Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Radical changes 2 Another unmerciful cull 3 Job done 4 No objections 5 A pleasure 6 Deleted paragraph 7 Improved referents 8 Removals 9 Genetics vs. environment

Radical changes

I radically changed the section “Challenges and alternatives to psychiatric theory”, which I renamed “Main criticisms”. Please be patient while I write an explanation for such changes. Cesar Tort 01:24 (UTC) 20 March 2006.

The eliminated paragraphs were extremely long-winded. Even though my native language is Spanish (so please correct my syntactic inaccuracies!) I can detect overwriting in English, as is the case of the deleted paragraphs.

I believe “critics” sounds much better than “anti-psychiatrists”, though I left some of the latter expression.

I inserted references to Breggin and Valenstein which I previously referred to in one of my answers to Dcfleck above, when I outlined the “five parallel critiques”.

The “hyperfocus” paragraph, about which Rockpocket complained above, I deleted entirely: it is beside the point.

With regard to anorexia, trauma-oriented professionals who would never recommend to lobotomize anorexic girls don’t go as far as to suggest that anorexia “is a legitimate lifestyle”. That claim seemed so ridiculous that I deleted the whole paragraph.

I also deleted referents to web pages about the recent Tom Cruise affair with psychiatry. It is improper for a scholarly article to rely on tabloid notes.

I also deleted big chunks of the “Pseudoscience” section and cited the important notion of hard sciences instead. The deleted paragraphs were, in my opinion, perfect examples of long-winded prose. The purpose of a Wikipedia article I guess is to put it in top shape rhetorically. The long-winded deleted paragraphs have no place in a concise article. Cesar Tort 02:45 (UTC) 20 March 2006.

I have no real specific problems with any of those (and your English is, for the most part, exemplary). I take you point about using "critics" instead of "anti-psychiatrists". However, i think we have to strike a balance as this page is supposed to be about an anti-psychiatry movement after all and not just general criticism of psychiatry. For example, i have some criticisms of psychiatry myself, but they do not make me part of an anti-psychiatrist movement. Moreover, in places you quote "prominant psychiatrists" as being proponents of anti-psychiatry beliefs. This reads to me like a complete paradox, how can someone claim to be both when they are opposites? I really think we need to qualify - somewhere - strict boundaries of what the movement encompasses. Otherwise i'm left wondering why we don't have anti-medicine, anti-dentistry or anti-genetics articles, as i can find critics of all of those.

It is difficult to resolve this issue unless we say over and over again that bio-shrinks are some kind of guys and non bio-shrinks a very different kind of guys (by “bio” I mean those who approve drugs, ECT and lobotomy). Cesar Tort (UTC) 20 March 2006.

On a more minor point, I also notice that you moved the sentence about the biochemical imbalances being an effect and not a cause, back to the genetics section from the biochemical section. I don't really mind where it goes (and understand, of course, how genes regulate biochemistry) but i would have thought since there is a section about biochemistry specifically - it would be better off there. Generally, nice work though. Rockpocket

You can move it back. Since I’m new to Wikipedia I got very confused when a change of yours merged with mine a few hours ago while I didn’t had saved my changes. Perhaps I did a wrong cut and paste? Cesar Tort (UTC) 20 March 2006.

Thinking about it a little further, perhaps to make it clearer we could put something in the intro along the lines of

"Despite its name, the movement is widely seen as promoting a type of psychiatry itself, albeit one that is in stark contrast to current mainstream thinking. Thus many so-called "anti-psychiatrists", including psychiatrists with non-mainstream beliefs, are keen to dissociate themselves from the term and the perjorative associations it has attracted."

Yes, this paragraph may throw light in a rather confusing subject. Do you know that the most famous critics of psychiatry are psychiatrists themselves (Szasz, the late Laing and Breggin)? Also, the main proponent of the “trauma model” today is a psychiatrist: Colin Ross (Lidz and Arieti, the other trauma proponents, were psychiatrists too) Cesar Tort (UTC) 20 March 2006.

Great. I'll merge this in (with the sources from the critical psychiatry network page). That adresses a lot of my issues with this page and, i think, will help resolve a lot of potential disagreements down the line. Rockpocket 20:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be much happier with this sort of explanation upfront. It also allows us to claim psychiatrists can be anti-psychiatrists without totally confusing the reader. Thoughts? Rockpocket

Keep going, soon you'll be able to explain that the only people who seem to have any issue with an exclusively medical approach to problematic mental distress and function are a few hippies in Outer Mongolia. Franzio 09:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Another unmerciful cull

I have changed the name of the subsection: “Psychiatric diagnosis in reality” to “Psychiatric labeling”.

I continued (and perhaps will continue with the rest of the article) to delete whole paragraphs since the reasoning in this particular subsection looked awkward for an article that purports to be concise and elucidating for the general public.

I deleted also the homosexuality paragraph since it has already been discussed in the “Origins” section. Cesar Tort 08:53 (UTC) 20 March 2006.

Today I plan to unmercifully cull the rest of the section.

Any objections? Cesar Tort 21:48 (UTC) 20 March 2006.

Job done

I have just completed the radical cull. We now have a rough draft of the entirely re-written article. Cesar Tort 21 March 2006, 04:23 (UTC)

Nice work, Cesar. Now it is coming together, i took the opportunity to dewikify a lot of duplicate links and removed some duplicate information (like the "chemical straightjacket" allegations for example). I also changed quite lot of the electroshock section around. It read very much like a POV damnation of ECT, so i added some sources of the alternate opinion for balance.

If no-one has any objection, i will remove the POV and citation tags at the top of the page tomorrow - as i personally don't think they need to be there anymore. Rockpocket 07:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

(deleted comment about straightjacket effect - as i see, and you say, it is mentioned elsewhere. It is still again weakening the origins section to remove any mention, as it is an important reason for development of antipsychiatry and shows (alleged) continutity the aim of control and compliance from lobotomy to drugs). I see the phrase 'harmful effects' has been changed to 'side effects'. The latter is a medical term, often seen as belittling harmful effects that aren't necessarily separate to the main effects or side-issues for hte person concerned, and even in medicine is often replaced by the term 'adverse effects'. Again edits favouring and assuming a medical and psychiatric perspective not neutral or explaining the antipsychiatry perspective. Franzio 09:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How does it weaken the article when the exact same information is repeated further down? That makes no sense. I changed it to side effects as, by definition, an adverse effect of a drug that is not part of relieving the disease is a "side effect". However, i agree that "adverse effects" is a better term in this case. Here is an idea - why don't you actually make that change yourself rather than criticising others for not coming up with the phrase like you did? Rockpocket 18:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The entirely rewritten article entirely doesn't do any justice to antipsychiatry. Confusing and innacurate terminology about 'biological' psychiatrists and trauma etc; key antipsychiatry points which have swathes of high quality peer-reviewed evidence presented as the personal comments of critics, whilst psychiatric points are well-referenced (although often don't fully represent the sources, e.g. on electroshock the UK ECT review group also reported that studies poor quality, high relapse rate, worrying and poorly investigated side-effects); the bit on genetics in particular reads like a psychiatry section not an antipsychiatry section; antipsychiatry arguments which are only one extremes (e.g. by Szasz in last sectoin, even John Stuart Mill in regard to hospitalisation) are presented as if the antipsychiatry position. This is what always happens. Pro-psychiatry people tend to have the scientific access and sources and articles and apply them to their psychiatric arguments, but don't really apply them in helping clarify or support antipsychiatry arguments, which then come across as if far more unscientific and vague or extremist. Franzio 12:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Its easy to criticise, isn't it? But if you had actually contributed to this effort rather than restrict your insight to criticism of others, the article might have addressed those concerns. I really think you are missing the fundamental point of Wikipedia: it is not mine or Cesar's obligation to address your criticisms - that is your problem. If you can improve it - do so. Time and time again i have encouraged you to get involved and time and time again you respond with criticism but no action. Rockpocket 18:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't agree with 'this effort', as you obviously know. But thanks for encouraging me to get involved in your actions, you're very kind.

No objections

What means “dewikify”, Rockpocket?

I do not know if Wikipedia policies allow my to do minor changes now in separate sections. For instance, after mention of “tardive dyskinesia” in the 20th Century context the words “psychiatric hospitals” should replace “lunatic asylums by psychiatry” since the latter is a 19th century expression. Also, at the very end of the ECT section I would add: “Some ECT patients disagree”, and would post an internet referent of Leo Roy Frank, one of the most vocal ECT survivors. Finally, in the last section “Toward a Therapeutic State?” I would replace “critics of psychiatry” for “civil libertarians”.

I do not object your removing the POV tags. But I worry about vandals in the far future. I am curious how do the admins handle them? Cesar Tort 21 March 2006, 10:35 (UTC)

I apologise if i have given the wrong impression, Cesar. As the others have said below, the article remains fully editable and you (and anyone else) are encouraged to continue to improve and refine the article as best you can, now and in the future. My talk of it nearing completion was referring to my goal of referencing, cleaning and NPOVing it as it stood - not to suggest that it is anywhere near perfect. At that point i may move on to other wiki-projects, but that does not mean the article gets locked or anything. Far from it, as Franzio points out, it still needs a lot of work and others may decide it is a load of nonsense and completely overhaul it again. While i think that would be a shame, its not worth getting worried about as that is the way Wikipedia works and, the theory goes, is how the article continues to increase in quality.

I suggest you go ahead with your proposals above. I proposed removing the tags simply because the article is more balanced (IMHO, of course) and because it is certainly referenced much better than it was. However, Franzio appears to think the article is still very POV, so he (or anyone else) may wish to replace the tag in future. They are, of course, very welcome to do that (though it would help if the person who attaches tags actually makes an effort to improve the article - acting on problems is much better than just pointing them out). As for vandals, well there are plenty of people (myself included, occasionally) who spend time on vandal watch to make sure articles remain free of vandalism. I believe research shows that any given act of vandalism typically remains on Wikipedia less than 20 mins or so. However, you may wish to keep an eye on the article yourself, even if you decide you have contributed as much as you can, to ensure its integrity. Rockpocket 18:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cesar Tort, you appear to have been given the impression by Rockpocket that the aim is for one or two people to sort out an article, culling anything as they see fit, and then it is locked down to stop anyone in future vandalising your great work. This is not how Wikipedia works. It appears to be how Rockpocket works when he appoints himself as corporate trouble-shooter, even in an area in which he has no particular expertise or experience.

This article does not do justice to antipsychiatry. It is certainly a lot shorter than what was there before, and of course some of it is better worded and better references, but overall it is very biased and gives a bad impression of antipsychiatry. The points explaining psychiatry tend to be well-worded, clear, balanced and scientifically sourced. The points explaining antipsychiatry tend to appear personalised (generally in line with the theories and the people Cesar Tort appears most aware of), unbalanced or extremist or naive or confused (whether they have been retained from the previous version or not).

I won't bother complaining any more or objecting to the POV tags going, because clearly Rockpocket and Cesar Tort are happy and I see from Rockpocket's talk page that he has cheerleaders for his great work here. I would'nt dare to challenge or question any more. I do apologise for continuing to post on here when I'm leaving, I'm trying to let it go but it's very annoying and sad. 213.122.93.45 12:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments (even if critical). My personal position against psychiatry is indeed very “anti”, as can be seen in my 115,000-word book in progress. The real Cesar Tort appears there. I hope it will be translated to English. I understand perfectly that the article is not locked and that could and should be improved. This is the first time in my life that I have to restraint myself when writing about psychiatry. I had no choice. Cesar Tort 21 March 2006, 13:20 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that the genetic section ought to be improved in the line I suggested to Rockpocket: Scientifically, a pattern of family transmission is neutral with respect to genetic versus environmental etiology. But since I am not a geneticist, I cannot enter into detailed discussion.... Cesar Tort 21 March 2006, 13:42 (UTC)

And i repeat again, if you can source that statement then feel free to add it. I have no problem with that opinion being added, but it isn't mainstream thinking and i am not familiar with any reputable expert in the field holding that opinion. Which is why i didn't add it myself. Rockpocket 23:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

César, you can do minor edits to just about anything, section or full article, anytime. (That doesn't mean it won't get challenged.) Articles are only locked down if there is persistent vandalism or an ongoing edit war. To "dewikify" means to remove excessive hyperlinks from within an article (for instance, the DSM only needs to be linked the first time it's mentioned).

I'm afraid I haven't been able to look at this page much over the past few days, after making a few initial changes - there are still some things that I think need to be addressed further. To 213.122.93.45: if there are parts you think are "personalised, unbalanced or extremist or naive or confused" (and I agree, there are), please try to provide some of the balance. If you're not willing to push, ceaselessly, for things you think are important, they very well may get edited out. That's the downside of edit-by-"consensus". --Dcfleck 13:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cesar Tort, your position is clear. All I personally say is that, while the previous version didn't do scientific justice to antipsychiatry (hence my starting to work through it when I arrived shortly before you or Rockpocket appeared), neither does this. I don't want to be critical and I'm sure it's better in a lot of ways, and it contains better pro-psychiatry, thanks to Rockpocket's fine work. Dcfleck, I am the user to whom you refer and you are exactly right about the need to push ceaselessly for things - especially if opposing views have admin support and a bullying representative convinced of being supremely NPOV, suitably qualified, and merely enacting policy. I cannot fight this and that is why I am leaving Wikipedia. Franzio.

I think he means me ;). And to some extent he is right. I have made sure the areas i am an "expert" in is accurate and well sourced. Areas that i am not, such as anti-psychiatric philosophy may not be up to the same standard. Some editors appear to be under the impression that to edit one must have the solution to the whole problem. I certainly don't and have never claimed to have. All i can do is my best and hope others can do justice to the areas that my knowledge is lacking. Now, if someone who claims to have such knowledge and resources would contribute that to the article than it might be better. Yet, despite much encouragement, such editors appears happier sniping from the sidelines. It really doesn't take much pushing, as i pretty much all editors on that page have demonstrated that a well sourced statement written in a NPOV way will be welcomed. Rockpocket 18:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think unilateral mass tagging and culling, regardless of reasoned objections from someone who actually works in mental health and who was already trying to improve this page in a different way, sort of implies an arrogant belief in your own whole solution to the whole area. I've only ended up on the sidelines because I didn't want any part in your take-over and indiscriminate massacre of this page, and I think I'm entitled to snipe a bit as I shuffle out the door. Franzio.

The longest exit shuffle in history, it would appear. You claim above, "Incidentally I never said I was going 'for good', that seems to be your wishful and frankly rather cruel thinking". You appear to have a different view on your own talk page [1]: ("This...leads me to leave Wikipedia, not just [this] page"). However, since it is my responses that are keeping you here to, in your own words, "snipe a bit", you can be assured that you may now leave with the last word in the numerous debates above. Of which, i must say, comparing me unfavourably to a mentally ill patient really establishes the moral high ground for your grand exit. Goodbye. Rockpocket 00:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Last correction as I am indeed leaving not just this page; I never said 'ill' (medical term with a pejorative connotation). Franzio. Realise I also need to clarify that I did not (normality and illness section above) compare unfavourably in the sense possibly implied by Rockpocket, but in the sense of having seen more insight etc in patients generally seen as lacking it (particularly by psychiatry).

A pleasure

Well I guess this is it?

Rockpocket, Franzio and Dcfleck: it has been a pleasure and a great experience to work with you. Yes: I write in a Solzhenitsyn-type style but I perfectly understand that encyclopedia language must be neutral, and I will be very neutral when doing the minor changes I suggested above.

I do believe that the article will be of great help to those who are confused about a perplexing subject. It took me five years of my life in Manchester, Texas and Mexico to understand psychiatry. Though our re-written article is properly simple, the subject is enormously complex and requires very rare intellectual and emotional abilities to fully grasp what is it all about.

By the way Dcfleck, I read the book review of Bentall’s “Madness and human nature” you called Rockpocket’s attention to. It looks interesting and you can see there that we who oppose psychiatry do it for good reasons. If you want to do some reading about the subject I would also recommend Robert Whitaker’s “Mad in America” or John Modrow’s “How to become a schizophrenic”.

Perhaps it is time for POV tags removal?

Thanks again for letting me to fully cooperate with you and I hope we will met again in Wikipedia. Cesar Tort 21 March 2006, 22:44 (UTC)

I'll remove the tags. Best wishes, Cesar. It has been enjoyable and enlightening interacting with you. Rockpocket 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph

I deleted the following paragraph:

In addition, many feel that they are being pathologised for simply being different. Some people diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome or autism hold this position (see autism rights movement). While many parents of children diagnosed autistic oppose the efforts of autistic activists, there are some who say they value the uniqueness of their children and do not desire a 'cure' for their autism. The autistic community has coined a number of terms that would appear to form the basis for a new branch of identity politics; terms such as "neurodiversity", "neurotypical" and "neurodivergent".

The deleted paragraph runs against the spirit of this article: that biological psychiatry is not a hard science or a genuine branch of medicine. The claim that autism or autistic-related conditions are biological is essentially a bio-psychiatric claim.

For example, the hyperlinked articles contain statements such as these: “Neurological wiring is a normal human difference” (my emphasis); “some people apply the concept of neurodiversity to...hyperactive people [i.e., ADHD —a psychiatric label]; “autism and other neurological differences...” (my emphasis); “Autism is about as heritable as personality or IQ”; “some have compared the neurodiversity movement with the pro-anorexia movement” (anorexia is pathological, not just another “lifestyle”, though it has no biological cause either); “autism is not a debilitating disease, but rather a valid variation of neurological wiring”; “Autism spectrum conditions are scientifically proven to be largely genetic and heritable” (my emphasis), etc., etc.

Non biological psychiatrists such as Peter Breggin maintain that, though very popular in the media, all of these bio-psych claims are pure myth (see e.g., “Toxic Psychiatry”, pp. 287-292) [2].

For similar reasons I deleted the quote at the end of the article “If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia”. The quote suggest that hearing voices from gods is not pathological. Though schizophrenia is not a biological condition, it is nevertheless a mental disorder [3].

Finally, after the massive cull of the last few days there remained four bibliographical references at the end of the article unrelated to the main text. I deleted them. Cesar Tort 00:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neurodivergent!

I see that you reverted my deletion. My point is that all that bio stuff is stigmatizing. Bio-psychiatry stigmatizes all those people by unjustly blaming their brains. But their brains are healthy! The first step the shrinks take to assault a healthy brain is to pseudo-scientifically state that these physically healthy people have faulty brains. If you and I want to stop forced medication we better start to question that medical model of mental disorders. Don’t you agree? Cesar Tort 01:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason that paragraph was added to being with was because there was an "argument against anti-psychiatry" which said basically "psychiatric patients don't find the views of anti-psychiatry consistent with their own experiences". The autistic community was provided as a counter-example. Some in the autistic community are very much anti-psychiatry as evidenced by this. Now, while autistic self-advocates don't believe they have disordered or damaged brains, and many like their autism, they do accept that their neurological wiring is different from the norm. Healthy, just different. I'd like the info in this paragraph to be included in the article in some way. Neurodivergent 03:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though there is no scientific evidence that the autistic community have different neurological wiring, for the moment I won’t argue the point further. Cesar Tort 04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There's pretty good evidence that 'in average' autistic brains are different and that autistic cognition is different. Check out Dawson & Mottron (2005), which is yet to be replicated but is interesting nonetheless. The 'in average' consideration is important coupled with the fact that the boundary between autism and normality is fuzzy and changes as time goes by. This is basically true of all spectrum disorders in the field of psychiatry. A section on social construct theory relating to mental illness might be a good section to include in this article. Neurodivergent 14:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cesar Tort, two of those references you deleted are quality peer-reviewed sources that directly relate to the last paragraph of the origins section (and other areas) regarding schemes to challenge stigma and discrimination and to involve people with mental health issues in work and in evaluating and delivering mental health services. I really cannot understand why you would want to delete them rather than trying to link them in to the text. In addition, your deletion of the schizophrenia and god quote appears to miss the points it seems to make, e.g. about continuity and the social context of diagnosis. You may not agree with it (and it clearly isn't intended to be a factual statement about DSM criteria) but it is an antipsychiatry quote. If you are really trying to help build an NPOV account of antipsychiatry, you should reinstate these deletions and many others (including mention of the origins of clinical psychology which I see remains absent) but I see they are a lost cause now.

In addition, I would like to just try to warn you that you are seriouslly mischaracterising the 'medical model' when you equate it to anything incorporating neuroscience - they are different things. You clearly have strong views about the latter but often appear scientifically innacurate, including on the evidence in regard to the autistic spectrum. I do not raise these things just to criticise, and I am aware I could try to reinstate things in the usual way if I was involved - but at Rockpocket's instigation you have been carrying out indiscriminate culling of anything you don't personally agree with, and yet you know this is an NPOV source to explain antipsychiatry in general not just your views, which you are already writing a book on. This is absolutely my final comment here, rather than just another attempted defence against Rockpocket's rhetoric as he ushers me out the door - a last plea for more respect and non-culling of valuable NPOV sources and statements that may differ from your own views. Otherwise this article will be getting further from not nearer to a really great NPOV explanation of antipsychiatry, which is what we surely all want, differences aside. Bye. Franzio.

Improved referents

I tried to improve some referents and also deleted the phrase that compared ADHD with homophobia. The debate between gay activists and the mental health reporter of the deleted referent [4] is too controversial for the Anti-psychiatry article and not really germane to the ADHD issue. César Tort 00:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Removals

Some external links at the end of the article are not “Organizations” (e.g., AntiPsychiatry.org is only Doug Smith’s personal web page, which I translated to Spanish by the way) so I removed them. I also removed the site of Fuller Torrey: psychiatry’s foremost watchdog!, some sites that were heavy to download and the Freud sites unrelated to antipsychiatry. Cesar Tort 02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I also eliminated the first short phrase about psychoanalysis since it is different from psychiatry (and psychoanalysis is discussed later in the text). Cesar Tort 19:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And removed three articles of the “Articles” section in External Links since the long antipsychiatry list of articles in the first website is more than enough (and, incidentally, I got a virus while trying to download an article in the last —now removed!— web site). Cesar Tort 02:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Genetics vs. environment

As to Rockpocket's recent revert, you are right: my change didn’t reflect the use of “genetic terminology in an unscientific way”. What about this phrase instead?:

Anti-psychiatrists often challenge the focus within psychiatry on genetic factors; for example, bio-psychiatrists’ search of the genetic basis for mental disorders rather than in “problems of the living” in some hostile family environments and societies. Cesar Tort 22:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the statement a few sentences down address that point:

"Some anti-psychiatrists also claim psychiatrists disproportionately focus on understanding the genetics of those individuals with mental health 'problems', at the expense of addressing individuals who may adversely influence the wider environment, to worsen or cause mental health problems for others"

I think the the point about using genetic terminology incorrectly is a separate point - that calling genetic differences a weakness when it is really only a difference, reinforces their assertion that it is a genetic disease. Also, if you wish to use "problems of the living" then you need a source. Rockpocket 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the paragraph you just quoted is written in a rather opaque prose for a public encyclopedia. What about replacing it with my paragraph and I just add a source for “problems of the living” (actually, living in extremely abusive and heart-breaking homes —the trauma model)? Cesar Tort 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, i have no problems with that (as for the source, i simply ask for one because you have the phrase in quotes). Rockpocket 23:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)