Jump to content

Talk:Anti-psychiatry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Warmallis0n (talk | contribs) at 03:11, 6 September 2022 (→Merge proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Szasz on homosexuality

This following is attributed to Szasz, but the original source is not provided as it should be. What's the source?

Szasz had written in 1965 that: "I believe it is very likely that homosexuality is, indeed, a disease in the second sense [expression of psychosexual immaturity] and perhaps sometimes even in the stricter sense [a condition somewhat similar to ordinary organic maladies perhaps caused by genetic error or endocrine imbalance. Nevertheless, if we believe that by categorising homosexuality as a disease we have succeeded in removing it from the realm of moral judgement, we are in error."

In addition, the quote has two bracketed inclusions which are excessive to attribute to Szasz, and the second bracket is not closed, and so makes Szasz's actual words anyone's guess. It should be fixed with original source provided and no added words, or removed. Surely the secondary source provided makes reference to the exact place where Szasz supposedly wrote those words. If not, the secondary source is worthless. This is important because the quote contradicts everything else that Szasz did say and write about homosexuality. Nicmart (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tracked down the attribution, and more than half of the quote is in brackets, which is absurd. It should definitely be sourced directly to Szasz without brackets or removed. Nicmart (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I find it, this is the entire second portion in brackets, and therefore apparently not Szasz's words! If they are his written words, why are they bracketed?

[a condition somewhat similar to ordinary organic maladies perhaps caused by genetic error or endocrine imbalance. Nevertheless, if we believe that by categorising homosexuality as a disease we have succeeded in removing it from the realm of moral judgement, we are in error.]"

Tutorial activity

Just changed the spelling of two words. BWeaver2007 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article request for criticism of psychiatry and psychology practices.

Anti-psychiatry is a movement rather than just criticism of psychiatry which has a connotation that entire stream of psychiatry is bad. But there are various kinds of practices in psychiatry and psychology which are criticised, obsoleted and changes with time, just like any other branches of science. Sometimes there is a delay in this change or updatation though. I want to request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychology practice, and how it changes with time.

Controversies about psychiatry article discusses the subject of psychiaty as a matter of controversy, it does not have a discussion on individual practices and methods and their criticism.

Therefore I request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychological "practices" rather than entire psychiatry and/or psychology. 04:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question of how psychiatric and psychological practice has changed over time and why this happens would be interesting. I think history of psychiatry of history of psychology would partly cover this, though more broadly than "how has criticism of psych affected the field". The problem you are going to get is attributing causality to these things is fairly difficult, which is a general problem in history. This sort of content will also turn up on specific content. For example, on Psychoanalysis I added some content on how it started to be displaced by CBT and why, and on Psychosurgery or Lobotomy... I can't remember which .. I added some content on why the practice fell out of use.
I fear it might be difficult to find sources that specifically address your question "How critique has influenced the evolution of psychiatry over time". I do think history of psychiatry might be the best fit for this sort of content and this sort of question (perhaps in a separate section discussing the forces at play). When I was looking into the history of psychoanalysis I found some interesting books that tracked the intellectual history of these ideas if you are interested. I didn't get around to adding all of this to the article, but if you look in the talk page there will be some sources. Perhaps we can find something applicable to more recent practices. Talpedia (talk)

Edits to lede

There were some edits on the leads on the grounds of simplicity (I believe). Simplicity is definitely a win, but I'm aware that anti-psychiatry is a controversial topic and there can be some strawmanning going on and some of the "needless words" (to quote Skunk and White) might actually be necessary to navigate the straits of disagreement.

  • *broad* anti-psychiatry often gets conflated with the actions of scientologists. There are others critics (including philosophy, some psychiatrists and psychologists)
  • *more harmful* vs *often more harmful* "Antipsychiatry is obviously wrong because some people find psychiatry useful."

Talpedia (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

A 2021 discussion related to another proposal (see Talk:Mental disorder/Archive 4#Merge proposal) was archived with a final view that Mental illness denial might be better merged to Anti-psychiatry. I'm hence restarting the discussion here, based on this alternative target. I'm rather neutral on the proposal, but RJJ4y7 and Xurizuri were more positive in their assessment (from November). Klbrain (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I was a bit wary of this causing WP:NPOV. But I think I'm okay with this. There is a concept of "lack of insight" that shows up in psychiatry. And I don't think *this concept* belongs in anti-psychiatry (apart from criticism about the misuse of the diagnosis "if you don't agree it's evidence that you are crazy). I don't think it's correct to identify the entire anti-psychiatry movement as a "lack of insight" into their disorder and there seems to be an attempt to identify "lack of insight" with "criticism of psychiatric diagnosis" within the denialism article. This is suspiscious... but maybe that's genuinely what some literature is trying to do. Talpedia (talk)
  • Oppose "Mental illness denial" denies the existence of mental illnesses. "Anti-psychiatry" opposes the modern treatments of mental illnesses. Conceptually, they are completely separate. In the same vein, criticism of medieval medical practices and the denial of disease are different. - (from Talpedia: I think this is for. 99.160.141.248)
  • Oppose per unsigned comment (why is nobody using signatures or even just saying “User X wrote this”?) above, denying mental illness exists and opposing modern treatments are completely different things. Dronebogus (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Modern anti psychiatry is more so about rejecting modern approaches towards mental health rather than denying its existence. 98.35.9.22 (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Theses are different matters: one can be opposed to the instution of psychiatry or diagnoses, or even its scientific grounds without denying that mental illness exists. This would merge two different POV. Hploter (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More generally, I note that there is a distinction between "the study of the people who think X" and "the study of X" and that slipping between the two is a way to discredit X and something to watch for. So we have "study of conspiracy theories surrounding covid" rather than "lab leak hypothesis", and "mental health denialism" rather than "criticism of the legitimacy of some mental health diagnoses". "The people who think X and why they think it" is a valid area of study, and yet strangely it is more applied to things that people think are false rather than true. For flat earther this is entirely legitimate, the world is round, some people think it's flat isn't that weird and interesting; the problem comes when people don't really know whether X is true or false and then oddly focus on the reasons that people believe X rather than whether X is true or not. You also get fun comments like "Research suggests that people tend to overestimate the relationship between immigration and criminality" an interesting fact, but is it really the most important fact about Immigration and crime such that it is second sentence of the article, rather than you know talking about wheter immigration in any way relate to crime. Talpedia (talk)
  • Comment The similarities between these subjects seem overstated. While they both concern rethinking the true nature of mental illness, they come from completely different angles. Mental illness denial is more about how people outright deny the suffering of people, like how it mentioned South Park and India. Anti-psychiatry, however, is more about the idea that psychiatry views mental illness wrong more broadly. Even radicals, such as Thomas Szasz, don't flat out deny that people can be depressed or schizophrenic, but instead treat the idea of mental ILLNESS as a misnomer. The anti-psychiatry article is also about critiques of specific psychiatric practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.141.248 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE: Psychiatry is an aspect of psychology that has historically been weaponized against marginalized groups. Just like evolutionary psychology has been used to assert that some groups are inherently inferior to others, psychiatry has been used to assert that some groups are inherently less capable of autonomy and self-determination than others. If it is already tenuous enough to define concepts like "consciousness," then attempts to define WHO is at an ACCEPTABLE level of consciousness lies on similarly shaky ground. IPausedMyVPNForThis (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE: The mental illness denial page is just a slightly jumbled page with an identity crisis. It currently makes little/no distinction between the wider movements that criticise how we conceptualise and treat mental health, and cases where individuals disagree with mental health professions about their personal issues, or cultural stigma and skepticism. I think both of those topics deserve their own articles. While they are related, I think a proper rewriting of mental health denial page (removing the reference to Szasz which is already covered in the anti-psychiatry page) would be a more balanced solution. Djelibey (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for reasons that have basically been stated above. Anti-psychiatry is a broad range of philosophical and political positions (indeed, positions held by many psychiatrists) that exist in opposition to the modern practices of government, corporate, and academic institutions. Mental illness denial is a specific thing which occurs when someone denies mental illness. Even if your opinion is that antipsychiatry is incorrect or whatever, they're obviously two separate things: we wouldn't merge Lying and Presidency of Richard Nixon (or Presidency of Bill Clinton, for that matter) on the basis that "he lied about a bunch of stuff". jp×g 09:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-psychiatry&oldid=1108754569"