Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 3

message: This is a very biased, disgusting article. The anti-psychiatric fringe extremist viewpoint is well represented. Perhaps the whole thing should be rewritten by someone who isn't an idiot.
:I hope the above undated and unsigned statement was written before the massive cull this article underwent this very week (see below)  Cesar Tort 04:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: Rockport: In one of my 16 March posts above, the one that can be read below Franzio’s 10:15 UTC entry, you can see 9 suggestions I wrote related to sections that you have already made some changes.  Please take a look at those 9 suggestions.
I volunteer to cooperate full-time with you for a radical overhaul of this article.  César Tort   08:55 (UTC)  18 March 2006
:Cesar, i'm glad you are keen to contribute. I scanned your suggestions and had no major problems with them (though its often difficult to be sure out of context). Since there was no dissent, i presumed you would go ahead and make those changes. Please do not feel the need to wait for mass agreement before you make any changes you suggest. As long as they follow policy and are justified, you should be bold and introduce them. If there is a problem, people will tell you. I'll have another look at them now and give my opinion. Rockpocket 23:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal request of peer-review

message: I just made some edits to the intro. paragraph of this section:
*I added "According to anti-psychiatry advocates,..." to the first sentance, because this appears to be an anti-psychiatrist's summation of psychiatry, rather than a generally-agreed-upon summary. Unfortunately, either way, it is unsourced. If anybody has one or several sources for this, help would be much appreciated.
*The sentances on Kraepelian categorization have been removed, because I'm not seeing arguments against categorization per se in any of what follows.
*I changed "Anti-psychiatry" to "Anti-psychiatry advocates" in the last sentance, because the former implies a unified, monolithic movement called 'Anti-psychiatry', which I don't think is a justified implication. 
:--Dcfleck 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-inserted the info. about 'Kraepelinian' categories into the "Psychiatric diagnosis in reality" section. BTW, I don't see a reference for the Klerman cite. Do you have the information available? --Dcfleck 22:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I pretty much re-wrote the thing again, re-inserting much of the previous info. once I ascertained its relevance and importance. Also added 1 source and provided full references for 2. --Dcfleck 14:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Challenges and Alternatives ... Theory" edits 

message: So here is my justification for my major changes to this section:
* I culled the highly POV text about basing mental illness on societal norms. I may have lost some of nuance about material\financial importance, and if that is deemed specifially important in the movement and someone can work that back in in a NPOV concise manner, then please do so. But as it is, i think it still makes the point about a sanity in a sick society without overkill. I took out the claims about Iraq. It would have been nice to keep that in (otherwise it reads a bit like an extreme theoretical example), but google couldn't find any such allegations in my hands. If anyone can find a source for that then please replace it.
* The point about hyperfocus a good one, but the problem is that specific term is not used in the scientific community, though the general area is. So making the point that is is not discussed is like saying the scientific community does not mention "arses" in colorectal studies! I tried to change it to illustrate the more relevent point that psychiatrists generally see hyperfocus as a "BAD THING" while it could in fact be considered an useful mental state to be in. I would like a reference for a psychiatrist that thinks there are no positive aspects at all. One may well exist (and if they do, they are clearly insane themselves ;)) but i couldn't find a reference for that. I left that in for the moment, but i'll delete of no-one else can come up with one.
* The rest was grammer and flow and a few references. 
I hope this doesn't ruffle too many feather, and while i'm at it, i'd like to commend Dc and Cesar on your edits over the last few days, i think the article is coming on in leaps and bounds already. Rockpocket 03:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normality and illness judgements 

message: Can we start fighting about the single proper citation style to be used in this article yet? --Dcfleck 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the blue corner...I'd vote numbered outlinking to a web reference, pdf or pubmed if available, simply because its easier and more interactive. Otherwise Harvard style for non web accesible sources. But thats because i'm lazy. If there is a policy preference we should follow i'll go with that. Rockpocket 04:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: Rockpocket, I have just read your re-written section.  You lean toward the bio-psychiatric viewpoint rather than to the critics’ viewpoint.
Since I am not an specialist in this area I urge you to take another look at the work of Jay Joseph.  He has not only published the book I called your attention to.  His articles on genetic research in psychiatry and psychology have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as Developmental Review; The American Journal of Psychology; Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs; Politics and the Life Sciences; The Journal of Mind and Behavior; Psychiatric Quarterly; New Ideas on Psychology; and Ethical Human Sciences and Services (renamed Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry or EHPP). He is currently an Associate Editor of EHPP and an Assessing Editor of The Journal of Mind and Behavior.  Jay Joseph has also published another book, "The Gene Illusion: Genetic research in psychiatry and psychology under the microscope".
Joseph is not the only critic of bio-psychiatrists’ genetic theories.  But I can summarize, in a nutshell, what I have read in the literature.  Scientifically, a pattern of family transmission is neutral with respect to genetic versus environmental etiology.  This phrase should appear in an article that is about the critics of mainstream psychiatry, not about the proponents!
César Tort 21:20 (UTC)  19 March 2006.
: You are very welcome to include that sentence as a viewpoint of a critic if you can source it to Joseph or anyone else for that matter. As i see it, we should state the facts as accepted by mainstream "science" and then how and why the movement opposes them. I have tried to explain elsewhere how genetic association works and how statistical significance means the widely accepted most parsimonious explanation is a genetic influence. One (or a few) critic's views can be used, but do not presume that they represent anything other than a minority POV. 
: Anyway, Its not a case of "leaning towards" any viewpoint, its a case of accurately stating what the different viewpoints are. I may not have stated the anti-psychiatry viewpoint accurately, i admit, but that is because my understanding of anti-psychiatry is probably as limited as your understanding of genetics. If you are able to illustrate that viewpoint better, then please do so. Rockpocket 22:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added that sentence on your behalf, as i think it makes more sense than the argument that was there (which i instead moved to the biochemical section). However, i'd appreciate it if you would cite one or two of the sources that you mention, in place of the  tag, which best sum up that POV. Rockpocket 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unjustified focus on genetic factors