Comments on: The boundaries of mental illness

By: rockireindeer

rockireindeer — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:27:22 +0000

The public needs some of this wikileaks information to protect itself. Current light has been shed on some of the relationships that people did not know existed, like the pharma companies being “vital” to the US feds. This relationship goes a long way to explain seemingly bizarre and dangerous decisions made by the FDA in regards to Avandia and psych meds and the explosion of the mental health industry and drugs. People need to know that the approval process for these drugs is heavily tainted by DOD & DOJ interests and the FDA is merely a puppet organization when deciding whether or not to take or give psych meds to their children.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 03:00:39 +0000

Be careful... the CIA has been known to trick whistleblowers and political dissidents into reporting the symptoms of mental illness.

By: The boundaries of mental illness « Mind Hacks « Sink

The boundaries of mental illness « Mind Hacks « Sink — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 00:51:39 +0000

[...] The boundaries of mental illness « Mind Hacks. [...]

By: DNA

DNA — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:00:31 +0000

‘Bem Exploration Method’ rather

By: DNA

DNA — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:50:29 +0000

Alternative review of the ‘mainstream psychology study’, breaking down what they call the “Bem Statistical Method” which they say reflects flaws in much of psychology pratice today
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1018886/Bem6.pdf

The alleged phenomena wouldn’t even begin to explain most hallucinations anyway.

By: drew hempel

drew hempel — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:00:39 +0000

I had emailed psychologist Nicholas Humphrey in 2006 when he reported in his last book that it is impossible to “flex” your brain. I told him that indeed, via nonwestern energy practice, it is not only possible but I was doing it as I wrote him.

Humphrey has a new book out “Soul Dust: The Magic of Consciousness” which is about how consciousness is sort of the spiritual connection to science — how it’s a subjective hallucination of sorts that lead individuals to a sense of unshakable transcendence. I haven’t read the book yet but he’s asking Mary Midgley to review it, in light of her critiquing Humphrey for scientism. The book is released for sale in early 2011.

Now I bring all this up because of this “false paradigm” in psychiatry about hallucinations — how they might not be dysfunctional but rather just part of a spectrum based on brain illusions, so to speak.

Jim Schnabel who authored a book on military remote viewing has a new response to Jonah Lehrer acknowledging a recent mainstream psychology study published on precognition. http://hereticalnotions.com/2010/11/17/psi-research-here-we-go-again/ Schnabel points out that, as usual, Jonah Lehrer has a patronizing acceptance of this paranormal research. In other words Lehrer pigeonholes parapsychology. On the contrary there’s a vast history of science suppressing paranormal anomalies which are also part of a well-established tradition of study in nonwestern countries — Japan, Korea, China, India all have numerous recent paranormal studies published in their science journals.

Science is “so close but yet so far” when it comes to paranormal research results. Paranormal psychologist George P. Hansen, author of the “Trickster and the Paranormal,” argues that there is an inherent, structural, subversion of science via the all too true reality of paranormal phenomenon.

By: DNA

DNA — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:08:30 +0000

That Seed article makes a common but totally false claim – that if abnormal neurological functioning is involved, then that means:

“there is nothing truly “mental” about these disorders—the disorders are a result of physical problems in the brain. This is a huge acknowledgment for a field that once thrived on such vacuous concepts as the “id” and the “superego.” ”

The problem with concepts like ‘id’ and ‘superego’ (i notice he doesn’t include the more commonly accepted and intuitive ‘ego’ or any other everyday mentalistic terms, let alone any concepts from clinical psychology or phenomenology) is they are part of a speculative cultish psychoanalytic framework that purported to be based on biological/evolutionary science but wasn’t, not surprisingly since it was dreamed up before the discovery of DNA and the modern Darwinian synthesis, let alone modern cognitive neuroscience.

I’m mentally sick of people using the failings of psychoanalysis to prop up a failed biopsychiatry!