In explanation, it has been suggested that conspiracist beliefs require a rejection of official mechanisms of information generation and expert opinion, as well as a high degree of suspiciousness of mainstream sources of information, which may be motivated by high schizotypy (Barron et al., 2014; Dagnall et al., 2015; Holm, 2009; Swami et al., 2016).
This has been taken from a psychiatric paper and in essence is extraordinary in its implications. It is nevertheless, not unusual in its approach, which is that psychiatrists and their associates define human characteristics without need to consult other sources and disciplines in a arbitrary fashion enclosed within a pathological frame.
Schizotypy-means of course within the framework of schizophrenia, again defined by psychiatrists only, which tends to be regularly extended. More and more human characteristics have been enveloped by these references.
In essence, the above quote decides that if an academic (I am referencing everyone on this site) decides that what they've been taught isn't correct, and new paradigms fit the problem better-you, sir, madam, are crazy. If you challenge your rulers, sir, madam, you are crazy. If you challenge any authority-sir, madam, you are crazy.
Suspiciousness is in fact very often a valuable human trait, rejecting official m echanisms produced Einstein, da Vinci, Michaelangelo. Accepting them, produced the administrator, etc.
And....? Are you saying the claim of misdiagnosis was ill-informed, that this gentleman was mad and if so on what basis? Or?
As he came from a society where paranoia was an everyday response to problems of defiance or holding independent views, do you not think this played a part? The pressures involved are enormous on individuals and groups. Surely, Psychiatry with its belief in 'desease-states' irrespective of previous conditions or circumstances will always judge people on temporary displays of angst or confusion? From my experience, Psychiatry is indifferent to prior circumstances.
But not surely to personality changing situations because of a myopic dedication to the notion of desease? If you are under constant threat then responses are conditioned by that threat? To then reclassify that as schizophenia or god knows what else is rediculous.
Not the issue surely Anthony? We were discussing a priori knowledge by psychiatrists in a particular situation. Your psychiatrists cannot have known any of this-thereby we are faced with psychiatrists having a particular form of knowledge that most of us do not have, which seems close to magic not science.
The psychiatrist sees someone, witnesses certain behaviour and from that concludes a life history, a future predictive history and a number of other real or imagined phenomena.
This reminds me of an ex-client of mine who spent 20 years as an outpatient of an asylum, who upon leaving and regaining his confidence lead a fully productive life. When he was interviewed by a psychiatrist on account of destructive and aggressive (non-violent) behaviour after an altercation with his father (who had abused him long term), he expressed himself in the manner of his environment. He used magnified language such as 'I will kill him'. Based on that, the psychiatrist, without investigating causes or any incitements sectioned him. He employed a priori reasoning based upon-ignorance perhaps?
David, conclusions I have come to. I have many of the above stories avaiiable certainly where patients appear to have been diagnosed on the whim or social prejudices of the psychiatrist.
- Badges
- Science method