Psychiatry is based on quackery, opinion and unethical practices.
“Psychiatry” seeks to change people’s personalities. It seeks to impart religion and humbleness on people. It’s a dishonest practice based on belief and subjective reasoning.
Please don’t reproduce.
So give us something more to work with. How does it do this? What is the quackery? Etc. Make a little bit of a case. I agree with you though not in quite the blanket fashion of your OP, but I am interested in hearing what makes you think this is true.
When I was in San Francisco, I was toying around with the idea with a friend of using methods as found in the phenomena of Tarot for building physiological models (as the Jungians are so damn in love with Tarot, why not) based on neuro-chemical signatures… the shape of cards, with certain abnormal behaviors, and continuously streamline them against a user-base, most likely bored and way into Tarot women, into learning how they interpret them, and continue the modeling until we hit a sum of their lay diagnosis equaling or bettering a professional diagnosis.
I think such a outline wouldn’t so much go vertically or horizontally, but almost like chemical formulas in every direction. I still haven’t settled on the overall best phenomena.
The goal is to eventually replace psychiatry. Their a bunch of leeches, plain and simple… their whole ethical profession is modeled off of avoiding lawsuit and losing their license and making more money… they don’t get a bonus for curing people.
I would feel much better if they all were neuro-surgeons or actual MDs, but most are not. I don’t touch these parasitic quacks with our mentally ill, especially since so much of the modern profession was founded on persecuting and burying the memory of Wilhelm Reich. He’s not a hero, but he is a martyr for the realization that they can be a bunch of hypocritical and barbaric, inclusive and predatory thugs just as the worst of any rift-raft in a back alley can be. They get away with it because of the taboo and they deal with people who often can’t legally call foul against their practice because they lack a legal voice.
Yes, some good and well meaning individuals, but usually not the case Mostly parasites unable to cut it in a real medical profession.
So our task is simple… we must systematically undercut and devolve their professional cause for being. We’re starting to develop the technology. One of their main strongholds was over the law… judges once were responsible for determining if a person was sane or not… then they started relying on expert witnessed, the psychobabbalist. Yet, we have precedents such as graphology that undercut their authority legally under precedent in the US. We can take this further and develop facial recognition software that looks for neurosis in interviews. At first, they will insist on a shrink doing it, but as it become more and more fool-proof, police departments are going to save money here and there, especially in rural areas, in just plugging in the camera and running the software, interviewing them themselves… as they too are trained for interviewing people- it’s called interrogation… and let the software do the diagnosis. Judges may be able to do it in real time in a court room. Shrinks may get some money working for software companies helping to develop and improve such technologies, but it’s going to be at their own expense… someone starting in their 20s on such a program might find themselves effectively out of work by time they are 60 if all goes well.
Hence the emphasis on Tarot… once that stuff starts kicking in, they will increasingly flood the services market with scams on how to save your marriage to self esteem to whatever. If we can target the esoteric crowd of female users- the kind who get into it or MBTI or other such systems… we can create a large body of highly skilled hobby enthusiasts and support groups who would undercut the swollen market. This will also significantly reduce the sanctity of the profession, as people will increasingly see it as less and less needed. I suspect there will come a time where many state boards will cease offering licences, and psychiatry will submerge into a subskill of the medical community shared by all but rarely specialized in outside of Human Resources and highly skilled, cutting edge applications, such as max security prisons or highly specialized medical institutions. In such cases, I wouldn’t oppose it, as they would be about 10 times more skilled than your Niles and Frasier bootleg doctors running around robbing people of their money, feeding on their fears and bewilderment.
Psychiatry is the witchcraft and mind control of the state.
It is the state’s reaction to what it views as cognitive dissonance.
It exists to mentally break down those rebellious individuals that refuse to conform within it’s ranks. It also exists to shelter, feed, and protect the lives of those minds it has destroyed also in order to maintain well public relations for itself.
You got my vote.
I remember having a hard time deciding whether it would be Nazism or the APA that I destroyed first, if given the chance.
The APA finally got my vote.
But it is already a done deal. Psychiatry is already in its death throws.
But what is to replace it is much worse (as usual).
Psychiatry will be replaced with nanotech behavioral modification biological implanted chips given the absurdity of society’s desire for technological totalitarianism.
Yep… and called “Neuroscience”, Second only to Eugenics.
I second this.
I think she has a point. Psychology is a very weak field as it stands, full of careless views and opinions and seldom anything rigid, But then: You’re still young–that’s your fault
There’s so much you have to know: find a field, settle down If you want, you can marry, Look at me Biology -I am old But I’m happy; I was once like you are now, and I know that it’s not easy to become when you’ve found something going on, but take your time–think a lot Think of everything you’ve got, for you will still be here tomorrow but your dreams may not…
Psychiatry should be inlawed. 
^ Absolutely. Psychology and psychiatry are young sciences. It’s not long since they were pure speculation based on dubious observational experiments operating on not much more than socioculturally relativistic normative principles of inclusion and exclusion. However, in the past few decades tremendous advances have been made both in terms of imaging techniques/other technologies and recording of brain injury cases. The latter have provided us with unprecedented knowledge of how the brain works and what happens when bits of it go wrong. Medication is getting more sophisticated, though to an extent it is in many cases a question of trial and error. We now understand a great deal about the brain, though there is ample room for further research.
I do agree that there a lot of people of modest intellectual capacity in psychology in particular, given that it seems a common choice for people who don’t know what to study and think ‘ooh, the brain’s quite interesting’. I make this statement knowing full well there are a great many highly intelligent psychologists, but I have seen a large number of peer-reviewed papers that I (a non-specialist) can pick holes in due to flawed methodology or incorrect application of statistical techniques, etc.
Still, I’m sure there were plenty of voices saying ‘science should be outlawed’ back in the days of Newton, but we owe a great deal to science, and particularly medicine.
I see little evidence within the psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry of any progress in their understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of their approach or the problems of that. Unfortunately it makes sense to view humans as bodies in isolation and ftheir ‘mental’ problems as individual pathologies. As if, for example, society was a neutral ground. The reason this makes sense to the pharmaceutical industry to view things this way is because it radically expands the market. Instead of modifying society to meet the needs of humans we can increasinly modify humans to meet the needs of…‘society’ - I put that in citation marks because I think it benefits certain people and not others, certaint structures and habits and not others.
This confusion on their part is very clear, even to non-skeptics, when there is a fad in the psychiatric/pharma group - either a new drug or diagnosis - and suddenly everyone is ‘borderline’ or ‘ADHD’ or taking Zoloft, or whatever.
These problems - and this is just one corner - do not mean the DSM4 is a set of random mythological beliefs nor does it mean that no one benefits from medication - given especially what their goals and habits and preferences are. But the point I am making is that despite advances in brain imaging etc, fundamental philosophical flaws are not being addressed at all. There is no progress at all in these areas. There is simply refinement of technique and taxonomy without any reflection on assumptions.
Any reflection might jeopardize profits, so the pharmaceutical industry is hardly likely to any steps in that direction. Psychiatrists have zero training in the philosophy of science, philosophy in general, sociology, anthropology - as examples of some fields that might help them notice the philosophical assumptions they are working with and potentially challenge them. Some, as individuals, may have some experience in these fields, but this would have been ‘on their own time’ or some course taken to fill out a premed BA./BS.
Psychologists are more likely to be critical, but they also tend to pathologize individuals within the system of their own philosophies.
Yes… but the system has a back up… Philosophy students who minor in psychology, or vice versa… and they contribute next to NOTHING to changing or understanding anything. My old gym at the Embarcadero YMCA had like, three guys within the rows immediately near me who were doing that stuff… shaved chest, cute designer hair and sunglasses indoors…
that whole counter that was meant to fill in the gap absolutely failed. You would think it would of blossomed or something by now, but it hasn’t. San Francisco has a lay philosophy movement deeply interested in psychology since the 70s when the Jungians stormed the city- and not diddy jack outside of a Lacan-Wittgenstein meetup group over came of it. I simply wanted nothing to do with such people.
I think if you get the best of the best together, you tend to have above average thinkers and something can come of it. I’ve never wanted to absolutely abolish psychology, rather, just want it to go under a quality metamorphosis in seclusion for a generation or two where only those with a keen understanding of it will go out of their way to preserve and evolve it under elite conditions… letting the rabble masses of it’s practitioners lose their board licenses… I envision the survivors being board certified in other aspects of the mind, such as neurology or law, or a actual MD… people who say ‘hmm, some of these techniques might be useful’ and apply it under important circumstances.
My solution to the prison crisis, which I wrote about elsewhere on this site, focuses it’s fetishism on containment via time as punishment, with parole and integration back into society as a afterthought that they might try to fit in. I want fMRI’s done on anyone being charged with a crime that can result in a long prison sentence, then again when they are sentenced, and monthly from then on… administered by a trusted inmate in the prison (operations of such a machine wouldn’t be impossible for a inmate to learn), as well when they are up for parole, and once a year after they get out (mandatory as part of sentencing) as well if they are incarcerated again.
The goal of such a project would be so we can reduce the emphasis on time and put it on stabilizing them enough so they can go back out and rejoin society. Once the underlining personality glitches are understood for violent crimes or destructive white collar crimes, we can map for it, and put the emphasis not on incarcerating, but redeeming people. This would be a perfect place for psychologist, on the front line of psychology, trying to figure out how to make bob the gas station hold robber or louie the arsenist dependable enough to release. Wardons would be highly specialized, with bonuses paid to them and the guards for successful, long term inmates turned citizens (emphasis on long term, in other wards the pay in the long term, and not just a immediate bonus large sum bonus, whereas if it fails they get a deduction for not noticing the inmates were hiding neurotic phenomena- it will radically shift the emphasis from having dumb fuck infantry/MPs just getting out to scare the inmates back into line to making them want to study psychology and intercommunication a little more… causing a cross specialization.
I figure if this becomes the case, the prison industry would radically change it’s behavior. They wouldn’t want to have locally a long term, determined criminal who wants to break out, and have to police him to hell- no bonus, only threats of losing pay on him. If such a person was to be isolated in a supermax prison up in someplace absolutely defeating and impossible, like inside the barren, deadly cold Brooks Range in Northern Alaska in which escape isn’t realistic- you can give them larger accommodations, in many cases a small apartment, decent food, etc… it will be a time-incarceration prison, instead of a redemption oriented one. No parole… no end sentence, once in, your end for good, unless you can prove your ready to leave… and have the nations top psychologists there, like a military unit. Have the infantry units in Alaska do month by month rotations in and out of the place. This is the kind of prison where you’ll have cable and limited internet access, maybe a cat, table with a chair, wooden walls if your not self-violent, sink and cabinet, etc. If you go crazy shitting all over and making pointless shanks (no direct human contact, just a hannibal lector bulletproof glass in the apartment for the psychologist to check you out, usually with a see through mirror behind it so the guard can watch you when doing patrols) your obviously not getting this set up, you’ll get the padded room.
I am generally opposed to forced medicating people like they do in Norway… if it’s not voluntary and permanent- it’s a bad idea, if they stop it, it’s going to come back. This would be the fastest way to weed out the psychological difficulties of people… what isn’t psychological but doesn’t relate to law issues, like epilepsy, is a concern for neurologists and the pharmaceutical industry… Bacon did a decent enough job here… I am focusing on the other side of the coin, the legal issues… and this is the fastest and cheapest and most wide ranging aggressive way I can imagine cataloging and solving the causes for imprisonment. It also will systematically reduce reliance in a court of law on the authority of bullshit psychologists… judges will learn how to read the fMRI slides very quickly themselves, and will very quickly within their profession be qualified for diagnosis as any bullshit quack can do presently. It’s really not that hard to read a fMRI half the time, once you know what the regions of the brain are supposed to do. It’s like learning to recognize Kanji.
I like you guy. Keep posting.
There seem to be a lot of people in psychology who may be there because they themselves need some treatment, thus their interest in the field.
I remember asking my high school psychology teacher if psychologists were happier than most people, which seemed to me a practical bottom line question.
To his credit, he paused, reflected, and then said…
“Well, no, if anything the opposite is true.”
He was an honest fellow and I respected him for that.
A few years later he was fired for having sex with a student.
True story.
Having gotten that out of my system…
Given that the vast majority of our problems, personal and social, can be traced back to the human mind, it does seem this is a point of greatest leverage, and we would be smart to invest a lot more than we currently do in the study of the mind.
An example…
Global warming. The source of the overheating of our planet is our over heated minds.
If we were to suddenly discover an infinite supply of free and clean energy, the economy would take off like a rocket, and we’d begin burning through various limited resources at an ever faster pace.
Thus, the problem is not solved, but simply moved from one box to another.
=D>
Psychiatry is an extension of the law. It can’t be outlawed. It’s the replacement of “confession”, used to dumb people down while hearing them out.
A common psychiatrist will, without analyzing the patients complaints, routinely prescribe chemicals that permanently alter the brain, and destroy the decision making circuitry.
Of course this does indeed lead to a more “peaceful” existence, precisely like confession. For humans desiring to be part of the herd/stampede, it is actually a very benevolent practice.
But to whom do you give such detailed and powerful knowledge?
The “good guys” right?
Just who might they be?
Psychiatrists, priests of the king?