Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness

[Aristophan3s]

Mental illness is a metaphor (metaphorical disease). The word “disease” denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The term “mental illness” refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish.

He is confusing symptoms with the actual disease.

No he is not mixing anything up.

“disease” denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms"

is true.

“The term “mental illness” refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish.”

I cannot make it clearer than that. You are just denying its truth.

The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment.

Bullshit! When has social dissent been confused with mental illness. Is he actually completely denying the existance of any mental illness? If so that really say everything you need to know about him.

Well, again, he is right. You might not like that fact, but it is undeniable that the State uses mental illness as an excuse for culling society.

A Century of Eugenics in America - Explains the history of government using “feeblemindedness”, among other things, as an excuse to confine and/or sterilize people. Lobotomies were also used for a short period. Pills give people the same result as lobotomies today. So, the older cruder method has been abandonded.

Intended Consequences - How the government uses “family planning” as cover for eugenics and depopulation. In first and third world countries the government has planned against making people better from their illnesses.

Mental illness has its own special place in the heart of the public health theoriticians.

My mom works for a hospital investigating possible malpractice cuits and she has told me tales about people who will come in sick with some diesase, they will be given a room and treated and when their symptoms go away, they go home! The catch is, if they show up again with that same disease or problem and it is determined to be too expensive to treat the pereson, they are given synthetic morphine and told to go back home…

That is (part of) the new public health model.

If we recognize that “mental illness” is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of Psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior

I think its a bit of a simplification to describe mental illness as disapproved thoughts feeling and behaviours. Is this how you would describe catatonia?

“While catatonia is only identified as a symptom of schizophrenia in present psychiatric classifications, it is increasingly recognized as a syndrome with many faces. It appears as the Kahlbaum syndrome (retarded catatonia), malignant catatonia (neuroleptic malignant syndrome, toxic serotonin syndrome), and excited forms (delirious mania, catatonic excitement, oneirophrenia).^[6] It has also been recognized as grafted on to autism spectrum disorders.^[7]”

Once again, please stop refusing to admit this, the lack of physiological, documentable, scientific evidence of ‘mental illness’ prevents it from being defined as a disease. Here is the ‘diagnosis creteria’.

Treatment: “Benzodiazepines enhance the effect of the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which results in sedative, hypnotic (sleep-inducing), anxiolytic (anti-anxiety), anticonvulsant, muscle relaxant and amnesic action.^[2] These properties make benzodiazepines useful in treating anxiety, insomnia, agitation, seizures, muscle spasms, alcohol withdrawal and as a premedication for medical or dental procedures.^[3] Benzodiazepines are categorized as either short-, intermediate- or long-acting. Short- and intermediate-acting benzodiazepines are preferred for the treatment of insomnia; longer-acting benzodiazepines are recommended for the treatment of anxiety.^[4]”

^{As you can see, they aren’t even trying to cure it. They are trying to make it so the patients are not a hassle in the world.}

They even refer to catatonia as being in the same spectrum as autism. They know next to nothing about it other than the symptoms and the arbitrary methods of physiological treatment they have come up with.

[myhumangetsme]

Vlad, Szasz has probably been practicing psychiatry longer than you’ve been alive; his breadth of knowledge (both practical and historical) on the subject over that 60 year span is well-established. Your attempts to counter him with cutesy pop psychology based on a (partial) reading of his manifesto are as unpersuasive as they are unimpressive. Suffice it to say, you won’t be changing my mind on anything.

[myhumangetsme]

Rothbard mentions Szasz in Ethics of Liberty (or For a New Liberty, I cannot remember).

You might be surprised to know that Rothbard was initially very cautious of Szasz.

Not to drop another book, but if you want to see him critique historical figures at will (including Mises and Hayek), check out Faith in Freedom: Libertarian Principles and Psychiatric Practices.

[Vladimir_Ulyanov]

myhumangetsme, I have dealt with dozens of psychiatrists, and have even been a subject in studies. When I first became ill, I did a little research and was very much of a similar opinion to yourself. However it wasn’t very long untill I encountered the other side of the argument. But rather than hearing ad hominem arguments, like your own, I actually heard real one based on facts. Your, and Szasz’s argument don’t hold up to scrutiny or facts. They lie contrary to all the evidence we have on mental illness, as well as the vast majority of mental health professionals. Suffice it to say, you won’t be changing my mind on anything.

[myhumangetsme]

I have dealt with dozens of psychiatrists…

Oh well that totally trumps the life’s work of a respected psychiatrist. What was I thinking?

…and have even been a subject in studies. When I first became ill…

So because you have just as much at stake in believing in your “mental illness” exists as your doctors do, that makes it true? Just another true believer…

[Vladimir_Ulyanov]

I have dealt with dozens of psychiatrists…

Oh well that totally trumps the life’s work of a respected psychiatrist. What was I thinking?

What I was trying to say is that not one of them held the same view as Szaz.

So because you have just as much at stake in believing in your “mental illness” exists as your doctors do, that makes it true? Just another true believer…

How do I have anything at stake. I was sent to doctors for having delusions and hallucinations. It is, quite frankly, retarded to believe that hallucinations, delusions, stupor, etc., are caused by anything other than disease in the brain. In fact, most of the are symptoms to illnesses that are entirely physical.

[MMMark]

Thurs. 12/04/05 13:43 EDT
.post #123

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]

@Vladimir Ulyanov

[/url]He is confusing symptoms with the actual disease.

The opposite.

Szasz is saying that symptoms are not disease.

Symptoms are the patient’s complaints; they are only indications of disease (see, for example, symptom). Disease itself is, as Szasz says, is “… a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans).”

But since in “mental illness” there is no “demonstrable biological process,” there are only symptoms, and calling a symptom “a disease” is a logical and semantic error.

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]

@Vladimir Ulyanov

[/url]Bullshit! When has social dissent been confused with mental illness.

You are objecting to something Szasz doesn’t say.
Szasz doesn’t say “social dissent has been confused with mental illness.”

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]

@Vladimir Ulyanov

[/url]Is he actually completely denying the existance of any mental illness?

Szasz doesn’t deny the existence of strange or unpopular behavior.
Szasz does affirm that calling behavior “disease” is a logical and semantic error.

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]

@Vladimir Ulyanov

[/url]I think its a bit of a simplification to describe mental illness as disapproved thoughts feeling and behaviours.

Again, you objecting to something Szasz does not say.

Szasz does not “describe mental illness as disapproved thoughts feeling and behaviours.”

Szasz recognizes that what is called “mental illness” “… is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,…”

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]

@Vladimir Ulyanov

[/url]Is this how you would describe catatonia?

That would seem to be the case:

a syndrome seen most frequently in schizophrenia, characterized by muscular rigidity and mental stupor, sometimes alternating with great excitement and confusion.

It’s described entirely in terms of behavior.

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]

@Vladimir Ulyanov

[/url]Does this not describe the current situation.

Are you asking a question, or making a statement? The lack of a question mark at the end of your sentence renders your meaning ambiguous.

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]

@Vladimir Ulyanov

[/url]I agree with him somewhat here, in that psychiatrist may be able to abuse their powers.

You’re agreeing with something Szasz does not say.

Szasz does not say that “psychiatrists may be able to abuse their powers.” Not even close! Go back and re-read what Szasz writes.

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]

@Vladimir Ulyanov

[/url]Again, therre is a need for some balance.

What “balance” between respecting the rights of innocent persons, and violating those rights, would you suggest?

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]

@Vladimir Ulyanov

[/url]If someone claims to be feeling homicidal, should they just be left to wonder the street with these feelings.

Does having “homicidal feelings” constitute aggression?
Should a person be locked up, without a trial, because of his “feelings”?
Do psychiatrists have a special ability to know the “feelings” of another person?

Since the libertarian answer to those three questions is “no,” my answer to your question is “yes.”

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]

@Vladimir Ulyanov

[/url]I agree. The jury should be let decide once they hear some mental professionals give their diagnoses.

You are agreeing with something Szasz does not say.

Szasz does not say “The jury should be let decide once they hear some mental professionals give their diagnoses.”

In fact, he says the opposite:

“The opinions of experts about the ‘mental state’ of defendants ought to be inadmissible in court.”

[Caley_McKibbin]

There is a free book in PDF on this site called “Psychiatry and Responsibility” by Helmut Schoeck. One of the things he talks about is the influence of communists on the tenets of the profession. Basically, he shows that there was a paradigm shift and from the top down psychiatry became a front for thought control and the attempt to manufacture a new kind of person that fits the program, a sort of throwback to the “new socialist man” idea. A reasonable person might be tempted to think of it in terms of scientific value. But, “psychiatry” is not a title under which I would expect anything reasonable to emerge.

The principle of medicine is that people have “dis-ease”, which means that a person is unhappy with a feeling, and the physician’s job is to reduce that feeling. The new international principle of psychiatry is to tell people that they have a disease, which causes the psychiatrist an unhappy feeling, and the psychiatrist’s job is to reduce his own unhappiness by changing people.

[Eugene]

I suffer from depression and anxiety, and I can tell you for sure its real and its biological. The brain is an organ just like any other, and it can disfunction as any other.

I think forced hospitalization is fine as long as the person has agreed to it beforehand. For example I can carry a document in my purse that says that if I were to be found insane by some specific standard I agree to be hospitalzied even by force by such and such people.

[Caley_McKibbin]

Psychiatry and Responsibility

[Caley_McKibbin]

Although mental illnesses are diagnosed subjectively; people who suffer from them are proven to have irregularities in their brains.

Being libertarian is irregular, which automatically implies an irregularity in the brain. It is still subjective that this irregularity is an illness. In the real world people are forced into treatments based on the unilateral decision that they have a mental illness. That’s where the cases like mass ritalyn use come in. Another example, I knew someone that was ordered onto medication for giving false testimony in court.

The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment.

Bullshit! When has social dissent been confused with mental illness. Is he actually completely denying the existance of any mental illness?

Since a very long time ago. The WHO and World Federation for Mental Health held conferences straight up pitching the doctrine that mental health is dependent on having their approved social system, involving total control over life, which you can see in “Mental Health and World Citizenship”. The existence of mental illness is not even relevent. What matters is that psychiatry hijacked mental illness and turned it into a weapon. The writings of Szasz are very relevent to the events of the time of his writings.

Other disorders such as disasociative identity disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, seasonal affective disorder, unipolar depression, etc, have been shown to have very strong, if not complete, links with an individuals past and present living environment.

Seasonal affective disorder is attributed to elevated melatonin and depressed serotonin (from which melatonin is synthesized). The hypothesis of low serotonin being the cause of depression is more or less disproven. All it means when journalists say that A is “linked” to B is that A and B have circumstantial correlation, which pretty much means squat in the context of the complex biochemistry of the human body. This might not be pertinent to the question of psychiatry, but I thought I should mention it.

[MMMark]

Tues. 12/04/10 21:15 EDT
.post #129
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #31 by Caley_McKibbin]

@Caley McKibbin

[/url]Being libertarian is irregular, which automatically implies an irregularity in the brain.

Is this true, though? Is it true that irregular behavior “automatically implies an irregularity in the brain”? What does “an irregularity in the brain” even mean, if anything?

For example, Ron Paul is a libertarian, which you might call “irregular.” But, he’s also Christian, heterosexual, married with kids, gainfully employed, a Buick owner…in other words, a great deal of his behavior is “regular.” So how could one meaningfully speak of an “irregularity in (his) brain”?

What about this hypothetical:

Suppose that, in twenty years, libertarianism becomes so widely adopted that it constitutes the dominant ideology. Would it make any sense to say that “irregularities in the brain” just disappear once enough brains become “irregular”?

[Malachi]

Yup. In order to label anyone as “mentally ill” or otherwise deficient, one must construct an ideal human for means of comparison. Basically, what standard are you comparing this guy to?

[MMMark]

Tues. 12/04/10 21:59 EDT
.post #130
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #33 by Malachi]

@Malachi

[/url]In order to label anyone as “mentally ill” or otherwise deficient, one must construct an ideal human for means of comparison.

Funny how the “ideal human” is whatever a person called a “psychiatrist” says it is.

[Aristophan3s]

Funny how the “ideal human” is whatever a person called a “psychiatrist” says it is.

That is why good psychiatrists use inward looking techniques (like Rorschach or tarot a la Carl Jung) and not psychotropic drugs and electric shocks. Alchemy comes from what you think the ideal you is. There is a lot more to it, involving Plato’s conception of the soul and the three base metals, but you can look into it yourself if you care at all.

[jimaustri123]

I’m a huge fan of Szasz. He doesn’t say the metaphor ‘mental illness’ doesn’t exist, he says human suffering is often referred to metaphorically. What ever the cause of the person’s suffering, it should be up to the person to find out … and any help received, by implication, is not forced upon them but provided with their consent.

It will take courage for many to confront what Szasz is saying because it means re-examining the basis upon which one’s problems rest. Just that act, alone, can require a lot of courage because nobody likes to have to consider the possibility they missed something - especially where people’s lives and livelihoods were at stake.

MMMark, you put forth very solid reasoning… more power to you and your keyboard.

[TheMedicine]

I want to tell you all that your opinions are wrong. They deviate from my norm.

I can’t explain to you how they are wrong, or why they are wrong, only what I think is wrong.

So if you would like, I will give you some medicine and make some of the wrong go away. That way you can fit my norm better.

“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”
― Frank Zappa

[MMMark]

Wed. 12/04/11 16:52 EDT
.post #132

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #35 by Aristophan3s]

@Aristophanes

[/url]That is why good psychiatrists use inward looking techniques (like Rorschach or tarot a la Carl Jung) and not psychotropic drugs and electric shocks.

I’m not opposed to either “inward looking techiques” or the administration of drugs or shocks, as long as both reception of and payment for the “treatment” is voluntary.

What concerns me is the concept of the “ideal human.” It raises the question of who decides, and more ominously, “what is to be done, by whom, and to whom?” Inevitably, the “non-ideal” humans aren’t too eager to go along with “the plan,” hence, the “need” for a bit of “persuasion.”

Consider this paragraph from page 101 of Fatal Freedom (my emphasis):

Grotesquely, the Nazi physicians were eager to prevent the “abuses” of the euthanasia program, by which they meant the practice of “therapeutic mercy killing” by nonmedical personnel. Karl Brandt stressed that “gassing should only be done by physicians.” The program was regulated "according to the motto: ‘The needle belongs in the hand of the doctor.’ "61 Between 1939 and 1941, more than 70,000 patients in German mental hospitals had been gassed and cremated. The decision about who deserved euthanasia was "made by psychiatric consultants, most of whom were professors in key universities."62

61. R. Proctor, Racial Hygiene, pp. 190, 193.

62. J.A. Barondess, “Medicine Against Society: Lessons from the Third Reich,” JAMA 276 (27 November 1996): 1657-61.

[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #36 by jimaustri123]

@jimaustri123

[/url]MMMark, you put forth very solid reasoning… more power to you and your keyboard.

Thank you!

[MMMark]

Wed. 12/04/11 18:54 EDT
.post #135

I want to amend a poorly-worded sentence I wrote in this post.

I wrote:

Szasz recognizes that what is called “mental illness” “… is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,…”

I should have written:

Szasz recognizes that the expression “mental illness” “… is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,…”

In his words (my emphasis),

The term “mental illness” refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons.