Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

spectator.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 127 posts

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

#51

Post by hyperpape »

ALittleLight wrote: post #40
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…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a review of a book that purports to make the case you're stating is not made here. That seems like a high bar for a review to me. Unless, do you mean you've read the book and the book fails to substantiate this claim?

Obviously a review can't give the argument in its full detail, but that doesn't mean this presentation is good.

Did the DSM-IV result in inaccurate diagnoses? Worse treatment? The review doesn't clearly state a single negative consequence. For that matter, reading the review, I can't even be sure if the book argues that the DSM-IV was bad, or if that's merely the review authors' opinion. I expect that kind of clarity from a review, and it's missing here.

Or again, on the point about the DSM-IV being a response to Rosenthal, what I'd like to read is something along the lines of "Cahalan's book presents detailed evidence that the DSM-IV was [influenced/prompted by/etc] the reaction to Rosenthal's experiment".

In defense of the reviewer: the worst issue might be a case where the title simply promises more than the article delivers. And the reviewer typically doesn't write their title, so it may be the editor who is to blame.

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

#52

Post by aaron695 »

> set back psychiatry for decades

Milgram, ‎Zimbardo all these experiments from the 50's onwards are junk. Doesn't mean it set back psychiatry.

How psychiatry works is you get something that you intuitively think is true, make up a experiment to prove it (so it's ok for others to agree without getting in trouble)

Then consensuses decides.

It's blockchain.

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

#53

Post by mnemonicsloth »

unishark wrote: post #36
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…

It also implies the decline of psychoanalysis was a bad thing, when it's basically pseudoscience.

If you mean Freudian psychoanalysis, you're right. Freud was a quack. The word "pseudoscience" was literally coined just to describe him.

If you mean all psychotherapy is bullshit, you're wrong. There are bad therapists just like with everything else, but good psychotherapists have saved a lot of lives over the years.

And if, on the off chance, you think all therapy is bullshit despite never having had therapy yourself... well, nobody is that stupid, right?

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

#54

Post by Merrill »

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…

It no doubt aided the movement to deinstitutionalize patients with mental illness. Between 1955 and 1994, most state hospitals for the mentally ill were closed. This was done with the best of intentions, but the implementation led to the current mess where many severely mentally ill people are without adequate treatment and are homeless or imprisoned.

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

#55

Post by zaroth »

throwawayjava wrote: post #24
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…

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 th…

Not the OP, but I think you’ve actually made exactly the point quite well yourself.

The field of study is not supposed to be “do we like this sort of people and get along well with them” or “are they well adapted behaviorally to be productive members of society” but rather an actual set of illnesses which can be diagnosed, treated, and conceivably cured. We do in fact prescribe powerful pharmacological agents based on these criteria, after all.

And yet, as the Director of the NIMH rightly laments, "DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure."

It is in essence a type of culture war hiding behind a so-called diagnostic manual. In that sense it is more aptly described as a dictionary, whose lexicon is revised more based on their perceived common usage more than hard scientific study.

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

#56

Post by mnemonicsloth »

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…

Did it set back psychiatric practice? Maybe not. But did the Rosenhan experiment set back the public perception of psychiatry? How could it not? If you remember that suicide hotlines are life-saving interventions, and that a lot of don't call them because they think they're staffed by "head-shrinkers"...

At the very least, Rosenhan convinced a lot of people that the Church of Scientology might be right about something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry

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

#57

Post by jeffdavis »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #29
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?

Forced incarceration is pretty rare, and doesn't seem likely to become common or misused in severe ways.

I'm more worried about a diagnosis -- even a correct one -- that marks you forever and limits your freedom in overt and subtle ways.

I'm sure that prevents a lot of people from seeking treatment, unfortunately.

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

#58

Post by mnemonicsloth »

Gatsky wrote: post #46

Note that Rosenhan was a social psychologist. The list of faulty or outright fraudulent experiments done by psychologists grows ever longer. The entire field seems bankrupt to me. Part of the problem are perverse incentives. Get one positive and interesting result (which you can tailor to the zeitgeist for maximum impact) and you can live off books, TED talks and lectures for your whole life. Recent examples include…

> The list of faulty or outright fraudulent experiments done by psychologists grows ever longer.

So what social-psychological experiments are bogus?

The most famous problem experiment I can think of is Zimbardo's fake prison, and IIRC the primary objection was that the effect was too strong. He let it go on too long and everyone was disgusted.

Rosenhan's experiment is bogus, yes, but I have to wonder... psychiatrists were condoning lobotomies just 15 years earlier. Is it likely that an entire discipline could turn itself around in that time? (Which doesn't excuse Rosenhan, of course)

I am 100% open to your thesis but would like more data.

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

#59

Post by vajrabum »

dredmorbius wrote: post #45
Angostura wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems overly pessimistic to me, there are drugs that significantly improve patients wellbeing and do so consistently and repeatably, despite the fact that we don't have a complete understanding of the complete mechanism of action. If I do a study showing that handwashing in surgeons measurably reduces risk of infection, does the fact that I don't know about microbes make lacking in scientific rigor and remove it…

There are, in cases, effective drugs. There's also a long history of failed or discredited treatments (chemical and otherwise), as well as theoretical models. Mind: I'm not arguing that science doesn't make mistakes. Science is a mistake-making-and-correcting process. But there are certain fields of science, somewhat more so in the social than physical and biological sciences, in which a widely-adopted plausible theo…

Since you used the word resisted, it sounds like you're suggesting that there is an existing demonstrable and falsifiable underpinning for one or more of the social sciences which has not been adopted. What would that be?

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

#60

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

vore wrote: post #27
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…

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.

> "We shouldn't keep shitty and harmful labels on people who are deeply struggling with their identity."

But the same argument could equally be applied to a group with a dysphoria that everybody loves to mock: furries. How would you make your statement work for a specific dysphoria and not every other dysphorias?

(Maybe it should work for every dysphoria? I'd be okay with that since it's a logically consistent viewpoint at least.)

Post reply on HN