the issue for psychiatrists and social workers is that you trust them or think that they are exact science. you don't have to trust your banker, a banker might take your money, but i psychiatrist might take your mind, make you think you are crazy, or drive you to kill yourself or to kill others
Your average guy off the street
might do something criminal or immoral, I don't see why you're singling out social workers and psychiatrists just because they're in a more trusted position. You can make the argument that if a psychiatrist or social worker does something wrong, it's worse because of the position they're in, but this has no bearing on the
amount of psychiatrists and social workers who abuse their power. The same could be said of a teacher who has sex with a student, or a boss who sexually harasses his employees, or a medical doctor who neglects patients, and so on. Some people abuse positions of power to a dangerous degree, but most don't. Generally a psychiatrist tries to
prevent people from going crazy, not drive them to insanity.
i know a very well experienced psychologist who suggested that a patients may have abortion, although it's completely unprofessional to do that even if you think abortion is ok. i don't think her intentions were evil, but i know about others who really had evil intentions.
Well I imagine that depends on whether or not pregnancy is having a profoundly negative effect on the woman's mental state, for which a psychiatrist would be responsible. In that case, suggesting a patient
may have an abortion if one agrees with it wouldn't be entirely unprofessional, after all it is only advice and not an order or an ultimatum. As long as the psychiatrist wasn't being forceful in any way, then I wouldn't see a problem with it.
why would people choose to study psychology in the first place?
The same reason I studied it: because it's interesting.
i know someone who had a grandfather who killed himself and her father beat her. people some times study things they lack, so psychiatrists might be psycho maniacs.
What specifically would a person lack that you believe they'd gain from studying psychology, besides knowledge? If you're suggesting it would perhaps help a psychopath blend into society better, I'd imagine sociology would be a more appropriate subject, or criminology if they planned to commit crimes.
i myself studied sociology and many people think i'm anti social. i had a student who studied english literature because she can't express herself.
Conversely, I've known countless people who study subjects simply because they lack knowledge of them and wish to learn more, it's a baseless assertion that any significant amount of people study things because they lack them on a personal or psychological level. And even if they did, that wouldn't automatically imply the likelihood of immoral or dangerous behaviour. Did studying sociology make you more anti social? Did your student's English Literature course make her even more introverted? I doubt it, in most cases learning is a positive thing.
Valar morghulis
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
aha so you are psychologist, are you crazy!!! you are mixing things up, it's different when a priest molest a child, or when a psychiatrist try to make you think that you are crazy when you are not, because it's not a part of a priest job to molest, but it's a part of a psychiatrist job to evaluate your mental health.
i just hope that you are not a therapist, because you're not allowed to give advices as one, the patient usually develop a dependent relation with a therapist, so he would have big power that make an advice much more powerful than advice from a stranger. it's like a religious muslem authority give an advice of terrorism in a british mosque, it's not just an advice!!! you are not even suppose to give a good advice to a patient, you just facilitate, so the patient would come to his own conclusions by himself. but for me as a sociologist i still can see the foucauldian power playing around.
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
10 years ago
aha so you are psychologist, are you crazy!!!
No, and no.
you are mixing things up, it's different when a priest molest a child, or when a psychiatrist try to make you think that you are crazy when you are not, because it's not a part of a priest job to molest, but it's a part of a psychiatrist job to evaluate your mental health.
It's not part of a psychiatrist's job to make a person think they're crazy any more than it's part of a priest's job to molest a child, both situations are an abuse of power because both are in trusted positions.
i just hope that you are not a therapist, because you're not allowed to give advices as one, the patient usually develop a dependent relation with a therapist, so he would have big power that make an advice much more powerful than advice from a stranger.
You're allowed to make the patient aware that he or she has options, even if you don't tell them which option to take. Saying a patient
may have an abortion if they agree with it is in no way an abuse of power, nor is it unprofessional, especially if the patient's mental health may worsen if they go through with the pregnancy. The psychiatrist can also describe other options and then leave the final decision up to the patient. It's generally discouraged to give advice to patients about major life choices but in situations where it's having a severe impact on their mental health, exceptions can be made as long as the advice is framed as evaluating options rather than recommending exactly what the patient
should do. For example, if the patient is involved in an abusive domestic situation or relationship which is having a direct influence on his or her psychological state, a psychiatrist advising the patient to consider the option of leaving (along with other potential solutions) would be understandable and ethical in my view.
it's like a religious muslem authority give an advice of terrorism in a british mosque, it's not just an advice!!!
So you would disagree with a Muslim authority advising Muslims to denounce terrorism? I don't think you're familiar with the concept of
abusing one's power, when you abuse power you use it to do harm or commit otherwise immoral acts. Using power to help people does not constitute abusing it, even if it was unprofessional (which it isn't, in a psychiatrist's case) it would still be acceptable if it was helpful and not harmful.
you are not even suppose to give a good advice to a patient, you just facilitate, so the patient would come to his own conclusions by himself. but for me as a sociologist i still can see the foucauldian power playing around.
The patient can't come to any conclusion if they don't know what their options are; part of facilitating
is giving advice in terms of guidance. The relationship between a psychiatrist and a patient is not just one of assessment of their mental condition, it's also about treating and trying to prevent mental disorders from occurring in the patient. The only time it would be unprofessional is if a psychiatrist tried to pressure the patient into doing something they didn't want to do. Yes, they're in a position of power and therefore a suggestion from them is more likely to be taken seriously than a stranger, but if the suggestion is in the best interest of the patient, is presented carefully and along with other options, and the patient
wants to do it then I don't see a problem either ethically or professionally.
Valar morghulis
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
the example of abortion could help, in the case i talked about, the advice was in a country that doesn't allow abortion. the therapist's culture allow it but the patient's culture doesn't allow it. here is what's so stupid about social sciences talking about ethics, what is it? is it kantian universal or legal or cultural? is it ok for a nazi therapist in 1935 to advice his patient to gaz his jewish neighbor who annoy him, because this will improve the patient's mental health? you're out of your mind man, you don't know what you are talking about.
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
10 years ago
the example of abortion could help, in the case i talked about, the advice was in a country that doesn't allow abortion. the therapist's culture allow it but the patient's culture doesn't allow it.
If you mean the
law in the country doesn't allow it, then obviously it would be unprofessional of a psychiatrist to advise a patient to commit a criminal offense. However, if the law permits abortion, it would then be up to the patient whether to adhere to the morals dictated by their culture or exercise their legal right. Are you suggesting a psychiatrist should only have the right to give advice to a patient with whom he or she shares a cultural background? Or are you suggesting that a psychiatrist should avoid giving advice just in case the patient's culture, whatever it may be, might disagree with his advice?
Suppose the patient was part of a culture that forbids taking medication, should the psychiatrist be disallowed from suggesting drug treatment for their particular disorder? What about medical doctors, should they be prohibited from advising a certain course of action just in case their patient comes from a culture where it's forbidden? The patient always has a choice, and can refuse to listen at any time. I expect a person's culture has a much larger influence over them than one psychiatrist, so should they choose an option he suggested it would almost certainly be for their own reasons and not because he pressured them into it.
here is what's so stupid about social sciences talking about ethics, what is it? is it kantian universal or legal or cultural? is it ok for a nazi therapist in 1935 to advice his patient to gaz his jewish neighbor who annoy him, because this will improve the patient's mental health? you're out of your mind man, you don't know what you are talking about.
I imagine ethics in the context of psychiatry involves taking into account both legality and morality, the latter of which often goes hand in hand with the former but is pretty much subjective. Ultimately it's all about the patient's mental health, what may or may not be affecting it, and to what degree. In answer to your question of whether it's okay for a Nazi therapist to advise murdering a Jewish neighbour, it certainly wouldn't be acceptable to
me or to probably the vast majority of psychiatrists in civilized countries
today, but it may very well have been acceptable advice in Nazi-era Germany; I couldn't possibly attest to that.
Valar morghulis
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
that's exactly my point, in such a nihilistic culture as yours, psychiatrists shouldn't exist in the first place. and any way we shouldn't give people such power with such a non exact science.
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
10 years ago
that's exactly my point, in such a nihilistic culture as yours, psychiatrists shouldn't exist in the first place. and any way we shouldn't give people such power with such a non exact science.
Like I said, a person's culture is likely to have more power over them than one psychiatrist. And what does nihilism have to do with psychiatry?
Valar morghulis
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
if you don't know what's right from wrong how can you help the others! this relativism is criminal
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
10 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean, none of us know right from wrong, yet we help other people all the time. The reason for this is that all healthy human beings possess empathy, which is in my view the source of altruism. We don't always succeed in our attempts because we can only work from our own perspective, but the same can be said of anyone, even someone who shares the same cultural background as the patient might not be able to help them or may suggest something they disagree with. There's nothing criminal about it, it's just reality - there are no moral absolutes.
Valar morghulis
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
if there are no moral absolutes then you have no conscience since you might think you are helping people when you know that your thinking might be wrong (since there is no moral absolutes) and you might be severely wrong, you might be hurting them, killing them, yet you still try to help them, hence you have no conscience .
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
10 years ago
No, moral absolutes are not necessary for conscience, only the ability to distinguish between what you believe is right or wrong. Plus, I think that depends entirely on what it is you're suggesting, wouldn't you say? If you're suggesting something which involves a strong chance of hurting someone or killing them then yes, it would be questionable, but if you're suggesting something whereby you can only envision helping the person rather than hurting them then I don't see a problem. If you're claiming there are moral absolutes, could you describe some please, and prove it?
Valar morghulis
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
all i'm saying is that social and psychological workers should have limited power. they shouldn't have the right to take children from their families, leave it to court, and they shouldn't be taken as expert witnesses in courts because they don't have real science yet. it's better that they should work in groups both workers and/or clients to reduce the power of therapist and to put always under actual social check and review. they shouldn't pretend to be sure about their crap, specially psychiatrists should stop pretending to be real doctors.
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
10 years ago
all i'm saying is that social and psychological workers should have limited power. they shouldn't have the right to take children from their families, leave it to court, and they shouldn't be taken as expert witnesses in courts because they don't have real science yet.
I'm pretty sure they
don't have the right to take children from their families, that
is a legal matter, at least as far as I'm aware. Just because their profession isn't an
exact science doesn't mean it's not science. The law itself is not exact, since it too is based upon cultural norms and practices as well as subjective morality, you might as well say we should do away with courts altogether if you think only people who practice an exact science should have any measure of power. In fact, why not throw politicians into the mix, and paramedics, and the police, and anyone else in society who has the audacity to think they can help people or make a difference without using precise calculations?
it's better that they should work in groups both workers and/or clients to reduce the power of therapist and to put always under actual social check and review. they shouldn't pretend to be sure about their crap, specially psychiatrists should stop pretending to be real doctors.
Psychiatrists attend medical school, so they are real doctors whether you like it or not, that's why you often see "M.D" after their names. I don't think any psychiatrist "pretends to be sure", they simply offer their own expert (by definition)
opinion on what the problem is and what its impact might be.
Valar morghulis
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
no we are not scientists and it's possibly we will never be, but we could be something different as important as science, but in the very far future. social sciences are far behind medicine which is far behind physics as exact science so we are far far behind. there isn't one real social scientific law, not a single one and i dare you to bring one.
and what! you are a genius, that's the point, politicians, judges and lawyers are the same, they are social sciences too, that's why we have parliament and media to watch them, that's why courts are on several levels so you can make an appeal, and that's what exactly lack with social workers who can make influential recommendation to take a child from his parents for the most focked up stupid reasons.
psychiatrists are doctors in term of handling a needle, but in term of medicine and mental evaluation they are no different than a exorcist. they experiment on people like on rats.
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
10 years ago
no we are not scientists and it's possibly we will never be, but we could be something different as important as science, but in the very far future. social sciences are far behind medicine which is far behind physics as exact science so we are far far behind. there isn't one real social scientific law, not a single one and i dare you to bring one.
There doesn't need to be before someone who practices a social science is given the power to help someone.
and what! you are a genius, that's the point, politicians, judges and lawyers are the same, they are social sciences too, that's why we have parliament and media to watch them, that's why courts are on several levels so you can make an appeal, and that's what exactly lack with social workers who can make influential recommendation to take a child from his parents for the most focked up stupid reasons.
And if the parents feel that the credentials of the psychiatrist or social worker are inadequate or that their reasons are stupid, they can
still appeal through the courts to get their child back. What unjustified reasons have you heard for a psychiatrist recommending a child be removed from their family, by the way?
psychiatrists are doctors in term of handling a needle, but in term of medicine and mental evaluation they are no different than a exorcist. they experiment on people like on rats.
They're doctors in terms of people who have gone to medical school and attained the knowledge and qualifications required to be a doctor, like any other doctor does. An exorcist on the other hand is a religious nut who potentially fuels mental illnesses by claiming the patient is "possessed" and makes the situation even worse. Unlike psychiatrists who can recommend treatment and prescribe medication which can actually
solve the problem, the exorcist merely adds to it by screaming ancient mumbo jumbo and tossing water over the afflicted.
That is what I call far behind.
Valar morghulis
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
as i said there should be very limited power, the stupid judges think that social worker and psychiatrist are expert scientist which is rubbish, so parents have no chance. i already gave you the example of social workers destroying malcolm x family.
on the contrary exorcists might succeed on psychological basis were psychologist can't. if the patient himself is religious nut he will feel better because he think the demon is out!!
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
10 years ago
as i said there should be very limited power, the stupid judges think that social worker and psychiatrist are expert scientist which is rubbish, so parents have no chance. i already gave you the example of social workers destroying malcolm x family.
No, you told me to read the biography, you didn't describe it. Also, no judge claims a psychiatrist is an expert
scientist, they do however claim that they're an expert in psychiatry - which they are. It's a fact, by definition they are an expert in their field. What power do they have other than to be considered an expert in their field, and therefore an expert witness? The final decision on any matter relating to families and taking people away rests with the courts, they're the ones who have the power, a psychiatrist just offers an expert opinion which can be challenged by either another psychiatrist or whomever is cross-examining them.
on the contrary exorcists might succeed on psychological basis were psychologist can't. if the patient himself is religious nut he will feel better because he think the demon is out!!
Until the next time he conjures up something relating to the supernatural in his mind, at which point the ordeal starts all over again because the problem
has not been solved, but validated as an actual occurrence. You don't cure a patient by feeding their fantasy. Instead of allowing the victim to slip even further into religious delusions, the psychiatrist assesses their mental state and provides the necessary treatment to overcome it. Years ago they didn't know a whole lot about why these things happened, but how many cases do you hear about
today? Very few, if any, because psychiatrists are helping to cure and/or treat these people (usually for schizophrenia or whatever illness they have) while most churches have resorted to taking no official stance on exoricism because they know it demeans their credibility even more.
Valar morghulis
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
a psychiatrist is not expert in psychiatry if psychiatry is a fake science like marxism and freudianism. and they are all fake sciences.
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
10 years ago
A "fake" science? I disagree profoundly with that assertion, as evidently the courts do also, psychiatry is a medical specialty. Having said that, regardless of your opinion on the field, it doesn't change the fact that a psychiatrist is by definition an expert in psychiatry and they have the qualifications to prove it.
Valar morghulis
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
exorcist is expert in exorcism, in the time of the catholic church rule they could be expert witnesses in courts. now we are under the science church were any idiot can pretend to be scientist in humanities. you are brainwashed just like a ctholic in the dark ages.
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
10 years ago
If you really think "any idiot" can study and succeed in becoming a medical doctor then I'm afraid you must have no idea what that actually entails and how difficult it is. Exorcists have little to no qualifications beyond recognition from their church, and exorcism is targeted toward something that doesn't even exist, while psychiatry is a legitimate field aimed at something which does exist.
Valar morghulis
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
i haven't ever seen a self, have you! it's a cartesian myth. you need to look more into philosophy of science and postmodernism to free your mind.
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
then you need a hairdresser not a psychiatrist. and by the way barbers probably did the same job as psychiatrists along history, but much better.
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
10 years ago
Okay, at this point you're just rambling incoherently. Do a bit of research on what psychiatrists need to study and accomplish before doing the job and we'll talk more then.
Valar morghulis
reply
share
Maximus_MMV
9 years ago
exorcism is targeted toward something that doesn't even exist, while psychiatry is a legitimate field aimed at something which does exist
How can u claim that? How can u be certain it does not exist? Where is the proof? It's the same as claiming there is no God. How can u be CERTAIN? And u can't say "because there is no proof of its existance". Lack of proof is not proof in itself! It's a moot situation. Therefore u can't make such claims either way.
But let's not get into the God issue. There has been numerous possession cases throughout the centuries. So, at least there is material. The only question is which ones if any were legitimate? I think cases where people started to speak in tongues is a good starting point, where it can be veriefied that the person had no knowledge of the language before...
~I am the MetalGod~
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
9 years ago
How can u claim that? How can u be certain it does not exist? Where is the proof? It's the same as claiming there is no God. How can u be CERTAIN?
I don't recall claiming I
was certain, I don't need to be 100% certain that anything does or doesn't exist to form an opinion. For instance, I can be and am an agnostic atheist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism And u can't say "because there is no proof of its existance". Lack of proof is not proof in itself! It's a moot situation. Therefore u can't make such claims either way.
Yes I can: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can't be certain that an undetectable pink three headed dragon isn't sitting in my garage, that doesn't mean you'd consider a field dedicated to studying or combating it any more seriously than a field dedicated to studying and combating things which are actually proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. I consider demonic possession every bit as silly as I do pink three headed undetectable dragons.
But let's not get into the God issue.
Why not? You brought it up.
There has been numerous possession cases throughout the centuries. So, at least there is material. The only question is which ones if any were legitimate? I think cases where people started to speak in tongues is a good starting point, where it can be veriefied that the person had no knowledge of the language before...
Glossolalia is widely regarded by linguists as mostly meaningless gibberish containing only a superficial resemblance to human language, and I've yet to see a convincing case of Xenoglossy, all are either unimpressive or have been dismissed as false, such as Ivy Carter Beaumont.
"I have no idea what "hammer time" is. Or how it differs from regular time."
reply
share
dawatcher
9 years ago
I believe in neither magic nor pseudo science like psychology.
reply
share