Thanks, Niall, for an excellent critique of that research project. Having spent some years in forensic psychiatry, I am impressed with the extent of childhood abuse that many offenders have experienced and which very few are willing to discuss. If anxiety is a fundamental issue for this group, so is shame.
At around 20 minutes one of the mentions mind but doesn’t give a definition of it and seems unaware they are now using dualist terminology. Dualism does get mentioned at 31:55 but equated only with substance dualism and then summarily dismissed as dissatisfying. The psychiatrist mentions dopamine driving perceptions in mice at 23:28-subtly reinforcing the idea of chemical imbalance.
In a roundabout kind of way, it shows the modern scientists (narcissists?) echoing the Vienna Circle.
Good one. The underlying urge by biological psychiatrists to reduce mental disorder to brain disorder seems to have a very strong moral tone to it, as if talking of the mind as an independent entity is in itself reprehensible, shameful and weak-minded, not far removed from peering up ladies' dresses. That comes from the Vienna Circle, I'm sure, as in "This is the way forward, any backsliding is a moral failing." I'll see what I can find on the topic.
Offered opinions are OK Niall..🙂 take it- or leave it stuffs, OK.. the only thing wrong with MH is it uses violence and forces people to 'take'..where -you take- or- they make..
This ➡ "This project on violence was a little different in that it fits with what I see as psychiatry’s long term project of reclassifying personality problems, for which psychiatry has nothing to offer, turning them into “mental illnesses,” putting the people on drugs and thus gaining vast new markets for themselves"
I wondered why psychiatry had so-called 'personality disorders' on Axis II and deemed untreatable when this categorization could be another big cash cow for them.
Materialism IS an ideological belief system, and one, since Popper, that physical scientists appear to fondly imagine they HAVE to believe in (Or their career won't get far, nor research grants their ways).
"Science", is not, of course, objective, as the Post-Structuralists pointed out, WHAT is research ed is at least as important as how the research is conducted.
It's actually since the Vienna Circle of positivists, who slightly preceded Popper and most of whom, of course, he knew very well. Science simply avoids whatever doesn't fit neatly into the positivist ethos, such as mental life.
Positivism was the first topic broached in Sociology A level, and to the disgust of my teacher I found I liked it quite a lot. I was a teenager back then though, and it soon got left behind.
Sadly, most of the physical scientists never leave that teenage dream of simplicity behind.
It's actually a dream of power, of the vast capacity of Homo sapiens to reach for a problem, solve it , shelve it and move to next one. Their early publicatoins were, to my mind, intensely narcissistic, that's why it appeals to the emotionally immature.
Thanks, Niall, for an excellent critique of that research project. Having spent some years in forensic psychiatry, I am impressed with the extent of childhood abuse that many offenders have experienced and which very few are willing to discuss. If anxiety is a fundamental issue for this group, so is shame.
A recent debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aynzcAYnnJU) may be interesting/fodder for you to take apart:
At around 20 minutes one of the mentions mind but doesn’t give a definition of it and seems unaware they are now using dualist terminology. Dualism does get mentioned at 31:55 but equated only with substance dualism and then summarily dismissed as dissatisfying. The psychiatrist mentions dopamine driving perceptions in mice at 23:28-subtly reinforcing the idea of chemical imbalance.
In a roundabout kind of way, it shows the modern scientists (narcissists?) echoing the Vienna Circle.
Good one. The underlying urge by biological psychiatrists to reduce mental disorder to brain disorder seems to have a very strong moral tone to it, as if talking of the mind as an independent entity is in itself reprehensible, shameful and weak-minded, not far removed from peering up ladies' dresses. That comes from the Vienna Circle, I'm sure, as in "This is the way forward, any backsliding is a moral failing." I'll see what I can find on the topic.
Offered opinions are OK Niall..🙂 take it- or leave it stuffs, OK.. the only thing wrong with MH is it uses violence and forces people to 'take'..where -you take- or- they make..
Interesting article Dr. McLaren.
This ➡ "This project on violence was a little different in that it fits with what I see as psychiatry’s long term project of reclassifying personality problems, for which psychiatry has nothing to offer, turning them into “mental illnesses,” putting the people on drugs and thus gaining vast new markets for themselves"
I wondered why psychiatry had so-called 'personality disorders' on Axis II and deemed untreatable when this categorization could be another big cash cow for them.
Materialism IS an ideological belief system, and one, since Popper, that physical scientists appear to fondly imagine they HAVE to believe in (Or their career won't get far, nor research grants their ways).
"Science", is not, of course, objective, as the Post-Structuralists pointed out, WHAT is research ed is at least as important as how the research is conducted.
It's actually since the Vienna Circle of positivists, who slightly preceded Popper and most of whom, of course, he knew very well. Science simply avoids whatever doesn't fit neatly into the positivist ethos, such as mental life.
Positivism was the first topic broached in Sociology A level, and to the disgust of my teacher I found I liked it quite a lot. I was a teenager back then though, and it soon got left behind.
Sadly, most of the physical scientists never leave that teenage dream of simplicity behind.
It's actually a dream of power, of the vast capacity of Homo sapiens to reach for a problem, solve it , shelve it and move to next one. Their early publicatoins were, to my mind, intensely narcissistic, that's why it appeals to the emotionally immature.
:o
Thanks for that insight Niall, I hadn't made that connection. But you're right.