David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades • Hacker News Board

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#21

Post by perl4ever » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 12:55 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #18

perl4ever wrote: post #14

The experiment sounds plausible, whether or not it happened or was done properly. But the claimed response of the hospitals also sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What do people expect? A virtually infinite number of things can cause symptoms which have some overlap with schizophrenia, and that's why today (I'm not an expert, but I'm assuming what I know of is representative) on intake they classify someone as "schi…

> But the claimed response of the hospitals also sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Keep in mind, a major part of his paper was about how the pseudo-patients were admitted after describing extremely limited and mild symptoms. And a major part of the investigation was determining that, at least in one case, this is untrue; Rosenhan claimed to have extremely severe symptoms, including suicidal ideation. In other words,…

It's reasonable for people to find that sleazy and dishonest, it just seems somewhat...academic...to me.

Because what else can be done except to say "ok, there are symptoms, now the symptoms went away, huh." If he was honest, it doesn't reflect that badly on the professionals because there's always going to be cases that fit the pattern.

His distortion seems exactly like every pop-sci article today that is written for outrage-clicks. It seems kind of quaint, even though granted it's an influential paper.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#22

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 12:58 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #18

perl4ever wrote: post #14

The experiment sounds plausible, whether or not it happened or was done properly. But the claimed response of the hospitals also sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What do people expect? A virtually infinite number of things can cause symptoms which have some overlap with schizophrenia, and that's why today (I'm not an expert, but I'm assuming what I know of is representative) on intake they classify someone as "schi…

> But the claimed response of the hospitals also sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Keep in mind, a major part of his paper was about how the pseudo-patients were admitted after describing extremely limited and mild symptoms. And a major part of the investigation was determining that, at least in one case, this is untrue; Rosenhan claimed to have extremely severe symptoms, including suicidal ideation. In other words,…

throughout the article I was confused by the term "pseudo-patient". What does it mean in this context?

Did Roseanhan claim to have a dr-patient relationship with them. Do they just mean alleged-patients or alleged study subjects?

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#23

Post by ringzero » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 12:58 AM UTC

hsyqiwgx wrote: post #12

hyperpape wrote: post #4

While this is fascinating and I'm glad to have read it, it doesn't substantiate that this experiment set back psychiatry. The fact that the DSM-IV was prompted or encouraged by the experiment is suggested, but there's no argument for it. Even beyond that, the article doesn't even hint at an argument that the DSM-IV set back psychiatry (except offering the bare assertion that reductionism is false). Of course, the DSM…

The DSM is controversial because it's only scientific until political groups take interest. The trans community lobbied and bothered academics over the DSM's definition for Trans people until the academics threw up their hands and decided their funding wasn't good enough to justify having a spine and so the definition in the DSM was changed with a minimum of real science to justify it. That's psychology as a field in…

Ah, so you’d also agree homosexuality is a mental illness that “political groups” lobbied to change? Because, from the perspective of someone who isn’t a conspiracy theorist or bigot, it looks like the DSM updated their definition as more research and academic interest rendered the old definition outdated.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#24

Post by throwawayjava » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 1:02 AM UTC

hsyqiwgx wrote: post #12

hyperpape wrote: post #4

While this is fascinating and I'm glad to have read it, it doesn't substantiate that this experiment set back psychiatry. The fact that the DSM-IV was prompted or encouraged by the experiment is suggested, but there's no argument for it. Even beyond that, the article doesn't even hint at an argument that the DSM-IV set back psychiatry (except offering the bare assertion that reductionism is false). Of course, the DSM…

The DSM is controversial because it's only scientific until political groups take interest. The trans community lobbied and bothered academics over the DSM's definition for Trans people until the academics threw up their hands and decided their funding wasn't good enough to justify having a spine and so the definition in the DSM was changed with a minimum of real science to justify it. That's psychology as a field in…

As society changes, what it means to be maladapted to that society also changes.

It's amazing how many people will agree with that statement (because... duh) and then freak out when someone points out it's impossible to talk about the DSM without talking about dominant beliefs regarding "what society should be like". I.e., without talking about politics and labor economics.

There are many topics covered by the DSM that are maladaptations to this society but a) would not have been maladaptations in previous soecieties, and b) might not be maladaptations in future societies.

Is it even possible to talk about something like whether some particular aspect of human sexuality is a disorder using only "real science", and on a related note, what does "real science" mean here? E.g., there have certainly existed human societies with no strong taboo around human nakedness, and in those societies Exhibitionistic Disorder wouldn't even make any sense to talk about.

Similarly, it'd hard to imagine ADD being anything other than a perfectly normal non-maladaptive variation in personality prior to industrialization.

As a practicing scientist, I'm honestly not sure how "real science" is supposed to given an answer a question like 'is being transexual maladaptive?" It's just not a scientific question. There are lots of related scientific questions about human biology. But ultimately, it's a question about how those biological facts interact with social constructions.

Can you tell me, concretely, what you mean by "real science" here?

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#25

Post by unishark » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 1:03 AM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #14

The experiment sounds plausible, whether or not it happened or was done properly. But the claimed response of the hospitals also sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What do people expect? A virtually infinite number of things can cause symptoms which have some overlap with schizophrenia, and that's why today (I'm not an expert, but I'm assuming what I know of is representative) on intake they classify someone as "schi…

Generally these diagnoses require the symptoms to persist for 6 months plus be so severe they disrupt your life.

And they are basically defined by clustering of symptoms. This is driven by welfare/insurance reasons. You need a diagnosis to get benefits.

And while they often can't treat the underlying problem for schizophrenia and other diseases, they can definitely treat the symptoms. So if you have some of the same symptoms by some other unique variant of the disease, the treatment may still by useful.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#26

Post by imperio59 » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 1:03 AM UTC

The fact is psychiatry today still lacks tests or any proof of its claims of "chemical imbalance", which remains unproven. No one had established a profile for what a "balanced brain chemistry"looks like, nor do they test for any brain chemistry imbalance.

Diagnosis is still left to the subjective assessment of the practitioner before prescribing powerful psychotropics that DO change brain chemistry in unpredictable ways, and cause a host of side effects often worse than the original symptoms.

So the argument today that psychiatry lacks any scientific basis and rigor for its practices is still very valid and legitimate.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#27

Post by vore » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 1:03 AM UTC

hsyqiwgx wrote: post #12

hyperpape wrote: post #4

While this is fascinating and I'm glad to have read it, it doesn't substantiate that this experiment set back psychiatry. The fact that the DSM-IV was prompted or encouraged by the experiment is suggested, but there's no argument for it. Even beyond that, the article doesn't even hint at an argument that the DSM-IV set back psychiatry (except offering the bare assertion that reductionism is false). Of course, the DSM…

The DSM is controversial because it's only scientific until political groups take interest. The trans community lobbied and bothered academics over the DSM's definition for Trans people until the academics threw up their hands and decided their funding wasn't good enough to justify having a spine and so the definition in the DSM was changed with a minimum of real science to justify it. That's psychology as a field in…

Framing the DSM-5's redefinition of gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria as academics "not having a spine" and not "real science" is a disgustingly transphobic opinion, whether you intend it to be or not.

This isn't an empirical science. We shouldn't keep shitty and harmful labels on people who are deeply struggling with their identity.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#28

Post by unishark » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #22

Lazare wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the claimed response of the hospitals also sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Keep in mind, a major part of his paper was about how the pseudo-patients were admitted after describing extremely limited and mild symptoms. And a major part of the investigation was determining that, at least in one case, this is untrue; Rosenhan claimed to have extremely severe symptoms, including suicidal ideation. In other words,…

throughout the article I was confused by the term "pseudo-patient". What does it mean in this context? Did Roseanhan claim to have a dr-patient relationship with them. Do they just mean alleged-patients or alleged study subjects?

I assumed it meant they were faking the symptoms to test if they got admitted.

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#29

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #16

Perhaps more disturbing than getting a mental illness diagnosis (correct or not) is that there is no scientific way to prove that you are cured.

The only think I find more terrifying than a mental illness misdiagnosis, is a misdiagnosis with forced incarceration.

Assuming Rosenhan's study was fictional, what was his intent? Was it a lie intentionally designed to discredit, destroy, or reform these institutions?

Re: David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psychiatry for decades

#30

Post by msla » Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 1:08 AM UTC

ringzero wrote: post #23

hsyqiwgx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DSM is controversial because it's only scientific until political groups take interest. The trans community lobbied and bothered academics over the DSM's definition for Trans people until the academics threw up their hands and decided their funding wasn't good enough to justify having a spine and so the definition in the DSM was changed with a minimum of real science to justify it. That's psychology as a field in…

Ah, so you’d also agree homosexuality is a mental illness that “political groups” lobbied to change? Because, from the perspective of someone who isn’t a conspiracy theorist or bigot, it looks like the DSM updated their definition as more research and academic interest rendered the old definition outdated.

There's an actual, interesting question here, away from the Culture War fighting, which we can have if we want it: How much of any academic field is due to the culture that field is immersed in, and how much is due to empirical evidence and people attempting to be unbiased?

For example, there's the existence of Jesus Christ: Modern historians agree that there was a man named Joshua-son-of-Joseph who was a heretical rabbi in the First Century Middle East who got crucified by the local authorities. Why? Is it because the evidence for him is just that good, or is it because most scholars in Christian countries were Christian and, therefore, unapt to question their surrounding culture?

With Jesus, it's because of the evidence, as it happens, but the question is there, and hooting it down does a disservice to larger questions all fields have to confront as they mature.