Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think if the same experiment were to be repeated today; the results would be different? The link mentions related experiments with similar results as recent as 2008. Anyway, judging by "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders", Fifth Edition (DSM-5) (2013) there has been no paradigm shift in the last 40 years. It seems DSM-5 is bad even by psychiatry's own standards. People use phrases like "…
> Do you think if the same experiment were to be repeated today; the results would be different? Yes. Big institutions have closed. Smaller hospitals replaced them and most people get treated in the community. For example: my county has a population of about 600,000 people. About 4,500 people are on the books of the local MH trust at any time. There are only about 150 inpatient beds at any time. People only go into h…
The misunderstanding is probably my fault -- the message was too short. Let's establish the basics: There can't be any science if you can't measure. Reproducibility (replication): theory and experiment (prediction measurement spiral) are corner stones that support each other and build on the language of math.
"the results" -- as the very first message I've posted on the topic says -- are about the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses. If we can't have that (an ability to measure) there is nothing to discuss.
On "150 inpatient beds" -- how many people are in jail instead? And again, how does it relate to scientific foundations of psychiatry?
Both "lye to the doctor" excuse and "bleeding peptic ulcer" are addressed on the very same wiki-page where the quotes come from.
"Your link mentions RD Laing in the lead. RD Laing is now thoroughly discredited." Here's the only occurrence of the name in the article:
"while listening to one of R. D. Laing's lectures that Rosenhan wondered if there was a way in which the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses could be tested experimentally."
Does "the lead" mean "an inspiration"? In what way precisely anything about RD Laing changes the results of Rosenhan experiment?
I can go on pointing out imprecise statements but it don't see the point. What would be nice to see is even a single reference to an experiment that shows that yes we can reliably diagnose psychiatric illnesses and here's what changed in out assumptions -- where is the paradigm shift?
On 2008 experiment: the result: "The experts correctly diagnosed two of the ten patients, misdiagnosed one patient, and incorrectly identified two healthy patients as having mental health problems. If you think that the result:
psychiatric diagnoses are unreliable
> doctors were not allowed to interact with patients.
Diagnosing a mental illness is a serious business with long term consequences. Have any of the "experts" refused to diagnose on the account of insufficient information? -- I don't know.
I'd like to be proven wrong and see psychiatry in the hard science camp.
Have I mentioned that psychiatric diagnoses are unreliable ;)