I am seriously wondering what sort of proof you are looking for as to the value of psychiatry? Would you accept studies that show the effectiveness of medication and therapy to improve mental health? Before I can answer your call for proof I need to know what sort of proof you accept as valid. Seeing as you toss out a phrase like 'evil' when talking about it, I have my doubts that you are really looking for any sort of information at all and just want to use this thread as a virtual soapbox.

(May 12, 2013 at 11:15 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(May 12, 2013 at 11:11 am)dazzn Wrote: Or because psychiatry is an evil practice, with no scientific base?

Psychiatry exists just to put people down, and not aid and assist them.

Proof?

(I am going to go on the record right now and say that you have been diagnosed with a mental illness at some point in your life.)

I study psychiatry and simply cite what I see of it. it's essentially a pseudo-science, based on subjective reasoning/perception. This is evident since psychiatrists often cite in the media that modern living is evil, or "unhealthy". They also are attempting to cite how we should all meditate and live like Buddhist monks and such. Nobody I know meditates, so where does this "common notion" come from? Just because some psychiatrist and his or her buddies in California reject Western concepts and want to "go Eastern", it doesn't mean all in our culture think or believe this, or even should. Medical practice is not supposed to push agendas, whether social, moral or political. It's role is to cure the sick and heal the injured, without any ideological nonsense intervening.

There is one mental health professional I respect actually, and this is Dr. Phil. It sounds odd, and frankly most real-world (so to speak) psychologists detest him, but his advice/reasoning is far superior to his detractors. He tells it as it is, in all senses. He doesn't sugarcoat things, and if there is no hope of recovery, he tells them and is honest in that respect. He also is non-judgmental, and does not make personal appraisals/values influence his reasoning. He further understands modern society as it is, and not how he wishes it to be. Tell me, which other "real-world" psychologists writes a book called "Life Code"? But no, they try and influence us to be Buddhist monks and push their subjective moral views/perceptions onto the masses lol.. I think most real-world psychologists detest Dr. Phil not due to his fame but because he's a better professional than they'll be in a million years and are just pussy loser envious people

Actually, most mental health professionals are like Charlie/Alan Harper's and now Walden's psychiatrist in Two and a Half Men. Yes, this is not reality, granted, but the depiction of this woman mirrors reality strongly. She is judgmental, abusive, dictatorial, and rude, which reflects how most of these "people" are.

Being that a disorder is described as such when it interferes with the normal business of living ones life (within a reasonable range of parameters) and generally treated when it demonstrably -does- interfere....I'd say that there are concrete and reliable metrics for judging both the efficacy and accuracy of any given psychiatric treatment option based upon the problem identified and proximity to an acceptable solution for the same- after treatment.

Which, conveniently, is pretty much how it's done. Where evil enters in would be a mystery. I suppose that -like any tool- one could "use it for evil" if one were so inclined. Would say more about the practitioner than the practice though, wouldn't it?

Seeing as it's a practice based upon dealing with peoples subjective experiences it;s no surprise that a hefty amount of subjectivity finds it's way in. This isn't exactly hidden or denied. However, to identify more accurate methods people are always searching for something objective upon which a general framework for treatment can be constructed. Objective in the averages is what we went with (and still go with) in some areas. Others have some hefty support from chemistry and neurology.

(May 12, 2013 at 11:31 am)Rhythm Wrote: Being that a disorder is described as such when it interferes with the normal business of living ones life (within a reasonable range of parameters) and generally treated when it demonstrably -does- interfere....I'd say that there are concrete and reliable metrics for judging both the efficacy and accuracy of any given psychiatric treatment option based upon the problem identified and proximity to an acceptable solution for the same- after treatment.

Which, conveniently, is pretty much how it's done. Where evil enters in would be a mystery. I suppose that -like any tool- one could "use it for evil" if one were so inclined. Would say more about the practitioner than the practice though, wouldn't it?

Which parameters are these? Based on conservative social norms, which people who claim to study human conduct don't realise their lesser applicability?

(May 12, 2013 at 11:30 am)dazzn Wrote: I study psychiatry and simply cite what I see of it. it's essentially a pseudo-science, based on subjective reasoning/perception. This is evident since psychiatrists often cite in the media that modern living is evil, or "unhealthy". They also are attempting to cite how we should all meditate and live like Buddhist monks and such. Nobody I know meditates, so where does this "common notion" come from? Just because some psychiatrist and his or her buddies in California reject Western concepts and want to "go Eastern", it doesn't mean all in our culture think or believe this, or even should. Medical practice is not supposed to push agendas, whether social, moral or political. It's role is to cure the sick and heal the injured, without any ideological nonsense intervening.

There is one mental health professional I respect actually, and this is Dr. Phil. It sounds odd, and frankly most real-world (so to speak) psychologists detest him, but his advice/reasoning is far superior to his detractors. He tells it as it is, in all senses. He doesn't sugarcoat things, and if there is no hope of recovery, he tells them and is honest in that respect. He also is non-judgmental, and does not make personal appraisals/values influence his reasoning. He further understands modern society as it is, and not how he wishes it to be. Tell me, which other "real-world" psychologists writes a book called "Life Code"? But no, they try and influence us to be Buddhist monks and push their subjective moral views/perceptions onto the masses lol.. I think most real-world psychologists detest Dr. Phil not due to his fame but because he's a better professional than they'll be in a million years and are just pussy loser envious people

Actually, most mental health professionals are like Charlie/Alan Harper's and now Walden's psychiatrist in Two and a Half Men. Yes, this is not reality, granted, but the depiction of this woman mirrors reality strongly. She is judgmental, abusive, dictatorial, and rude, which reflects how most of these "people" are.

So, that's a no on the proof, huh?

(Dr. Phil is a self-righteous asshole that berates people for entertainment. )

(May 12, 2013 at 11:32 am)dazzn Wrote: Which parameters are these? Based on conservative social norms, which people who claim to study human conduct don't realise their lesser applicability?

Degrees of deviation from the mean. The mean being a sort of general description of the "normal" state of mind. Which is, of course, malleable. That's actually one of the strengths of doing it this way - if the goal is to grease the wheels of interaction with "normal" people. Presumably, it is.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention conservative social norms or their lesser applicability. Rephrase?

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You basically don't have any criteria that you would accept as proof of the effectiveness of psychiatry, think that psychiatrists want us to live like Buddhist monks and are like something on a fictional TV show, not really "people" and you love Dr. Phil.........

Okay. I think I can safely put an end stamp to my side of this conversation.

(May 12, 2013 at 11:41 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Let me see if I understand you correctly. You basically don't have any criteria that you would accept as proof of the effectiveness of psychiatry, think that psychiatrists want us to live like Buddhist monks and are like something on a fictional TV show, not really "people" and you love Dr. Phil.........

Okay. I think I can safely put an end stamp to my side of this conversation.

I say yes, citing all these studies on the "value" of "being humble" or "meditating" is merely pushing some ideological agenda onto the masses. Most do it. What about all of those studies saying that atheists are "less happy" or that "good looking people get more"? The latter may be true, but come on, they're trying to change society and there is no escaping their intent to push an agenda.

If medical professionals can push social agendas, so can professional football players. So expect to see Messi, Ronaldo, Falcao, Neymar, van Persie, Robben, Aguero, and Gareth Bale push an ideological agenda based on their fiat and not any sound reasoning. If medical professionals can do it, and move beyond their professionally stated purview, so can other vocations.

(May 12, 2013 at 11:47 am)dazzn Wrote: I say yes, citing all these studies on the "value" of "being humble" or "meditating" is merely pushing some ideological agenda onto the masses.

What studies?

Quote:Most do it.

Proof?

Quote:What about all of those studies saying that atheists are "less happy" or that "good looking people get more"?

What studies?

So, you're offering up your personal objections as proof? I suspected just as much...