Re: Shrinks and us

[Guest guest]

> I remember talking to a guy some years ago when the subject of

psychiatry

> came up. Of course, I was critical of the profession, and one of my

> criticisms

> was that people end up going to years of analysis with no benefit.

Ken,

Psycho-analysis is not psychiatry, though some ppl practice both.

Many psychiatrists hate psychoanalysis for the very reason you give.

It is possible to see an analyst fro years without receving a

psychiatric assesment that would dx a disoder like (say) bipolar

depression that would respond to drug treatment. Your criticism of

psychoanalysis is if anything more grounds for encouraging the

expansion of psychiatry as first-choice of treatment sought rather

than an attack on it.

P.

[Guest guest]

Ken -- Freudian psychoanalysis IS quackery, but it is rarely practiced any

more -- and it is entirely untrue that the only alternative to Freudian

lie-on-couch, talk-about-your-dreams-and-sexual-feelings-about-mother is

pharmacological treatment.

Most modern psychotherapists conduct non-mystical counseling sessions

addressing clients' specific problems, emphasizing their strengths, and

suggesting possible solutions. I've never met nor heard of a therapist who

gives a shit about dreams, or who makes anyone lie on a couch and sits behind

them out of view.

When a modern therapist refers a client to a psychiatrist for meds, it is

not _instead of_ talk therapy, but to supplement it. Many psychiatrists are

willing and able to do psychotherapy, but why pay the higher fee they would

command for this due to their medical degree, when you can just have a med.

evaluation, prescription, and occasional followup to discuss the reaction to the

med, meanwhile continuing with talk therapy at a lower fee with the

psychologist?

~Rita

>

> Pete,

>

> I am in the middle of a response I set aside before leaving for work, but I

> do want to respond quickly to this. On _this_ side of the pond, although it

> may vary somewhat by state law, it was psychiatrists who practiced

> psychoanalysis. Only after psychoanalytic theory was totally discredited in

> the public eye, did they

> begin the widespread use of drugs.

>

> Does it make sense that medical training would make one qualified to

> convince someone having problems in life that they originate with their

> desire to have intercourse with their mother and jealousy toward their

> father? Any quack can do that.

>

> Of course, now having a franchise that the street-corner drug dealer can

> only envy, it is a different ball game. (Not to suggest that some people

> don't

> benefit greatly from taking various drugs.)

>

[Guest guest]

Ken -- Freudian psychoanalysis IS quackery, but it is rarely practiced any

more -- and it is entirely untrue that the only alternative to Freudian

lie-on-couch, talk-about-your-dreams-and-sexual-feelings-about-mother is

pharmacological treatment.

Most modern psychotherapists conduct non-mystical counseling sessions

addressing clients' specific problems, emphasizing their strengths, and

suggesting possible solutions. I've never met nor heard of a therapist who

gives a shit about dreams, or who makes anyone lie on a couch and sits behind

them out of view.

When a modern therapist refers a client to a psychiatrist for meds, it is

not _instead of_ talk therapy, but to supplement it. Many psychiatrists are

willing and able to do psychotherapy, but why pay the higher fee they would

command for this due to their medical degree, when you can just have a med.

evaluation, prescription, and occasional followup to discuss the reaction to the

med, meanwhile continuing with talk therapy at a lower fee with the

psychologist?

~Rita

>

> Pete,

>

> I am in the middle of a response I set aside before leaving for work, but I

> do want to respond quickly to this. On _this_ side of the pond, although it

> may vary somewhat by state law, it was psychiatrists who practiced

> psychoanalysis. Only after psychoanalytic theory was totally discredited in

> the public eye, did they

> begin the widespread use of drugs.

>

> Does it make sense that medical training would make one qualified to

> convince someone having problems in life that they originate with their

> desire to have intercourse with their mother and jealousy toward their

> father? Any quack can do that.

>

> Of course, now having a franchise that the street-corner drug dealer can

> only envy, it is a different ball game. (Not to suggest that some people

> don't

> benefit greatly from taking various drugs.)

>

[Guest guest]

Ken -- Freudian psychoanalysis IS quackery, but it is rarely practiced any

more -- and it is entirely untrue that the only alternative to Freudian

lie-on-couch, talk-about-your-dreams-and-sexual-feelings-about-mother is

pharmacological treatment.

Most modern psychotherapists conduct non-mystical counseling sessions

addressing clients' specific problems, emphasizing their strengths, and

suggesting possible solutions. I've never met nor heard of a therapist who

gives a shit about dreams, or who makes anyone lie on a couch and sits behind

them out of view.

When a modern therapist refers a client to a psychiatrist for meds, it is

not _instead of_ talk therapy, but to supplement it. Many psychiatrists are

willing and able to do psychotherapy, but why pay the higher fee they would

command for this due to their medical degree, when you can just have a med.

evaluation, prescription, and occasional followup to discuss the reaction to the

med, meanwhile continuing with talk therapy at a lower fee with the

psychologist?

~Rita

>

> Pete,

>

> I am in the middle of a response I set aside before leaving for work, but I

> do want to respond quickly to this. On _this_ side of the pond, although it

> may vary somewhat by state law, it was psychiatrists who practiced

> psychoanalysis. Only after psychoanalytic theory was totally discredited in

> the public eye, did they

> begin the widespread use of drugs.

>

> Does it make sense that medical training would make one qualified to

> convince someone having problems in life that they originate with their

> desire to have intercourse with their mother and jealousy toward their

> father? Any quack can do that.

>

> Of course, now having a franchise that the street-corner drug dealer can

> only envy, it is a different ball game. (Not to suggest that some people

> don't

> benefit greatly from taking various drugs.)

>

[Guest guest]

> On _this_ side of the pond,

>although it

> may vary somewhat by state law, it was psychiatrists who practiced

> psychoanalysis. Only after psychoanalytic theory was totally

>discredited in

> the public eye, did they

> begin the widespread use of drugs.

This is a travesty Ken. While psychonanalysis might have been

principally *taken up* by psychiatrists, medical training has never

been required to practice it, which, as I said before, is one reason

why it is (rightly) criticised so heavily. Psychoanalysis and

analtyical therapy is still very popular, especially in the US.

Psychiatrsits have always udes drugs, the expansion of drug treatment

in modernt times is only because for the first time very effective

drug treatments have become available for serious disorders, in

particular, lithium, antipsychotics, and antidepressants.

P.

>

> Does it make sense that medical training would make one qualified to

> convince someone having problems in life that they originate with

their

> desire to have intercourse with their mother and jealousy toward

their

> father? Any quack can do that.

>

> Of course, now having a franchise that the street-corner drug dealer

can

> only envy, it is a different ball game. (Not to suggest that some

people

> don't

> benefit greatly from taking various drugs.)

>

> Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

> According to my best recollection you are dead wrong on this, at

> least as far as the U.S. goes. Psychiatrists (at least used to)

>practice

> the psychoanalysis.

Ken, I acknowledged tha psychiatrists frequently *did* practice

psychoanalysis, however, I do not believe that psychoanalysis was ever

*restricted* to psychiatrists. Freud himself was a neurologist, not a

psychiatrist, though Jung was. I have even read psychoanalytic

material suggesting that doctors are often poor analysts because they

are used to being directive and cannot take the passive role usually

advocated in it! It is possible that some medical schools gave

training in psychoanalysis and restricted students to psychiatrists,

but right from the very beginning Freud, Jung, and the others

basically set up their own independent training schools.

> Psychologists used different methods.

I am not too familiar with the origin of clinical psychology, but my

impression is that it is actually quite a recent development, only

becoming commonplace long after psychoanalysis has gone into decline.

> I know

>of

> _nobody_ who made the argument that Freudian-type analysis was

> wrong because the practitioner didn't have a medical license.

Not in its heyday, but nowadays this criticism is often made.

Iirc they include Hans Eysenck " The Decline and Fall of the Freudian

Empire " and Thornton " The Freudian Fallacy " , and a Britol University

Professor of Psychology whose name I dont remember!

> The

> arguments were always along the line that the therapy was long,

>drawn out and useless and the psychiatrists themselves were the

>craziest of the crazies.

The first part of the above is still made of course, but the latter

will come from simple popular discourse. Again, though popular

culture confuses them and tars them both with the same brush, a

psychoanalyst and a psychiatrist are very different things, although

it is possible to be both.

> If you have any reference to American psychologists practicing what

>was

> commonly defined as psychoanalysis prior to the last couple of

>decades, I'd like to see it.

Presumably you mean " Psychoanalysts who were not psychiatrists " .

Since you are the one who is claiming a restrictive condition - that

all psychoanalysts were psychiatrists - then I would suggest the

burden of prorden of proof is up to you to show that this restriction

existed, rather than for me to try to prove a universal negative.

> Not Freudian analysis, for which one needed a medical degree. Only

>the more different, complex cases needed an actual psychiatrist. The

>medical degree was important because a non-medical person couldn't

>tell whether the symptoms were purely physical or the result of a

>little girl's penis envy or a little boy's frustrated desire for

>sexual intercourse with his mother, like someone with medical

>training could.

Without the parodying of paychoanalytic theory, this is precisely the

argument used by Eysenck, Thornton, and the unmemorable Professor as

to why psychoanalysis alone is so dangerous - because *no* such

medical training is required, at least in the UK. The Prof himself

became a Professor of Psychology precisely as a result of seeing two

analysts, one well-meaning the other a menace, who failed to dx his

bipolar depression which subsequently responded to lithium. Now this

could be just the UK position, but again I ask that you to demonstrate

that medical training is required to practice psychoanalysis in the

US.

> You aren't that much younger than me. Psychiatrists _haven't_ always

> used drugs.

What might be described as " psychiatry " has a very long and complex

history that cannot be totally accurately summarised in a single

sentence with regard to this or any other issue, and yes, it isnt a

particularly pretty sight during much of that time. I am actually

surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960, but

they in fact do. It is arguable that psychiatry, like all medicine,

only started to be put on a truly scientific basis by about this time.

This certainly corresponds with an expansion of drug treatment, but if

you are going to go back to before 1960, then drugs *were* often used

neverthless, but rightly not as much, because those available werent

anything like as good. One interesting feature of the early AA is

that medical admirers like Silkworth appear to have referred to it as

" moral therapy " . The term was already known in medical history; it

was used to describe the humane treatment of the mentally ill by

Quaker asylums in C18, who attempted to help them to take as much

responsibility for themselves as possible, such as working at whatever

they could manage, and encourag them to take a religious/spiritual

approach to their life and difficulties, rather than just locking them

up. It was in part (without the religion) the inspiration of modern

anti-psychiatry movements. My textbook of Abnormal Psychology has an

account of Moral Therapy; it points out that in addition to the

religion and workfare, the Quaker used drugs with their patients.

Among the list given are included alcohol and opium. The authors

conclude " Moral Therapy may not have been all it is cracked up to be " .

My own feeling is that rather than being a slur on it, it is actually

further evidence of the wisdom that these benevolent ppl brought to

the problem. They did the best with the tools they has to hand - and

were not afraid or too pious to use them. Long before modern

antipsychotics, Indian herbalists used rawulthia as an antipsychotic

for what is now termed schizophrenia. I believe it may have also been

used in the West, but is not used now as it produces problems with

high blood pressure, and hence is rendered obsolete by the modern

antipsychotics.

Yes I know many things were once though mental illness that now are

not, and some dreadful things have been done in the name of medicine,

but exactly the same thing could be said of general medicine;

psychiatry has merely developed more slowly. We do not judge modern

medicine by the failures and excesses of previous centuries.

Advocates of largely useless alternative medicine and critics of

psychotropic medicines are often quick to quote Hippocrates' " First do

no Harm " . What they are usually unaware of is that even Hippocrates

thought that psychotic disorders now called schizophrenia and bipolar

depression were caused by a literal organic disease of the brain like

the familiar ones of the rest of the body that just could not be

directly observed.

P.

[Guest guest]

> According to my best recollection you are dead wrong on this, at

> least as far as the U.S. goes. Psychiatrists (at least used to)

>practice

> the psychoanalysis.

Ken, I acknowledged tha psychiatrists frequently *did* practice

psychoanalysis, however, I do not believe that psychoanalysis was ever

*restricted* to psychiatrists. Freud himself was a neurologist, not a

psychiatrist, though Jung was. I have even read psychoanalytic

material suggesting that doctors are often poor analysts because they

are used to being directive and cannot take the passive role usually

advocated in it! It is possible that some medical schools gave

training in psychoanalysis and restricted students to psychiatrists,

but right from the very beginning Freud, Jung, and the others

basically set up their own independent training schools.

> Psychologists used different methods.

I am not too familiar with the origin of clinical psychology, but my

impression is that it is actually quite a recent development, only

becoming commonplace long after psychoanalysis has gone into decline.

> I know

>of

> _nobody_ who made the argument that Freudian-type analysis was

> wrong because the practitioner didn't have a medical license.

Not in its heyday, but nowadays this criticism is often made.

Iirc they include Hans Eysenck " The Decline and Fall of the Freudian

Empire " and Thornton " The Freudian Fallacy " , and a Britol University

Professor of Psychology whose name I dont remember!

> The

> arguments were always along the line that the therapy was long,

>drawn out and useless and the psychiatrists themselves were the

>craziest of the crazies.

The first part of the above is still made of course, but the latter

will come from simple popular discourse. Again, though popular

culture confuses them and tars them both with the same brush, a

psychoanalyst and a psychiatrist are very different things, although

it is possible to be both.

> If you have any reference to American psychologists practicing what

>was

> commonly defined as psychoanalysis prior to the last couple of

>decades, I'd like to see it.

Presumably you mean " Psychoanalysts who were not psychiatrists " .

Since you are the one who is claiming a restrictive condition - that

all psychoanalysts were psychiatrists - then I would suggest the

burden of prorden of proof is up to you to show that this restriction

existed, rather than for me to try to prove a universal negative.

> Not Freudian analysis, for which one needed a medical degree. Only

>the more different, complex cases needed an actual psychiatrist. The

>medical degree was important because a non-medical person couldn't

>tell whether the symptoms were purely physical or the result of a

>little girl's penis envy or a little boy's frustrated desire for

>sexual intercourse with his mother, like someone with medical

>training could.

Without the parodying of paychoanalytic theory, this is precisely the

argument used by Eysenck, Thornton, and the unmemorable Professor as

to why psychoanalysis alone is so dangerous - because *no* such

medical training is required, at least in the UK. The Prof himself

became a Professor of Psychology precisely as a result of seeing two

analysts, one well-meaning the other a menace, who failed to dx his

bipolar depression which subsequently responded to lithium. Now this

could be just the UK position, but again I ask that you to demonstrate

that medical training is required to practice psychoanalysis in the

US.

> You aren't that much younger than me. Psychiatrists _haven't_ always

> used drugs.

What might be described as " psychiatry " has a very long and complex

history that cannot be totally accurately summarised in a single

sentence with regard to this or any other issue, and yes, it isnt a

particularly pretty sight during much of that time. I am actually

surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960, but

they in fact do. It is arguable that psychiatry, like all medicine,

only started to be put on a truly scientific basis by about this time.

This certainly corresponds with an expansion of drug treatment, but if

you are going to go back to before 1960, then drugs *were* often used

neverthless, but rightly not as much, because those available werent

anything like as good. One interesting feature of the early AA is

that medical admirers like Silkworth appear to have referred to it as

" moral therapy " . The term was already known in medical history; it

was used to describe the humane treatment of the mentally ill by

Quaker asylums in C18, who attempted to help them to take as much

responsibility for themselves as possible, such as working at whatever

they could manage, and encourag them to take a religious/spiritual

approach to their life and difficulties, rather than just locking them

up. It was in part (without the religion) the inspiration of modern

anti-psychiatry movements. My textbook of Abnormal Psychology has an

account of Moral Therapy; it points out that in addition to the

religion and workfare, the Quaker used drugs with their patients.

Among the list given are included alcohol and opium. The authors

conclude " Moral Therapy may not have been all it is cracked up to be " .

My own feeling is that rather than being a slur on it, it is actually

further evidence of the wisdom that these benevolent ppl brought to

the problem. They did the best with the tools they has to hand - and

were not afraid or too pious to use them. Long before modern

antipsychotics, Indian herbalists used rawulthia as an antipsychotic

for what is now termed schizophrenia. I believe it may have also been

used in the West, but is not used now as it produces problems with

high blood pressure, and hence is rendered obsolete by the modern

antipsychotics.

Yes I know many things were once though mental illness that now are

not, and some dreadful things have been done in the name of medicine,

but exactly the same thing could be said of general medicine;

psychiatry has merely developed more slowly. We do not judge modern

medicine by the failures and excesses of previous centuries.

Advocates of largely useless alternative medicine and critics of

psychotropic medicines are often quick to quote Hippocrates' " First do

no Harm " . What they are usually unaware of is that even Hippocrates

thought that psychotic disorders now called schizophrenia and bipolar

depression were caused by a literal organic disease of the brain like

the familiar ones of the rest of the body that just could not be

directly observed.

P.

[Guest guest]

> According to my best recollection you are dead wrong on this, at

> least as far as the U.S. goes. Psychiatrists (at least used to)

>practice

> the psychoanalysis.

Ken, I acknowledged tha psychiatrists frequently *did* practice

psychoanalysis, however, I do not believe that psychoanalysis was ever

*restricted* to psychiatrists. Freud himself was a neurologist, not a

psychiatrist, though Jung was. I have even read psychoanalytic

material suggesting that doctors are often poor analysts because they

are used to being directive and cannot take the passive role usually

advocated in it! It is possible that some medical schools gave

training in psychoanalysis and restricted students to psychiatrists,

but right from the very beginning Freud, Jung, and the others

basically set up their own independent training schools.

> Psychologists used different methods.

I am not too familiar with the origin of clinical psychology, but my

impression is that it is actually quite a recent development, only

becoming commonplace long after psychoanalysis has gone into decline.

> I know

>of

> _nobody_ who made the argument that Freudian-type analysis was

> wrong because the practitioner didn't have a medical license.

Not in its heyday, but nowadays this criticism is often made.

Iirc they include Hans Eysenck " The Decline and Fall of the Freudian

Empire " and Thornton " The Freudian Fallacy " , and a Britol University

Professor of Psychology whose name I dont remember!

> The

> arguments were always along the line that the therapy was long,

>drawn out and useless and the psychiatrists themselves were the

>craziest of the crazies.

The first part of the above is still made of course, but the latter

will come from simple popular discourse. Again, though popular

culture confuses them and tars them both with the same brush, a

psychoanalyst and a psychiatrist are very different things, although

it is possible to be both.

> If you have any reference to American psychologists practicing what

>was

> commonly defined as psychoanalysis prior to the last couple of

>decades, I'd like to see it.

Presumably you mean " Psychoanalysts who were not psychiatrists " .

Since you are the one who is claiming a restrictive condition - that

all psychoanalysts were psychiatrists - then I would suggest the

burden of prorden of proof is up to you to show that this restriction

existed, rather than for me to try to prove a universal negative.

> Not Freudian analysis, for which one needed a medical degree. Only

>the more different, complex cases needed an actual psychiatrist. The

>medical degree was important because a non-medical person couldn't

>tell whether the symptoms were purely physical or the result of a

>little girl's penis envy or a little boy's frustrated desire for

>sexual intercourse with his mother, like someone with medical

>training could.

Without the parodying of paychoanalytic theory, this is precisely the

argument used by Eysenck, Thornton, and the unmemorable Professor as

to why psychoanalysis alone is so dangerous - because *no* such

medical training is required, at least in the UK. The Prof himself

became a Professor of Psychology precisely as a result of seeing two

analysts, one well-meaning the other a menace, who failed to dx his

bipolar depression which subsequently responded to lithium. Now this

could be just the UK position, but again I ask that you to demonstrate

that medical training is required to practice psychoanalysis in the

US.

> You aren't that much younger than me. Psychiatrists _haven't_ always

> used drugs.

What might be described as " psychiatry " has a very long and complex

history that cannot be totally accurately summarised in a single

sentence with regard to this or any other issue, and yes, it isnt a

particularly pretty sight during much of that time. I am actually

surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960, but

they in fact do. It is arguable that psychiatry, like all medicine,

only started to be put on a truly scientific basis by about this time.

This certainly corresponds with an expansion of drug treatment, but if

you are going to go back to before 1960, then drugs *were* often used

neverthless, but rightly not as much, because those available werent

anything like as good. One interesting feature of the early AA is

that medical admirers like Silkworth appear to have referred to it as

" moral therapy " . The term was already known in medical history; it

was used to describe the humane treatment of the mentally ill by

Quaker asylums in C18, who attempted to help them to take as much

responsibility for themselves as possible, such as working at whatever

they could manage, and encourag them to take a religious/spiritual

approach to their life and difficulties, rather than just locking them

up. It was in part (without the religion) the inspiration of modern

anti-psychiatry movements. My textbook of Abnormal Psychology has an

account of Moral Therapy; it points out that in addition to the

religion and workfare, the Quaker used drugs with their patients.

Among the list given are included alcohol and opium. The authors

conclude " Moral Therapy may not have been all it is cracked up to be " .

My own feeling is that rather than being a slur on it, it is actually

further evidence of the wisdom that these benevolent ppl brought to

the problem. They did the best with the tools they has to hand - and

were not afraid or too pious to use them. Long before modern

antipsychotics, Indian herbalists used rawulthia as an antipsychotic

for what is now termed schizophrenia. I believe it may have also been

used in the West, but is not used now as it produces problems with

high blood pressure, and hence is rendered obsolete by the modern

antipsychotics.

Yes I know many things were once though mental illness that now are

not, and some dreadful things have been done in the name of medicine,

but exactly the same thing could be said of general medicine;

psychiatry has merely developed more slowly. We do not judge modern

medicine by the failures and excesses of previous centuries.

Advocates of largely useless alternative medicine and critics of

psychotropic medicines are often quick to quote Hippocrates' " First do

no Harm " . What they are usually unaware of is that even Hippocrates

thought that psychotic disorders now called schizophrenia and bipolar

depression were caused by a literal organic disease of the brain like

the familiar ones of the rest of the body that just could not be

directly observed.

P.

[Guest guest]

Pete,

Ken's right.

>

> Pete,

>

> Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S.

psychiatrists

> (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who

practiced

> psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European psycho-

> analysts don't and never did need medical training.

>

[Guest guest]

Pete,

Ken's right.

>

> Pete,

>

> Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S.

psychiatrists

> (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who

practiced

> psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European psycho-

> analysts don't and never did need medical training.

>

[Guest guest]

Pete,

Ken's right.

>

> Pete,

>

> Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S.

psychiatrists

> (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who

practiced

> psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European psycho-

> analysts don't and never did need medical training.

>

[Guest guest]

I am actually

> > surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960,

> >but they in fact do.

KR: And here again, not American psychiatrists. They still hold

> Rush

> as their founding father and speak of him in glowing terms.

Actually then they are similar; British psychiatry also celebrates its

chequered histroy too, as I indicated I am surprised to find out.

however, one hears very strange things about Rush. Do American

shrinks *really* admire this man?

> Just one little recent example. What about the drugging of little

>children

> for a " disease " that _can't_ exist in the context of many cultures?

I presume that you are referring to Ritalian/Adderal for ADD/ADHD.

While it may be less likely to be a problem in other cultures, that

doesnt mean it *cant* exist. I myself have expressed concern over

this issue. however, the fact that this may be done excessively in

the US does not mean tat the actual condition does not exist. If a

medical fad removed thousands of appendices unnecessarily say, this

fact does not mean that appendicitis does not exist. The issue is to

only remove them when necessary, not whether to remove them at all.

In the same way, it is perfectly possible that ADD/ADHD exists but

overdiagnosed and overtreated. As I keep having to point out when

these problems are brought up, this is an argument for *good*

psychiatry, not *no* psychiatry.

> And the cab drivers I mentioned in another post most certainly have

>a

> brain disease as shown by certain areas of the brain being larger

>than

> normal and, I would wager, abnormal metabolic rates.

Ken, I hope you can do better than being so damn facile. This is like

saying that the " Elephant Man " wasnt disabled because a man with

unusually large feet won an Olympic medal. Mental illness is not

based solely on statistical abnormality, but on a variety of

concepts, including impairment and distress. First anti-psychiatry

folks say there is no brain abnormality, then when you show them some,

they say there's no such thing as being normal! Would you use the

" taxi driver " argument to dismiss the neurological pathology of

Alzheimer's and CJD?

A view is scientific only if it is falsifiable. The view that mental

illness is a myth is only scientifically defensible if there is at

least a possible piece of evidence that if found, would falsify it. If

no such evidence can be at least imagined, the view is not scientific.

So Ken, what is the evidence, that if found, would show that there

*is* such a thing as mental illness?

P.

[Guest guest]

I am actually

> > surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960,

> >but they in fact do.

KR: And here again, not American psychiatrists. They still hold

> Rush

> as their founding father and speak of him in glowing terms.

Actually then they are similar; British psychiatry also celebrates its

chequered histroy too, as I indicated I am surprised to find out.

however, one hears very strange things about Rush. Do American

shrinks *really* admire this man?

> Just one little recent example. What about the drugging of little

>children

> for a " disease " that _can't_ exist in the context of many cultures?

I presume that you are referring to Ritalian/Adderal for ADD/ADHD.

While it may be less likely to be a problem in other cultures, that

doesnt mean it *cant* exist. I myself have expressed concern over

this issue. however, the fact that this may be done excessively in

the US does not mean tat the actual condition does not exist. If a

medical fad removed thousands of appendices unnecessarily say, this

fact does not mean that appendicitis does not exist. The issue is to

only remove them when necessary, not whether to remove them at all.

In the same way, it is perfectly possible that ADD/ADHD exists but

overdiagnosed and overtreated. As I keep having to point out when

these problems are brought up, this is an argument for *good*

psychiatry, not *no* psychiatry.

> And the cab drivers I mentioned in another post most certainly have

>a

> brain disease as shown by certain areas of the brain being larger

>than

> normal and, I would wager, abnormal metabolic rates.

Ken, I hope you can do better than being so damn facile. This is like

saying that the " Elephant Man " wasnt disabled because a man with

unusually large feet won an Olympic medal. Mental illness is not

based solely on statistical abnormality, but on a variety of

concepts, including impairment and distress. First anti-psychiatry

folks say there is no brain abnormality, then when you show them some,

they say there's no such thing as being normal! Would you use the

" taxi driver " argument to dismiss the neurological pathology of

Alzheimer's and CJD?

A view is scientific only if it is falsifiable. The view that mental

illness is a myth is only scientifically defensible if there is at

least a possible piece of evidence that if found, would falsify it. If

no such evidence can be at least imagined, the view is not scientific.

So Ken, what is the evidence, that if found, would show that there

*is* such a thing as mental illness?

P.

[Guest guest]

I am actually

> > surprised that they would want to own up to much done before 1960,

> >but they in fact do.

KR: And here again, not American psychiatrists. They still hold

> Rush

> as their founding father and speak of him in glowing terms.

Actually then they are similar; British psychiatry also celebrates its

chequered histroy too, as I indicated I am surprised to find out.

however, one hears very strange things about Rush. Do American

shrinks *really* admire this man?

> Just one little recent example. What about the drugging of little

>children

> for a " disease " that _can't_ exist in the context of many cultures?

I presume that you are referring to Ritalian/Adderal for ADD/ADHD.

While it may be less likely to be a problem in other cultures, that

doesnt mean it *cant* exist. I myself have expressed concern over

this issue. however, the fact that this may be done excessively in

the US does not mean tat the actual condition does not exist. If a

medical fad removed thousands of appendices unnecessarily say, this

fact does not mean that appendicitis does not exist. The issue is to

only remove them when necessary, not whether to remove them at all.

In the same way, it is perfectly possible that ADD/ADHD exists but

overdiagnosed and overtreated. As I keep having to point out when

these problems are brought up, this is an argument for *good*

psychiatry, not *no* psychiatry.

> And the cab drivers I mentioned in another post most certainly have

>a

> brain disease as shown by certain areas of the brain being larger

>than

> normal and, I would wager, abnormal metabolic rates.

Ken, I hope you can do better than being so damn facile. This is like

saying that the " Elephant Man " wasnt disabled because a man with

unusually large feet won an Olympic medal. Mental illness is not

based solely on statistical abnormality, but on a variety of

concepts, including impairment and distress. First anti-psychiatry

folks say there is no brain abnormality, then when you show them some,

they say there's no such thing as being normal! Would you use the

" taxi driver " argument to dismiss the neurological pathology of

Alzheimer's and CJD?

A view is scientific only if it is falsifiable. The view that mental

illness is a myth is only scientifically defensible if there is at

least a possible piece of evidence that if found, would falsify it. If

no such evidence can be at least imagined, the view is not scientific.

So Ken, what is the evidence, that if found, would show that there

*is* such a thing as mental illness?

P.

[Guest guest]

Kayleigh,

As I have just indicated to him, he did not limit himself to the US in

his original statements, and hence, assuming he isnt ethnocentric

enough to forget about the rest of the world and assume a

non-American would do the same, he was wrong. He was also wrong about

to some extent abt the US situation which I have addressed in my reply

to him. also fwiw such limited comments might be better sent

privately.

P.

> >

> > Pete,

> >

> > Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S.

> psychiatrists

> > (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who

> practiced

> > psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European

psycho-

> > analysts don't and never did need medical training.

> >

[Guest guest]

Kayleigh,

As I have just indicated to him, he did not limit himself to the US in

his original statements, and hence, assuming he isnt ethnocentric

enough to forget about the rest of the world and assume a

non-American would do the same, he was wrong. He was also wrong about

to some extent abt the US situation which I have addressed in my reply

to him. also fwiw such limited comments might be better sent

privately.

P.

> >

> > Pete,

> >

> > Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S.

> psychiatrists

> > (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who

> practiced

> > psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European

psycho-

> > analysts don't and never did need medical training.

> >

[Guest guest]

Kayleigh,

As I have just indicated to him, he did not limit himself to the US in

his original statements, and hence, assuming he isnt ethnocentric

enough to forget about the rest of the world and assume a

non-American would do the same, he was wrong. He was also wrong about

to some extent abt the US situation which I have addressed in my reply

to him. also fwiw such limited comments might be better sent

privately.

P.

> >

> > Pete,

> >

> > Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S.

> psychiatrists

> > (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who

> practiced

> > psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European

psycho-

> > analysts don't and never did need medical training.

> >

[Guest guest]

The scope of what psychiatrists may do is defined by medical

associations. The scope of what psychologists, social workers,

counselors, etc., may do is usually defined by state licensing boards,

and these definitions vary greatly state to state. In some states you

can be a psychotherapist without licensing. Actually there are many

other types of unlicensed professions that infringe to some extent on

psychotherapy, such as " lifestyle consultant " (encompassing a variety

of practices, whose number is limited by your imagination) or

" personal coach. " You can be a hypnotist in many places without

licensing. You can be a neurolinguistic programming practitioner

without licensing. The U.S. truly is the land of the free.

What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United States?

> > >

> > > Pete,

> > >

> > > Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S.

> > psychiatrists

> > > (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who

> > practiced

> > > psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European

> psycho-

> > > analysts don't and never did need medical training.

> > >

[Guest guest]

The scope of what psychiatrists may do is defined by medical

associations. The scope of what psychologists, social workers,

counselors, etc., may do is usually defined by state licensing boards,

and these definitions vary greatly state to state. In some states you

can be a psychotherapist without licensing. Actually there are many

other types of unlicensed professions that infringe to some extent on

psychotherapy, such as " lifestyle consultant " (encompassing a variety

of practices, whose number is limited by your imagination) or

" personal coach. " You can be a hypnotist in many places without

licensing. You can be a neurolinguistic programming practitioner

without licensing. The U.S. truly is the land of the free.

What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United States?

> > >

> > > Pete,

> > >

> > > Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S.

> > psychiatrists

> > > (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who

> > practiced

> > > psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European

> psycho-

> > > analysts don't and never did need medical training.

> > >

[Guest guest]

The scope of what psychiatrists may do is defined by medical

associations. The scope of what psychologists, social workers,

counselors, etc., may do is usually defined by state licensing boards,

and these definitions vary greatly state to state. In some states you

can be a psychotherapist without licensing. Actually there are many

other types of unlicensed professions that infringe to some extent on

psychotherapy, such as " lifestyle consultant " (encompassing a variety

of practices, whose number is limited by your imagination) or

" personal coach. " You can be a hypnotist in many places without

licensing. You can be a neurolinguistic programming practitioner

without licensing. The U.S. truly is the land of the free.

What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United States?

> > >

> > > Pete,

> > >

> > > Your contradiction about my insistence that it was U.S.

> > psychiatrists

> > > (people with medical degrees) and not U.S. psychologists who

> > practiced

> > > psychoanalysis is not contradicted by the fact that European

> psycho-

> > > analysts don't and never did need medical training.

> > >

[Guest guest]

> What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

> statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United States?

Pete doesn't have much at all in the category of special knowledge

about anything in the U.S. What he does have is an intense prejudice

against us as people in general. This shows time and time again and

has for the more than two years I have been reading his posts. Pete

is getting desparate here with the mental illness issue. It's almost

as if it is his religion and someone has made a good argument against

it.

If anyone is interested in answers to some of the questions on this

thread about the history of psychoanalysis/psychotherapy, Szasz gives

a good history of it in " The Myth of Psychotherapy. " He also cuts all

the big boys--Freud, Jung, Mesmer, etc. in half in a very enjoyable

book.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

> statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United States?

Pete doesn't have much at all in the category of special knowledge

about anything in the U.S. What he does have is an intense prejudice

against us as people in general. This shows time and time again and

has for the more than two years I have been reading his posts. Pete

is getting desparate here with the mental illness issue. It's almost

as if it is his religion and someone has made a good argument against

it.

If anyone is interested in answers to some of the questions on this

thread about the history of psychoanalysis/psychotherapy, Szasz gives

a good history of it in " The Myth of Psychotherapy. " He also cuts all

the big boys--Freud, Jung, Mesmer, etc. in half in a very enjoyable

book.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

> statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United States?

Pete doesn't have much at all in the category of special knowledge

about anything in the U.S. What he does have is an intense prejudice

against us as people in general. This shows time and time again and

has for the more than two years I have been reading his posts. Pete

is getting desparate here with the mental illness issue. It's almost

as if it is his religion and someone has made a good argument against

it.

If anyone is interested in answers to some of the questions on this

thread about the history of psychoanalysis/psychotherapy, Szasz gives

a good history of it in " The Myth of Psychotherapy. " He also cuts all

the big boys--Freud, Jung, Mesmer, etc. in half in a very enjoyable

book.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> The scope of what psychiatrists may do is defined by medical

> associations. The scope of what psychologists, social workers,

> counselors, etc., may do is usually defined by state licensing

boards,

> and these definitions vary greatly state to state. In some states

you

> can be a psychotherapist without licensing. Actually there are many

> other types of unlicensed professions that infringe to some extent

on

> psychotherapy, such as " lifestyle consultant " (encompassing a

variety

> of practices, whose number is limited by your imagination) or

> " personal coach. " You can be a hypnotist in many places without

> licensing. You can be a neurolinguistic programming practitioner

> without licensing. The U.S. truly is the land of the free.

>

> What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

> statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United States?

(Not " special " maybe but likely better than yours about why Swiss ppl

keep guns, and more politely expressed). I've read about it. What you

say above appears to agree with what I have been saying all along:

there is no *legal* requirement to be a doctor to be a psychoanalyst

in the US, though many professional psychoanalytic associations may

require it. So why the churlishness?

[Guest guest]

> The scope of what psychiatrists may do is defined by medical

> associations. The scope of what psychologists, social workers,

> counselors, etc., may do is usually defined by state licensing

boards,

> and these definitions vary greatly state to state. In some states

you

> can be a psychotherapist without licensing. Actually there are many

> other types of unlicensed professions that infringe to some extent

on

> psychotherapy, such as " lifestyle consultant " (encompassing a

variety

> of practices, whose number is limited by your imagination) or

> " personal coach. " You can be a hypnotist in many places without

> licensing. You can be a neurolinguistic programming practitioner

> without licensing. The U.S. truly is the land of the free.

>

> What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

> statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United States?

(Not " special " maybe but likely better than yours about why Swiss ppl

keep guns, and more politely expressed). I've read about it. What you

say above appears to agree with what I have been saying all along:

there is no *legal* requirement to be a doctor to be a psychoanalyst

in the US, though many professional psychoanalytic associations may

require it. So why the churlishness?