The kanicbird konundrum

[Czarcasm]

@steronz

Hear that Czarcasm? kanicbird hopes you feel like you were date raped. But not the bad kind of date rape, the good kind. Obviously.

Yeah, I got that from his post also-how sweet. :rolleyes:

How about this informative lecture about science and health?

[Princhester]

@Gyrate

You have to understand that classifying homosexuality as a mental illness was in fact an improvement in the societal view of the time (1948? I can’t remember exactly). Before then it was seen as a willful and criminally deviant behavior which could result in jail time if caught. Classifying it as a mental illness removed the “willful” part and forced the acceptance of the view that homosexual proclivities were not voluntary (not a “choice”, if you like) and therefore not criminally liable. That it took a few more decades to get past the “deviant” part is sad but reflects in part the movement in societal view which would not have happened had it not gone into the DSM in the first place.

So yes, within the context of the subject it was perfectly reasonable to think of homosexuality as a mental illness. It then became increasingly less so until the point was reached where it was reasonable to no longer consider it so. Yes, “politics” were involved - but when are they not?

For those interested in the debate I highly recommend the This American Life episode “81 Words”.

If your point is that psychology is a very very soft science and the DSM a far from infallible text, you couldn’t make it better.

[Princhester]

@Der_Trihs

It denies reality and violates rationality, it causes irrationality.

Irrationality is a commonplace human attribute, not a symptom of mental illness. You spend half your time on these boards arguing with people’s irrational views. Do you think everyone you are arguing with is insane?

I’m not supporting irrationality but equating it to insanity suggests you don’t really share the common view on the definition of the latter term.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@pakalolo

One of my favorites:

I’ve had angels stop traffic for me on occasion.

This is precisely the reason why I find kanicbird kind of magnificent.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@YoDoc

Bullshit.

I’m overwhelmed by the strength of this argument.

[YoDoc]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

I’m overwhelmed by the strength of this argument.

Well, that was easy…

[Kimstu]

@Troppus

And yet depression and anxiety are occasionally comorbid with homosexuality and both symptoms impair emotional and psychological functioning. Per your criteria, homosexuality should remain a diagnosis in the DSM.

Uh, no. Being “occasionally comorbid” with depression and anxiety is not equivalent to being a form of mental illness. Hell, if it were, pretty much every human tendency or activity would have to be tagged as a mental illness.

@Troppus

The DSM still reflects cultural values, and as such is subject to political pressures to revise as evidence is uncovered and values shift.

Sure, I never said it wasn’t. I just don’t buy into conspiracy-theory-style exaggerated hype about how the only factor determining what gets designated a mental illness in the DSM is political pressure.

@Troppus

[…] the difference between homosexuality and religious adherence to invisible and probably imagined forces of the universe being that one requires a physical attraction to the same sex, and the other requires at least a partial rejection of scientific evidence and a total suspension of belief. That’s crazy, right?

Wrong, at least if you’re using “crazy” to mean “mentally ill” in a clinical sense. By the standards of modern rational empiricism it qualifies as irrational, certainly. But as I (and others such as Guin and Princhester) keep pointing out, irrationality does not equal insanity.

Nor is irrationality the exclusive province of theists, not by a long chalk. Personally, I know atheists who believe in (or at least claim to have an “open mind” about) the curative powers of homeopathy. I know atheists who believe in ghosts and atheists who believe in reincarnation. AFAICT, none of them are actually insane/mentally ill, and I wouldn’t want to see them stigmatized as such by medical diagnoses equating irrational beliefs to clinical insanity.

[Gyrate]

@Shodan

It’s always amusing to see Der Trihs talking about how other people are irrational and dysfunctional.

Words you will rarely hear me say to Shodan: I agree.

@Princhester

If your point is that psychology is a very very soft science and the DSM a far from infallible text, you couldn’t make it better.

Yay!

Psychology is like trying to analyze a computer program purely by its GUI. That doesn’t mean it isn’t scientific. That just means it’s messy.

[Princhester]

@Gyrate

Words you will rarely hear me say to Shodan: I agree.

Yay!

Psychology is like trying to analyze a computer program purely by its GUI. That doesn’t mean it isn’t scientific. That just means it’s messy.

Yet in your first sentence you are criticising **Der Trihs **and in your second you are agreeing with him.

[Gyrate]

@Princhester

Yet in your first sentence you are criticising Der Trihs and in your second you are agreeing with him.

The two sentences are about different points. Am I required to either agree or disagree completely with other posters on everything they say?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Gyrate

The two sentences are about different points. Am I required to either agree or disagree completely with other posters on everything they say?

I love puppies!
Babies are the best white meat!

[Mangetout]

@Czarcasm

How about this informative lecture about science and health?

There isn’t any argument that will work against such fucknuttery. Either he’s a troll (in which case arguments won’t prevail, by definition), or he’s immune to reality.

[Princhester]

@Gyrate

The two sentences are about different points. Am I required to either agree or disagree completely with other posters on everything they say?

Sure but your post seemed at least potentially anomalous, and I wasn’t sure you understood that you were agreeing with the point being made by the person you were insulting.

[Derleth]

Here is an interesting Newsweek article on the relationship between clinical psychology and science, or, more precisely, the lack of such a relationship:

For one thing, says [Timothy B. Baker of the University of Wisconsin], clinical psychologists are “deeply ambivalent about the role of science” and “lack solid science training”—a result of science-lite curricula, especially in Psy.D. programs. Also, one third of patients get better no matter what therapy (if any) they have, “and psychologists remember these successes, attributing them, wrongly, to the treatment. It’s very threatening to think our profession is a charade.”

This pretty much clinches it:

When confronted with evidence that treatments they offer are not supported by science, clinicians argue that they know better than some study what works. In surveys, they admit they value personal experience over research evidence, and a 2006 Presidential Task Force of the American Psychological Association—the 150,000-strong group dominated by clinicians—gave equal weight to the personal experiences of the clinician and to scientific evidence, a stance they defend as a way to avoid “cookbook medicine.”

Homeopaths, Reiki nuts, and iridologists all say essentially the same things. It’s precisely the same mindset and it is utterly indefensible.

The piece does say psychiatrists, being MDs and having had a more thorough grounding in scientific (now called ‘evidence-based’) medicine, do better (how much better it does not say); that does not change the fact psychologists are apparently practicing cargo cult science to the detriment of everyone except themselves.

[Princhester]

Interesting. There must be a fair gulf between academic psychologists and clinical psychologists. I did a few basic psych subjects and they were all experiments and statistics.

[Gyrate]

@Princhester

Sure but your post seemed at least potentially anomalous, and I wasn’t sure you understood that you were agreeing with the point being made by the person you were insulting.

I have said elsewhere in more detailed discussions of DT that while I frequently am on the same side of a debate as him, his presentation style and tendency to hold more extreme positions means that any apparent agreement is dependent on context. I agree that many religious people are irrational and use poor logic to support their views, but do not think that every religious person is stupid and/or insane. In the same vein, I may espouse a more liberal economic view than many but think that Communism is ridiculous. Same side of the fence but not nearly as extreme.

In other news, this is a stupid hijack. How about that kanicbird, huh? I mean, what’s up with that guy? And airplane peanuts! What’s the deal there?

[Mangetout]

@Gyrate

I have said elsewhere in more detailed discussions of DT that while I frequently am on the same side of a debate as him, his presentation style and tendency to hold more extreme positions means that any apparent agreement is dependent on context.

DT also states his position more vehemently and absolutely than he holds it, so as not to be misunderstood or accused of weaselling. (This isn’t a criticism, just an observation)

[BigT]

Thing is, psychologist do do evidence based testing. It’s just that they are apparently not required to do so. But I could have told you that: anyone who pushes psychoanalysis or Jungian theories is wrong. Someone who pushes CBT and encouragement therapy? Not so much.

And their testing is rigorously scientific, as it comes from the research psychologists. The only question is whether they actually do testing.

[marshmallow]

Succubi are beautiful demonesses who revel in debauchery and seek out the seed of mortal men. But isn’t there a downside? Like the part where they steal your only immortal soul?

[Czarcasm]

@marshmallow

Succubi are beautiful demonesses who revel in debauchery and seek out the seed of mortal men. But isn’t there a downside? Like the part where they steal your only immortal soul?

No-you’re thinking “wives”.