I see a lot in here about the popular "chemical imbalance" theory, which is worth noting is more of a big pharma sales pitch at this point in time than actual objective science.
>fit your worldview, and ignored all the critique around them. That's not objective science.
^This is an accurate description of western psychiatry in general, ironically, because 1) psychiatry is not objective science 2) psychiatry assumes individual deviation from society's norms is the root of disorder, rather than seriously considering the disorder of society's norms at large.
>In 2013, Frances said that "psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests
>In 2013, Frances said that "psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests
Well, in many areas the biological tests are simply not there yet, and subjective judgements are the best we have.
In many fields, subjectivity is the best we have. In business management, venture capital, and even certain branches of software development, the best decisions are still being made based on fallible subjective judgements.
I may be wrong though - perhaps you can show me a biological test that will differentiate between attention deficit caused by biology, versus one caused by bad habits?
>In many fields, subjectivity is the best we have. In business management, venture capital
Indeed, and I see nothing wrong with that.
The issue I'm critizing is when a group of people fraudulently present themselves as doctors and scientists (implying physical objectivity), especially in regards to metaphysical matters such as the mind.
The catholic church did this during the days of the inquisition, and psychiatrists have been doing the same since the field was invented ~200 years ago.
>perhaps you can show me a biological test that will differentiate between attention deficit caused by biology, versus one caused by bad habits?
>1) psychiatry is not objective science 2) psychiatry assumes individual deviation from society's norms is the root of disorder, rather than seriously considering the disorder of society's norms at large.
I believe this is an accurate statement, and the reason for these two points being so extant is that Psychiatry is, these days, more like a state-supported official religion.
Its definitely not science. If you don't think the way society wants you to think (i.e. religion), you are cast out from it: this is Psychiatrys' job.
>2) psychiatry assumes individual deviation from society's norms is the root of disorder, rather than seriously considering the disorder of society's norms at large.
Without making a comment which either agrees or disagrees with the above, I would like to add that I believe those who downvoted comments such as this--controversial and/or original ideas--might consider to instead offer a reason why the comment is likely to be of low value.
For example, I can readily find evidence in support & in opposition to the above comment, i.e. WebMD states a primary symptom of Paranoid Schizophrenia to be a belief that the government is spying on you[1]. Another example: gay rights activists of yesterday would be able to tell you of a time when their sexual preference was considered a disorder.
So while the idea might be controversial, I don't believe it is inherently of low value to add to the conversation.
>1) psychiatry is not objective science
There is a reasonable argument to be made that there is merit in being critical of what we do, and don't call, science. Richard Feynman talked about this fundamental, simple nature of the scientific method and the critical component being that it provides a testable hypothesis that can be observed and repeated, which shows us nature agrees with our theory[2]. As we all know, this is very hard to produce in psychology, despite their best efforts to use maths and stats to create studies which find strong correlations.
You might find The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement by Dr. Thomas Szasz interesting[1].
In this book Dr. Szasz historically shows the startling revelation of how modern psychiatry evolved out of and is the modern day equivalent of the Inquisition. As the church lost its control over the state during the Enlightenment, witches were relabeled as crazies and the supralegal role of social control was taken over by the psychiatric state.
Antidepressants and the Placebo Effect https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4592645/
Antidepressants versus placebo in major depression: an overview https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/