Scholarship of Consensus and Diseases that Make you Smart

Scholarship of consensus is the belief that you have an agreement of your peers and such a consensus is a firm indication that truth has been obtained.

You can see it in this case history. Three different neuro psychologists have evaluated a person and all three have ignored their own testing and observation and have reached the same conclusion.

The case history has been scanned into a photobucket album. The first page is blank so your typical web surfer would not find it.

http://s407.photobucket.com/albums/pp158/N006/ is the album

http://s407.photobucket.com/albums/pp158/N006/TGs/ is the evaluations

http://s407.photobucket.com/albums/pp158/N006/2008/ is raw scores from neuro psych tests in 2008

http://s407.photobucket.com/albums/pp158/N006/2004/ is raw scores from neuro psych tests in 2004

http://s407.photobucket.com/albums/pp158/N006/2000/ is raw scores from neuro psych tests in 2000


Looking at the raw scores you can see that the individual has been getting smarter.

Looking at the evaluations you can see that the neuro psychologist believe in the Scholarship of Consensus.

What is the purpose of all of this? There is a lot of content to get through in the links that you have provided.

I think that these documents demonstrate the Scholarship of Consensus.

I think that neuro psychologists believe the Scholarship of Consensus. They believe that being in consensus is a demonstration of reality.

Neuro Psychologists value opinions that are in accord with each other. The fact that opinions are in accordance is considered to be a proof of the veracity of the opinions and a proof that the methodology employed to reach the opinions are scholarly.

I think that it is fascinating that someone who is 62 has had her intelligence increase by 2 magnitudes over an eight year period.

I think that it is noteworthy that scholars from - correct me if I am wrong - Northwestern University have reviewed this intelligence increase by 2 magnitudes and not even mentioned it in passing.

Are you saying that - in psychology - the aim of recovery is to 'normalise' everybody? If that is what you are saying, then I agree with you. In fact, this is what every neurotypical person does: They try to bring those who have strayed from the normal path in life, back on track.

@Chucky

Let me apologize if I failed to understand you but I think that you are saying that you find the material to be daunting. Assuming that you find the documents that I have linked to daunting I will try to make it accessible.

In document
http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp15 ... 00/d01.jpg

you see
Data Summary 5-18-00, 5-19-00

WAIS-R
FSIQ 124
VIQ 118 ....... PIQ 125

............... SS ..... AGE COR ............ .............. SS ..... AGE COR
Infor ....... 14 ..... 14 ......... ........ PicCom ..... 10 ..... 11
DisSp ...... 08 ..... 09 ......... ........ PicArr ...... 15 ..... 15
Vocab ..... 16 ..... 16 ......... ........ BlkDes ..... 14 ..... 16
Arith ..... 11 ..... 12 ......... ........ ObjAss ..... 10 ..... 11
Compr ..... 13 ..... 13 ......... ....... DigSym ..... 11 ..... 13
Simil ...... 12 .....13


WMS-R

.........................Raw %ile ...................... Index
I/O ................... 14 ...... ......................... Verbal ..... 109
MentContrl ...... 06 ....... ......................... Visual ..... 110
Figural ............. 07 ....... ......................... General ... 118
Logical I ........... 28 ..... 70 ...................... Attn/Conu 105
Vis PA I ............ 13 ....... ..........................Delayed .. 121
Verb PA I ......... 21
Vis Rep I .......... 36 ..... 88
DSp (816) ........ 14 ..... 571 .. 51
VMSp(1018) ..... 18..... 91 .. 171
Logical II .......... 28 ..... 85
Vis PA ............... 05
Verb ................. 08
Vis Rep II ......... 35 91

REY AVLT
... I ..... II ..... III ..... IV ..... V ..... INT ..... VI ..... REC
. 06 ..... 09 .... 11 .... 14 .... 14 ....(07) .... 12 ..... 14/15


HALSTEAD-REITAN

Tap ..... Dom = 31
............ N-Dom = 33

Trails .. A .... 40 ..... Errors 0
........... B ..... 63 .... Errors 0


AST
............ ERRORS
Fluent .... yes
Draw ...... 0
Name ..... 0
Spell ...... 0
Write ..... 0
Read ...... 0
Repeat ... 0
Comp ..... 0
Math ...... 0
Lim Prax .. 0
Rt-Lt ...... 0


SENSORY-PERCEPTUAL
Suppression
Tac Rt 0 ..... Lt 0
Aud Rt 0 .... Lt 0
Vis Rt 0 ...... Lt 0

CONTROLLED ORAL WORD ASSN
COR 0 ........ 40%
Score 34

CADI - 42 - PASS
DPT-II ..... 111 - AVG
MMPI - 2


Does this help at all?

Oscar, these figures do not mean much to me for I am not trained in anything psychological; and I have never heard of this 'Scholarship of Consensus' previously. I'm sure that there are others here who understand what you are talking about exactly but, if there are, they have either not replied or hav not noticed your thread.

What is your relationship to the person involved here?

RE figures not meaning much to me.

I guess if you do not know what a bell curve is it is going to be meaningless.

To give you a general idea of the scholarship consensus recall that this is an anti-psych forum and this should tip you off to the fact that this is not a topic that is praising mental health professionals.

Posters on this board tend to accept as a ground rule that psych professionals are demogogues

I am making a particular observation about what these guys do to manage to operate as demagogues

They do the same thing that any demagogue does: they clothe what they want to say with platitudes that are generally accepted.

I am pointing out, however, that the demagogues in mental health take it a step further. They have as a creed that if they discuss a client with fellow professionals and they reach agreement in their discussion then their act of consensus is an act of scholarship and science. Their scholarship is so self-indulgent that they do not follow the guide lines espoused by themselves. They do plain laughable stuff like saying that emotional disease explains a case history of a 60 year old increasing in intelligence by 2 orders of magnitude.

Sorry that I cannot explain the term orders of magitude. I hope that you understand.

Scholarship of Consensus is substituting demagoguery for scholarship and clothing the demagoguery in the methodology that they should be using.

My relationship to these people? As long as you do not steal intellectual property or commit other crimes anything on photobucket is yours to link to.

Hi,

Thanks for explaining once more and I can tell you that I now understand what you are referring too. I do know what a Bell-curve is, by the way, but I am unsure as to whether or not I agree with the point that you are making. I guess, you cannot apply what you are saying to every mental health professional, but I'm sure that there ARE some out there who behave as you are implicating.

The case that you specifically refer to - about the 60 year old - is one that I can see as being problematic for mental health professionals. I mean, whenever there is a deviation from the norm in a person, that person is typically labelled with some 'disease', synrome, etc. So, in this respect, you are certainly correct.

Kevin

this post is gold. agree 100%

Most likely there are professionals who use the methodology to evaluate instead of using methodology as camoflage.

I have always wondered if the percentage in other countries of consensus-first to methodology-first is different from here in the USA. First world countries outside of the USA are noted for their infrastructure. There may be some government bureau that oversees psych professionals in other countries and keeps them honest.