Psychiatry is pseudo-medicine masquerading a legitimate science.

in psychology •  2 months ago 

Psychiatry is pseudo-medicine masquerading a legitimate science.

It gets worse, though.

The central concept of psychiatry is the idea of "mental illness," and that concept is flawed.

Let's break some terms down.

Mental refers to the mind. Illness suggests the mind is diseased.

First, the mind is an abstract concept. It cannot be diseased. A disease denotes a lesion to the structure or function of the cells, tissue, or organ. This is the classical definition of a disease, which was introduced by Virchow.

The mind is just a process of brain functioning, and to imply it's diseased creates all kinds of nasty assumptions in the practice of psychiatry.

It means psychiatrists can effectively paint whoever they want as sick. All they have to do is confirm their own biases through the lens of their "patient's" behavior. If their patient is acting in a way that matches psychiatric diagnostic criteria, then that person can be deemed sick.

It's a great tragedy that so many people have let psychiatry get away with this twisted, bastardization of words. Now psychiatry as a medicine is one of the greatest delusions of the modern era.

And it makes perfect sense from the anarchist perspective. If psychiatry is a lie based on categorizing people as perpetually sick by looking at behavior, then psychiatry is an apparatus of control for those people who identify as neurodiverse. It's also a hedge against those who may eventually come out as activists against the established authorities.

Abolish psychiatry

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:

Open books, go to page 6, look for science of survival.
I think you will be glad that you read it, i am.

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve discovered books and information that I would probably never have read or known about if not for your posts. The problem now is that I have too much reading/catching up to do and not enough time. I’ve started reading the science of survival and it’s the first time I’ve read anything by Hubbard. This is probably due to the negative way in which Scientology/Dianetics is portrayed. I suppose I should have known that if so much effort is made to turn the average person away from the information that it is probably worth looking into. How much of the Dianetics material have you read? Where should I start?

Posted using Partiko iOS

They recommend starting at the beginning and going chronologically.
Dianetics then sos.
Dianetics is more of a tech manual and sos a how to guide.
If you only read one, read sos.
I've read nearly everything publicly available in print.

Before i got to i saw that some people would never understand.
If you won't figure out your problem, no amount of books is gonna help.

I found a big one of mine, i thought violence was an acceptable means to my ends.

Let me know what you think over time.
I've not known enough folks to do a thorough test of the claims.
It does find adherents that give their last dollar to read ron's work product.
Alot of religions do.

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

Yup! Anyone interested in this subject read some Thomas Szasz.