4 ms·

Interestingly, the article makes no mention of the followup experiment where it seems a hospital invited a repetition and then claimed to have found 40 or so fa

Interestingly, the article makes no mention of the followup experiment where it seems a hospital invited a repetition and then claimed to have found 40 or so fake patients during the agreed period. Only to be told that the experimenters had sent none. Or at least that's the version told in Adam Curtis' documentary The Trap (part 1)[1] which engages in Curtis's usual enthusiasm for fashioning a sweeping historical narrative out of somewhat sparse materials - in this case presenting the "Thud" experiment and its followup as a pivot point in the tale of how R. D. Laing's anti-psychiatry ironically led to the advent of the DSM IV era. However that may be, if Curtis' account of the followup is correct it seems harder to argue the diagnostic prowess of the psychiatrists was not open to question, regardless of the status of the original experiment. 1: In the section beginning here: https://youtu.be/y97Ywl7RtUw?t=2204 https://youtu.be/y97Ywl7RtUw?t=2204

77pt77 7y ago
> Interestingly, the article makes no mention of the followup experiment where it seems a hospital invited a repetition and then claimed to have found 40 or so fake patients during the agreed period. The reason is simple. This article is pure propaganda along the lines of the book "The great pretender" by Susannah Cahalan. The experiment might have flaws, but this second part is conclusive and no critics ever address it. This is just another brick on the long propaganda road to a destination that is very worrisome.
- warbaker 7y ago
  My default position on the follow-up is likewise skepticism. It seems like the filters at the time were so low that it is likely the follow-up is just a better constructed lie.
  - 77pt77 7y ago
    What about the argument, used at the time, that in order for someone to participate in an experiment like that they had to be mentally ill?
smileypete 7y ago
>article makes no mention of the followup experiment where it seems a hospital invited a repetition and then claimed to have found 40 or so fake patients during the agreed period 'a hospital' - which hospital? Makes sense to carefully re-examine the other claims of the paper.

77pt77 7y ago

> Interestingly, the article makes no mention of the followup experiment where it seems a hospital invited a repetition and then claimed to have found 40 or so fake patients during the agreed period. The reason is simple. This article is pure propaganda along the lines of the book "The great pretender" by Susannah Cahalan. The experiment might have flaws, but this second part is conclusive and no critics ever address it. This is just another brick on the long propaganda road to a destination that is very worrisome.

warbaker 7y ago
My default position on the follow-up is likewise skepticism. It seems like the filters at the time were so low that it is likely the follow-up is just a better constructed lie.
- 77pt77 7y ago
  What about the argument, used at the time, that in order for someone to participate in an experiment like that they had to be mentally ill?

smileypete 7y ago

>article makes no mention of the followup experiment where it seems a hospital invited a repetition and then claimed to have found 40 or so fake patients during the agreed period 'a hospital' - which hospital? Makes sense to carefully re-examine the other claims of the paper.