Submitted by No_Bison_3116 t3_xuzlj3 in philosophy
Blizzwalker t1_ir2e5uk wrote
Is it accurate to speak with such certainty about the causal factors in mental illness being solely socioeconomic in nature ? Most schizophrenics report disruption of thought and/or auditory hallucinations. These tend to go along with social withdrawal from friends and family. There seems no question that they suffer immensely. I have worked with such people for 40 years. Can you really take their self- reports, and the accumulated observations of those that work in mental health, and say these problems are best explained by the evils of the capitalist system ? And the mental health professionals are all collectively being used by the power elite to maintain inequality ? Such a narrative, while satisfying to those seeking change to our flawed system, does not fit the observed data. What about cross-cultural rates of psychosis that includes non-captitalist cultures ? Why do some tribal people in Africa, or Innuit of the Arctic also display symptoms of schizophrenia? By your reasoning, such groups should be free of such problems because they only emerge from a dysfunctional capitalist socioeconomic setting. My sense is your argument is faulty.
No_Bison_3116 OP t1_ir39v0f wrote
Schizophrenia obviously does not exist. The unlearned masses may be dazzled by scientific sounding Greek and Latin terms but men of high capacity are not fooled. Many people mistake knowing the name of something for understanding something :
"Psychiatric insiders have openly admitted the lack of science to their area of operations. Allen Frances (cited in Whitaker and Cosgrove 2015: 61), for example, has recently stated that the mental disorders given in the DSM are “better understood as no more than currently convenient constructs or heuristics that allow [psychiatrists] to communicate with one another.” This has included the classic constructs of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (formerly manic-depression), of which the mental health researcher Joel Paris at the Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, has admitted “[i]n reality, we do not know whether [such] conditions … are true diseases” (cited in Whitaker and Cosgrove 2015: 61). Even National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) director and strong advocate of biomedical psychiatry, Thomas Insel (cited in Masson 2015: xii), announced on the release of the DSM-5 in 2013 that the categories of mental disorder lacked validity and NIMH would no longer be using such diagnoses for research purposes.Despite the claims to “progress” made by official historians of psychiatry such as Lieberman and Shorter, there is no evidence for the supposed “science” of psychiatry. There is no test for any mental illness, no proof of causation, no evidence of successful “treatment” that relates specifically to an individual disorder, and no accurate prediction of future cases. Thus, the claim that psychiatric constructs are real disease has not been proven. Consequently, it is necessary to utilise the existing evidence to more accurately theorise the real vocation of the psy-professions in capitalist society."
Cohen, B.: "Psychiatric Hegemony: A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness" Palgrave- MacMillan
Bruce studied sociology in the north of England in the 1990s, and worked as a post-doctorate researcher at both the Humboldt University in Berlin and the University of South Australia in Adelaide in the early 2000s, before becoming a full-time academic in Sociology at the University of Auckland in 2008. With thirty years social research experience, he has undertaken empirical work on topics such as mental health user meanings of illness, community-based youth music projects, police perceptions of drug users, alternatives to psychiatric hospitalisation, migrant labour markets, female perceptions of crime and safety, and the criminalisation of ‘legal highs’. He has published over 40 academic books, articles, and chapters to date.
SHG098 t1_ir51amq wrote
I wonder if you are creating a more black and white version of the position given making it easier to dismiss - the suggestion isn't that all mental illness is only a tool for capitalist exploitation but that the system of responding to mental distress is vulnerable to being used that way with numerous features, like the DSM and professional activities /treatments, having been so influenced that they become blunted, useless or - often - worse by only emphasising the individual. Asking whether a particular condition (like schizophrenia or depression) exists as defined is different than saying the symptomology doesn't exist. The implication is that we should do a far better job of "carving nature at the joints" in our categorisation and redefine the meaning of symptomologies and recognise social causes of distress, working on those, rather than blaming individuals for not being able to respond well to the craziness of their situation. Working to improve society and our group-think doesn't require that we locate all distress in social ills but that we should not deepen their harm by pretending the solution lies with adjusting individuals to better tolerate misery in miserable conditions. A therapy that supports the client would be working to change those conditions as well as empowering the client to do so themselves.
Blizzwalker t1_ir65uhu wrote
Agree with most of above comment by SHGO98. My comments have mostly been driven by the tenor of OP's statements such as "Schizophrenia obviously does not exist" and "It is impossible for psychiatry to be scientific". How about " Schizophrenia... is just a wastebasket for disturbing behavior". In working as a therapist on a mental health unit at Rikers Island jail for many years, the whole jail was a house of those with "disturbing behavior". How is it that a small subset of those inmates were deemed patients, and many of these patients had symptoms of psychosis that clearly set them apart. You can take away the label "schizophrenia" and call it what you will. There are some who distinctly suffer from mental illness, not simply "disturbing behavior". There is nothing new in the claim that mental illness is a label thrown on the disenfranchised so the power elite can maintain control. See Thomas Szasz. I don't believe his views are prominent in current mental health thinking.
Certainly the DSM is an attempt to construct a grid of boundaries that is imposed on a continuum of human problems-- problems that don't easily lend themselves to being neatly divided into boxes. It is inherently flawed, but having no classification system for mental problems would probably make it harder to attempt treatment. Understanding the etiology of such problems is equally vexing. It is a young science, but it's theories of neurochemical causation, or even earlier psychogenic explanations of mental illness are no more "theoretical" than the theories underlying how the sun produces energy-- they are all part of the process of hypotheses building and testing that constitutes science.
It might be helpful for those eager to look for broader, societally induced explanations of mental illness to visit an in-patient unit near them. I have worked in such places for 40 years. That person talking to themselves, eyes focused on some unworldly plane, screaming. How did they get that way ? What about all the research looking at genetic predisposition, at neurotransmitter imbalance. Sure, there are some controversial critiques of this, as cited by OP, but the vast majority of experts in the field believe that something is neurochemically askew. Something that may interact with socioeconomic factors, but something in that individual's brain is different from those without such symptoms. The fact that drug companies may oversell partial solutions or MDs prescribe ineffective drugs doesn't mean they are causing the symptoms, nor does it prove that the causal factors are located in a flawed and exploitative social system, although such a system is certainly an ancillary condition that contributes to individual suffering.
Maybe some should take a step back and remind themselves just how stark a difference exists between asking questions about the composition of water, and trying to understand the relationship between brain and mind. The object of study makes a big difference in how far scientific inquiry can progress ! Because the brain/mind is so complex, perhaps unfathomable, does that mean we should give up ? Of course socioeconomic and cultural factors affect this process, and the profit motive of a capitalist culture undoubtedly leads to exploitation of mental health efforts-- and even adds to the suffering of the individual. No science occurs in a political vacuum (just look at climate science), yet OP makes what I consider irresponsible claims about the illegitimacy of psychology/psychiatry.
Any introductory text on psychology or psychiatry contains ample description of the multicausal nature of emotional suffering. No such text would have the locus of explanation solely residing in the individual -- almost all such books would insure that cultural context, socioeconomic strata, and biological factors are all seen as contributing factors to mental illness. That includes viewing the profit driven, competitive nature of latter day culture as contributing to anxiety, depression, and even psychosis.
I don't believe I am selling a black and white version so as to dismiss how society can affect the individual. I am simply responding to a faulty characterization of the mental health professions.
No_Bison_3116 OP t1_iradxjk wrote
Most science outside of physics is politically motivated statistical manipulation and physics is not 100% immune either. Physics is the king of the sciences and math is the Queen-- Psychiatry is clown world. Aristotle's natural philosophy turned into physics but Plato's philosophy of the mind is not tangible --the wall of the mind is intangible and metaphysical. Since, physics is the king of the sciences all sciences must obey its laws but to say psychiatric nosology obeys the laws of physics is nonsensical and obviously not true. If a 'disease" in the DSM were found to exist it would move to neurology.
Why Most Published Research Findings are False :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
"In the paper, Ioannidis argued that a large number, if not the majority, of published medical research papers contain results that cannot be replicated. In simple terms, the essay states that scientists use hypothesis testing to determine whether scientific discoveries are significant. "Significance" is formalized in terms of probability, and one formalized calculation ("P value") is reported in the scientific literature as a screening mechanism. Ioannidis posited assumptions about the way people perform and report these tests; then he constructed a statistical model which indicates that most published findings are false positive results."
It is impossible for true science to exist under Capitalism.
Karl Marx's theory of historical materialism states that the source of human progress and historical change is not to be found in “legal relations” or “political forms,” but rather “in the material conditions of life”. By this Marx means that the economic relations of human beings determine all other relations in that society. Material survival rather than the development of rationality and spiritual thinking forms the fundamental basis of human endeavour in each historical epoch. Since, the development of rationality is sorely lacking in Capitalist society real science does not exist or is in the minority and contained largely to physics.
Psychiatry is an ISA ( Ideological State Apparatus) in Capitalist society. It masquerades as a branch of medicine and a science so that its propositions seem like neutral and objective discourse that is detached from elite control by that is far from the truth
No_Bison_3116 OP t1_ir2jq9z wrote
Schizophrenia obviously is a nonsensical category so is not valid. It was obvious to psychologist Don Bannister, back in 1968, that DSM criteria makes schizophrenia “a concept so diffuse as to be unusable in a scientific context.” Specifically, it is possible for one individual to be diagnosed with schizophrenia based on two symptoms that are completely different than the two symptoms of another individual similarly diagnosed.
It is also cannot be reliably assessed by clinicians with a kappa score of .46 and not .70 or above.
Much of what is considered a delusion is culturally and politically based and there are many high functioning people considered sane , by society, who 'hear voices'.
Schizophrenia does not exist it is just a wastebasket for disturbing behavior.
Also, people diagnosed with 'mental illness' have better recovery rates in 'third world' countries. My guess is because they are not exposed to the toxic Western psychiatric establishment.
jerfo t1_ism8smg wrote
On what do you ground such assertions as schizophrenia 'obviously' not existing or a 'non sensical' category? The DSM has changed much in nearly 60 yours from what you quote here. It seems to me you're cherry picking whichever opinions best mirror your own.
No_Bison_3116 OP t1_ismbm9l wrote
Yeah, the DSM got worse to the point that the NIMH and Thomas Insel rejected it as pseudo-scientific. So, the DSM is invalid and the DSM categories can't reliably be diagnosed by clinicians. That is the basis idiot :
Published in the journal Neuron, Raymond Dolan—considered one of the most influential neuroscientists in the world—co-authored “Functional Neuroimaging in Psychiatry and the Case for Failing Better,” concluding, “Despite three decades of intense neuroimaging research, we still lack a neurobiological account for any psychiatric condition.”
Reflecting on the more than 16,000 neuroimaging articles published during the last 30 years, Dolan and his co-authors concluded: “It remains difficult to refute a critique that psychiatry’s most fundamental characteristic is its ignorance. . . . Casting a cold eye on the psychiatric neuroimaging literature invites a conclusion that despite 30 years of intense research and considerable technological advances, this enterprise has not delivered a neurobiological account (i.e., a mechanistic explanation) for any psychiatric disorder, nor has it provided a credible imaging-based biomarker of clinical utility.”
In 2011, establishment psychiatrist Ronald Pies, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, stated: “In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend—never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”
Anyway, the onus of proof is not on 'mental illness' deniers but on the people who proclaim it exists with no scientific proof :
There is no evidence for the supposed “science” of psychiatry. There is no test for any mental illness, no proof of causation, no evidence of successful “treatment” that relates specifically to an individual disorder, and no accurate prediction of future cases. Thus, the claim that psychiatric constructs are real disease has not been proven.
jerfo t1_isuq8fz wrote
> That is the basis idiot :
So now you've resorted to name calling.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments