Why an 'anti psych' forum?

Seems kinda silly to have an 'anti psych' forum. That's like, an:

- anti philosophy forum
- anti medicine forum
- anti mathematics forum

Psych is just a form of knowledge. But saying someone is 'anti psych' is like saying they are anti (this form of knowledge) which is tantamount to saying they are 'anti some knowledge'.

It seems like a self refuting thing to say, cause if you say you're 'anti psych' then you're against some knowledge. And if you're against some knowledge then you're willing to close off knowledge input (if psychological) for some reason. Maybe politics? I don't know. But if you're willing to shut off knowledge and people know it then that's not so good for your case. I can't think of another reason why someone would be against some knowledge.

So I don't get it. How can you be anti psychology or anti psychiatry?



If you succeeded, and actually got rid of psychiatry, what discipline would fill the gap?

I could see maybe a feminist oriented perspective, and possibly a few others...

I don't think it is so much of an opposition to the "study of the mind" (which is literally what psychology means in Greek), but rather how people go about studying it and how accurate it is. You have to remember that psychology is in the same state physical medicine was 200 years ago.....it can't make an 100% accurate description on anything. Unlike physics for example, where you can predict with 100% accuracy what happens when you drop a ball (it will hit the ground 100% of the time due to gravity, where as a person's mental disorders can be caused by so many factors).

It isn't just psychology.....it's also psychiatry (which literally means "healing of the mind" in Greek). A lot of people can be involuntarily committed against their will even if they don't agree with their psych. Many people have been through this so being anti-psych can go beyond being oppose to the study but rather to the certain practices of psychologists and psychiatrists (like involuntary commitment).

Remember that psych-type subjects deals with the mind.....and there are so many theories of the mind to begin with. The mind is one of the most important things and it's so complex to study so it isn't difficult to see why there is a lot of dissent from the mainstream view.

Personally I think there are many things in psychiatry and psychology that needs reform......but overall I do think it has revealed a good deal about the mind.....but there are still many un-answered questions that can only come about through reform.

Also remember that governments have used the psychiatric establishment to imprison political prisoners......so it's a lot more than just studying the mind because this even steps into politics. And views of the mind can also depend on one's morality too.....further blurring the line of psych studies being just a study of the mind.

Thanks for your reply Tormented Soul and I think I see what you mean.

I can get that a lot of people are angry at issues surrounding involuntary commitment. I worried about that myself until I spoke with a Justice who sort of explained to me the requirements to get me committed and allayed my concerns.

I can also get that people might be angry at the idea of using asylums to imprison people. That's the stuff of nightmares and novelists and I get that too.

I would even add that often abusive people 'use' or 'wield' psychology to assign 'crazy' labels to a person, otherwise called 'crazymaking'. That's where psychology is used very badly.

When you talk about dissenting views on psychology - I completely respect say a feminist take on psychiatry or a feminist take on psychology. I get it when there's real thinking going into it. I like anarchism.

I just want to make a plug for psychology here: Psychology and physics use the same method. Once you get to the speed of light and things collide modern physics is pretty helpless at predicting with accuracy too.

Yeah, I thought that psychology was the study of the mind and the behavior. To be against the study of the mind and behavior can be fair enough but I suppose that one would have to compare the definition of insanity (per Einstein doing something over and over again expecting different results) with psychology in order to understand a different perspective. If one were engaging in an action that brought about negative consequences when witnessed by more than one individual, then the discrepant behaviors wouldn't balance and those with the most similar behavior would most likely reinforce their similarities by rejecting the opposing factor.

As we live in a society wherein there are a certain number of assumptions when it comes with interacting with others, there are unspoken rules of communication and behavior. The establishment of these "rules" may have been impressed with an error of method yet the majority has accepted that these rules are the norm. Thereby, when someone disobeys these rules, when they are "anti" the rules, then it only reinforces the disarray and chaos that we as the inhabitants of this world, and of this particular species, are in at the moment. However, as we seek out the truth in all things, if there is a possibility that the rules were tainted in the first place, it is highly possible that an individual has found out the truth through trial and error, or research, and through his "anti" method attempts to reveal the truth to the masses. In the end, this person could introduce a new method of interaction to the masses which could solve a lot of the problems that his fellow humans have to endure yet it is possible that the masses are "doing something over and over again expecting different results."

The masses are behaving and thinking in a certain way and expecting things to get better, or for their problems to go away, but the problems remain. However, as similarities have been established in the way most individuals interact, if one person introduces a new method that appears to be a "lie" to the masses, it would reveal the depraved and confused state of mind possessed by the masses thinking that they are following the "truth" rather than the one revolutionary who they think is promoting a "lie."

In the end, the "anti" approach could be the truth that has been sought after all along by the majority who have been duped by their own deceit.

I have to agree with the original poster, there is no need for a Anti-Psych forum. Ergo Anti-Psych should be incorporated into the entire site and be freely spoken throughout all of it's indexes.

whero wrote:I have to agree with the original poster, there is no need for a Anti-Psych forum. Ergo Anti-Psych should be incorporated into the entire site and be freely spoken throughout all of it's indexes.

Some people base their entire lives around psych-related problems and, if they are informed any of it is false, they will likely kill themselves.

To avoid drama, they made this subforum. You would be amazed at how reliant some people are on their labels.

Eric_Lee wrote:

whero wrote:I have to agree with the original poster, there is no need for a Anti-Psych forum. Ergo Anti-Psych should be incorporated into the entire site and be freely spoken throughout all of it's indexes.

Some people base their entire lives around psych-related problems and, if they are informed any of it is false, they will likely kill themselves.

To avoid drama, they made this subforum. You would be amazed at how reliant some people are on their labels.

I don't know if it would bother anyone but I really don't see any bad in this likely occurrence.

Perhaps someone has had a bad experience with a pyschiatrist/psychologist, or has insight into some of the darker workings of the profession and would like to share.

Funny thing- my neighbor has a mailbox, but I never use it... it must be useless, therefore!

Just thought I'd share the experience I had 12 years ago. I took valium which i didn't need and made me ill, as it would. And then I had a crisis psych team come out and prescribe - treating sideeffects, not symptoms. I was mislabelled as having had a breakdown, when it was all medication, was told I had schizophrenia. Some of it was me in there, but it was medication, because I was well when I put that first pill in my mouth, then I progressively got worse. ( By the way, I didn't take these drugs for long, then ceased against medical advice, and now work, have studied, and live with my partner.)

I was in the midst of it all when it suddenly dawned on me that this is just like one of those movies you see where the person is protesting their sanity and hey they are being labelled and treated like a crazy person, and not being listened to, and almost being hauled away! What stopped that from happening is my compliance (to a point) and luck bcos I had one doctor who could see that all I needed was to get off those drugs, so he tapered off my dose until I was taking so little that they were "barely making any difference" , to quote one nurse.

So - I agree with this "anti-psychiatry" forum. Before my experience, psychiatrists were like my gods - I wrongly believed them to be the most intelligent people on the planet.

I still believe in mental illness, and I don't know enough to believe that people don't need medication. But my faith now lies in naturopathy - one can test for neurotransmitters through urine and plasma samples. EG. my dopamine and serotonin levels are not too good. The two reasons I have been given are chronic stress or psychotropic drugs. I have an open mind that I could be either mentally hindered or drug-affected or both, but I do not place all my stock in psychiatry - I don't think anyone can afford to do that.

Yes, just to reply to skyschizoid's post about darker insights into psychiatry - when they say you have coincidental thinking based on coincidences that they themselves have observed in you!
Or: you see your doctor breathing out when you tell him something shocking like: "I didn't need the medication, it made me ill", and he believes you for a moment, breathes in sharply, then breathes out. You see him and realize you too should be breathing out to put into practice your deep breathing technique, so you do. He then sees you breathing out, and thinks you are mimicking him and labels this as a symptom of schizophrenia. How crazy is that!?!?!
Or when you have formerly avoided telling the referring doctor that you didn't need meds bcos he wouldn't believe you anyway, and then decide to disclose this to him so you say,"I'm being honest now" and they label this as a confessional symptom of OCD?!?!
Or when your psychiatrist doesn't ask, but assumes that you are having delusions, keeps medicating the presenting anxiety (which is actually akathisia induced by the very meds you are taking) and waits for you to "open up to him". how can one open up to a doctor when there are no symptoms to share. I said all I could, I told them I didn't need the meds, I told them the meds made me ill, I was completely open and completely honest and they turned a blind eye. I was 18, had never gotten drunk, had never taken illicit drugs and they do this to me and then what, what do you do?
How much more can you tell them - but as someone told me, this is their domain and once you are in, it's very hard to get out. Luckily I did, one psychological evaluation and I was out that door forever.