Being skeptical of skepticism?

[Jeff Corey]

Well, that part was serious. As one noted psychiatrist said, "The unconscious is the UFO of psychiatry".

 

[deep]

Well, that part was serious. As one noted psychiatrist said, "The unconscious is the UFO of psychiatry".

Let me get this straight.. are you disputing the existence of the unconscious mind? Or are you disputing the idea that certain behavior (i.e., finding something that was previously lost) can be linked directly to it?

EDIT: also, who is the noted psychiatrist responsible for that quote? Google returned 0 results.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Yes, the "unconscious mind" is a useless concept in my field of psychology. Unfalsifiable theoretical constructs are a feculent burden.
The psychiatrist is E. Fuller Torrey.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, the "unconscious mind" is a useless concept in my field of psychology. Unfalsifiable theoretical constructs are a feculent burden.
The psychiatrist is E. Fuller Torrey.

That's interesting. You gave me some grief (probably well-deserved) earlier for my comments on "communicating with the unconscious", and I certainly am not qualified to dispute you, yet the concept of "the unconscious" is widely accepted and used often in discussions. Is it a useful concept? Time for a new thread.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Tricky, it wasn't supposed to be grief, but it is such an overused, worn out construct that just doesn't explain squat, but the woos use all the time. For example some of the previous threads.
One reason Popper termed Freud's work a pseudoscience was because of its lack of falsifiability. The gorilla in the metaphorical woodpile is the unobservable "unconscious mind". Unobservable by all but the few sacred initiates who practice the oxymoronic "free association" for a fee.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky, it wasn't supposed to be grief, but it is such an overused, worn out construct that just doesn't explain squat, but the woos use all the time. For example some of the previous threads.
One reason Popper termed Freud's work a pseudoscience was because of its lack of falsifiability. The gorilla in the metaphorical woodpile is the unobservable "unconscious mind". Unobservable by all but the few sacred initiates who practice the oxymoronic "free association" for a fee.

No offense taken. I was shooting off my mouth about something I have no training in.

But what you say is very interesting. I've started a thread about it and I'd very much like to hear you expand on this.

 

[deep]

Tricky, it wasn't supposed to be grief, but it is such an overused, worn out construct that just doesn't explain squat, but the woos use all the time. For example some of the previous threads.
One reason Popper termed Freud's work a pseudoscience was because of its lack of falsifiability. The gorilla in the metaphorical woodpile is the unobservable "unconscious mind". Unobservable by all but the few sacred initiates who practice the oxymoronic "free association" for a fee.

Not sure I understand how the unconscious is not observable.

Conscious decisions can be controlled - what will I have for dinner? Which movie will I see?

Unconscious decisions cannot be directly controlled - like falling in love, or dreaming. If someone dreams about something that has never entered their conscious thought, wouldn't that qualify as "observing" (even if you're only able to truly observe yourself)?

Unquestionably, the conscious/unconscious dichotomy is a gross oversimplification, but I don't see how it could be considered "wrong".

 

[Moochie]

Here is a debate on his quack level in the BMJ

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7470/816-b

He appears to have his fans and detractors, but in the article I wrote about there were various claims made for which no evidence was provided, unless one takes what the author wrote at face value. Two things are clear to me: the author makes a living as a paid "expert witness"; and he's selling another book -- the latest in a long list of books with a similar theme.

Apparently he's also mentioned at the Quackwatch site, but I haven't had time to check that out yet.


M.


ETA: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/breggin.html

 

[Marrena]

Did you actually read the link I posted? I'm kind of hamstrung here. That link made me seriously doubt the impartiality of quackwatch, as they have him listed, for spurious reasons. And as my other link illustrated, JAMA backs up some of his claims about the current dirtiness of medical research

Anyplace there is hundreds of millions of dollars to be made, there is corruption.

 

[Marrena]

Here's a nice link

http://wweek.com/editorial/3421/10752/

Wake up and smell the coffee, the American public is being bamboozled. And don't get me started on hormonal birth control.

 

[Moochie]

Did you actually read the link I posted? I'm kind of hamstrung here. That link made me seriously doubt the impartiality of quackwatch, as they have him listed, for spurious reasons. And as my other link illustrated, JAMA backs up some of his claims about the current dirtiness of medical research

Anyplace there is hundreds of millions of dollars to be made, there is corruption.

I have do doubt about corruption. It's the article that I was writing about, and it skirts dangerously close to CT-dom. What I've read of this individual thus far (admittedly, not much) hasn't made me suspect his agenda any less.

By all means, if he has hard evidence for the claims he makes, let him bring them forward and let litigation begin.


M.

 

[Moochie]

Here's a nice link

http://wweek.com/editorial/3421/10752/

Wake up and smell the coffee, the American public is being bamboozled. And don't get me started on hormonal birth control.

I'm sure if you search the internet you'll find many more opinions that agree with your particular point of view. That doesn't detract from the necessity for facts when "suggesting," as Breggin does, that the subjects he wrote about did what they did because they were on antidepressants.

I won't "get you started on hormonal birth control."


M.

 

[Marrena]

It's a fact that antidepressants can cause suicidal, violent and obsessive thoughts in a subset of patients--this was with double-blind placebo control groups. Of course saying that these particular individuals' crimes were caused by antidepressants could never be proven either way, so you are safe in requiring facts. I cannot provide those. Even a brain autopsy of the killers would not reveal if high serotonin levels contributed to the crimes they committed. However, I can provide "suggestions" just as I "suggest" that OJ killed his ex-wife, as mentioned above.

 

[Marrena]

Here the pharmaceutical companies frankly admit that their medications do not work any better than placebo, except for the most severely depressed patients. In other words, an $11 billion dollar pharmaceutical cash cow is based on anecdotal evidence.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20080227/antidepressants-no-better-than-placebo

I wonder how many skeptical posters here swallow those snake oil meds every day? For bipolar patients a recent study came out showing a placebo works better than an antidepressant.

 

[Marrena]

Also, in case someone else is interested in the nasty long-term effects of hormonal birth control, there's this:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118592903/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

"Conclusion. In women with sexual dysfunction, SHBG changes in "Discontinued-Users" did not decrease to values consistent with "Never-Users." Long-term sexual, metabolic, and mental health consequences might result as a consequence of chronic SHBG elevation."

And more specifically, when interviewed about the study, Dr. Guay said this:

""We have known for a long time that 30 to 40 percent of women on birth control pills have decreased libido"

http://www.medicineonline.com/news/10/7259/Libido-Problems-Linked-to-the-Pill-May-Be-Long-Term.html

 

[tyr_13]

What does any of that have to do with being, "skeptical of skepticism?"

Besides, saying that because drugs have side effects, and drug companies/the FDA makes mistakes that it is worse than with out them (and/or they are 'evil' just wanting our money etc) is a mistake in my view. Without a cost/benefit analysis, it's pretty petty to nitpick. Even one of the pages you linked to pointed out problems with the methodology of your studies in the headline.

Also I'm glad no one got you started on birth control. Just remember you did it to yourself. lol

[EDIT] Wait, so you are also skeptical when there are millions to be made? How about the people making money off people's fear of drug companies and modern medicine? Drug companies stand to loose millions.

 

[Belz...]

"Mythical other mind"...lol. Call it what you will...unconscious processes, subconscious mind, unconscious cognition, nonconscious, etc etc or the part of our ONE mind which "operates without us focusing on it."

Don't call it a mind if it isn't one, then.

It is the part of our minds which can micro-manage ideomotor movement (which is beyond conscious control) in order to make the pendulum swing a particular direction.

And pray tell, how did you find this out ? If it's unconscious, how did you pinpoint which part of the mind does this ? Did you even perform controlled, double-blind trials in order to test that the results were accurate ?

Gee...imagine that. Something so simple yet skeptics are so arrogantly SURE it can't be true...

Hit a nerve ?

Oh yes...you're onto me. I'm trying to "scam" you out of a few minutes of your time.

No, you're probably just as deluded as the people who believe in your claptrap.

 

[Belz...]

Do you think this is a paranormal...supernatural...magical claim I'm making here?

Yes. Thoughts cannot make things move at a distance. Otherwise there's something very wrong with physics. But, hey. Here's your chance to prove us wrong and there's a million dollars in it for you.

 

[Belz...]

As I said earlier, I get the same kind of thing from religious folk.

You might as well say you get the same kind of thing from black people or homosexuals. Being religious or not has no bearing on what you're talking about.

Of course, what you're talking about has little to do with reality, anyway.

 

[Belz...]

EHocking, once you have tried it for yourself, and seen that a device and ideomotor motion can indeed "externalise the supposed bridge between the conscious and unconsious mind", then you can ask yourself why "scientific evidence" of something that is so easy to prove is so hard to find.

Doesn't that lead right back to the shellfish ?