. But psychologically it is associated with hopelessness (apathy). These are two very different moods! If you are merely sad, you are probably considering some loss you suffered. If you are apathetic, you are on the verge of suicide.

    Sadness happens to people all the time and is considered a normal reaction to loss. Long-lasting apathy is more rare and seems to be a reaction that psychology is very mystified about. What are they so confused about?

    It doesn’t help that psychology denies the importance of past lives in human reaction and therefore cannot conceive of the possibility that an apathy reaction might be connected with a past death. It also doesn’t help that psychology ignores the role that sociopaths play in causing apathy reactions in the people around them. A “cure” for depression can be as simple as disconnecting from a nearby sociopath! With these understandings missing, I very much doubt that psychology will ever get depression right. I don’t think they really have the courage, surrounded as most of them are by sociopaths!

  • Your outline of possible strategies for dealing with this crisis seems quite similar to the approaches CCHR (the organization I am affiliated with) is taking in its work. We must appreciate that a dedicated effort to dislodge these criminals from the social position they currently enjoy requires people, money and organizing.

    Yet Mad In America, or at least many of its followers, is unhappy with CCHR and the group that funds it. And who do you think is stoking the fires of that conflict? The criminals, of course!

    What you find if you look behind CCHR, probably the best funded and most effective anti-psychiatry organization on the planet currently, are actual technologies that inform and enable their work. We don’t make a big deal of all that; we want to appeal to a wide audience. But anyone who is serious about the details of the replace psychiatry process should get informed about this.

    The police-psychiatry connection is quite valid. If you are a CCHR “insider” you know why! For one thing, both groups DO NOT have an effective technology for handling the problems they are tasked with handling (criminality and mental health) and so have gone into apathy about these problems. That makes it easy for criminals to take over and introduce positively destructive “solutions.” And that is what they have done. For crime, the “solution” of punishment has been the one of choice for hundreds of years. It doesn’t work! That same “solution” came to the field of mental health more recently (on this planet, anyway). The old sanitariums were moderately successful. But their failures eventually wore them down, and now psych hospitals and prisons look quite similar inside.

    What CCHR has up its sleeve is better technologies. The group itself does not tout these; that’s not its purpose. But they ARE there! That’s one reason we are so determined to keep fighting, even as the power of the psych-pharma machine seems to be growing. What I would consider a real breakthrough for a site like this (it could be considered the intellectual arm of the movement) would be to open up to those suppressed technologies and begin to discuss them as the real possibilities that they are.

  • “Nobody knows yet why the brain reacts in this fashion…” is an untruth. That’s what they want you to think, to keep you in their hospitals and clinics, and keep the insurance money flowing in! But it’s true that it would be unwise to just cancel the whole concept of hospitals for the challenged. They are necessary. It’s just that the ones who currently run them are sold on a story that gives patients all the losses. They think they can’t really help, so they have given up on helping.

    “Nobody knows” is a lie. Some do know. But knowing would spoil the games that the liars have so carefully put together to hide the fact that they don’t really want to help anyone.

    “…why the brain reacts …” is a lie because we are not actually talking about brains. We are talking about a mind (not a brain) controlled by a being (not a brain). The reason educative therapies are helpful is because they validate that a being IS there who can learn and use what he has learned to improve his condition.

    Any therapy that validates Spirit is more workable than one that doesn’t. This doesn’t mean that we need to dispose of “mental hospitals.” It just means we need to take them back from the criminals who are currently running most of them and return control of them to decent people who really want to help.

  • For most issues that people run into in life, education (of a non-coercive type) would be the first step to an effective handling.

    Even the better therapies I’ve run into are education-based.

    Right now we still have the problem that “humanistic psychology” is an oxymoron for most people. Self-contradicting!

    I believe this will continue until psychology adopts a more realistic and workable model for human life, and then fixes itself based on that model. Only after that would I, perhaps, give it my “permission” to try to go out and fix the world. Currently it is still trying to reduce us all to animals, to complex biochemical machines. That is not human life! That is not even animal life! Until psychology realizes this and corrects itself, I do not trust it to be my friend.

  • Well, I am underwhelmed with the level of intellectual insight brought to this problem by these researchers.

    I have recently reviewed some data about this in my materials.

    Extraordinary baseline levels of stress in a group is one important factor. This can be brought on by a sudden tragic event but is more likely to occur where a group or a culture is under constant and unrelenting excess stress. In the U.S. for instance we have the mainstream media. It supplies those who choose to tune in with a constant barrage of alarming news, including these days large doses of outright untruth. In another culture it might be a chronic nutritional challenge, environmental pollution, economic hardship, or something else like that.

    The next factor is hypnotic level. I would see this as simply reactivity, but I am not an expert. Something will happen, and one person will go “over the edge” so to speak and react first. Then others will follow in a kind of chain reaction, just copying the first one.

    There is some small suggestion here that reacting and “getting it our of your system” might be therapeutic. The study seemed to make a point that these episodes should not be seen as pathology and, we assume, do not lead to pathology.

    My materials liken it to being exposed to ionizing radiation. You don’t notice it for some time, until you reach some sort of reactive threshold, then suddenly you get very sick. The solution of course is to eliminate the stressor. I don’t know what that would be in Nepal. Here is the U.S. this would probably translate to: Turn off the news!

  • Yes, another fine story from you, Ekaterina.

    I am reminded of something my teacher said – probably more than once. That the truly insane often target the most alive people in their environment (including children) and try to get rid of them by driving them crazy and then getting them locked up.

    Alive, wonderful and creative people (and now I have recently learned a special category – highly sensitive people) drive sociopaths up the wall and they will go to extreme measures sometimes to destroy that aliveness. It is a major tragedy of this age that some have spotted this truly evil little habit that the insane have, yet the majority refuse to recognize it and continue to lock up the wrong people.

    In my recent experience I have become closer than I usually get to a woman – and through her other relations – who came close to have this happen to her. If it weren’t for “outpatient care” along with many doctors who really aren’t that sold on what the really crazy psychiatrists want to accomplish in society (make it a safe place for the criminally insane!) that woman and probably others close to her could be locked up somewhere right now, condemned for weeks, months or years, if not for life, when they could be sharing their beautiful aliveness with the world and making it a more loving place! It is not a tragedy to be taken lightly!

  • You could say it’s sort of a two-tiered system. The criminally insane give the marginally sane drugs to make them act insane so they can point to “them” as the problem. But this does not justify the use of psych drugs. They are harmful in most cases, and do nothing that couldn’t be handled better with a non-drug intervention.

  • What answers have you found to your two questions?

    What led me to some answers was a different question: Why must we all, including children, live with almost constant violence?
    The answer I got was: Because insanity causes violence and too many of us are insane.
    Then, what causes insanity?
    The answer I got: It’s one way a being has of giving up, of hoping to avoid further attack.
    Then we must find ways to encourage a being not to give up, in spite of everything?
    The answer I got: Yes!
    What is reality? Our collective agreement of how things should be, of what the shared playing field should look like. You mean WE created this reality? Yes!

  • I would not see what you are suggesting as a “vacation!”
    But in the presence of criminals, it is very advisable to disconnect from them as much as possible.
    Otherwise, any gain you make will prompt them to stomp down on you that much harder.
    While you are “away” I hope you’ll read some really enlightening books and then pop back in now and then to tell us what they said.

  • My initial reaction is: So many different drugs!

    I thank my good sense and good luck that I stayed away from all that medical nonsense.

    On top of this, the average practitioner is so poorly trained and likely themselves totally uncertain of what to do in most situations, that the “care environment” looks much worse than a clown act.

    I can only continue to promote the datum that I believe can lead us out of all this: We are spiritual beings. From this one datum can come a foundation of basic human compassion, a studied distrust of ANY drug outside of emergency situations, and a route forward towards greater understanding of the human condition.

  • If what you hope to “fix” is already perfect, then nothing will “work.”
    If a car has a flat tire, no amount of attention paid to its engine will “work.”
    If a computer program, has a bug in it, no amount of yelling into your computer screen will “work.”

    But if a being, as perfect as it is, want to get better at something, it can.
    If you fix what is actually wrong with a car, it actually will run better.
    If you locate and correct the program bug and reload it, the errors caused by that bug will disappear.

    I hear despair here. It is understandable but it need not be your highest understanding of the truth. There are interventions that “work.” To my knowledge, psychiatry does not practice any of them. Psychiatry doesn’t work. That doesn’t mean that all is lost.

  • I can see that you have thought about this, and it’s helpful I think to point out that there are aspects of the “anti-work” argument that are appealing.

    If you have gone through anything like what I went through in the process of discovering how much agony and suffering exists in the world, then I am sure you have spent plenty of time wondering how we can ever manage to make things better.

    Work, though, is a very basic part of life. Of course there is the question of how much one earns from work, but if anything it is more obvious with people who “work for nothing” that on the one hand the desire to survive compels us to work, while also the desire to contribute impels us to work. Those who don’t feel both of those desires keenly are probably anywhere from a “little off” to downright criminal. But how did we get to a place where some people love to work and seem to find meaningful things to do almost by magic, while others can barely stand it (I’ve seen survey reports indicating about 1/2 of the workforce worldwide are unhappy with what they are doing) and still others refuse to work and would rather “work to steal” than to make money by honest means? The answer to that comes from a study of life, not just of psychology or economics.

    What I am convinced of is that conditions can be improved. But those improvements rely on at least some of the population taking a “quantum leap” in their understanding of life, and then being willing to take leadership positions in the world and work hard to improve things. Even in a tribal village, leadership has something to say about how the work that needs to get done is portioned out among the villagers. And I have never lived in a place where dust did not fall out of the air and onto surfaces which then needed to be dusted off. In a “traditional” culture, they hire a cleaner whose sole job is to dust off things. Well, many people would find that a bit tedious. In my group, we have an Estates Manager whose job it is to train the staff on how to keep their own spaces clean, makes sure they have the supplies needed to do so, and makes sure they spend a bit of time on it each day so the appearance of things is kept up. It took a conscious decision from leadership to organize routine cleaning in the building that way, rather than hire a bunch of janitors. So sane and inspired leadership could have a lot to do with how employees experience work, as well as how much they earn and so on.

    The whole question of what portion of human activity is really necessary and ethical versus how much is frivolous, wasteful, or even criminal goes way beyond the subject of work itself. Again, in a society like ours, the onus is on the managers to be wise enough and sane enough and creative enough to make better choices about how they run their businesses and organize their people. Ultimately, it will take a world where everyone is knowledgeable enough to make wise decisions that protect civilization from sliding back into a more sloppy way of living. There is no doubt that we have indulged in a lot of sloppiness in recent times, and that various pressures only seem to make it worse.

    But to target work as the problem is extremely misguided! That this website has existed as long as it has is an indicator that, in spite of ourselves, human sanity is a very real problem. Psychiatry has not solved it and does not seem to be on any road that will lead to a solution. Others think they have solved it, yet are shouted down as “cultists” or whatever. I seek to keep the basics of what we are discussing here – human life – in plain view and being discussed. I think that bringing it all out of the brain and letting Spirit take its rightful role makes for a much more interesting and fruitful discussion.

  • I’m sorry for getting a little over-combative, but these days I am more easily dismayed that I used to be.

    What is life on Earth for? To sit around and be entertained by robots? This has to do with whether we stand up and decide to determine for ourselves what is worth doing and how we want to care for each other, or let some – who? – slavemaster? – decide it all for us. Just because it is quite possible to overwhelm people and make them feel like they have no control over their lives is no reason to accept this as our ultimate fate. After all, we can be free. There is more to living that toiling under the yoke of biology. But if we can’t confront and handle the challenges of operating as biological creatures, we will never have a chance to rise above that level and recover our spiritual abilities to the point where “work” is fun for everyone.

    I know things have gotten really rough, and have been for a long time. But many of us are here because we couldn’t stand to live under post-industrial slavery. Why give in now to the seduction of “no work” when we are so close to figuring out, finally, how to do it better?

  • This is dangerous thinking. “Work” is a bad word for something that is at the very center of human life! The wiser ones among us love their “jobs” and don’t consider what they do “work.” And though I’m retired, if I didn’t have a purpose in life and some activity available to help me achieve it, I’d be very close to dead. Sure, we don’t really need factories making a new model of smartphone very six months, and manned by people who feel like slaves. But for godsakes, everyone needs something to do to contribute to the game of living! And to tell people that work is bad and that they should not desire to work or “have a job” is a criminal thing to do and worthy of extreme condemnation.

  • It is difficult for most of us to comprehend how spiritually impaired some of these “mental health” practitioners really are. It so bad that it seems impossible to us, like Hitler was impossible. Our inability to fathom their depravity is partly what protects them.

  • Bradford, where did you get the data that Hubbard had bad experiences with psychiatrists during the war?

    He was working with psychiatrists after the war, and teaching them to deliver Dianetics to their patients until their leadership pulled the plug and decided Hubbard was a bad guy. Then all psychiatrists had to toe the line and reject Hubbard, or else.

    In the 1960s Hubbard started looking into how psychiatry was related to other power groups which were “legitimate” but had turned criminal. He helped set up CCHR based on those findings, and also wrote a set of articles on the subject around 1969. The reasons for working against psychiatry go much deeper than the above discussion, but I never heard of any “bad experiences” during the war!

  • What a lovely personal message to us all!
    I have been accused of being a Scientologist, too, by the way! Ha ha!
    In that study is one answer to your question. Lots of answers to lots of questions, actually.

    There are beings on Earth who are jealous of others knowing the truth. Did you know that?
    They live, or so they fancy, by pretending that they know the truth. What an unfortunate trap for them.

    I am currently in a friendship with a girl who was once accused (oh, sorry, uh – diagnosed) of having “borderline personality disorder” whatever that is. She has been one of the dearest friends I have ever known. I guess certain people see being friendly as crazy! Again, they are only caught in their own trap.

    Shine on, Ekaterina (my grandmother’s name, too)! Goodness knows this planet needs your light right now.

  • I recently read an article “The Flight From Conversation” which originally appeared in the New York Times opinion section in 2012, but was reposted by a younger person interested in the topic. Written by Sherry Turkle, a psychologist roughly my age, it cites no specific research, yet we can assume her findings are based on research.

    What strikes me about these calls for “more research needed” is the sort of innocent naivete that they project. Don’t these people know that the rise towards dominance of “social media” was based on research? That it is a system designed to have certain psychological effects on the people who use it, the peoples of Earth?

    The research has been done! The decisions have been made! And we are in the midst of one of the most extensive tests of this system since in was put in place: Can you get an entire planet to fear something they can’t even see or touch? By a rough estimate, it has proved at least 50% “effective.”

    Are we, who watched psychiatry put it’s piece of this system into place starting many many years ago, not yet ready to conclude that this was all planned out – no matter how carelessly?

    In the mid 1800s, in response to a flood of translations into European languages of texts originally written in Sanskrit, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, or one of the Persian languages, the West turned its eyes towards the possibility that they had allowed their “Captains of Industry” to boldly expand without taking into account certain basics of life that might have informed a more balanced approach. This had as one of its effects the Abolishionist Movement, which sought to abolish slavery.

    These ideas, though, once spotted, were severely suppressed by “modern” psychology and its various allies in politics and culture. And then they were pounded solidly into the ground with two World Wars and the violent introduction of the next great path to world salvation: Dialectic Materialism.

    We live today in a world shaped in part by this conflict, a conflict that could be described a nearly eternal. And even though we know today that the “spiritual” thinkers of 150 years ago were walking on quite solid ground, we are also painfully aware that the materialists won the higher political ground, and have successfully retained it almost uniformly across the entire planet. Thus, now even if some of us are convinced of the importance of spiritual ideas, we are somewhat reluctant to bring them up, as the opposition has attained (through systems with Orwellian names like “mental health” and “critical theory”) the power to punish us for such beliefs.

    Social media, then, is only their latest attempt to divert Spirit from recognizing the truth of its own existence by giving it “entertaining” things to do that it will find (they hope) irresistible. And they seem to be, by most accounts, quite successful at this.

  • This is a sweet letter. I call it a “letter” because it makes me think of a message in a bottle.

    Yet it is not clear that Lisa is really asking for help (or advice) here. To me it seems more like an invitation to understand her and to forgive her. She cannot bring herself to be radically anti-meds. They have helped her too much, it seems.

    But, read between the lines, we see here another condemnation of psychiatry and its effeteness. She couldn’t even find a doctor who would suggest something for her to read, or was willing to just sit down and get to know her a bit. How shameful! The first thing my therapist did was suggest I read a book (one of her favorites, I can only suppose).

    I travel somewhat widely around the web. I have met people who just want to sell me the latest cool audio gear, engineers who seemed consumed by the problem (not really, I hope) of reducing the current draw of their designs to increase battery life, UFO nuts, and remote viewers. They all have things they are searching for, goals for themselves, or their families or the planet. They would all be assisted by a better understanding of the fundamentals of life. And yet almost all of them don’t really believe such an understanding is possible. Some are quite sure it is not. Some accuse me of being something unspeakable just for suggesting this might be possible or desirable.

    Too bad.

  • This article (although here it is being covered by a researcher who read it) is typical of what I have been seeing coming from people who are involved in these professions but are also trying to take them in new directions.

    It is confused. On the one hand, they want to believe that the basic assumptions of the subject they have devoted their lives to are sound. And on the other hand, they see that when confronted with a real life challenge, professionals in the field (at least academic professionals) act like helpless children.

    Their awareness has come up to the point where they realize something is wrong, but not up to the point where they really know what it is or what to do about it.

    Amazingly, it has been my experience with academics from all manner of disciplines, that most of them choose to live in an information bubble. I wish this topic were more explored on this website. I can’t really speak for them. I can’t explain why a being supposedly attracted to the academic world by the lure of expanded awareness of life and thought would end up putting self-imposed limits on that awareness.

    I make a point to seek out those rare ones who are less inclined to limit themselves, and I find them very rare indeed.

    Kwanzaa is mentioned. I had to look it up, thinking it was some sort of ancient African tradition that I had overlooked, like Vodun. It isn’t. Kwanzaa is a modern (1966) American re-interpretation of African tradition. It is a secularized version, tinged throughout by the nuances of Critical Theory, a cognitive construct created (ironically?) by mostly white European psychologists and sociologists who sought to somehow bring the ideas of political thinkers like Marx into other areas of the humanities. The whole construct has proven to be highly problematic. I would not take it seriously, but many academics take it very seriously.

    I suppose there is a kind of arrogance in thinking I know better than these people. “We each have to find our own way,” right? I am concerned, though, that our time to accomplish that is running out.

  • Why is it that I question this narrative of “well, the pandemic forced us to move in this direction…” ?

    I must admit I am somewhat in shock on several fronts as a clear assault on common sense continues to move forward, led (as expected and predicted) by Americans.

    I have now run into a sufficient number of individuals who seem to have totally lost their sense of self-determination over the last several months, if they ever had any such sense, that the true magnitude of the challenge we face is becoming more real to me.

    Shock causes a certain level of unconsciousness. And from there, hypnotic commands may be inserted, and will be obeyed, usually without question. We have seen this operation unfold in front of our eyes. Perhaps I should be simply bemused rather than mortified. But I am in fact totally mortified.

  • https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

    “Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.”

    Hey, I’m not saying they are “Marxist.” I hate the use of that term. But one of their organizers Patrisse Cullors is quoted in a TIME article of 26 Feb 2018:
    “Cullors weaves her intellectual influences into this narrative, from black feminist writers like Audre Lorde and bell hooks, to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong. Reading those social philosophers “provided a new understanding around what our economies could look like,” she says.”

    So, what’s the problem here? I’m not that concerned about this organization, particularly how they appear on paper. But they are advocating ideas that would require in this country a different legal framework than what we currently operate on. And they haven’t convinced most of us yet that this is the way to go.

    Much of the rest of the anti-BLM accusations are just third party stories to keep the pot stirred up.

    As I’ve stated above, my major beef with groups like this is that they have not broken through to the realization that there is something wrong with materialism. They think there is something wrong with “whites” or “neocolonialists” when this is in fact a spiritual malaise that affects most people.

    The problem here seems to be that oldhead sees Marxism as more “mature.” And I don’t. I see it as a political philosophy written for criminals by a criminal. Psychiatry thrived in “Marxist” Russia. I want to have nothing to do with it.

  • It is my understanding that neuroscience is not there, basically, to inform mental health theory, but rather to develop more devious ways to make obedient slaves out of good and sane people.

    If Yael is really interested in helping people, she needs to get out of neuroscience and start working on how to help spiritual beings play saner games.

  • This is a theory-heavy little write-up. The proof is in the pudding!

    We want basic knowledge and practices that will work in any culture with any type of human being.

    The first problem with the “current system” is that it starts with the evaluative and invalidating finding that “You are sick.” Is this part of the neocolonial capitalist racist system? I try to stay away from all that ideological garbage. Are you trying to help a person live a better life? Then having an “expert” attach a label to them is a really bad way to start.

    My big beef with BLM and the whole subject of critical theory is that an “identity” only lasts one lifetime. The personality lasts forever. It’s the same beef I have with psychiatry and psychology, too. If you ignore this basic fact, you’re going to get it wrong no matter how hard you try, unless your goal is something other than helping the person in front of you.

  • All these happy aphorisms are examples of high-level “laws” that can be applied in high-level situations. They are NOT appropriate in a situation where the person being “helped” is really hurting. Imagine if a doctor told his patient one of these things upon being told, “Doc, I broke my leg – ouch!”

    A person can learn to determine their own emotions. But this is Jedi-level ability. It takes a lot of practice and failures to make it up to that level.

    Fake it until you make it I’ve heard in the context of how you operate in a company, for example, while you’re still learning the ropes. It has some validity, especially in sales positions. It is not appropriate advice in therapy.

    You are responsible for your lived experiences. Totally. But you just don’t tell someone that and expect them to believe you! It can take a LOT of self-realization to just begin to see how this is so. It involves past life experiences and the whole nine yards. It has to do with spiritual practices, not mental ones.

    So, that’s how I see these things. I have seen so many examples of this that go way beyond the examples Megan has been discussing in her series. To me it is a sign of lack of professional-level skill in life to just go around spouting things like this, particularly to console or assist someone who is suffering.

  • This is an interesting article. I expected it to concentrate on the obviously overboard rights violations of the Australian system (at least Victoria’s) and perhaps delve into the criminal motivations that might lie behind it. But instead it spends most of its text in praise of the “social model” of care.

    Under current circumstances, the “social model” is probably more desirable. What you want (it seems to me) is a situation where no intervention or treatment will occur unless a person requests it. And additionally, a mechanism must exist to allow someone to pull out of treatment if he/she feels it is of no benefit. This, by the way, could also be called a “free market” model. Except that in most countries today, the taxpayers are expected to pick up the tab for any type of social service.

    But by ignoring the complicity of MDs – and those forces which helped to create the current level of power that we bestow on MDs – no real understanding of the situation, or a way out of it, is accomplished.

    The power structure can make almost any of these models “work” if the general population can be convinced, by various forms of persuasion and deception, to accept them. Even in the best case, the problem for the individual remains “how do I get something broken fixed?” And a power structure can take advantage of people simply by hiding the most workable technologies from them and promoting their own as “the best” in a way that makes them the only ones realistically available, even though they don’t work.

    The current trend is towards the criminalization of all unwanted activity. This has gone so overboard in recent times that it currently includes making it “illegal” to operate certain types of businesses that contribute to society and enable business people to feed their families without asking the taxpayers for help. This drives everyone towards dependency on government, and thus on those who finance government, for life itself.

    It seems to me that a viable way forward goes far beyond sorting out which “model” is the “best” and points in the direction of reigning in the power of MDs, and of criminals of all sorts, and learning how to reassert the supremacy of honesty and morality on this planet.

  • They are your opinion, oldhead, they are. “The mind.” It’s a noun and it stands for an object. It exists as a complex energy pattern around us. It is full of mechanisms. You don’t have to believe all this if you don’t want to. But this idea of the mind is workable. There are technologies based on it that work; both helpful and harmful technologies. You can leave all this business to someone else if you want. But I can’t.

  • This can get so heavy! I feel the need to “shake out” like we used to do before dance class. I just want to repeat that there is additional information out there about these issues that people are actually using successfully that almost no one on a venue like this has any idea about. I urge all involved to take a step back and look at the larger scene. Check your most basic assumptions about what is true and what isn’t. Maybe there is data out there suggesting your assumptions could be revised. I know this is sort of cryptic, but I think it needs to be. We can all slog on down the paths we have set out for ourselves or we can look up and realize there are others on other paths who maybe we should get into communication with.

  • Well, this is a point we disagree on. I believe “health” can be interpreted widely in ways that bypass or even totally leave out psychiatry. I don’t want to create a world in which, if someone comes along and tells me “I feel sick” my only answer is, “sorry, nothing I can do for you.” That doesn’t mean I should have the option of sending they guy to a psych.

  • I have a personal beef against “PTS” and “PTSD.” This acronym (or initialism) was already taken! It meant something else to me already, because in my training (which is mental health related) it stood for a different set of words. By “taking over” this expression, psychiatry entered a near-permanent confusion into the larger field of mental health (yes, the field does extend beyond the boundaries of psychology and psychiatry!).

    In my experience with the world of “common” English, many DSM expressions have become so ubiquitous (due partly to their constant usage in entertainment, including movies and TV shows) that many people use them without any regard at all to their clinical meanings, but simply as a shorthand way to describe various emotional responses. Similar to how someone might say “I have a cold” without any real concern about what actually caused their symptoms and without the feeling that it actually needed any medical handling. These expressions have been lost into the shared vocabulary of millions, as has “xerox” and “kleenex.” For most people, the use of DSM terminology may no longer imply to any great degree that they are speaking of an actual disease. Yet, as long as the formal connection between these terms and various medical interventions exists, the potential for misuse remains.

    Many DSM expressions connect with phenomena that are recognizable or “real.” That must be a part of what gives them power. Our task is to break that totally irresponsible link between the expressions and our ordinary concept of “illness.” My favorite strategy is to separate “mind” from “brain” at every opportunity. I realize that others may not be so certain of this distinction. But I believe that since it is a distinction that actually exists, it will eventually be the downfall of the “medical model.”

  • I feel the need to maintain a balance between providing references to back up my assertions and expecting others to “do their own homework.”

    For example, we ordinarily do not provide references to back up our comments about the failures of psychiatry, though such references are numerous and most can be found or at least reported on at this website.

    While that is not the case with broader medical-policy issues, such as this current pandemic and responses to it, I assume – perhaps erroneously – that these sites are known about or findable. I can list some below.

    Beyond that, my point is that these issues to some extent transcend the boundaries of science and public policy to more fundamental subjects like human rights and human consciousness. In some ways this current debate reflects a very old debate concerning the rights of the individual versus the interests of group survival, which goes far beyond the usual boundaries.

    Since I have “nothing better to do” these days, I have spent quite a bit of time trying to find trustworthy information about this new disease and how to treat it. I have searched far afield. I trust some data that others, perhaps, would not. But here are some sites that draw heavily on the experience of real doctors and other experts:

    https://covid19criticalcare.com/
    https://americasfrontlinedoctors.us/
    https://www.grassrootshealth.net/project/our-scientists/
    https://swprs.org/on-the-treatment-of-covid-19/

    This is far from an exhaustive list.

  • I think this line of discussion goes a bit beyond our usual boundaries. But perhaps it is important to at least touch those boundaries now and again.

    Here we explore how psychiatry has been abusing its status as a “medical science” to get dangerous drugs approved and administered to trusting “patients.” It has been doing this for about half a century now. The dangers, harm, and lack of effectiveness of these treatments has been copiously documented, if they were not realized from the beginning. Yet the wider profession of medicine has done little if anything to get psychiatry into line and walking down a more ethical path.

    What, then, does that say about the ethics level of the wider profession of medicine?

    Why should we trust “medical experts” (mostly academics or bureaucrats) over the testimony of practicing clinicians concerning the advisability and effectiveness of certain “treatments” for this pandemic? And over the opinions of other very knowledgeable and concerned citizens from all walks of life, for that matter?

    There is also a strong argument to be made that hundreds of thousands of deaths COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED by cancelling the lockdowns and mask mandates and de-demonizing hydroxychloroquine, zinc, vitamins C and D, hyperbaric oxygen, and the other therapies that have worked in practice to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients. To say nothing of the collateral damage being caused by the lockdowns themselves.

    It is EXPECTED that the “scientific model” can be used by different persons to achieve different conclusions. Science was never intended to be the final arbiter in public policy, at least not in a free society.

    Science is fine for informing a rational discussion. But it is misused, I think, when it forces us into irrational debates, or into making decisions that violate basic human rights, rights which are supposed to be granted by God, not by science. This discussion is about basic human rights, not just about the effectiveness of various theories or treatments.

    I hope this relieves the “deafening silence” to some degree.

  • God help us!
    Bottom line: Do as we say and you will “feel better.”
    No thanks, buddy.

    TMT is not a theory with particularly solid foundations, and seems to be used here mostly to remind us that we should be afraid of death and things that cause death, like this virus. These authors (THE TMT guys) want us to believe what we are told about the virus and go ahead and be scared.

    For me, what undermines their arguments the most is that they don’t know what death really is and show no interest in going there. One of the best (and well-reported) psychological boosters for the fear of death is to remember a time when you died. Here is one link to people who do this sort of research:

    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/near-death-experiences-ndes/

    I feel gaslighted by this article and see the implications it is making as harmful, unscientific, and negligent. It disregards important methods for improving one’s attitude towards life in the face of a phenomenon we all know is inevitable.

  • Hey, it’s OK. But this is what my religion teaches (we are non-denominational) so I’d like to see everyone join the discussion, too. That’s why I try to stress the spiritual side of the problem without naming the teaching I use. That’s one reason I mention Ian Stevenson so often. His work serves to bridge that gap.

    Sorry to hear about the car crash. I’ve had those in my family. It’s good you survived.

  • I am assuming that “neoliberlism” is a sort of code word for a political and economic approach informed by classical conservative thought? This is a difficult issue to approach because there is not a lot of evidence for how the basic assumptions underlying the various social theories actually correlate with mental wellness.

    “Me Culture” is not well-defined in this piece. Elsewhere it has been described as a sort of logical extension of the Enlightenment way of thinking that gave us science, modern human rights, and something called “individualism.”

    Would “We Culture” then, be a call to return to the more group-based mores of the Catholic Church and similar cultural institutions?

    The arguments here seem under-developed, almost fragile. What, exactly is the problem? And what is the solution?

    Magdalene can say that this is a problem of distress being inflicted on us by “the political-economic policies of governments.” But, which governments? The government of China? The government of India? The U.S. government? And doesn’t Corporate play a huge role in promoting “ME?”

    Madmom warns that any change will be meaningless without an “increase in consciousness.” Well, that’s probably true. But what, exactly, is she talking about?

    Others imply that the basic thrust of the article being reported on seems a bit misplaced. Do we really want psychologists deciding for us what sort of “culture” promotes higher mental wellness? Or what that even means? Maybe some of us are just more into “me” and others of us more into “we.” Maybe we should try to just co-exist or something.

    I see the current trend towards a new kind of communalism very much derived from “me.” The fact is that there are many facets of life, and we should probably strive to optimize all of them, even though some seem to conflict. Individuality is real. But so is the need for families and larger groups. We also have an important tie to all of humanity, to all living things, to the planet and universe as physical things, to the world of spirits, and to something many of us still call “God.” If we can “expand our consciousness” to embrace all these aspects of life, we could probably to better as a result. To pit these aspects against each other is only to remain confused and dysfunctional – a near-perfect description of our current condition.

  • Sam, I have been allowed. I am in a church, but a different one from yours. We fight to keep people, especially kids, out of the system. (I myself only drifted near the system for a short time.) But, alas, my church is looked down on these days. Many traditional churches are also under pressure. And so our larger “family” is being encouraged to splinter and fight among ourselves. Too bad. Shouldn’t we all be working together on issues like this?

  • Robert, you really shouldn’t have called my church a “cult.” That was very bad manners. You could have just said that our objections were faith-based and therefore not really about the science of the situation.

    But, what IS the science of the situation? As you have ably explained, that’s not really the purpose of this forum. However, it is my purpose to point to one or more places within the realm of academia where the nature of the psyche and alternative explanations for mental distress have been explored. I usually mention Ian Stevenson (a psychiatrist!). No one yet has taken me up on my invitation to discuss the work of Stevenson’s group. Perhaps no one ever will. But it is the key work within the realm of Science that would inform this problem.

    We are, it seems, hindered by certain aversions to certain data, aversions that we all seem to share. If more of us are unwilling to decide to look in those “taboo” places, I believe we face a future in which our freedoms will continue to be eroded by fearmongering, intimidation, and ridicule. You might well be accused of being a member of a “cult.” I have been. Yet, I wish to support your work. May I?

  • The “evidence-based” approach comes from engineering. There, if a bridge design results in a collapsed bridge, you find a better design. It could work in the humanities, but not if researchers treat people the way they do machines.

    Deception is a very basic problem in this society. You can only overcome it by learning how to spot it and then not tolerating it in your relationships. It’s too widespread to do this 100%, but anything in that direction should help.

    If I were a therapist, I would teach my patient the basic concepts, but try to get him to cooperate even if he were skeptical. But I would work with a supervisor who would grade my sessions for technical precision and correct me if I made any errors. I would pick a therapy that had been tested and proven effective, and would seek to deliver it standardly, with no variations.

    This is not the current practice in the field of mental health, and its current overlords seem so bent on failure, that I doubt it ever wil be. Though the therapies I have studied are said to contribute to “mental health,” they have no real resemblance to anything I’ve ever seen done in the field of psychotherapy.

  • I read the abstract of the study. It is very pro-screening, even though the process produces results that are nearly useless, even in these people’s own frame of reference!

    It has always been my group’s position that the ONLY purpose of screening is find “reasonable” justifications for getting more people (usually children) involved in the “mental health” system. This study confirms this for M-CHAT. The study authors are totally fine with continuing to use M-CHAT because it continues to result in more customers for their operation.

    I hope this is in some way persuasive in my argument that the current operation is basically a creation of criminal personalities.

  • In my dream world, the police would realize what psychiatrists were doing and take them out themselves. They would suddenly find the amount of lawbreaking greatly reduced and would retire or find more productive and less dangerous ways of life. Defund psychiatry – accomplished!

    And in psychiatry’s dream world…the police would join the “mental health system” and criminals could do anything they wanted (except mess with a psychiatrist). Defund police – accomplished!

    Which dream seems to be winning?

  • I’m sorry: This would be a very amusing article if it were not dealing with such serious issues.

    For me, “climate change” is just another trigger phrase, like “mental illness” that lead us out into long discussions about existential threats which end up ignoring the most basic source of all real shorter-term (hundreds of years) challenges here on Earth. The most basic source for all these challenges is the sociopath.

    His primary strategy is to give people things to worry about so they won’t notice it while he gradually turns them all into slaves. In a slave system, the sociopath can assume his rightful role as “master.” This is his fondest dream.

    For us to worry over all the other challenges of life – real challenges – without recognizing this primary challenge is self-defeating. We can only understand these real challenges when we recognize to what a great extent they are being caused – or effective handlings are being blocked – by sociopaths who occupy power positions in society.

    I write this immediately after reviewing a couple of long articles about the subject of “political ponerology” as developed by Polish psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski. This material aligns quite well with my earlier training in this subject. For those who are willing to study it, understand it, and deal with it, is solves many riddles as well as pointing a way forward. I am surprised the subject is not mentioned more often on this website.

    I have also been reviewing the recent work of Dr. Peter Breggin. He continues to focus on the threat of authoritarian rule (Lobaczewski’s “pathocracy”) in the world, and particularly here in the U.S. We thought we had a fool-proof way to preserve basic human freedoms here, but even that is failing us under the onslaught of psychopathic ideas currently being promoted to us.

    I hope this will be a website where these concerns can be expressed and discussed. But as the pressure builds, that openness will become more and more difficult to maintain.

  • The clarification is appreciated. But then your first example is from a relationship, not a therapy session.

    While of course therapists will get nowhere if they say things that make their patients wrong, the same thing could be said for other relationships, even if there is less power asymmetry.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a “therapists’ code” that therapists would get trained in? And if a patient felt the therapist was violating that code, the violation could be reported to some sort of mediator? I know of such a code. It is not appropriate to promote it here, but it has been an important part of my training.

    “Give it time to heal” is a statement based on observations of how bodies heal, but shows an almost total ignorance of how the mind works. It is a great way to tell that a therapist has no real idea what to do to help you. Chances are the immediate effects of a traumatic event will wear off, but the potential power of that event to affect you later can only be handled either by addressing the event directly or by addressing the being’s ability to rise above such experiences.

    I understand the personal nature of this series of essays and that they are really aimed at the helping professions. But every person should be able to step in and help someone in a time of need. I have worn both hats (therapist and patient) but spent most of my life wearing neither. Yet I’m glad I have some training in this area, as you never know when a situation will come up where someone needs your help.

  • Well, let me leave you with this, then. Because I’m no big cheese on this site, nor do I always see much support for my arguments.

    I don’t know how old you are or how you were raised, but in my day it was OK to disagree, even quite stridently. It didn’t get anyone in trouble and “hurt feelings” were of no particular concern. Those customs are changing – but not, I think, because the new customs are better. So I hope you can see that I have no particular wish to tell you what you should or should not say or think. I’m only asking you to look at the same data I’ve looked at and consider it as you move forward.

    I did not discover the “problem” of immortality by studying the Eastern traditions. I had heard about reincarnation, but skipped over it, as most people in the West do. But then I found that a researcher in the West had validated it. And the acceptance of this reality of life had led to an incredible amount of new information and a whole new set of healing practices. Later I found that others in the West were also taking this seriously. Even some psychiatrists!

    I then took it upon myself to try to get others in the West, or any devotees of Western materialism, to consider the possibility of an immortal personality and what that could mean for human thought and life. It begins with the fact of past life recall. This is a simple, documented fact. The only question about this fact is whether you are willing to accept it or feel compelled to resist it. Many people in the West feel totally compelled to resist this fact. I don’t. I can’t explain exactly why. I welcome the possibilities that result from embracing this fact.

    How many past lives, for instance, can a single person recall? I know an adept, Dena Merriam, who has recalled at least seven (all on Earth) and has written about all of them. I have personally met people who have recalled at least one. But I have seen research indicating that this recall can go way way back. We have, for example, Robert James’ work Passport to Past Lives. He reports finding past lives on other planets. So you see, if we have a way to access this past life data reliably, this begins to look more interesting. Merriam’s book makes it clear that mental conflicts in the present life can be related to long past experiences. And the other data I have seen only reinforces this. As I mentioned, there is even a whole healing practice based on these discoveries.

    So, without going deeper into details, this is why I keep bringing this up. I see it as a huge blind spot in Western thinking that has forced us into a box we could easily free ourselves from. It has wide-ranging implications in human thought and practice. And it basically eliminates the need for psychiatry as we know it. So, I’m coming from the viewpoint that we already have a better answer, so let’s just get on with things. No need to spend endless years trying to “find the answer.” Let’s just implement the answers we’ve already discovered!

  • Hello evan, this is Larry. So we are coming here from very different places. I am trying to solve the problem of criminality on this planet. And you seem more interested in ideas about the psyche and personal experience.

    While that is all fine and well, we are here to share our views and experiences, mainly, on the topic of psychiatric abuse and what can be done about it. The problem has a political component, an economic component, a theoretical component, and a practical component. (There may be others).

    We are observing the phenomenon of a profession being driven, apparently, by a desire for profit (or even for the suffering of others) over excellence of result. The more cynical among us posit that this is the story of all professions, really. But these people are doctors. They are supposed to be bound by an oath to do no harm. Yet they participated in such atrocities as the extermination of millions by Nazis in Germany in the 1930s an 1940s. They have wounded or killed thousands (if not millions) around the world with barbaric psychosurgeries and electroshock. And today they freely use drugs to “treat” “illnesses” of the mind and spirit! (Psyche – spirit.)

    We gather to learn what motivates this (I suggest that those who participate willingly in such practices are basically insane, and suffer from antisocial personality disorder, by their own descriptions of this disorder!). We wonder how it can be stopped (there is a leaning towards the idea of simply discrediting the entire subject). We occasionally explore alternatives (such as Open Dialogue, nutritional therapies, or maybe just leaving people alone). And sometimes we discuss underlying theory (which I insist, for example, must include the realization that we exist as immortal beings – a conclusion somewhat supported by the work of psychiatrist Ian Stevenson and his team – one of many ironies in this world).

    While we occasionally stray into the world of mysticism, paranormal phenomena, and traditional healing practices, these topics seem to me to be well beyond our main focus. We realize that many other answers exist. We are trying here to address the dominance of this “answer,” which turns out to be a false and destructive one.

    I hope this assists in orienting you to why I am here, and that it is a fair portrayal of why this website is here. Steve, as our moderator, may have points to add or modify.

  • I have become convinced that, though facts do help build certainties that people rely on, in this case things seem to be boiling down to a question of belief, or relative values. I value freedom over mere bodily life. Others seem to value mere bodily life over freedom. Although this involves a great and noble debate that has echoed down through the centuries, it is unlikely that “science” will ever resolve it. I am discouraged, though, by the way some of the key arguments that got this country (in its current form) off the ground, seem so weak and unpersuasive now.

  • It seems to me a bit that we are talking past each other. That’s all right. I write my comments for all to read, not just the one I am replying to. Particularly because I barely know most of you, but also because this is a public dialog, not a private one.

    I have never formally studied psychology or psychiatry. I have never read Freud, Jung, Adler, Hoffer or any of the rest of them, except for a tiny bit of Berne. My interests led me to material of a more spiritual nature. I write from that viewpoint.

    Are you familiar with the material I refer to? Rees’ 1940 speech about being a “fifth column?” Chisholm’s rant against morality? The avid participants in MK-Ultra? It is not that these men typified the profession. It is that the profession tolerated them.

    And you don’t mention the problem of ASPD. Neither do most psychiatrists. I think they’d like to remove it from the DSM. Maybe some day they will.

    My purpose here is to speak for the diminishment or eradication of current psychiatric belief and practice. That won’t make Jung go away, and that doesn’t bother me. His contributions extend far beyond the field of psychiatry. But this is my basic position and I try to argue for it and to caution against a more lenient viewpoint. There are a lot of lives at stake, and I try to keep that in mind.

  • I see this writer caught in a very difficult state of mind. This is the fate of the victim who depends for their meaning on a victimizer.

    Consider the possibility that Critical Theory, with its Colonizers and Deconstruction and all the rest of it, might come from a similar place as Jaffe’s theories. Consider if you can that Jaffe’s obsession might in fact have been his own illness. If you have never met someone who seriously lacks self-awareness, you might not credit it as a human possibility. I have met a few such people.

    I will not burden down this comment with further imaginings. Here we see the fierce proponent of a devastating evil meet his maker, while the evil quite certainly lives on. Obviously, the two are not the same. If you wish to understand more about these things, I suggest you leave the traditional boundaries of academia and explore, at least for a while, elsewhere. There is much to learn beyond the sweet safety of the ivory tower! And that goes for both the colonizer and his critics.

  • On the topic of Capitalism: I know we have some anti-Capitalists here. But I urge you to inspect how connecting an economic practice with what is essentially the political practice of psychiatry could muddy the waters of any argument against the latter.

    Practices like psychiatry have thrived under Monarchy, under Oligarchy, under Fascism, under Communism, under Socialism, and, yes, under Capitalism. And so has crime. Crime plays no political or economic favorites! It exists to steal and destroy, not to create a healthy economy and society.

    Decry crime in the “free” nations of Earth. Decry crime in the offices of corporate power, or political power. And you will have my full agreement.

    Decry an economic idea that has served us well, if not perfectly, for many centuries, and I become confused by your arguments. This is no longer something that is obvious to me. I wonder why it seems so obvious to you.

  • I see that you are uncomfortable with the urge to “dehumanize” psychiatrists.
    Do you think that is what we are doing here? Whatuser echos this concern: “It’s not because they’re monstrous people…” I would only note that in this statement, they remain “people” and so technically have not been dehumanized by the statement. Monstrous PEOPLE do exist! Do you not agree?

    I agree that to accuse an entire profession of being criminal looks like the application of a very blunt instrument. Yet if there is any group we would be justified in generalizing about, it would be this one. Are you aware of this group’s background and legacy? Are you aware of what their leaders have said and planned and done?

    There were, perhaps, “good Nazis” too. But if you were essentially a good person, why would you associate yourself with a group like Nazis? Perhaps some medical students are unaware of the atrocious history of psychiatry, or somehow expect that they will not turn out like that. But wouldn’t it be wiser, if you knew the truth, to just walk away?

    Perhaps some commenters here pick their words a bit carelessly. But most of us really want the entirety of what is known today as the subject (and profession) of psychiatry to go the way of Eugenics, or Race Science, or policies like forced euthanasia. We want psychiatry to die as an active, practiced body of thought. At least we want the human rights abuses to end. But in the case of psychiatry those are closely related goals, as the purpose of the subject seems to be to violate the rights of people without them realizing it until it is too late.

    Perhaps the concept of the criminal mind is foreign to you, or you feel it is incorrect or outmoded. Perhaps it makes no sense to you to label an entire body of thought as criminal. Well, we should probably work harder here to make these things more clear! It is worth discussing.

    Often contained inside a troubled “science” are the seeds of its own destruction. But I would advise all visitors here to learn what you can about the condition called “antisocial personality disorder” before they remove it from the list of “mental illnesses.” It seems only a matter of time before crime becomes embraced by”modern” culture as legal! We see it happening all around us now. If we do not speak out strongly for what is right, we could lose any remaining freedom we have to speak of this in public. That is my concern, and that is why I try not to mince words about this subject.

  • Anxiety is basically worry about what might happen. I don’t recall being very anxious when I was a teenager. But I almost went crazy once when I was younger and was told I needed to recite a story I had written from memory in front of an audience of parents. That’s anxiety!

    My father was a professor of Social Work, and he paid for his schooling with a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health – part of organized psychiatry. In the 1960s Social Work was not about therapy or counseling. Psychologists did that. Organized psychiatry helped push social workers into the field of psychotherapy. Now over half of all social workers do psychotherapy.

    She talks about “brain” when meaning mind. That’s being pushed by psychology and psychiatry. It doesn’t really make that much sense and I think it is really unhelpful. It leads to drug interventions.

    Psychotherapy is a step (or maybe several steps) closer to doing something good for people. But it is not all that is available. I know that it falls far short of what is possible today. I recently read a book about past life recall. It was about one person who had recalled several past lives. Her story made clear how important buried experience is in creating anxiety. Most “modern” therapies don’t even touch this aspect of mental health.

    I also notice (as when I was in therapy) that therapists tend to gloss over societal stressors that have to do with possible future events. These are a huge source of anxiety in people. This amounts to a sort of societal bullying or making threats via the media. When I was a teenager this sort of messaging was not getting through nearly as much as it is now. These days it is through the roof! Pollution has morphed into climate change, with the most strident messages bordering on the apocalyptic. Flu season has morphed into pandemic scares. Foreign wars have morphed into threats of violence in our streets. Good economic conditions have morphed into large debts and employment problems for many groups.

    Her theories and therapies sound superficial to me, like the pop-psych spots I used to hear on the radio. For me, this is part of a marketing campaign that gives the appearance of being helpful while actually legitimizing a “mental health” system that is failing us. She is saying that anxiety is a brain problem related to the amygdala, but also saying that we can handle it my managing our stressors and so forth. To me that’s a very mixed message that leads straight towards drugs if the therapy doesn’t work. We don’t need that.

    On top of this, she is acting stupid about how the “mental health” system leads to medical interventions. What’s with that? That’s our current system. We don’t have a quarter of the population on psych drugs because everyone is doing fine in therapy! Where’s the alarm about the drugs? She’s acting like nothing’s wrong.

  • This is a common perception about many professions, that the resistance they see to more truthful narratives is simply a matter of individual personal conflicts or ignorance. But this is not the lesson of history. And beyond that, all the professions have professional organizations, and there are other organizations that connect those organizations. We know that. They don’t even try to hide it any more. You may think if you wish that no cabal exists concerning this or other subjects of great concern in society today. But there can be no doubt that the potential for cabal exists.

    To the extent that a potential for collusion exists, and that some investigators have found it when they looked, an offhand brushoff from peers or our “betters” seems not much more than gaslighting. In the case of psychiatry, historical cabal has been proven. This could be seen as reassuring. Perhaps if the grip of corrupt leaders could be loosened or broken, then fewer would be tempted into corruption.

    That is, after all, what this article is all about.

  • Could you please calm down about this? We are on an anti-psych website and you want to call someone out for forwarding a conspiracy theory? Let’s state our views without calling names.

    Everyone has their own boundaries regarding “science.” Can I favor Intelligent Design and research into past lives, all done by very competent academics, or is that off limits, too? These subjects are highly relevant to questions of human psychology.

  • Yes, so we see that some wealthy individuals and groups seem to control Big Pharma and are also involved in all the other multinational corporations who seem to be the “bad guys” in our current world. And that’s getting pretty high up on the pyramid of power. But I don’t know that it reaches the very top.

    Their only real defense at this point is their secrecy. And my hope is that as we find more ways around (or through) that secrecy, they can be dislodged. But we should realize that if we take down the top of that pyramid, we will have to replace it with people who can deal with the same pressures that those people are dealing with in a way that is more honest and humane. Someone has to walk in those shoes.

  • I believe “neoliberalism” may be a misnomer in this context. It is mostly a political-economic theory, not a social one. What the study is seeing could be characterized more, perhaps, as New Age.
    From the study:
    “The expectations were of an abundance of life and educational options, and a dominating discourse that young people in Scandinavia can become whatever they wish.”

    Here is a typical New Age pronouncement from Vikas Jain (corrected for one incorrect word):
    “With the changing business and social ecosystem, learning needs are also changing at an even faster pace. Organizations are getting disrupted through new-age technologies and innovations that require constant skilling, upskilling, reskilling, building industry-relevant knowledge, and more.”
    “In this New-Age Education, there are New-Age Educators such as Speakers, Coaches, Corporate Trainers, Seminar Leaders, etc. to disseminate the knowledge and skills through seminars, conferences, and various other interventions.”

    This is a push for corporate success through “mastery” of various skill sets. It’s all very catchy and slick. And you can see when you read this stuff that some of these people don’t have a clue what they are talking about. It’s marketing. “Be the best that you can be.” That’s not what they told me when I went to school!

    It puts tremendous pressure on kids. That’s all this study really tells us. Did we really need an academic study to tell us this?

  • Bhargavi has an interesting experience of growing up with her mother committed to a mental institution for many years. This was a British system that was obviously suppressive.

    Now she has adopted elements of Critical Theory to point out these weaknesses and advocate for change. She knows of some traditional methods that can be used, and her psychology training probably also informs her. But she doesn’t really have a new vision yet. That’s a weakness of Critical Theory.

    I listened to a radio interview with her where she tells a story of something that happened to her brother, I think, about a ghost trapped in a wall. It talked to him and convinced him to let it out! This is somewhat common in India. Can you imagine how many ghosts might be hanging around in a land that has been continuously inhabited by a similar culture for thousands of years?

    The West doesn’t appreciate any of that. And now many Asians are getting trained in the West, so they are losing their appreciation for these realities also. I have found a teaching that embraces both Eastern and Western aspects of experience. And that’s what they need in the East. So they can tell the West, “we’re doing just fine, thank you. We don’t need your solutions!” But I fear that most of Asia still looks to the West with great envy. They want what we have, and don’t care (yet) about the consequences. But some do realize that there will be consequences.

  • What scares me the most about these people is that they seem to be able to learn from their (marketing) mistakes. Their basic purpose never alters, while their propaganda strategies are forever fluid.

    Though I would not normally support the blanket condemnation of an entire group for the transgressions of some of its members, this particular group (psychiatry) has allowed so much atrocity within its ranks for such a long period of time, that I break this rule in this case.

    I am well aware of Chelmsford, of course. But as the article points out, that legacy continues. Right now we are just trying to hold back these depraved beings. At some point I hope we will be able to actually root them out.

  • (oh-oh – all typefaces rendered italic!)
    This is a kind of commentary enjoying a lot of popularity right now. But when you critique a broken system, you of course can find large numbers of problems with it.

    It would be one thing to critique a system that was actually working for one set of clients, but not for another. But what can you do with the knowledge that the system has cultural biases when the whole system works so poorly to begin with?

    All calls for “equal access” then devolve into a plea from practitioners for more money. For treatments that don’t work?

    There is an implication in most such commentaries that the existence of a system is inevitable and that it must be serving someone. But why assume that? At this point I am quite convinced that this is one system that we would all do better without.

  • So, the conclusion is that most researchers in this field are liars? This is what I would have expected, though doesn’t change the fact that it is a sad commentary on the field and on modern life in general.

    This reminds me of what happened to Transactional Analysis in the 1970s. Berne set forth a theory that was uniquely interesting and a method that should have been easy to learn. But no one wanted to do it his way. By the early 1980s there were almost no TA practitioners left, and the one I found wanted me to buy his book on his method.

    If each therapist does something different, then you can never test whether any particular therapy works, because there is no standard that any practitioner is bound to adhere to. So you can never find out what – if anything – works. A perfect plan for complete obfuscation and avoidance of the scientific method. This irresponsibility is part of the legacy of this subject.

  • OK: Foucault. “Foucault’s theories primarily address the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions.” – to quote Wikipedia, the ever-handy arbiter of “truth.”

    Foucault is being pointed to (at least by critics) as one of the important theoreticians behind what has come to be known as “identity politics” and a range of other unconventional political tactics and policy ideas that we have seen play out in recent months, including such bizarre theatrics as the two months of violence in Portland, and “diversity” policies in companies and colleges leading to the firing of several people for, basically, voicing their opinions.

    I see those who follow Foucault and his ilk as attempting to lead society in a more chaotic and disoriented direction than what it already suffers from.

    From Rose: “The general lesson is that you should never look for origins, never ask ‘why’, but instead ask, ‘how did this occur?'” Does this strike anyone else as odd? The basic idea behind this school of thought is that all knowledge is relative to the function it serves. And there is an implication that no creation-point or origin-point for any knowledge actually exists, that all knowledge is basically just expedient propaganda.

    From Rose: “We are in a very primitive state with brain interventions.” What exactly is he implying here? That psychiatry is basically correct, but is still too primitive to do most of us any good? Really?

    Again: “The conflicts are not a problem; contest and argument are how things develop.” He follows the idea that all ideas and processes arise out of conflict. That social conflict is vital to the creative process.

    On understanding psychiatry: “We must collaborate with psychiatrists from the point of view of critical friendship to understand how they think, to question them, and the weaknesses in their evidence and arrive at alternatives.” Why is he advocating this? Is this a requirement of the theories he believes in, or does he have other purposes for maintaining this “critical friendship?”

    Rose is basically a brain boy: “Brain research has made fantastic progress over the last 30 years.” He thinks that if we switch our approach to his way of thinking, we will get better answers.

    I am not a brain boy. I don’t want to be criticized for asking “why?” And the idea that knowledge is only created to suit the needs of power is useless to me if this means that knowledge not suited to the needs of power will continue to be ignored. I think real knowledge has a utility that transcends the short-term requirements of societies and their politics; that it can serve to elevate the individual to a place where politics are much less important.

    Foucault came out of a time of deep intellectual apathy (nihilism in philosophy). While in some higher esoteric world, the concepts of the nihilists might apply, in this world they are ridiculous. They skirt the basic “laws” of human experience in ways that are dangerous and arrogant. They assume that the fate of the individual is to be consumed by the society he is a part of.

    The “rationality” behind these schools of thought are complex and seductive. Rose, for example, seems to have some “right answers” about psychiatry. Yet he also seems to have some very wrong answers to life. If you want to live in a world where no one ever has to agree with anyone else, because “conflict creates knowledge,” then go with Rose and Foucault. I will attempt to continue to remind myself that we are living on Earth, not in Fairyland, and that we need games consisting of purposes, freedoms, and barriers, not endless chaos and criminality.

  • Perhaps we can “make friends” with some politicians and change their minds. This seems to be what psychiatry and Big Pharma has done.

    The only other choice is to – very publicly – make the whole system appear as corrupt as it really is so that its base of popular support eventually erodes away completely. They will have only about 2% of the public left supporting them – the true criminals of this world.

  • Psychiatry already knows it can do nothing about the real criminals (chief among those, the ones known as having Anti-Social Personality Disorder). They admit to this in many popular articles. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole concept of the “criminal mind” disappears from the DSM completely if and when it is revised again. And then they will be able to say, “we were wrong – there is no such thing.”

  • From what I know, the situation is as you state.

    Psychiatry is always in search of new populations that can be convinced to embrace their treatments.

    Most of the “educated” world now laughs at the idea that psychiatry might NOT be have the highest level of expertise in the field of “mental health.” And so research and state policies continue to bend in their favor.

    For me, it has come down to the need for an entire reorientation at a grassroots level. We can still fight against bad policy. But it seems the majority of policy makers have fallen for the psychiatric narrative. After all, the mind IS in the brain, is it not?

    It isn’t. But who is willing to believe that? It starts with those who already realize something is wrong.

  • Yes, this is the primary problem with their reasoning. Bless them for noticing that “psychiatry’s resistance to viewing these conditions as adaptations to adversity may be an example of psychiatry serving ‘the interests of the powerful over the powerless.'” But this smacks, frankly, of the new “critical theory” viewpoint of life and living, which overall has proven to be quite mindless.

    How much longer must we wait for broken academics to figure out a “problem” that has largely already been solved? I know that my belief that is has been solved is not widely shared, but this does remain my belief. And at the core of the academic problem is its fixation on biology and evolution. That is like giving an artist a palette with yellow and red paint on it and then asking him to make a realistic image of a tree. “Where is my blue?” he should complain. Instead he insists there must be a way to arrive at the color green starting only with the colors red and yellow. Good luck with that!

    Oddly, another article posted here just a few days ago, “Do We All Need Tinfoil Hats?…” was picked up by someone in a Facebook group that I am a member of. It’s the same problem there. They are like those cave dwellers in that story by Plato, who refused to go outside to see what was there, as they had become so accustomed to living in a cave that they no longer wished for anything different.

    Walk out of the cave and look around! The air is fresh! (Unless you live down wind from a forest fire). The flowers are full of bright colors! And the basic questions of the mind and spirit have been confronted and answered!

  • This is a very thorough piece of work, and I confess I could not make myself read the whole thing carefully.

    But to me it tells a story of criminality that runs deep in this system. And it raises the question: Do we really need the incentive of high profits to create good medicines? Or is this incentive more likely to lead people to lie, cheat, and kill?

    Though I turned away decades ago from the idea that some sort of anti-capitalist upheaval could result in a more ethical and less criminal society, the track record of the profit motive has included many dismal failures. My feeling is that any actual ethical “mental health” system would team up with a system of justice to identify the real criminals of society and restrain them from acting out their delusions on the population at large. If that could be accomplished, even if only partially, we would be on the right track, and ordinary people who the system currently labels “mentally ill” would be free to go about their lives with much less harassment from the truly sick.

  • First off, I don’t know a thing about schizophrenia, except for the fact that psychs use the term to describe someone who is “really crazy.” Give me a break! Since when do I trust a (crazy) psych to tell me who’s crazy?

    However, I know quite a bit (not as much as some) about ET. This is mostly a problem of how much time you have to expose yourself to the material and evaluate it. Over the last ten years, I had quite a lot of time. But I came into the subject already knowing: that past lives are real, that the core personality is immortal, and that most humans are trapped here because of naughty things they did (like trying to be honest) on other planets.

    I recently had an email exchange with an academic who works on the “problem” of Fermi’s Paradox (one of those fake academic problems that only exists because of their own unwillingness to look) who was unwilling to talk to me about this beyond saying that he thought that the “hiding” theory was illogical. This guy obviously didn’t know much about why and how some people hide. He was trying to see a psycho-political problem as simply a problem of scientific observation techniques.

    This is an interesting example of how academics limit themselves for specious reasons. There is a similar problem (and relevant, since the two problems are closely related), regarding our topic, “mental health.” All the data I had learned that applied to ET was obtained in the quest for improving mental health. And yet, even among those who know damn well psychiatry is wrong, most are not willing to LOOK at what other relevant data has already been discovered and how it might be applied to creating a better approach to mental health. Very few people. So, this is how we limit ourselves. This is how we think we are boxed in a corner, when actually there is a door right there, cracked open and just waiting for us to walk through.

    It has been an amazing experience for me to see how easy it is for people to blind themselves, even on an intellectual level when there shouldn’t be that much liability to going “outside the box.” I have been told it stems from an implanted fear of knowing too much. What a shame!

  • I am seeing a stridency in the mainstream that I’m not seeing with other sources. Also, there seems to be more than two “sides.” There are two sides that battle it out almost totally on the basis of whether Trump is good or bad. Then there is at least one other “side” that is trying to be more sensible about things. I try to find those guys. I can’t stand the strident attack dogs which we currently call “the left” but occasionally look at “pro Trump” people to see if they have anything sensible to offer. Sometimes they do, sometimes not. It’s too bad. I used to find the “liberal” sources tolerable. But that was 40-50 years ago. I can’t stand them now.

  • I’m Larry. Well, we do know where you stand on all this pandemic stuff, don’t we?
    What I’m trying to do is connect this to how we got sold on psychiatry and the current “model of care” (drugs). It should be noted that the same communication lines (TV and mainstream media) have been used for both that sales pitch, and the one trying to sell us on masks, etc. In both cases, an extreme lack of willingness to examine all available data has been demonstrated. And a certain radicalization based on fear has resulted. Both of these propaganda campaigns, in their day, seemed sensible and in society’s best interests. But the total failure of that earlier campaign to produce beneficial results, along with other coverups along the way, and the general tone of the media, has totally ruined it for me as a possible trusted source. I absolutely cannot trust the data and solutions it presents which have added up to little more than the promotion of a slave society. If one wishes to pick and choose between “sensible” and ridiculous content on those communication lines, be my guest. I won’t do it.

  • Interesting video! You get to watch him riding through Pittsburgh while he talks!
    One of the oddest things I found on this subject was a site that was publishing data about this disease based on information received in late November of 2019. Totally under the radars of almost everyone, of course. But interesting that someone seemed to know about it that early.
    This seems incredibly off-topic but I think it relates somehow to the whole plan that resulted in the current “mental health” system.

  • Yes, Steve, it is a big stretch. But we have some opinion and some studies (mostly older studies I believe) on the importance of facial expressions in human communication and in child development. On top of that, mask wearing expresses, to some extent, a desire to hide the wearer’s emotions and true feelings or intentions – or simply identity in the case of robberies. We have experience with how psychiatry has been elevated in this world out of all proportion to its results. I judge that the result of a “conspiracy,” don’t you? What lengths will they go to to cow us, make us feel humiliated? I would not for a moment dismiss the possibility that masks are a part of that. And I am inclined to believe they are.

  • These arguments might move me if I had not been touched, with my friends, by what damage can be done through a barrage of “reasonable” lies. Live and learn. “Conspiracy” is real, and has been since long before the word was used to defame those who had found one where the conspirators, now more able to control the narrative, could not tolerate one to be found (JFK). Are you not familiar with the history of Rome? How many emperors were murdered by their own Praetorian Guard? And so it goes.

  • I know you have written extensively about your case on this forum. I haven’t followed it all, but it seems a bit complex.
    I know the main website gives people the opportunity to report their case in some detail if they wish. I don’t know how many cases they are able to assist on an individual level.

  • The point has been made to me many times that psychiatry creates the vast majority of the ills they blame society for. They are there to create a situation that will justify their existence. There is considerable evidence that if their practices were all terminated, many social problems, quite beyond what we call “mental illness” would largely disappear.

  • The challenge is to start educating oneself outside the box of mainstream science and technology. That’s all I mean by that. I don’t care about couching it in terms like “awakening.” And I don’t want to threaten anyone that things will go bad for them if they remain ignorant. But there is a lot to know that the mainstream is not telling us that we should really be talking more about.

  • Exactly my concern.
    Are psych meds really the only ones we are being misled about?
    Is the “science” that psychiatry uses to justify its atrocities the only “science” that we should be concerned about?
    I don’t see how someone could have it both ways.
    If our institutions are being corrupted, then they are being corrupted. That brings every institution involved into question, on every subject it is involved with.
    Perhaps that concept is just a little too overwhelming for some people. I know if I hadn’t decided to change course while I was still a teenager, and had gone into the system in a big way like my sister or brother, I would have a lot harder time disconnecting from it now. I know they do!

  • Spirit, calm yourself and remind yourself of what your name means. A being thrives on freedom. Courage counts for something now and it always will. Don’t forsake the many who want to be happy. I’m sorry if you get hurt. You wouldn’t be the first and certainly would not be the last. I could get hurt, too, but I support those who value freedom and renounce slavery. That is the direction of happiness.

  • In a just society, torturers would come to understand the depths they had descended to, make up for all the damage the best they could, and be reluctantly allowed to keep the streets clean (or some such task). But yes, for now, they should at least be restrained from doing even more damage.

  • Caroline’s difficulties in understanding some of these issues are clear in this article, and shared by many others. That it seems implausible, or even arrogant, to offer myself or my data as a source of “better” understanding doesn’t stop me from trying.

    The overall situation is obviously related to the problems we have and have had in understanding ourselves and each other. That a more “spiritual” approach is indicated is not clear to many, but it is to me. And of course, the most basic understanding, in that case, would be that we are in fact spiritual beings. Unfortunately, this understanding puts a lot more power and responsibility on our shoulders than most of us are comfortable with. That, however, is the correct starting place.

    Although a better understanding of the mind as a mechanism leads immediately to a more effective mental therapy and general approach to life, one soon enough discovers the more basic truth about personality. So I like to lead with it, even though it is a large conceptual step for many.

    From this basic comes better understandings of how politics and social interactions work in general, and how important it is, in particular, to guard ourselves from the poisoning of these relationships by people who are seriously “unwell,” the true criminals. It is ironic that they have convinced us that the only criminals are petty thieves and drug pushers and the truly “dangerous” are the mentally ill, when they are themselves the major cause of most of the bad experiences we run into in life, including petty crime and “mental illness.”

    Thus we have before us the obvious need for a self-education campaign. Such data is continuously fought against as “pseudo science” or “fraud.” If you as an individual are not able to rise above the avid craving for social acceptability that is currently being pushed by the latest generation of the criminally insane, then you will not be ale to benefit from the understandings that are – at this very moment – available to you.

    I don’t expect a flood of people to take on this challenge. But I would expect a few to be willing – out of desperation if no other reason. So far I have found very very few.

  • This is as an appropriate place as any to re-state my group’s position on this matter.
    The mental health system as it exists now should be abolished. Psychiatry should go with it.
    But that doesn’t mean there should be no one to turn to when one is suffering at home or at school, or has become dependent on drugs.

    Psychiatry – and many psychiatrists – wants to save itself for the “right” reasons. Because they got into the profession to help people… and the profession pays so well! It’s a moral conundrum few of them can really deal with. And then of course, there are the closet Nazis.

    Those of us who have been immersed in this issue longer than I have – since the 1970s – are quite clear about this: Psychiatry has to go. There is no redemption, no set of “reforms” that would be adequate to justify its continuance. But while we have identified psychiatry as the central strategy that criminal elements rely on to advance their dominance on the world stage, we also know that existing as it does in a larger context of harm and criminal intent, it cannot be defeated by any sort of ordinary campaign or “war.”

    Our basic strategy is to expose it and undermined all public support for it. We started with obvious vulnerabilities like abuses and treatments that don’t work. You’d think that would be enough, but they have on their side a very irrational fear of “going crazy” which they have continued to play on to maintain their position.

    While my group in general will continue to concentrate on the most obvious abuses, it is clear that more work is needed in the direction of demystifying the mind, how it works, what can go wrong with it, and what to do about it. In my work, I attempt to run out ahead of this coming educational effort with basic data and reassurances to those who know something is terribly wrong and something should be done about it that they are right about that, and that something can indeed be done about it.

    I am not particularly interested in sticking to the paradigm of “modern psychology” that is used by psychiatry to justify the use of awful practices like ECT and dangerous “medicines.” That’s where I differ from the academics on this site. They think that better data lies just around the next research corner. That we just need a few more studies in this direction and in that direction, and the whole subject will begin to clarify. Who are they trying to fool? Though others may have the patience to suffer such ignorance or self-aggrandizement, I don’t. The choices are right in front of everyone’s faces if they just care to look. I can’t make them look, but I can assume that if they refuse to look, their “expert opinions” can be thoroughly ignored.

  • All the more reason, it seems to me, to decouple the treatment model from research about causes. See, I don’t think most psychiatrists think they are trying to “fix the brain.” I think most psychiatrists are just trying to look like doctors. Their self-image and social image is much more important to them than fixing anything! Meanwhile, psychiatrists who have moved beyond that, like Kelly Brogan, are building real relationships with the people who come to them for help, and are really helping them. (She doesn’t use drugs, ever, as most here should be aware.) Kelly has spoken to the “medical model” of treating any illness, which is one reason I bring it up. Although research into causes should inform us and should inform doctors, we should all become more aware of the limitations of the medical model of treatment, whatever words we use for the complaint that resulted in the person requesting treatment.

  • I realize a lot of commenters here want the whole concept of “mental illness” to just go away. But it will likely survive in some form for the foreseeable future. I know most doctors who want to treat the mind are currently very fond of drugs and surgeries and things like that. But there are a few – just a few – who are a lot closer to having it right. And they are just as busy as other psychiatrists. We have to admit, I think, that there is a demand for services in this area. And this demand is not just from miscreants who want to get people they don’t like locked up or “legally” killed.

    I know that people here see how the “illness” concept feeds into the “medical model” of care. But if we can decouple that care model from the research on causes, it would be helpful. That research (as misguided or self-serving as much of it is) does relate to a real demand for real solutions. The indicated model of care is NOT medical, although it’s always good to get a checkup, maybe even some blood work, if you’re feeling “off.” The model of care that is helping people involves nutrition, life choices, and strengthening of core spiritual abilities. For the people getting real help, whether someone decides what brought them to seek help was an “illness” or a “disorder” or a “condition” or an “experience” doesn’t matter that much to them. The point is that real research, done by well-intended researchers, actually resulted in a desired outcome for them.

    Those who embrace the “medical model” of treatment are trying to hide that research and its good results from the rest of us. They certainly support the term “illness,” although they use the term “disorder” in the DSM now. But I think we need to keep these two areas decoupled, because I think we will see at some point that the correct causes for many “real” illnesses will also involve nutrition, life choices, and core spiritual abilities. I think we are going in the direction of ditching the “medical model” of treatment for many “illnesses” of the body, as well as all “illnesses” of the mind.

  • The watchdog groups try to monitor various practitioners and facilities, but depend on formal reports to see what is going on. If they get enough cases pointing at a particular doctor or facility, they can start to make noise about that target and focus media attention on the doctor or facility. This can’t be done without reports.

    It has been our long experience that internal reporting processes are ineffective if not actually dangerous. Watchdogs can use reports to focus on the worst offenders even if you don’t want to personally get involved in that part of the activity.

  • What an interesting story. I, too have sailed through periods of unemployment without feeling much discontent. I found ways to stay “productive” from my own point of view.

    But for many, employment defines their lives. And we do, after all, need a fair number of people to be productive or the community could not afford the charity that keeps children, old people, and the sick, alive. Even so, it helps the child to “have things to do,” and likewise it helps our elders and everyone in between. What point is there to life without something to do?

  • Being a “dictionary nut” I just want to put forward that I don’t see any immediate evidence in my dictionary that the medical sense of the word “symptom” is the original, basic, or “literal” meaning of the word. From my point of view, it is one of many many general English words that have been co-opted by medicine over the years to the point where many don’t realize that it ever had a broader meaning.

    That “mental health” professionals see what they are looking at as mental illnesses that have symptoms that assist in diagnosis is obvious, but I think largely imposed on them with the help of the incredible marketing job that medicine has done, over hundreds of years really, that captured the hearts and minds of the general population on the subject of how life works. All that psychiatry had to do was hitch their oxcart to this wagon train. Embodied in this concept is a process that is used by technicians, engineers and scientists, not just doctors. But those other fields must take it a step further. They need to find root cause, or at least get closer to it. Because people and the human body are so good at repairing themselves, doctors have been able to get away with not taking that final step. But that kills the workability of psychiatric drug and surgical treatments entirely.

    It goes without saying that you can’t learn psychology by reading the DSM; that’s not what it’s for. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to learn the fundamentals of human psychology even after you study it for two or four years, and even less possible if you are being trained to be a doctor. The subject deserves to be better understood. It underlies everything.

  • Hi Steve. My viewpoint is that whenever a doctor tells you what he thinks is the right treatment for you, he’s engaged in marketing. He needs your “buy in.” If he lies to you in doing that, because he somehow sees his own personal financial outcomes as more important than your personal health outcomes, he’s simply being unethical. We have a huge problem with ethics in medicine. It is acute in the “mental health” sphere, but if it didn’t also exist in “regular” medicine, psychiatry would have been kicked out of the profession a long time ago.

  • “Stigma” is an interesting word. It has a meaning within the “mental health community” that I’m not sure I even understand. Originally, it simply meant something obvious about you that gave you a certain identity. Like needle marks on your arm would brand you as a former drug addict. Now we see it used in connection with having a criminal record, or bad grades in school. Or getting a “mental illness” diagnosis.

    But it is often used in the context of having the effect of someone not seeking “care” when they should. The mental health system wants to remove “stigma” to get more customers! That’s what really matters to them.

    The language used by these authors is so dense and (to me) insincere, that it is unclear to me what they are really talking about. My guess is that they just want more patients.

  • This Dalglish quote caught my eye: “We must move quickly, for our own security, beyond the rhetoric of equality to the reality of a more democratic, more multipolar, more networked, and more distributed understanding and operation of global health.” It’s “for our own security” that interested me. Who is “us?” It turns out that the article had a national security context. In fact, pandemics and public health responses to them have had a military/security component since the time of the use of bioweapons (mostly in the form of infected rats) in the first World War.

    This military/political component has been either a hidden or explicit goal of many efforts of the West to make the rest of the world more livable. The reasoning being, I suppose, that if people are happy where they are living, then they will not turn their sights towards the West with feelings of envy or retribution. Moreover, if they become dependent on “helpful” technologies produced by large multinational corporations, they might be less likely to “bite the hand that feeds them.”

    And so you get an article such as this one that was quoted. How sincere is it really? Hard for me to say. But it seems to me the emphasis is to impose our will while at the same time “being nice” to poor countries and realizing “how much we can learn” from them. The goal remains “global health.”

    Though the editors of The Lancet gave lip service to the drawbacks of “technocratic solutions,” they didn’t actually advocate that such activities should be abandoned. They certainly advocated for a change in messaging – in their marketing approach – to stay on friendly terms with the “poor.”

    On this planet, doctors are, in fact, widely acceptable across many continents and cultures. I don’t think the “global mental health” system has any intention of changing that. And if the past can in any way predict future probable behaviors, then the system will go forward with its economic and political agendas regardless of outcomes on the ground, or how they affect the lives of real people. Really, they can’t be bothered.

  • I’ve enjoyed this series because I run into these expressions – used out of context or without any real appreciation for what they mean – and I often wonder if it bothers anyone else as much as it bothers me.

    It’s funny also because in their original contexts these statements made sense. Out of context, they can be seen as horrendously dispassionate or invalidating. Why can’t people tell the difference? They either lack basic social intelligence or they seek to undermine you by covert means. When you get crap like this thrown in your direction, it is wise to see if you can tell where the one who spoke it is really coming from. It might not be from a very good place.

    The “comfort zone” phrase is for people who are already high achievers and aren’t satisfied. Athletes, performers, executives. They chose the game of excelling and they have to deal with its down sides as well as it rewards.

    “What doesn’t kill you…” seems a bit mindless, but fits the same mindset as above. Some of these people have taken incredible risks with their own lives or health to prove to themselves they could survive. Not all of us want to go there, or need to.

    The “middle ground” approach is an incomplete concept. Without extremes, moderation makes no sense. In some contexts, extremes may be appropriate.

    “I’m sorry..” is an artifact of an imperfect language. It can mean an apology OR it can be used to dismiss a bad reaction because the speaker doesn’t care how you react. You can complain that people use it, but really, I’m sorry to say, it’s probably not going away any time soon.

  • I want to address some of these “talking points.” I wish we could really talk! Written comments with a 30 minute lag for moderation are a far cry from a real conversation.

    I live at the outskirts of this “system.” I have been trained in various types of treatments, have worked a little as a volunteer in disaster recovery situations and have some limited experience as a treatment provider. I am trained on theories of etiology, but mostly within my own frame of reference.

    Point 1. Not quite. There are more than two models of care, and more than two models of etiology.
    However, I don’t think the “medical model” has ever been serious as an etiology. It is a marketing ploy for the purpose of selling psychiatry and the drugs they prescribe to the general public. It has no place, really, in the field of mental health, as it attempts to rebrand this as a problem of physical health, which it obviously isn’t. The “medical” model has been totally abused by psychiatry, but we should understand that it is abused by regular medicine as well. MDs have been working hard for years to shut out non-drug forms of treatment from the benefits of “health” insurance coverage. MDs want to get paid! They want this, apparently, much more than they want a healthy population. This is a sign of creeping immorality in this profession, as has been seen in many professions, and in academia. It cannot and should not be overlooked. It is a very important aspect of the problem.

    To elaborate briefly, there are several nutritional models, several traditional “medical” models of care, including ones from the East, and there are a variety of spiritual models of care. These models cover both mental and body problems. Some models see the two spheres as closely-related, not really separable.

    Point 2. I don’t think this is important, as mentioned above. Neither model really addresses etiology. They are treatment models, and as an extension, income models and class models, you could say. You would expect a treatment to have some connection to etiology (causes), but I don’t think either model seriously addresses this, nor is intended to. “The system” doesn’t care that much about root causes. It cares a lot about levels of income and hierarchy.

    Point 3. I can’t speak to. I haven’t read the reports. But it makes sense that the “social work” model (as I might call it) would have better outcomes, as it is more patient-oriented and less income-oriented. People respond to being cared about. This is a basic truth I have been taught.

    Point 4. The whole culture of academia and “reports” is part of a management system that is worried about money flows and political power a lot more than about real outcomes for real people. Any intervention that actually results in a person “getting better,” becoming more independent in mind and body, is a threat to the system, which thrives (or so it seems) on dependency. I am not saying that a non-criminal system would see things this way. But we cannot assume non-criminal intentions for the current system!

    Point 5. Predictably. Point 6. Clearly so.

    Point 7. “Access to care” should read “caregiver access to funding.” Point 8. There you go.

    Point 9. Good for that model. I assume this is an open-and-shut case. The only “problem” with this model is that it doesn’t provide a sufficient income stream to those interested in being in charge.

    Point 10. You aren’t going to get a lot of “diplomacy” on this particular website. Lives are being ruined and lost. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money squandered on false solutions, all for the benefit of an arguably criminal elite. We only attempt “diplomacy” because of the power of their weapons, not because we really respect them.

  • Hidden at the top of this article is a key concept: These are “paradigms of care.”

    The “medical model” is a treatment model based on how medical doctors treat the things they are asked to treat – wounds from accidents, acute illnesses, chronic illnesses.

    The “social determinants model” is more of a social work approach to treatment.

    Neither of these models really address root cause (etiology). I think this confusion is rampant and is worth clarifying. Both models have problems with etiology. Both do! They are treatments models.

  • The world of biology is very caught up in genetics right now. That’s partly because they see behaviors transmitted from parents to children that can’t be accounted for as “learned” behaviors and therefore must be “genetic.” This conundrum is very real in biology and psychology. They need a better model for transmission of behaviors between generations and they don’t dare go in the direction their data is pointing to (mind separable from body).

    Yet, that is the best explanation. They just won’t go there. And that refusal has screwed things up for a long time now.

    I don’t care that much about “disorders” versus “illnesses” and all the problems of who decides what is “normal.” Those aren’t the major problem. A broken arm isn’t “normal.” Real problems of the mind and body aren’t that hard to see and aren’t that hard to agree with. The problem with psychiatry is in using a medical approach to a problem that clearly isn’t a medical problem. Psychiatrists are doctors because in the old asylums that’s all they could do for the “insane.” Amazingly, in the better asylums of those days, many patients recovered on nothing more than good food, good rest, and a calm environment. If psychiatrists had stayed with that plan, they’d be modern-day heroes. Instead, they face a dedicated effort to wipe their “profession” off this planet.

  • My understanding of the “medical” or “biological” model is that it was put forward completely and only for the purpose of putting psychiatrists on a par with other doctors. In other words, all medicine works on the basis that there is a body part that can get diseased, and that the indicated treatment should be a medical treatment (drugs or surgery) which is expected to result in patient recovery, except in the case of “chronic illness” which will require a “maintenance” treatment of some sort.

    Environmental factors are rarely considered in any branch of medicine; they just don’t see it as their role. Psychological stressors, nutritional stressors, economic limitations are minimized by all sectors of medicine. While we are willing to excuse ordinary MDs for this oversight (not all of us are), in the case of psychiatry this renders their “work” null and void.

    All of Medicine has problems with etiology. In “regular” medicine these problems do not result in their “treatments” being totally unworkable, whereas in psychiatry that is the result. All of Medicine has problems with malpractice. But only in psychiatry (until very recently) have those problems escalated to the level of civil rights abuses.

    Thus, we can “get away” with the biological etiology model in the case of “real” disease, but it utterly fails us – as patients – in the realm of mental health. Because it makes us think that the only solution to the problem is a drug (or surgery). For psychiatry this has been a terminal mistake. For the rest of medicine, it has stalled our progress, but not yet proved totally fatal.

  • The problem is that the truth arrives in the form of a message as well. Marketing is not by necessity deceptive. Though it often is by choice. Thus, we tend to distrust any message received on any marketing channel. And what other channels of communication exist between people? I do favor conversational content, as this tends to show more clearly whether or not the people involved are being sincere. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to market ideas.

  • This is a well-spoken and very measured piece of writing.

    I would focus strongly on how this “case” got into the system: By being terrorized by someone who was involved in criminal activity. “…his now ex-wife enlisted others in the drug scene to spread the rumor that there was a contract out on NG’s life.”

    Events like this seldom get spotted in case histories. It was quite astute of this writer to include this, though he didn’t really know what to do with it. It should be noted that the police who arrested him didn’t look for this (you might call it a “trigger event”) nor did the “mental health” workers who he encountered. Yet this is the reason – most likely – that he panicked, and that panic was the only reason he got thrown into the system. And the source of that panic was criminal intent, not any of the “disorders” in the DSM.

    I hope readers see this clearly, because it is key to understanding the most common reason people get pushed “off balance” in this society. According to my data, this mechanism is the most important disruptive mechanism that exists in society, and it has been studiously avoided for all the decades since it was first clearly spotted by various modern researchers. Will we continue to overlook it?

  • I can see a situation (much like it is now) where even though the general public despised psychiatry, the state would maintain various mechanisms for pulling people into the system. A disrespect for basic human rights on the part of government.

    I can also see a situation where respect for basic human rights improves, though that doesn’t seem to be the road we’re on right now. This would involve, I can only imagine, some basic change in human awareness. In this case, something called “psychiatry” could continue to exist, but would bear no resemblance to what it is now. Such a society could decide to abolish the term, and reinvent the subject with some new name.

    Right now I see us still drifting (or being pushed) towards the former condition. I think we have the tools to achieve the latter condition, but widespread acceptance for them does not yet exist, thanks to the work of psychiatry and related criminal interests.

  • Yah. The gene-mind connection does not sit well with me, though. These guys see genes as the only possible mechanism for transmitting “intimate” data from one generation to the next, and I think that’s wrong. There is an odd difference between this model and the one I use which I’ll mention here.

    In the genetic model, the transmission occurs at the time of sexual reproduction. For humans, most of that happens in the younger years of a lifetime. Thus, we have no mechanism for transmitting data learned after the reproductive years are over. In my model, the data are transmitted out at death and then picked up again at birth (or copulation, roughly, for the physiological data). This provides for a wider amount of “learned” data to be transmitted to new organisms compared to a strictly genetic model of transmission.

    Of course there is learned data, transmitted by cultural processes, but we’re not dealing with that here, even though that could also have an influence on the mind. Almost anything can influence the mind!

  • I don’t know anything about these “therapies,” but I can imagine they might be similar to what I got, which basically consisted of giving me suggestions for changing my approach to life that made sense to me and that I was willing to try. If they are like that, even though they may “improve outcomes,” they don’t address basic cause at all. This is actually the “medical model” of treatment. You make the symptoms go away by patching up whatever got broken or killing some bugs, then you call it a “cure” and send the patient on his way.

    The problem with psychiatry (and more often now with regular MDs) is that they want to keep that income stream going as long as possible. This is done, ordinarily, by purposely ignoring basic (or “root”) cause, treating symptoms only, and when symptoms persist, just continue treating symptoms. So, if the choice is between some maintenance dose of some drug and a diet change or some other handling that would actually make the patient permanently more healthy, they are tending to choose the former over the latter.

    Thus we see this “treatment modality” (I hate that “speak”) being used WITH drugs. And we see the study focusing mainly on symptoms, though “therapy” should be capable of addressing root cause. The study bows to “long-term effectiveness” (14 months) but where are the 3-5-10 year follow-ups? How long ago was it that Freud started all this? Why do we have so meager results in all those years? I don’t think their hearts are really in it.

  • I personally think this trend is very dangerous.

    Psychedelic drugs are already known to cause some very disturbing effects, that can “replay” years after going off them.

    We should already be certain that drugs are the wrong way to go in this field. So this represents to me a casting about hoping to come up with yet more drugs to throw at us when the current patents start running out. It is very difficult for me to imagine that these researchers are sincere. Particularly when they hide behind all this conceptual fog.

  • I consider this subject off topic for this site, but I can’t blame Dr. Dhar for doing the best she could with it.
    I just want to state my current view on the “genetic mind,” as it is written about so much these days.

    I think Rupert Sheldrake may be the one academic person that gets close on this subject.
    But, I subscribe to the idea that each higher-level body (like most mammals) as well as lower-level communities of bodies (like bees) has a “mind” associated with it. The main thing this mind is responsible for is genetic expression, or getting all the little physical details of the body correct. But it also carries forward all the behavioral habits that each species is “born” with, and on top of that, it can “learn” and “think” (in an animal sort of way). So, as far as I’m concerned, whenever any scientist or academic talks about “genetic” traits, this animal mind is what they are actually, unwittingly, referring to. This is not the same mind that we humans use to think and remember, but it is what our bodies use to regulate the endocrine systems, etc., and to provide a baseline level of awareness when we get knocked out or badly hurt.

  • I should probably just stay out of this. These criticisms based on the DSM have furnished great talking points for the anti-psychiatry movement, and articles such as the one critiqued above have provided parallel talking points for the pro-psychiatry movement. But the fact is that this is not the central pillar on which anti-psychiatry stands. We object 1) to the harm being done and 2) to the failed promises, the blatant unwillingness to improve, and the endless make-wrong of all critics. We see what amounts to a criminal operation at work here, and we object to it. It goes without saying that criminals, exposed, will madly attempt to defend themselves. And arguing about the “medical model” gives them the perfect opportunity to do so.

    I wish we would expend our efforts more in the direction of identifying things that really work and promoting them widely. There will always be a few around trying to control the battle at a propaganda level, but the point is – isn’t it? – to save lives, not to win debates. If everyone knew that psych meds were dangerous and refused to take them, psychiatry wouldn’t have much to talk about. And if communities had better ways to handle people who seem a “little off” then psychiatrists would be forced to either become real doctors or leave the field (which is probably what most of them should do).

  • I’m happy to see that you’re interested in these issues.

    I think a lot of readers of this website and forum would agree with you. However, I am aware of the importance of the spiritual factor which most still discount.

    But even though this article was all about some work being done to understand psychology better, that’s not totally the point of this site. Most people here are more interested in the problem of how we get psychiatry off our backs, not in all the new and interesting ways they could develop to extend their unwelcomed stay even longer.

    Now, I actually think that one way to kick psychiatry out of the picture is for us to understand psychology better. And yes, there are some people working in the field that don’t get the attention they deserve. But the first one I think of is Ian Stevenson, not the brain boys or the neurologists or the sociologists or the functionalists. So we’re on a different page as far as that goes, but I’m used to that. Just trying to repeat my basic message and hope it gets across. Psychology: study of the psyche – soul, spirit, you know?

  • This website specifically concerns itself with the issue of “mental health” and how psychiatry tried to make us believe they had the answers then failed us.

    I just don’t want people to get all starry-eyed about systems theory and functional medicine when it comes to totally replacing what psychiatry promised it could do then failed to do.

    Because I don’t see the spirit, and a proper understanding of the spirit, front and center in that work, and I think it needs to be to fully resolve the problems that psychiatry currently helps society sweep under the rug.

    When the functional medicine people think they have this thing licked and are ready to take over completely from the psychs, I’d be all for it. But even though they may include a “spiritual” component in their work, they claim to be “science-based” and so far, science doesn’t include spirit. And I think any approach will ultimately miss the mark, especially in the field of mental health, if it does not give sufficient attention to the problems of the spirit.

  • Psychological theory is already quite aware of the interrelatedness of people, environmental poisons, economic stressors and so forth. The breakdown in treatment seems to be much more along the lines of politics and greed.

    But there is a more basic problem with the MD approach to “healing.” Regular docs tend to get away with this because most people only expect them to patch us up and send us on our way. Psychiatry wants to follow that same model. As I expressed it in another post, you don’t expect your doc to worry about why you broke your arm. You just expect your doc to fix your arm and send you home. The psychs want to work that same way. They don’t want to worry about why you got depressed. They just want to write a prescription and say goodbye. We think that’s being really irresponsible. They think they are doing what all other doctors do.

    In that sense, we would be better off without them, since their drugs don’t work. But in another sense, maybe we are just looking at the wrong profession for handling the more common “mental health” issues. People like social workers, even clergy or family members, are probably the ones who should be helping most people with “mental health” issues sort things out.

    Part of the problem with psychiatry is that a few people really do “go insane” or have “severe/acute episodes” or whatever they call it these days. And when that happens, family, police, regular MDs – no one – wants to deal with it. The behavior can be so strange that it freaks most people out. So the psychs stepped up centuries ago and said “give those guys to us.” They used to lock them up, experiment on them, and kill them. These days we expect better, and we object to psychs treating the whole world (except them!) as “crazy.” But the fact is that they fill a need in society, and I think that’s one reason why we are having such difficulties getting rid of them.

  • I’m impressed by your knowledge of what has been going on in research and treatment in this field. I hope you will continue to contribute what you know. But do keep in mind that what we have found to be the problem, first and foremost, in this particular field, is moral failure. If we are right about that (we might not be totally right) then better understandings and treatments will be rejected or ignored by mainstream psychiatry. That has been our most common experience up to this point.

  • I said, a human is not a “system.” I’m just emphasizing that there is an element of life that science has missed and that “systems theory” as you have described it will miss, too. It’s an important element when it comes to understanding “mental illness” and if we continue to neglect it, I don’t care how nuanced our approaches become, they will miss the mark because they are leaving something out that is fundamentally important.

    If systems theory included this element, it could include living things and humans in a way that would be much more beneficial. We know just from the ordinary English meanings of the words that individuals are parts of systems. So I’m just emphasizing that the “systems” concept in science (as far as I know) is missing an essential element that is preventing the simplification of our understanding of the human problem to the point where that understanding would be genuinely helpful.

    I know the current approach to treatment is broken.
    I know we need better understandings and better treatment practices. That is painfully obvious in the field of “mental health.”

    In your own case you never got proper physical tests. That sounds like malpractice to me. Doctors know that there are a variety of stressors that can add up to feeling depressed. They don’t skip the tests because they are ignorant (although they could be much better-trained). They skip thorough testing because they are lazy and/or greedy. That’s not a problem with theory, that’s an ethics problem. Lots of psychs make the excuse that they “don’t understand the causes of mental illness” well enough yet. Though it’s true, but they could do much better than they do now with no more than they know now. I think they suffer from a lack of will.

    That you were able to do so much for yourself is absolutely great and shows how crippled the “mental health” system has become. It sounds like you had a situation where mental factors were actually very minimal once many other factors were recognized. That’s the most common experience for the majority of people who get involved in the “mental health” system today.

    But there are some people in situations that they don’t know how to handle themselves. And the current system fails them not because it doesn’t appreciate the interrelatedness of things but because it has gone corrupt, greedy and uncaring. My point is that today the field is failing first and foremost because it has lost its moral compass (if it ever had one). Another way of saying it is that even if you established a more robust theoretical framework for the causes and treatments of “mental illness” a lot of these doctors would not use it because their level of ethical thought is too low.

  • That’s astute. Must be some kind of marketing mix-up. Maybe the academic research psychiatrists don’t always keep up on the latest story line being pushed. Or vice versa. But I’ve noticed that in the more recent material I’ve read, they’ve been dropping the “disease” push on the cause side of things. I think they realized that it could still sell. After all, if you break your arm, it’s not because there was something wrong with your arm. But you still have to see a doc, and they fix your arm. They don’t fix why you broke your arm! So I guess maybe they figure they can sell it from that angle.

  • You can apply complex systems theory all you want to systems!
    A human being is not a “system!”
    A human being is a cause point that has a personality, plus a body, playing various games called “living” on a planet called “Earth.”
    If you can model that “system” with systems theory, then you might take the “science” to the point where you begin to discover some truths about the human personality and how it develops. But those truths have already been discovered. Psychology is playing stupid because a “non academic” beat them to it. That’s the only real complexity about this whole thing. They couldn’t see the truth if it were staring them in the face!
    And…Sorry about being over-emotional, but I’m tired of this. We have things to get done. We have people to heal and empower. We don’t need more “research.” We need deliberate action.

    I’m sure “systems theory” and the study of complex systems with all the latest mathematical models will contribute greatly to the proper handling of many issues faced by society. But it doesn’t understand Man yet, and as long as it uses a mechanistic amoral approach to the human condition, I won’t trust that research to provide insights that are truly meaningful.

  • I don’t need to nitpick with this approach to the problem; I need to warn strongly against it. It is based on understandings that are woefully incomplete. Following this line of reasoning will take us down the drain on the subject of “mental health.” Ignoring this approach might be the first step towards stepping away from the whole psychiatric system of thinking and acting.

  • For me, the central theme of this article has to do with complexity.
    My teacher makes this observation: “All complexity surrounding any subject or action is derived from a greater or lesser inability to confront.”
    If these people think that “mental health” is determined by a “complex system” then this confirms to me that they haven’t really LOOKED at the subject, and are covering their ignorance and inability to look with a lot of fancy words that have nothing to do with the truth.

  • It’s hard to tell if a study like this is meant to “protect the consumer” from health advice that is useful but not mainstream, or from buying into a mindset that places convenience above results. We can assume these “apps” are being designed and marketed, for the most part, for the sole purpose of sucking more usable data out of people who could be potential customers for various commercial operations. Who really thinks that buying a “mental health app” will make them feel better or resolve anything? I suppose there are people out there who are so confused about the subject that they are gullible enough to believe such an app offers real help. If so, that’s really too bad.

  • I find this interesting. It’s a “follow the money” type of article.
    It seems to me, though, that any patient group agreeing to be funded by Big Pharma must have ethical issues that need to be addressed. I don’t think it’s OK for stuff like that to happen. It has gotten to the point where some “consumer advocacy” groups are completely industry-controlled and little more than front groups that issue confusing propaganda. This whole trend should be reined in and brought to an end.

  • This version of the report has been out since April. I think it has been reported on before. This particular article seems a little disjointed, but the source report is a bit long, covers many subjects, and focuses on existing systems that are already in place, not on any vision for something better.

    This man, Pūras, cares about human rights, but is also an academic psychiatrist and doctor. So you can expect that he will “mind his manners” when speaking about the topic. The report does not focus on theory, either – only policy. Though he warns about the failures of the biomedical model (a model of treatment, not really a theory of causation) to protect patient rights, he does not condemn it as totally false or unworkable.

    What I have been looking into mostly during the past week is our larger sociopolitical environment, where it came from and what it is being used to accomplish. And the conclusions I am finding are alarming.

    Long ago there was a conviction, even among scientists, that the psyche was real and that notions of the spiritual had some basis for validity, as well as a degree of utility in society. Around the time of The Enlightenment, that view started to change. In Europe, the church had become entrenched, and was standing in the way of intellectual (and technology?) progress. Thus, the Enlightenment sought to shift the focus of scientific thinking away from the spirit (psyche) and towards the physical, but with a strong push for “human rights” centered around the right to speak freely about ideas that threatened the status quo.

    However, the focus of scientific thought on the physical led to various dehumanizing philosophies and practices, requiring that the demand for basic human rights be continuously re-asserted, but with less and less effectiveness. Today we live in a world where “science” is the new status quo – the new religion – and where behavior or ideas that oppose the “findings of science” can be labelled mad, delusional, or socially dangerous.

    Today I can get on Facebook and suggest that this whole mask thing might be overblown and get accused of being a criminal. The right to one’s own ideas has been lost, buried under a new hubris of social safety and “justice.”

    No one wants to talk about the importance of basic human rights. So I’m glad this is still considered a valid issue at places like Mad in America! Most people want to talk about what the “science says.” For so many now, the future looks like a “brave new world” that hearkens back to the disturbing ideologies of Technocracy and scientism (that in their time also embraced the “science” of Eugenics) where all moral values are forsaken in the name of scientific “truth.”

    The ironic thing about all this is that science is now in the process of validating the existence of the spirit (or some similar causal agency) that will eventually have to be incorporated into our understanding of the physical world for any further progress in the sciences to be made. We need to stay true to our conviction that human rights are important, if not totally basic, to human life. I am sure that the very foundations that support our understanding of why human rights are so important will be attacked in the weeks, months and years to come. We must not let those attacks be successful.

  • This article is highly problematic.

    Psychiatry is pushing drugs as THE solution for “mild” forms of “mental illness.” In practice, nearly everyone with any complaint no matter the severity who walks in, or is forced in, to the “mental health” system gets put on drugs. Many become dependent on these drugs.

    I don’t care if you call it “addiction” or something else. I have seen the personal stories of people trying to get off benzodiazepines (in the film Medicating Normal) and it a tortuous process that often takes years. We all should be aware of the addictive properties of street drugs, some medical drugs (opioids) and many common substances like tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and pot. And this article is suggesting we should drop our concerns about “addiction?” That it’s some sort of myth invented by Benjamin Rush? What? Whatever you call it, it’s a lived experience shared by millions of people!

    The implication is that we should drop our concerns about addiction because the “model” is wrong. And this will lead to what? A wider acceptance for the use of drugs to “handle” conditions that have very little, if anything, to do with biochemical phenomena?

    I have seen some characterize this pandemic as an “opportunity.” Exactly what do they mean by that? I know who has taken advantage of this “opportunity” so far: Those who want to frighted us into believing that there is a terrible danger lurking out there that only medical professionals know how to protect us from. Then the FDA does crazy things like allow test kits onto the market that don’t work, wasting millions of dollars that have flowed into the pockets of scammers and similar criminals.

    Does this sound similar to the con game known as “psychiatry?” It sure does to me!

  • I have now viewed the online discussion mentioned above. There was a black woman who noted that the system was not working well in her community. She advocated paying communitiy members with government money to take care of each other. Interesting.

    Regarding the pandemic, I recently saw a graph indicating that deaths (all causes) in the UK had returned to normal summer levels. Yet I saw other graphs indicating deaths were continuing to spike in South Africa (where it is winter), and in U.S. states where the summers are dry – or so hot they drive people inside. The people who want this great abuse of power and privilege, this slap in the face of all humanity, to continue will probably have their way unless something marvelously extreme happens, such as mass arrests of the high and mighty.
    …but all this is off the subject, is it not?

  • I hope you are right that they aren’t really winning, because sometimes it sure seems like they are! When my own friends and family members can get all caught up in the “drama” of recent events it reminds me that they never really bothered to understand what it is we will lose if we lose our basic rights. It concerns me greatly. We have a whole generation, including even mine, primed to be led like cattle to the slaughter.

  • It’s true that psychiatry could not survive in its present form if no one else in the society tolerated or supported it.

    We had the idea of keeping it at bay by trying to erect legal safeguards. But that still means that millions are being hurt.

    At the rotten core of their practice is the intention to extinguish our love for each other. We can’t let them prevail.