Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 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.) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 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.) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 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.) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2001 Report Share Posted March 26, 2001 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2001 Report Share Posted March 27, 2001 > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2001 Report Share Posted March 27, 2001 > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2001 Report Share Posted March 27, 2001 > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 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. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 > 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 > 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.