14 ms·

Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill

304 points by cycojesus 15y ago

derefr 15y ago
> After he did enter college, one professor told Einstein, “You have one fault; one can’t tell you anything.” The very characteristics of Einstein that upset authorities so much were exactly the ones that allowed him to excel. I find it an amusing corollary that later in life, no one was able to convince Einstein of the truth--or at least the usefulness--of quantum mechanics. A failing of the anti-authoritarian mindset is that if you have an opposed opinion to an authority on an issue--and that authority happens to be right--you'll never figure this out until you work it out for yourself.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  I find it an amusing corollary that later in life, no one was able to convince Einstein of the truth--or at least the usefulness--of quantum mechanics. Einstein never disputed the usefulness of QM. He merely disputed the idea that theories based on configuration space were fundamentally correct. He even attempted to disprove them by showing that QM predicts the EPR paradox, which most people agree is pretty weird. He then spent the rest of his life trying to come up with theories that didn't predict nonlocal effects. It turns out that the EPR paradox and other nonlocal effects are observed in real life (so any such theory he might have concocted would have been wrong), but the experiments were only done after Einstein died.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  I find it an amusing corollary that later in life, no one was able to convince Einstein of the truth--or at least the usefulness--of quantum mechanics. A failing of the anti-authoritarian mindset is that if you have an opposed opinion to an authority on an issue--and that authority happens to be right--you'll never figure this out until you work it out for yourself. Ummm... Einstein's nobel prize was regarding quantum physics? Einstein never disputed quantum mechanics. What he disputed was the (non-falsifiable, and hence not-a-scientific-theory) Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics. He sided with those with a different interpretation.
scrrr 15y ago
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
- coldarchon 15y ago
  .. and all sustainability on the reasonable man.
- Mansyn 15y ago
  I enjoy thought provoking arguments as much as the next guy, but too many people seem like they just want something to be unreasonable about. And they act like children, in that they only scrutinize the process when their not getting their way. They just want to be a malcontent, and it appears pathetic to me. I'll be first in line when there's a revolution that isn't full of drum circles and free-loaders.
  - itmag 15y ago
    Exactly. In Transactional Analysis, they would say that those types view themselves as ill-behaved Children and identify society as the Parent. The mature dissident (the Adult) looks very different from this, and is a lot more effective too. More on TA: http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/ta.htm http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/ta.htm
  - nknight 15y ago
    When else would you analyze a process than when it's causing you a problem? Do you routinely attempt to fix things that aren't broken?
    - rprospero 15y ago
      Imagine that you find an ATM machine that's spitting out free money. It's certainly not causing you a problem, but that doesn't mean that it's not broken. It's easy to see that the system is broken when you're getting less than you deserve. It takes a degree of maturity to admit that the system is broken when you receive more than you deserve.
choros12 15y ago
I'm not sure if too many people nowadays take Psychiatry and Psychology seriously. Most problems they label as illnesses are legitimate issues people have that need resolution not pills. I had severe allergic reaction to shrimp. Ended up at the ER where I was treated with Epinephrine, Prednisone and Diphenhydramine (Benadryl administered directly to bloodstream though). Guess what, I had serious panick attacks for another2 days. When the following day I showed up at the ER, I was told by a Doctor who originally treated me day before that I clearly have mental issues because this reaction shouldn't last so long. Psychiatrist didn't even ask questions and prescribed me anti-depressants. Obciously, anxiety diminished on its own next day. FDA.GOV confirms that all 3 medications I was given may cause anxiety (severe) and panick attacks. Including benadryl that does cause anxiety in me. This was widely studied and is believed to be caused by liver enzymes. So, all in all I had never had mentall issues before, never had issues after. But had 3 days of panick attacks and severe anxeity causeb clearly by medication. Hey, but I'm considered depressive, anxious now. It is in my medical records. Just amazing how fast they are to label you and how difficult it is to clear the record. All result of ignorance, but what can I do? Recently I went through cholestycomy procedure outside my insurance, just because I didn't want to be treated by medical stuff with suspicion. I don't believe psychiatrists now at all. I mean this is some type of witchcraft, not science for sure.
- disgruntledphd2 15y ago
  Please note that Psychiatry and Psychology are very different fields, despite the common associations between them. In most countries, psychologists may not prescribe drugs, while psychiatrists, as medical doctors are allowed to do so. Incidentally, I highly recommend reading the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders) and figuring out which disorder you show the most signs of. Myself, I meet all the criteria for ADHD, and if I had been born some years later or in a different place, could easily have been diagnosed with it.
  - choros12 15y ago
    Just about anybody with their self-esteem low enough can get diagnosed by those sociopaths.
bbeaudoin 15y ago
I believe "Anti-Authoritarian" is a misnomer. People labeled as "Anti-Authoritarian", myself included, are more likely "Auto-Authoritarian"; they trust their own authority first, rather than blindly believe the asserted authority of others.
- skymt 15y ago
  Authority is a relational concept. One can have authority over another, but one's authority over oneself is called autonomy or self-reliance.
- adaml_623 15y ago
  I think your point is quite a good one. Taking control of the language used to describe the situation/subject under discussion is important to avoid the negative implications.
ctdonath 15y ago
Hence the propensity of authoritarian governments to declare opponents mentally ill. Beware political positions quick to write off differing views as clinical insanity. When they start committing people, that's a sign the line has been crossed.
jcarden 15y ago
Any 'anti-authoritarian' diagnosis is bunk. This is one aspect of the DSM (of many actually) that seriously bothers me. Since there is no objective scale for delineating behaviors that are acceptable to "authorities", how can one claim this is a valid diagnosis ? THIS is why we can't have nice things.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
JonnieCache 15y ago
Please try and remember that while there may be many problematic practices and practitioners in the world of psychiatry, the majority are just trying to heal the sick like all other doctors. There is a big difference between putting someone on pills to stop them from presenting a problem in school or at work, and putting someone on pills to stop them cutting out their own eyes, or to help them regain their desire to breathe in and out. A large number of mental disorders are extremely debilitating and often fatal to the patient. When successfully healed, sufferers are usually extremely grateful to their psychiatrist, feeling that they owe them their life. You only hear in the media and online about the times when it all goes wrong, because it makes a good story. Who wants to hear blog posts about how someone was sick, and then they got well? Especially when talking about your experience with mental illness is seen as an admission of weakness or personal failure by society, which it is. This is not to discount the fact that there is a huge amount of malpractice, abuse, and just plain poor quality thinking out there in the world of psychiatry. Most of it is connected to big pharma and their big dollars, as you might expect. You also can't absolve the patient of all responsibility. Go to any psychiatrist, particularly here in the UK with our NHS where doctors don't sit around hoping for more ill people, and they will tell you that they are sick and tired of the parade of perfectly healthy middle class idiots shuffling before them with non-problems, or worse, dragging children with non-problems. You can't really just turn these people away, it's unethical (illegal?) to just deny someone treatment. Unless you can invoke something like Münchausen syndrome, you have to treat these people or their charges in some way if they are in distress. Doctors are reduced to giving them some pills and complaining to each other behind closed doors about the endless stream of "worried well" affecting their ability to help those with the actual problems discussed at the start of this now overly-long comment. Actually, increasingly they send them off to a homeopathy clinic or something like that. That in my eyes is the one good use for alternative medicine, it keeps little jemima off the hard stuff when her dangerously irrational mother decides she needs to be fixed. The DSM and it's ilk make this worse by giving the public cosmo-style checklists they can run against themselves, without all the other contextual understanding that a diagnostician has. It is then made worse again with the DSM published on the internet.
- fooandbarify 15y ago
  I had to log in just to upvote this. Yes, diagnosing mental illness is less clear-cut than the problems we typically enjoy as programmers. Yes, mistakes are made. But for every mistake there are 9, or 99, or 999 successes (EDIT: I have no statistical reference for this assertion, please take with large grain of salt) who, as you say, feel that they owe their life to the professional(s) who helped them. I know, because I am one, and regardless of society's opinion that is no less an admission of weakness than admitting that I had chicken pox one time, and occasionally come down with the flu.
firefoxman1 15y ago
That was a really good analysis on why people are diagnosed, but I would like to take a guess at why people want to diagnose their fellow man as such. First, I'm no psychologist or historian, so feel free to disregard everything that follows...this is just a hypothesis. I've noticed (but I'm probably far from the first) that every seemingly "modern" human behavior can be traced back to a handful of primitive instincts or tribal behaviors (fear, greed, prejudice, etc.). So my guess would be that diagnosing someone as mentally ill because they act anti-authoritarian comes from the tribal instinct that allowed, or even required, all humans to work together without questioning their orders. It was necessary to hunting, protecting the tribe, etc. that everyone act as one. Not acting as one would cause the hunt to fail or the tribe to lose a battle, either way they would die. It's the same way that packs of animals like wolves behave. Shun the outlier because he could put all our lives at stake. So expanding on this theory, maybe the reason we as humans act this way is because our cousin species died out because they didn't act as one. Perhaps those other semi-human species that died out were more independently-minded, but for the first few hundred thousand years that was a negative thing that led to natural selection filtering them out? I guess I get this idea from Seth Godin's talk about "Quieting the lizard brain." Pretty interesting, if anyone is interested: http://vimeo.com/5895898 http://vimeo.com/5895898
- StavrosK 15y ago
  The assumption there is that not blindly following orders is bad for the group. That's clearly false when the orders are bad for the group.
  - srl 15y ago
    Not so clearly after all. The harm caused by the orders may well be less than the harm caused to the social structures in the group by one or two people disobeying - or by everyone disobeying, and the group needing to somehow select a new authoritarian figure (which usually gets nasty).
    - frankydp 15y ago
      Also known as war. Which one could argue is not good for the species statically speaking. Nicholas Wade also addressed part of this issue in The Faith Instinct. He postulated that religion as a whole was the translation of our hereditary pack instinct following consciousnesses evolution and that conformity was rewarded over time with a bigger stronger more aligned pack and more babies or more DNA in the pool. It could be argued that the non-conformist is rewarded in the opposite, through persecution by the pack and a smaller group of mates. But, of course great change requires great sacrifice and cost.
Tooluka 15y ago
During reading I always thought about Sheldon, from The Big Bang Theory, in one of the first series when he was sacked from his job. And when he comes to apologize with his mother, he says "I've called you an idiot during our first meeting. I'm sorry... for pointing that out.". I suppose it's the same with many doctors who stamp "mentally ill" diagnoses on people. "If you disagree with me, then you should be treated."
- cgoddard 15y ago
  What's the same? Not trying to be rude, but what point were you trying to make?
  - Tooluka 15y ago
    Many powerful social positions in our society are occupied by not qualified enough people, who only have it through connections or inheritance or just conforming to overcomplicated modern social rules. Basically unquestioning conforming to any relevant authority until a person grows higher in power than it. In Sheldon case it was his new boss, who fired him for a reason than Sheldon did not bow to him (meaning that he should not ever question qualification of a more powerful person). In the essay, this behavior was shown on the example of a psychologist or psychiatrist, who also can develop a tendency to negatively evaluate anti-authoritarian people because they themselves have an opposite character type and are in a more powerful position. This especially concerns me because there are evidence of such abuse of power in cases of children, who can be put on medication just to be kept in the boarding school indefinitely (not sure if this a right name in English).
steve8918 15y ago
This is basically the premise of the book "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". The major question of the book was: "Who was really crazy, the inmates or the System?" It's kind of frightening that views haven't changed in the 40+ years since the book was written. I guess the difference is that they will simply overmedicate rather than lobotomize.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  Firstly, things have changed massively since one flew over the cuccoos nest was written. It wasn't even representative at the time. As I understand, it's more an allegory for the wider society and about institutions. A modern psychiatric hospital is utterly unlike the place in that book in every respect. They still use electroshock therapy, because it has been proven to work. Now they do it under general anaesthetic and it's an altogether less messy affair. Watch this moving TED talk if you don't believe me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEZrAGdZ1i8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEZrAGdZ1i8 Secondly, closely related to this is the famous Rosenhan experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment The really relevant bit is this paragraph: For example, one nurse labeled the note-taking of one pseudopatient as "writing behavior" and considered it pathological. The patients' normal biographies were recast in hospital records along the lines of what was expected of schizophrenics by the then-dominant theories of its etiology. I also remember that one participant had their habit of standing around outside the cafeteria waiting for it to open for lunch noted down by a nurse as "neurotic behaviour around eating and food" and again framed as part of their disorder and used as a reason to keep them there. Remember though that this was in america in the 70s, and things have changed a lot since then. Partly as a direct result of that study, which made a huge impact on the profession and caused a lot of soul searching. Someone repeated it, I think in the 90s, and they were all just put on pills rather than being committed. The crucial difference being that one can choose not to take pills.
  - lifeisstillgood 15y ago
    Isn't this the "all politicians are untrustworthy" problem. Politicians are not any more untrustworthy or criminal than the general populace, they are just more closely watched. And the same is obviously true of those 'under observation' - psychiatric disorders or not. I am not sure just how many of my strange habits would be diagnosed under the DSM - but enough to worry me :-)
itmag 15y ago
Good reading to become a mature (ie not just childish) anti-authoritarian: "Prometheus Rising" by Robert Anton Wilson and "No more Mr Nice Guy" by Robert Glover. I would also throw in "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover" by Robert Moore, and maybe an occasional dose of LessWrong.com (helps to know of cognitive bias pitfalls if one wants to dance to one's own tune). Rand, Aurelius, Thoreau, Emerson and Nietzsche might be cool too, for the philosophically inclined (what they all have in common is the belief in defining your own values, not just following others blindly). Of course, the way I see it, being anti-authoritarian is just a corollary effect of being a mature, competent, self-validated man who is following his own purpose in life. Of course such a man is going to have trouble with those who want to foist their value-systems on him through threats, psychological manipulation, or subterfuge.
- lindowe 15y ago
  Excellent recommendations. I stumbled upon LessWrong.com a couple of months ago and its been a great source of interesting and useful material on practicing rationality and integrating it into everyday life.
  - itmag 15y ago
    LessWrong.com: it's like Call of Cthulhu in reverse. (Ie you gain SAN stat from it).
    - gwern 15y ago
      'Call of Yudkowsky: a group of Christian adventurers hear disturbing rumors of abominations being programmed in SIAI House! As they penetrate to the core and pass various obstacles of cognitive biases, can they maintain their FAITH points, frustrate the sinister computations, and escape mentally intact?'
- Helianthus 15y ago
  I'm going to have to recommend ditching "Prometheus Rising," it's speculative psychology a la Freud without even the benefit of case studies...
CPlatypus 15y ago
The true test of whether someone's really anti-authoritarian is how they behave when they're in authority. 99% of people who use "question authority" as an excuse for what is really anti-social behavior fail this test.
- Tooluka 15y ago
  Where did that number came from? I think that such a percentage is exactly the same for pro-authoritarian people. Should they get authority for themselves they became anti-social in an instant. And I think that really this percent is not 99%, not even 50%, closer to the single digits really. It's just that these anti-socials impact pro-social people much more that other pro-socials. PS: pro-social is just an opposite for anti-social. Nothing complicated.
- Sufrostico 15y ago
  anti-social means that a person does not conform with what authority says. "authority" has an opinion on religion, good manners, social interaction, biodiversity, climate change, whales hunting, and every possible topic on earth. People can choose to fight the authority at any level they want on any topic they want. Two people can fight authority on different topics, both of them see each other as anti-social; but both of them are anti-authority. "Choose your weapons, your enemy has been chosen long ago, even before you realized." -- anonymous
  - CPlatypus 15y ago
    "anti-social means that a person does not conform with what authority says." Simply incorrect, both etymologically and logically. Authority is hierarchical; society is peer to peer. Authority is hard power; society is soft. When you're anti-authoritarian you're defying hierarchy and force. When you're anti-social you're just being a jerk to your neighbors. Not the same thing at all.
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
I like where this article is going a lot, but let's be clear on terms. "Anti-authoritarians" are people who question and/or reject authority aggressively. "Assholes" are people who have emotional and/or maturity issues that cause them to irritate others. Neither of these are diseases, and you can be both, but don't confuse one with the other. I'm a fairly asocial person, but I've learned to be more diplomatic at times. On the other hand, the world is full of angry immature people who just want to "tear it all down!" without actually at heart being for or against anything. They're just a bundle of emotions looking for a place to vent. But the underlying thesis here, that the professionals diagnosing people as mentally ill carry lot of bias with them that even themselves are unaware of? Spot on. Psychiatry has always been about introducing conformity (both in a good way and in a bad way) to society. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of really mentally ill people who need help, just that when you have a hammer, the world is your nail. :) ADD: I would just be very careful about working this problem backwards, from effect to cause. That is, simply because somebody or another supports a cause you believe in doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't emotionally ill. My personal opinion is that there are a lot of emotionally-struggling people who choose politics as a socially acceptable way to vent on the world.
- digitalchaos 15y ago
  I propose that many of the "assholes" and "tear it all down" types are anti-authoritarians who fell through the cracks in the authoritarian system. They have all the anger, anxiety, and hate for the authority that surrounds them but they never found a way to obtain the higher knowledge about what is really going on. Maybe the "smart ones" just have a higher capacity to modify their world to fit them, maybe they had a better environment, or maybe they weren't as anti-authoritarian.
  - billswift 15y ago
    More likely they are better at avoiding the authorities. That is what I usually try to do.
    - jgiancarlo 15y ago
neilk 15y ago
The whole concept of authority fascinates me. I've had a lot of troubles with this, although I'm not disobedient at all. In fact I'm kind of a goody-two-shoes, am eager to please, and often wish I were bolder and more concerned with my own agenda. Yet I've been told multiple times in the past five years that I'm undermining authority. By both management and peers. (Sometimes admiringly, by colleagues who think I'm the only person who isn't subject to the leader's reality distortion field.) I've asked what I can do to not be as "disruptive" and nobody can quite produce anything concrete. I think there's something about my attitude that people can detect -- I do believe that authority needs to be earned with results. And even though when I have defended the current authority, again this is not good enough, because I'll do it in terms of "we need to be unified", "we don't know everything X knows", "X has taken on this leadership role and it costs him a lot, no one should question X's dedication", etc. The one thing I'm not saying is that we should all bow down to X just because "he's the man". There is something about this atavistic concept of authority which demands a posture of submission, often literally. You don't look the other person in the eye any more, you allow yourself to be swept up in his obsessions, his sense of humor leaks into yours, and you treat his ideas as automatically superior. You're supposed to be happy even if he snatches a slice of cake right off your plate. I just don't have it in me.
- luser001 15y ago
  Thank you for a heartfelt comment. I wanted to put a note here in addition to clicking the arrow.
- chipsy 15y ago
  The ways in which an anti-authoritarian outlook manifest can vary widely. I mean, we stereotype it as a "smash the system, direct action now" thing, but creativity, intellectual curiosity, and a sincere desire to reorganize the system(even through completely legal, above-board means like electoral politics and entrepreneurship) can all get demonized as viewpoints that challenge the establishment. Once collective views are in place, the discussion in most people's minds is over; it takes a strong individual effort to work your way back to truth. An great example of an authoritarian stereotype controlling the debate is in our discourse about anarchy. In any mainstream forum of the USA, the mere mention of the term is an impossibility - the assumption of anarchy equating to chaos dominates the discussion. Instead, many of the concepts from anarchic literature are now shared, in a modified form, via the less besmirched term of "libertarianism." We don't equate the Tea Party movement with anarchy, yet the connection is all over Wikipedia.
jakeonthemove 15y ago
Authority (and people in power) are currently seen as "once accepted, never question", and that has served humanity well for thousands (even millions) of years because it's effective - you have a leader, you acknowledged he's at least good enough and you start working on common goals under their supervision. But that doesn't work as well anymore because there's so many of us, so much stuff to do and so much information. That's why we've been moving towards increasingly democratic societies and organizations for the past several hundred years, and the trend will only accelerate. Questioning authority usually stopped the whole organization, and people couldn't move forward unless they found a consensus. Today it's easier to question/review/change authority without having to stop everything - it's like it's a separate module instead of a core piece, but obviously, that doesn't sit well for those whose authority is questioned, hence the struggle against anti-authoritarians...
seles 15y ago
There was a seemingly related hacker news page on the top page along side with this one http://qaa.ath.cx/LoseThos.html http://qaa.ath.cx/LoseThos.html , about the 64 bit OS LoseThos and the mental insanity of its author. It was a very interesting read and I wanted to see the comments, but now it appears gone. Was this flagged and if so why?
- organico 15y ago
  I think there were concerns the LoseThos guy might be worse off by seeing it, and the OP removed it. Really interesting to read about him though, and see his extraordinary work. I hope he is around people who can help and that he'll be ok.
cjensen 15y ago
I can't help but notice we are all discussing the opinions of one guy, who is not a psychiatrist, regarding what he has seen in his practice. And this one guy, if you look at his "about the author stuff" is basically an activist left wing hates-the-system damn-the-capitalists kind of guy. This is not science, it's opinion untethered from the constraints of evidence. If we want to have a long conversation about this, it would behoove us to start from science so that actual facts might be involved.
- cgoddard 15y ago
  I don't see why a mental health worker's critique on the culture and practices of other professionals in the field wouldn't be valid cause for discussion. If someone observes corruption in the field they are working in, is it not valid to raise the issue for discussion before performing a formal survey on how widespread that corruption might be? What type of evidence exactly would satisfy your requirement?
  - cjensen 15y ago
    I did not intend to suggest he should not raise his voice. Rather I suggest that a Hacker News discussion is not well-served by starting from his post due to the lack of factual (in the scientific sense) content. Raising an issue that needs study is just plain Good Science. But it's a starter for science, not us.
- cgoddard 15y ago
  Also the first part of your argument is ad hominem, and doesn't lend any logical support for his critique being invalid.
  - cjensen 15y ago
    An ad hominem attack is an attack on the messenger when the messenger is carrying fact or reasoning that can be evaluated independent of the messenger. In this case, my criticism is of the person who is providing an opinion and is not reporting any information which can be independently evaluated by us here. The character of this observer therefore does matter. I did not make those characterizations with the intent of portraying him as a crazy man who should be categorically ignored. All of those characteristics I mentioned are fine things to have in a healthy and diverse body politic. Rather, I mentioned them to point out that we are attempting to divine the truth in an opinion about a portion of society made by someone with demonstrably eccentric opinions about society. Lastly, thank you for being sensitive about what you saw as name-calling. We could use a lot less name-calling around here.
jfoldi 15y ago
I'm no psychologist but I hope to see those in that profession read this article. I've noticed that many are quick to label a patient mentally ill and prescribe medication. The brain is one of the most misunderstood organs in the human body. While the drugs help some, the profession is far from ready to alter brain chemistry.
blisper 15y ago
Non-conformance, and non-compliance against authority runs the risk of being separated out from the pack, and being treated differently... Does this have any relevance to the debate over ADHD - i.e. there are some that believe a 'good old-fashioned spanking' would set things right.
ilaksh 15y ago
The reality is that political dissenters are often diagnosed with schizophrenia if they, for example, accuse their government of crimes. Of course governments do commit crimes, but one can only acknowledge the crimes of someone else's government, or crimes that occurred long ago. Even in the United States, the automatic reply to any significant claim of criminal behavior against the US government is "bat-shit crazy conspiracy theorist". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_i... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry http://thejcl.com/pdfs/munro.pdf http://thejcl.com/pdfs/munro.pdf The Ankang: China's Special Psychiatric Hospitals Governments, including the United States, project through their propaganda and education, a false reality in which the most important state actions are always moral and justified. There is a type of mass pathology going on in which almost everyone ignores facts that contradict the official reality presented by authority. I think this is unfortunately a normal aspect of group behavior because I have observed it even in a small technical group where the manager decided that Windows Communication Foundation worked differently than it actually did and everyone went along with it even though the documentation clearly stated otherwise.
- cgoddard 15y ago
  Your anecdotal evidence isn't very strong support. If someone had instead stood up in the group and told the manager he was wrong, would you believe the opposite, that not blindly following leadership was the norm?
  - ilaksh 15y ago
    I explained to the manager and the group how they were wrong about that and got fired. The business about it being a normal group behavior is really a side issue though, and I'm not trying to make a scientific case. The bigger issue is government suppression of dissent by the misuse of psychiatry or just by suggesting theories involving criminal activities of the government are signs of insanity.
cbodolus 15y ago
I've grown up diagnosed as ADD (and ADHD), ODD, and Bipolar. The bipolar was because I was not mature yet, and had trouble communicating effectively. I get angered when I hear people talk as if these aren't real. My ADD makes it to where I have a tough time evaluating priorities to the point where my impulsiveness can cause me to 'not' do thing. I just can't. Like I recently tried doing a bit of homework on paper (first time to write on paper this semester) and my mind raced faster than I could write (I just saw the answer), but most importantly I had trouble just writing. I just couldn't force myself to do it. The hyperactive portion of ADHD is just because I'm either 150% going all out, or I'm asleep. (This makes 60 hour work weeks a breeze because I just keep going and going and going, as long as I have someone around that can help keep my focus, or if my attention isn't needed (like large compiles for programs, somehow I can focus better in the spurts between compiles). The ODD part comes in because I love to challenge people, especially authority, but only when I feel like they are incorrect or misguided. Interestingly though, I find that, for example, I can't bring myself to do the dishes when at my Parents house, but at anyone else's house I'm the first to clean the table up after dinner.
- cgoddard 15y ago
  Maybe the problem isn't with you, but with the things you're being required to do. Maybe ideally it would be better for you to focus on doing the things you're especially good at and enjoy doing, rather than following arbitrary and impersonal directives on what you should do. That's up to you to decide, but currently you're required to meet expectations in your life that maybe you're just not personally suited for, not out of any disability, but because your strengths are elsewhere, or maybe you're just not interested and would rather learn or focus on something else at that time. The problem comes in thinking something is wrong with somebody just because they don't conform to expectations or are caused angst and turmoil through their nonconformity. It doesn't matter if it's the sufferer or the society that seeks it out. It is still misguided.
guscost 15y ago
Prussian schooling is the most counterproductive and expensive ritual ever foisted on innocent kids.
cdcox 15y ago
This is mostly inaccurate. He starts by cherry picking his definition of ODD describing it as “a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior without the more serious violations of the basic rights of others that are seen in conduct disorder" and "often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rule". This is ridiculous, and leaves out a half a dozen or so other symptoms including "Have temper tantrums Be argumentative with adults Refuse to comply with adult requests or rules Annoy other people deliberately Blames others for mistakes or misbehavior Acts touchy and is easily annoyed Feel anger and resentment Be spiteful or vindictive Act aggressively toward peers Have difficulty maintaining friendships Have academic problems Feel a lack of self-esteem" Those aren't authority problems, those are major social issues that must persist for greater than 6 months and make the home or school environment hostile. Also, he acts like all psychologists and psychiatrists do is prescribe medicine. This is silly, most psychiatrists and all psychologists would advocate combined therapy or behavioral therapy to help them with parent child interaction and problem solving skills. These authoritarian behavioral treatments include things like "Recognize and praise your child's positive behaviors, offer acceptable choices to your child, giving him or her a certain amount of control." ODD should NEVER get a drug prescription except in the case of comorbitity. Read more here: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/oppositional-defiant-disorder/ http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/oppositional-defiant-disord... ADD and ADHD are over-diagnosed and ODD might also be, but there are people who legitimately suffer from major crushing behavioral deficits which can make properly learning difficult. Sloppy historical analogy with 'famous people would totally be ADD' is a terrible marginalization of this disorder and it's sufferers. Also, lots of people are mentioning the Rosenhan experiment and claiming that psychology hasn't changed at all since then. This is largely inaccurate. I would direct them to this askscience thread http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/orf88/how_has_psychiatry_changed_since_the_rosenhan http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/orf88/how_has_ps... about changes that have occurred including the rise of counseling and patient bill of rights.

304 points by cycojesus 15y ago

> After he did enter college, one professor told Einstein, “You have one fault; one can’t tell you anything.” The very characteristics of Einstein that upset authorities so much were exactly the ones that allowed him to excel. I find it an amusing corollary that later in life, no one was able to convince Einstein of the truth--or at least the usefulness--of quantum mechanics. A failing of the anti-authoritarian mindset is that if you have an opposed opinion to an authority on an issue--and that authority happens to be right--you'll never figure this out until you work it out for yourself.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
I find it an amusing corollary that later in life, no one was able to convince Einstein of the truth--or at least the usefulness--of quantum mechanics. Einstein never disputed the usefulness of QM. He merely disputed the idea that theories based on configuration space were fundamentally correct. He even attempted to disprove them by showing that QM predicts the EPR paradox, which most people agree is pretty weird. He then spent the rest of his life trying to come up with theories that didn't predict nonlocal effects. It turns out that the EPR paradox and other nonlocal effects are observed in real life (so any such theory he might have concocted would have been wrong), but the experiments were only done after Einstein died.
einhverfr 15y ago
I find it an amusing corollary that later in life, no one was able to convince Einstein of the truth--or at least the usefulness--of quantum mechanics. A failing of the anti-authoritarian mindset is that if you have an opposed opinion to an authority on an issue--and that authority happens to be right--you'll never figure this out until you work it out for yourself. Ummm... Einstein's nobel prize was regarding quantum physics? Einstein never disputed quantum mechanics. What he disputed was the (non-falsifiable, and hence not-a-scientific-theory) Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics. He sided with those with a different interpretation.

scrrr 15y ago

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

coldarchon 15y ago
.. and all sustainability on the reasonable man.
Mansyn 15y ago
I enjoy thought provoking arguments as much as the next guy, but too many people seem like they just want something to be unreasonable about. And they act like children, in that they only scrutinize the process when their not getting their way. They just want to be a malcontent, and it appears pathetic to me. I'll be first in line when there's a revolution that isn't full of drum circles and free-loaders.
- itmag 15y ago
  Exactly. In Transactional Analysis, they would say that those types view themselves as ill-behaved Children and identify society as the Parent. The mature dissident (the Adult) looks very different from this, and is a lot more effective too. More on TA: http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/ta.htm http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/ta.htm
- nknight 15y ago
  When else would you analyze a process than when it's causing you a problem? Do you routinely attempt to fix things that aren't broken?
  - rprospero 15y ago
    Imagine that you find an ATM machine that's spitting out free money. It's certainly not causing you a problem, but that doesn't mean that it's not broken. It's easy to see that the system is broken when you're getting less than you deserve. It takes a degree of maturity to admit that the system is broken when you receive more than you deserve.

choros12 15y ago

I'm not sure if too many people nowadays take Psychiatry and Psychology seriously. Most problems they label as illnesses are legitimate issues people have that need resolution not pills. I had severe allergic reaction to shrimp. Ended up at the ER where I was treated with Epinephrine, Prednisone and Diphenhydramine (Benadryl administered directly to bloodstream though). Guess what, I had serious panick attacks for another2 days. When the following day I showed up at the ER, I was told by a Doctor who originally treated me day before that I clearly have mental issues because this reaction shouldn't last so long. Psychiatrist didn't even ask questions and prescribed me anti-depressants. Obciously, anxiety diminished on its own next day. FDA.GOV confirms that all 3 medications I was given may cause anxiety (severe) and panick attacks. Including benadryl that does cause anxiety in me. This was widely studied and is believed to be caused by liver enzymes. So, all in all I had never had mentall issues before, never had issues after. But had 3 days of panick attacks and severe anxeity causeb clearly by medication. Hey, but I'm considered depressive, anxious now. It is in my medical records. Just amazing how fast they are to label you and how difficult it is to clear the record. All result of ignorance, but what can I do? Recently I went through cholestycomy procedure outside my insurance, just because I didn't want to be treated by medical stuff with suspicion. I don't believe psychiatrists now at all. I mean this is some type of witchcraft, not science for sure.

disgruntledphd2 15y ago
Please note that Psychiatry and Psychology are very different fields, despite the common associations between them. In most countries, psychologists may not prescribe drugs, while psychiatrists, as medical doctors are allowed to do so. Incidentally, I highly recommend reading the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders) and figuring out which disorder you show the most signs of. Myself, I meet all the criteria for ADHD, and if I had been born some years later or in a different place, could easily have been diagnosed with it.
- choros12 15y ago
  Just about anybody with their self-esteem low enough can get diagnosed by those sociopaths.

bbeaudoin 15y ago

I believe "Anti-Authoritarian" is a misnomer. People labeled as "Anti-Authoritarian", myself included, are more likely "Auto-Authoritarian"; they trust their own authority first, rather than blindly believe the asserted authority of others.

skymt 15y ago
Authority is a relational concept. One can have authority over another, but one's authority over oneself is called autonomy or self-reliance.
adaml_623 15y ago
I think your point is quite a good one. Taking control of the language used to describe the situation/subject under discussion is important to avoid the negative implications.

ctdonath 15y ago

Hence the propensity of authoritarian governments to declare opponents mentally ill. Beware political positions quick to write off differing views as clinical insanity. When they start committing people, that's a sign the line has been crossed.

jcarden 15y ago

Any 'anti-authoritarian' diagnosis is bunk. This is one aspect of the DSM (of many actually) that seriously bothers me. Since there is no objective scale for delineating behaviors that are acceptable to "authorities", how can one claim this is a valid diagnosis ? THIS is why we can't have nice things.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

JonnieCache 15y ago

Please try and remember that while there may be many problematic practices and practitioners in the world of psychiatry, the majority are just trying to heal the sick like all other doctors. There is a big difference between putting someone on pills to stop them from presenting a problem in school or at work, and putting someone on pills to stop them cutting out their own eyes, or to help them regain their desire to breathe in and out. A large number of mental disorders are extremely debilitating and often fatal to the patient. When successfully healed, sufferers are usually extremely grateful to their psychiatrist, feeling that they owe them their life. You only hear in the media and online about the times when it all goes wrong, because it makes a good story. Who wants to hear blog posts about how someone was sick, and then they got well? Especially when talking about your experience with mental illness is seen as an admission of weakness or personal failure by society, which it is. This is not to discount the fact that there is a huge amount of malpractice, abuse, and just plain poor quality thinking out there in the world of psychiatry. Most of it is connected to big pharma and their big dollars, as you might expect. You also can't absolve the patient of all responsibility. Go to any psychiatrist, particularly here in the UK with our NHS where doctors don't sit around hoping for more ill people, and they will tell you that they are sick and tired of the parade of perfectly healthy middle class idiots shuffling before them with non-problems, or worse, dragging children with non-problems. You can't really just turn these people away, it's unethical (illegal?) to just deny someone treatment. Unless you can invoke something like Münchausen syndrome, you have to treat these people or their charges in some way if they are in distress. Doctors are reduced to giving them some pills and complaining to each other behind closed doors about the endless stream of "worried well" affecting their ability to help those with the actual problems discussed at the start of this now overly-long comment. Actually, increasingly they send them off to a homeopathy clinic or something like that. That in my eyes is the one good use for alternative medicine, it keeps little jemima off the hard stuff when her dangerously irrational mother decides she needs to be fixed. The DSM and it's ilk make this worse by giving the public cosmo-style checklists they can run against themselves, without all the other contextual understanding that a diagnostician has. It is then made worse again with the DSM published on the internet.

fooandbarify 15y ago
I had to log in just to upvote this. Yes, diagnosing mental illness is less clear-cut than the problems we typically enjoy as programmers. Yes, mistakes are made. But for every mistake there are 9, or 99, or 999 successes (EDIT: I have no statistical reference for this assertion, please take with large grain of salt) who, as you say, feel that they owe their life to the professional(s) who helped them. I know, because I am one, and regardless of society's opinion that is no less an admission of weakness than admitting that I had chicken pox one time, and occasionally come down with the flu.

firefoxman1 15y ago

That was a really good analysis on why people are diagnosed, but I would like to take a guess at why people want to diagnose their fellow man as such. First, I'm no psychologist or historian, so feel free to disregard everything that follows...this is just a hypothesis. I've noticed (but I'm probably far from the first) that every seemingly "modern" human behavior can be traced back to a handful of primitive instincts or tribal behaviors (fear, greed, prejudice, etc.). So my guess would be that diagnosing someone as mentally ill because they act anti-authoritarian comes from the tribal instinct that allowed, or even required, all humans to work together without questioning their orders. It was necessary to hunting, protecting the tribe, etc. that everyone act as one. Not acting as one would cause the hunt to fail or the tribe to lose a battle, either way they would die. It's the same way that packs of animals like wolves behave. Shun the outlier because he could put all our lives at stake. So expanding on this theory, maybe the reason we as humans act this way is because our cousin species died out because they didn't act as one. Perhaps those other semi-human species that died out were more independently-minded, but for the first few hundred thousand years that was a negative thing that led to natural selection filtering them out? I guess I get this idea from Seth Godin's talk about "Quieting the lizard brain." Pretty interesting, if anyone is interested: http://vimeo.com/5895898 http://vimeo.com/5895898

StavrosK 15y ago
The assumption there is that not blindly following orders is bad for the group. That's clearly false when the orders are bad for the group.
- srl 15y ago
  Not so clearly after all. The harm caused by the orders may well be less than the harm caused to the social structures in the group by one or two people disobeying - or by everyone disobeying, and the group needing to somehow select a new authoritarian figure (which usually gets nasty).
  - frankydp 15y ago
    Also known as war. Which one could argue is not good for the species statically speaking. Nicholas Wade also addressed part of this issue in The Faith Instinct. He postulated that religion as a whole was the translation of our hereditary pack instinct following consciousnesses evolution and that conformity was rewarded over time with a bigger stronger more aligned pack and more babies or more DNA in the pool. It could be argued that the non-conformist is rewarded in the opposite, through persecution by the pack and a smaller group of mates. But, of course great change requires great sacrifice and cost.

Tooluka 15y ago

During reading I always thought about Sheldon, from The Big Bang Theory, in one of the first series when he was sacked from his job. And when he comes to apologize with his mother, he says "I've called you an idiot during our first meeting. I'm sorry... for pointing that out.". I suppose it's the same with many doctors who stamp "mentally ill" diagnoses on people. "If you disagree with me, then you should be treated."

cgoddard 15y ago
What's the same? Not trying to be rude, but what point were you trying to make?
- Tooluka 15y ago
  Many powerful social positions in our society are occupied by not qualified enough people, who only have it through connections or inheritance or just conforming to overcomplicated modern social rules. Basically unquestioning conforming to any relevant authority until a person grows higher in power than it. In Sheldon case it was his new boss, who fired him for a reason than Sheldon did not bow to him (meaning that he should not ever question qualification of a more powerful person). In the essay, this behavior was shown on the example of a psychologist or psychiatrist, who also can develop a tendency to negatively evaluate anti-authoritarian people because they themselves have an opposite character type and are in a more powerful position. This especially concerns me because there are evidence of such abuse of power in cases of children, who can be put on medication just to be kept in the boarding school indefinitely (not sure if this a right name in English).

steve8918 15y ago

This is basically the premise of the book "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". The major question of the book was: "Who was really crazy, the inmates or the System?" It's kind of frightening that views haven't changed in the 40+ years since the book was written. I guess the difference is that they will simply overmedicate rather than lobotomize.

JonnieCache 15y ago
Firstly, things have changed massively since one flew over the cuccoos nest was written. It wasn't even representative at the time. As I understand, it's more an allegory for the wider society and about institutions. A modern psychiatric hospital is utterly unlike the place in that book in every respect. They still use electroshock therapy, because it has been proven to work. Now they do it under general anaesthetic and it's an altogether less messy affair. Watch this moving TED talk if you don't believe me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEZrAGdZ1i8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEZrAGdZ1i8 Secondly, closely related to this is the famous Rosenhan experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment The really relevant bit is this paragraph: For example, one nurse labeled the note-taking of one pseudopatient as "writing behavior" and considered it pathological. The patients' normal biographies were recast in hospital records along the lines of what was expected of schizophrenics by the then-dominant theories of its etiology. I also remember that one participant had their habit of standing around outside the cafeteria waiting for it to open for lunch noted down by a nurse as "neurotic behaviour around eating and food" and again framed as part of their disorder and used as a reason to keep them there. Remember though that this was in america in the 70s, and things have changed a lot since then. Partly as a direct result of that study, which made a huge impact on the profession and caused a lot of soul searching. Someone repeated it, I think in the 90s, and they were all just put on pills rather than being committed. The crucial difference being that one can choose not to take pills.
- lifeisstillgood 15y ago
  Isn't this the "all politicians are untrustworthy" problem. Politicians are not any more untrustworthy or criminal than the general populace, they are just more closely watched. And the same is obviously true of those 'under observation' - psychiatric disorders or not. I am not sure just how many of my strange habits would be diagnosed under the DSM - but enough to worry me :-)

itmag 15y ago

Good reading to become a mature (ie not just childish) anti-authoritarian: "Prometheus Rising" by Robert Anton Wilson and "No more Mr Nice Guy" by Robert Glover. I would also throw in "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover" by Robert Moore, and maybe an occasional dose of LessWrong.com (helps to know of cognitive bias pitfalls if one wants to dance to one's own tune). Rand, Aurelius, Thoreau, Emerson and Nietzsche might be cool too, for the philosophically inclined (what they all have in common is the belief in defining your own values, not just following others blindly). Of course, the way I see it, being anti-authoritarian is just a corollary effect of being a mature, competent, self-validated man who is following his own purpose in life. Of course such a man is going to have trouble with those who want to foist their value-systems on him through threats, psychological manipulation, or subterfuge.

lindowe 15y ago
Excellent recommendations. I stumbled upon LessWrong.com a couple of months ago and its been a great source of interesting and useful material on practicing rationality and integrating it into everyday life.
- itmag 15y ago
  LessWrong.com: it's like Call of Cthulhu in reverse. (Ie you gain SAN stat from it).
  - gwern 15y ago
    'Call of Yudkowsky: a group of Christian adventurers hear disturbing rumors of abominations being programmed in SIAI House! As they penetrate to the core and pass various obstacles of cognitive biases, can they maintain their FAITH points, frustrate the sinister computations, and escape mentally intact?'
Helianthus 15y ago
I'm going to have to recommend ditching "Prometheus Rising," it's speculative psychology a la Freud without even the benefit of case studies...

CPlatypus 15y ago

The true test of whether someone's really anti-authoritarian is how they behave when they're in authority. 99% of people who use "question authority" as an excuse for what is really anti-social behavior fail this test.

Tooluka 15y ago
Where did that number came from? I think that such a percentage is exactly the same for pro-authoritarian people. Should they get authority for themselves they became anti-social in an instant. And I think that really this percent is not 99%, not even 50%, closer to the single digits really. It's just that these anti-socials impact pro-social people much more that other pro-socials. PS: pro-social is just an opposite for anti-social. Nothing complicated.
Sufrostico 15y ago
anti-social means that a person does not conform with what authority says. "authority" has an opinion on religion, good manners, social interaction, biodiversity, climate change, whales hunting, and every possible topic on earth. People can choose to fight the authority at any level they want on any topic they want. Two people can fight authority on different topics, both of them see each other as anti-social; but both of them are anti-authority. "Choose your weapons, your enemy has been chosen long ago, even before you realized." -- anonymous
- CPlatypus 15y ago
  "anti-social means that a person does not conform with what authority says." Simply incorrect, both etymologically and logically. Authority is hierarchical; society is peer to peer. Authority is hard power; society is soft. When you're anti-authoritarian you're defying hierarchy and force. When you're anti-social you're just being a jerk to your neighbors. Not the same thing at all.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

I like where this article is going a lot, but let's be clear on terms. "Anti-authoritarians" are people who question and/or reject authority aggressively. "Assholes" are people who have emotional and/or maturity issues that cause them to irritate others. Neither of these are diseases, and you can be both, but don't confuse one with the other. I'm a fairly asocial person, but I've learned to be more diplomatic at times. On the other hand, the world is full of angry immature people who just want to "tear it all down!" without actually at heart being for or against anything. They're just a bundle of emotions looking for a place to vent. But the underlying thesis here, that the professionals diagnosing people as mentally ill carry lot of bias with them that even themselves are unaware of? Spot on. Psychiatry has always been about introducing conformity (both in a good way and in a bad way) to society. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of really mentally ill people who need help, just that when you have a hammer, the world is your nail. :) ADD: I would just be very careful about working this problem backwards, from effect to cause. That is, simply because somebody or another supports a cause you believe in doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't emotionally ill. My personal opinion is that there are a lot of emotionally-struggling people who choose politics as a socially acceptable way to vent on the world.

digitalchaos 15y ago
I propose that many of the "assholes" and "tear it all down" types are anti-authoritarians who fell through the cracks in the authoritarian system. They have all the anger, anxiety, and hate for the authority that surrounds them but they never found a way to obtain the higher knowledge about what is really going on. Maybe the "smart ones" just have a higher capacity to modify their world to fit them, maybe they had a better environment, or maybe they weren't as anti-authoritarian.
- billswift 15y ago
  More likely they are better at avoiding the authorities. That is what I usually try to do.
  - jgiancarlo 15y ago

neilk 15y ago

The whole concept of authority fascinates me. I've had a lot of troubles with this, although I'm not disobedient at all. In fact I'm kind of a goody-two-shoes, am eager to please, and often wish I were bolder and more concerned with my own agenda. Yet I've been told multiple times in the past five years that I'm undermining authority. By both management and peers. (Sometimes admiringly, by colleagues who think I'm the only person who isn't subject to the leader's reality distortion field.) I've asked what I can do to not be as "disruptive" and nobody can quite produce anything concrete. I think there's something about my attitude that people can detect -- I do believe that authority needs to be earned with results. And even though when I have defended the current authority, again this is not good enough, because I'll do it in terms of "we need to be unified", "we don't know everything X knows", "X has taken on this leadership role and it costs him a lot, no one should question X's dedication", etc. The one thing I'm not saying is that we should all bow down to X just because "he's the man". There is something about this atavistic concept of authority which demands a posture of submission, often literally. You don't look the other person in the eye any more, you allow yourself to be swept up in his obsessions, his sense of humor leaks into yours, and you treat his ideas as automatically superior. You're supposed to be happy even if he snatches a slice of cake right off your plate. I just don't have it in me.

luser001 15y ago
Thank you for a heartfelt comment. I wanted to put a note here in addition to clicking the arrow.
chipsy 15y ago
The ways in which an anti-authoritarian outlook manifest can vary widely. I mean, we stereotype it as a "smash the system, direct action now" thing, but creativity, intellectual curiosity, and a sincere desire to reorganize the system(even through completely legal, above-board means like electoral politics and entrepreneurship) can all get demonized as viewpoints that challenge the establishment. Once collective views are in place, the discussion in most people's minds is over; it takes a strong individual effort to work your way back to truth. An great example of an authoritarian stereotype controlling the debate is in our discourse about anarchy. In any mainstream forum of the USA, the mere mention of the term is an impossibility - the assumption of anarchy equating to chaos dominates the discussion. Instead, many of the concepts from anarchic literature are now shared, in a modified form, via the less besmirched term of "libertarianism." We don't equate the Tea Party movement with anarchy, yet the connection is all over Wikipedia.

jakeonthemove 15y ago

Authority (and people in power) are currently seen as "once accepted, never question", and that has served humanity well for thousands (even millions) of years because it's effective - you have a leader, you acknowledged he's at least good enough and you start working on common goals under their supervision. But that doesn't work as well anymore because there's so many of us, so much stuff to do and so much information. That's why we've been moving towards increasingly democratic societies and organizations for the past several hundred years, and the trend will only accelerate. Questioning authority usually stopped the whole organization, and people couldn't move forward unless they found a consensus. Today it's easier to question/review/change authority without having to stop everything - it's like it's a separate module instead of a core piece, but obviously, that doesn't sit well for those whose authority is questioned, hence the struggle against anti-authoritarians...

seles 15y ago

There was a seemingly related hacker news page on the top page along side with this one http://qaa.ath.cx/LoseThos.html http://qaa.ath.cx/LoseThos.html , about the 64 bit OS LoseThos and the mental insanity of its author. It was a very interesting read and I wanted to see the comments, but now it appears gone. Was this flagged and if so why?

organico 15y ago
I think there were concerns the LoseThos guy might be worse off by seeing it, and the OP removed it. Really interesting to read about him though, and see his extraordinary work. I hope he is around people who can help and that he'll be ok.

cjensen 15y ago

I can't help but notice we are all discussing the opinions of one guy, who is not a psychiatrist, regarding what he has seen in his practice. And this one guy, if you look at his "about the author stuff" is basically an activist left wing hates-the-system damn-the-capitalists kind of guy. This is not science, it's opinion untethered from the constraints of evidence. If we want to have a long conversation about this, it would behoove us to start from science so that actual facts might be involved.

cgoddard 15y ago
I don't see why a mental health worker's critique on the culture and practices of other professionals in the field wouldn't be valid cause for discussion. If someone observes corruption in the field they are working in, is it not valid to raise the issue for discussion before performing a formal survey on how widespread that corruption might be? What type of evidence exactly would satisfy your requirement?
- cjensen 15y ago
  I did not intend to suggest he should not raise his voice. Rather I suggest that a Hacker News discussion is not well-served by starting from his post due to the lack of factual (in the scientific sense) content. Raising an issue that needs study is just plain Good Science. But it's a starter for science, not us.
cgoddard 15y ago
Also the first part of your argument is ad hominem, and doesn't lend any logical support for his critique being invalid.
- cjensen 15y ago
  An ad hominem attack is an attack on the messenger when the messenger is carrying fact or reasoning that can be evaluated independent of the messenger. In this case, my criticism is of the person who is providing an opinion and is not reporting any information which can be independently evaluated by us here. The character of this observer therefore does matter. I did not make those characterizations with the intent of portraying him as a crazy man who should be categorically ignored. All of those characteristics I mentioned are fine things to have in a healthy and diverse body politic. Rather, I mentioned them to point out that we are attempting to divine the truth in an opinion about a portion of society made by someone with demonstrably eccentric opinions about society. Lastly, thank you for being sensitive about what you saw as name-calling. We could use a lot less name-calling around here.

jfoldi 15y ago

I'm no psychologist but I hope to see those in that profession read this article. I've noticed that many are quick to label a patient mentally ill and prescribe medication. The brain is one of the most misunderstood organs in the human body. While the drugs help some, the profession is far from ready to alter brain chemistry.

blisper 15y ago

Non-conformance, and non-compliance against authority runs the risk of being separated out from the pack, and being treated differently... Does this have any relevance to the debate over ADHD - i.e. there are some that believe a 'good old-fashioned spanking' would set things right.

ilaksh 15y ago

The reality is that political dissenters are often diagnosed with schizophrenia if they, for example, accuse their government of crimes. Of course governments do commit crimes, but one can only acknowledge the crimes of someone else's government, or crimes that occurred long ago. Even in the United States, the automatic reply to any significant claim of criminal behavior against the US government is "bat-shit crazy conspiracy theorist". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_i... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry http://thejcl.com/pdfs/munro.pdf http://thejcl.com/pdfs/munro.pdf The Ankang: China's Special Psychiatric Hospitals Governments, including the United States, project through their propaganda and education, a false reality in which the most important state actions are always moral and justified. There is a type of mass pathology going on in which almost everyone ignores facts that contradict the official reality presented by authority. I think this is unfortunately a normal aspect of group behavior because I have observed it even in a small technical group where the manager decided that Windows Communication Foundation worked differently than it actually did and everyone went along with it even though the documentation clearly stated otherwise.

cgoddard 15y ago
Your anecdotal evidence isn't very strong support. If someone had instead stood up in the group and told the manager he was wrong, would you believe the opposite, that not blindly following leadership was the norm?
- ilaksh 15y ago
  I explained to the manager and the group how they were wrong about that and got fired. The business about it being a normal group behavior is really a side issue though, and I'm not trying to make a scientific case. The bigger issue is government suppression of dissent by the misuse of psychiatry or just by suggesting theories involving criminal activities of the government are signs of insanity.

cbodolus 15y ago

I've grown up diagnosed as ADD (and ADHD), ODD, and Bipolar. The bipolar was because I was not mature yet, and had trouble communicating effectively. I get angered when I hear people talk as if these aren't real. My ADD makes it to where I have a tough time evaluating priorities to the point where my impulsiveness can cause me to 'not' do thing. I just can't. Like I recently tried doing a bit of homework on paper (first time to write on paper this semester) and my mind raced faster than I could write (I just saw the answer), but most importantly I had trouble just writing. I just couldn't force myself to do it. The hyperactive portion of ADHD is just because I'm either 150% going all out, or I'm asleep. (This makes 60 hour work weeks a breeze because I just keep going and going and going, as long as I have someone around that can help keep my focus, or if my attention isn't needed (like large compiles for programs, somehow I can focus better in the spurts between compiles). The ODD part comes in because I love to challenge people, especially authority, but only when I feel like they are incorrect or misguided. Interestingly though, I find that, for example, I can't bring myself to do the dishes when at my Parents house, but at anyone else's house I'm the first to clean the table up after dinner.

cgoddard 15y ago
Maybe the problem isn't with you, but with the things you're being required to do. Maybe ideally it would be better for you to focus on doing the things you're especially good at and enjoy doing, rather than following arbitrary and impersonal directives on what you should do. That's up to you to decide, but currently you're required to meet expectations in your life that maybe you're just not personally suited for, not out of any disability, but because your strengths are elsewhere, or maybe you're just not interested and would rather learn or focus on something else at that time. The problem comes in thinking something is wrong with somebody just because they don't conform to expectations or are caused angst and turmoil through their nonconformity. It doesn't matter if it's the sufferer or the society that seeks it out. It is still misguided.

guscost 15y ago

Prussian schooling is the most counterproductive and expensive ritual ever foisted on innocent kids.

cdcox 15y ago

This is mostly inaccurate. He starts by cherry picking his definition of ODD describing it as “a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior without the more serious violations of the basic rights of others that are seen in conduct disorder" and "often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rule". This is ridiculous, and leaves out a half a dozen or so other symptoms including "Have temper tantrums Be argumentative with adults Refuse to comply with adult requests or rules Annoy other people deliberately Blames others for mistakes or misbehavior Acts touchy and is easily annoyed Feel anger and resentment Be spiteful or vindictive Act aggressively toward peers Have difficulty maintaining friendships Have academic problems Feel a lack of self-esteem" Those aren't authority problems, those are major social issues that must persist for greater than 6 months and make the home or school environment hostile. Also, he acts like all psychologists and psychiatrists do is prescribe medicine. This is silly, most psychiatrists and all psychologists would advocate combined therapy or behavioral therapy to help them with parent child interaction and problem solving skills. These authoritarian behavioral treatments include things like "Recognize and praise your child's positive behaviors, offer acceptable choices to your child, giving him or her a certain amount of control." ODD should NEVER get a drug prescription except in the case of comorbitity. Read more here: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/oppositional-defiant-disorder/ http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/oppositional-defiant-disord... ADD and ADHD are over-diagnosed and ODD might also be, but there are people who legitimately suffer from major crushing behavioral deficits which can make properly learning difficult. Sloppy historical analogy with 'famous people would totally be ADD' is a terrible marginalization of this disorder and it's sufferers. Also, lots of people are mentioning the Rosenhan experiment and claiming that psychology hasn't changed at all since then. This is largely inaccurate. I would direct them to this askscience thread http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/orf88/how_has_psychiatry_changed_since_the_rosenhan http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/orf88/how_has_ps... about changes that have occurred including the rise of counseling and patient bill of rights.