Why the 'improvement rates' in psychiatry are meaningless:

Let's face the facts: some people probably do get better after undergoing psychiatric treatment. However, some people also get better from a placebo or on their own. In such complex emotional problems, a small trigger can occasionally lead to a huge mental shift, provided that a person was nearly ready to make that shift. With placebo treatment, this 'positiveness' is usually more temporary, but is also beneficial.

But even so, biopsychiatry's 'treatment' figures fail to properly state the failures of the profession. What's an easy way to this? Blame the person as a biological entity for being 'treatment resistant' rather than relating to them and trying to ascertain what made them feel that way. This easily absolves psychiatry of admitting 'treatment failure' and rather blames the patient. Thus, instead of laying off, they now have the go ahead to force more drugs and possibly electroshock. It's brilliant, but sickening. Here, psychiatry has created a logical loop which always ends up with them winning out. By refusing to acknowledge the dismal conditions of 'hospitals' and the lobotomizing effects of drugs, the field has come to be viewed as 'ironclad' by many misguided individuals.

Also, biopsychiatry neglects the fact that 'treatment' or 'improvement' is highly subjective, and that this judgment is probably best made by the person being 'treated'. Of course, placebo can play a role, and in a drugged up fog, people may think they're doing better because they've been blunted and can't feel anything, but often psychiatrists will judge someone as 'better' simply because they're less expressive and easier to control. This hardly constitutes an improvement at the root of the problems at hand, and may actually worsen them (especially if these problems are with authority).

Human beings are complex. There's no doubt about that amongst people with common sense. But biological psychiatry tends to be devoid of it.

Why IQ could be used to 'prove' that black people are less intelligent.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a racist. I am actually using this idea to show just how goddamn ridiculous the notion that IQ has anything to do with intelligence is.

You've heard about it before. "Oh, I'm really smart, my IQ is through the roof!" "X famous person had an IQ of 180!" The fact is, while such people may have (or would have) received such scores on such tests it has no bearing on their actual intelligence.

Let's start with myself. I scored above 140 on an IQ test administered by a recognized psychologist. This should get those silly accusations of being 'jealous of high scorers' out of the way. Keep in mind, I'm not using this to brag, but rather to show that I have very little bias in my writing of this article. I also was quite sleepy, and didn't try very hard. And this brings me to my first point.

IQ scores can easily go up or down depending on the state of the person at a given time, or the amount that they try. It's just like any test. This has no real bearing on intelligence. I screwed up the 'spatial' section slightly, but had I been in a better state and had practiced said puzzles a bit, I probably would have done perfectly. Did I get 'more intelligent'? Maybe I learned to solve patterns slightly better, but overall, no. There are many sites and advertisements claiming to 'increase your IQ score'. The fact of the matter is that they may very well be true, because an IQ test, even one administered by a 'licensed psychologist' is just that: A TEST! This brings me to my next point: Better test takers will most likely score better on these tests. Is this indicative of anything more than test taking skills and possible 'mental sharpening'? No.

There was also a 'written section' full of simple problems. I solved these quickly and easily. HOWEVER, if I had been able to write faster, couldn't I have gotten more done? Here's another fallacy of so called "IQ tests": they also depend on how fast you can write!

IQ tests have been used to determine the supposed 'genetics of intelligence'. While some people may be more inclined (or occasionally, extremely more inclined) in one area of intelligence, this is another major fallacy. OF COURSE kids of modern adjusted parents are going to have higher scores on a test biased towards what modern society perceives as 'intelligence' than the kids of someone lazier or less adjusted. Going back to my criticism of biological predestination, this provides an easy way to overlook types of intelligences that are not directly beneficial to society's turbo capitalism. This is largely why you see the cynicism of high level intellectuals completely overlooked in schooling (Einstein, Thoreu, Thomas Jefferson, etc) and rather see only their completely objective 'contributions' examined. If people were to realize that those who supposedly 'contributed to society' the most had harsh words for it, they wouldn't have such a rosy vision and be mindlessly compliant, right?

IQ scores have also been used to justify arrogance, which clearly is on the basis of believing oneself to be innately more intelligent. They are also used for the converse. Let me explain. Most people have their heads largely in the sand and probably could act more intelligently and critically than they are now. Of course, there will be differences, strengths, and weaknesses, but this is besides the point. The IQ system not only instills a sense of elitism geared towards those most adjusted to modern society and refuses to recognize this, but keeps people from recognizing their potential because they have determined themselves to be 'ho hum' and because they are scared of acknowledging that they are doing virtually nothing with their lives. This is one of the main reasons why stupid activities are so comforting. They are an escape from the ominous cloud of perspective and reason that hovers high over the heads of the masses.

Now, on to 'racial intelligence'. It's been long shown that the poor and those in third world countries score poorly on IQ tests. Therefore, it could thus be 'proven' that blacks and minorities are less intelligent than white people. However, this assumes that IQ tests are a legitimate tests of intelligence, as was debunked before. You will never hear about this in classrooms or on the news because it would be politically incorrect. Unfortunately, even the victims on the end of this nonsensical fallacy believe in it, and thus would interpret such a statement to be of equivalence to someone shouting "Blacks are less intelligent than white people!" Of course, that would be a ridiculous thing to say, but IQ tests showing blacks to be 'less intelligent' is even more ridiculous if used as a standard in society. The reality is that blacks and minorities, on average, tend to be poorer than whites. And that's it.

As was shown in 'Commonsense Rebellion', a highly interesting (and recommended) book by Bruce Levine, Walter Lippmann said:

"If . . . the impression takes root that these tests really measure intelligence, that they constitute a sort of last judgment on the child's capacity, that they reveal "scientifically" his predestined ability, then it would be a thousand times better if all the intelligence testers and all their questionnaires were sunk without warning in the Sargasso Sea."

Biological Predestination: A Wolf in Sheep's Clad

One might be inclined to say that the idea of behavioral predestination is rather benevolent, in that it simply shows that we're all different. However, this is simply not the case. When one expands this to beyond very base instinctual behaviors and personality inclinations, they deprive others of autonomy, purpose, and they often lose respect for highly subjective attributes such as intelligence and creativity (though both are often in the same category).

An interesting parallel can be drawn to John Calvin's views of 'predestination' in the 16th century. Though this parallel is virtually unheard of, it is widely known that the ideas of people being 'predestined' to go to heaven and hell kept them strictly in line. When they would cross over the line of what was 'unacceptable', then it would mean that they were predestined to go to hell, giving them a greater impetus to stay in line. Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will. Also, those who believed themselves to be 'good' were able to say that they were good by nature, by the virtue of god, etc. It should be noted that this system of beliefs was probably one of the 'best' for maintaining order, but what effect would it have on the psyche of such people? Here are a few examples:

Passive aggression. With the constant threat of being labeled 'divinely tainted', people back then probably expressed their anger in other ways.

Denial of emotions. This would probably cause a lot of problems that may not take a toll on a person's 'orderliness', but instead on their overall emotional health.

Labeling of oneself as 'bad' or 'tainted'. This would probably be the worst effect. When those who had 'sinned' accepted that they had supposedly sinned, they believed themselves to be innately bad and thus strived to become more and more orderly. However, they could have instead questioned the very basis for this system in the first place, but under that pressure many will not.

Still don't see the comparison? Let's look at today.

Non 'mentally ill' people believe others are 'tainted'. This leads to the idea that they are beyond help, which itself breeds more hopelessness. It also fosters a sense of arrogance that one is beyond such suffering because they must be 'genetically fit'.

Idea of being 'screwed up' prevents people from expressing their emotions, often for fear of being labeled 'unfit'.

Psychiatrists are quick to blame the 'genetic makeup' of such people, further reinforcing this notion.

The equation has not changed, but it has been masked, under the veil of sham science. There's no mistake about it: biological predestination is a wolf in sheep's clad. Many follow the fallacy that science is separate from life, but this could not be further from the truth. Much of our legal and economic systems are based on science, and when 'hard science' attempts to objectify something subjective (the mind, emotions, experiences) with tremendous authority, a vortex of pure disaster has been created.

Biological psychiatry is sucking the purpose of existence out of people with its notions that our finest behaviors have a substantial genetic basis without even providing evidence for this claim. Evidence to the contrary is often dismissed as 'anecdotal' and thus 'worthless' while psychiatrists commit the same fallacies but in contrast to anti-psychiatry advocates utterly fail to examine social variables. Is everything in our conscience simply a manifestation of chemical reactions? Maybe, maybe not. But science is not even close to understanding let alone safely changing these reactions. And even so, a natural approach which leaves room for the subjective that biological psychiatry has a disdain for may provide superior help.

The Genetics of Mental Illness

I thought I would give my thoughts on the subject in one post once and for all. In this post, I will summarize the common myths that circulate throughout the media and populace on the subject.

A common myth is that mental disorders are caused by specific genetic or biological problems and are specific issues. Actually, mental disorders are very subjectively diagnosed, making the process of testing for 'genes' for them nearly impossible. The way these genes are searched for is usually through a vast computer that looks for small patters between depressed, bipolar, or suicidal patients. The flaws with the selection process notwithstanding, if genes are supposedly found, the news is trumpeted across the nation, lending credence to the dogma of biological psychiatry. Often, these studies are also refuted, but the public does not see both sides of the story; even if the articles do surface by some chance, they are certainly not given the same front page status as those who support so called 'genetic advances' and are not imprinted in the minds of the public to the same degree.

If theoretically the studies were not badly flawed and there were genuine genetic similarities found between people who were depressed or suffering from mental illness, all this would confirm is that there were similarities, not that depression is caused by a genetic defect.

This is because depression is simply a response to negative circumstances, or the dehumanizing environment of institutional society itself. These genes could code for increased creativity, passive personality, increased intuition, etc. All of these react negatively with institutionalized and controlling society; despite how much authorities ascribe to the idea that they 'cultivate intelligence and autonomy' they indeed do the opposite. We live in a society of the lowest common denominator. Often we ask intelligent people to make do on their own because they supposedly have the capacity, but they are artificially handicapped by being forced to slow down and go through oodles and oodles of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy also has little or no respect for qualitative attributes such as creativity. While the genetic status of personality is unconfirmed and certainly contributes far less than the environment (I was turned passive for a long time though I am naturally aggressive due to negative circumstances), there are certain natural temperaments. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

While the emotional problem or 'mental disorder' that is expressed depends largely on a lot of environmental influences and thought patterns, certain personalities are more likely to react certain ways to the same stressor. In very rudimentary terms, passive people are probably more likely to be depressed or catatonic schizophrenic in very extreme circumstances; they may have trouble opening up and hide everything inside despite attempts to help. Meanwhile, aggressive people are more likely to have anger problems or exhibit violent psychosis under extreme circumstances due to having a natural inclination to outward expression and bursting at the seams when others unreasonably demand that they keep everything inside or suffer harassment and/or punishment. Both personalities have always been around (with many more subsets in between) and are by themselves not a problem. Note: drugs, particularly neuroleptics can cause not only massively violent reactions and extreme sedation, but eventually neurological defects.

Even so, much of personality is developed environmentally, but this is completely irrelevant. It's true that people are technically 'genetically predisposed' to certain reactions under stress, but this applies for the other side as well. Simply put, different people react to stress differently. This is a big difference from the idea of a 'genetic flaw', which is simply a logical leap and completely untrue and unproven. The desire to make money and quantify qualitative attributes has contributed to this subtle tyranny, and people buy it because they typically want easy solutions to complex problems. And as any 'solution' which attempts to put a band aid on a gushing wound, it simply does not work. What is observed here is a tendency to equate correlation with causation, which is a very easy misconception to come to when huge amounts of money are on the line in an area very poorly understood.

We need variety in personality to survive as a human society, without it we are merely machines.