User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion

• User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion/critique biopsych article

retrieved from Karellen (article no longer in namespace)

Childhood’s End quotations

I have added quotations that convey the essence of the book without spoiling an otherwise potential enjoying reading. According to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, a spoiler "may reduce one's enjoyment of it by revealing certain plot events or twists".

The description in today’s Wikipedia article of Childhood's End omits a message that has made tens of thousands emotionally jolted when reading Arthur C. Clarke novel: the fact that humans have behaved as troglodytes in need of ET takeover. Karellen is such a human Neanderthals exterminator… Very few have noticed that Stanley Kubrick produced three films about the extermination, or eventual metamorphosis, of mankind: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and A.I. (2001), though he died before filming the latter. As John Brunner stated, science fiction is the last refuge of the morality tale.

Childhood's End, considered by literary critics Clarke’s best novel, ought to be filmed with Kubrickean virtuosity. —Cesar Tort 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

karellen@antipsiquiatria.org

A "vandal" tells the truth about psychiatry

Retrieved from Psychiatry 2 January 2007 (Revision as of 20:21)

“ Psychiatry is a quackery specialty dealing with the prevention, guess work, labelling, torture, and abuse of social political "abnormality". Its primary goal is to get society rid of anyone who are weird or unwanted. This may be based in prison-like hospitals or in the community and patients are involuntary. Psychiatry adopts a pseudoscience / deception approach but may take into account biological, psychological, and social/cultural perspectives. Treatment by harmful drugs or, less often, various forms of Frankensteinian psychobutchery such as Powerful Electric Shocks may be undertaken. The deceptive word 'psychiatry' derives from the Greek for "healer of the spirit", but psychiatrist don't believe in the spirit and are certainly not in this business to "heal" anything.

Psychiatry is an unprofessional malpractice

Psychiatrists are quacks disguised as physicians and are certified in the oppression of social/political diversity using the biomedical approach to alleged/purpoted mental "disorders" including the use of Psychiatric Neurotoxic Drugs. Psychiatrists may also go through significant training to conduct psychobutchery, psychoparalysis, and/or cognitive behavioral therapy, but it is their dogmatic training that differentiates them from real doctors and other real health professionals. Psychiatric nurses and psychiatric social workers are also involved in the professional practice of psychiatry, with the former having limited drug pushing rights in some countries and the latter having a legal role in forcing people to psychiatric prison-hospitals. A high proportion of patients presenting to general practice report mental health problems and family physicians frequently prescribe psychiatric medication and sometimes refer patients for psychiatric assessment.

”

Retrieved from Talk:Electroconvulsive therapy

Hi Staug,

The real culprit here is the WP "due weight policy", as you can see in the letter I wrote to Jimbo.

That policy works with lunatic beliefs, such as conspiracy theories, paranormal claims and biological pseudosciences such as phrenology. Unfortunately, psychiatry is a widely accepted pseudoscience, just as some decades ago the pseudoscience of eugenics was accepted in the West. If WP existed then, the critics of the eugenics movement would have been marginalized due to the “due weight” policy.

Wikipedians don’t know this. They are plugged in the Matrix. As one poster put it in a public forum

“ Most skeptics seem to be the kind of fluffy-headed bimbos who say if it's orthodox among "real" scientists it must be correct. Anyone who's not ignorant of the history of science knows that orthodoxies come and go. Don't tell me about Popper or Khun, I already know (Zzzzzzzzzzzz). Yeah, I've noticed brown nosed skeptics lambast Szasz, Breggin and others. In fact, skeptics are not really educated on the subject until they've read Thomas Szasz's The Manufacture of Madness. ”

Psychiatric practice, including electroshock (euphemistically called "ECT") is iatrogenic. I have compared electroshock elsewhere to a hammer blow on one’s head. It "cures" depression but it damages the brain.

—Cesar Tort 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

tricky issue

Staug73 wrote here:

“ I have posted the original introduction on the discussion page, as I think that is the one we should start from. I have looked back through the history of the discussion page and I couldn't find any record of Scuro having posted in discussion or having sought concensus before changing the original introduction. Have I missed something? Also, I couldn't find any consensus before Scuro removed the controversy section. ”

The controversy section is central to understand the dispute. The real problem I see is that most people, including wikipedians, side with shrinks and not with psychiatric survivors, e.g., those who never wanted to be "treated" with ECT but were "treated" against their will despite potential memory loss.

It’s unbelievable that some ECT apologists compare this with chemotherapy. As I stated in Talk:Electroconvulsive therapy, if people cannot see the difference between a genuine disease or illness such as cancer with a behavior unaccepted by society, such as suicide ideation, I give up all intent to communicate with them. What is normal and acceptable in Japan (suicide) is abnormal and unacceptable in the US. And not only that. Society empowers inquisitors (psychiatrists) to define social deviancy as disease and treat it like a disease.

I cannot imagine how Wikipedia with its present rules can handle this tricky issue. My guess is that the so-called "due weight" policy favors inquisitors, not its victims, since psychiatry is the only pseudoscience accepted in the academia and within the law (e.g., the UK’s 1983 Mental Health Law).

The subject is so unfair and tricky that I think this will be my first and last post in this talk page.

—Cesar Tort 00:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Copy-pasted from my response on ECT talk If your beliefs are against the goals of psychiatric treatment, that's an issue for you to take up with drug or ECT-based psychiatry in general, not on the ECT page. The key point here is that you cannot prove that suicidal ideation is not genuine illness just as I can't prove that it is. It's an assumption either way.--Loodog 00:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What an [blip] statement!

Sure, Loodog: Hamlet harbored suicidal ideation for a while not because he felt betrayed by his mother and the recurring, tormenting thoughts that his uncle might be involved in the killing. No… A serotonin deficit caused Hamlet to say "To be or not to be…" at the top of his Denmark castle.

As stated above, if some persons cannot see the all too obvious fact that tragedies in real life make us feel bad, I don’t want any sort of interaction whatsoever with them.

—Cesar Tort 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Biopsych take 2

I will look over the sources. I'm currently quite happy with how I've been able to negotiate with Hrafn over sections. The section on medication is slowly establishing now that we can outright state that the "chemical balance" myth is indeed a myth.

Valenstein has something to say about it. Do you want me to quote him here? Cesar Tort 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A long way to go. Indeed from seeing the debates pan out here before I got active in contrast to being involved myself is a thought provoking affair. Indeed it seems the biopsychiatry controversy article could be renamed to controversies in psychiatry, since the participants are the same in a lot of the criticism. My hope is that we can also document how the controversy panned out into tangible changes in methodology and practices. A norwegian author has written a paper on the subject, but i haven't been able to find it. He btw participated in Read's book.

Maybe he is Jan Olav Johannessen

Mail him at:

President, International Society for Psychological Treatment of Schizophrenia and other Disorders (ISPS)

Rogaland Psykiatriske Sjukehus

Postboks 1163, Hillevag, 4095, Stavenger

Norway

Cesar Tort 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this whole debate interesting though. And indeed this whole issue touches onto fundamental issues with wikipedia and the (American) scientific discourse. There is indeed huge problems with WP:DUE, and this reflects a mindset that authorities and majority is right. I do think WP:DUE conflicts with the fact that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of beliefs. I also think in the biopsychiatry controversy article the term NPOV is being misapplied. The article isn't NPOV just because the quoted people have critical viewpoints that are controrary to the beliefs of the laymen.

Anyway, do you have any sources that can tell how the biopsychiatry controversy lead to changes in the psychiatry? If we can't show this, the article should perhaps state that this is an on going ethical debate in literature and scientific discourse.

Breggin, Valenstein and others influenced the change of attitude about lobotomy in the profession. Cesar Tort 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I hope you don't mind I am using your page for musings. :) I'm trying to put words on this problem that makes it difficult to show people the true nature of the state of science. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't own this page: it's for the WP community. Please use it as you please. :) Cesar Tort 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

lead section

I better try to do it here and you may cut and paste whichever sources you may consider pertinent to the Biopsychiatry controversy article.

Here is the lead with the requested citations as I found it today (m comments are in bold type):

These critics of the mainstream psychiatric model [citation needed] [do we need a long reference list here about the main critics?] contend the field is flawed in a number of ways. They argue that the lack of biomarkers is a flaw in the evidence for a somatic, biological cause for mental illness.[citation needed] [would a single source do it?] Instead they draw attention to psychosocial models of mental disorders within the scientific literature which have been marginalized as research efforts switched to the biological model since the 1980s.[citation needed][too many citations requested for the lead!; I can place one source here] A recovery model has in many countries become a substantial portion of the mental health treatment. There are currently worries about a over-use of psychiatric medicines.[citation needed][Would a Breggin & Cohen source satisfy the other editors?]

—Cesar Tort 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I have actually problems remembering exactly what kind of sources i wanted for some of these. I think all of them can go as soon as they are covered in the body of the article.

• These critics of the mainstream psychiatric model [citation needed]
• I could need a way to state that the mainstream scientific model is biopsychiatry.

• efforts switched to the biological model since the 1980s.
• I wonder if the switch really occured in 1980s?

Oh yes: there was indeed a change since the late 1970s! It is properly sourced in the trauma model article and it is something that even very orthodox psychiatrists agree with. —Cesar Tort 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• There are currently worries about a over-use of psychiatric medicines.
• Described in the body. I will remove the {cn}

--Benjaminbruheim (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Paranormal stuff

• They argue that the lack of biomarkers is a flaw in the evidence for a somatic, biological cause for mental illness.[citation needed] [would a single source do it?]

Yes! I tried removing the cn because the mentioned literature all literature somehow criticizes this, but it was reinserted. It is hard to source a recurring argumentation in literature.

I also notice we do have a slightly different view on the paranormal. Exciting that you have met so many of the important actors in the debate. I do however think the a lot of the strong tendentious criticism from the rational skeptics crowd is counter productive. And I am dismayed at the concept "pseudoscience" is in the policies when there are big issues with the term. A lot which is not trying to come across as science is termed pseudoscience. But it might be that I have never seen anyone claim that ufology is a science. Ie, here in Norway ufo research is very serious and has lead to a lot of interesting phenomenology and a rise of explanations to a lot of sightings. The "rational critic" attitude is here regarded as a form of argumentation that uses emotional reasoning and is connected to the popularistic political parties. So it is a weird experience to see that this attitude permeats so many articles here on wikipedia. I do think that the same scientism also helped pollute the biopsychiatry criticism article. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What worries me is that if you start promoting UFOs or parapsychology in Wikiland, that could be used against you when editing the biopsych article.

I'll mention a classic example. You may know that in 2006 I was dragged to an Arbitration Committee trial —the next month after I arrived to Wikiland! The reason was an editorial war in the main biopsych article in which I was involved with user:Ombudsman. Well, Fred Bauer, who presides the ArbCom, stated in that 2006 process that he would not tolerate fringe science or fringe references when sourcing the antipsych side. Bauer referred to Ombudsman's belief that vaccines cause autism, etc. Nonetheless, I didn't got as much reprimanded as Ombi because I never advanced fringe beliefs.

If you want to improve the biopsych article, I would recommend to do it and only after that you may edit the paranormal articles that you may want to improve according to your pov. (BTW, the subject of why I abandoned my belief in the paranormal can be glimpsed here.)

Cesar Tort 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have this page on watch, don't worry. I just read the ArbCom, and it was certainly an interesting read. Perhaps I should read over more parts of it since it seems there are a lot which wasn't a part of the ruling. I have discussed the issue with a lot of people (on ie. IRC) and it is my interest in the philosophy of science and the phenomenology of mind that attracts me to paranormal phenomena. For example, I think most manifistations of ghost are a kind of hypnogagic experience, which in turn is related to schizophrenia. But yes, I see your concern. I notice that "science 101" is promoted as fact (pseudoscience, scientific method) and arguing against this will be seen as promoting un-scientific ie minority views. It is frustrating since I feel pseudoscience is a non-scientific term. And "the scientific method" is a gross simplification.

I would love to read that article, but it is in spanish. :( Eschatology is actually very interesting, but I know very little about it. I just recognize it is a recurring topic in all forms of religion, existentialism and even some science. At the same time it is annoying that so many has "rediscovered" the concept and raising their own theory as "the true one". I think you might be familiar with that problem. My current favourite is "Kryon" who is a remarkably tangible spirit (the term as defined by those who study the manifistations of voices), and reading him has helped me cull a lot of the ideas in the subject; more than science has been able to do. :)

But I agree with your assessment. I will not involve in paranormal discussions unless I do have actual neutral things to provide. I have some ground rules tho, some that conflicts with the POV of editors of both sides of the "camp" :)

• I try to limit fringe sources (unless they are primary).
• I think of skeptics websites as fringe (ie. CSICOP often presents opinions as facts)
• I focus on empirical material. Claims of pseudoscience should be replaced with empirical evidence or argumentation within the same epistemology.
• The statement "majority of scientists" is subjective and should be used with care.

Okay, I need to work more on these. It is after all a voyage into your own mind to edit. :) Anyway, I do think I have a "middle ground" POV on paranormal and weird science. I want articles to be ABOUT a subject instead of a subjective treatise on how people perceive the subject. In the biopsychiatry article this is a major problem since the "mainstream" perceives psychiatry to have the monopoly on mental illness. It is even part of policies.

At the same time the "mainstream" has perceptions of how science occurs. Ie. in wikipedia the majority certainly subscribes to a popperian view of scientific philosophy. While this is not really bad, it does go on expense of making the articles reflect the contemptary state of science, the scientific uncertainity, and leads one to describe a specific science as the "true one". However, in reality, science has no concept of truth and a plurality of scientific opinions exists. Thus the very idea of presenting science on wikipedia has huge issues that is now starting to permeat the policies. Interesting to experience might I add. :)

But advice taken. I might work a bit on Arne Næss, my personal idol, who has a great deal to say on scientific philosophy. Actually, I think if people applied his knowledge there would not be such hostile atmosphere in the discussions here on wikipedia. At least his work has basically eliminated such hostility here in Norway. :) --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Arne Næss#Philosophy of science -- Feel free to review. Translated from the norwegian wiki. I feel this summarizes my frustration and position (because of my background) quite well. :) Benjaminbruheim (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• "I just read the ArbCom, and it was certainly an interesting read. Perhaps I should read over more parts of it since..."

Oh! I didn’t know. That ArbCom process is a huge read. One of the most fascinating debates occurred here. Unfortunately, both user:Ande B. and user: Prometheuspan didn’t indent correctly some of their posts and this made that paragraphs turn into a sort of code-type

 like this for example

Very hard to read sometimes. In fact, I had to copy, paste in my Word processor and print the whole debate to read it more comfortably. To boot, Prometheuspan used to destroy some of Ande B.’s posts by posting in-between refutations.

But it’s a great reading! I loved it like I love a chess game (you suffer a lot in a chess tournament; but very much enjoy the game in the post-mortem analysis).

• “I have discussed the issue with a lot of people...”

I am curious: What have you discussed exactly?

Sorry, the paranormal, pseudoscience, and how science should be treated on wikipedia; not the arbcom ruling. Especially most of the channel #wikipedia agreed with my polemic on what constitutes the view that is regarded as "the majority". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs)

• “I would love to read that article, but it is in spanish”

I just replaced above my Spanish version of the article to the English translation.

Thanks, i will read it afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs)

BTW, Eschatology (religious movement) has almost nothing to do with Christian eschatology.

Ah sorry. Do you know if there is any academic treatise of generic eschatology? I find that it permeats the psycho of almost everyone and is highly relevant in order to understand schizophrenia where 100% (according to recent qualitative sciences) have existential issues. Often the catastrophic version of eschaton is what makes people sick, which is just an artifact of the human nature to focus on traumatic aspects and possibilities. I am pretty sure this would be regarded as pseudoscience, but this emerging research field is finally starting to have emperic evidence. Fascinating eh?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs)

What I didn’t say in that article is that CSICOP helped me more than what you can imagine. After I was abused at home, I fell into that cult, and after that became a parapsychologist. This meant losing the best part of my life! Only when I read the CSICOPers I realized I was deluded. It’s a long, long story. I have written an unpublished, autobiographical MS on the subject about which the English translation linked above is only one chapter.

Ah. Yes, I do think CSICOP does a great job at fighting quackery. I do suspect that a majority of the editors here on wikipedia are weighting towards the opinion of CSICOP. However I do feel that some editors do weigh them in a problematic fashion. There is a balance required. For example I am convinced that homeopathy is not a real alternative to treatment, that some research is bad and even possibly fraudulent. CSICOP is doing a good job of doing information in this area. At the same time I feel they are using sarcasm, perojatives, labelling etc in a manner where real science should do the job alone. I thus think CSICOP is more activism than real science. I look forward to reading about it. I am not familiar with "bad parapsychology" myself, since I am selective in what I regard as interesting. But I do notice that genuinely interesting fields are polluted by people who try to earn a buck about it; both skeptics and believers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs)

• “In the biopsychiatry article this is a major problem since the "mainstream" perceives psychiatry to have the monopoly on mental illness. It is even part of policies.”

Yes: that is the main problem. When biopsych is considered as pseudo as eugenics, WP will be on our side. Alas, a hunch tells me that we’ll have to wait more than a century...

—Cesar Tort 03:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The way wikipedia relates to contemptary science is problematic and this problem goes deep into the policies. For example due weight is extremely vague and allows one to state myths spread by media as facts. Another problem is that the consequence of Due Weight is systemic bias, and that american views are given undue weight. I do however feel that the policies are slowly going in the right direction.

Benjaminbruheim (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I read more about the arbcom; what a farce. The one who argued on behalf of biopsychiatry was certainly arguing on basis of his own opinion without regard for the content of the article. Very sad reading. Ombudsman's rant on the evidence page was great too.

Anyway, I might add that Fountain House and Clubhouse Model of Psychosocial Rehabilitation are where I 'come from' in regards to psychiatry, and that this constitutes a major component of contemptary treatment. I think it will be an interesting exercise to document how the biopsychiatry worked against this. The two articles should be merged too.

Benjaminbruheim (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Soteria House

Are the Fountain House and Clubhouse Model of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Soteria-like houses? The best info I've read of how the establishment treated these houses in the USA is Mad in America. —Cesar Tort 05:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Perhaps there is an overlap of the findings, but it bears resemblance to constructivism (not sure if there's an article on that) except it is applied to adults instead of kids. In the US the quality of fountain houses (as they are informally known) are very variable. This is usually due to the fact that ideas and prejudice on mental illness affect the policies. This isn't just a problem amongst the paid workers, but also the members. I call this self-stigmatization. But the fountain house is so radically different from traditional treatment that prior experience in mental health therapy is actually recommended against. There was for example huge issues in London when a fountain house was started on the property of a medical treatment facility. This was because the trained personel would act like authorities, and protested by creating drama, when they were told that this was against the policy of the fountain house.

It is notoriously hard to explain fountain houses and they have to be experienced (in a period of time) to understand. The articles here on it doesn't really convey it all. But I have seen people in deep depression become fully functional in matter of days. But then the house here in Oslo is very well run. Since you are familiar with the systemic problems with psychiatry; it solves the treater-patient issue, by there being no differentiation in power between the two groups. It works by people themselves doing things, instead of becoming a client who expects to be helped. There are no authorities, so everyone is always "in control". There is a growing body of science on the subject, and afaik it is all in favour of the fountain house.

I have however have to read a bit more on soteria houses in order to find anything that is comparable.

Benjaminbruheim (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that they have little in relation. Fountain Houses is not a replacement treatment program, but usually used in conjunction with regular treatment. However it seems that science is in favor of soteria ts to medical treatment in most cases, see here.

Benjaminbruheim (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When I went thru a one-year mental health course in Manchester's Open University I had to go to an open house with free coffee for mental people. I volunteered there two or three weeks. Of course: there was no hierarchy at all. Since you say that the article doesn't reflect well the reality, can this be considered a fountain house? —Cesar Tort 05:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is correct per se, but the fountain house as an experience cannot be extracted from the article. :) This is something that a lot of the literature on fountain house reflects. It is just plain weird. But I doubt the place you were was a fountain house. In a fountain house there is a work-ordered day: Members work with running the house throughout the day in a structured fashion. This is usually the defining aspect of a fountain house. A lot of places do apply some components, ie. lack of stress, lack of hiearchy, member control, etc. But fountain houses adheres to a set of guide lines which a house has to follow in order to be "well run". Additionally, there is rarely recreational activities done on a fountain house, in contrast to most services (in my experience). Instead the members provide services to other members, such as economic advisory, help with education and job, housing, transport, outreach, meditation, computer education, and in New York even a clinic. One side-effect of doing such work is that it grows mutual respect, self confidence, insight, knowledge of treatment options and other mental effects. The limitation is that it does require a level of functioning of the member. But I must say it is profound to see people's attitude go from silent and depressed to lively and productive in a matter of days. And this is mainly because they are doing things with other people. Heh, as someone who was there for the first time asked: "Where are the sick people?" :) Benjaminbruheim (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, are you familiar with Mad in America by Robert Whitaker or How to become a schizophrenic by John Modrow? One of the reasons I love Jeffrey Masson is because the abuse of power exists even in the sector where you wouldn't expect abuse, such as psychoanalysis or psychotherapy for non-psychotic people. I do believe strongly that users should take care of themselves. In cases of severely disturbed people though Loren Mosher's houses seem an humane alternative to involuntary psychiatry. I find it incredible that ECT is still performed in psychiatry. I have posted terrible rants in the WP talk page of that article, which I won't edit anymore: just as I won't edit the biopsych article. What I wrote to Jimbo summarizes my point of why I don't want to waste my time here (in WP's psychiatry articles) anymore.

And now I'm going to bed. See you tomorrow :)—Cesar Tort 06:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not familiar with either. I've mostly followed the norwegian literature. I have a feeling that I will find it familiar. Myself I have the diagnosis "simple schizophrenia" which isn't really much in use at all. While it is just informally associated with schizophrenia (but totally lacking positive symptoms) it has very little in common in any way. After all, here diagnosises are just a tool and is in process from being removed from policies. Anyway, I was slowly developing a psychosis but was helped by an early intervention team. This helped me develop a self insight, and I met a lot of other people (mostly through the fountain house) with a range of different problems. I noticed quickly that I was able to communicate very well with people who was regarded as very sick and that my insight helped people. Psychiatry itself has been delegated to working with only medicines here, which is what it is best at, and the teams that deal with other problems are interdisciplinary. So psychiatry is no longer the first line of treatment. Now, Johannessen is the dude who has made most of the policies that are in effect, but there is still an issue of people who stick to the old rules. But learning how mental illness is dealt with abroad is a shocking exercise.

Involuntary treatment is a tricky issue. As Johannessen notes, most here in Norway are happy with the treatment afterwards. But the state in the US and other countries are horrible in this regard. Some attribute the reason the involuntary treatment in norway is unacceptably high is that the patient themselves have prejudices towards being treated. I am still looking into the issue. ECT is a tricky issue, but there are signs that alternative techniques such as magnetic stimulation might be just as effective and without side effects. I note that the article on ECT completely lacks the subjective experiences which are on the whole negative and that patient themselves are not happy. This is one of my pet peeves with psychiatric research; the forms they use are not precise enough to be used to assess wether a person is sick or not. But yeah, Soteria houses is a great treatment. And when people take care of themselves it is pretty much the same as being healthy. Actually, it is clear as light when you examine the differences between people who had psycho social therapy and those who were unfortunate to be taken "care of" solely by the psychiatry.

All in all it is hard to me to see why the resistance against a paradigm change comes from. In a way that's why I am on wikipedia; to learn more about why some people are defending the status quo so hard. :) Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why some people are defending the status quo so hard

I think Modrow's book has been translated to Swedish; and Robert Whitaker's Mad in America is the other one of best books to understand psychiatry.

Modrow had a psycho breakdown and has written the best book on why abused young people become schizophrenics. He wrote:

“ According to the eminent sociologist, Karl Mannheim, the concept of ideology refers to the fact that individuals or groups become so intensely interest-bound to a situation that they are simply unable to acknowledge certain facts which would undermine their interests. As I will now show, the situation in which psychiatrists find themselves is such that they simply cannot question the validity of the medical model without committing suicide [...].

as soon as the child is diagnosed as schizophrenic, the parents conclude that all the family's problems can be localized exclusively within the patient [...]. The medical model with its concepts of "mental health" and "mental illness" also helps to stabilize society's norms by providing a cryptoethical standard for evaluating human moral conduct.

”

If you want a deeper analysis for why many wikipedians are defending the status quo so hard, you will have to read Breaking Down the Wall of Silence.

—Cesar Tort 05:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. Inspiring quote. Myself I notice that I would perhaps get psychotic if I would let my situation go on; and I also see how people's curious beliefs can cause friction agains the society to the point that they start getting issues. It is well known that anything can cause psychosis, so why there is such stress to find a distinct biological cause to it is curious.

Throughout the years I've been curious on "why is the world like it is" and "where does everything we come from". The society just seemed bizarre the more I looked on it. Now, these thoughts could drive anyone mad, but I came back to the obvious fact that reality is just a consequence of history. Now, a lot of sciences are just points in history as well, and their exact shape is because of history. Ie. the word for "magnetic field" was in earlier days thought of as the soul of material; similar to our soul. But because of descartes and many scientists the term is now "field". It is still as inexplicbly mystical to me, but due to materialism most people feel it is just "stuff" and nothing really magical about it. Most defer it to science to explain it, tho learning the science behind it made it just even more magical to me. In psychiatry the whole history of dealing with a social problem caused a science that would be different if it had a different start. Materialism reared its head here as well; the reductionist view that the brain is just a bunch of chemicals. However, the molecular make up of the body is in the start and defies most concepts in medicines completely. And when they start to look up the molecular make up of the brain it will bring about more questions than answers. But when psychiatry conceded that their treatment was succesful, it was out from their own definitions (dealing with a social problem) and not making sick people healthy. Now, the recovery model is much more sane. And it reduces psychiatry to a tool instead of solution, so I am optimistic. I haven't received a response from johannesen regarding his book, but I think that will put the whole ordeal into a citeable context. But indeed, my little experience with psychiatry personally showed that people had prejudice in the way they dealt with people; patient-treater problems; people losing their ability to change their surroundings; unnatural settings that are like mental hell for schizophrenics; authoritative statements on basis of scholar knowledge etc etc. In my experience those who were untrained were better at dealing with situations than those with a psychiatric background. These problems are recognized here, but they are not even deemed to exist in the US and many other countries. Actually, the mental illness treatment in most countries is breaking the human rights.

Now, I've heard some people defend the status quo because they are afraid of being wrong. Some people also say upon criticising the establishment that "they probably already considered what you say", if you understand: I obviously consider this the exception rather than the rule. :) :Benjaminbruheim (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am just curious, Benjaminbruheim. if you get the references from Johannesen, will you continue to edit the biopsych article?

BTW, I have just noticed that last year there was an ArbCom trial for the whole of paranormal articles. Interesting stuff! —Cesar Tort 23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I will. I have stalled the edit because I need a historical context to work out from. As of now there's too many loose facts. But yeah, the paranormal arbcom is interesting. It was indeed a good ruling I feel, and it resulted in a lot of important debate. Also, a bunch of very focused editors came out of it. Now, I think the WP:DUE is going to be debated, because it has problems dealing with notable fringe subjects. Now, I have been around on a few talk pages, and received a bunch of mail as a result. It seems people are happy to see someone introduce new ideas in debates that has been rehashed for ages. :) If it takes a long time to get a word from Johannesen i do have some back up ideas. Ie. the existing sources summarizes and references each of the disputed concepts very well, but alas it would be so much easier if I could state in the article that biopsychiatry is regarded as "outdated" to be used as a first-line treatment of major disorders. :) Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

biopsych again

When you edit again that article, keep in mind that Hrafn doesn't get it that it's nonsense to request "third party" sources. Psychiatry controversies are very much like paranormal advocates vs. skeptics debates. There's no practical middle ground. The sources are the sources. And you are right: psychiatrists don't usually respond to critics. When they released that APA statement that Hrafn quoted in toto they did it because the hunger strikers' media pressure.

Anyway: perhaps the best source for no biomarkers is the DSM itself. I believe you will have to spend lots of time in that article if it is going to make any sense at all.

—Cesar Tort 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yepp. Noticed your message over at SAs talk-page. I do think CSICOP has done a good job, and has by proxy influenced me. But alas I feel it has gone to far with some people, bordering to activism. I do think skepticism is an important tool against quacks and other people who abuse people by preying on superstition. But there are a lot of serious actors in some minor fields, and their voice are drown in the debunking process. For example I love Rupert Sheldrakes writing, where he proposes super-hypothesises. And from these working hypothesises can be inspired, learn about what the science says about the different problems, and even create testeable experiments. I understand that one can think this kind of thinking can be abused, and that is a true problem. So one has to be careful and know about the pitholes this kind of work has. I feel the modern CSICOP is too polarized at debunking such claims, but ultimately the questions which such philosophy tries to work with is usually not very well explained by science in the first place. This isn't anything new in scientific philosophy, but this seems to be completely unknown to the majority of debunkers. I can give you a few links to a few papers on this. On biopsychiatry I think the argumentation, which also ain't hard science but just sufficiently strong arguments, has won ground. And because of this argumentation strong science has been produced. So I really believe there is a middleground. But sad to see that this middle ground is hard to reach here on wikipedia. While we do seek verifiability, and not truth, I do feel we are after all attracted to wikipedia because we want truth, and not un-truth. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot enter into detailed discussion here. Suffice it to say that Nicholas Humphrey's Soul Searching: Human Nature and Supernatural Belief (in the United States retitled Leaps of Faith: Science, Miracles, and the Search for Supernatural Consolation) is an absolute must. Believe me! Humphrey is not a CSICOPer.

Leaving the paranormal stuff aside, I am curious if you are planning to discuss biopsych with Hrafn again? —Cesar Tort 18:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite the RFC he said he would argue against sources. I will edit it and Hrafn can make his own points. He is not an informed skeptic. He seems like this regular guys that are gonna debunk you. It is boring and rarely worth the pain. But it seems I have a cognitive upper hand in the debate. Just for fun, but it is going in the right direction. Will go into the matter. But be sure, I'll be back when I have a serious objection. :)--Benjaminbruheim (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you manage to communicate with him to the point of restoring some of the vandalized info (or placing equivalent info instead) you will be my WP hero! —Cesar Tort 06:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)