4 ms·

Here is one for you: "In 1995 CCHR published the acclaimed book Psychiatrists: The Men Behind Hitler." http://www.amazon.com/Psychiatrists-Behind-Hitler-Thoma

Here is one for you: "In 1995 CCHR published the acclaimed book Psychiatrists: The Men Behind Hitler." http://www.amazon.com/Psychiatrists-Behind-Hitler-Thomas-Roder/dp/0964890917 http://www.amazon.com/Psychiatrists-Behind-Hitler-Thomas-Rod... And another one: "In 1999, members of the Council of Europe issued a resolution that recognized psychiatrists as the architects of the ethnic cleansing and encouraged Council members to 'study the material that has been put together and researched by the French chapter of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights.'" http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=8785&Language=EN http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=8785...

chris_wot 14y ago
Actually, the second citation you reference asserts that two psychiatrists participated in and coordinated ethnic cleansing, implying that psychiatry was the root cause. It states that eugenics is particularly stupid and unjust (note that this is not a theory recognized in psychiatry) and it was issued as a resolution made by merely three members. In other words, they lobbied a few European politicians into making a statement about facts not necessarily in evidence, in a very limited form to show tenuous conclusions not backed up by any research whatsoever. Awesome. As for the book, you're using the peacock term "acclaimed" and cited an Amazon product page. Not what I'd call a great citation. This is the problem, of course, with citations. It exposes the hollowness of ridiculous arguments by allowing all to see exactly the underpinning assumptions behind statements and assertions. This is why I invented [citation needed]. I appreciate you reminding me why I did so.
- atsaloli 14y ago
  Thank you. This is quite instructive. What makes a great citation? The claim was that a book was published, and I showed the book. Another claim was that a resolution was passed and I showed the resolution. I thought I was doing well until I read chris's reply. :) I will address chris's point that eugenics is not a theory recognized in psychiatry. 1. Forced sterilization of mental patients was done by social psychiatrists, to improve society by removing the genetic material of mentally feeble and insane. Reference: Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880-1940. Ian Robert Dowbiggin. 245 pp. Cornell University Press, 1997. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/how-psychiatry-sought-asylum-from-the-insanity-of-eugenics http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/how-psychiatr... http://www.amazon.com/Keeping-America-Sane-Psychiatry-1880-1940/dp/0801483980 http://www.amazon.com/Keeping-America-Sane-Psychiatry-1880-1... 2. The following paper offers historical case studies of "psychiatric genetics" and urges reflection on social psychiatry. The Eugenic Legacy in Psychology and Psychiatry by David Pilgrim of Mental Health Policy, University of Central Lancashire, UK http://isp.sagepub.com/content/54/3/272.abstract http://isp.sagepub.com/content/54/3/272.abstract 3. What about "On human self-domestication, psychiatry, and eugenics" by Martin Brüne in Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2007; 2: 21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082022/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082022/ Am I doing better? I want to thank chris for challenging me to contribute higher quality content.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    I'm not denying awful things were one in the name f psychiatry, but these ate the current state of the field/profession.
    - atsaloli 14y ago
      The current state of the "mental health" profession/field includes suffocating patients in attachment therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Newmaker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Newmaker), fraud (http://www.justice.gov/usao/lae/news/2010/2010_08_19_maria_carmen_palazzo_plea.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/lae/news/2010/2010_08_19_maria_c...), and rape (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/doctor-shock-anti-gay-doc_n_517663.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/doctor-shock-anti-g...). Electric shock is still considered a valid form of therapy in the profession (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/electroconvulsive-therapy/MY00129 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/electroconvulsive-therapy/M...).
      - chris_wot 14y ago
        Extreme cases in a large profession does not mean the entire profession is like the cases you cite. ECT is still considered a valid form of therapy because it is a valid form of therapy.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "I want to thank chris for challenging me to contribute higher quality content." It would also be helpful for you to research the flaws in what you wish to replace psychology with, if you're going to suggest revolution instead of reform.

chris_wot 14y ago

Actually, the second citation you reference asserts that two psychiatrists participated in and coordinated ethnic cleansing, implying that psychiatry was the root cause. It states that eugenics is particularly stupid and unjust (note that this is not a theory recognized in psychiatry) and it was issued as a resolution made by merely three members. In other words, they lobbied a few European politicians into making a statement about facts not necessarily in evidence, in a very limited form to show tenuous conclusions not backed up by any research whatsoever. Awesome. As for the book, you're using the peacock term "acclaimed" and cited an Amazon product page. Not what I'd call a great citation. This is the problem, of course, with citations. It exposes the hollowness of ridiculous arguments by allowing all to see exactly the underpinning assumptions behind statements and assertions. This is why I invented [citation needed]. I appreciate you reminding me why I did so.

atsaloli 14y ago
Thank you. This is quite instructive. What makes a great citation? The claim was that a book was published, and I showed the book. Another claim was that a resolution was passed and I showed the resolution. I thought I was doing well until I read chris's reply. :) I will address chris's point that eugenics is not a theory recognized in psychiatry. 1. Forced sterilization of mental patients was done by social psychiatrists, to improve society by removing the genetic material of mentally feeble and insane. Reference: Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880-1940. Ian Robert Dowbiggin. 245 pp. Cornell University Press, 1997. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/how-psychiatry-sought-asylum-from-the-insanity-of-eugenics http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/how-psychiatr... http://www.amazon.com/Keeping-America-Sane-Psychiatry-1880-1940/dp/0801483980 http://www.amazon.com/Keeping-America-Sane-Psychiatry-1880-1... 2. The following paper offers historical case studies of "psychiatric genetics" and urges reflection on social psychiatry. The Eugenic Legacy in Psychology and Psychiatry by David Pilgrim of Mental Health Policy, University of Central Lancashire, UK http://isp.sagepub.com/content/54/3/272.abstract http://isp.sagepub.com/content/54/3/272.abstract 3. What about "On human self-domestication, psychiatry, and eugenics" by Martin Brüne in Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2007; 2: 21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082022/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082022/ Am I doing better? I want to thank chris for challenging me to contribute higher quality content.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  I'm not denying awful things were one in the name f psychiatry, but these ate the current state of the field/profession.
  - atsaloli 14y ago
    The current state of the "mental health" profession/field includes suffocating patients in attachment therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Newmaker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Newmaker), fraud (http://www.justice.gov/usao/lae/news/2010/2010_08_19_maria_carmen_palazzo_plea.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/lae/news/2010/2010_08_19_maria_c...), and rape (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/doctor-shock-anti-gay-doc_n_517663.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/doctor-shock-anti-g...). Electric shock is still considered a valid form of therapy in the profession (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/electroconvulsive-therapy/MY00129 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/electroconvulsive-therapy/M...).
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Extreme cases in a large profession does not mean the entire profession is like the cases you cite. ECT is still considered a valid form of therapy because it is a valid form of therapy.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "I want to thank chris for challenging me to contribute higher quality content." It would also be helpful for you to research the flaws in what you wish to replace psychology with, if you're going to suggest revolution instead of reform.