Tweet
What is the legal status of the Am. Psych. Assoc. handbook on disorders or whatever the hell it is called. I ask because there keep being references on the news to another quirk which has been identified as 'abnormal' or whatever. Then as I mentioned in a previous post, psychology as field and the APA specifically is being over taking by females. Now, a bunch of females, who have spent too much time in school, sitting around talking about what is wrong with other people, males specifically if I read the crap correctly, doesn't exactly reassure me as to the veracity of their observations. From my perspective, having immersed myself in biology, do Pasteur's Postulates have any relevance to establishing these new and wonderful ways to slander or libel some poor fool. And, no, I am not (to my knowledge) in the crosshair of the local Sturmbannfuhrer Mueller. I am just baffled by all these new ways to label someone as being 'not right' or 'deviant'. I could go into a long dissertation, from both the engineering view as well as biology of trying to be 'exactly right' on target.
-
-
Not trying to answer for Sid, the Diagnostic Statistic Manual in the latest current revision can be cited in court if need be. I used the DSM-IV and mine was a 1997 edition. In our reports one would cite number such as 282.6 instead of unloading the diagnoses. The reader would then refer to the DSM for full information if need be. Also, insurance and governments use the # for payment as this is much simpler on reporting. The DSM is revised as society evolves, homosexuality is no longer classified as deviant behavior, but a lifestyle and removed from consideration.
Like any profession, we had our share of "unusual" people to deal with and it can be a pain. I believe the current DSM is online, interesting reading. I took a different approach then many of my cohorts did as I am learned in Psychology as well as Sociology and looked at the client from both aspects.
Sam -
Thank you, Sam. Having limited experience with Psychology I am in the dark as to how an idea goes from 'concept' to 'fact based tool' for analysis and classifying an individual. For example, Ted Bundy was said to be very charismatic. Does that imply anyone who is charismatic has serial killer tendencies? Although Hitler, Mao, LBJ, Bobby and Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Obama being charismatic leaders would tend to support that.Last edited by barretcreek; 01-27-2019, 09:28.Comment
-
Which proves it can't be science-based, if it's influenced by constantly changing cultural forces; rather, it's a monstrous humbug of pseudo-science constructed to reflect the theology of liberalism. Chemical "mistakes" in the genetic code are common--every physical deformity from Siamese twins to hair-lips is the result of the normal DNA sequence becoming damaged or disordered in some way; yet we don't call such freaks "normal." Buggery may be a "lifestyle," but it's the direct result of something having "gone wrong" in the normal course of physiological & psychological development.Comment
-
You are right an wrong at the same time. Just because society accepts it doesn't mean the underlying illness is changed...it hasn't. Depression is the main killer in America, yet society accepts it for what it is, a treatable illness. To ignore mental illness is to bury ones head in the sand with your butt hanging out to get kicked! The human mind is so complex it can never be truly understood as it constantly changes. Humans are a chemical based life form in general, as our chemicals change so does one's ability to cope. Good example is depression and self medicating with ethanol. Ethanol is a depressant and drinking it makes the illness that much worse in the false hope of getting better.
SamComment
-
I don't know if CH needs me to wade in here, but I think he means this -- there IS science that governs human behavior -- but too many professionals ignore science and substitute their prejudices and feelings. We cannot, therefore have confidence in what they say, because they look through a distorted lens.Comment
-
Remember what happened to the eminent Dr Shockley when he tried to investigate intellectual differences between the races. Not merely his science-based results, but the mere fact that he was investigating a taboo subject (according to liberals) led to his vilification by the "scientific community," which for the most part is piously left-wing.
First & unquestioned rule of orgs like Am. Psy. Assn. is conform to the liberal cultural agenda in every respect.Comment
-
I went to court recently with a friend, for a sentencing hearing
I was there for moral support, not on the stand, my friend was involved in a domestic situation,
when the other party's (the guilty one) lawyer was chatting up the judge , he had a psychologist or psychiatrist speak about how various things could have affected the outcome and reasoning for the actions that were being sentenced (not going into details as to the hows and whys etc, not relavant)
the psych quoted the DSM, version V (iirc) then went into details on the way the mind works, dependancy(s) and other issues,
the psych was a PHD, expert witness type,
not sure in the end it mattered in sentencing, but it was interesting to hear the arguments and reasoning,Comment
-
I posted a detailed reply on these issues but it isn't showing up here. What happened to the post? I posted it under Advanced.Comment
Comment