Comments on: The Myth of Thomas Szasz http://mindhacks.com/2006/11/27/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz-2/ Neuroscience and psychology news and views. Fri, 24 May 2013 17:03:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Chet http://mindhacks.com/2006/11/27/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz-2/#comment-17231 Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:27:00 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz-2/#comment-17231 It is so completely obvious to anyone who works with the mind that the whole field of psychiatry is a fraud.

Unless of course you are on the profit end,then you have to unsuccessfully attempt to discredit Szasz and go against obvious common sense.

]]> By: mcewen http://mindhacks.com/2006/11/27/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz-2/#comment-7699 Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:33:05 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz-2/#comment-7699 My understanding of the recent phenomenon of ‘social phobias’ is that they are in large part propelled by the pharmaceutical industry, in that it is more profitable to treat such disorders, than other less ‘sexy’ conditions. But I feel it only fair to declare a certain bias on my part.
Best wishes

]]> By: Alone http://mindhacks.com/2006/11/27/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz-2/#comment-7698 Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:08:47 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz-2/#comment-7698 One thing Szasz did have right is the “mission creep” in psychiatry. The moment we pretend aggression is even partially outside of volitional control (for example, “bipolar made me do it”) then it becomes psychiatry’s responsibility to handle _all_ of it.
Consider the simple example of a “bipolar” person who says he wants to kill his GF for cheating on him. My responsibility is to protect and warn her, because, well, he’s bipolar– even though the bipolar has nothing to do with it.
Contrast this with the police, who have no such responsibility until the crime is committed. Meanwhile, their motto is “Protect and Serve.”
There’s your mission creep.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com

]]> By: Alone http://mindhacks.com/2006/11/27/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz-2/#comment-7697 Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:00:24 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz-2/#comment-7697 Szasz would have done better to focus on the artificiality of the terminology rather than the absence of biological correlates (of which there are quite a few.)
In other words, there is an association between, say, depression and serotonin, so Szasz’s argument collapses. However, this association is by no means causal nor necessary. There are plenty of ways to treat depression without serotonin involvement.
An updated “Szasz” argument would be that many of the constructs in psychiatry are recursive (e.g. Prozac helps depression therefore serotonin is relevant therefore we should use serotonergic drugs) or are postulates which are used to support erroneous propositions (“bipolar illness” consists of two poles, so treating one pole should bring you closer to the other pole, therefore “antidepressant induced mania” and “anticonvulsant breakthrough mania”).
The economist Milton Friedman had a view that things were scientific if they could be used to predict outcomes–not if they were built on solid assumptions. Popper had a similar argument (falsifiability.)
So Szasz was wrong because he focused on biology vs. freedom; and Szasz was right because psychiatry has a tough time predicting anything, even when there is biology there.

]]>