What's your opinion on sociopaths? | Page 6 | INFJ Forum

What's your opinion on sociopaths?

What I find interesting about this thread is the overwhelming negative response to a different opinion and accusations about spreading misinformation. Sometimes it's too easy to be dismissive of things we do not like to hear.

I am very interested to know why the man who wrote that book came to the conclusion that schizophrenia is not a true illness. I'd like to see his proof, his science, his studies, hear about his experiences. I mean, it was also published nearly 20 years ago and I believe the outlook on mental health was much different at that time, even though it doesn't seem that long ago.

I think everyone should stop jumping all over the OP for citing someone else's work. If anything it's something to discuss. Not attack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
LucyJr;739283I'm amazed. I'm thinking said:
I think 'mental illness' is a very touchy subject and some people have had very difficult and painful experiences with it, so it can cause strong reactions. Imagine that somebody you loved was raped and then you were told that all women that are raped really are lying about it and they really wanted it. This is not to shock you but just to give you a different perspective. When somebody has directly witnessed or experienced mental illness and are told that mental illness does not exist the reaction would probably be similar to the one most people would experience in the above scenario. It hurts to hear misinformation being spread about people who are really "victims" of their disease and not the cause of it. Mental illness causes a great deal of harm to people through no fault of their own and causes a great deal of grief and pain for their families. Although I believe there is harm done when people are led to believe that they have a mental illness when they don't, I believe there is even more harm done in stigmatizing mental illness or outright denying it. This is not to admonish you but just to hopefully help you understand the reaction.
 
What I find interesting about this thread is the overwhelming negative response to a different opinion and accusations about spreading misinformation. Sometimes it's too easy to be dismissive of things we do not like to hear.

I am very interested to know why the man who wrote that book came to the conclusion that schizophrenia is not a true illness. I'd like to see his proof, his science, his studies, hear about his experiences. I mean, it was also published nearly 20 years ago and I believe the outlook on mental health was much different at that time, even though it doesn't seem that long ago.

I think everyone should stop jumping all over the OP for citing someone else's work. If anything it's something to discuss. Not attack.

I don't believe I was "attacking" the OP but just making him aware of the harm that I believe denying the validity of mental illness can do to people who are experiencing it. I feel very strongly about this and I don't think it is wrong to share that.
 
I do take responsability. But when I post things, which are supposedly be so obviously ignorant, I expect to be corrected nicely, even laughed at my lack of knowledge.
But what do I get? Thumbs down, and very interesting reactions, not what is normaly expected from such a poor little ignorant guy like me.

And I don't act like a victim at all. I'm just very astonished at the vehement reaction I got.
I don't cry behind my computer...I'm amazed. I'm thinking, "Man, why such a strong reaction if what I post is so obviously ignorant?"
I got a thumbs down waaaaaaaaaaa!
 
I don't believe I was "attacking" the OP but just making him aware of the harm that I believe denying the validity of mental illness can do to people who are experiencing it. I feel very strongly about this and I don't think it is wrong to share that.

I have suffered from mental illness for almost the entirety of my life and feel absolutely nothing about people who believe that it doesn't exist or even people who make us aware of the opinions of others who believe this. I don't think anyone can get a full picture of humanity, the condition of the mind, heart or physical body without considering all sides of the coin.

The health industry as it is is riddled with misinformation, ignorance and outright dishonesty anyway. To me, it's just something else to think about. If other people want to take an extreme opinion and abide by it without putting in the research themselves then that is willful ignorance also. It's a waste of time to get upset about something instead of bringing something informative to the table that counters the opinions you don't like.
 
What I find interesting about this thread is the overwhelming negative response to a different opinion and accusations about spreading misinformation. Sometimes it's too easy to be dismissive of things we do not like to hear.

I am very interested to know why the man who wrote that book came to the conclusion that schizophrenia is not a true illness. I'd like to see his proof, his science, his studies, hear about his experiences. I mean, it was also published nearly 20 years ago and I believe the outlook on mental health was much different at that time, even though it doesn't seem that long ago.

I think everyone should stop jumping all over the OP for citing someone else's work. If anything it's something to discuss. Not attack.
Thanks. I appreciate it.
Thomas Szasz is just one of the minority that holds that mental illness, most of them, are not mental illness.
Contrary to what critics like to claim, until his death in 2012, he strongly supports his view along with people on his sides.
There are interviews with him just a few time until his death, where he clearly states his initial position, made around '60s.
 
It's a waste of time to get upset about something instead of bringing something informative to the table that counters the opinions you don't like.

I believe I did bring something informative to the table and I don't believe it is a waste of time at all to share different perspectives and personal experiences. Sometimes even when people completely disagree on a subject it stills puts the 'seed' of a different perspective and if they come into contact with somebody who has a mental illness they may react in a more helpful and understanding manner than if they hadn't heard the other side of the coin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvp12gh5
Some of the wording in here may be a little inflammatory but it is an interesting read and in my opinion just as valid as Szasz' writings:

Mental illness denial

Mental illness denial is the denial of the existence of mental disorders as real medical conditions and the field of psychiatry as a legitimate science.
Contents [hide]

In the 1950s, L. Ron Hubbard published his book, Dianetics, and repeatedly submitted papers on the subject to psychological and psychiatric journals. Of course, the editors of the journals thought the idea of the Reactive Mind and the state of Clear was bologna and they all rejected his submissions. Hubbard, however, continued to peddle his pseudo-psychology and built up a cult following around Dianetics. He and his followers started up a bunch of schools and organizations to promote his bullshit. After one of them closed down due to lack of funding and the American Psychiatric Association criticized Dianetics, Hubbard went into uber-crank mode, denouncing it as a conspiracy by psychiatrists to destroy his precious Dianetics. Hubbard's butthurt over a perceived conspiracy by psychiatrists helped lay the foundations for one of the largest cults in US history: Scientology. In the early '50s, Hubbard and his followers began to call themselves Scientologists and started various chapters and associations of Scientology. It wasn't until 1959, though, when the Church of Scientology would take on its more familiar trappings by introducing E-Meters and such.[1] But we'll come back to Hubbard later.

The anti-psychiatry movement was never really a unified movement in any way, more a collection of philosophers and activists who were vaguely interrelated and some who were not even totally opposed to psychiatry at all. The foundation of the movement was laid in the 1960s, when French philosopher Michel Foucault published his first book Madness and Civilization and British psychiatrist R.D. Laing published a number of works critical of psychiatric practices. This was back in the days when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and lobotomies were still widely (mis)used for everything from depression to nymphomania,[2] so there was much to criticize. Laing and Foucault never denied mental illness, they simply pointed out the history of the concept and how it had been used as a means of oppression (though anti-psychiatric cranks often omit this part). Laing's view was that while mental illness may be real it is a natural human response to a sick society. Foucault and Laing's influence would later bring a radical leftist element into the anti-psychiatry camp.[3]
[edit]Changing public perception
Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest also came out around this time, which influenced popular perceptions of psychiatry. Later anti-psychiatry texts would draw on these works as a foundation even though they did not explicitly deny mental illness. Gay activists were heavily involved in anti-psychiatry protests, though most were simply opposed to the inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM and not psychiatry as a whole. Gay activists actually crashed a number of American Psychiatric Association meetings until they took the gay out of the DSM in 1973 as a result of the protests and new research into sexuality like that of Evelyn Hooker and (to a lesser extent) Alfred Kinsey.[4]
[edit]Thomas Szasz
The true godfather of mental illness denial was the American psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, a contemporary of Foucault and Laing. Szasz was an ideologically motivated doctor with little real-world experience who used his post to attack the workings of the legal system. In fact, he admitted he was never really interested in psychiatry or psychology. Szasz published The Myth of Mental Illness in 1961, which became the bedrock of mental illness denial.[5] He used his newfound platform to launch his crusade against the insanity defense and the practice of involuntary commitment. Szasz's basic argument, which he repeated ad nauseam over tens of books throughout his life, was that 'mental illness' was a literalized metaphor because the mind was not a physical scientific object and therefore could not be subject to a biological disease. Szasz also argued for the legalization of drugs, the end of involuntary commitment, lobotomies, and the misuse of shock therapy on this basis, which demonstrates the old adage about the stopped clock. He was also a major critic of the idea that homosexuality was a disease. He did not advocate for the end of psychiatry as a discipline, though, he simply believed it to be a pseudoscience but argued that people should be allowed to see psychiatrists only if there was mutual consent.[6] It's worth noting that Szasz had a number of salient points to make about psychiatric practices at the time, but his work today is mostly used as a justification for quackery.



This is where Hubbard comes back in. He saw an opportunity to further his crusade against psychiatry when he heard of Szasz's work and, in conjunction, the two formed the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR). Szasz never was and never became a Scientologist (ironically, Szasz is known as a staunch atheist), but the CCHR essentially became the anti-psychiatry front of the Co$ and acts on their direct order. The CCHR has been peddling its bullshit ever since, spewing some really batshit conspiracy theories claiming that psychiatry was responsible for World War I, Hitler, Stalin, and 9/11. They were also responsible for that Psychiatry: Industry of Death tour recently.[7] Szasz himself never believed this nonsense, but acted as an enabler for the insanity coming out of the CCHR. Notable uber-quack Gary Null also has the CCHR to thank for his anti-medical anything position.[8]
[edit]Loss of common cause and fractioning
After the barbaric practice of lobotomy ended, along with the de-institutionalization of mental patients (more due to a lack of funding for mental hospitals than anything else), as well as a court ruling that protected those with mental illness under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the anti-psychiatry movement lost some of its traction. Growing tensions between secular anti-psychiatrists and Scientologists have also heavily weakened it — because of Scientologists' habit of infiltrating any organization that might further their cause, many anti-psychiatry groups have banned Scientologists from joining.[9]

Nowadays anti-psychiatry is limited to a smaller, but vocal, minority within the mental health industry, the CCHR and Scientologists, and various woo-meisters, usually alties, New Agers, and other hippie types, that recycle their propaganda to hawk their own brand of quackery. The movement itself, however, has been united in recent years with the advent of the internet, thus making it seem larger than it actually is.[10] There is also a small strain of mental illness denial among the nuttier libertarians due to Szasz's involvement in the Libertarian Party and the Soviet Union's use of the mental health system to lock up dissidents. A small minority of radical queer activists such as Gay Shame maintain an anti-psychiatry stance, a position that was otherwise dropped by most of the gay rights movement long ago when homosexuality was delisted from the DSM.
[edit]The big false argument

The most common argument by mental illness deniers is that there is no such thing as mental illness because there is no observable pathology. Szasz and others have been reformulating, repackaging, recycling, and regurgitating this argument since the '60s. This assumes that the brain works the same way as the heart or the liver. Some mental disorders may be defined as some point on the very extreme end of the bell curve where an individual is simply dysfunctional. Dyslexia, for example, may be defined as an extreme disability in reading skill. Thus, it is simply a category with which people may be labeled so they can receive extra help. This also precludes the fact that what was once purely a mental illness may later be found to have a biological basis. Senile dementia, for example, is being increasingly replaced with the diagnosis of Alzheimer's, which is now thought to be at least in part due to a build-up of neuritic plaque in the brain.[11] Yet another problem with this argument is that we currently do not have the technological means to view the chemical interactions of every synapse of every neuron at the same time, so there could be some dysfunction there that is unseen. There is also an example that everyone is familiar with: Migraine headaches. This cannot be "seen" by current technology, but no one would deny that headaches exist.
The crank conspiracy theories about psychiatrists taking over the world or Big Pharma inventing mental illness require serious attention.

This becomes even more silly since the recent[when?] advances in research of neuroplasticity. This discovery has shown that humans are able to add synaptic connections through their experiences.
This has been researched (with some good success) for treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, as well as Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Subjects were given medication that interfered with memory recall and asked to read aloud their traumatic experience that would normally cause a flashback, or read aloud something that would normally trigger a maladaptive response. By exposure, and taking medication that interfered with the brain's ability to recall the memory with such vividness, several subjects were able to read their experience aloud without the same emotional response that would normally cause the unwanted behaviour or response. This is proof that while we can not actually "see" a mental disorder, we can treat it by physically interfering with how the brain recalls an event through use of medications that have been proven to interfere with the brain's ability to recall memory and make new neural connections.
[edit]ADHD and autism denial

Unfortunately, due to rising instances of ADHD and autism diagnoses, there has been increasing mental illness denial in the form of simply denying the existence of ADHD or autism, but not mental illness as a whole. Some wingnuts like Michael Savage have claimed that autistic kids are just brats who need more discipline or some similar bullshit. There is also some autism denial among anti-vaccination cranks who believe autism is simply mercury poisoning. Parents critical of the way ADHD is diagnosed and treated in children, while they do have legitimate criticisms, too often turn to ADHD denial and become peddlers of some alt-woo. However, the existence of autism and ADHD do have solid empirical evidence backing them.[12]
[edit]"Difference model"

A current politically correct approach to mental illness is the "difference model."[13] This, as contrasted with the "deficit model," varies from the other examples here in that it makes no factual denials; promoters of the difference model, while acknowledging the symptoms of a person's mental illness, will try to pretend that there is nothing at all the matter with that person. Consequently, according to the difference model, instead of giving treatment to the mentally ill, society must be "restructured" to accommodate them as is. There have been some cases of people committing acts of violence after being released from mental hospitals under cost-cutting "care in the community" initiatives partially prompted by these ideas.[14] Note that while this is uncommon (with the mentally ill being more likely to be victims of violence then initiators), it does happen.


There are several who complain about the scientific validity of Psychiatry (and mental illness from a psychological and neurological perspective as well) who take the position of Karl Popper on what is and what is not science. In their defense, a strict Popperist would be largely forced to come to the conclusion that psychiatry is a form of pseudoscience, if only because it is often difficult to the point of impossibility to prove in a strict experiment what causes mental illness. In theory, one could provide drugs which should replicate the neural conditions which cause a mental disorder to a person who does not have a mental illness, and see if they develop this condition. For example, a common theory of what causes Major Depression is that a neural transmitter (essentially, a chemical that tells your brain to do things) called serotonin is reabsorbed by the neuron which released it (a process call "reuptake"). Many Anti-Depressant Drugs are chemicals which prevent this from happening, thus treating the neurochemical cause of depression. In theory, a group could develop a drug which would cause this excessive serotonin reuptake, and see if this causes Major Depression in their patients. This is, however, hilariously unethical, and would never happen.
The response to this point is threefold:
Because we cannot ethically know that excess serotonin reuptake is the cause of Major Depression, but treating that seems to cure the symptoms, we can assume that it is the cause.
This is essentially the problem faced by all medical professions, since none of them can ethically try to give their patients a disease to verify that (for example) HIV causes AIDS.
There is a reason why Mr. Popper, while highly respected, is no longer the king of Philosophy of science. A strict Popperist would be forced to conclude that the majority of science is, in fact, unscientific.
 
[MENTION=7838]SpecialEdition[/MENTION]
Here is a interview with him.
[video=youtube;7Riet8REzsQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Riet8REzsQ[/video]
[video=youtube;aAm9RcxQv14]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAm9RcxQv14[/video]
 
[video=youtube;II96QkZaz1E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II96QkZaz1E[/video]
 
Anti-psychiatry is anti-job-psychiatry, and anti-moneymaking-psychiatry. Its dangerous of course.
 
Here's more information refuting deniers of mental illness. If we are to follow the logic of these deniers than not being able to 'see' a disease like you would see cancer or clogged arteries means that it doesn't exist, which means I guess that our thoughts, feelings, headaches and anything else that can't be seen must not exist.

On Friday I appeared on The Debate Hour hosted by the Infidel Guy, the topic of discussion being “Is psychiatry a legitimate science?” I was defending psychiatry as legitimate while Dr. Fred Baughman, also a neurologist, defended his long time position that psychiatry is (to quote his website) “100% fraud.” I thought I would use my next few entries to delve into some of the issues raised more deeply.

Now, there is much to criticize about the mental health professions. It is a very diverse collection of beliefs and methods, and it is not possible to paint this diversity with a single brush. It ranges from rigorous science to pure pseudoscience. It is also an extremely challenging field, dealing with the complexity of human thought and behavior and confronting difficult ethical issues such as autonomy and legal responsibility.


But the notion that mental illness itself does not exist, and therefore there is no legitimate “mental health,” is untenable given our modern knowledge of neuroscience. The arguments used by those who deny the reality of mental illness are a collection of logical fallacies, semantic misdirection, and misrepresentation of the scientific evidence. I will address the main issues raised by Dr. Baughman during the debate and in his book and articles.

For some further background, there are two prominent groups who deny the reality of psychiatry. The first are scientologists. They deny mental illness for the same reason and in the same manner that creationists deny evolution – it is not in accord with their religious faith. Without going deeply into the beliefs of scientology, they have an alternate view of mental health relating on one level to traumatic memories called engrams, but on a deeper level to alien ghosts infecting our brains.

The other group is comprised of those who follow in the tradition of psychiatrist Thomas Szasz. Dr. Baughman is clearly in this second group. Szasz has railed for decades against the abuses of psychiatry, and fifty years ago he had some legitimate points to make. However, his legitimate points have been rendered obsolete by advances in the practice and ethics of psychiatry. He and his followers still cling to points that never were legitimate, and further have been rendered quaintly absurd by advances in neuroscience over the last few decades.

Both groups incorporate to some degree conspiracy theories involving big pharma and the mental health industry, and conspiracy theorists may even form a third subgroup of deniers.

There is no disease without pathology

During the debate Dr. Baughman returned often to his central point – that you cannot have disease without pathology, and mental illness has no demonstrable pathology; therefore it is not a disease. He concludes from this that psychiatrists therefore lie to their patients. They are practicing pure fraud, and prescribing medications (“dangerous poisons”) is malpractice.

This claim can only be understood in the context of modern neuroscience. There are a few premises on which the standard position (which I accept) is based. The first is that almost every part of a biological organism (except those that are vestigial) has some function. For every structure and physiological function that medical science has identified, there is a disease or disorder associated with its malfunction. It may function too much, too little, improperly, or not at all.

The second premise is that the mind is a manifestation of brain function. Our thoughts, mood, and behaviors are, in fact, the biological function of the brain. There is no spirit, magic, life force, or quantum woo hiding inside our heads. Further, many specific mental activities (even those that we are not consciously aware of) correlate to specific areas of the brain – brain structures that evolved to create a particular mental function.

When we combine the above two premises, the conclusion is ineluctable. The brain must malfunction also, and in fact each brain function should have a disorder associated with its malfunction, including cognition, mood, and behavior.

Another important premise relates to our current understanding of brain function. It is dependent upon, as all organs are, the health of the cells that make up the brain – the absence of infection, inflammation, and tumors, the presence of adequate nutrition, oxygenation, and blood supply, and the proper regulation of many metabolic and hormonal factors.

But the brain is not the liver – it is also dependent upon a deeper level of complexity unique to the brain. Specifically, brain function is determined by the pattern and robustness of connections made among its 100 billion neurons. Further, brain activity is determined by the action of neurotransmitters and the distribution and structure of receptors for those neurotransmitters. The brain is also an electrical organ (in this way it has some features in common with heart and skeletal muscle). Therefore electrical problems, including the structure and activity of protein channels that control the flow of charged ions in and out of cells, also influence brain function.

Now let’s get back to Dr. Baughman’s position. He argues that mental illnesses are not real because there is no observable pathology – by which he means the first category of problems generic to all biological tissue (what I will call “classic pathology”). In other words, the brain cells are normal, without tumors, infection, abnormal histology (microscopic structure), etc. When these problems are present the result is a neurological disease. Psychiatry, he argues, involves only fake diseases where no classic pathology can be seen.

Szasz, Baughman and others simply deny those factors that are unique to the brain, that relate to patterns of neuronal connections and neurotransmitter activity. They have no legitimate reason to do so. Rather, they rely upon semantic misdirection and evasion to avoid this core fallacy of their position. They cannot reasonably disagree with any of the premises I laid out, as all are demonstrably scientifically true. The logic also is valid, so the conclusion is sound – if part of the brain allows us to pay attention, in some people that part of the brain must function poorly causing a deficit of attention.

Baughman argues that this is not true. Why? Because there is no disease (read classical pathology) present, and everything else must be deemed normal. Why is it normal? Because there is no disease. What about abnormalities of neurotransmitter function or faulty patterns of neuronal connections? All normal. No pathology = no disease = normal.
 
Anti-psychiatry is anti-job-psychiatry, and anti-moneymaking-psychiatry. Its dangerous of course.

Well, I sincerely hope that you and your loved ones never experience mental illness so you don't have to support those money-making psychiatrists. I'm not sure what are your life plans but most people need a job and need to make money to survive so I have a hard being mad at people for that. I'm sure there are some bad psychiatrists but I'm pretty sure some of them have saved people's lives or greatly improved people's lives.
 
The brain is a complex thing. Keep in mind someone may have written something like that in response to health care. "Lets find a way to unclassify schizophrenia as a disease so that insurance companies dont have to pay out for treatment anymore" type of thing. A single opinion which is what that quote is, doesn't make a fact. Imagine a person not being able to make it through the day being told, "Theres nothing wrong with you, we have just determined schizophrenia isnt real."

They still call the brain the most complex thing on earth. Nothing mankind has ever made even comes close. The idea that anyone would claim to know all there is to know about how it works so that they could say this or that isnt real is fairly preposterous.
 
Irony...what would we do whithout it?
 
Well, I sincerely hope that you and your loved ones never experience mental illness so you don't have to support those money-making psychiatrists. I'm not sure what are your life plans but most people need a job and need to make money to survive so I have a hard being mad at people for that. I'm sure there are some bad psychiatrists but I'm pretty sure some of them have saved people's lives or greatly improved people's lives.

I don't think mental illness exist, only a few of them.
Those that exist...I don't think these can be treated by psychiatrists. Drugs and electric shocks? No thanks.
Psychiatrists are a symbol of hope, but nothing more.
 
I don't think mental illness exist, only a few of them.
Those that exist...I don't think these can be treated by psychiatrists. Drugs and electric shocks? No thanks.
Psychiatrists are a symbol of hope, but nothing more.

How did you come to this conclusion? The many years of study you have put forth on the subject?
 
I don't think mental illness exist, only a few of them.
Those that exist...I don't think these can be treated by psychiatrists. Drugs and electric shocks? No thanks.
Psychiatrists are a symbol of hope, but nothing more.

Ok, so my sister in law taking medication which takes away her delusions is what? Do you think she is pretending to not have them anymore? or that she was pretending to have them in the first place? Granted, the side effects of the drugs are unfortunate and I wish she could function without them but she is still better than if she didn't take them.

I'm not sure what is shaping your opinions but it doesn't seem to be from first-hand experience.