Talk:Rosenhan experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rosenhan experiment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] I deleted the Postman garbage

It's nonsense, propounded by a member of a nonsense pseudoscientific group. After deleting it, I saw the discussion below, but I don't care to waste my time arguing with fools. If you have a vote on this, consider this a vote in favor of removing that section. 128.12.186.193 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The non-existent impostor experiment

It says "...Rosenhan used a well-known research and teaching hospital...". Does anyone know what one? It seems like that'd be an important thing to include in that section Lyo 21:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

There is a description of this experiment at On Being Sane in Insane Places. Another page with the exact same title, except for capitalization, already redirects here. Merging would involve either just blanking the On Being Sane in Insane Places page, which would be a shame to the people who worked on it, or finding some way to edit them together, and I don't know the field well enough to do it justice. Anyone else want to try? Thatcher131 04:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a wise move. --Davril2020 10:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal now void, executed by Tombrend, who does not feel like bothering to log in. You are quite welcome. -68.230.150.72

Is very interesting reading the old page, I kind of feel it should still exist because it had bits of information there which is not contained here. Anyway, I'll link to the last version of it for reference: On Being Sane in Insane Places Mathmo Talk 04:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postman

The excerpt of Neil Postman's critique at the bottom smells of postmodern claptrap, without any interesting or unusual insight into the experiment. I propose that it be removed. This was an experiment into psychiatric diagnoses, not the fluid nature of language and semantic uncertainty.

[edit] Postman Part 2

I have removed Postman's section from the criticisms and pasted it below. As noted above, this was a psychiatric experiment, and a critique based upon general semantics does not seem relevant. Discuss if you want to include it again. 64.178.101.32 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Neil Postman provides an incisive critique of this experiment from the viewpoint of General Semantics in his book Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk (pgs. 233-236, Delacorte Press, New York, 1976):

... Dr. Rosenhan believes that his pseudopatients are "sane" because 1) they did not, in fact, hear any strange voices and 2) they claimed they did only as part of an "experiment." But from another and wider angle, the pseudopatients can be judged to be, if not insane, then at least very curious people. Why, for example, would a "normal" person deliberately have himself committed to a mental hospital? How many people do you know who would even contemplate such an act? And if you knew someone who actually went through with it, you might think that a mental hospital is exactly where he belongs -- with or without strange voices. But Dr. Rosenhan and his co-conspirators have legitimized the act -- have "sanified" it, if you will -- by calling it "an experiment." To them, an experiment is a semantic environment of unimpeachable legitimacy -- which is to say, experimenters do not need to explain their behaviour. Not only that, but Dr. Rosenhan wrote an article about his "experiment" which got published in a prestigious scientific journal. And so, Dr. Rosenhan, his pseudopatients, and the editors of Science magazine think they are all quite sane, that patients who do hear voices are insane, and that the doctors who labeled the experimenters "schizophrenic" are unreliable. I do not say that they are wrong. But it is just as reasonable to suppose that Dr. Rosenhan and his pseudopatients are strange and unreliable people themselves, and that the doctors in the mental hospitals were entirely competent and judicious. What Science magazine should have done is published two articles -- one by Dr. Rosenhan about his experiment and another, from a broader perspective, about people who do such experiments and the various labels which might be used to evaluate their behaviour. The first article would probably come under the heading of "psychology" (which Dr. Rosenhan is a professor of). The second would come under the heading of "meta-semantics." ... Neil Postman

[edit] Reply to those who would delete Postman excerpt

The excerpt from Neil Postman (a widely published and respected social critic and cultural commentator, rather more so than the anonymous people who would delete this excerpt) is 1) lucid 2) civilized and 3) offers (but does not insist on) an alternative interpretation which exposes the hidden or implicit assumptions of the Rosenhan experiment. It is not trivial or frivolous. It is not a casual or unconsidered opinion by Postman; it is based on his knowledge of the power of social role structures. I had known of the Rosenhan experiment for twenty years, but when I read Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk (which I highly recommend for the possibility of some genuine enlightenment) some ten years ago I thought - "hmmm... I never thought of it that way. But he has a definite point." 142.103.168.16 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Knock off the ad hominem attacks; they are not helpful. The Rosenhan experiment was an exercise in psychiatry, not semantics, and the article reflects almost exclusively a concern for how the experiment affected psychiatrists and the psychiatric community. That's not to say that that's how the article has to be; that's just how it is right now. If you would like for the Postman excerpt to be relevant, then you or someone else should put some context into the article so that the reader understands from whence he is making the statement. Otherwise, its insertion is confusing and does not add anything. There you go. 64.178.101.32 23:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's any reason to include philosophical conjecture, by a media analyst writing in an out-of-print book, in an article about scientific testing of science-based medical practice. (It might very well make a useful addition to the article about Postman himself.) I have removed the discussion of Postman's "incisive critique" again. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, the Postman excerpt is a serious, relevant, important intellectual critique (there is more context given in the book itself, but I believe the excerpt is enough to make the essential point) by a well-respected critic. I agree that its insertion is "confusing" -- "confusing" in the sense that it challenges the whole dominant "frame" of interpretation of the experiment -- WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT of the excerpt, which should make its relevance and importance to this entry self-evident. I do not believe that the deletors are acting in intellectual good faith. Delete it again, and I will take the issue to adjudication. There is much that can be said about the relation of psychiatry to general semantics -- you could start with Wendell Johnson's classic People in Quandries: the semantics of personal adjustment (1946, still in print) but I do not believe that I have to write this essay (an interesting essay, to be sure) to justify the inclusion of the Postman excerpt. 137.82.188.68 21:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I realize you're not convinced. I doubt you ever will be. I have again removed the Postman text. Do what you feel is necessary. (We probably could use additional input.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


No, I won't be convinced -- because you're wrong (that the Postman excerpt should be deleted, not that you are required to agree with it) -- is that impossible? I looked at the contact Wikipedia business for edit wars and it looked rather tiresome (I mean in the number of steps required, call for comment, discussion, mediation, arbitration as a last resort.) If you are familiar with this process, could you do it? That is, call for comment or get a few other people's opinions? I believe the asymmetry in effort would be suitable given that you want to delete information from an encyclopedia entry. 137.82.188.68 00:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
We're interested in putting relevant information in an encyclopedia entry; sometimes that means adding and sometimes that means deleting. Your explanation above does not suffice; that is, an excerpt or quote does not create its own context. Explain why Postman's critique is important, or I will, or remove the quote entirely. You must have some valid rationale for including it beyond "the reason for its inclusion is self-evident from the excerpt."64.178.101.32 06:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Well, I agree that in general an excerpt or quote does not create its own context, but a sufficiently lengthy quotation does provide the context for the point being made, and I believe that I have done this -- provided enough Postman, that is. The important point being made is the possibility -- by no means fanciful -- of challenging or even reversing the conventional semantic interpretation of the Rosenhan Experiment. I can't say it better than Postman, which is why I typed the excerpt in, but here are a few related points:

  • The excerpt is at the end of the entry, as it should be -- that is, the entry puts the conventional argument on the table first, and the challenge comes at the end. I'm not trying to interfere in the middle of the discussion.
  • This criticism doesn't come out of nowhere; I note the lifetime work of dissident psychiatrist Thomas Szasz on the historical and social construction of mental illness, and a 1995 book by psychologist Paula J. Caplan They Say You're Crazy : how the world's most powerful psychiatrists decide who's normal on the politics of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Those that have read Szasz (I have) might protest that his work might be seen more as support for the dominant interpretation of the Rosenhan Experiment. But the Postman quote is about a challenge to the semantic incontestability of psychology "experiments" and this pattern is very much along the lines of Szasz in examining the semantic fluidity of psychiatric diagnoses. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  • Here is my own semantic analysis example, along the lines of Postman's excerpt: There is claimed to be a medical condition called Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) afflicting schoolchildren (mostly male) in the U.S. and Canada and treated with Ritalin, an amphetamine. To an excellent first approximation there can be no such condition if you are coercing someone's attendance -- that is, they want to be somewhere else and doing something else and you won't let them leave. Why are the children suffering from ADHD instead of the teacher suffering from BTS (Boring Teacher Syndrome)? It is a pure mystification of social control. If adults leave a public performance (either a lecture or theatrical performance) in droves -- either in boredom or disgust -- then they are not stopped at the door and drugged to remain, the judgement is against the performer(s), not the audience.

Again, I really believe there is genuine wisdom available from Postman's Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk and I recommend doubters consult their library or used book store (or abebooks.com or alibris.com) for a copy. I wrote Postman before his death asking him to get this book back in print. 142.103.168.15 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any edits, being an anonymous user and all, but I object to the use of the word "incisive" when describing Postman's critique. In fact, I object to the inclusion of Postman's critique in general, but if you're going to include it, please remove words like "incisive," as it displays a clear lack of neutrality. It is hardly consensus that Postman is making any kind of valid and "incisive" point. 02:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Issues

What does not seem to be mentioned anywhere is that Rosenhan is also an emeritus faculty member in law, and probably for good reason. Psychiatrists may be called upon to testify in legal proceedings, and the difference between a "sane" person and one who is "insane" is significant in a courtroom. For example, if a respected metaphysicist and award-winning social critic were deemed to be insane by testimony from multiple psychiatrists, there might be cause for that person to lose custody of their children, lose control of their bank accounts, etc. On the other hand, if a similarly respected psychiatrist were labeled insane by a well-known metaphysicist, that metaphysicist might sell some books and generate publicity, but she might find herself on the end of a lawsuit for slander and/or libel as well, I don't know.

The point here is that these distinctions go beyond semantics, and I agree that Postman's comments should also be deleted. This is not my wiki, but the fact that a casual observer can see these problems immediately does, in my humble opinion, detract from the credibility of the discussion and the value of Mr. Rosenhan's contributions.71.116.145.130 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation of the above user's point is that because the actual social power coupled to the different semantic interpretations is not at all symmetric (absolutely true in general, as one would discover in a moment if you tried to make a "citizen's arrest" of a uniformed policeman) it is better as a practical matter that psychiatrists that have the power of legal committal (and other powers granted them by the legal system) should be put on the intellectual defensive by the Rosenhan Experiment rather than Rosenhan be put on the defensive. Maybe so. Not all truths are socially beneficial. But the truth of Postman's central criticism -- that Rosenhan and his collaborators treat "an experiment as a semantic environment of unimpeachable legitimacy" -- remains.

137.82.188.68 19:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that the psychiatric profession voluntarily accepted the legitimacy of the results by altering its collective behavior after the experiment, rather than putting Rosenhan on the defensive and rebutting or neutralizing his conclusions. Have Postman's observations - "true" or not, "legitimate" or not, had similar effects on the profession even remotely comparable to that of Rosenhan's? Postman's central criticism may be true, but it is irrelevant and does not belong on this page, in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.150.89 (talk • contribs).

Your position is intellectually incoherent. It can't be the case that a serious argument that strikes at the heart of the conventional semantic interpretation of an experiment is irrelevant to the discussion of that experiment. You might as well say that the last five minutes of a surprise-ending movie are irrelevant to the rest of the movie. Charitably, you are confusing power-in-the-world with the thing-in-itself. Also, it is the height of sociological naivety (or naivety about institutional psychology, if you prefer that term) to think that an entire profession would "alter its collective behaviour" on the basis of a single psychological experiment involving eight people! (Does the criminal justice system radically transform itself because of a few well-publicized mis-carriages of justice -- David Milgaard, Donald Marshall, Guy-Paul Morin here in Canada?) More sensibly, committing psychiatrists might have paid (and do pay) lip service to Rosenhan -- a rather different thing. (See, e.g. Murray Edelman's Political Language: Words that succeed and policies that fail, 1977 on this general subject of lip service in politics.)

137.82.82.135 02:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Incisive" critique"

Despite my continued opposition to the inclusion of the Postman critique, I have elected to remove the word "incisive" from the introductory sentence to the excerpt and leave it be otherwise. The word "incisive" is inappropriately POV language for an encyclopedia. Unless a quoted source is calling it "incisive," leave out such descriptive terms. 216.193.173.189 07:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently that request was too difficult for someone. Leave out "incisive." This article already has enough problems with people fighting over the Postman quote--don't escalate it over a single word. Yes, the rules apply to you, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.193.173.189 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The rationale given for the restoration is this:
"incisive" is a valid descriptive modifier ("quick and direct" as, e.g., opposed to "verbose") of the *nature* of the critique following.)
No. Incisive does mean quick and direct, but with the associated understanding of sharpness of intellect, which is a distinctly POV take on the quote. I will include some other appropriate modifier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.193.173.189 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to interject some actual facts here, incisive is defined as follows:
For this most part, it is indeed used as a complimentary term, and so isn't really suitable for NPOV, although such a compliment may be expressed by a cited reliable source. Hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recently analysed in Adam Curtis' new documentary on BBC called The Trap Episode 1

The Trap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series) BBC Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=trap Adam Curtis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0979263/ Its now on google video too ...Smullaney 14:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related Experiments

In the second paragraph of the related experiments section, there is some inconsistency. The text refers to a transcipt of a patient, but refers to multiple patients later in the sentence. Further, it isn't clear whether "them" refers to the patients or the doctors.

Iain marcuson 09:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/s/Talk%7ERosenhan_experiment_a962.html"