Interesting article.

I remember when I did my internship on an inpatient psych ward in Newark last
year, there were at least 2 Dissociative Identity Disorder diagnosed patients
who I remember.  I will admit, one did behave strangely.  The other patient was
a male, which surprized me, as DID is usually applied to women.

I remember reading something by Colin Ross, M.D. an "expert" in DID (if there
really is such a thing).  He made an interesting point. If DID "exists", it is
underdiagnoed, due to the way the diagnostic criteria are written. It is
impossible to differentiate between a schizophrenia patient and a DID patient
with diagnostic criteria.  It is all a matter on how you interpret their
behavior (a sort of projective test--what the diagnostician sees is what he/she
is biased to see.)

I had seen people who were diagnosed with DID simply because they reported
hearing 2 or more voices conversing "inside their heads."  There is likely more
to the story, as I did not actually read their charts.

I wonder why skepticism of DID has not carried over to schizophrenia.  It cannot
be because schizophrenia has a better evidence, because I know of no research
that had been undertaken to measure its validity (the same is true of any other
"disorder").

Rob Ryley OTR

Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/

Visit the mailing list archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

        Creating Hysteria
        Women and Multiple Personality Disorder
        By JOAN ACOCELLA

Rob Ryley wrote:

Voices of Reason, Voices of Insanity
Studies of Verbal Hallucinations
Ivan Leudar, University of Manchester
Philip Thomas, University of Bradford

Records of people experiencing verbal hallucinations or hearing voices
can be found throughout history. Voices of Reason, Voices of Insanity traces
such reports through almost 2,800 years in order to understand the
experience and look at ways in which its meaning has changed or re-mained
the same. Through six cases of historical and contemporary
voice hearers, Leudar and Thomas demonstrate how the experience
has metamorphosed from being a sign of virtue to a sign of insanity,
signalling such illnesses as schizophrenia or dissociation. They argue
that the experience is interpreted by the voice hearer according to cultural expectations conveyed through language, and is therefore best
studied as a matter of language use.

Controversially, they conclude
that hearing voices is an ordinary human experience which is unfortunately either mystified or pathologised. Voices of Reason, Voices of Insanity offers a fresh perspective on this enigmatic experience and will be of
interest to students, researchers and professionals. Contents

The Daemon of Socrates. The Gods of Achilles. The Souls of Daniel Paul
Schreber. Pierre Janet on Verbal Hallucinations: The Case of Marcelle. Pragmatists on Self.
Verbal Hallucinations in Contemporary Psychiatry. Working with Voices.
The Frenzy of Anthony Smith: Hearing Voices in English National
Newspapers. Voice-talk. Conclusion.

ISBN 0-415-14786-7 April 2000 240pp. #45.00 hbk
ISBN 0-415-14787-5 April 2000 240pp. #15.99 pbk

Published by Routledge

Rob Ryley OTR

Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/

Visit the mailing list archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the salesman clueless?  Productopia has the answers.
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1702

-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=pseudoscience-in-psych&m=1

Perhaps list members saw the following on Sunday in the TimesBook Review:

November 21, 1999

        I Contain Multitudes

        Why were so many women thought to have multiple
        personalities?
 

        Related Link
        First Chapter: 'Creating Hysteria'
 

        By PETER D. KRAMER

        The recovered memory movement is
        a case of a host of good intentions
        paving a precipitous road to hell. In the
        early 1960's, pediatricians breached
        decades of silence by naming the
        battered child syndrome. The same years
        witnessed a revival of feminism and a
        new willingness to speak frankly about
        sexual molestation. Meanwhile,
        psychotherapy was moving from old
        ideals of neutrality to treatments based
        on empathy and even advocacy for
        patients.

        Each of these changes was important and
        necessary. But America has trouble with
        proportion, and by the 1980's the
        melding of child protection, politics and
        clinical zeal had produced outsize claims
        -- that a third of all girls are sexually abused, for example, and that
        women's personalities are largely, even universally, shaped by early
        sexual trauma. One corner of this hell was a 10-year epidemic of multiple
        personality disorder.

        Multiple personality disorder is the ''Sybil'' or ''Three Faces of Eve''
        condition, in which distinct personalities, or ''alters,'' recurrently take
        control of a person's behavior. Its roots extend back to the Victorian
        romantic interest in divided consciousness -- Jekyll and Hyde -- but the
        condition has always been controversial, doctors disagreeing as to
        whether it even existed. In the 1980's, however, it came to be
        understood as a consequence of child abuse. Enough cases were
        diagnosed to support a new profit center in mental hospitals, the
        dissociative disorders ward. Credulous news reports spread the craze.

        This bubble, the rise and fall of multiple personality disorder, has caught
        the attention of Joan Acocella, who is best known as a dance critic but
        has also long worked as a textbook writer in psychology. It is as a
        reporter that she confronts M.P.D. in ''Creating Hysteria.'' She is not
        neutral -- angry and scornful, rather -- but then she is describing
        outrageous events.

        Acocella begins by describing the case of Elizabeth Carlson, a
        35-year-old depressed mother of two. In 1989, Carlson came under the
        care of a psychiatrist, Diane Humenansky, who believed that M.P.D.
        was underdiagnosed. According to Carlson's later testimony, quite minor
        indicators of dissociation -- for example, ''zoning out'' while driving -- led
        Humenansky to walk Carlson through ''guided imagery,'' suggesting she
        imagine candles and daggers. Carlson kept a journal, and Humenansky
        picked out themes and then supplied names for aspects of her
        personality. Carlson soon had many alters; after 25, she lost count. She
        came to believe that family members participated in a murderous satanic
        cult.

        Almost by chance, Carlson was put on medication that made her feel
        better. She walked out of her therapy group and compared notes with
        members who, Acocella says, felt bullied by Humenansky. In 1993 and
        1994, Carlson and another patient sued Humenansky and were awarded
        over $2 million apiece. The verdicts marked the beginning of a rapid
        decline in diagnoses of M.P.D.

        Effective journalism also helped end the fad. In 1993, The New Yorker
        published ''Remembering Satan,'' Lawrence Wright's expose of satanic
        ritual abuse, a recovered memory variant in which patients recall
        unspeakable (not to say incredible) torture at the hands of cult members.
        The two disorders overlapped: many multiples, like Carlson, had
        dredged up memories of abuse by cults. As Acocella puts it, ''For
        M.P.D. believers, S.R.A. created a crisis similar to the one faced by
        American Communists when news of the Moscow trials reached the
        West in the late 30's.'' If they defended their colleagues, dissociation
        specialists were extremists; if they pulled back, they were conceding the
        role of the news media and their own profession in fomenting hysteria.
        Experts beat a hasty retreat; Acocella's comparison of pre- and
        post-1993 versions of psychology textbooks is devastating.

        By now, both recovered memory and satanic abuse have been debunked
        repeatedly. Is there room for a book about this special variant, multiple
        personality? Acocella covers familiar ground, but she finds fresh details.

        Multiples tend to be highly hypnotizable women -- 90 percent are
        women -- who have suffered difficult childhoods. Many are poor. They
        have been in the mental health system for, on average, seven years, and
        they almost always meet criteria for other, better-established mental
        disorders. M.P.D. provides a particular form for suffering, one that is
        more compelling, for both patient and doctor, than run-of-the-mill
        depression or anxiety.

        Acocella traces that form to the 1974 best seller ''Sybil,'' an account of
        the dramatic exposure by a psychiatrist, Cornelia Wilbur, of early sexual
        abuse in the case of a housewife with 16 alters. But Herbert Spiegel, a
        hypnosis expert who cared for ''Sybil'' when Wilbur vacationed, denied
        that the patient had multiple personality disorder -- he believed Wilbur
        created the alters -- and said as much to the journalist who wrote the
        best seller. Reportedly, the writer replied that the publisher demanded
        Sybil be a multiple. Acocella makes a convincing case that Sybil used
        ''Eve'' as the jumping-off point for her own imaginative flights. (During the
        epidemic, Eve re-emerged and claimed 21 alters, in competition with
        Sybil.) Modern M.P.D. turns out to be an instance of desperate life
        imitating shoddy art.

        Acocella identifies psychiatrists who played a lead role in this fiasco. But
        her story's hero is also a psychiatrist, Paul McHugh, the
        common-sensical director of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, who wrote:
        ''Close the dissociation services and disperse the patients to general
        psychiatric units. Ignore the alters. . . . Pay attention to real present
        problems.''

        If Acocella has a flaw as a critic, it is her own tendency to hyperbole.
        She has a weakness for superlatives (most famous patient, most
        credulous doctor). And in estimating the size of the epidemic, she relies
        on the claims of the enthusiasts whose credibility she successfully attacks.
        At its height, most psychiatrists had probably still never met a patient with
        the diagnosis.

        Acocella sees the furor as having lessened the pressure for substantive
        solutions to the problems of disadvantaged women and children. For her,
        the crucial target is not sexual abuse but poverty. ''Creating Hysteria''
        should move psychiatrists, political activists and journalists to examine
        how they contributed to this debacle, and the story it tells poses a
        particular challenge for psychotherapy: what if the empathetic stance is as
        risky in its own way as the clinical distance it replaced?
 

        Peter D. Kramer's most recent books are ''Listening to Prozac'' and
        ''Should You Leave?'' He practices psychiatry in Providence, R.I.
 
 

Rob Ryley wrote:

Voices of Reason, Voices of Insanity
Studies of Verbal Hallucinations
Ivan Leudar, University of Manchester
Philip Thomas, University of Bradford

Records of people experiencing verbal hallucinations or hearing voices
can be found throughout history. Voices of Reason, Voices of Insanity traces
such reports through almost 2,800 years in order to understand the
experience and look at ways in which its meaning has changed or re-mained
the same. Through six cases of historical and contemporary
voice hearers, Leudar and Thomas demonstrate how the experience
has metamorphosed from being a sign of virtue to a sign of insanity,
signalling such illnesses as schizophrenia or dissociation. They argue
that the experience is interpreted by the voice hearer according to cultural expectations conveyed through language, and is therefore best
studied as a matter of language use.

Controversially, they conclude
that hearing voices is an ordinary human experience which is unfortunately either mystified or pathologised. Voices of Reason, Voices of Insanity offers a fresh perspective on this enigmatic experience and will be of
interest to students, researchers and professionals. Contents

The Daemon of Socrates. The Gods of Achilles. The Souls of Daniel Paul
Schreber. Pierre Janet on Verbal Hallucinations: The Case of Marcelle. Pragmatists on Self.
Verbal Hallucinations in Contemporary Psychiatry. Working with Voices.
The Frenzy of Anthony Smith: Hearing Voices in English National
Newspapers. Voice-talk. Conclusion.

ISBN 0-415-14786-7 April 2000 240pp. #45.00 hbk
ISBN 0-415-14787-5 April 2000 240pp. #15.99 pbk

Published by Routledge

Rob Ryley OTR

Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/

Visit the mailing list archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the salesman clueless?  Productopia has the answers.
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1702

-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=pseudoscience-in-psych&m=1

Voices of Reason, Voices of Insanity
Studies of Verbal Hallucinations
Ivan Leudar, University of Manchester
Philip Thomas, University of Bradford

Records of people experiencing verbal hallucinations or hearing voices
can be found throughout history. Voices of Reason, Voices of Insanity traces
such reports through almost 2,800 years in order to understand the
experience and look at ways in which its meaning has changed or re-mained
the same. Through six cases of historical and contemporary
voice hearers, Leudar and Thomas demonstrate how the experience
has metamorphosed from being a sign of virtue to a sign of insanity,
signalling such illnesses as schizophrenia or dissociation. They argue
that the experience is interpreted by the voice hearer according to cultural
expectations conveyed through language, and is therefore best
studied as a matter of language use.

Controversially, they conclude
that hearing voices is an ordinary human experience which is unfortunately
either mystified or pathologised. Voices of Reason, Voices of Insanity offers a
fresh perspective on this enigmatic experience and will be of
interest to students, researchers and professionals. Contents

The Daemon of Socrates. The Gods of Achilles. The Souls of Daniel Paul
Schreber. Pierre Janet on Verbal Hallucinations: The Case of Marcelle.
Pragmatists on Self.
Verbal Hallucinations in Contemporary Psychiatry. Working with Voices.
The Frenzy of Anthony Smith: Hearing Voices in English National
Newspapers. Voice-talk. Conclusion.

ISBN 0-415-14786-7 April 2000 240pp. #45.00 hbk
ISBN 0-415-14787-5 April 2000 240pp. #15.99 pbk

Published by Routledge

Rob Ryley OTR

Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/

Visit the mailing list archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Hello, and thanks to everyone who posted some responses.  I hope those who are
not as familiar with genetics and psychology can follow this discussion.  Feel
free to ask questions!

On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:48:15   katherine heather wrote:

>I'm a developmental psychology graduate >student so I felt I should say
>something about your question.  One thing that >surprises me about "Do
>behavioral genetic studies deserve the >credibility they are currently
>given?" is that you feel the twin studies get >a lot of credibility?  Who
>gives these studies that much credibility and >in what context?

Almost any scientific publication directed at the lay reader, and even most
introductory textbooks for psychology quote heritability studies as evidence for
genetic influence. Only those skeptics (like me) who dig deeper into the
literature find that the claims are more measured and less sensationalistic. 
That still doesn't stop behavioral geneticists from claiming psychological
traits (like IQ or criminality) are 50% controlled by genes, or that depression
is a partly a genetic trait, despite the numerous technical and philosophical
problems with their position.

>In the field of dev'l psychology the usual answer to the question "How much
>of who we are is determined by genes (or the environment)?" is "The
>question is flawed."  It's considered misleading to ask for a proportion
>because it's not like genetics is something that causes outcomes
>independent of the rest of the environment.  Even the prenatal environment
>can influences outcomes and the earliest manifestations of genetics!  The
>'main stream' dev'l psych conclusion is that development is an interaction
>of the recipricol influences of nature and nurture.

This is precicely true, and was mathematically demonstrated by L. Hobgen in
1933(!) and future geneticists and biologists such as Lewontin have echoed his
arguments.

(I read this in _Genetics and Reductionism_ by Sahotra Sakar-a philosopher who
obviously has some biology/statistics training.  A bit technical, but very good
for understanding modern genetics and its relation to social science.)

When using heritability for plant/animal studies, it IS possible to use a narrow
conception of heritability, _provided certain criteria hold_ to estimate the
lower limit of
variance accounted for by genetic factors (the statistic h is often estimated in
these contexts).

Yet, in _controlled and randomized_ genetic studies used in agricultural
contexts, it might not be possible to partition the influence of genetic vs.
environmental factors, but it is possible to describe the norm of reaction, and
graph the curve.  The heritability statistic may have no meaning, but the norm
of reaction is useful to know. It will enable the agriculturist to predict which
breeds of plant or animal will develop a particular trait in a particular
environmental range. Both the phenotype and environmental factors are clearly
defined.  This leads to obviously useful predictions, as people in agriculture
will attest to.

Behavioral genetics researchers do NOT perform ANY sort of randomization of
subjects.  It is impossible for practical and ethical reasons.

What they do is ASSUME that the environments of ID and fraternal twins are on
average the same, and that the environment and genetic factors act independently
(ie. no norm of reaction).  They then use this assumption to calculate the
heritability statistic (broad heritability or H).

They try to control for obvious factors (and not always effectively I shoud add)
but this always leaves open the criticism that another possible environmental
factor was not controlled for.  There are also complex biological arguments that
reduce the value of H
to worthlessness.  I doubt you would see any bona fide geneticist try to
calculate H, they almost always estimate h, as it is much more useful.

>At the same time, I'm not sure I understand why twin studies would be
>thought of as pseudo-science?  Let's say we put demographic/environmental
>variables (like SES) in a regression on block one to predict trait T and
>then put the trait T status of an indentical twin raised separately in a
>second block.  Why wouldn't you accept a significant change R^2 as
>indicating a genetic and/or pre-birth event?

See my reply above.  Heritability only has meaning in a randomized, controlled
study.  In a quasi-experimental study, it is use is questionable.

>You also asked, "Are psychological traits clearly definable enough that
>they can be correlated with biological phenomena."  I would say yes!  We
>regularly do reliability assessments on our measures or coding to insure a
>construct is adequately defined.  Or do you mean to challenge the existence
>of traits?  That's something many >psychologists do too.

It is not so much whether the psychological constructs "exist", my question is
whether they are useful to biological research.

Now, lets assume it is possible to develop a questionaire or test to measure a
certain psychological construct, like conservatism or liberalism.  Lets assume
the construct has very good predictive validity--we can predict with 95%
accuracy that people with, say a score between 1-50 will vote for "conservative"
policies (ie. those which tend to limit government) and those who get scores of
51-100 will vote for "liberal" policies (those which expand governmental
powers).

Assume further that there are no disputes about the terms "conservative" or
"liberal." Would the fact we can predict voting behavior justify the conclusion
that there MUST be biological differences between the liberals or
conservatives????  Perhaps one or the other has a genetic mental illness, which
cause them to hold delusional political beliefs ;)

I find that the most fanciful speculation imaginable.

Just because a concept is useful in one area does not mean it is automatically
useful in another.  If I am right in this, and I have every reason to think so,
behavioral genetics is the 20th century equivalent of phrenology!

I could elaborate further, but I think I will stop for now.

Rob Ryley OTR

Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/

Visit the mailing list archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/






--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

The Lasker Foundation just gave Dr. Seymour Kety a Lasker Award,
considered the American Nobel Prize, for his research in psychiatric
genetics.

Kety is famous, or infamous, for his statement about Dr. Szasz, that if
schizophrenia is a myth it is a myth with a strong genetic component.

Dr. Szasz has documented in the BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY(1977)that
Dr. Kety has said that there is no such disease as "schizophrenia".

Stanton Peele wrote:
>
> The answer to the identical twin/fraternal twin heritability
> calculation is the high figures they get for everything, including TV
> viewing.  Themethodology is a worldview, and not amethod.  Do
> identical twinsdiffer in their similarities from fraternal same-sex
> twins only in their genes.  Amongother things, looking the same is a
> highly similarity-imposing experience.
>
> National Post (Canada)
>
> Criminal behaviour due to
>                         genes, Rushton says
>                         Social responsibility is an inherited trait,
>                         his research finds
>
>                         Luiza Chwialkowska
>                         National Post
>
>                         Philippe Rushton, the
>                         University of
>                         Western Ontario
>                         psychologist who has
>                         courted controversy
>                         with claims of
>                         intelligence
>                         differences among
>                         the races, has
>                         completed a study
>                         that he says will
>                         influence the way
>                         social scientists
>                         understand criminal
>                         behaviour.
>
>                         In a new paper he
>                         will present at the
>                         annual conference of
>                         the American
>                         Society for
>                         Criminology on Thursday, Prof. Rushton argues
> that anti-social
>                         behaviour and crime, as well as social
> responsibility and altruism,
>                         are hereditary traits distributed unevenly
> among the human
>                         population.
>
>                         He postulates the existence of genes that
> encourage social
>                         responsibility and whose absence leads to
> crime. He speculates that
>                         the day scientists find these genes, they will
> be able to rehabilitate
>                         criminals through gene therapy rather than
> prison.
>
>                         "At the most general level, it means we have
> to reconceptualize
>                         human nature, including the bad parts of human
> nature," says Prof.
>                         Rushton. "Human nature is at least 50%
> determined by the genes
>                         that people inherit."
>
>                         Based on a study of 233 pairs of identical and
> fraternal twins in the
>                         United Kingdom, Prof. Rushton has concluded
> that while anti-social
>                         behaviour is 50% hereditary, it is not the
> product of a particular
>                         "criminal gene" and should not be viewed as a
> disease or genetic
>                         disorder. Instead, individuals who behave in a
> criminal or anti-social
>                         manner are normal people who have inherited
> "too few
>                         social-responsibility genes" just as other
> people inherit diminutive
>                         height or poor athletic ability.
>
>                         "Social responsibility forms a bell curve. At
> one end are those who
>                         are a tad over-conscientious; at the other
> end, those who are
>                         decidedly under-conscientious. Most of us fall
> in the middle," says
>                         Prof. Rushton. "Criminal behaviour often
> appears in those at the low
>                         end of the social-responsibility bell curve."
>
>                         The twin sample was drawn from the University
> of London Institute
>                         of Psychiatry Twin Registry. Questionnaires
> were mailed to 130
>                         pairs of identical twins and 103 pairs of
> fraternal twins.
>                         Respondents were asked how much they agreed
> with statements
>                         about social responsibility, such as: "It is
> always important to finish
>                         anything that you have started; in school my
> behaviour has gotten
>                         me into trouble; I have been in trouble with
> the law or police; I am
>                         the kind of person that people can count on;
> every person should
>                         give some of his or her time for the good of
> his or her town or city."
>
>                         The responses among sets of identical twins,
> who share 100% of
>                         their genes, were twice as similar as the
> responses of fraternal twins,
>                         who share only 50% of their genes. Prof.
> Rushton observed equally
>                         strong genetic similarities among both
> anti-social and pro-social sets
>                         of twins, leading him to believe that he was
> dealing with the
>                         distribution of a single gene.
>
>                         "If there is a genetic anomaly going on, then
> the genetic effects
>                         would only show up on the low end of the
> distribution," Prof.
>                         Rushton says.
>
>                         His theory of a spectrum of social
> responsibility implies that
>                         criminals are not victims of genetic "conduct
> disorders" or
>                         "anti-social personality disorders."
>
>                         "Criminals may be victims of their genes, but
> no more than the rest
>                         of us," he says. "Criminals are basically
> normal people. My research
>                         seems to show that they are just the low end
> of the bell curve."
>
>                         While still not widely accepted among
> sociologists or criminologists,
>                         genetic explanations of behaviour have been
> gaining ground.
>
>                         Large-scale studies of adopted children have
> shown that the
>                         tendency of children to have criminal records
> is more strongly
>                         influenced by the criminal history of the
> biological parents who gave
>                         them up, rather than by the criminal record of
> the adoptive parents
>                         who raised them.
>
>                         "It is pretty clear that there is significant
> heritability of anti-social
>                         tendencies," says Martin Lalumiere, professor
> of psychiatry and
>                         criminology at the University of Toronto. "It
> is quite well accepted in
>                         the literature."
>
>                         But he cautions, "These are propensities.
> We're not talking about
>                         genetic determinism here."
>
>                         The idea of a bell-curve "spectrum" of
> anti-social tendencies is
>                         "quite plausible," but remains a theory, says
> Prof. Lalumiere, who
>                         says that further studies could show that
> psychopaths are "very
>                         genetically different from the rest."
>
>                         Some scholars who never thought they could
> agree with Prof.
>                         Rushton on anything say that this line of
> inquiry has merit.
>
>                         Neil Boyd, a criminologist at Simon Fraser
> University in Vancouver,
>                         says criminology has suffered as social
> scientists have ignored
>                         biology in favour of cultural explanations,
> such as childhood abuse,
>                         as explanations for criminal behaviour.
>
>                         "There has been a reluctance to admit that
> behaviour is biologically
>                         influenced," he says. "We want to believe that
> everybody is
>                         malleable. We want to believe in rags to
> riches. But it's just not so.
>                         People are limited by their abilities and
> their personalities."
>
>                         "I don't like the idea of agreeing with
> Philippe Rushton," says Prof.
>                         Boyd. Nonetheless, he says the notion of a
> spectrum of social
>                         responsibility has more merit than the idea of
> a "criminal gene" or a
>                         purely cultural view of criminal behaviour.
>
>                         "Because we have Hitler 50 years in the
> background, it's frightening
>                         to people. We don't want to admit that biology
> is too important
>                         because it seems to be a small step to the
> other claims that Rushton
>                         has made," Prof. Boyd says.
>
>                         "Biology may be more important than culture,"
> says Prof. Boyd,
>                         who has recently finished a book on the
> relationship between male
>                         violence and biology. "I wish it wasn't that
> way, but it seems to be
>                         what the data tell us."
>
>                         However, genetic theories of behaviour are not
> likely to change
>                         psychological therapy as it is currently
> practised, unless the relevant
>                         genes are one day identified.
>
>                         "It has not had much of an effect on
> psycho-social treatment," says
>                         Prof. Lalumiere. "Where it could make a
> difference is if we could
>                         find the specific genes ... and design
> chemical interventions that
>                         would be more effective."
>
>                         Prof. Rushton says he hopes to participate in
> such a discovery.
>
>                         "I would like to find or help to find the
> altruism gene, or the
>                         social-responsibility gene," he says. "It
> conjures up nightmarish
>                         pictures for some people, but the promise is
> that we will be able to
>                         do something to alleviate suffering through
> gene therapy, drug
>                         therapy and so on."
>
> Rob Ryley wrote:
>
> > A question for the research/scientific oriented members of the
> > group.  The biostatistician in me has been pondering this question
> > for awhile.
> >
> > It is commonly believed that so-called
> > heritability studies (whether they are ID twin or adoptive, there
> > are many designs) can demonstrate a genetic influence for a trait.
> > I have doubts about that.
> >
> > At the risk of losing some readers unfamiliar with the technical
> > issues of genetics, let me try to explain the concept of
> > "heritability" which is often misused (I believe) in psychology.
> >
> > Heritability was a genetic concept that developed in an agricultural
> > context in the early 20th centuary, which enabled food producers to
> > predict and develop different types of crops and animal products.
> > Example, it is possible to perform controlled breeding experiments
> > on animals to measure the amount of genetic influence on the
> > variation of height. (This would be an example of a narrow
> > heritability).
> >
> > My question is, considering that it is impossible and unethical to
> > conduct experimental breeding studies on humans, is the calculation
> > of heritability (broad heritability) based on twin or adoption
> > studies valid?  Are psychological traits clearly definable enough
> > that they can be correlated with biological phenomena, whether it is
> > genes, "chemical imbalances", etc.?
> >
> > I understand that genetic research has progressed far beyond the
> > crude technique of heritability analysis, and instead prefers to use
> > molecular genetic techniques, based on the Mendel's rules.  It seems
> > heritability studies are only carried out by social scientists/
> > psychiatrists with no particular expertise in genetics.
> >
> > So, do behavioral genetic studies deserve the credibility they are
> > currently given?
> >
> > Rob Ryley OTR
> >
> > Pseudoscience in Psychology
> > http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
> > Join the Mailing List
> > pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
> > Visit the archive
> > http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/
> >
> > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------------
> > -- Check out your group's private Chat room
> > --
> > http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=pseudoscience-in-psych&m=1
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                             [Click Here!]
> eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/pseudoscience-in-psych
> www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Hi Rob & Everybody,

I'm a developmental psychology graduate student so I felt I should say
something about your question.  One thing that surprises me about "Do
behavioral genetic studies deserve the credibility they are currently
given?" is that you feel the twin studies get a lot of credibility?  Who
gives these studies that much credibility and in what context?

In the field of dev'l psychology the usual answer to the question "How much
of who we are is determined by genes (or the environment)?" is "The
question is flawed."  It's considered misleading to ask for a proportion
because it's not like genetics is something that causes outcomes
independent of the rest of the environment.  Even the prenatal environment
can influences outcomes and the earliest manifestations of genetics!  The
'main stream' dev'l psych conclusion is that development is an interaction
of the recipricol influences of nature and nurture.

At the same time, I'm not sure I understand why twin studies would be
thought of as pseudo-science?  Let's say we put demographic/environmental
variables (like SES) in a regression on block one to predict trait T and
then put the trait T status of an indentical twin raised separately in a
second block.  Why wouldn't you accept a significant change R^2 as
indicating a genetic and/or pre-birth event?  My only concern would be that
families prone to having twins are somehow systematically different in the
development of the trait than other families.

You also asked, "Are psychological traits clearly definable enough that
they can be correlated with biological phenomena."  I would say yes!  We
regularly do reliability assessments on our measures or coding to insure a
construct is adequately defined.  Or do you mean to challenge the existence
of traits?  That's something many psychologists do too.

Good luck with your web site!

Katie

National Post (Canada)

Criminal behaviour due to
                        genes, Rushton says
                        Social responsibility is an inherited trait,
                        his research finds

                        Luiza Chwialkowska
                        National Post

                        Philippe Rushton, the
                        University of
                        Western Ontario
                        psychologist who has
                        courted controversy
                        with claims of
                        intelligence
                        differences among
                        the races, has
                        completed a study
                        that he says will
                        influence the way
                        social scientists
                        understand criminal
                        behaviour.

                        In a new paper he
                        will present at the
                        annual conference of
                        the American
                        Society for
                        Criminology on Thursday, Prof. Rushton argues that anti-social
                        behaviour and crime, as well as social responsibility and altruism,
                        are hereditary traits distributed unevenly among the human
                        population.

                        He postulates the existence of genes that encourage social
                        responsibility and whose absence leads to crime. He speculates that
                        the day scientists find these genes, they will be able to rehabilitate
                        criminals through gene therapy rather than prison.

                        "At the most general level, it means we have to reconceptualize
                        human nature, including the bad parts of human nature," says Prof.
                        Rushton. "Human nature is at least 50% determined by the genes
                        that people inherit."

                        Based on a study of 233 pairs of identical and fraternal twins in the
                        United Kingdom, Prof. Rushton has concluded that while anti-social
                        behaviour is 50% hereditary, it is not the product of a particular
                        "criminal gene" and should not be viewed as a disease or genetic
                        disorder. Instead, individuals who behave in a criminal or anti-social
                        manner are normal people who have inherited "too few
                        social-responsibility genes" just as other people inherit diminutive
                        height or poor athletic ability.

                        "Social responsibility forms a bell curve. At one end are those who
                        are a tad over-conscientious; at the other end, those who are
                        decidedly under-conscientious. Most of us fall in the middle," says
                        Prof. Rushton. "Criminal behaviour often appears in those at the low
                        end of the social-responsibility bell curve."

                        The twin sample was drawn from the University of London Institute
                        of Psychiatry Twin Registry. Questionnaires were mailed to 130
                        pairs of identical twins and 103 pairs of fraternal twins.
                        Respondents were asked how much they agreed with statements
                        about social responsibility, such as: "It is always important to finish
                        anything that you have started; in school my behaviour has gotten
                        me into trouble; I have been in trouble with the law or police; I am
                        the kind of person that people can count on; every person should
                        give some of his or her time for the good of his or her town or city."

                        The responses among sets of identical twins, who share 100% of
                        their genes, were twice as similar as the responses of fraternal twins,
                        who share only 50% of their genes. Prof. Rushton observed equally
                        strong genetic similarities among both anti-social and pro-social sets
                        of twins, leading him to believe that he was dealing with the
                        distribution of a single gene.

                        "If there is a genetic anomaly going on, then the genetic effects
                        would only show up on the low end of the distribution," Prof.
                        Rushton says.

                        His theory of a spectrum of social responsibility implies that
                        criminals are not victims of genetic "conduct disorders" or
                        "anti-social personality disorders."

                        "Criminals may be victims of their genes, but no more than the rest
                        of us," he says. "Criminals are basically normal people. My research
                        seems to show that they are just the low end of the bell curve."

                        While still not widely accepted among sociologists or criminologists,
                        genetic explanations of behaviour have been gaining ground.

                        Large-scale studies of adopted children have shown that the
                        tendency of children to have criminal records is more strongly
                        influenced by the criminal history of the biological parents who gave
                        them up, rather than by the criminal record of the adoptive parents
                        who raised them.

                        "It is pretty clear that there is significant heritability of anti-social
                        tendencies," says Martin Lalumiere, professor of psychiatry and
                        criminology at the University of Toronto. "It is quite well accepted in
                        the literature."

                        But he cautions, "These are propensities. We're not talking about
                        genetic determinism here."

                        The idea of a bell-curve "spectrum" of anti-social tendencies is
                        "quite plausible," but remains a theory, says Prof. Lalumiere, who
                        says that further studies could show that psychopaths are "very
                        genetically different from the rest."

                        Some scholars who never thought they could agree with Prof.
                        Rushton on anything say that this line of inquiry has merit.

                        Neil Boyd, a criminologist at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver,
                        says criminology has suffered as social scientists have ignored
                        biology in favour of cultural explanations, such as childhood abuse,
                        as explanations for criminal behaviour.

                        "There has been a reluctance to admit that behaviour is biologically
                        influenced," he says. "We want to believe that everybody is
                        malleable. We want to believe in rags to riches. But it's just not so.
                        People are limited by their abilities and their personalities."

                        "I don't like the idea of agreeing with Philippe Rushton," says Prof.
                        Boyd. Nonetheless, he says the notion of a spectrum of social
                        responsibility has more merit than the idea of a "criminal gene" or a
                        purely cultural view of criminal behaviour.

                        "Because we have Hitler 50 years in the background, it's frightening
                        to people. We don't want to admit that biology is too important
                        because it seems to be a small step to the other claims that Rushton
                        has made," Prof. Boyd says.

                        "Biology may be more important than culture," says Prof. Boyd,
                        who has recently finished a book on the relationship between male
                        violence and biology. "I wish it wasn't that way, but it seems to be
                        what the data tell us."

                        However, genetic theories of behaviour are not likely to change
                        psychological therapy as it is currently practised, unless the relevant
                        genes are one day identified.

                        "It has not had much of an effect on psycho-social treatment," says
                        Prof. Lalumiere. "Where it could make a difference is if we could
                        find the specific genes ... and design chemical interventions that
                        would be more effective."

                        Prof. Rushton says he hopes to participate in such a discovery.

                        "I would like to find or help to find the altruism gene, or the
                        social-responsibility gene," he says. "It conjures up nightmarish
                        pictures for some people, but the promise is that we will be able to
                        do something to alleviate suffering through gene therapy, drug
                        therapy and so on."

Rob Ryley wrote:

A question for the research/scientific oriented members of the group.  The biostatistician in me has been pondering this question for awhile.

It is commonly believed that so-called
heritability studies (whether they are ID twin or adoptive, there are many designs) can demonstrate a genetic influence for a trait.  I have doubts about that.

At the risk of losing some readers unfamiliar with the technical issues of genetics, let me try to explain the concept of "heritability" which is often misused (I believe) in psychology.

Heritability was a genetic concept that developed in an agricultural context in the early 20th centuary, which enabled food producers to predict and develop different types of crops and animal products.  Example, it is possible to perform controlled breeding experiments on animals to measure the amount of genetic influence on the variation of height. (This would be an example of a narrow heritability).

My question is, considering that it is impossible and unethical to conduct experimental breeding studies on humans, is the calculation of heritability (broad heritability) based on twin or adoption studies valid?  Are psychological traits clearly definable enough that they can be correlated with biological phenomena, whether it is genes, "chemical imbalances", etc.?

I understand that genetic research has progressed far beyond the crude technique of heritability analysis, and instead prefers to use molecular genetic techniques, based on the Mendel's rules.  It seems heritability studies are only carried out by social scientists/
psychiatrists with no particular expertise in genetics.

So, do behavioral genetic studies deserve the credibility they are currently given?

Rob Ryley OTR

Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
Join the Mailing List
pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Check out your group's private Chat room
-- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=pseudoscience-in-psych&m=1

I see that my discussion of behvior genetics was garbled in the transition
from word processing to e-mail, so I am attaching it as a file.

Jay Joseph

Dear Rob,

The questions you raise about behavior genetics and heritability are, as you
might say, right up my alley, so I thought I’d respond. It is my belief that
all twin and most adoption studies are confounded by environmental factors,
and their results, therefore, are easily explained by genetic factors. This
is particularly true for twin studies, or more accurately, the so-called twin
method of comparing the concordance or correlation of reared-together MZ
twins and reared-together DZ twins. A significant difference is considered
evidence in favor of genetic factors, however, genetic inferences are based
on the assumption that the environments between the two types of twins are
equal. Clearly, they are not. In fact, most twin researchers admit that they
aren’t! (People might want to read my paper on this subject in the Journal of
Mind and Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 325-358). So, in all likelihood, MZ/DZ
comparisons measure nothing more than the greater psychological bond and more
similar environment of identical twins. Studies of twins reared apart, such
as the Bouchard Minnesota studies, are also subject to environmental
confounds (such as similarity due to the cohort effect), and are plagued by
serious methodological problems and bias. Adoption studies are also subject
to environmental confounds, such as the placement policies of agencies
(selective placement). Also, the bias and methodological sleight of hand by
the genetically-oriented researchers who perform most adoption studies
boggles the mind (I am thinking of the Danish schizophrenia series in
particular). Many of the more well done adoption studies actually fail to
find any genetic factors. Consider the Colorado Adoption Project. In 1998,
Behavior Geneticists Plomin et al. published an amazing paper (Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 211-218) which showed that
the personality test score correlation between 245 birthparents and their
adopted-away biological children was a non-significant .01! I challenge
anyone to find a reference to this paper in the subsequent behavior genetic
literature. They were compelled to publish it and now they hope it will just
go away.

Your discussion of heritability is on the mark. Contrary to popular belief,
the heritability concept does not describe the genetic contribution to a
particular condition when speaking of individuals; rather, heritability
describes the proportion of observed variance in a population at a particular
time and environment which (allegedly!) can be explained by genetic effects.
A change in environment could produce dramatically different heritability
coefficients. Furthermore, a trait could be completely genetically determined
and yet have a heritability of zero; human beings having two eyes, for
example. Because virtually all people with one eye became that way on the
basis of an environmental occurrence, heredity explains none of the observed
variance of "eyedness," and heritability is therefore zero. I would encourage
people to check out the special edition of Genetica (1997, Vol. 99, nos.
2-3), and Jerry Hirsch’s paper (p. 207) in particular. As Hirsch noted, "What
must be appreciated is that heritability is not a nature/nurture ratio
measuring contributions to individual development and heritability is not
heredity—[they are] two entirely different concepts. . . . Unfortunately,
because of their assonance, when we hear one of the two words, automatically
we think the other" (p. 220). As for the more sinister side of the
heritability concept, Wahlsten once noted that the only practical application
of a heritability estimate is to predict the results of a program of
selective breeding. Pretty chilling when we realize how fond behavior
geneticists and eugenists are of that statistic.

So to answer the final question you posed: No, behavior genetic studies do
not deserve the credit they have received, since behavior genetic methods are
generally no less subject to environmental confounds than were the old family
studies, which, for the record, used to be called "eugenic family studies."
In other words, behavior genetics in an entirely appropriate subject for a
discussion group on pseudoscience.

Jay Joseph



> A question for the research/scientific oriented members of the group.  The
> biostatistician in me has been pondering this question for awhile.
>
>  It is commonly believed that so-called
>  heritability studies (whether they are ID twin or adoptive, there are many
> designs) can demonstrate a genetic influence for a trait.  I have doubts
> about that.
>
>  At the risk of losing some readers unfamiliar with the technical issues of
> genetics, let me try to explain the concept of "heritability" which is
often
> misused (I believe) in psychology.
>
>  Heritability was a genetic concept that developed in an agricultural
context
> in the early 20th centuary, which enabled food producers to predict and
> develop different types of crops and animal products.  Example, it is
> possible to perform controlled breeding experiments on animals to measure
the
> amount of genetic influence on the variation of height. (This would be an
> example of a narrow heritability).
>
>  My question is, considering that it is impossible and unethical to conduct
> experimental breeding studies on humans, is the calculation of heritability
(
> broad heritability) based on twin or adoption studies valid?  Are
> psychological traits clearly definable enough that they can be correlated
> with biological phenomena, whether it is genes, "chemical imbalances", etc.?
>
>  I understand that genetic research has progressed far beyond the crude
> technique of heritability analysis, and instead prefers to use molecular
> genetic techniques, based on the Mendel's rules.  It seems heritability
> studies are only carried out by social scientists/
>  psychiatrists with no particular expertise in genetics.
>
>  So, do behavioral genetic studies deserve the credibility they are
currently
> given?
>
>  Rob Ryley OTR
>
>  Pseudoscience in Psychology
>  http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
>  Join the Mailing List
>  pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
>  Visit the archive
>  http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/
>

A question for the research/scientific oriented members of the group.  The
biostatistician in me has been pondering this question for awhile.

It is commonly believed that so-called
heritability studies (whether they are ID twin or adoptive, there are many
designs) can demonstrate a genetic influence for a trait.  I have doubts about
that.

At the risk of losing some readers unfamiliar with the technical issues of
genetics, let me try to explain the concept of "heritability" which is often
misused (I believe) in psychology.

Heritability was a genetic concept that developed in an agricultural context in
the early 20th centuary, which enabled food producers to predict and develop
different types of crops and animal products.  Example, it is possible to
perform controlled breeding experiments on animals to measure the amount of
genetic influence on the variation of height. (This would be an example of a
narrow heritability).

My question is, considering that it is impossible and unethical to conduct
experimental breeding studies on humans, is the calculation of heritability
(broad heritability) based on twin or adoption studies valid?  Are psychological
traits clearly definable enough that they can be correlated with biological
phenomena, whether it is genes, "chemical imbalances", etc.?

I understand that genetic research has progressed far beyond the crude technique
of heritability analysis, and instead prefers to use molecular genetic
techniques, based on the Mendel's rules.  It seems heritability studies are only
carried out by social scientists/
psychiatrists with no particular expertise in genetics.

So, do behavioral genetic studies deserve the credibility they are currently
given?

Rob Ryley OTR

Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
Join the Mailing List
pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

TOO YOUNG?

Now even two-year-olds are treated with behaviour drugs

TODDLERS are being given cocktails of drugs to treat hyperactivity even
though the drugs have never been tested for safety in such young children.
Experts cannot even agree whether it is possible to tell if children under
three have the condition the drugs are supposed to treat.

Marsha Rappley at Michigan State University in East Lansing wondered how
many very young children were being diagnosed as having attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by psychiatrists. By trawling through the
records of Michigan's state-sponsored Medicaid healthcare scheme, Rappley
and her colleagues found 223 children aged three and under with a diagnosis
of ADHD.

Of these, 57 per cent were taking drugs for the condition, while only 27
per cent were being treated through sessions with a psychologist. Many of
the children had other problems with cognitive or language development, or
chronic health conditions such as asthma and diabetes.

For the ADHD toddlers, doctors prescribed 22 different drugs in a total of
30 combinations. A third of the toddlers were taking two or three drugs at
the same time. "The extreme variation in the use of psychotropic
medications suggest haphazard use at worst and uninformed use at best,"
Rappley and her colleagues write.

In older children, ADHD is diagnosed by matching observed behaviours
against a standard checklist. But many of the behaviours--for instance,
"fails to finish chores"--can't be applied to toddlers. And apparently
hyperactive two-year-olds do not necessarily develop ADHD.

The condition is often treated by giving children drugs such as Ritalin, a
stimulant that improves concentration. Millions of American children are
prescribed Ritalin, and in Britain the number of prescriptions is doubling
every year. For toddlers, such drugs are controversial as they haven't been
proved to be safe.

"The age range for being treated for ADHD has gone down as people think
these medications are relatively safe and effective," says Richard Todd, a
psychiatrist who treats children with ADHD at Washington University in St
Louis, Missouri. But he is concerned about the trend. "This is a very
important developmental period. The effects of medications on these
processes are not well understood."

Stephen Grcevich, who treats ADHD at Case Western Reserve University in
Cleveland, Ohio, says that it's still unusual for toddlers to be referred
to his clinic. When they are, it is usually because they are so hyperactive
that they pose a risk to themselves or others. But he shares Todd's concern
about giving such young children drugs. Last year, Grcevich saw a
two-yearold prescribed stimulants by his previous doctor. "We ended up
discontinuing the medication because of concerns about side effects," he
says. Nell Boyce, Washington DC
 

Source: Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (vol 153, p 1039)

Rob Ryley wrote:

Hello everyone.

Our list is at 20 members and counting...

I know the group has been silent for the past few days.  I have been working on adding new
features to the Pseudoscience in Psychology website.  I am also apart of a project which I hope to share with you all in the not too distant future.

1). HEADLINES IN PSYCHIATRY, MEDICINE, AND HEALTHCARE. (from iSyndicate.com)

I have added a link to important headline news in the fields of psychiatry and healthcare.  This content is automatically updated, so check back to the homepage often to see what is going on in the world of medicine.

Visit at:
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/

(I am not quite satisfied with how the news links work yet, but you will still be able to get the content.  Feel free to make suggestions.)

2)UNDERSTANDING COLUMBINE: HOW PSYCHIATRY PROMOTES VIOLENCE

I don't know how many of you noticed my article Understanding Columbine: How Psychiatry Promotes Violence.  I criticize the whole psychiatric spin the media had put on this tragic event. Feel free to post your comments to this list, or to the Pseudoscience in Psychology Message Center.

Read the article at:
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/violence.htm

Visit the Message Center at:
http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb30666

3)RECOMMEND AND WIN! Contest
While this feature is not ready yet, I hope to have it up in a day or so.  I joined a program which will allow you to recommend the Pseudoscience in Psychology website to others who might be interested.  In addition, each person you refer gives you the chance to win a $250 dollar gift certificate to Amazon.com.  I will tell you more once I have the program up and running.

NOTE: This program will not sell or rent your email address or anyone you refer as a participant in the program.  So, don't worry about dreaded SPAM.

4) BOOKSTORE REPAIRS...

I think I have FINALLY fixed all of the links to the bookstore.   The website is associated with Amazon, BooksaMillion, and Alibris.  Each suggested title has links to all three bookstores, so you can check at all of them to see where you get the best deal.  I hope to add a review of biopsychologist Elliot Valenstein's _Blaming the Brain_ in the next day or two.  Has anyone heard of the book?  What did you think?

Vist the book page at:
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/books.htm

4) LINKS
I am in the process of weeding out dead links.  I have not done so yet, but you can search the web using Ah-ha or Mamma--the mother of all search engines.

5)GETTING READY FOR THE HOLIDAY SEASON...
Can you believe it is almost Thanksgiving?  And you know what is after Thanksgiving--Christmas!
That means holiday shopping and relate hassles.

As an associate of Commission Junction, I am
developing a giftshop related to the website, which will have a wide selection of products, ranging from magazines to watches to computer products. All merchants carry quality products, secure online ordering, and offer large discounts to online customers.  If you were thinking about buying anything online, tell me what you need, and I will see if I can get it for you. Your purchases will help me save up some money to find the Pseudoscience in Psychology website a permanent home, and develop it further to make it a more useful resource.

If you have a website, and want to generate some revenue, I highly recommend Commission Junction, who are associated with over 250 online merchants.  They have lots of info on affiliate programs, and a host of message boards where you can get tips on improving your website, generating traffic, and making sales.

Vist their website at:
http://www.commission-junction.com/go.asp?235589

Sincerely,
Rob Ryley OTR

Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
Join the Mailing List
pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A shopper’s dream come true! Find practically anything on earth at eBay!
Come and browse the more than 2 million items up for bid at any time.
You never know what you might find at eBay!
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1140

-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=pseudoscience-in-psych&m=1

I invite you all to explore the documents in the vault at
http://www.egroups.com/docvault/alt-psych-network/
An example of pseudoscience in psychiatry it certainly is. Interested in
suggestions on how to bring this situation to the notice of the public.
There is still an chance that UPMC and the doctors I address will respond.
But within weeks I will have to act. The case is pretty clear.
I'd begin with
Letter2WPIC&UPMConODS.htm
It should guide you through the rest of it.
David Chasey

I found the following article at www.medscape.com  I recommend you join if you
want the latest information in the world of medicine.


http://www.medscape.com/reuters/prof/1999/11/11.15/ep11159a.html
From Reuters Medical

Childhood but Not Prenatal Infections May Increase Schizophrenia Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WESTPORT, Nov 15 (Reuters Health) - Common infections during childhood and a
large number of siblings may increase the risk of developing schizophrenia later
in life, Danish researchers report in the November issue of the Archives of
General Psychiatry.

[Well, that is what the intro says, but as you read the body, they did not
confirm the speculation that influenza infections may lead to schizophrenia. 
More empty speculation followed.]
---
Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
Join the Mailing List
pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/




--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

How about a graph of antidepressant drug precriptions versus depression diagnoses -- more treatment --> more illness.

S P

Rob Ryley wrote:

Hello everyone.

Our list is at 20 members and counting...

I know the group has been silent for the past few days.  I have been working on adding new
features to the Pseudoscience in Psychology website.  I am also apart of a project which I hope to share with you all in the not too distant future.

1). HEADLINES IN PSYCHIATRY, MEDICINE, AND HEALTHCARE. (from iSyndicate.com)

I have added a link to important headline news in the fields of psychiatry and healthcare.  This content is automatically updated, so check back to the homepage often to see what is going on in the world of medicine.

Visit at:
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/

(I am not quite satisfied with how the news links work yet, but you will still be able to get the content.  Feel free to make suggestions.)

2)UNDERSTANDING COLUMBINE: HOW PSYCHIATRY PROMOTES VIOLENCE

I don't know how many of you noticed my article Understanding Columbine: How Psychiatry Promotes Violence.  I criticize the whole psychiatric spin the media had put on this tragic event. Feel free to post your comments to this list, or to the Pseudoscience in Psychology Message Center.

Read the article at:
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/violence.htm

Visit the Message Center at:
http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb30666

3)RECOMMEND AND WIN! Contest
While this feature is not ready yet, I hope to have it up in a day or so.  I joined a program which will allow you to recommend the Pseudoscience in Psychology website to others who might be interested.  In addition, each person you refer gives you the chance to win a $250 dollar gift certificate to Amazon.com.  I will tell you more once I have the program up and running.

NOTE: This program will not sell or rent your email address or anyone you refer as a participant in the program.  So, don't worry about dreaded SPAM.

4) BOOKSTORE REPAIRS...

I think I have FINALLY fixed all of the links to the bookstore.   The website is associated with Amazon, BooksaMillion, and Alibris.  Each suggested title has links to all three bookstores, so you can check at all of them to see where you get the best deal.  I hope to add a review of biopsychologist Elliot Valenstein's _Blaming the Brain_ in the next day or two.  Has anyone heard of the book?  What did you think?

Vist the book page at:
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/books.htm

4) LINKS
I am in the process of weeding out dead links.  I have not done so yet, but you can search the web using Ah-ha or Mamma--the mother of all search engines.

5)GETTING READY FOR THE HOLIDAY SEASON...
Can you believe it is almost Thanksgiving?  And you know what is after Thanksgiving--Christmas!
That means holiday shopping and relate hassles.

As an associate of Commission Junction, I am
developing a giftshop related to the website, which will have a wide selection of products, ranging from magazines to watches to computer products. All merchants carry quality products, secure online ordering, and offer large discounts to online customers.  If you were thinking about buying anything online, tell me what you need, and I will see if I can get it for you. Your purchases will help me save up some money to find the Pseudoscience in Psychology website a permanent home, and develop it further to make it a more useful resource.

If you have a website, and want to generate some revenue, I highly recommend Commission Junction, who are associated with over 250 online merchants.  They have lots of info on affiliate programs, and a host of message boards where you can get tips on improving your website, generating traffic, and making sales.

Vist their website at:
http://www.commission-junction.com/go.asp?235589

Sincerely,
Rob Ryley OTR

Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
Join the Mailing List
pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A shopper’s dream come true! Find practically anything on earth at eBay!
Come and browse the more than 2 million items up for bid at any time.
You never know what you might find at eBay!
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1140

-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=pseudoscience-in-psych&m=1

Hello everyone.

Our list is at 20 members and counting...

I know the group has been silent for the past few days.  I have been working on
adding new
features to the Pseudoscience in Psychology website.  I am also apart of a
project which I hope to share with you all in the not too distant future.

1). HEADLINES IN PSYCHIATRY, MEDICINE, AND HEALTHCARE. (from iSyndicate.com)

I have added a link to important headline news in the fields of psychiatry and
healthcare.  This content is automatically updated, so check back to the
homepage often to see what is going on in the world of medicine.

Visit at:
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/

(I am not quite satisfied with how the news links work yet, but you will still
be able to get the content.  Feel free to make suggestions.)

2)UNDERSTANDING COLUMBINE: HOW PSYCHIATRY PROMOTES VIOLENCE

I don't know how many of you noticed my article Understanding Columbine: How
Psychiatry Promotes Violence.  I criticize the whole psychiatric spin the media
had put on this tragic event. Feel free to post your comments to this list, or
to the Pseudoscience in Psychology Message Center.

Read the article at:
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/violence.htm

Visit the Message Center at:
http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb30666

3)RECOMMEND AND WIN! Contest
While this feature is not ready yet, I hope to have it up in a day or so.  I
joined a program which will allow you to recommend the Pseudoscience in
Psychology website to others who might be interested.  In addition, each person
you refer gives you the chance to win a $250 dollar gift certificate to
Amazon.com.  I will tell you more once I have the program up and running.

NOTE: This program will not sell or rent your email address or anyone you refer
as a participant in the program.  So, don't worry about dreaded SPAM.

4) BOOKSTORE REPAIRS...

I think I have FINALLY fixed all of the links to the bookstore.   The website is
associated with Amazon, BooksaMillion, and Alibris.  Each suggested title has
links to all three bookstores, so you can check at all of them to see where you
get the best deal.  I hope to add a review of biopsychologist Elliot
Valenstein's _Blaming the Brain_ in the next day or two.  Has anyone heard of
the book?  What did you think?

Vist the book page at:
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/books.htm

4) LINKS
I am in the process of weeding out dead links.  I have not done so yet, but you
can search the web using Ah-ha or Mamma--the mother of all search engines.

5)GETTING READY FOR THE HOLIDAY SEASON...
Can you believe it is almost Thanksgiving?  And you know what is after
Thanksgiving--Christmas!
That means holiday shopping and relate hassles.

As an associate of Commission Junction, I am
developing a giftshop related to the website, which will have a wide selection
of products, ranging from magazines to watches to computer products. All
merchants carry quality products, secure online ordering, and offer large
discounts to online customers.  If you were thinking about buying anything
online, tell me what you need, and I will see if I can get it for you. Your
purchases will help me save up some money to find the Pseudoscience in
Psychology website a permanent home, and develop it further to make it a more
useful resource.

If you have a website, and want to generate some revenue, I highly recommend
Commission Junction, who are associated with over 250 online merchants.  They
have lots of info on affiliate programs, and a host of message boards where you
can get tips on improving your website, generating traffic, and making sales.

Vist their website at:
http://www.commission-junction.com/go.asp?235589

Sincerely,
Rob Ryley OTR

Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
Join the Mailing List
pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Just a short comment of evolution. And as Rob indicated with his reply,
we can take up this subject via private post. But the point: 1:
evolution & 2: evolution by natural selection. 1. The first, evolution,
is considered to be a scientific fact. I have statements from or
endorsed by dozens of scientists that attest to this status. 2.
Evolution by natural selection is Darwin's theory and it about the
mechanism of evolution, not evolution per se. It is still considered a
theory; however, an extremely good and well-supported theory that has
no serious scientific competition.
David
dhchasey@...
---
jeh-@... wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/pseudoscience-in-psych/?s
tart=7
> It is amazing how many of the public cannot seem to distinguish
> unproven theories and pseudoscience from true science. Some
theoretical
> concepts such as evolution are called science even though far from
> proven and this only confuses the issue further.

Hi Rob and all,
David Chasey here. Who on earth can resist a group named
"pseudoscience-in-psych"? I certainly could not. Rob, I read your post
at the PSYCH-CI website about the difficulties. Thanks. Looking forward
to the discussions and, Rob, your periodic reports.
Rob, I believe you know I have a particular issue related to my own
case. Keeping with your policy I will post only as this case represents
an issue. When I do I think I ought to post the stuff on a website and
point everyone to the URL.
David

On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 13:47:51   David Herman wrote:
>Dr. Barrett is one of the editors of THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF
>ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE.  I think it is a great publication.  I am hoping
>that Dr. Szasz will become one of the editors or a contributor.

Do you know if this jorunal has a website?  How do I get to see a copy?

Rob

Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
Join the Mailing List
pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/





--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Dr. Barrett is one of the editors of THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF
ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE.  I think it is a great publication.  I am hoping
that Dr. Szasz will become one of the editors or a contributor.

Dr. Barrett and Dr. Szasz are both friends with the publisher of this
journal, Dr. Paul Kurtz.  There is a fantastic interview with Kurtz at
the end of Szasz's book THE THEOLOGY OF MEDICINE, done when Szasz was
"Humanist of the Year".

Rob Ryley wrote:
>
> I recently came across a website developed by a psychiatrist devoted to
exposing fraud and pseudoscience in the healthcare system.
>
> You can visit at: http://www.quackwatch.com
>
> Now, I believe in science and the scientific method, but is it necessarily
beneficial to legally prohibit those practices that doctors have incentive to
view as competetion?  Isn't it possible that strict regulations might have a
reverse effect--promoting quackery as an alternative to a bureaucratic,
time-consuming,
> orthodox healthcare system with professionals who think they know it all?
>
> Here is a discussion I was having on a messageboard. (Nov. 1, 1999)
>
> "I just visited the quackwatch website.
>
> While I agree with his scientific opinions on many issues, his entire
political philosophy leaves a lot to be desired.
>
> In a free society, people are generally allowed to spend their hard earned
money on what they believe is in their best interest.
>
> We generally believe people are competent to make decisions about their cars,
computers, homes, careers, and a host of other decisions. Why is it that doctors
need state supported authority to prevent people from engaging in consentual
acts with so-called "alternative providers"?
>
> It cannot be because the decisions are so important. So are decisions on
whether to drive a car or motorcycle, fly in a plane, or invest in a stock. We
do not demand experts in these fields to protect individuals from themselves.
Why should it be so in medicine?
>
> It is obvious that people do not always make the best choices. But anyone
familiar with the history of medicine should know even more suffering for
patients results when doctors decide to take matters in their own hands and
treat patients as if they were children."
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Rob Ryley OTR
> Pseudoscience in Psychology
> http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
> Join the Mailing List
> pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
> Visit the archive
> http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/
>
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=pseudoscience-in-psych&m=1

I recently came across a website developed by a psychiatrist devoted to exposing
fraud and pseudoscience in the healthcare system.

You can visit at: http://www.quackwatch.com

Now, I believe in science and the scientific method, but is it necessarily
beneficial to legally prohibit those practices that doctors have incentive to
view as competetion?  Isn't it possible that strict regulations might have a
reverse effect--promoting quackery as an alternative to a bureaucratic,
time-consuming,
orthodox healthcare system with professionals who think they know it all?

Here is a discussion I was having on a messageboard. (Nov. 1, 1999)

"I just visited the quackwatch website.

While I agree with his scientific opinions on many issues, his entire political
philosophy leaves a lot to be desired.

In a free society, people are generally allowed to spend their hard earned money
on what they believe is in their best interest.

We generally believe people are competent to make decisions about their cars,
computers, homes, careers, and a host of other decisions. Why is it that doctors
need state supported authority to prevent people from engaging in consentual
acts with so-called "alternative providers"?

It cannot be because the decisions are so important. So are decisions on whether
to drive a car or motorcycle, fly in a plane, or invest in a stock. We do not
demand experts in these fields to protect individuals from themselves. Why
should it be so in medicine?

It is obvious that people do not always make the best choices. But anyone
familiar with the history of medicine should know even more suffering for
patients results when doctors decide to take matters in their own hands and
treat patients as if they were children."

------------------------------------------------
Rob Ryley OTR
Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
Join the Mailing List
pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Ritalin: Violence Against Boys
Drug is being used to sedate active, young boys
Massachusetts News

Sidebar: Ritalin Basics

November 1--If Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer were in a school in Massachusetts
today, theyd be drugged with Ritalin, according to many psychiatrists and other
experts.

The drug is being used to sedate active, young boys because the teachers are
unable to relate to them. It is in the same psychoactive category as cocaine.

Somewhere between 29,000 and 48,000 children in Massachusetts public schools
are operating under the influence of Ritalin  and they are almost all boys.

The income to the drug company is between $30 to $60 per month per medicated
child.

A prominent psychiatrist tells Massachusetts News that one of the key problems
for children today, which may be causing the increase in the number of children
diagnosed as mentally ill, is the increase in fatherless families.

He is Dr. Peter Breggin, director of the International Center for the Study of
Psychiatry and Psychology in Bethesda, Maryland, who published an article in The
Boston Globe last month on its editorial page under the headline,"Kids Are
Suffering Legal Drug Abuse." However, it did not mention the gender problem.
Breggin wrote:

"In a society thats supposed to accept and even value differences, drugging shy
children reflects an extreme of enforced conformity...

"We are the first adults to handle the generation gap through the wholesale
drugging of our children. We may be guaranteeing that future generations will be
relatively devoid of people who think critically, raise painful questions,
generate productive conflicts, or lead us to new spiritual and political
insights."

Dr. Breggin tells Massachusetts News that most children who have been labeled as
having "Attention Deficit Disorder," dont get enough attention from their
fathers. The parents may be divorced. Or the dads are preoccupied with their
work or other things.

"The cure for these children is more rational and loving attention from their
dads," says Breggin. "Young people are nowadays so hungry for the attention of a
father that it can come from any male adult. Seemingly impulsive, hostile groups
of children will calm down when a caring, relaxed and firm adult male is
around."

Many of these children are receiving Ritalin from their school nurse. It is
supposed to help these hyperactive youngsters focus on their work.

Yet whether the drug is even needed isnt clear; doctors and scientists are
split on the issue. And many critics worry that mothers and fathers, schools and
doctors may be medicating kids who only need traditional discipline and love 
not a pill.

New York Times Writes About Massachusetts Problem

The New York Times wrote a story earlier this year about the problem that these
drugs are causing for overworked school nurses in Massachusetts.

Janet Douglass, a director of the School Health Institute at the University of
Massachusetts at Lowell, said that in a recent visit to a nearby elementary
school she had been struck by the overall level of medication.

"I think they give out more psychotropic medication than a psych hospital did
when I did psych," she said. "Not just Ritalin, but heavy-duty psychiatric
medications."

The Times reported that a survey of Boston schools showed that the nurses had
given about 200,000 doses of medication. "But school officials said the survey
was imperfect and the actual number of doses was probably higher."

The exact number of Massachusetts children on Ritalin isnt known because no one
apparently keeps track of the prescriptions except the drug makers, and theyre
not talking.

Abuse in New England Prep Schools

The abuse of Ritalin as a recreational drug is also a problem. It was first seen
in New England prep schools, according to Dr. Eric Heiligenstein, head of
psychiatry for the University of Wisconsin Health Services.

"Ritalin abuse was first noticed at New England prep schools where access is
easy because so many students have Ritalin prescriptions  often not warranted
by medical need." According to the DEA, at least one in 30 Americans between
ages 5 and 19 has a Ritalin prescription.

Because it has nearly the same chemical makeup as cocaine and speed, Ritalin is
often abused. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reports that Ritalin
"ranks in the Top 10 controlled drugs stolen from doctors and pharmacies."
Kids crush the Ritalin pills into powder and snort it or inject it.

Last fall, four youths allegedly stole 27 bottles of pills from the nurses
office at Westford Academy, reported the Boston Herald. Sixteen of the bottles
contained Ritalin. Other bottles held the depressant Lorazepam. In 1996, a girl
at Duxbury High School overdosed on Ritalin and was hospitalized. With more
public schools handing out Ritalin to more and more kids, theres more drug
abuse. Some students even sell their Ritalin prescriptions.

A Harvard undergraduate, "David Green," says that he frequently snorted Ritalin
to help speed through his homework. "In all honesty, I havent written a paper
without Ritalin since my junior year in high school," said Green. "I even wrote
my Harvard essay on it. It keeps you up when youre tired, and makes you much
more aware of what youre doing. Although there are certain risks involved, I
think its worth it."

Another Harvard student, Nick Grossman, said that he knew many Ritalin abusers
at Harvard. "It was largely a prep school drug, and it spread out from there,"
he said. "I know a lot of people who do it."

A recent study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley  a
study of 500 children over 26 years  found that Ritalin is basically a
"gateway" drug to other drugs, in particular, cocaine. Lead researcher Nadine
Lambert, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, concluded that Ritalin "makes
the brain more susceptible to the addictive power of cocaine and doubles the
risk of abuse."

Dr. Breggin says: "Our society viewed with loathing those who pushed stimulant
drugs on children. Yet today, there are more children taking Ritalin and
amphetamine from doctors than ever received them from illegal pushers."

The Problem  Not The Solution

Dr. Breggin tells Massachusetts News: "These drugs can make you psychotic. They
can cause the same problems theyre supposed to treat  inattention,
hyperactivity and impulsive behavior."

Meanwhile, other sources show that the number of Ritalin users nationwide keeps
going up every year  about 4 million kids today, up from 1 million in 1990.
Production of Ritalin is way up, as well  a 700% increase since 1990, according
to the New York Times.

Dr. Breggin, author of  Talking Back to Ritalin and co-author of Talking Back to
Prozac, says that, "Ritalin does not correct biochemical imbalances  it causes
them. Pediatricians, parents and teachers are not aware of these hazards because
a large body of research demonstrating the ill effects of this drug has been
ignored and suppressed in order to encourage the sale of the drug.  Parents and
teachers and even doctors have been badly misled by drug company marketing
practices. Drug companies have targeted children as a big market likely to boost
profits  and children are suffering as a result."

More than 90% of Ritalins market is in the United States, which says something
about how Ritalin is viewed by health officials in other countries, said
Breggin. Ritalin was banned in Sweden in 1968 because it was abused. Ritalin is
rarely prescribed in Britain. In March, the United Nations advised the World
Health Organization to investigate the use of Ritalin.

Causing Tragic Violence?

Ritalin and related drugs pushed in public schools are being watched more
closely now for tragic reasons. While a direct link between violent behavior and
the use of Ritalin has not been proven, observers have concerns. Consider the
following:

 Shawn Cooper, a 15-year-old sophomore at Notus Junior-Senior High School in
Notus, Idaho, fired a shotgun at his fellow students in April. Cooper was on
Ritalin.

 Thomas Solomon, a 15-year-old at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia,
shot and wounded six classmates in May. Solomon was on Ritalin.

 Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon,
killed his parents and two classmates and wounded 22 other students last year.
Kinkel was on Ritalin and Prozac, an anti-depressant.

 Eric Harris, one of the Columbine High School killers, was on the
anti-depressant drug Luvox.

 Rod Matthews, 14, beat a classmate to death with a baseball bat in 1986 in
Canton, Massachusetts. Matthews had been on Ritalin since the third grade.

Yale researchers, as published in the March 1991 Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychology, found in their study of Prozac at least one
12-year-old who started having nightmares. What about? The boy dreamed of
killing his classmates at school until he himself was shot. The researchers took
the boy off Prozac and he recovered. Then they put him back on the drug,
apparently thinking that the anti-depressant could not have caused the
nightmares. Once drugged again, the boy started to have acute suicidal thoughts
and tendencies.

The Yale researchers dont talk about this now, said Breggin.


---
Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
Join the Mailing List
pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

The fact that people are both more religious than ever and that they
simultaneously endorse genetic and neurological theories of behavior more than
ever shows that they occupy the same place in people's minds.

Rob Ryley wrote:

> >It is amazing how many of the public cannot seem to distinguish
> >unproven theories and pseudoscience from true science. Some theoretical
> >concepts such as evolution are called science even though far from
> >proven and this only confuses the issue further.
>
> Thanks for the message.
>
> I'm glad you are becomming skeptical of what the media and authorities
currently claim is
> scientific.
>
> As for evolution, there really isn't much debate among most of the scientific
community.  They consider it an extremely valuable and helpful theory.  Where
they do differ is on minor points. I can see you disagree with that view.  If
you want, I would be more than willing to discuss the matter privately or on
another mailing list.  Since this list is devoted to psychology, I will not
mention it any further (unless evolutionary psychology comes up).
>
> >Mythical labels such as MPD and SRA as
> >well as "victim" by way of recovered abuse >memories cause me to wonder
> >what part of the psyche industry is not a >matter of deceit. Which
> >labels can we trust to be a matter of science >if so many are proving to
> >be false? If these guys don't care what truth >is in one matter, how do
> >we know they aren't making it all up?
>
> I definitely understand your skepticism of the mental health field.  Their
historical record leaves a lot to be desired.  But I think it would be a mistake
to think ALL mental health professionals are necessarily bad or trying to
deceive.
>
> Much of my knowledge about the mental health industry comes from honest,
well-intentioned clinicians who are sick of the lies and misconceptions that are
presented as "truth"
> and "science."
>
> Just as it would be wrong to accept EVERYTHING that psychologists and
psychiatrists say is correct, it is an error to doubt everything they say,
simply because of the professional group they belong to.
>
> Rob Ryley
> Pseudoscience in Psychology
> http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
> Join the Mailing List
> pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
> Visit the archive
> http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/
>
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eGroup Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/pseudoscience-in-psych/
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

>It is amazing how many of the public cannot seem to distinguish
>unproven theories and pseudoscience from true science. Some theoretical
>concepts such as evolution are called science even though far from
>proven and this only confuses the issue further.

Thanks for the message.

I'm glad you are becomming skeptical of what the media and authorities currently
claim is
scientific.

As for evolution, there really isn't much debate among most of the scientific
community.  They consider it an extremely valuable and helpful theory.  Where
they do differ is on minor points. I can see you disagree with that view.  If
you want, I would be more than willing to discuss the matter privately or on
another mailing list.  Since this list is devoted to psychology, I will not
mention it any further (unless evolutionary psychology comes up).

>Mythical labels such as MPD and SRA as
>well as "victim" by way of recovered abuse >memories cause me to wonder
>what part of the psyche industry is not a >matter of deceit. Which
>labels can we trust to be a matter of science >if so many are proving to
>be false? If these guys don't care what truth >is in one matter, how do
>we know they aren't making it all up?

I definitely understand your skepticism of the mental health field.  Their
historical record leaves a lot to be desired.  But I think it would be a mistake
to think ALL mental health professionals are necessarily bad or trying to
deceive.

Much of my knowledge about the mental health industry comes from honest,
well-intentioned clinicians who are sick of the lies and misconceptions that are
presented as "truth"
and "science."

Just as it would be wrong to accept EVERYTHING that psychologists and
psychiatrists say is correct, it is an error to doubt everything they say,
simply because of the professional group they belong to.

Rob Ryley
Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
Join the Mailing List
pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the archive
http://www.egroups.com/groups/pseudoscience-in-psych/



--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

It is amazing how many of the public cannot seem to distinguish
unproven theories and pseudoscience from true science. Some theoretical
concepts such as evolution are called science even though far from
proven and this only confuses the issue further.
<P>
I got interested in psycho-therapy after seeing the deceptive nature of
recovered abuse memories in so many therapy clients. It is amazing how
fervently people whose memories have been tainted by therapist or other
suggestion defend their imagination as if it were memory.
<P>
The more I looked at what was going on in the area of mental health and
care-giving field, the more deceit and lackadaisical regard for truth I
saw by the so-called professionals within this industry.
<P>
If medical or therapeutic personnel are not seriously interested in
absolute truth, it is very unlikely that their product will be safe or
beneficial. In fact, one wonders why anyone would buy that product of
allow such a quack to mess around with his most precious possessions:
i.e. his mind, and his soul.
<P>
The psyche professions have done a good job of propagandizing the
public to see their work as good and as safe, when the truth of the
matter is much to the contrary. Mythical labels such as MPD and SRA as
well as "victim" by way of recovered abuse memories cause me to wonder
what part of the psyche industry is not a matter of deceit. Which
labels can we trust to be a matter of science if so many are proving to
be false? If these guys don't care what truth is in one matter, how do
we know they aren't making it all up?
<P>
How about bipolar for example? valid diagnosis or bogus label for
strange symptoms which no one understands?
<P>
borderline? who knows.<br>
ptsd--there is a book out which says it is bogus
<P>
schizophrenia? anybody's guess-if recovered memory is a condition of
lack of truth, false beliefs which affect the personal identity, why
can't this also cause schizophrenia?
<P>
I don't have the answers but I don't think psyches do either. When
prozac cures everything, it cures nothing.

After reading my own posting sent back to me via email, I had to laugh
out loud (after a proper horrified period of blushing) at the typo
inadvertently contained within my original message. Actually, where it
appears is probably more concisely to the point with typo intact! And
then again, there's something to be said for the proverbial Freudian
slip, and it most definitely helped me to lighten up a bit once I
realized what I'd typed!!! (Hey, I told you I have a neuro deficit
because of that blasted drug!). Anyway, for those of you who can't find
it, (chances, 1 in a million of any of you men out there), disregard
this message. For you others, sorry if I unintentionally offended. And
the rest of you...Well, have a good laugh on me!!!

Hi to all, glad to be onboard and looking forward to the direction this
group may take. I am interested in the educated and/or credentialed
members of our group's opinions concerning the lack of follow up on the
serious adverse events often associated with many of today's
pharmaceutical offerings. It appears to me, after much research into a
drug which caused a neurological movement disorder in myself and many
other serious long term effects in others with whom I am networking,
that once a drug is fast tracked onto the market, the reports that came
in both pre and post marketing are often relegated to statistical and
disclaimer nirvana. Most of the slack appears to be relegated to the
dusty statistical vaults of the FDA's MEDWATCH database, where it takes
"years", according to the representatives I spoke to there, to even
attempt to look into the seriousness of the reports and their possible
link to the primary suspect drug in question. A new Task Force was
recently set up within the FDA to address this questionable state of
affairs, and it resulted in a 148+ page report with numerous
suggestions on how to get the stats into human terms, i.e., the pain,
suffering, and loss of life associated with so many drugs and yet not
communicated to the medical community nor tossed back to the
manufacturer for accountability and clearer, to the point, warnings for
both practitioner and consumer. Through my own experience, I have
learned that the manufacturer is protected simply by listing the
adverse effect/event within it's product literature. What is astounding
to me is that they are allowed the immunity of providing a disclaimer
on the one hand and yet provided the protection of having satisfied the
requisite to warn on the other. I have never seen any other industry
provided the luxury of having their cake and eating tit too, to the
tune of quite a few billion dollars profit yearly to boot. It is also
extremely unnerving to me, as a consumer, that the published clinical
trials often are authored and/or overseen by the same constellation of
doctors/clinicians over many years duration, oftimes funded by
noneother than the manufacturers themselves. If it were all about the
money only, I'd say let the bucks fall where they may. Dirty money is
dirty money whichever way you look at it, and as long as I don't have
to have my hand in it, let 'em roll in it...But when it comes down to
the toll in human suffering, which is only multiplied by the effect it
has on the loved ones of those harmed by many drugs simply because of
the lack of informed consent, it becomes a whole different ball game. I
realize there are many very good, efficacious drugs on the market that
have helped many people. I am only addressing the fact that the average
consumer is not afforded the luxury of knowing the whole truth as to
the risks they take when exposing themselves to many of the drugs on
the market today. I am also fully aware that we are at the mercy of the
informed intermediary, our faithful medical practioners who are often
so overloaded with patients, that they fall prey all too often to the
slick promotional tactics of the billion dollar pharmaceutical
dynaties, which only futher perpetuates the damage done. In my research
it has been asserted that MEDWATCH reports reflect approximately 1% of
the true number of adverse events associated with any particular drug.
As to the manufacturer of the drug which caused my neurological
movement disorder, I was told by their own representative that my
particular disability, though disclaimed as having any cause and effect
in the product insert information, was reported to the FDA as NOT
unexpected. Even after over a year of trying to adjust to the drastic
change this has brought to my life and the life of my family, I find it
unbelievable that this is acceptable in any way, shape or form. As a
co-spokesperson for a growing network of individuals still suffering
from their own long term effects of the drug we were exposed to, my
indignation is only fueled with each inquiry and each tragic story. We
have no voice, only deep enough pockets to fund the industry that
appears to be more interested in many cases in the bottom line: the
almighty buck...

07:48 PM ET 10/18/99

Study: Brain's Moral Compass Found
By MALCOLM RITTER=
AP Science Writer

NEW YORK (AP) _ A key part of the brain's circuitry for learning
moral and social rules lies right behind the forehead, a study suggests.

Antisocial behavior might depend at least in part on malfunctions in this
circuitry, researchers said. But it's too
early to draw conclusions, and the study doesn't mean that all antisocial
behavior can be blamed on damage to this area, said lead
author Steven W. Anderson.

The area, called the prefrontal cortex, has long been known to affect social
behavior. Prior studies show that people who sustain
damage to it as adults can start acting irresponsibly. A happily married man,
for example, might take up with prostitutes and start bouncing checks.

A classic tale in brain science, in fact, concerns a railroad construction
foreman named Phineas Gage who was the victim of an
1848 explosion that drove a metal rod through his prefrontal cortex. Before the
accident he had been industrious, dependable and
well-liked, but afterward he became a drifter who was profane, unreliable,
impulsive and inconsiderate of his loved ones.

Studies of similar patients have shown that despite their disruptive behavior,
they do know the moral and social rules of society.

The new work, focusing on two adults who sustained damage to the prefrontal
cortex before age 16 months, suggests that such early
damage can even keep people from learning the rules.

The man and woman were reared in stable homes and had normal intelligence,
Anderson and colleagues at the University of Iowa
College of Medicine report in the November issue of the journal Nature
Neuroscience. But both engaged in petty thievery, lied
habitually, failed to hold jobs because of undependability, acted irresponsibly
sexually and showed no guilt or remorse for their
behavior.

In lab tests, they couldn't competently deal with hypothetical dilemmas like:

A man must steal a drug to save his wife's life. Should he do it?

Two people disagree on what TV channel to watch. How can they solve the problem?
 	    _
Your boss invites you to a party you don't really want to attend. What should
you do?

By one theory, the prefrontal cortex is thought to be important in using
emotions in making decisions. For these two people, the brain damage apparently
kept them from absorbing lessons taught through reward and punishment in
childhood, Anderson said.

---
Rob Ryley OTR
Pseudoscience in Psychology
http://members.xoom.com/psych_books/
Join the Mailing List
pseudoscience-in-psych-subscribe@egroups.com



--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Hello everyone,

I would like thank all of you for accepting my invitation to participate in the
Pseudoscience in Psychology mailing list.

It has been awhile since I have communicated with many of you.  So let me tell
you a bit about myself.

I am a college grad from the University of Scranton with a B.S. in Occupational
Therapy.  I just recently received my National Certification, which makes me
eligible for state licensure.  I intend on practicing in either New York or New
Jersey. (I will have a more detailed bio on the website shortly).

I created this mailing list because I was getting a lot of email messages from
people requesting knowledge of updates.  I thought it might be better to create
a discussion group, as it takes a lot of time to produce material for a website.

About once a month, I hope to produce an email newsletter, with a few brief
essays about some of my interests in psychology and psychiatry.
Contributions from list members are more than welcome.

For all other times during the month, the list is open for all members to post
questions, comments, or articles pertaining to any aspect of psychology,
psychiatry, and its practice.

Although I don't like to dwell on the negatives,
I just wanted to outline some basic policies in order to handle potential
conflicts.  (After some experience as a list moderator, I will compile a FAQ for
newer members.  If you have any suggestions, send them to me.)

1) This list is NOT a group to post questions about INDIVIDUAL treatment issues.
If you have a treatment experience that pertains to the broader issues of mental
health or the practice of psychology, go ahead and post. Questions about the
efficacy or side effects of drugs are also fine.  But please do not ask anyone
whether you should take a particular drug, say Prozac or Wellbutrin.  Giving
such advice could get a professional into trouble, especially without any
detailed knowledge of your situation.

2) It is natural to get emotional when reading something you may strongly
disagree (or agree) with.  Think before you post.  Try to refrain from
name-calling or flaming.

3) Please, Please, Please.  If there is anything that I really do not like, it
is one word or one line posts.  If you agree with a statement, elaborate on why
you feel that way.
If you disagree, be clear about your reasons.
One line messages are pointless.

4) If you have a website that is relevant, send it to me.  I will put it on the
egroup section under "links" and will also place a link on my website.  Don't go
post a message "Visit My Page."  You CAN, however, post a relevant message with
a signature containing your website address.

5) Please ask permission of individual authors before cross-posting to other
newsgroups.

I think that is enough of ground-rules for now.

Sincerely,
Rob Ryley OTR


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.