Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Disclaimer

Disclaimer:

This page was written based on a fringe, opinionated understanding of mental health. The details were chosen to support previously drawn conclusion, and the misinformation is dangerous. The dedicated people in the mental health field who chose this career because they care. Nobody pursues this level of education to get rich working in counseling, therapy, or human services, unless you went to Med School and chose this field. The role of the Psychiatrists/Psychopharmacologists is to primary focus is on neurobiology, drug interactions, med management, and stabilization. These doctors are not primary treatment providers. They use the best of their knowledge to find the right meds, for which there is no magic want. The therapist's job is to collaborate with that provider to discus the progress of any med or mood changes, so they can try to rectify it. Since those choices can be life and death for patients, the number one critical step in the stabilization process is addressing any underlying organic mental illness. Therapy is bound to fail with out certain illness being leveled out by medication. That medical stabilization is crucial. It's not perfect, because there's far more to learn about the the human brain, Nay an easy task when every single person is their own complex story of biological illnesses, personal history, and way of viewing life, to name just a few. Despite all clinicians in credible hospitals and facilities having having a Master's degrees, at the minimum as well as state board licensing credentials, nobody gets rich in this field (and most had the option to go that follow the route if money was a deciding factor). While you raise a fe very valid concerns, who proceed to turn this page into and opinion piece, based on poor research, a majority of sources providing severely discredited dated from 50-60 years ago that has no relevance to some issues you raised, a complete incomprehension of how people are committed these days (typically through close family members, so they can be cared for over a 10-14 day while they become stabilized enough to return to their loving families, which I typically find family members prefer to attended their 21 year old daughter's funeral... real Draconian.....) Furthermore, quit with the ECT scare tactics. That involves family meetings, multiple conversations, informed consent, and it is used as the last line of defense of chronically suicidal people. It's painless. Some experience temporary memory loss the returns soon enough, and the results are indisputable for treatment resistant depressions. I could keep going on this irresponsible propaganda/left wing conspiracy theory (and I am pretty far to the left myself, but this is nonsense), but I doubt this will even pot. I just some how landed here, nd was shocked to find something I'd hear on some left wing Infowars site. Wikipedia is for info. Please, don't dumb the country down more than it has been already. Peek outside your own preconceived notions. Encourage your friends to do the same. T. Richard, PMHNP, MPH — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC79 (talk • contribs)

Moved from article, ping TDC79. I agree this page is horrible, but a long disclaimer is not the way we solve things on Wikipedia. Feel free to edit constructively instead. Constructive editing may mean removing lots of crap... Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Also this:

Correction to previous paragraph: Psychoanalysis began falling out of favor in the 1950's, which led Behaviorism to break onto the scene after 20 years of development. Using some principles of this theory, soon after behavioralism became mainstream, the next major step in psychology was the development of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), through the war of Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, and John Stuart Mills. The downfall of psychoanalysis had 0 to do with discrediting the field. IT had to do with evolution. Understanding Jung and Freud, and bringing it more affective theories and practices. Not a downfall. A major advance. Not to mention, "The Myth of Mental Illness" has never been considered intellectual text among the vast majority of practitioners when it came out 50+ years ago. In 2017, it has lost all relevance among practicing clinicians. That book was was nonsense then, and has been forgotten by professionals long since.

After reading the rest: I will allow someone else to help pick apart this page of lies, misinformation, and conspiracy readings. Since Almost all source are 50-60 years old,pointing out all the misinformation piece by pice would be too time consuming. Not to mention delay boring aside form the the accessional caught this silliness samples on about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC79 (talk • contribs)

Marginalize ("fringe") anti-psychiatry? How dare you! Doesn't psychiatry marginalize way too many people as is!?Antipsych (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if this article needs clean, it doesn't mean that we should make Anti-psychiatry article be reserved version of pro-psychiatry article. We need to find realible source to prove what Anti-psychiatry is rather than how Anti-psychiatry be proven to wrong.Mariogoods (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia has the content disclaimer which said Wikipedia is not for medical advice. So such a disclaimer is unnesserary. (Honestly, I'm a supporter of anti-psychiatry, but don't mind that since we are here to improve this article)Mariogoods (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Types of insanity

There are/were several types of insanity in psychiatry. One was called masturbation insanity. As the page is locked I will add my reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) to a medical source here. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM183503250120703. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071473/Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Snippet from Antipsychology

The following content was removed from Antipsychology and may be useful to editors here.

Some critics of psychology / psychiatry deny that mental illness exists at all, arguing that psychology / psychiatry aims to pathologise perfectly normal variations in human behaviour; whereas others accept the existence of mental illness but state that current mainstream psychological interventions are ineffective at best and unethical at worst.

References

Evolution research

This section cites numerous sources, but a quick glance at them suggests it is pure synthesis: not a single one refers to a complete argument; all of them are used to invoke basic things like "psychiatric treatment is expensive" and "swarms behave in this manner, mathematically speaking" and the rest is cobbled together from there. Eventually we reach a portion about what advocates of this evolutionary antipsychiatry believe (plus some weird coatracking about scientology), but it cannot name a single individual, group, or document that actually advocates this position. If someone can actually dig up a source for this then I suppose I'll eat crow, but until that happens I suggest that the whole section be deleted. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

L Ron Hubbard? Necessary?

It seems to discredit the idea to mention L Ron Hubbard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.54.173.32 (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Szasz IS NOT an antipshychiatrist

He's writing about it in the Introduction to the Harper Perennial edition of his "The Myth of Mental Illness:" "In 1967, my efforts to undermine the moral legitimacy of the alliance of psychiatry and the state suffered a serious blow: the creation of the antipsychiatry movement by David Cooper (1931–1986) and Ronald D. Laing (1927–1989). Instead of advocating the abolition of Institutional Psychiatry, they sought to replace it with their own brand of psychiatry, which they called Anti-Psychiatry." "Antipsychiatry is a type of psychiatry: the psychiatrist qua health-care professional is a fraud, and so too is the antipsychiatrist." He's very clear about it: "My writings form no part of either psychiatry or antipsychiatry and belong to neither." That's why I'm for deleting everything connected to his name in this article -- Propodail ([[User talk:Propodail |talk]]) 20:34, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Szasz on homosexuality

This following is attributed to Szasz, but the original source is not provided as it should be. What's the source?

Szasz had written in 1965 that: "I believe it is very likely that homosexuality is, indeed, a disease in the second sense [expression of psychosexual immaturity] and perhaps sometimes even in the stricter sense [a condition somewhat similar to ordinary organic maladies perhaps caused by genetic error or endocrine imbalance. Nevertheless, if we believe that by categorising homosexuality as a disease we have succeeded in removing it from the realm of moral judgement, we are in error."

In addition, the quote has two bracketed inclusions which are excessive to attribute to Szasz, and the second bracket is not closed, and so makes Szasz's actual words anyone's guess. It should be fixed with original source provided and no added words, or removed. Surely the secondary source provided makes reference to the exact place where Szasz supposedly wrote those words. If not, the secondary source is worthless. This is important because the quote contradicts everything else that Szasz did say and write about homosexuality. Nicmart (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've tracked down the attribution, and more than half of the quote is in brackets, which is absurd. It should definitely be sourced directly to Szasz without brackets or removed. Nicmart (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As I find it, this is the entire second portion in brackets, and therefore apparently not Szasz's words! If they are his written words, why are they bracketed?

[a condition somewhat similar to ordinary organic maladies perhaps caused by genetic error or endocrine imbalance. Nevertheless, if we believe that by categorising homosexuality as a disease we have succeeded in removing it from the realm of moral judgement, we are in error.]"

Tutorial activity

Just changed the spelling of two words. BWeaver2007 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Article request for criticism of psychiatry and psychology practices.

Anti-psychiatry is a movement rather than just criticism of psychiatry which has a connotation that entire stream of psychiatry is bad. But there are various kinds of practices in psychiatry and psychology which are criticised, obsoleted and changes with time, just like any other branches of science. Sometimes there is a delay in this change or updatation though. I want to request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychology practice, and how it changes with time.

Controversies about psychiatry article discusses the subject of psychiaty as a matter of controversy, it does not have a discussion on individual practices and methods and their criticism.

Therefore I request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychological "practices" rather than entire psychiatry and/or psychology. 04:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the question of how psychiatric and psychological practice has changed over time and why this happens would be interesting. I think history of psychiatry of history of psychology would partly cover this, though more broadly than "how has criticism of psych affected the field". The problem you are going to get is attributing causality to these things is fairly difficult, which is a general problem in history. This sort of content will also turn up on specific content. For example, on Psychoanalysis I added some content on how it started to be displaced by CBT and why, and on Psychosurgery or Lobotomy... I can't remember which .. I added some content on why the practice fell out of use.

I fear it might be difficult to find sources that specifically address your question "How critique has influenced the evolution of psychiatry over time". I do think history of psychiatry might be the best fit for this sort of content and this sort of question (perhaps in a separate section discussing the forces at play). When I was looking into the history of psychoanalysis I found some interesting books that tracked the intellectual history of these ideas if you are interested. I didn't get around to adding all of this to the article, but if you look in the talk page there will be some sources. Perhaps we can find something applicable to more recent practices. Talpedia (talk)

Edits to lede

There were some edits on the leads on the grounds of simplicity (I believe). Simplicity is definitely a win, but I'm aware that anti-psychiatry is a controversial topic and there can be some strawmanning going on and some of the "needless words" (to quote Skunk and White) might actually be necessary to navigate the straits of disagreement.

• *broad* anti-psychiatry often gets conflated with the actions of scientologists. There are others critics (including philosophy, some psychiatrists and psychologists)
• *more harmful* vs *often more harmful* "Antipsychiatry is obviously wrong because some people find psychiatry useful."

Talpedia (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was consensus against merging. :3 F4U (they/it) 06:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

---

A 2021 discussion related to another proposal (see Talk:Mental disorder/Archive 4#Merge proposal) was archived with a final view that Mental illness denial might be better merged to Anti-psychiatry. I'm hence restarting the discussion here, based on this alternative target. I'm rather neutral on the proposal, but RJJ4y7 and Xurizuri were more positive in their assessment (from November). Klbrain (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support I was a bit wary of this causing WP:NPOV. But I think I'm okay with this. There is a concept of "lack of insight" that shows up in psychiatry. And I don't think *this concept* belongs in anti-psychiatry (apart from criticism about the misuse of the diagnosis "if you don't agree it's evidence that you are crazy). I don't think it's correct to identify the entire anti-psychiatry movement as a "lack of insight" into their disorder and there seems to be an attempt to identify "lack of insight" with "criticism of psychiatric diagnosis" within the denialism article. This is suspiscious... but maybe that's genuinely what some literature is trying to do. Talpedia (talk)
• Oppose "Mental illness denial" denies the existence of mental illnesses. "Anti-psychiatry" opposes the modern treatments of mental illnesses. Conceptually, they are completely separate. In the same vein, criticism of medieval medical practices and the denial of disease are different. - (from Talpedia: I think this is for. 99.160.141.248)
• Oppose per unsigned comment (why is nobody using signatures or even just saying “User X wrote this”?) above, denying mental illness exists and opposing modern treatments are completely different things. Dronebogus (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Modern anti psychiatry is more so about rejecting modern approaches towards mental health rather than denying its existence. 98.35.9.22 (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Theses are different matters: one can be opposed to the instution of psychiatry or diagnoses, or even its scientific grounds without denying that mental illness exists. This would merge two different POV. Hploter (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment More generally, I note that there is a distinction between "the study of the people who think X" and "the study of X" and that slipping between the two is a way to discredit X and something to watch for. So we have "study of conspiracy theories surrounding covid" rather than "lab leak hypothesis", and "mental health denialism" rather than "criticism of the legitimacy of some mental health diagnoses". "The people who think X and why they think it" is a valid area of study, and yet strangely it is more applied to things that people think are false rather than true. For flat earther this is entirely legitimate, the world is round, some people think it's flat isn't that weird and interesting; the problem comes when people don't really know whether X is true or false and then oddly focus on the reasons that people believe X rather than whether X is true or not. You also get fun comments like "Research suggests that people tend to overestimate the relationship between immigration and criminality" an interesting fact, but is it really the most important fact about Immigration and crime such that it is second sentence of the article, rather than you know talking about wheter immigration in any way relate to crime. Talpedia (talk)
• Comment The similarities between these subjects seem overstated. While they both concern rethinking the true nature of mental illness, they come from completely different angles. Mental illness denial is more about how people outright deny the suffering of people, like how it mentioned South Park and India. Anti-psychiatry, however, is more about the idea that psychiatry views mental illness wrong more broadly. Even radicals, such as Thomas Szasz, don't flat out deny that people can be depressed or schizophrenic, but instead treat the idea of mental ILLNESS as a misnomer. The anti-psychiatry article is also about critiques of specific psychiatric practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.141.248 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• just saw this a few minutes ago. I still think the 2 articles should be merged. as a said before mental illness denial doesn't warrant its own article and should be merged with anti-psychiatry.RJJ4y7 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• OPPOSE: Psychiatry is an aspect of psychology that has historically been weaponized against marginalized groups. Just like evolutionary psychology has been used to assert that some groups are inherently inferior to others, psychiatry has been used to assert that some groups are inherently less capable of autonomy and self-determination than others. If it is already tenuous enough to define concepts like "consciousness," then attempts to define WHO is at an ACCEPTABLE level of consciousness lies on similarly shaky ground. IPausedMyVPNForThis (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• OPPOSE: The mental illness denial page is just a slightly jumbled page with an identity crisis. It currently makes little/no distinction between the wider movements that criticise how we conceptualise and treat mental health, and cases where individuals disagree with mental health professions about their personal issues, or cultural stigma and skepticism. I think both of those topics deserve their own articles. While they are related, I think a proper rewriting of mental health denial page (removing the reference to Szasz which is already covered in the anti-psychiatry page) would be a more balanced solution. Djelibey (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: These are two separate subjects with vast complexity and wide coverage in reliable medical sources. Wretchskull (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons that have basically been stated above. Anti-psychiatry is a broad range of philosophical and political positions (indeed, positions held by many psychiatrists) that exist in opposition to the modern practices of government, corporate, and academic institutions. Mental illness denial is a specific thing which occurs when someone denies mental illness. Even if your opinion is that antipsychiatry is incorrect or whatever, they're obviously two separate things: we wouldn't merge Lying and Presidency of Richard Nixon (or Presidency of Bill Clinton, for that matter) on the basis that "he lied about a bunch of stuff". jp×g 09:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, For reasons that denial would entail denial of symptoms or incompatibility with society while Anti-psy entails a problem with modern treatment. Warmallis0n (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Agree with most of the above. There is certainly overlap between mental illness denial and anti-psychiatry, but the latter is a distinct thing that refers to a particular political/social movement and discourse.

With that said, it seems like there is very strong consensus against merger. Should I go ahead and remove the template? Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️(talk)(contribs) 16:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Two completely different things with some similarities, as stated above by many. Reliable sources very clearly distinguish the two. Wretchskull (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Antipsychiatry has examined academically. including professors like Bonnie Burstow who identify as antipsychiatry (i'm pretty sure). also individuals like Thomas Szasz are labeled as antipsychiatry despite vehemently rejecting the label. antipsychiatry seems notable historically and academically. anyone who thinks it should be merged with mental illness denial seems extremely biased. I will admit that i am biased myself, since i have read many szasz books including Antipsychiatry: Quackery Squared. relavent article by szasz Mental illness: psychiatry's phlogiston phlogiston. limitless peace 🕉🐉🐅 Michael Ten (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dead links

85 and 87 are dead links. Shoesoft93 (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorta fixed it. The nofreelunch citation goes to archive now. All I could find for the other one was this google scholar page, which is where it goes now. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️(talk)(contribs) 17:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)