I've known a few philosophy graduates who prided themselves on a scientific, secular outlook and a tough-minded capacity for critical thinking.
Yet they were Psychiatry Inc true believers and regarded any skepticism of the field as raging antipsychiatry conspiracy theories crawling out of the mouths of unhinged patients and religious nuts.
It wouldn't matter how much evidence for serious problems you could marshall, their mind was made up that modern day mental health had acquired evidence-based scientific respectability and should not be questioned.
So it seems to me that independent critical thinking, as crucial as it is, is not enough. There needs to be an openness, flexibility, and emotional maturity and literacy.
You'll find on occasion some serious Mensa-level nerds in philosophy departments but they'll believe all sorts of garbage because though they may have brilliant minds, they have the emotionality of a dysregulated five year old which warps their perspective.
I've come across a couple of philosophers who were committed to a physicalist account of all matters of mind, esp. mental disorder. Not one of them would offer a valid argument, or any argument, to justify that position. Same with psychiatrists, who generally aren't as bright and certainly have no education in philosophy of any sort, they refuse to justify their beliefs. Like the clown who said incorrect reductionist models of mental disorder still qualify as models. He was invited to name the model he used but refused to respond.
My concern with this piss-witted "critical thinking" course is that they will use it to justify closing their narrow minds even further: "You can't criticise me, I've done the critical thinking course."
This is all personality, most of them are only trying to dominate the conversation. As for high intelligence, Garrison Keillor said: "Intelligence is like a four wheel drive: it lets you get stuck in much more interesting and isolated places." He also said of one rich person: "A $50 haircut on a $1.50 head."
Thanks for this excellent overview of the critical psychiatry course. Obviously, in rejecting your paper without review, and considering that you are a highly published critical thinker, they show that they are not at all inclined to critical thinking. Carolyn
Are they hypocrites, or are they so lacking in insight that they don't even meet the low bar of hypocrisy? I think it's the latter. They're like children clutching each other in the dark.
Great post Dr. McLaren, you provide very wise and much needed critiques as psychiatry is really stuck in their own rigid, narrow minded, self-serving 'critical' thinking. 😣
I've known a few philosophy graduates who prided themselves on a scientific, secular outlook and a tough-minded capacity for critical thinking.
Yet they were Psychiatry Inc true believers and regarded any skepticism of the field as raging antipsychiatry conspiracy theories crawling out of the mouths of unhinged patients and religious nuts.
It wouldn't matter how much evidence for serious problems you could marshall, their mind was made up that modern day mental health had acquired evidence-based scientific respectability and should not be questioned.
So it seems to me that independent critical thinking, as crucial as it is, is not enough. There needs to be an openness, flexibility, and emotional maturity and literacy.
You'll find on occasion some serious Mensa-level nerds in philosophy departments but they'll believe all sorts of garbage because though they may have brilliant minds, they have the emotionality of a dysregulated five year old which warps their perspective.
PS. I'm reminded of a quote by Helen Keller:
"Being blind is bad, but having eyes, and not being able to see, is tragic."
I've come across a couple of philosophers who were committed to a physicalist account of all matters of mind, esp. mental disorder. Not one of them would offer a valid argument, or any argument, to justify that position. Same with psychiatrists, who generally aren't as bright and certainly have no education in philosophy of any sort, they refuse to justify their beliefs. Like the clown who said incorrect reductionist models of mental disorder still qualify as models. He was invited to name the model he used but refused to respond.
My concern with this piss-witted "critical thinking" course is that they will use it to justify closing their narrow minds even further: "You can't criticise me, I've done the critical thinking course."
This is all personality, most of them are only trying to dominate the conversation. As for high intelligence, Garrison Keillor said: "Intelligence is like a four wheel drive: it lets you get stuck in much more interesting and isolated places." He also said of one rich person: "A $50 haircut on a $1.50 head."
Thanks for this excellent overview of the critical psychiatry course. Obviously, in rejecting your paper without review, and considering that you are a highly published critical thinker, they show that they are not at all inclined to critical thinking. Carolyn
Are they hypocrites, or are they so lacking in insight that they don't even meet the low bar of hypocrisy? I think it's the latter. They're like children clutching each other in the dark.
Great post Dr. McLaren, you provide very wise and much needed critiques as psychiatry is really stuck in their own rigid, narrow minded, self-serving 'critical' thinking. 😣