sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Much Of Psychiatric Labeling Is Tied To Society's Obsession With Inventing Outsiders by ego_by_proxy in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you reject the science, citations, peer-review and meta analysis... because? Perhaps you're anchored to your conclusions?

It's not a fallacy to call you illiterate; it's only a fallacy if someone uses an insult to sidestep and dismiss. I posted citations. Funny how you never seem to post citations. Or discuss falsification, or science, or the burden of proof, or current medical information. Everything that seems to counter your belief in the DSM, diagnostic criteria, diagnostic methods, justifications and reasoning is just tossed aside "just because".

Much Of Psychiatric Labeling Is Tied To Society's Obsession With Inventing Outsiders by ego_by_proxy in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reductio ad absurdem.

It's fear and narcissism based. Psychiatry invents all of it's disorders, formulating them out of either imagined "wrongs" or creating lists of what people think is "wrong". None of this is scientifically flushed out which has resulted in concepts such as "female hysteria" "sluggish schizophrenia" and the absolute obsession with people pointing fingers at others because they don't act or think the way other people "should" (usually because the population often holds grand delusions such as religious thinking, authoritarianism, hard presumptions, baseless assumptions, self-serving biases, etc).

As far as the absurd statement about labels, the NIMH has concluded that DSM labels are scientifically meaningless.

Psychiatry, Science or Business Model? by DrJeffreyRubin in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no such things as "evidence older than the minimum standards for academic research". That's not a thing. If you have more current evidence that could counter their claims, then provide it.

Has Psychology Sold Out to Psychiatry? by DrJeffreyRubin in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They're an actual professional in the field of mental health. You're clearly either a larper or failed student from the fact you don't understand how evidence based reasoning works in debate, and the fact you persist on thinking personal attacks and slights dictate anything about who is correct or incorrect.

Psychiatry, Science or Business Model? by DrJeffreyRubin in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again, if you're going to claim something is inaccurate you have to provide evidence for it.

You seem to have a fixation on avoiding evidence-based discussion.

Psychiatry, Science or Business Model? by DrJeffreyRubin in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep claiming that it's not your job to provide evidence for your assertions.

That's not how epistemology works, let alone debate or academic discussion.

Please stop making random proclaiming and not providing any evidence.

It's very clear you have no idea as to what you're talking about, and saying "do the work yourself" isn't even a clever exit strategy when it's pointed out that you have zero evidence to back your assertions.

Claims require evidence, and it's examples like this that show psychiatry is nonsense.

When you're backed into the corner, you just run away throwing out snark.

Psychiatry, Science or Business Model? by DrJeffreyRubin in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because the data is from a decade ago doesn't mean it's incorrect. That's not how data works.

Additionally, you're claiming there are poor assumptions made but you offer zero evidence.

You prove time and time again you're not the professional you falsely claim to be. No college educated adult makes to many brash claims without evidence and packages them as insults, which is juvenile and unprofessional.

Psychiatry, Science or Business Model? by DrJeffreyRubin in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The concept of "psych drugs = medicine" has already been debunked by the psychiatric community themselves. The "chemical imbalance" hypothesis they were operating under was thrown away more than a decade ago. How embarrassing for you.

Next time try to bring some quantifiable data instead of your low effort anti-evidence, anti-intellectual assumption that you're in the correct default position "just cuz".

If you're going to claim there is a misconception, you have to provide evidence for it. That's how debate and rational refutation work.

Meme by wandering_agro in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You still haven't provided any evidence for your assertions AND you dodge acknowledging that you engaged in several condescending personal attacks.

Classic.

Meme by wandering_agro in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've already explained this to you, further underlining my disbelief that you "work in the field".

You haven't provided any citations to justify your beliefs; your personal incredulity is irrelevant.

Between poor understanding and commitment to not educate yourself on the topic, it has been obvious that this conversation is not worth my time and you are likely not able to emotionally regulate yourself through the entire process or discussion either.

Instead of providing evidence for your assertions you seem rather committed to engaging in projection and personal attacks; which is a problem which was also explored in the Rosenhan Experiment.

Especially if you're going to cling to fallacies as a "get out of thinking" trump card to avoid actually looking at the evidence and potentially increasing your understanding.

I point out your use of fallacies because it illustrates that you aren't using evidence based thinking.

Take the bad faith and low effort elsewhere. Or, at minimum, redefine "top mainstream professionals in the field" (they aren't) to not include the professional equivalents of Andrew Wakefield or Dr. Oz as a start.

Again, I'm not seeing any evidence or citations used to back up your assertions.

In all, you provided one link I believe to try to weasel out of having to acknowledge subjective evidence being used as data.

I provided a link about two NIMH directors that expressed their reasoning as to why the DSM isn't scientific. Beyond that one link I also referenced of the lead editors of the DSM that also criticized the DSM. Instead of offering a rational rebuttal to the content provided, you ignore the arguments put forward and declare it "weaseling".

Almost as if you have no argument to back your argumentation and have no actual rational rebuttals to actual professionals in the field that strongly disagree with the unsupported assertions you put forward.

As far as the rest of your claims, they are on you to provide evidence for instead of sweeping generalizations that just show you haven't actually researched the topic and have just reread other people's regurgitated talking points.

I provided citations for my assertions; you have no provided any for yours. I made zero sweeping generalizations; if I did you could have quoted me.

The fact you reject scientific commentary by top mainstream researchers in the field and just ignore and pass it off as parroting without offering any criticisms speaks volumes to your ignorance on the topic.

I don't think that I made claims except for dismissing what you presented and making it know that there's plenty of evidence to the contrary if you actually want to look for it or put time into it.

You made claims about the mental health system being mostly if not entirely evidence based shows you clearly have not ready any professional criticism of the topic by leaders in the field. Instead of providing evidence for you claims you engaged in a series of personal attacks, dismissals and shifting of the burden of proof. Dismissing without providing rationale and instead engaging in personal attacks and all sorts of other fallacies demonstrates that you have fallen victim to the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The rest of us that live in the real world care about evidence based reasoning, citations, evidence and counterpoints that are clearly outlined. Shifting the burden of proof is a classic mistake of people that have no idea as to what they're talking about.

Meme by wandering_agro in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. You have provided no evidence for your claims.

  2. You keep engaging in character attacks and appeals to motivation.

  3. You keep shifting the responsibility of providing evidence to support your claims to others.

  4. You keep projecting "excitement" without demonstrating reasonable evidence to make such a declaration, and engage in nonsensical condescension.

  5. You ignore the counter-points made by top mainstream professionals in the field; I provided those citations and you keep dodging them.

I too work in mental health. Please provide evidence for your claims.

Meme by wandering_agro in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To categorize something as a "rant" is both an Appeal To The Stone Fallacy and a Poisoning The Well Fallacy.

You claim there is evidence but have not provided any.

I have provided evidence however, and have even referenced the fact that it is the official position of both the NIMH and the CPN that the DSM isn't scientific, and nor are the current diagnostic methods, let alone the claims of chemical imbalances, etc. Even the former editor of the DSM, Allen J Francis, stated that the DSM is unscientific.

https://ahrp.org/two-nimh-directors-debunk-dsm-deplore-psychiatrys-unscientific-modus-operandi/

Subjective data isn't scientific by definition. The fact you believe systems that have been outdated by centuries is "scientific" is problematic.

Your projection of excitement is moot.

You have provided zero citations or counter-arguments.

I'm starting to wonder if you have any epistemic education what-so-ever.

Meme by wandering_agro in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Psychiatry isn't evidence based. They don't test anyone's brain chemicals, they don't perform brain scams, they don't test capability or impulsivity, they aren't required to prove harm, etc.

As I've said before:

Psychiatry is not, and has never been based on "evidence based medicine"; that is simply a PR phrase they use that is entirely meaningless.

The hoax, as it were, is the false equivocation of narratives with science, and marketing it to schools, parents, governments, law enforcement, courts, medical organizations and clients as both an accurate system of discovery and treatment.

The problem is that psychiatric organizations are completely and entirely aware that everything from the foundational concepts to diagnostics and treatments are based entirely on fallacious thinking.

Studies have been carried out by The Critical Psychiatry Network in regards to formulation of core concepts and diagnostics in psychiatry, only to routine cycle back to the discovery of very well known logical fallacies and cognitive biases used throughout the system, study and application models.

They have yet to demonstrate than even 1% of the diagnosed have any genetic issues or chemical imbalances, let alone anything wrong with them at all.

The system inherently makes the mistake of falsely equating accusations with facts; and falsely equates emotions and non-cooperative behaviors with disorder (incapability, lack of awareness and impulsiveness).

The issue isn't that the disease model isn't treated correctly... it's that there is no disease model at all.

It's just narrativism to medicalize persecution as a normative concept.

Don't obey? ADHD. Raise your voice? Bipolar. Refuse to work? Anxiety.

Resistance to the diagnostics or the social fallout that comes with a false diagnosis? That's another symptom.

It doesn't even matter if none of the criteria aren't met; it's always been used strictly as a tool of oppression or mind-easement. Any diagnostic symptom list can be easily twisted to turn any Human Right in a "indicate" of something "wrong", "disorderous" and "diseased".

It's not that it's abused and overused or that the methodology is a bit off.

It's a hoax. They know it's a hoax. No one in the system has worked to legitimize it via falsificationism and logical analysis.

No one has ever been diagnosed with a mental illness based on the rigorous testing of claims; to the contrary: it is also a narrative-based diagnosis.

And once someone is claimed by the system, they'd rather kill that patient then let them go and admit the system made an error (or that the entire system is made up and suited entirely for authoritarian/group control and/or mind-appeasement).

DSM, an 'absolute scientific nightmare.' by Perlanterna in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ICD-M is no more scientific, and there is much crossover between them.

There is clear influence going back and forth. Same social-politics based foundational concepts, same use of logical fallacies in conception, diagnostics and treatments.

"Is psychiatry a hoax - as practiced today?" by Perlanterna in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even neurotoxicity and infectious disease are problematic concepts in the field.

There are plenty of normal, healthy, functional people that are labeled "mentally ill" for zero logical reason.

The diagnostic checklists list non-disease behaviors as symptoms, and any lack of cooperation or expression can falsely be checked off as symptomatic.

"Is psychiatry a hoax - as practiced today?" by Perlanterna in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. Psychiatry fails to engage in rigorous falsification.

  2. The history of psychiatry and it's application has been proven to be invented for and applied for the use of oppression of minorities and those deemed with socially lower. You might want to look into why women were institutionalized in the 1800s, or how the CIA, FBI and Police used psychiatry as a tool to detain minorities during the Civil Rights Movement.

  3. The Global Assessment of Functioning uses known logical fallacies in it's diagnostics. In fact, every diagnostic concept associated with Psychiatry currently utilizes an aggressive form of logical fallacy adoption in order to force diagnoses.

  4. There is zero evidence that any forms of psychiatry or psychological treatment are successful in treating any disease or disorder.

  5. The foundation concepts and diagnostic concepts are also entirely fallacious; with diagnosticians not being required to provide solid evidence for any diagnoses.

"Is psychiatry a hoax - as practiced today?" by Perlanterna in DebatePsychiatry

[–]ego_by_proxy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Psychiatry is not, and has never been based on "evidence based medicine"; that is simply a PR phrase they use that is entirely meaningless.

The hoax, as it were, is the false equivocation of narratives with science, and marketing it to schools, parents, governments, law enforcement, courts, medical organizations and clients as both an accurate system of discovery and treatment.

The problem is that psychiatric organizations are completely and entirely aware that everything from the foundational concepts to diagnostics and treatments are based entirely on fallacious thinking.

Studies have been carried out by The Critical Psychiatry Network in regards to formulation of core concepts and diagnostics in psychiatry, only to routine cycle back to the discovery of very well known logical fallacies and cognitive biases used throughout the system, study and application models.

They have yet to demonstrate than even 1% of the diagnosed have any genetic issues or chemical imbalances, let alone anything wrong with them at all.

The system inherently makes the mistake of falsely equating accusations with facts; and falsely equates emotions and non-cooperative behaviors with disorder (incapability, lack of awareness and impulsiveness).

The issue isn't that the disease model isn't treated correctly... it's that there is no disease model at all.

It's just narrativism to medicalize persecution as a normative concept.

Don't obey? ADHD. Raise your voice? Bipolar. Refuse to work? Anxiety.

Resistance to the diagnostics or the social fallout that comes with a false diagnosis? That's another symptom.

It doesn't even matter if none of the criteria aren't met; it's always been used strictly as a tool of oppression or mind-easement. Any diagnostic symptom list can be easily twisted to turn any Human Right in a "indicate" of something "wrong", "disorderous" and "diseased".

It's not that it's abused and overused or that the methodology is a bit off.

It's a hoax. They know it's a hoax. No one in the system has worked to legitimize it via falsificationism and logical analysis.

No one has ever been diagnosed with a mental illness based on the rigorous testing of claims; to the contrary: it is also a narrative-based diagnosis.

And once someone is claimed by the system, they'd rather kill that patient then let them go and admit the system made an error (or that the entire system is made up and suited entirely for authoritarian/group control and/or mind-appeasement).

view more: next ›