Re: Ron Rabin

I forgot the link which is:

http://faculty.buffalostate.edu/rabinrl/103/podcasts/index.html

Jump to section 3 and listen to lectures 1 and 2.

What are your thoughts?

Your belief that you can ‘read’ other people’s minds stems from a long line of quackery. Telepathy anyone? Even using the ‘magic’ of fMRIs, this is pseudoscience in the extreme. I would suggest that a little education in social anthropology would extend your mind a little, maybe even blow your brains!. May I be presumptuous and suggest time spent with Ron Rabin – Buffalo State College, would be very productive. It would also shed some light on the skeptic/denier dualism which so baffles you.

No probs! I did enjoy following your little escapade! Are you following the DSM5 progress? 1boringoldman.com is giving some excellent commentary as is Scientific American here..

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness/2012/05/08/science-remains-a-stranger-to-psychiatrys-new-bible/

I don’t think Dr. Novella is aware or else he is keeping mum.

‘Miema, see this about Szasz: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz‘

It is an excellent article that shows how relevant Szasz still is today. Thanks for posting.

I was being disingenuous dear friends, and I apologize for my deception. I didn’t mean to mislead anyone, only to illustrate that Dr. Novella’s philosophy of the mind can’t hold when followed to its natural conclusion. There are no differences in the brains of believers, deniers, etc. This truth is instinctive, or we wouldn’t argue so vehemently with them, knowing that their brains simply cannot make the change to understand our arguments. (I’m not saying there’s great wisdom in arguing with someone who simply thinks differently. It just depends on how plastic their thinking is) Likewise, there’s no scientific evidence that the brains of people with most of the diseases and disorders listed in the DSM have anything to do with the health of the brain.

Psychology is a beautiful science. It’s helped us to understand why we think and behave the way we do. It’s helped us to see that most of the time it’s because of the experiences we’ve had and the situations we’re in – and that with those same experiences and in those same situations, normal people respond pretty similarly. It’s helped us to understand why nazi soldiers executed their orders in spite of personal conscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

When we understand why we think and behave the way we do, we’re able to change for the better. But messing with the physical brain doesn’t change how we think – unless the brain is physically damaged and we fix it, or it’s not physically damaged and we damage it. The brain doesn’t determine thought. We may effect mood through chemistry. We may dull or animate the physical processes that are a required correlate to thought, but only experiences that instigate thought change thought. The brain may change in response to these thoughts, but we can’t externally bring about those changes (without providing interaction, education, brainwashing, desensitization, etc. that we know affect thought. But lobotomy, ECT, drugs, etc. – no – these don’t change the mind, except to damage the physical brain and thereby simply effect thinking ability.)

Psychiatry was a noble attempt to find the physiological roots of thinking and behavior in order to ease the mental and emotional suffering of many. But how long do we look in vain for those physiological roots? It’s time to segregate psychology and medicine. If we want to use drugs, we need to be realistic about why they’re being used, and understand that they are not correcting some brain malfunction or imbalance. A lot of misinformation has arisen about the drugs used for psychiatric purposes. If you believe that there is a drug which is being used to treat an actual “mind problem” (disordered or paranoid thoughts, poor self-image, defeatism, etc.) that is actually accomplishing that task, please tell me what it is.

Let’s respect the integrity of the individual mind. We have the ability to judge whether someone’s behavior is harmful to society. We can deal with that behavior, and we can try to understand why it happens so that we can help the person by addressing his thinking directly, and hopefully prevent others suffering a similar fate. This has proven to be effective for many genuine psychological “disorders”. We can make a person responsible for their behavior without “blaming” them – we are all guilty of acting based on our thinking and experience. If we do something wrong and meet the corrections of a just society, we can change. But not if we don’t meet corrections that change our thinking.

I want to thank all of you who answered my questions in earnest. You have shown me that you have given careful thought to such issues, and aren’t afraid to share your opinions and beliefs on the matter. And I don’t think any of you would place an individual’s right to think any way he or she chooses to think, or, even simply finds that he or she does think (in the case of an uneducated person), below the belief that “the mind is the brain and the brain is the mind”.
No matter what your beliefs are on the matter, let your actions be based in compassion, respect and justice. Use what you know about the science of psychology and sociology to understand that giving dangerous drugs to children who don’t seem to be able to behave the way their parents or schools would like them to behave is not the best solution for helping the kids or the parents. And that the decision as to whether their brains are abnormal should be based upon physical evidence, not on the determination that their behavior fits the description of a disorder coined by a group of psychiatrists heavily indebted to companies that manufacture drugs that are used to “treat” the “disorder”. The mental capacity of a child is not fully developed. Children develop at different rates, and not all children develop in the same direction. Any situation that requires similar behavior from all children will find some children that can’t comply. This does not abnormal children make.

I’m going to just end here because this is obviously an endless topic and I’m getting away from the crux of it and harkening back to the Szasz/ADHD post.
thanks to Dr. Novella for the open forum

“Is using a logical sledgehammer to crack a nut a behavioural fallacy?”

IT IS BEHAVIORAL AWESOMENESS. HAHAHA

Mlema: “cwfong, BillyJoe7, I appreciate your responses to my posts. Please try to stay on topic on this page.”