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

71–80 of 127 posts

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

#71

Post by joshuamorton »

jamesrcole wrote: post #66
joshuamorton wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy.

> The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy. hsyqiwgx wrote "The trans community lobbied and bothered academics ... until the academics threw up their hands and decided their funding wasn't good enough to justify having a spine". sterlind replied "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community." The claim…

I'll just note you're only asking one side of this argument for any validation of their claims. And that side has provided more validation than the other.

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

#72

Post by Dylan16807 »

jamesrcole wrote: post #70
Dylan16807 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion. (You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis. Whatever you think about the nature of transgenderism, appl…

> If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion. Just because one person wasn't scared off doesn't mean they didn't get a lot of harassment. I don't know whether they did or didn't, but the fact that they weren't scared off is not evidence they didn't get lots of harassment. And that doesn't mean…

"academics [...] weren't scared off" isn't a claim that not a single person was scared off, but that as a group they were not scared off. If one of the worst members wasn't scared off, that's a good piece of evidence.

> This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments.

I'm explaining why he's one of the most extreme members of that group, which is needed to support my main point.

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

#73

Post by jamesrcole »

joshuamorton wrote: post #71
jamesrcole wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy. hsyqiwgx wrote "The trans community lobbied and bothered academics ... until the academics threw up their hands and decided their funding wasn't good enough to justify having a spine". sterlind replied "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community." The claim…

I'll just note you're only asking one side of this argument for any validation of their claims. And that side has provided more validation than the other.

That is not true.

What I did was not simply asking a person to back up a claim they made. If that was the case you could call me out for inconsistency.

I was responding to a person who had claimed to have provided some evidence that they had not actually given.

I responded to a sentence that was presenting a claim, and also implying that the evidence for their claim was given earlier in their comment, which I did not believe was the case.

That sentence was: "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community".

That 'So no' implies that the evidence for the claim has been given earlier in their comment. I did not see any evidence in their comment, so I asked if they could provide some.

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

#74

Post by jamesrcole »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #72
jamesrcole wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion. Just because one person wasn't scared off doesn't mean they didn't get a lot of harassment. I don't know whether they did or didn't, but the fact that they weren't scared off is not evidence they didn't get lots of harassment. And that doesn't mean…

"academics [...] weren't scared off" isn't a claim that not a single person was scared off, but that as a group they were not scared off. If one of the worst members wasn't scared off, that's a good piece of evidence. > This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments. I'm explaining why he's one of the most extreme members of that group, which is needed to support my main point.

That one person wasn't scared off provides no evidence about how many other people were or weren't scared off.

That he might be the worst has zero bearing on this.

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

#75

Post by joshuamorton »

jamesrcole wrote: post #73
joshuamorton wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll just note you're only asking one side of this argument for any validation of their claims. And that side has provided more validation than the other.

That is not true. What I did was not simply asking a person to back up a claim they made. If that was the case you could call me out for inconsistency. I was responding to a person who had claimed to have provided some evidence that they had not actually given. I responded to a sentence that was presenting a claim, and also implying that the evidence for their claim was given earlier in their comment, which I did not…

Then they did, and you've called that evidence unconvincing. But it is still evidence. More than the zero you've gotten (or requested) from the original claim.

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

#76

Post by jamesrcole »

joshuamorton wrote: post #75
jamesrcole wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true. What I did was not simply asking a person to back up a claim they made. If that was the case you could call me out for inconsistency. I was responding to a person who had claimed to have provided some evidence that they had not actually given. I responded to a sentence that was presenting a claim, and also implying that the evidence for their claim was given earlier in their comment, which I did not…

Then they did, and you've called that evidence unconvincing. But it is still evidence. More than the zero you've gotten (or requested) from the original claim.

No, I did not see any evidence there at all, and I wrote my comment on the basis of that.

Having seen the subsequent replies, I can now see how other people have taken it as a form of evidence.

While I can now see why other people might consider it evidence for the claim, I do not consider it to be such myself (in the sense of 'evidence' being something that supports a claim).

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

#77

Post by Dylan16807 »

jamesrcole wrote: post #74
Dylan16807 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"academics [...] weren't scared off" isn't a claim that not a single person was scared off, but that as a group they were not scared off. If one of the worst members wasn't scared off, that's a good piece of evidence. > This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments. I'm explaining why he's one of the most extreme members of that group, which is needed to support my main point.

That one person wasn't scared off provides no evidence about how many other people were or weren't scared off. That he might be the worst has zero bearing on this.

None? Really? You think there's a zero percent correlation?

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

#78

Post by jamesrcole »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #77
jamesrcole wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That one person wasn't scared off provides no evidence about how many other people were or weren't scared off. That he might be the worst has zero bearing on this.

None? Really? You think there's a zero percent correlation?

"If one of the worst members wasn't scared off, that's a good piece of evidence." Yes, I think that him being one of the worst has zero bearing. You made the claim - why do you think it's good evidence?

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

#79

Post by sysbin »

jeffdavis wrote: post #57
s1artibartfast wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

How do you know if it's pretty rare? I'm unaware of anyway for people to collect data on it. I'm doubtful anyone can get justice when it happens, unless insanely rich and or large media following while being wrongly forcibly incarnated.

I'm not aware of many limitations besides some people getting their driver's license taken away. I think most people don't seek treatment because they don't really believe in the psych illnesses. Also the baggage that comes with relying on medication with the short or long term side effects.

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

#80

Post by s1artibartfast »

jeffdavis wrote: post #57
s1artibartfast wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that forced incarceration is pretty rare now, but it was much more common at the time of the Rosenhan study. Electroshock therapy was also in vogue, and psychiatric lobotomy was still practiced in some countries
Post reply on HN