American Psychiatry: how much a political tool?

And the "evidence" is:

Maybe I haven't been drinking enough mushroom tea to follow the "logic". Are you suggesting that whoever disagrees with whatever obscure point you're trying to make is some kind of nut?

 

No .

Divergence is psy tactic . Seemingly clever .

 

I feel like the main argument here that should be mentioned is that psychiatrists are helping people. Also, people have beef when psychiatrists diagnose them. That is bias. It's the very definition of bias...

I admit that when I was diagnosed with ADD, I didn't like it! I was mad. I was a little kid, and I had ADD. They wanted me to take medicine because my attention span left something to be desired due to attention deficit. I thought about it in terms of subjectivity. The person making this call was making assumptions! Oh... I was so mad!

But the medicine helped. I hated it anyway, but it helped.

That diagnosis went by the wayside at some point; I think I was 14 or something and was doing well.



But the point I want to make is that psychiatrists are not out to get you. They are trying to help you. Sometimes we feel like there may be nothing wrong with us, but we haven't really made an honest assessment.

 

Maybe liberals are told by doctors that they are mentally ill because doctors are in a sense small business owners. Republican. Of a privileged social class.

During the 60's, President Johnson liked to comment that intelligence had found many anti-war protesters had histories of mental health problems. He thought that proved him right, regarding the war. But now we know it was a false flag war; begun with a lie. There is more to mental illness than meets the eye of the physician.

 

Tishomingo, your post made me laugh. My friends who have science degrees scoff at mental health professionals who claim a degree in clinical psychology makes them a scientist. Around the coffee shops one meets psychiatric social workers who are obviously disturbed and sick individuals. This notion that they, or a psychiatrist, can define normal, and recognize mental illnesses in people they have met in just a few appointments is delusional.

A psychiatrist once told me that a person could go to 5 psychiatrists in 1 day and get 5 different diagnosis. That says it all.

 

Tishomingo, psychiatry still needs to be taken down a peg. Just as it did in the 1950's. It claims to know the unknowable, and is an enforcer of social control via the biases of its practitioners.

 

People with degrees in the "hard sciences" often scoff at those who don't, especially those with degrees in the social or behavioral sciences. That may be a reflection of their own arrogance or obtuseness. Then again, if I want to get some insight into human or social behavior, I wouldn't consult a physicist, or even a biologist. Inexact as they are, the behavioral and social sciences are the best we can do in the way of systematic empirical study of human and social behavior, and I consider that better than somebody going on the basis of his/her prejudices and folk wisdom handed down from grandma or Uncle Mike. Freud and Jung used methods that were inexact, and from the vantage point of later decades of criticism, we can see flaws in their methodology. But also real insights. Both had their own psychological quirks and hangups, which they probably inflicted on their unfortunate patients. Jung, in particular, impresses me as borderline certifiable and with a twist in circumstances might have ended up himself in a padded cell. As in all things, it ultimately comes down to judgment.

Not quite all. It says that psychiatry is inexact, and that there are several schools of it, with different approaches to therapy.

I don't know that psychiatry claims to know the unknowable. I does claim to know some things. Unfortunately, in every society since the beginning of time there have been individuals whose views of reality seem distorted to the point of posing a danger to themselves or others. In Indonesia, some used to pick up a machete and run through the streets hacking passers by. In Scandanavia, they seem to be more prone to turn their aggression against themselves and do themselves in. What to do? Treat them as criminals, or treat them as "sick", whatever that might mean. At one time, taking the latter approach seemed to be more enlightened, but of course, like most other things human, developed its excesses and abuse, and came in for its share of criticism. Now many "enlightened" souls think such floks are better off wandering the streets, and the passers by hope they're harmless. And we debate whether or not authorities should be able to deprive them of their "right" to firearms.

 

Do they now... I am working on an associates in psychology. I wonder what they would say to that. The scientific method can be applied billions of ways in psychology. Their experiments/findings are just as credible as any of your friends'.

I feel like that's a stretch. You're making a bold statement, sure. But that doesn't mean that you have any clout whatsoever. You're not backing it up!

This is clearly not the case. A diagnosis by a psychiatrist holds up in court the same way one does from a doctor or a scientist. I think you probably had a bad experience and are taking it out on the mental health industry.

 

By James Risen New York Times

• April 30, 2015

WASHINGTON — The American Psychological Association secretly collaborated with the administration of President George W. Bush to bolster a legal and ethical justification for the torture of prisoners swept up in the post-Sept. 11 war on terror, according to a new report by a group of dissident health professionals and human rights activists.

 

That's evidence of collaboration. But what do you think it suggests about the APA? Did they choreograph torture?

I ask because I feel like that's what you're saying the article says. Is it a quote or a link to a quote? Thanks in advance...

 

"If you were to ask a room full of 10 theoretical physicists on the nature of Dark Energy, you would get about 12 different answers."

-Paul M. Sutter : Astrophysicist - PhD
How the Universe Works: Battle of the Dark Universe

 

It suggests that some psychologists are willing to be employed for devious and powerful purposes . They are
what I call the Wizards of Psychology .

 

The APA is as far as I know held in high regard though.

Ok I think I found what you're talking about. Sorry.



Here is something from their website though...


Position on Ethics and Interrogation


The American Psychological Association's (APA) position on torture is clear and unequivocal:

Any direct or indirect participation in any act of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by psychologists is strictly prohibited. There are no exceptions.

Clear violations of APA's no torture/no abuse policy include acts such as:

• Waterboarding
• Sexual humiliation
• Stress positions
• Exploitation of phobias

 

Private organizations like the APA can banish members for ethics violations . Would
this disallow the CIA from employing such persons ?

 

Since psychologists are human, it's not surprising that some of them are reprehensible. It happens in every profession. If this were the norm instead of the exception, I'd be concerned. As for the James Risen article in the NYT, it would help if you'd provide a citation to the article instead of to just the author.

But I looked it up. Psychologists Open a Window on Brutal C.I.A. Interrogations
What the article discloses is indeed disturbing: The CIA’s torture program was created, supervised, and implemented by two licensed clinical psychologists: James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who who were paid millions of dollars for their efforts. Indeed, the Bush administration’s "enhanced interrogtion" operation was devised and supervised largely by clinical psychologists. In his book Pay Any Price: Greed, Power and Endless War, Risen goes on to charge that senior staff members of the American Psychological Association colluded with psychologists from the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House to modify APA ethics policy to accommodate the interrogators. New Evidence Links CIA to APA's "War on Terror" Ethics

So that seems to bring into focus the vague allusions you've been beating around the bush about. Professional psychologists, including officers of the American Psychological Association itself, were involved with our government in promoting torture during the Bush Administration, is that it? Or are you trying to say more?

What can we conclude about this that 's relevant to the topic American Psychiatry: How Much of a Political Tool? It certainly exposes one major instance of American psychology being used as a political tool--except it's psychology and the American Psychological Association, not psychiatry and the American Psychiatric Association that was playing footsie with the Bush Administration. Psychology, psychiatry--same difference? Not necessarily.

The OP was mainly concerned that the psychiatrists were derelict in their "responsibility" to call out religion for beliefs that would be considered crazy if held by individuals without religious guidance. Psychiatry and the other mental health professions are set up to handle the problems of individuals who seek its services or who are referred to it by the authorities, not to serve as free lance commentators on the mental state of collectivities.

And then there is the line of criticism launched by Six-eyed Shaman: that psychiatry, clinical psychology and social work are essentially scams and rackets making money by over-medicating people and making them dependent on its services without really helping them. He thinks we'd be better off toughing it out--although those around us might think otherwise.

So what does all this boil down to? Because ethical problems have been exposed among some members of a profession, it's all rot to the core and has no validity at all. All priests are peodphiles? All doctors are quacks? All lawyers are crooks? etc. You can jump to those conclusions if you want to, but logically they make no sense.

To me, a disturbing phenomenon brought to light by the report was the involvement of the U.S. governmnent in torture, under the euphemism of "enhanced interrogation". I thought at the time that G.W. Bush had taken us to a new low: torture, two wars and a recession. But Trump has managed to drag us further to the bottom. Is government the problem, or just the Republican brand of it?

 

I kind of agree but what motivates someone to get into this field? A lot of them have struggled with depression or addiction so they fix themselves by fixing others. They want to understand themselves. I am not going as far as 6 saying they have no purpose. That's toxic thinking. I'm just saying they don't work for me at all. I was forced to talk to some in high school by my parents and they were all idiots in their own way. Some really did not listen to me at all, others wanted to focus on problems that were not there.

I have noticed that they don't really do anything for you. The whole process is teaching you how to handle yourself. So I've found them kind of useless. I pay all this money and you just sit there asking me "why do you feel that way?"At the end you cut me off and remind this was not friendly it was business. I don't do well with this hooker kind of relationship. It's a waste of my time to pay someone to care.

 

To me, it sounds like you got a bad one!

They're not all that way, rest assured. Some are more social than others though.

And when the session wraps up, it's always been weird for me too.

 

Yeah probably. I was caught smoking weed and was underage so the whole thing was always about weed. This person said they used to use heroin so they "understood me". Um no you don't I would never use heroin.

 

With my psychiatrist, there was also an issue with marijuana use, but I hadn't been caught; it was already legal here. He sanctioned me by diagnosing cannabis dependence. Initially I didn't agree with him, but eventually I conceded and stopped using it.

Sometimes I miss cannabis, but ultimately I feel like his diagnosis was accurate. At the time, I was neglecting some responsibilities and abusing my driving privilege while stoned off my ass!

The basic idea here is that he was right and I was wrong.

 

Yeah I can't deny some addiction potential. But in my case there was no evince of me neglecting anything. Honor roll grades and doing pretty well in sports for a high school student. I was never going to be in the Olympics but that's not weed it's just natural born talent. Not everyone can be Lebron James. And I was not even smoking every day. I didn't agree but I did think long and hard about me just being a stoner.