All psychiatric "disorders" are based in pseudosci

Post Reply New Topic

All psychiatric "disorders" are based in pseudoscience. The truth is that we're all biochemically independent. We all have different genetic makeups, cultural & social constructs, and we all have experiences unique to our selves. Society dictates that "normal" is what is politically acceptable. We're coerced into thinking that normal is good, correct, ideal...it's all bs, guys.

No two aspies are alike. No two doctors have a standard definition outside of the DSM's pseudoscientific criterion. First, there was autism. Then different categories. Now there seems to be a near infinite amount of sub-categories within aspergers.

WHY MUST WE LABEL OURSELVES AND EACH OTHER?

Why cant we just accept that this box which governments seek to confine us within doesn't really, and has never ever, existed in the first place?

I hope you guys realize that one could go to 5 different psychiatrists and get 5 different diagnosis, and even if all agreed on the same diagnosis, they may each give you a top recommended prescription which they all are chemically different and effect our biochemistry differently. It's hard core pseudoscience.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-iYngr6N60&feature=channel[/youtube]

Be who you is, screw everyone else...

Peace

I agree with you, but you've said it better, than I ever could.

Thanks for the reply.

All opinions are welcome, of course.

I've not got it all figured out and would much like for others to expand this train of thought or attempt to burst my bubble if they see fit.

You mean that the concept of "disorder" is outside the bounds of science, correct?


You mean that we are all biochemically different?


Right, but if society didn't dictate "normal" as "good", then how would we have norms and how would those norms be maintained? I am not saying that normalcy is good, but it is hard to see how society could function without some notion of "normal" to build expectations around. Odd things make us have to work harder, and this is part of the reason why NTs seem strange and hard to deal with for us. They are weird things that we have difficulty building expectations around. Also, abnormality is more likely to be negative than plain normalcy, which is normal, so anything outside of the norm brings up the concern of "is this a bad difference"?


Absolutely correct on all of those.


To simplify reality. Why do we label the natural phenomena into their categories? Because without these categories we wouldn't know how to deal with issues. A category conveys a lot of information in a simpler way to store things. Think about it this way, would you prefer to have to memorize the rgb values for each specific color, or is it easier for you to say "light red"? It is easier for me to say "light red". Same here with this situation, it is difficult to say who John or Larry or Michelle is without categories, but it is easy to say John is mildly autistic, on the political left, etc. Using these kinds of things, we then know to think "Ok, John doesn't deal with metaphors or innuendos as well and he is not likely to sympathize with a culturally conservative view", and this makes life a lot easier.


We can, but the box not existing in reality doesn't mean that the convention is downright useless.


Well, ok, the mere possibility of this does not really disprove diagnosis as useful. I mean, 5 different diagnoses are likely to exist in any subject where the ultimate truth is hard to know. As for the medicine issue? Well, that actually seems to be pseudoscience as this pdf suggests.

http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf

I hope you don't mind that I ignored your youtube so far. I might listen to it later, because I myself am cynical of people who try to aim for absolute categories. I just think there are issues missed in this analysis.

I mean that science is currently incapable of diagnosing a psychiatric disorder. I also mean to say the concept of a disorder is absurd. which two individuals have identical neural networks?! Who's to say what is ordered and what is not? How? Why? Some individuals have regions of their brain removed and go through major neuroplasticity without being labeled as disordered. It's just ludicrous.


What's the difference? Dr Abram Hoffer used the term biochemical individuality...ah I see the difference now. I should have written biochemcially individuated. My bad.



Well technically norms are statistically what's within a standard deviation or two. I don't understand your reasoning from normal meaning good, to norms not being able to exist. Look, our media is controlled. We're programmed from an early age to integrate into the system via education. Basically, morality is a cultural and social construct. Good and bad are just opinions that people acquire and usually from authority figures. What I'm getting at through this jumbled paragraph is that first we're programmed...guided along a certain trajectory. If we deviate enough, we're thought of as defunct in one way or another.

So what if odd people make us work harder. Only initially. Eventually the subject learns to adapt to his surroundings. If the environment requires a high level of fluidity, the subject will either make it or break it. If this was always so, then it wouldn't be an issue, it wouldn't be known.

Your last bit is illogical. The majority fall within the line. Take an IQ test for example. You're bound to have as many people test below 70 as you are above 130, statistically. So while we may interpret being ret*d as a bad difference, we may also interpret being academically gifted as a good difference. Same goes for anything else as far as I'm concerned. All sorts of rejects, and it takes a subject to define good or bad. This isn't an objective assessment, to be entirely honest.


Absolutely correct on all of those.



I agree with the need to label objects. I disagree with any attempt to label subjects. We are capable of so much more than words could ever begin to describe.

"Once you label me, you negate me"--Søren Kierkegaard

Labeling an individual is essentially an attempt to encapsulate their soul. It's a means of control, whether conscious or not.



I don't deny it has purpose, but I deny it's usefulness to humanity.



I agree that a mindset built on absolutes is quite foolish and usually absolutes have no basis in reality. There are exceptions to every rule, however. I hope you take the time to watch the video. It has some issues addressed which you may find interesting.

Thanks for the reply.

The labels do have considerable utility when applying for disability benefits. And, yes, sometimes it can be difficult to find a doctor willing to be helpful with placing you in a winning category.

Science is currently incapable of diagnosing a psychiatric disorder suggests that in the future science can diagnose disorder.
The concept of disorder is absurd suggests that disorder can never be diagnosed. But.... that's probably not the biggest deal.

What would you say about the behavior of a psychopath? How about a schizophrenic? Many people would say that these beings are "disordered".


What's the difference? Dr Abram Hoffer used the term biochemical individuality...ah I see the difference now. I should have written biochemcially individuated. My bad.


Norms as I am using them refer to the basic acceptable actions in society.

Here's the reason:
1) Norms are based upon behaviors considered "normal" for situations. (premise)
2) To maintain a set of behaviors, they must be encouraged. (premise)
3) You wish to remove the encouragement for "normal" things. (premise)
4) This will cause "normal" behavior to not be maintained. (2 & 3)
5) Which will end norms (1 & 4)

Now your reasoning is correct, but if your reasoning is correct, then you have to understand why enforcement of these opinions is done. Deviation undermines the validity of the programming, and without the programming greater worries exist about society.


Well, each odd person makes us have to work to understand them. If there are a lot of odd people, then it ends up being a very difficult task. Many people, however, tend to see oddity in a very negative light. So, reducing the work people have to do with oddity makes the matter easier. This way we can say to ourselves "this person isn't a psycho, he's just autistic" or some such.


My last bit is very logical. IQ is a variation on ability, this is not the kind of variation we are talking about though as ability and skill are usually good things. The variations we're talking about are oddities in behavior, and with oddities in behavior there is that concern. At the same time though, there are people out there who do think that some people are "too smart", and there are some who would stress that it is a fine line between genius and insanity. So, even with IQ there can be some statements pushing people to the position "normal is good".


I don't see a difference between objects or subjects. In both cases words are needed to simplify things so that way we know how to deal with these issues. Otherwise, every NT is about as bad as every person with AS when confronted with a situation they don't know how to deal with. People need routines. Most of them don't consciously think about everything, but rather rely on conventions that they tacitly know.

Ok, just bring up Soren Kierkegaard to your insurance agent or any other bureaucracy in existence. Everybody is being labeled all of the time.

No, labeling an individual is essentially an attempt to reduce the information that has to be stored about them. People label themselves too, and they use these labels for themselves despite the falsehood of them. There is no soul though, there is no essential self either, there is not a real unity. However, the labels create an illusion of unity that we find useful on ourselves and others. As for control? I guess one can say that, but people want control over their environment anyway.


I don't see a case for the uselessness though. The usefulness seems very straight-forward, and the mechanism to deny this is to say that people are special. The problem is that our minds are like all bureaucracies, we use simplifying measures to get the job done, essential reality be damned.