"Second point: there is absolutely no justification anywhere in the psychiatric literature, or psychological, or neurosciences, or philosophy, that allows anybody to state that mental disorder is genetic in origin(..)".
Well, there are dozens of genetic conditions which determine certain psychological (cognitive etc) deficits.
Phenylketonuria (PKU), a metabolic disorder, if not treated, may lead to severe intellectual disability, epilepsy, memory and attention problems etc etc.
So genetics matters. Or, as some prefer, epigenetics matters.
P.S. I would add these:
*Fragile X syndrome
*Down syndrome (trisomy 21)
*Huntington’s disease
*Certain forms of frontotemporal dementia and other neurodegenerative disorders
*Rare Mendelian neurodevelopmental syndromes identified by modern sequencing
But isn't that the point- a genuine metabolic disorder like PKU or a disease like Huntington's has known causes (identity statements) where as the psychiatric ones are assumed to have known causes but they need to be found first hence all this bullshit research.
I agree. The original definitions of mental disorders all specified that the symptoms exist "in the absence of coarse brain disease." That would include the biochemical lesions of PKU etc. Nobody disputes that brain damage affects mental function but the question is whether there can be mental dysfunction in the absence of brain disease or damage of any kind. I say there can be: PTSD is an example. if there is brain damage caused by psychological stressors, then that has to be explained. It possibly can via epigenetic effects of say emotional or sensory deprivation in early childhood, I doubt very much it can in adulthood.
That's not all: those who want to believe that genetic impairments directly and exclusively cause mental disorders have to postulate some sort of mechanism. It's that point they haven't addressed. Meantime, the biocognitive model fills the gap they have left by showing that pure mental events can cause self-sustaining distress and impairment, as can happen in any data processing mechanism.
"Social hygiene" has been embedded in western culture for hundreds of years. Britain justified the practice of shipping off undesirables to the colonies. The United States enacted legislation banning interracial marriage, and against the sentiments of the majority, particularly those whose religious beliefs held human life sacred, people deemed to be "feeble minded" or guilty of petty crime deserving of sterilisation. Tens of thousands were sterilised in the 19th and 20th centuries.
There were social movements that railed against the ministration of comfort to the poor, based on the idea that perpetuating the reproduction of inferior human stock would weaken the development of a prosperous society. The American Breeders Association was co-opted by eugenicists to control the proliferation of people who didn't fit the social model that the proponents sought to enforce.
These eugenic tropes have re-emerged in our own times. White supremacy has never dissipated. Christian fundamentalists are embedded in US administrations and there are those who are campaigning for America to become a theocracy. Slavery has never disappeared, as evidenced in Australia in this week's 4 corners. When slavery was "abolished" in the US, hessian bags and rope were still needed, so for-profit warehousing of the less fortunate established itself as a successful business model. Voting rights were a long time coming and even today there are ways and means (not to mention money) to prevent people electing representatives that could serve their interests.
Germany adopted America's eugenic philosophy and there were those in the US who wished that they had the freedom to adopt Germany's measures back home. Wealth and privilege at the time included such identities as Carnegie, Alexander Graham Bell and Nicola Tesla took up the eugenic cause well into the 20th century. Sound familiar?
For decades eugenicists sought to blur the distinction between genetics as a science and eugenics as a social movement.
America's preparedness to incarcerate people regarded as dangerous doesn't reflect the danger that they pose to society, but rather a " justice system" that for many is cruel, inhumane and a product of a culture that fails to live up to its constitutional aspirations.
The attitudes and philosphical positions of psychiatrists described in these historical records surely prompts questions as to the role of psychiatry in the process of incarcerating people in the present day. Do notions of "normality" shape clinical judgement as to who should be in and who should be out? At an operational level, the boundary between people on the one hand who may seek asylum from the travails of their existence, and those on the other who are kept out of society for society's benefit potentially disappears. Pills all round?
(That such decisions hinge upon distinctions that are entirely arbitrary should make every person apprehensive. ) My impression is that as well as being deprived of their freedom, our culture condones additional de-humanisation of prison populations.
I spoke the other day with someone who had spent some time in prison who described the indifference and disregard of her medical needs by prison staff. The attitude of the majority of staff in her experience was of people who took no pride or interest in the welfare of inmates.
Prisons contain many people who would identify as mentally ill, many with intellectual disabilities and substance dependence. May their voices be heard and resonate with those of us outside.
My impression has long been that the major factor in deciding who will be detained in psychiatry is whether anything will go wrong that will be blamed on the psychiatrist for not locking them up. Therefore detain everybody who could possibly cause trouble, which is everybody. As for prisons, the staff look on the inmates as material to be processed, much as people who work in a rubbish sorting depot look on the incoming rubbish as something to be processed so they can get paid.
I'm sure i have seen on numerous occasions the inclusion of Dementia and Alzheimer when papers talk about psychiatric conditions, as if the inclusion of two legitimate disease processes legitimize the psychiatric terms.
The psychologists and neurosciences are just as bad marching to beat of the biological drum. For example, by putting the word psychological in front of resilience (there is no actual reason for the word psychology to exist) it becomes a thing and a paper suggests we must research the "neural correlates" of psychological resilience. This is genuinely how ideas are come up with in psychology.
"Second point: there is absolutely no justification anywhere in the psychiatric literature, or psychological, or neurosciences, or philosophy, that allows anybody to state that mental disorder is genetic in origin(..)".
Well, there are dozens of genetic conditions which determine certain psychological (cognitive etc) deficits.
Phenylketonuria (PKU), a metabolic disorder, if not treated, may lead to severe intellectual disability, epilepsy, memory and attention problems etc etc.
So genetics matters. Or, as some prefer, epigenetics matters.
P.S. I would add these:
*Fragile X syndrome
*Down syndrome (trisomy 21)
*Huntington’s disease
*Certain forms of frontotemporal dementia and other neurodegenerative disorders
*Rare Mendelian neurodevelopmental syndromes identified by modern sequencing
But isn't that the point- a genuine metabolic disorder like PKU or a disease like Huntington's has known causes (identity statements) where as the psychiatric ones are assumed to have known causes but they need to be found first hence all this bullshit research.
I agree. The original definitions of mental disorders all specified that the symptoms exist "in the absence of coarse brain disease." That would include the biochemical lesions of PKU etc. Nobody disputes that brain damage affects mental function but the question is whether there can be mental dysfunction in the absence of brain disease or damage of any kind. I say there can be: PTSD is an example. if there is brain damage caused by psychological stressors, then that has to be explained. It possibly can via epigenetic effects of say emotional or sensory deprivation in early childhood, I doubt very much it can in adulthood.
That's not all: those who want to believe that genetic impairments directly and exclusively cause mental disorders have to postulate some sort of mechanism. It's that point they haven't addressed. Meantime, the biocognitive model fills the gap they have left by showing that pure mental events can cause self-sustaining distress and impairment, as can happen in any data processing mechanism.
"Social hygiene" has been embedded in western culture for hundreds of years. Britain justified the practice of shipping off undesirables to the colonies. The United States enacted legislation banning interracial marriage, and against the sentiments of the majority, particularly those whose religious beliefs held human life sacred, people deemed to be "feeble minded" or guilty of petty crime deserving of sterilisation. Tens of thousands were sterilised in the 19th and 20th centuries.
There were social movements that railed against the ministration of comfort to the poor, based on the idea that perpetuating the reproduction of inferior human stock would weaken the development of a prosperous society. The American Breeders Association was co-opted by eugenicists to control the proliferation of people who didn't fit the social model that the proponents sought to enforce.
These eugenic tropes have re-emerged in our own times. White supremacy has never dissipated. Christian fundamentalists are embedded in US administrations and there are those who are campaigning for America to become a theocracy. Slavery has never disappeared, as evidenced in Australia in this week's 4 corners. When slavery was "abolished" in the US, hessian bags and rope were still needed, so for-profit warehousing of the less fortunate established itself as a successful business model. Voting rights were a long time coming and even today there are ways and means (not to mention money) to prevent people electing representatives that could serve their interests.
Germany adopted America's eugenic philosophy and there were those in the US who wished that they had the freedom to adopt Germany's measures back home. Wealth and privilege at the time included such identities as Carnegie, Alexander Graham Bell and Nicola Tesla took up the eugenic cause well into the 20th century. Sound familiar?
For decades eugenicists sought to blur the distinction between genetics as a science and eugenics as a social movement.
America's preparedness to incarcerate people regarded as dangerous doesn't reflect the danger that they pose to society, but rather a " justice system" that for many is cruel, inhumane and a product of a culture that fails to live up to its constitutional aspirations.
The attitudes and philosphical positions of psychiatrists described in these historical records surely prompts questions as to the role of psychiatry in the process of incarcerating people in the present day. Do notions of "normality" shape clinical judgement as to who should be in and who should be out? At an operational level, the boundary between people on the one hand who may seek asylum from the travails of their existence, and those on the other who are kept out of society for society's benefit potentially disappears. Pills all round?
(That such decisions hinge upon distinctions that are entirely arbitrary should make every person apprehensive. ) My impression is that as well as being deprived of their freedom, our culture condones additional de-humanisation of prison populations.
I spoke the other day with someone who had spent some time in prison who described the indifference and disregard of her medical needs by prison staff. The attitude of the majority of staff in her experience was of people who took no pride or interest in the welfare of inmates.
Prisons contain many people who would identify as mentally ill, many with intellectual disabilities and substance dependence. May their voices be heard and resonate with those of us outside.
My impression has long been that the major factor in deciding who will be detained in psychiatry is whether anything will go wrong that will be blamed on the psychiatrist for not locking them up. Therefore detain everybody who could possibly cause trouble, which is everybody. As for prisons, the staff look on the inmates as material to be processed, much as people who work in a rubbish sorting depot look on the incoming rubbish as something to be processed so they can get paid.
I'm sure i have seen on numerous occasions the inclusion of Dementia and Alzheimer when papers talk about psychiatric conditions, as if the inclusion of two legitimate disease processes legitimize the psychiatric terms.
The psychologists and neurosciences are just as bad marching to beat of the biological drum. For example, by putting the word psychological in front of resilience (there is no actual reason for the word psychology to exist) it becomes a thing and a paper suggests we must research the "neural correlates" of psychological resilience. This is genuinely how ideas are come up with in psychology.
"...as if the inclusion of two legitimate disease processes legitimize the psychiatric terms."
That is precisely the point of it. Sticking the prefix "neuro-" around the place is all part of the propaganda show.
The more widespread use of 'sombunall' would ease many common social sins.