4 ms·

>> The standard textbook of psychiatry at the time stated that incest was extremely rare in the United States, cocurring about once in every million women. Thi

>> The standard textbook of psychiatry at the time stated that incest was extremely rare in the United States, cocurring about once in every million women. This would seem incredibly low, even for a non-expert. At the time, as the article notes, there were 100 million women in the US - for incest to only impact 100 women in the country and yet be something that there is a word (noun) for, laws against, and historical records of stretching back millenia stretches credibility, surely.

pjc50 7y ago
This sounds like more confirmation that the old standard textbooks about psychiatry contained far more traditional belief and sexual pseudoscience than the profession was willing to admit. Remember how long it took to get homosexuality removed from the DSM? It's a bit like global warming denialism. Admitting that child abuse within families is not extremely rare has absolutely horrifying implications for people's moral universes. Much easier to deny it happens. > [Update, written a few weeks after the rest of this post: maybe it is all wizardry. I recommended this book to a severely traumatized patient of mine, who had not benefited from years of conventional treatment, and who wanted to know more about their condition. The next week the patient came in, claiming to be completely cured, and displaying behaviors consistent with this. They did not use any of the techniques in this book, but said that reading the book helped them figure out an indescribable mental motion they could take to resolve their trauma, and that after taking this mental motion their problems were gone. I’m not sure what to think of this or how much I should revise the negative opinion of this book which I formed before this event.] "We have some treatments; they seem to work sometimes, although we don't really understand why and they're not entirely reliable" is still a far better place than "we have no treatments", which in turn is far better than "your condition does not exist and you are lying". I feel slightly better about SSC for admitting this and being willing to carry on working in an uncertain environment.
- slfnflctd 7y ago
  The practice of psychiatry is filled with disasters, and has been more of a reflection of our culture than a science for much of its history. It is good of you to point out how there's been steady improvement-- we should remember that the field's utility can be improved. I still would hesitate to recommend a psychiatrist's services to anyone without an extensive disclaimer, though. [In a way that I wouldn't with a general practitioner, or even a talk therapist.] It would be great if that changed one day.
  - fellow_human 7y ago
    Wondering what the disclaimer would be? And why wouldn't it apply to a talk therapist?
    - slfnflctd 7y ago
      The key distinction is that a talk therapist doesn't prescribe drugs. These drugs are poorly understood, as are the conditions they ostensibly help treat, and there are a great many concerns about the validity of much of the research that went into justifying their use. There are also large numbers of people reporting long term side effects from said drugs which arguably made the patient worse off. I would caution everyone to avoid them in all but the most clear cut, 'textbook' cases. I've also noticed - both personally and from talking with others - that a disturbing number of practitioners in this field seem to lack empathy and/or professionalism, which in my view are absolutely critical when dealing with mental health issues.
  - GuiA 7y ago
    One end of the spectrum: modern psychiatry turns out to be kind of like alchemy. Some fundamental ideas have merit to them (the material world shares a common basis, and it is theoretically possible to turn any matter into any other matter), while most of the models/practical implementations are just completely off the mark (if you draw the right symbols you can turn lead into gold), and it’ll take a few centuries of social and technological advances for a scientifically sound discipline that achieves the desired results to emerge. Other end of the spectrum: the human mind is such a weird complicated thing that it is ultimately impossible to build a systematic discipline that can effect meaningful change in what a particular cultural context considers a mental/behavioral “disorder”. The hyper rational, scientific part of me hopes for the former; but having worked a lot in education, particularly with children/teenagers who had suffered trauma/were actively suffering trauma, the latter feels truer to my gut.

pjc50 7y ago

This sounds like more confirmation that the old standard textbooks about psychiatry contained far more traditional belief and sexual pseudoscience than the profession was willing to admit. Remember how long it took to get homosexuality removed from the DSM? It's a bit like global warming denialism. Admitting that child abuse within families is not extremely rare has absolutely horrifying implications for people's moral universes. Much easier to deny it happens. > [Update, written a few weeks after the rest of this post: maybe it is all wizardry. I recommended this book to a severely traumatized patient of mine, who had not benefited from years of conventional treatment, and who wanted to know more about their condition. The next week the patient came in, claiming to be completely cured, and displaying behaviors consistent with this. They did not use any of the techniques in this book, but said that reading the book helped them figure out an indescribable mental motion they could take to resolve their trauma, and that after taking this mental motion their problems were gone. I’m not sure what to think of this or how much I should revise the negative opinion of this book which I formed before this event.] "We have some treatments; they seem to work sometimes, although we don't really understand why and they're not entirely reliable" is still a far better place than "we have no treatments", which in turn is far better than "your condition does not exist and you are lying". I feel slightly better about SSC for admitting this and being willing to carry on working in an uncertain environment.

slfnflctd 7y ago
The practice of psychiatry is filled with disasters, and has been more of a reflection of our culture than a science for much of its history. It is good of you to point out how there's been steady improvement-- we should remember that the field's utility can be improved. I still would hesitate to recommend a psychiatrist's services to anyone without an extensive disclaimer, though. [In a way that I wouldn't with a general practitioner, or even a talk therapist.] It would be great if that changed one day.
- fellow_human 7y ago
  Wondering what the disclaimer would be? And why wouldn't it apply to a talk therapist?
  - slfnflctd 7y ago
    The key distinction is that a talk therapist doesn't prescribe drugs. These drugs are poorly understood, as are the conditions they ostensibly help treat, and there are a great many concerns about the validity of much of the research that went into justifying their use. There are also large numbers of people reporting long term side effects from said drugs which arguably made the patient worse off. I would caution everyone to avoid them in all but the most clear cut, 'textbook' cases. I've also noticed - both personally and from talking with others - that a disturbing number of practitioners in this field seem to lack empathy and/or professionalism, which in my view are absolutely critical when dealing with mental health issues.
- GuiA 7y ago
  One end of the spectrum: modern psychiatry turns out to be kind of like alchemy. Some fundamental ideas have merit to them (the material world shares a common basis, and it is theoretically possible to turn any matter into any other matter), while most of the models/practical implementations are just completely off the mark (if you draw the right symbols you can turn lead into gold), and it’ll take a few centuries of social and technological advances for a scientifically sound discipline that achieves the desired results to emerge. Other end of the spectrum: the human mind is such a weird complicated thing that it is ultimately impossible to build a systematic discipline that can effect meaningful change in what a particular cultural context considers a mental/behavioral “disorder”. The hyper rational, scientific part of me hopes for the former; but having worked a lot in education, particularly with children/teenagers who had suffered trauma/were actively suffering trauma, the latter feels truer to my gut.