but institutions are agents of stability. — unenlightened

Which is why they exist. We’re not totally stupid.

We’re not totally stupid — Brett

Glad to hear it.

The university admin had had a lot of difficulty and the place had become associated with trouble. So they were concerned to forestal any continuation of the trouble by selecting out the trouble makers.... But even before one's first degree, never mind the PhD, 'the state' or as i tend to call it 'the status quo' selects and filters. — unenlightened

Well, my first doctoral supervisor was a paid up member of the communist party so anecdote for anectode we're 1-all. Next shot?

No, you stated that all psychologists (clinicaland research) need a state license to practice. I'm asking you what form that licence takes around the world and where, in it's provisions, is the requirement to uphold state policy. — Isaac

If you go to a state and threaten state policy, you will be stopped if not removed from the country, if not arrested and placed in prison.

Go to China and verify if they are really "I was not under the impression they're premised on mental disease at all, but rather on lack of proper socialisation".

Maybe this premise is true, or untrue. If it is true, you should be able to conduct research to demonstrate that, and perhaps, with sociologist colleagues, further investigate if this "lack of proper socialisation" is likewise true or untrue, in order to help verify or then help correct Chinese state policy.

Now, insofar as you accept that Chinese state power would not allow you do to that (try to get to the truth as a so called "scientist" to verify your own "impressions"), then insofar as you can "research around the world" it is, in its essential character, a state license to uphold state policy wherever you go.

Furthermore, insofar as you, or any in your profession anywhere in the world, lend your credibility to Chinese state agents as well as communities and institutions that help train Chinese state agents, then you are party to the crimes of the Chinese state.

If you lend someone your credibility, you receive in return their moral culpability.

Likewise, insofar as you cite in your research any research conducted in China or by agents or proxies of China, you are extending Chinese state power.

If you go to a state and threaten state policy, you will be stopped if not removed from the country, if not arrested and placed in prison. — boethius

Do you mean question or threaten?

Edit: I’m sorry, I realise I just don’t understand what you’re talking about.

But even before one's first degree, never mind the PhD, 'the state' or as i tend to call it 'the status quo' selects and filters. As of course it must in the situation of educational scarcity that has been set up. Most of us have to be ignorant experiment fodder for the elite. — unenlightened

You're equating the state and the entirety of society. Under this framework, anyone is selected, even criminals are the result of negative selection by the "status quo". Such immensely broad frameworks have the tendency to go off into the weeds, notably with unfounded pars pro toto substitutions.

Here, your usage of "the elite" is questionable, because you have set up the state as all encompassing, yet somehow there is an elite controlling it from the outside as an "experiment".

I don't know exactly if this ties in with the op, but it seems as though there is a tension built in here. We have been through a century or so of unparalleled change in human understanding and power over the material world. Life in the West at least has totally transformed. But institutions, by hypothesis, have not.

HSBC for example, is a colonial artefact. The voting system dates back to a time of mass illiteracy and no mass or electronic communication. Mark an X in the box. You will think of examples of archaic practices.

One of the institutions is the marketplace and the economy. Property law and taxes are designed for a world that is not automated. The limitations of speed of transport and communication set constrictions in trade that have now gone. But the banks, the foundational arbiters of the economy were largely founded to support the Slave Trade, and are substantially the same institutions today.

The abolition of slavery was the last major change to property law, if one excepts the allowing of married women to own property in their own right, and the massive extension of territorial waters and sale of mineral and fishing rights therein. (I may have missed something, correct me if so).

So the institutions of slavery remain though slavery is gone. So apart from the fact that the British government has only recently finished paying off the loans it took out to compensate the slave owners (and of course since they are not immortal, their inheritors) for their losses, one might wonder how the banking system we inherit works for, say the inheritors of the North Wales slate quarry workers, whose industry was developed by the slave owning families into a massive and highly exploitative industry.

If you go to a state and threaten state policy, you will be stopped if not removed from the country, if not arrested and placed in prison. — boethius

No, you absolutely will not. There are very few states left in the world where all forms of threat to state policy results in expatriation or imprisonment. Some will, others won't.

Besides which, I asked you about your claim that

Psychologists are agents of the state because they need state license to practice psychology (whether clinical or research) and therefore must conform to state policy to get and maintain such license. — boethius

Rambling on about China for a few paragraphs is not an answer.

insofar as you, or any in your profession anywhere in the world, lend your credibility to Chinese state agents as well as communities and institutions that help train Chinese state agents, then you are party to the crimes of the Chinese state. — boethius

But we don't 'lend our credibility to Chinese state agents'. Why would we? We might help train them, but I think its arguable that spending three years in a free democracy is as likely to promote the decline of support for the regime as it is to produce willing enablers of it.

But again, you've deflected from the difficult questions. Why psychology? Why academia? Anyone buying Chinese goods is directly funding the Chinese regime. Do you boycott all Chinese products? Anyone trading with China is supporting the regime. Are your supply lines and those of all your colleagues in the world of corporate executives free from Chinese products and services?

It's unarguably the case that institutions (being slow to adapt) tend, systemically, to support social structures more suited to the society at the time of their foundation than the one we have now. Banks are a good example.

That doesn't make it at all helpful to start throwing around accusations that some specific institution is a particularly pernicious example of this tendency purely on the grounds that it might be.

Some institutions have adapted better than others, so the mere existence of trend is not sufficient grounds to accuse any given institution of being at the worse (rather than better) end of this scale.

You're equating the state and the entirety of society. — Echarmion

Yes, more or less. The state guarantees the law, and the law governs every aspect of social life from the voltage of electricity supplies to the allowable chastisement of your children.

to start throwing around accusations that some specific institution is a particularly pernicious example of this tendency purely on the grounds that it might be. — Isaac

OK. I' try not to do that. Thanks for the heads up.

Some institutions are banned by the state.Others are heavily regulated, and some heavily influence the functioning of the state. Life is annoyingly complicated. In the latter category, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge deserve a mention. there are even more of their graduates in government than there are in comedy

No, you absolutely will not. There are very few states left in the world where all forms of threat to state policy results in expatriation or imprisonment. Some will, others won't. — Isaac

You have a complete inability to participate in the conversation at a cognitive level.

I said three possibilities: "stopped, removed, or imprisoned". If the state feels your activity is threatening there will be a response, whether a legitimate or illegitimate state.

In a legitimate state, the state is not threatened by legitimate research into the mechanism and consequence of state policy and power.

However, the legitimate state will still stop you from conducting research it views as threatening. If you engage in human experimentation the state views as illegal and unethical, the state will stop you, arrest you, or then send you back to where you came from. The state feels threatened because the state genuinely identifies with it's citizens and wants to protect citizens from unethical human experimentation.

Now, in a illegitimate state, if you carried out research to investigate and expose unethical human experimentation, then the state would feel threatened because it does not identify with its citizenry and requires what people elsewhere say is "unethical research" in order to understand and control its citizenry, and would stop you, arrest you or send you back to where you came from.

If the state is not interested in your research, it is because the state does not feel threatened by your research.

However, more generally, research conforms to state policy because research is funded by the state or proxies to the state. Researchers who insist on not conforming may have some degree of toleration by the state due to the potential for blow back of "interference in supposed objective researchers"; however, there is always a point beyond which the state will directly interfere, and, more importantly, what the state learns from such experience is that it needs to better filter out such people from getting the token of credible expertise to begin with.

The legitimate state learns it must better filter out people willing to break "humane ethical principles" in human experimentation.

The illegitimate state learns it must better filter out people unwilling to break such principles, and even more so people willing to "make a scene" about such unethical behaviour and institutional design in a general (both in terms of human experimentation and other things).

Rambling on about China for a few paragraphs is not an answer. — Isaac

You say "anywhere in the world" and I use the example of China and your own claim that "I was not under the impression they're premised on mental disease at all, but rather on lack of proper socialisation" and your ability to verify that "impression" by scientific research, and you view this as "rambling".

Amazing, truly amazing.

But we don't 'lend our credibility to Chinese state agents'. — Isaac

This is off topic for this thread, as the OP is about mental health under a illegitimate state, so I will make a new thread and make my case that insofar as a community of psychologists conceive of themselves as part of a global community that includes China and derives their expert legitimacy, in part, from the global nature of the community, then they are both directly enabling Chinese state agency by supporting, collaborating with and training Chinese state agents, but also covering for Chinese state policy with their credibility, insofar as they don't vocally denounce it and cut community ties and are willing to say statements like "I was not under the impression they're premised on mental disease at all, but rather on lack of proper socialisation", which, of course, is only "scientifically" supported by the "evidence" provided by Chinese state agents carrying out the policy.

Yes, more or less. The state guarantees the law, and the law governs every aspect of social life from the voltage of electricity supplies to the allowable chastisement of your children. — unenlightened

It's patently absurd to claim that the law governs every aspect of social life. That isn't even the case in extreme cases like North Korea, and it certainly isn't the case in the vast majority of states. The law cannot possibly hope to adress, much less effectively govern, the multitude of social interactions we engage in.

However, the legitimate state will still stop you from conducting research it views as threatening. If you engage in human experimentation the state views as illegal and unethical, the state will stop you, arrest you, or then send you back to where you came from. The state feels threatened because the state genuinely identifies with it's citizens and wants to protect citizens from unethical human experimentation. — boethius

That's a nice bit of circular logic. The state will stop your from doing things it views as threatening. And it views as threatening that which it stops you from doing.

However, more generally, research conforms to state policy because research is funded by the state or proxies to the state. Researchers who insist on not conforming may have some degree of toleration by the state due to the potential for blow back of "interference in supposed objective researchers"; however, there is always a point beyond which the state will directly interfere, and, more importantly, what the state learns from such experience is that it needs to better filter out such people from getting the token of credible expertise to begin with. — boethius

An interesting take on the "no true scotsman". If the nonconformity isn't adressed, that's just because it's not truely threatening.

We know about historical uses of mental health (Orwellian usage) diagnoses and incarceration and forcible treatment by states, that we now think illegitimate, even if we think the state that used them otherwise legitimate. Here is an incomplete catalogue

It's patently absurd to claim that the law governs every aspect of social life. — Echarmion

You are quite right. there is no state control over what we write here, for example, except of course in those states that block sites like this. And other states that would block it or otherwise sanction us if they didn't like what was being said. But I seem to recall not very long ago the state, or a state, that some of us might want to call legitimate, putting pressure on Facebook, to regulate content. Patently absurd.

You are quite right. there is no state control over what we write here, for example, except of course in those states that block sites like this. And other states that would block it or otherwise sanction us if they didn't like what was being said. But I seem to recall not very long ago the state, or a state, that some of us might want to call legitimate, putting pressure on Facebook, to regulate content. Patently absurd. — unenlightened

You said every aspect of social life. You didn't say "some aspects" because that'd be a trivial claim not worth writing about. Please tell me about the law that regulates what you talk about with your significant other at the dinner table.

Please tell me about the law that regulates what you talk about with your significant other at the dinner table. — Echarmion

Sure. It's the riot act. If I talk too loud, the police will be called to the restaurant. There are things you can do that the state allows. And the law specifies what is allowed and what is not allowed. There is nothing that is not either legal or illegal. So at home, as long as I am not disturbing the neighbours and as long as my talk does not constitute coercive control, or blackmail, or sedition, or incitement to violence or terrorism, I can say whatever I like. In other words, what i can and cannot say to my wife over the dinner table is enshrined in law. Got it?

OK. I' try not to do that. — unenlightened

Too late.

Some institutions are banned by the state.Others are heavily regulated, and some heavily influence the functioning of the state. Life is annoyingly complicated. — unenlightened

Not so complicated that we can't, when accusing one institution of being complicit in class oppression, racial segregation, genocide...produce just the tiniest shred of actual evidence beyond insinuation and conspiracy-theorist level speculation.

Oxford and Cambridge deserve a mention. there are even more of their graduates in government than there are in comedy — unenlightened

And this affects policy how? Those institutions influenced future politicians how? What laws have Oxford and Cambridge psychology professors had instigated which would not have otherwise happened?

This is exactly what I mean by presumptive insinuation. It's like noting that someone used to give to the homeless and with a nod and a wink we're all supposed to know that means they'll be at the head of the next communist revolution.

Yes, Oxford and Cambridge are over represented in government. The next necessary stage of the process is to establish if that's had any effect and to what extent.

That's a nice bit of circular logic. The state will stop your from doing things it views as threatening. And it views as threatening that which it stops you from doing. — Echarmion

It's not circular, it's simply the definition of "what you do when you see a threat: you act with regard to that threat".

If you threaten my life, I will act; if you threaten my business, I will act. My action will be based on my evaluation of the threat and what is an justifiable and effective response.

What is "ethical research", or otherwise permissible research, in a given state is the state policy about what kind of research it views as non-threatening. Research the state subsidizes in a given state, is that state policy of what kind of research it views as useful, under one argument or another (why else would it fund it).

Not so complicated that we can't, when accusing one institution of being complicit in class oppression, racial segregation, genocide...produce just the tiniest shred of actual evidence beyond insinuation and conspiracy-theorist level speculation. — Isaac

Class relations are not, in their essential character, conspiratorial. The class of people called "slaves" in pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary America was not a speculative thing; it really existed. The "institution of slavery" is in reference to real institutions that really existed to maintain slavery.

Nothing has transpired politically since then to assume that similar structures of oppression relating classes of people to institutions, to one degree or another of oppression, can simply no longer exist, and, if they do, would have nothing to do with the institutions that we may find to be operating in any particular nation or globally; or that we may simply carve out broad exceptions to such query because it is inconvenient to the enjoyment of class privilege.

You may argue a particular institution is not involved in maintaining oppressive relations, you may argue a particular institution is involved, yes, but "on the whole" contributing more to liberty than oppression (that the left hand washes the right). I am completely open to such claims and such analysis.

But, if the claim is that institutions are by nature, or at least Western institutions, incapable of involvement in oppression, then it seems you have a psychological problem of interpreting reality. Unfortunately, there's no pill I am licensed to provide that fixes this level of denial.

Sure. It's the riot act. If I talk too loud, the police will be called to the restaurant. — unenlightened

And how is this related to what you are talking about? Are you going to argue the law governs dining etiquette because you're not allowed to stab your guests with a fork?

There are things you can do that the state allows. And the law specifies what is allowed and what is not allowed. There is nothing that is not either legal or illegal. — unenlightened

There are, however, things that the law simply does not talk about. And even among those things that the law talks about, there are provisions that are practically enforced, and those that do not. It's easy enough to set up a hypothetical law that, say, applies to every conversation ("seditious talk is illegal"). But for that law to actually govern, you'd have to enforce it rigidly enough to actually influence every conversation.

So at home, as long as I am not disturbing the neighbours and as long as my talk does not constitute coercive control, or blackmail, or sedition, or incitement to violence or terrorism, I can say whatever I like. In other words, what i can and cannot say to my wife over the dinner table is enshrined in law. Got it? — unenlightened

That only works if you think that the law implicitly governs everything it doesn't explicitly govern, but then your conclusion is also your premise.

the legitimate state will still stop you from conducting research it views as threatening. — boethius

So you should have no trouble providing evidence of cases where this has happened, together with an explanation of the mechanism that was used.

If you engage in human experimentation the state views as illegal and unethical, the state will stop you, arrest you, or then send you back to where you came from. — boethius

Again, with examples please. From a range of countries.

there is always a point beyond which the state will directly interfere, and, more importantly, what the state learns from such experience is that it needs to better filter out such people from getting the token of credible expertise to begin with. — boethius

Once more with actual evidence. You seem to somehow be confused into thinking that because you can come up with a possible state of affairs that state of affairs must therefore be the case. This is not a test of your imagination, it a test of what is actually the case, for which you need to provide actual evidence.

You say "anywhere in the world" and I use the example of China — boethius

I said 'anywhere in the world' by way of asking for proof that such processes were endemic. Picking the most oppressive state in the world as an example hardly makes your case.

your own claim that "I was not under the impression they're premised on mental disease at all, but rather on lack of proper socialisation" — boethius

That was not my claim, it was @Echarmion's. You know, the one whom you earlier accused of not reading the posts carefully.

if the claim is that institutions are by nature, or at least Western institutions, incapable of involvement in oppression, then it seems you have a psychological problem of interpreting reality. — boethius

Fortunate then, that it isn't.

So you should have no trouble providing evidence of cases where this has happened, together with an explanation of the mechanism that was used. — Isaac

You are telling me that you know of no cases in your field where people's research or practices that have been stopped by the state throughout the history of psychology? By stopped, I mean either a refusal of a request (refusing to sanction the requested actions) or then intervening afterwards due to (from the perspective of the state, deceptive description of the requested permissions) nor are you aware of changes to state policy that made previous kinds of actions no longer permissible.

I'll provide examples if you are really so intent on claiming ignorance and demonstrating you are a total hack and fool before whoever is following this conversation.

I said 'anywhere in the world' by way of asking for proof that such processes were endemic. Picking the most oppressive state in the world as an example hardly makes your case. — Isaac

I never said the process was "endemic".

You clearly do not have the cognitive capabilities to follow the conversation, one such cognitive ability being the "reading of words".

I will, from now on, be simply pointing out the strawmen you create and repeating your lack of cognitive skills needed to debate, at least in good faith, each time I see it. I will no longer bother to go through the exercise of brushing aside your strawmen for completeness sake; if you want to surround yourself with an army of straw, that's only kindle for the burning of your own soul.

That was not my claim, it was Echarmion's. You know, the one whom you earlier accused of not reading the posts carefully. — Isaac

Ah, I am unable to tell you two apart, I will be more careful. Fools seem all the same to me, lacking any distinguishing personality.

So, what is your view on the re-education camps?

Let's continue the conversation from there.

The next necessary stage of the process is to establish if that's had any effect and to what extent. — Isaac

Sorry, I missed that statute. You are not the thought police, and you are not the boss of me. There are rumours of an old boy's network. They don't advertise. I don't have to prove every fucking word, and you don't have to take any notice.

Are you going to argue the law governs dining etiquette because you're not allowed to stab your guests with a fork? — Echarmion

Yes, of course. The law against murder or assault governs the whole of your life, and the whole of the country. You can of course do whatever you like, if that is allowed.

You are telling me that you know of no cases in your field where people's research or practices that have been stopped by the state throughout the history of psychology? — boethius

You weren't making an historical point. Your claim was the all of psychology is complicit in Chinese genocide and that we all are agents of the state. I can certainly think of disastrous routes psychology has previously taken. I can think of a time when only white men were allowed to study it too, does that somehow prove the institution is still sexist (despite now having more females than males)? I'm asking for current examples in numerous countries (not just the US and China) where research practices have been stopped by the state on the grounds of current policy. I don't have anything whatsoever to do with the state. If I want to carry out some research, at no point in time do I even have to consult the current government, and at no point in my entire career have I even heard of a government agent stopping anyone's research.

I never said the process was "endemic". — boethius

I presumed you were capable of judging what the term meant in context. You said that all psychologists were agents of the state because they needed state permission to carry out research. I'm using endemic in place of 'all'.

what is your view on the re-education camps?

Let's continue the conversation from there. — boethius

It's painful enough to go through the process of dismantling your egregious claims about a subject you clearly have no knowledge of. I'm not about to start another voluntarily.

It's not circular, it's simply the definition of "what you do when you see a threat: you act with regard to that threat". — boethius

But sometimes people don't. It's not a law of nature. You can guess what will probably happen, but for that you need data.

If you threaten my life, I will act; if you threaten my business, I will act. My action will be based on my evaluation of the threat and what is an justifiable and effective response. — boethius

But this of course doesn't actually tell me anything about your response. It can equally explain any outcome and therefore is useless as an analysis.

What is "ethical research", or otherwise permissible research, in a given state is the state policy about what kind of research it views as non-threatening. — boethius

That's not at all a given. A state might not have enough power to fully control what is considered permissible or ethical.

Research the state subsidizes in a given state, is that state policy of what kind of research it views as useful, under one argument or another (why else would it fund it). — boethius

That's a useful heuristic (whatever the state funds it probably considers useful), but it's just a heuristic. There might be other considerations in play, since decisionmaking in a state isn't monolithic and a state might have to negotiate with other actors.

Yes, of course. The law against murder or assault governs the whole of your life, and the whole of the country. You can of course do whatever you like, if that is allowed. — unenlightened

It governs a specific action with a specific intent. Sure, you can play semantics and define terms any way you like. But if you want to analyze how law actually affects a society, simply ignoring when and how people actually incorporate their idea of the law into their decisions is probably not a good start.

I don't have to prove every fucking word — unenlightened

You wrote a post, in a thread about the modern institution of psychology, which was entirely about how banking is still working for the benefit of prior slave owners. Either the insinuation is that the institution of psychology might be similarly afflicted (in line with the rest of the thread, and your previous posts - class oppression, racial segregation, genocide, torture...), or your post was a bizarre off-topic intervention without any purpose.

If the latter, then I suggest that you take a little more care over the the possible misinterpretations of your odd posting habits.

If the former then yes, you absolutely do have to prove every fucking word. You don't get to just accuse an entire institution of such offensive activities or attitudes and then just deflect any attempt to defend ourselves with a faux show of horror that we should dare ask for the evidence.

yes, you absolutely do have to prove every fucking word. — Isaac

Make me, big boy.

Make me, big boy. — unenlightened

That's exactly what I'm trying to do here. Show you how unfair it is to make such unpleasant insinuations and then dismiss any attempt at defense as unreasonable. Show you how offended I am that the careers of myself and my colleagues working with some of the most troubled and disadvantaged groups in society have been reduced to a simplistic conspiracy theory without even bothering to check if any of it is true.

So yes, I'm trying to make you. The fact that it's not working is a reflection on you, not me.

So yes, I'm trying to make you. The fact that it's not working is a reflection on you, not me. — Isaac

Shit man, get over yourself. You sound like a Victorian schoolmarm. You are just a joke now.