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

121–127 of 127 posts

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

#121

Post by 77pt77 »

warbaker wrote: post #111
77pt77 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

My default position on the follow-up is likewise skepticism. It seems like the filters at the time were so low that it is likely the follow-up is just a better constructed lie.

What about the argument, used at the time, that in order for someone to participate in an experiment like that they had to be mentally ill?

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

#122

Post by droithomme »

warbaker wrote: post #112
droithomme wrote: post #91

Hm, the experiment took place before 1973 and involved 8 pseudo-patients, all anonymous. This person was able to deanonymize and locate 3 of the pseudo-patients. Because they didn't find all 8 they then claim the study was fraudulent and never involved 8 people. That seems an absurd conclusion. It's not reasonable to think one could find all the anonymous/identity cloaked participants in a nearly 50 year old study.

Given that the researcher was a participant directly, and that he lied about his actions (he in fact presented suicidal thoughts, etc), I believe the balance of evidence says we should reject the study.

I agree completely the study is useless and should be withdrawn. But the author did not prove or even reasonably establish at all that there were 3 and not 8 participants. Not finding 5 out of 8 anonymous participants in a half century old study is to be expected. Even decloaking 3 was remarkable. Look at how hard it is to deanonymize data even now with the computational power, combined with endemic surveillance and monitoring of the public. It's totally unreasonable to conclude the other 5 didn't exist.

Even without the anecdotal information that things were not presented as they were told, the study is still, and always has been, useless. If someone presents at an asylum begging to be admitted, and describing strange symptoms that they say are causing them distress, it is reasonable to admit them for observation.

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

#123

Post by dang »

achillesheels wrote: post #115

Yet annotating a necessarily positive correlation with female participation and poor scientific development over the last five decades is considered misogynist. The intuition that is controversial is in the consideration of sexual dimorphism and novel sexual selective pressures that now influence research, ie glamour and agreeableness (“trendiness”) versus truth which is always in antagonism with the status quo. It i…

Please don't take HN threads into flamewars like this. We ban accounts that do that. Flamebait like "It is risible to think a woman could be as audacious as a Galileo" will particularly get you banned here, so no more of that please.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22160954 and marked it off topic.

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

#124

Post by achillesheels »

dang wrote: post #123
achillesheels wrote: post #115

Yet annotating a necessarily positive correlation with female participation and poor scientific development over the last five decades is considered misogynist. The intuition that is controversial is in the consideration of sexual dimorphism and novel sexual selective pressures that now influence research, ie glamour and agreeableness (“trendiness”) versus truth which is always in antagonism with the status quo. It i…

Please don't take HN threads into flamewars like this. We ban accounts that do that. Flamebait like "It is risible to think a woman could be as audacious as a Galileo" will particularly get you banned here, so no more of that please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22160954 and marked it off topic.

Then ban me for stating my opinion.

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

#125

Post by smileypete »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #20
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…

Yeah, I wish the article was more clear on why Rosenhan's article was important and what exactly is claimed in The Great Pretender . Re-reading the article, It seems to suggest that it undermined public trust in forced psychiatric treatment. I can only guess that the author believes this was for the worse and is the titular setback?

Late to this; but here's a Q&A with the author which may shed some light:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466007-1/qa-susannah-cahalan

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

#126

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

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?

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Setting aside that being plausible doesn't mean it's true, would you be less supportive of gender dysphoria if there were no plausible biological explanation for it? Alternatively, if there were a plausible biological pathway for people having species dysphoria, would you be more supportive of furries?

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

#127

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

a1369209993 wrote: post #81
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…

> 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?

I'm thinking of body integrity dysphoria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_dysphoria

On one hand, viewed through the lens of cold logic, it's no different from reassignment surgery and therefore their desire to modify their bodies is valid. On the other, it's difficult to honestly say that they would not be severely harming themselves by doing so.

Post reply on HN