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

81–90 of 127 posts

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

#81

Post by a1369209993 »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #60
vore wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 view…

> How would you make your statement work for a specific dysphoria and not every other dysphorias?

You seem to be implying that making the statement not work for other dysphorias would be desirable; what caused you to reach that conclusion?

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

#82

Post by throwawayjava »

zaroth wrote: post #55
throwawayjava wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It is in essence a type of culture war hiding behind a so-called diagnostic manual

Right, OP was complaining that DSM changed because of politics, and my point was... "yeah, no shit, politics is inseparable from what the DSM is trying to do".

OP can't point to "real science" justifying either the original definition or the changed definition, because both are inherently outside the domain of science.

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

#83

Post by 77pt77 »

ttctciyf wrote: post #34
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…

Interestingly, the article makes no mention of the followup experiment where it seems a hospital invited a repetition and then claimed to have found 40 or so fake patients during the agreed period. Only to be told that the experimenters had sent none. Or at least that's the version told in Adam Curtis' documentary The Trap (part 1)[1] which engages in Curtis's usual enthusiasm for fashioning a sweeping historical nar…

> Interestingly, the article makes no mention of the followup experiment where it seems a hospital invited a repetition and then claimed to have found 40 or so fake patients during the agreed period.

The reason is simple. This article is pure propaganda along the lines of the book "The great pretender" by Susannah Cahalan.

The experiment might have flaws, but this second part is conclusive and no critics ever address it.

This is just another brick on the long propaganda road to a destination that is very worrisome.

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

#84

Post by catalogia »

stallmanite wrote: post #65
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " 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 view…

But doesn’t there exist a plausible biological pathway for transsexuals to develop a brain structure similar to the opposite sex whereas no similar plausible biological basis can be proposed for having developed the brain of a fictional anthropomorphic animal?

Isn't "brain structure [characteristic of a] sex" basically pseudoscience? We're rocking different hormone mixtures and maybe slightly different average skull sizes, but I'm under the impression that the later at least doesn't manifest in any measurable innate cognitive differences between males and females. That stuff went out the window with phrenology I think.

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

#85

Post by 77pt77 »

taurath wrote: post #11
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…

How many mental hospitals were closed in the 80s due to this?

Not enough.

This article is nothing but propaganda.

These experts never explained why homosexuality was considered a mental illness and later that decision was reverted. Neither of those changes was ever justified.

It's almost like those decisions are made with no objective criteria.

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

#86

Post by a1369209993 »

vajrabum wrote: post #59
dredmorbius wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It would be more accurate so say that they've resisted looking for one. And even that's a bit unfair, since doing proper experiments (with basic features like a control group, never mind replication or blinding) in sociology, economics, or political 'science' is somewhere between crushingly expensive and outright impossible.

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

#87

Post by 77pt77 »

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.

Quite on the contrary. For a recent example of misapplication on the thousands see [1]. The idea that the deliberate misapplication of these "laws" doesn't exist or is minimal in the current year is completely false.

[1] https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2019/12/10/floridas-...

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

#88

Post by 77pt77 »

sysbin wrote: post #79
jeffdavis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I'm not aware of many limitations besides some people getting their driver's license taken away.

Forget ever legally owning a gun. Or get a security clearance. And if you ever end up in court it'll almost immediately disqualify your testimony.

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

#89

Post by chroma »

catalogia wrote: post #84
stallmanite wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But doesn’t there exist a plausible biological pathway for transsexuals to develop a brain structure similar to the opposite sex whereas no similar plausible biological basis can be proposed for having developed the brain of a fictional anthropomorphic animal?

Isn't "brain structure [characteristic of a] sex" basically pseudoscience? We're rocking different hormone mixtures and maybe slightly different average skull sizes, but I'm under the impression that the later at least doesn't manifest in any measurable innate cognitive differences between males and females. That stuff went out the window with phrenology I think.

If you look at MRIs of human brains, you can determine the sex with pretty high accuracy. Researchers have even trained machine learning algorithms to differentiate with >90% accuracy.[1]

Researchers have tried this on transgender brains and come up with mostly noise. When they do find differences, it appears that the brains of trans-women are unlike cis-women. Ditto for trans-men.[2]

I am very confident that there is a ton of publication bias in any transgender research. If you publish a politically incorrect result, you risk your career.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30430711

2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337026445_Predictiv...

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

#90

Post by catalogia »

mnemonicsloth wrote: post #58
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…

The results of the Milgram experiments were selectively publicized to sound more provocative. The context of the experiment was the trial of the nazi Adolf Eichmann, who plead during his trial that he was merely "following orders." (There is a myriad of evidence that he was in fact an enthusiastic ideologically motivated nazi who believed in what he was doing.)

The idea that a 'normal person' might become a nazi if ordered by an authority figure was provocative, since it suggested the potential to be a nazi existed in many if not all of us. The disturbing and provocative result of Milgram's experiment seemed to suggest that 'regular people' could indeed become nazis if given orders from an authority figure.

The deceit occurred when the results to publish were cherrypicked from a larger set of experiments performed by Milgram and his team, in which various variables were tweaked. The people from New Haven (home to Yale University) were most likely to comply when given orders from a man dressed like a scientist and were less likely to comply when the orders were given by people in other sorts of costumes. Why? Because people in New Haven had pride in their community, in the university located in their community, and had a belief in the necessity of science. They complied when they were told that compliance would further scientific progress, which they considered to be virtuous. These people were in fact motivated by ideology, just as Adolf Eichmann was. Just as Adolf Eichmann believed in the necessity of the nazi ideology, these people believed in the necessity of scientific progress.

So what did the experiments actually show? It showed that many people are willing to commit atrocities if they believe the ends justify the means. That's not really a provocative result.

Post reply on HN