4 ms·

By premeditating that diagnosis will be of the individual, the society is assumed a constant. In science, we call that fraud. Effectively, clinical psychology

By premeditating that diagnosis will be of the individual, the society is assumed a constant. In science, we call that fraud. Effectively, clinical psychology serves apology for societal and economic ills by blaming the effects on the individuals themselves. The process is strikingly transparent from an objective standpoint, but ironically it’s precisely an objective standpoint that is undermined by the institution. These days, you can visit one and tell them just about anything, and they will diagnose your disposition as illness. I don’t blame psychologists themselves, and who is to say they don’t help people? Many surely do, but the institution is an absolute drag on our economy and society; something like a collective excuse for avoiding self-critique. Sociology theoretically steps in here, but it is merely a study, and some branches of it would result in a totalitarian nightmare. What’s needed is humanist sociology and humanist psychology. As we learned in kindergarten class, there is nothing wrong with us. Each of us are unique and beautiful in our own ways. The questions are about how to live with one another. Pyschology as a study is another thing, but as a medical malpractice it has proven antithetical to systems design from the start.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
If you have scientific studies to show your objective viewpoint on mental illness being merely a product of societal or economic ill, with definition of 'societal ill' and 'economic ill', I would be more than interested in seeing the data you derived these conclusions from. In the meantime, I would think the field of clinical psychology is a safer bet.
- 50656E6973 8y ago
  >If you have scientific studies to show your objective viewpoint on mental illness being merely a product of societal or economic ill It's common sense, and there is no objective proof to the contrary. "Psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests" -Alan Frances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances Psychiatry/psychology also admits that social environment has substantial effects on mental illness. But asking for a "scientific" study of that is silly, because it is impossible to have an indepedent variable or control group -- because it is impossible to separate an individual from societal influences.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    You are making the claim of an objective evaluation. It is your responsibility to provide proof of its objectivity. I otherwise an more willing to take something that at least has supporting evidence, dubious as it may be, to claims that have no evidence at all beyond ‘common sense’. I think that’s a pretty common sense position, but it’s clear we don’t agree.
    - 50656E6973 8y ago
      There is no objective proof that mental illness even exists, so the burden of proof is on those who claim it's just like real illnesses (psychiatrists and psychologists). They're the one's claiming to be scientific. I'm merely claiming they're not being scientific. There is plenty of evidence that disfunctional social environments often lead to disfunctional individuals.
    - yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
      Ha! No. The objectivity of the foresaid practice and diagnoses is missing to begin with. Junk science does not require objective proof to be unsubstantiated when it’s own lack of objectivity falls short, as evidenced in it’s process. This is a critique of process. These results were not substantiated to begin with, but merely institutionalized. Science is not a game of institutionalizing.
- yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
  Your rebuttal is irrelevant to my point. My point precludes it. Psychology presupposes that the problem is in the individual and therefore does not investigate elsewhere, but nonetheless delivers a diagnosis! I am not giving a diagnosis, for nothing of the sort is necessary to recognize the agregious fraud in this wrecklessness.
- TheOperator 8y ago
  One pretty decent correlation is that between poverty and mental illness. People who are regularly abused by others also end up mentally ill. To me it's pretty evident that mental illness is caused in large part by your environment. Remove somebody from a certain environment and they will no longer be mentally ill. Keep them in that environment and feed them pills and give them talk therapy and they'll remain ill. It's not like this is some groundbreaking controversial revelation that flips the bird to science. It's a fact that isn't incorporated into a model of mental illness treatment that pretends that "mental illness" is primarily a result of a disordered badly behaving brain. This model is used because its easier to change a person than the society around them. It's easier to empirically measure change when you're measuring the effects of something on an individual rather than on the entire society. I would account for the decline in mental health metrics in the west, there's more self reported mental illness, more suicide, more social withdrawal, largely on the failure to address big picture concerns. Clinical Psychology isn't useless to solve the mental health problems of society. It's just inadequete. It's like expecting tier 1 support to solve a problem that's rooted in an entire network being fucked up. What I see is a society that has problems that are correlated with poor mental health which aren't getting addressed and people are acting as if the solution is leaning more on solutions like talk therapy and pharmacuticals which are failing to address a society-wide decline in mental health.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago

If you have scientific studies to show your objective viewpoint on mental illness being merely a product of societal or economic ill, with definition of 'societal ill' and 'economic ill', I would be more than interested in seeing the data you derived these conclusions from. In the meantime, I would think the field of clinical psychology is a safer bet.

50656E6973 8y ago
>If you have scientific studies to show your objective viewpoint on mental illness being merely a product of societal or economic ill It's common sense, and there is no objective proof to the contrary. "Psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests" -Alan Frances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances Psychiatry/psychology also admits that social environment has substantial effects on mental illness. But asking for a "scientific" study of that is silly, because it is impossible to have an indepedent variable or control group -- because it is impossible to separate an individual from societal influences.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  You are making the claim of an objective evaluation. It is your responsibility to provide proof of its objectivity. I otherwise an more willing to take something that at least has supporting evidence, dubious as it may be, to claims that have no evidence at all beyond ‘common sense’. I think that’s a pretty common sense position, but it’s clear we don’t agree.
  - 50656E6973 8y ago
    There is no objective proof that mental illness even exists, so the burden of proof is on those who claim it's just like real illnesses (psychiatrists and psychologists). They're the one's claiming to be scientific. I'm merely claiming they're not being scientific. There is plenty of evidence that disfunctional social environments often lead to disfunctional individuals.
  - yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
    Ha! No. The objectivity of the foresaid practice and diagnoses is missing to begin with. Junk science does not require objective proof to be unsubstantiated when it’s own lack of objectivity falls short, as evidenced in it’s process. This is a critique of process. These results were not substantiated to begin with, but merely institutionalized. Science is not a game of institutionalizing.
yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
Your rebuttal is irrelevant to my point. My point precludes it. Psychology presupposes that the problem is in the individual and therefore does not investigate elsewhere, but nonetheless delivers a diagnosis! I am not giving a diagnosis, for nothing of the sort is necessary to recognize the agregious fraud in this wrecklessness.
TheOperator 8y ago
One pretty decent correlation is that between poverty and mental illness. People who are regularly abused by others also end up mentally ill. To me it's pretty evident that mental illness is caused in large part by your environment. Remove somebody from a certain environment and they will no longer be mentally ill. Keep them in that environment and feed them pills and give them talk therapy and they'll remain ill. It's not like this is some groundbreaking controversial revelation that flips the bird to science. It's a fact that isn't incorporated into a model of mental illness treatment that pretends that "mental illness" is primarily a result of a disordered badly behaving brain. This model is used because its easier to change a person than the society around them. It's easier to empirically measure change when you're measuring the effects of something on an individual rather than on the entire society. I would account for the decline in mental health metrics in the west, there's more self reported mental illness, more suicide, more social withdrawal, largely on the failure to address big picture concerns. Clinical Psychology isn't useless to solve the mental health problems of society. It's just inadequete. It's like expecting tier 1 support to solve a problem that's rooted in an entire network being fucked up. What I see is a society that has problems that are correlated with poor mental health which aren't getting addressed and people are acting as if the solution is leaning more on solutions like talk therapy and pharmacuticals which are failing to address a society-wide decline in mental health.