Wow! A lot of good posts here. A lot better than some of the tripe I read in Medscape Psychiatry today [just a particularly bad article there along with a bad set of commentary]. STUPIDIFICATION. I LIKE that angle. Whether this “replaces” other similar angles might only be determined by testing it more. It has “punch,” but by NO means an empty punch nor simple semantic wrangling IMHO. Most of the commenters here seem articulate, reasoned, & bright. Error here and error there, but that is the value of reasonably civil discourse as we see here when carried out by non-stupid people. It is self-correcting if such writers will allow it. All in all though, the points being made here are the same old same old and THAT is a problem. One person praised Dr. K. for this editorial but opined that it won’t get far BECAUSE it is so apt – that (implied) truth tends to get suppressed. This very view seems to be in line with Dr. K’s point. The other thing, above others, which stood out to me is the way Dr. K chose to use the word “stupid.” I think the focus on “stupid” may help us break through the shield of dismissal of our same old same old (valid) criticism of psychiatry. The meat of Dr. K’s editorial, however, seems to have gotten a bit confused as “Slaying the Dragon” seemed to suggest, leaving “Slay” to tilt against windmills a bit. Rather than ask Dr. K to write more, nearly any commenter here could take up that task. If his piece is a true indication, Dr. K. is not the best WRITER here. He MAY be brilliantly the BOLDEST though in writing on “stupidification.” I think we should pick up THAT pen and write with it. Yes? No? THANK YOU, Dr.Kelmemson.