Psychiatry’s playbook is about to get torn up | Science Quickly Podcast
Psychiatry’s playbook is about to get torn up | Science Quickly Podcast
I have been saying for over a decade now that this "mental disorders" business is indeed a lot of business and not much science. You cannot categorize people like that and put them into boxes like ADHD, Depression, Bipolar, etc.. People's mental states are far more complex.
But it works well to have these labels in our trade-based society where everything needs to be in boxes, so that insurance companies, drug companies, or companies who employ people can "understand" that Jen is depressed, will prescribe her some pills through an insurance company, and Jen can get some paid leave.
Yet in the process no one understood what made Jen feel that way or how to fix her problems. Maybe she has little money, little time, maybe she is stress that her rent increased or her brain is a mush because her phone is consuming her life with ads and data collection. Trades trades trades.
Now Jen can anesthetize herself with some prescribed medicine, and can get back to her life soon.
So WOW now finally the people in charge of the bible of mental disorders, DSM, are starting to see through their thin diagnosis practice and say perhaps things need to change since you cannot do any medical test to see if someone has ADHD, or is depressed or whatever...
How about (I know wild idea) when people have problems we try to understand what causes these problems and try to help them!? Housing, access to free healthcare, access to a fucking life that is not about being a worker!
I wrote a book all about this tromsite.com/trombooks/#flipbo… and a smaller one too tromsite.com/trombooks/#flipbo…
And had a great chat with a psychologist and psychiatrist -
Help the fucking people and stop pretending that we can fit in these narrow boxes.
#psychology #psychiatry #mentalillness #mentaldisorders #adhd #depression #trom #tromsite #dsm
TROMcast: Mental Disorders
Our guests today are:Joanna Moncrieff:
She is a practicing psychiatrist and a part-time academic and author. Her work is focused on the use, misuse and misrepresentation of psychiatric drugs. For 10 years Joanna was a consultant for a psychiatric rehabilitation inpatient unit, helping people with severe and long-lasting mental health problems. For the last 3 years Joanna has been based in various community mental health services in North East London. She teaches and does research at the University College London.
Joanna is one of the founding members and the co-chair person of the Critical Psychiatry Network, which consists of a group of psychiatrists from around the world who are skeptical of the idea that mental disorders are simply brain diseases and of the dominance of the pharmaceutical industry.
joannamoncrieff.com/about/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_M…Lucy Johnstone:
She is a UK clinical psychologist, trainer, speaker and writer, and a long-standing critic of the biomedical model of psychiatry. Lucy has authored a number of books, articles and chapters on topics such as psychiatric diagnosis, formulation, the psychological effects of ECT, and the role of trauma in breakdown.
She is currently convening a group of leading UK clinical psychologists and mental health experts who are working to develop an evidence-based and conceptually coherent alternative to the current diagnostic systems.
adisorder4everyone.com/bio/luc…
Useful links:
- The Power Threat Meaning Framework website: bps.org.uk/power-threat-meanin…
- A straight talking introduction to the Power Threat Meaning Framework: pccs-books.co.uk/products/a-st…
- A straight talking introduction to psychiatric diagnosis: pccs-books.co.uk/products/sti-…
- A disorder for everyone! www.adisorder4everyone.com
- Mad in the UK www.madintheuk.com
- joannamoncrieff.com/
- pccs-books.co.uk/products/a-st…
- amazon.co.uk/Bitterest-Pills-T…
- amazon.co.uk/Myth-Chemical-Cur…
Home - Mad in the UK
Fundamentally re-thinking UK mental health practice and promoting positive change. Blogs. News. Artwork. Podcasts. Part of the Mad in America family.Mad in the UK
like this
TROM, Amina Jojo, Roma, -jonny-, Georgi and Alien (A23P) like this.
-jonny-
in reply to Tio • • •You might enjoy this excelent (and funny) talk of Jon Rappoport who exactly talks about this topic.
youtube.com/watch?v=_noA7-qY26β¦
Mind Control | Jon Rappoport
secretspaceprogram (YouTube)Tio
in reply to -jonny- • •-jonny-
in reply to Tio • • •Amina Jojo likes this.
Tio
in reply to -jonny- • •I will have to give this a pass then. If there is anything para-normal it is either "we do not know what this is" and leave it as that, or it can be explained with science and thus is nothing "para" about it.
What I am talking about, and what psychologists and psychiatrists are recommending is to be more honest about the labeling of human behavior in this simplistic DSM way, and focus on what makes people struggle mentally. Sure may be that the pharmaceutical industry is enjoying the livestock approach where they sell pills for these mental disorders and they push for the labeling, but the focus is on the positive side to understand that these behaviors are complex and need help more than just some pills.
It is sad and terrible to combine this valid criticism of the current diagnosis of mental disorders with "paranormal" and all sort of conspiracies.
Amina Jojo likes this.
Amina Jojo
in reply to Tio • • •Psychic phenomena tend to be dismissed, but only by today's western culture.
That psychiatric medicine "medicate[s] people out of it" fits with what a friend once told me, namely that the medicine he had to take closed his "third eye".
The Power Threat Meaning Framework makes sense. But as long as therapies are covered by insurances one will need at least an assessment by the doctor that one has to be treated.
Tio
in reply to Amina Jojo • •I very much doubt that there is a suppression of seeing a different reality via the Psychiatric field, other than seeing how this trade based society consumes us and makes us idiots and depressed.
What makes "Psychic phenomena" remain in the realm of fantasy is their lack of scientific validity.
Amina Jojo
in reply to Tio • • •@Tio
I too don't think this is deliberate. If you ask me it's just an unconscious outcome of a misled approach to what is known as "mental disorders". Mental processes are described as electricity in the brain, fuelled by neurotransmitters. That's one reason why mental illnesses are treated with pharmaceuticals.
Psychic Phenomena can be validated, and have been for a long time. Take for example Rupert Sheldrake's experiments with phone calls, a more recent validation which you can read about here: sheldrake.org/research/telepat⦠I must add that I haven't read this particular text, but know about these experiments from one of Sheldrake's books.
The question why it is dismissed remains open. I think one reason is that it seems to contradict today's common sense. Belief systems are tough. Research in this field is a reputation killer.
A Filmed Experiment on Telephone Telepathy with the Nolan Sisters
Rupert Sheldrake β Author and BiologistTio
in reply to Amina Jojo • •-jonny-
in reply to Tio • • •If you are interested in looking past your prejudices, I recommend to you the books of Dean Radin, especially his latest piece called The Science of Magic. (I got to know him through Jon Rappoport, by the way.)
Amina Jojo likes this.
Tio
in reply to -jonny- • •Amina Jojo
in reply to Tio • • •@Tio
Wikipedia is common sense. I haven't read it, because I think I know the main argument, and would have used it myself some time ago. It's how I was educated in school and at home. If there is something in the article you want me to answer to, please tell me.
Apart from that I recommend thinking about Sheldrake's experiment, and what it would mean if it wasn't fake.
Not having seen the Rappaport video (@-jonny-), to me it is clear that the recognition of psychic phenomena would have an impact on how mental illnesses are percieved and treated, apart from the diagnosis issue.
-jonny- likes this.
Tio
in reply to Amina Jojo • •en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathβ¦
Case closed. There is nothing we can talk about if there is science and experiments showing this obvious thing is nonsense. I would like you to kindly accept that and move on. Am definitely not interested to talk about telepathy in 2026 no more than talking about witches.
Amina Jojo likes this.
-jonny-
in reply to Tio • • •The Shamanic View of Mental Illness
UPLIFTAmina Jojo likes this.
Tio
in reply to -jonny- • •Seeing these states of mind as something different than a "mental disorder" is normal, specially in different cultures, but that does not make wishful thinking and fantasies become reality. There is no such thing as "spirit". Only perhaps as a metaphor. You are your brain, and that is cells (neurons).
I can't believe I have to explain these....
Amina Jojo likes this.
Amina Jojo
in reply to Tio • • •@Tio
Thank you. So this is what you're referring to. All I know is that there is controversy among scientists about the topic. Sheldrake is a biologist, and his approach in the case I linked to you is simple, and scientific, and there are others, too.
And no, I'm not my brain.
-jonny- likes this.
Tio
in reply to Amina Jojo • •like this
Georgi and Amina Jojo like this.
Amina Jojo
in reply to Tio • • •Thank you for linking the article about Shamanism, and referring to "the dark night of the soul". Rappoport is also bookmarked.
-jonny- likes this.
-jonny-
in reply to Tio • • •@Tio My friend, I really don't feel the urge to argue with you, since it is very hard to argue with someone who obviously has some kind of superiority complex. Believing your truth is the only one out there is arrogant at best (or fascist at worst). Keep your materialistic world view if it suits you. I have nothing against it. In fact I have been there myself. My opinion about paranormal phenomena though is not based on a Wikipedia article (which btw is not a very reliable and far from scientific source to quote). It is based on personal experience.
Which concludes this topic for me. I guess the only thing we have in common is our love for free software. That's okay.
Have a nice day.
Amina Jojo likes this.
Tio
in reply to -jonny- • •-jonny-
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to -jonny- • •Quite an irony for you to say that when you are talking about a total nonsense that has been debunked by scientists via the scientific method for hundreds of years now, and by scientists from all around the world. You need to understand what science is. Experiments, replication from independent organizations, measurements, etc.. Not some dude who makes a youtube video or some book written by who-knows-who.
But man such an irony for you to associate me with a religious fundamentalist. I wish you could see the astonishing stupidity you have soaked yourself into. But you won't. As it usually is with those who are "awake" and "against science" or "scientism" as they call it. What a joke.
Let's move on. You go live in your make-belief fantasy and I live in a scientific reality. And we can ignore each other. I think that would be better for both of us.
Go believe in whatever you want, the world is a mess anyway it won't make any difference, we are already in the Idiocracy era.
-jonny-
in reply to Tio • • •How generous of you. Finally! Thank you.
I have just one last question. You seem to have the need to lecture me about what βscienceβ is. Like a religious person that wants to convince me how and why his religion is better. Why is that? (Iβm asking because I hold a scientific degree for over a decade now and am well aware about its benefits and its limitations)
I never said I am βanti scienceβ. Far away from it! The scientific method is an incredibly valuable tool (even for paranormal phenomena). And since I am 100% certain about that I donβt have the need to convince anyone.
Tio
in reply to -jonny- • •I am far from lecturing you, all I am saying is that you go against what is scientifically proven at this moment in regards to that "paranormal phenomena". You make extraordinary claims, and you need ofc extraordinary evidence. Don't take it with me, the random fedi guy, go do some science with your scientific background and prove that these "paranormal phenomena" are actually scientifically valid. Until then they are not. If you want to accept it or not, it is a different question....
When something is scientifically proven to be factual we have no choice but to accept it. And so would I if these "paranormal phenomena" will be scientifically valid.
We can't solve this issue here. Go do the science.
-jonny-
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to -jonny- • •There is a reason why you make "is" italic in "The science is there" because even you probably understand that the "paranormal phenomena" is not accepted by the scientific consensus. Nothing scientifically proven. It is floating around circles of people who proclaim is something scientific about it, while in fact they lack any scientific proof to make it science.
I can't help you I'm afraid..."paranormal phenomena" is fantasy. Until it is proven to be anything scientific about these phenomena we can leave it as that....try to be humble and accept this reality.
-jonny-
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to -jonny- • •-jonny-
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to -jonny- • •-jonny-
in reply to Tio • • •That's because you don't know me Tio. Actually, you don't know anything about me. You are merely projecting your prejudices onto me based upon some text I've written. But I must admit it was really funny, so I guess I have to thank you for making me laugh.
Now, if you had read what I wrote earlier, you would have noticed that my opinion is based on personal experience. Not on pretending, not wishful thinking, and certainly not on a Wikipedia article. But you chose to put something in my mouth that came right out of your imagination. That's not "humbleness", that is pure ignorance paired with arrogance.
Tio
in reply to -jonny- • •Alien (A23P)
in reply to Tio • •"When something is scientifically proven to be factual we have no choice but to accept it."
This is tantamount to not only saying "trust the science", but also a gross misunderstanding of what "science" itself is.
At the end of the day, "science", may be likened to a philosophical branch that begins with a premise of
"We don't know sh*t"
(regarding THE "truth"),
which then progresses to,
"in an attempt to know sh*t, we're gonna fook around to try to find out and record our results."
BUT, it doesn't stop there, because the whole reason to "f around and find out" paired with recording results is two fold:
A. The first assumption, "we don't know sh*t"
B. So that others can then also "f around and find out if the conclusions drawn from our previous attempt(s) still seem solid"
The part B. is crucial, because implicated in that is the fact that
... Show more...SCIENCE DOESN'T TRUST THE SCIENCE.
"scientific fact" ≠ Truth
and NO WHERE in the sciences has "scientific fact" EVER meant anything more than "we f'd around to try to find out and sh*t still SE
"When something is scientifically proven to be factual we have no choice but to accept it."
This is tantamount to not only saying "trust the science", but also a gross misunderstanding of what "science" itself is.
At the end of the day, "science", may be likened to a philosophical branch that begins with a premise of
"We don't know sh*t"
(regarding THE "truth"),
which then progresses to,
"in an attempt to know sh*t, we're gonna fook around to try to find out and record our results."
BUT, it doesn't stop there, because the whole reason to "f around and find out" paired with recording results is two fold:
A. The first assumption, "we don't know sh*t"
B. So that others can then also "f around and find out if the conclusions drawn from our previous attempt(s) still seem solid"
The part B. is crucial, because implicated in that is the fact that
SCIENCE DOESN'T TRUST THE SCIENCE.
"scientific fact" β Truth
and NO WHERE in the sciences has "scientific fact" EVER meant anything more than "we f'd around to try to find out and sh*t still SEEMS solid"
In FACT, one can find SCIENTIFIC records of previous "scientific facts" having been discarded, changed, or otherwise revised throughout virtually all scientific history.
"Psychology", in many respects, then does in FACT become a "Pseudo Science" in many regards.
Why?
Well for one, not in the DSM, nor much of anywhere in the "(academic/mainstream) sciences" is one going to find a cold hard "scientific" definition of "consciousness."
Or, as I often like to say,
"I may perhaps forever find myself perplexed by how, to the tune of billions, people came to accept as both experts and leaders, those that could not explain to them what consciousness is, yet had the audacity to sell them life insurance."
Next, "Psychology" frequently bypasses the part B. of the "scientific philosophy" by making assertions while leaving no repeatable observable record of how one may go about to
"f around and find out if our prior results still seem solid".
People like to detach "science" from "philosophy" for some reason, and it's a grave error, because as noted, SCIENCE IS A BRANCH OF PHILOSOPHY.
Similarly in grave error, people mistake "science" as some sort of establishment of "truth", when the fact is that more than an "establishment of truth", it's simply a philosophical approach to "seeking truth". Further, because science is merely "truth seeking" as opposed to "truth establishing", SCIENCE DOESN'T TRUST THE SCIENCE (never has, never will).
Tio
in reply to Alien (A23P) • •Oh man one more...
Science is the best tool we have. Period. And yes science always changes and improves. But what is today scientifically valid it is the best we have and the truth-est truth. And that can change.
All of this philosophical talk is a lot of poop drops. Let's keep it to the point.
Alien (A23P)
in reply to Tio • •Foundational corner stones aren't poop drops mate.
And saying "science is the BEST tool we have" is itself, scientifically, a bit of a stretch. Is it "a" tool, yes. Far as it being "the best"....
May we remember Goddell....
math.uni-hamburg.de/home/khomsβ¦
And as already prior noted, one may have fun in attempts to bring their "scientific facts" regarding what consciousness is.
*and if one can't establish that cornerstone, where's that leave the "psychological sciences"?*
My intent here, more than arguing for or against things "paranormal", Rapport, Wikipedia, etc.
was simply to try to help keep arguments and/or debates from one way or another stretching outside their own boundaries.
Such said, in a look to placating appeals to "scientific fact"; the further work on Goddell has been offered for standing FACT on current and running "scientific facts".
Tio
in reply to Alien (A23P) • •"mate" if is not science what is? Tell me a better method to find out what is happening in the world? And by that I mean how we discover stuff, know stuff. If science cannot explain something, neither can you.
Am so tired of these para-people with their own theories, thinking they are above the scientific method.
Tio
Unknown parent • •