Stoicism will improve mental health if you come to the conclusion that stoicism is really true. — boethius

I am interested in hearing more on your thoughts about Stoicism and similar philosophies like Buddhism. I wanted that to be the focus of the conversation I was trying to start, but you barely said anything about it.

I gather from this comment that you are saying that if one believes in the Stoic metaphysics of determinism and inability to effect change, then one will attain the Stoic state of ataraxia, which is a positive state of mental health.

But I was asking more, what do you think about trying to maintain ataraxia, regardless of any metaphysical beliefs, in a context of social injustice? Like when an average person who themselves has very little social power, exercises that tiny power they have as best they can, and then just tries to stay “stoic”, i.e. as calm and unperturbed as possible, despite the injustice that still continues around them.

Do you see that as a good thing or a bad thing? And do you not see at least some practices of modern clinical psychology/psychiatry as aiming to facilitating something like that?

All I can say is that the journey towards truth is a mentally hazardous journey. We grow up given a mental structure, to toss it aside, or any foundational part of it, and build a new structure is the definition of a mental breakdown. The role of psychology in society is to scare you away from doing any such breaking down; the role of philosophy is to invite you to see clearer what is worth tossing aside and what is worth building upon. — boethius

I'd like to illustrate this a little. Alan Turing was a homosexual who was arrested and faced with the choice of chemical castration or imprisonment. He chose the former, and soon after committed suicide. Whether that was recorded as a cure or not I don't know. In this case it was not a matter of tossing anything aside, but of being unable to conform to the standard of sanity.

It is hard to imagine if you have not experienced it, but the depth of opprobrium of being called "a queer" at the school I went to was far far worse than being called mad; far worse than being called a traitor; it demanded a fight immediately and absolutely. It was illegal of course - Gross Indecency and Buggery were the crimes, I was on the jury once for a trial (the case collapsed, because the vital witness was too ashamed to give evidence). This attitude survives somewhat in the prison population, where 'nonce' as a term of abuse has slowly and incompletely migrated from homosexual to pedophile as the law and the obsessions of the public have changed. Some people do not still distinguish.

So it was in a sense a kindness for psychiatrists to maintain that these people could not help themselves, and needed help, not punishment. Psychiatry becomes an agent of the state on one side, but an agent of mitigation of the state on the other.

We still have places of incarceration for the criminally insane, where the psychiatrists are agents of the state in the same way that prison officers are.

So it would be interesting to me at least to look at some accounts of the pioneers of Gay liberation, who must have gone through this 'mental breakdown' of being unable to sustain their 'proper' self-disgust.

But there must have already been, as it were, a semi-secret counter-culture, of meeting places and signs, and indeed there was an argot, that was used in Beyond our Ken and Round the Horn (classic radio comedies from the 50's & 60's. And of course show business was a hotbed of 'luvvies' and still is, (because you had to act normal to survive).

I'd like to illustrate this a little. — unenlightened

Your example doesn't illustrate the point in the slightest. The point was

The role of psychology in society is to scare you away from doing any such breaking down; the role of philosophy is to invite you to see clearer what is worth tossing aside and what is worth building upon. — boethius

How does your example show where psychology got involved to prevent the breaking down of an old structure to build a new one. How does it show philosophy helping in that endeavour?

All your example has shown is that the beliefs of society as a whole meant that people like Turing grew up denying their own reality. This caused him such distress that ending his life was preferable (for an instant) to continuing in those circumstances. Some people in society helped him a bit (including perhaps a few psychiatrists, who, as you say, may have taken the edge off some of the abuse people like him might otherwise have suffered), other people made his life a living hell.

Where in all that does it bring anything to Boethius's utterly ludicrous point that psychology prevents new mental structures toward truth while philosophy encourages them?

The removal of draconian anti-homosexual laws and treatments involved psychiatrists like Laing and Szasz, philosophers like Foucault, psychologists like Cooper and Antonucci. It also involved a lot of ordinary activists, lawyers, doctors and journalists.

The fight against such removal, as well as the creation and maintenance of these pernicious structures in the first place, likewise involved a lot of psychiatrists, psychologists, philosophers, activists, lawyers, doctors and journalists.

So all that's been demonstrated here is that there used to be draconian structures in society which denied the reality of homosexuality and then later they were broken down. Blaming one academic field for them and claiming another is responsible for their removal is beyond stupid.

We might well profit by examining psychology's role in maintaining such structures - and we did. But the people who largely did that were psychologists themselves because they know the field and are best placed to plan a way forward. All social structures and institutions have a history of systemically maintaining oppression. All also have a history of fighting that oppression from within their own field, as well as benefiting from influences from outside their field.

This absurd notion that 'psychology' as a whole is responsible for anything, or that 'psychologists' are complicit in something beyond that which each and every person is responsible for and complicit in, has no justification.

I am interested in hearing more on your thoughts about Stoicism and similar philosophies like Buddhism. I wanted that to be the focus of the conversation I was trying to start, but you barely said anything about it. — Pfhorrest

Yes, I also rather discuss the actual OP.

My argument is that philosophy cannot be approached from a point of view of mental health.

It simply doesn't make sense to say "I will become Buddhist to improve my mental health through meditation" or "I will become a Christian to improve my mental health through forgiveness and church community" or "I will become a Stoic to improve my mental health through ataraxia".

We cannot define mental health nor what is "good and bad" is in terms of mental states without a philosophical position in the first place.

For instance, a Christian will view "guilt" as a healthy motivation towards accepting moral failing and asking forgiveness. Other philosophies may view the same "guilt" as unhealthy. Even within the Christian community there will be disagreement as to how far exactly this "guilt" should go, exactly what it should be and for what it should be felt.

I say concluding that stoicism is actually true will improve mental health, not as a comment on the psychological process of truth conclusion, but because committing to the truth of some philosophy provides the basis of good and bad upon which mental states can be evaluated. From the perspective of assuming stoicism is true, it is mentally healthy to accept this as true, since it's true; likewise, for any other philosophy.

Now, one might be tempted to say one must not only commit to the philosophy and that philosophy must be "actually true" to improve health, but that would be to miss the point. In so saying, we are positing that a characteristic of the "true true" is that it improves mental health; but if we just finished saying we need the true-true in the first place to evaluate mental health in the first place, then there is no outside objective perspective (such as the psychologist deceives people into believing exists and that they are some sort of expert on this deception) upon which an evaluation of mental health apart from belief about good and bad can be established. Such an erroneous approach also leads to the unintelligible perspective that "feeling" (as some sort of supposed objective measure of mental health) is some sort of barometer for truth, rather than the arguments that support such a truth conclusion; this is dangerous not only because there is no reason to assume feelings inform us of what is true, but even more dangerous because there is no reason to assume that the worst lies do not create the best feelings from this fictitious objective mental health perspective.

In order to evaluate one's mental health, one must first conclude one's feelings and thoughts are "bad" or then "good", and how to go from the first to the latter. The psychologist wants to avoid the obvious philosophical implications of such an evaluation within which they have no epistemic authority, and change the conversation towards merely what appears to themselves (the key point) as good and bad and take the patient, and even society as a whole, through meandering maze of confusing discourse and, wherever possible to make a buck for themselves and their partners in this scheme, a pharmacology haze.

If a psychologist really is an agent of a illegitimate state -- or then, again a key point, there is debate either way -- and the psychologist does not either advertise themselves as an agent of an illegitimate state or then invite the debate and defend their own case on equal epistemic footing, the psychologist is simply maintaining their own delusion, the delusion of the patient about the psychologist, and the delusion of society about psychology as a whole. They may say "it's good to be deluded about these things and avoid pointing towards these delusions" but that's a delusional thing to say as well.

With regard to stoicism, therefore, it makes much more sense the simple question "is Stoicism true?" and "If so, how should a stoic consider things and what should a Stoic do about such considerations today?".

The removal of draconian anti-homosexual laws and treatments involved psychiatrists like Laing and Szasz, philosophers like Foucault, psychologists like Cooper and Antonucci. It also involved a lot of ordinary activists, lawyers, doctors and journalists. — Isaac

It certainly did. And there was and still is a great deal of resistance, and denigration of Laing and Szasz, indeed they are more heroes of anti-psychiatry as you no doubt know. And at the time, they were not on the course of psychology I studied, but very much on the student controlled revolutionary alternative course. So the academic institution of psychology that I was part of at the time, was very much "involved to prevent the breaking down of an old structure to build a new one." And was doing it by dismissing those very people you cite now as being at the forefront of the change that you now want to claim credit for in the name of academic psychology.

the academic institution of psychology that I was part of at the time, was very much "involved to prevent the breaking down of an old structure to build a new one." — unenlightened

Indeed it was, as was true of basically every other institution at the time. Philosophy too had its time when it perpetuated old structures. Which directly contradicts boethius's point that psychology does one thing whilst philosophy does another.

Institutions seem to perpetuate the social norms of the time, what's more, there's a time lag such that most institutions will be slightly behind the new social norms, slightly resistant to change.

None of this supports or illustrates the point being made by boethius, which is that psychology, as a whole, serves some state instituted function which other institutions (like philosophy) do not.

This is absolutely patently false.

All institutions suffer from the same effect (its not just psychology).

The effect is mediated mostly by the make up of society (and sub classes of society). It is not generally mediated by the state (except in places like China).

People within those institutions are just as much part of the solution as they are part of the problem, they are not morally complicit just by association, they are, more often than not, the very same people who bring about a change in their institution.

So out of all the crazy claims that have been made on this thread, all were left with any actual evidence of is the idea that institutions in general tend to support cultural norms and are a bit slow to change when cultural norms change. Academic Psychology was one of those.

So if we can cut the crap about how all psychologists are morally culpable for Chinese genocide we can actually have a discussion about how the institution's previous resistance to change has played a part in how mental health issues were poorly addressed.

None of this supports or illustrates the point being made by boethius, which is that psychology, as a whole, serves some state instituted function which other institutions (like philosophy) do not. — Isaac

I don't speak for boethius, obviously. But there is no question that psychiatry exercises a coercive function by incarceration and forcible treatment that cannot be divorced from the state as it is incorporated of necessity into the justice system. And that was the main criticism of Szasz, as you know, which has not been addressed anywhere as far as I am aware.

Academic philosophy may have influence, but it does not have the same direct involvement with the affairs of the state. Laing should have been on my abnormal psychology reading list and wasn't, and psychiatrists are psychologists as well as medics, so the connections are direct. Philosophy degrees do not contribute to anyone's right to incarcerate or forcibly treat anyone.

there is no question that psychiatry exercises a coercive function by incarceration and forcible treatment that cannot be divorced from the state as it is incorporated of necessity into the justice system. And that was the main criticism of Szasz, as you know, which has not been addressed anywhere as far as I am aware. — unenlightened

I agree. Which is why, right at the very first mention of this whole issue I sought to clarify if we were talking about psychiatriy or psychology as a whole. I reject the idea that simply because psychiatrists are psychologist this somehow implicates the whole of psychology in their actions. Not even the whole of psychiatry is implicated as Szasz and Laing prove, and we do study both now (on some courses by name, on others by their effects), so academic psychology cannot be held responsible either.

I my opinion we still do incarcerate and, more prevelently, medicate far more people than we should. But I disagree that the main driver of this is the state or academic psychology. There are two main drivers; the pharmaceutical industry and the need for crowd-control in educational establishments. Neither are really state driven. Both are heavily tied to the needs of corporations to make profits.

Psychology degrees, at least in their modern incarnation, do not teach anything about who to incarcerate. Only a small subset teach about who to medicate. Virtually all of them (to my knowledge) teach the entire argument about over-medicalisation of societally instigated conditions. It's actually the institutions outside of academia (schools and the NHS) which now produce the most force to overmedicate.

I reject the idea that simply because psychiatrists are psychologist this somehow implicates the whole of psychology in their actions. — Isaac

I think our disagreement here has become a matter of degree. Obviously psychology is diverse, and anything I say about it is a generalisation rather than a universalisation.

It's actually the institutions outside of academia (schools and the NHS) which now produce the most force to overmedicate. — Isaac

I agree. Crudely, the chemical cosh is cheaper than real care or real justice. But hang on. This is still an indictment of psychiatry. If it bases its treatments on the requirements of schools for order in the classroom, then its claim to validity is lost. This is exactly what the complaint of the thread is, children are drugged for the convenience of the school, and we call it ADHD. Not treatment of illness but social control.

If it bases its treatments on the requirements of schools for order in the classroom, then its claim to validity is lost. — unenlightened

But it doesn't. It bases its treatments on a need to medicate extreme hyperactivity (in the case of ADHD). We could argue whether a need ever exists even in the most extreme cases, I'd probably be inclined to say no myself, but it's a difficult issue. The point is, if there's a need to treat anyone at all, clinical psychology as an academic discipline will have cause to investigate drugs that can do so. But they do not, ever, as an academic discipline determine the people who should be given such medication. That's done by the pharmaceutical company psychologists, NICE, and the psychologists on the ground. The academic discipline as a whole (its teaching, its rules, its guidance) doesn't say specifically.

This is exactly what the complaint of the thread is, children are drugged for the convenience of the school, and we call it ADHD. — unenlightened

The complaint of the thread is that all psychologists everywhere in the world are complicit in Chinese genocide because they study the same topic, and that they are all, worldwide, agents of the state because they need state permission to carry out their research. Don't try to ameliorate the foam-flecked insanity of the original rant by pretending it's really about some nuance of the specific involvement of psychiatry in the oppressive education and criminal systems.

But leaving aside the delusion of the OP and taking this new point, then yes, I agree with you that psychiatry is complicit in that it provides tools it has good reasons to believe will be misused to subdue children for mere convenience.

That complicity is limited though. Whilst I rarely work with children, my wife has been a child psychologist for nearly 20 years and in our experience of the field, the overwhelming majority of psychologists are opposed to this kind of treatment, many are opposed even to the very existence of the drug. The BPS has very strong guidance on medicating behavioural problems. Unless you think psychology ought to have its own police force I don't see how you can hold us accountable for a failure to comply with the guidance.

Maybe we should ban any medication for behavioural problems. I'd seriously like to see such a motion discussed at the BPS, but their evidence to the 2018 Nice review on medication for ADHD was already preceded by quite a robust debate in which the possibility was mooted. Not where I'd like us to be, but hardly gagged shills of the state the OP describes.

That complicity is limited though. Whilst I rarely work with children, my wife has been a child psychologist for nearly 20 years and in our experience of the field, the overwhelming majority of psychologists are opposed to this kind of treatment, many are opposed even to the very existence of the drug. The BPS has very strong guidance on medicating behavioural problems. Unless you think psychology ought to have its own police force I don't see how you can hold us accountable for a failure to comply with the guidance. — Isaac

I'm glad to hear this. But I do think the BPS should police the practice of its members, as the BMA should, as for that matter the RIBA should, come to that. It's implied by that 'we'. A football club is responsible for the behaviour of the team and the fans.

One of the questions I'm not clear about in relation to the op is how to tell a legitimate state from an illegitimate one. One cannot inspect the parents' marriage certificate. So I tend to at least question, or not take for granted, the legitimacy of every state. Fair elections, free press, educated population, these help but may not guarantee...

And then there is the dispute about responsibility. Am I responsible for psychology as a psychology graduate? I rather think I am, even though I do not practice, and never have, my education makes me responsible in the same way that education and a democratic system makes the people responsible for the government. It's a broad view, that if I deny responsibility for anything I know about, I am irresponsible unless I have done what I reasonably can about it. That's probably controversial...

I do think the BPS should police the practice of its members — unenlightened

Possibly, but I think it would need more government support to do something like that, membership is still not mandatory. As a token gesture though, I'm generally in favour of organisations taking a more serious stance about their membership, I just don't think it would have much effect without legislation to back it up. And then aren't we just more beholden to state intervention than we were before? I can't see a way that a professional organisation can meaningfully control the behaviour of its members and yet remain independent of the state (the only source of legitimate force).

One of the questions I'm not clear about in relation to the op is how to tell a legitimate state from an illegitimate one. — unenlightened

As you know from some of our previous discussions, I'm a relativist about things like legitimacy (in the sense I think it's being used here) so a legitimate state is just one that meets your criteria, I do it on gut feeling as much as anything else.

Am I responsible for psychology as a psychology graduate? I rather think I am, even though I do not practice, and never have, my education makes me responsible in the same way that education and a democratic system makes the people responsible for the government. — unenlightened

This is the question I tried to ask boethius in the beginning, what his ethical framework was by which I was responsible for the actions of others on the basis of some similarities but not others. I think a wide base of responsibility is a good thing but there's absolutely nothing to be gained by self flagellation over actions that we could never reasonably have controlled or repair. There's only any point in assigning myself responsibility for those things I can properly affect...and the actions of psychologists acting on the instruction of the Chinese government ain't one of those things.

There's only any point in assigning myself responsibility for those things I can properly affect...and the actions of psychologists acting on the instruction of the Chinese government ain't one of those things. — Isaac

Yes I think I agree. One cannot address every issue that one becomes aware of, so If you haven't spoken or acted on the Chinese issue, well neither have I. I raise issues here, and in the past I have tried to support people with mental health issues in various ways, and point people towards what i believed to be sympathetic help. But I'm not a very good internationalist - tant pis. But perhaps somewhere in the BPS, if there isn't, there should be, a department of international relations that makes relationships with its foreign counterparts, and if the occasion arises remonstrates publicly with them. No?

It's not a law of nature. You can guess what will probably happen, but for that you need data. — Echarmion

You're first response is that explaining "the definition of a threat" as it's used in a sentence is circular logic. That didn't work, so now you're claiming that "threat response isn't a law of nature".

You are unable to follow this conversation, you either do not have the cognitive abilities or then are of ridiculous bad faith.

Either way, you just demonstrate to anyone who is following you are a hack and a fool.

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. — Echarmion

That not what is at issue. It is part of my "threat identification process" to decide on some action, small or large, with regard to the threat I identify. I may misidentify a threat, I may have no effective actions available, I may at first simply think about it further, I may act immediately.

If you want to create the straw man of someone else who does absolutely nothing about threats, that understand threats to be "that which someone should do nothing about", be my guest.

It's even more ridiculous as the actual subject matter is states, and my personal example was just to illustrate what the word "threat" means. If you want to believe states are so inept as to have no threat identification process, or that such a situation is an edge of relevance to this situation, again, you simply demonstrate your inability to follow this conversation and that you are a threat and a fool.

You have said nothing of "analytical value" about my statement:

The state feels threatened because the state genuinely identifies with it's citizens and wants to protect citizens from unethical human experimentation. — boethius

That you seem to have issue with.

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

Again, a strawman. I did not say a state has some sort of omnipotence, only that they respond to what they "feel threatened" by (could be a state agent deciding whether to file or not file a report about what they have perceived, could be just filing a report to recommend "monitor" this threat further, could be large scale mobilization and declaration of war). I say "feel threatened" because response is with regards to perception, on the individual case as with the case of a group or a state.

You do not have have the cognitive abilities to follow this conversation, and you are a hack and a fool.

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. — Echarmion

Again, another strawman. I did not say the state does not need to negotiate with other actors, for instance other states (legitimate or not), its own state agents or its own.

The state does not always get what it wants. State policy does not immediately translate into reality.

The framework of this discussion is that state have policies, and the primary mechanism for selecting agents to carry out state policy is ensuring, state agents already believe in state policy when they are selected, and furthermore the primary mechanism of deciding on the vast majority of research that happens is through state subsidy.

You do not have the cognitive abilities to follow this conversation, you are a hack and a fool.

I did not say there is no negotiation that happens in such processes, nor that such mechanisms are perfect.

If you want to argue that, because of ambiguity in what state policy actually is at any given time and imperfection of mechanisms to implement that state policy, that therefore "no states exist" or then "all states are legitimate", or "states have no influence on state agents", you are welcome to start a new OP that makes such a claim.

I have also stated already said that "changing the system from within" can be done, it is just hard since institutions resisting such change will usually fire you as soon they understand what you are doing is a real threat.

Edward Snowden did not remain a contractor for the NSA.

Other "trouble makers" can remain nuances and avoid pretext for firing and navigate other responses. The state learns from such experiences to increase attention to filtering out such people in the first place.

How state agents can subvert the state institutions they are involved in is a separate discussion to this OP.

In terms of mental health under an illegitimate state, the argument of the OP is that psychologists are state agents that are employed to deny the reality of the illegitimate state and to promote productive or then benign "normal" behavior with regard to state power structures; therefore, insofar as they believe the sate is legitimate when it is not, they are delusional and one should be deeply suspicious of them, individually and as a community.

A useful "heuristic", as you might say, for dealing with state agents.

One of the questions I'm not clear about in relation to the op is how to tell a legitimate state from an illegitimate one. — unenlightened

Yes, one must first conclude if one is living in a legitimate or illegitimate state.

This is beyond the scope of the OP. However one decides, one cannot base such a evaluation on the authority of psychologists or other state agents (they have been selected, either way, because they believe the state is legitimate).

Therefore, political analysis precedes psychology both in terms of intellectual structure and practice. Psychologists cannot be separated away from state legitimacy and claim to be involved in some independent scientific reality.

Psychology is an afterthought to political analysis, in terms of understanding of social structure and moral evaluation of that structure.

If one concludes one is living in a legitimate state, I would argue it is reasonable to be less suspicious, though still critical, of state agents, including psychologists.

psychologists or other state agents (they have been selected, either way, because they believe the state is legitimate). — boethius

Tony Gibson was an English psychologist and anarchist. (First google result for anarchist psychologists.) As an anarchist he obviously didn’t believe the state was legitimate, but he was still a psychologist nevertheless. Which disproves your quoted statement as an absolute truth.

I’m not questioning your general thesis that (of course) the state tries to coopt the institution of psychology to it own ends, like it does every institution. Just saying that you can’t dismiss every participant in every such institution as an agent of the state. It’s not like politics where the very function of the institute is statist. There are people in every institution the state tries to coopt who don’t go along willingly if at all, and though the state tries to get rid of them when it can (of course), it’s usually not completely successful, and sometimes not very at all.

Did you know a disproportionate number of engineers get drawn into terrorist organizations? Does that make all engineers agents of terror?

Where in all that does it bring anything to Boethius's utterly ludicrous point that psychology prevents new mental structures toward truth while philosophy encourages them? — Isaac

The OP is about "Mental health under an illegitimate state".

I agree that Turing was not helped by psychologists, and I would argue that psychology as a whole does far more damage in such cases than the previous "criminality"; for, at least when dealt with as a matter of law, the role of state power and political and moral analysis is clear, and the homosexual can take a political stand to subvert the law and the state and, failing in this, the oppression of the state (assuming homosexuality is not immoral, which I think we agree on) is clear cut. In such a situation the psychologist is simply gaslighting homosexuals and confusing society by pretending there is a "scientific problem" with a "scientific solution", rather than a moral discussion with a political solution.

If we agree here more-or-less, you are simply adding weight to my "ludicrous point that psychology prevents new mental structures toward truth while philosophy encourages them".

The issue of homosexuality in @unenlightened's example is one of state legitimacy.

First, democratic legitimacy and the role of homosexual repression, and sexual repression more generally, in maintaining totalitarian structures. Second, moral legitimacy.

When psychologists believe a state they represent (for instance to "understand and cure homosexuality") is legitimate when it is not (more so if they believe it is not even up for debate), they are delusional and the entire practice of psychology becomes the maintenance of this central delusion.

People, under such circumstance, come to psychologists with a simple message "I am being oppressed" and the psychologist has a simple reply "sit down and shut up, let me oppress you some more". Both the psychologist and the individual, more often than not, are in delusion about this reality, but that delusion is irrelevant to the political situation and power relationship.

According to what legitimate state means to me:

In a legitimate state, the psychologist explains to the patient that peaceful means are easily available and viable for healthy engagement in political process, because this is true.

In an illegitimate state, the psychologist explains to the patient that peaceful means are easily available and viable for healthy engagement in political process, but this is a lie because it isn't true.

The idea that one is in a good social structure when one is actually in a bad social structure, is the worst and most evil possible gaslighting and "prevents new mental structures toward truth"; indeed, I would argue the most critical truth of all in terms of our relation to society and all of our actions that have any import at all.

In an illegitimate state, police (on the whole) gas and crack the heads of malcontents and resistors to dissuade them of exploring effective avenues of change to the political structure.

In an illegitimate state, psychologists (on the whole) gaslight and crack the heads of malcontents and resistors to dissuade them of exploring effective avenues of change to the political structure.

In a legitimate state (on the whole) both police and psychologists may not only do nothing to prevent change to political structure, but maybe active agents of such change themselves.

Tony Gibson was an English psychologist and anarchist. (First google result for anarchist psychologists.) As an anarchist he obviously didn’t believe the state was legitimate, but he was still a psychologist nevertheless. Which disproves your quoted statement as an absolute truth. — Pfhorrest

I say: we must evaluate the political situation before we can evaluate what state agents tell us.

I say: state agents are selected for certain criteria, such as belief the state is legitimate.

I do not say the state is perfect and always perfectly selects candidates who believe in state legitimacy now and forever.

There can be exceptions. If I conclude the state I am in is not legitimate, and I decide I need a psychologist anyway, I will search for psychologists attempting to subvert the state, for they potentially have a reasonable view of reality and agreement with my own morality (therefore genuinely want to accomplish what I want to accomplish, which is a better ally than someone who doesn't). Depending on the level of oppression (which is not binary but a scale or a space) such people may be easier or harder to find, but the point is my political evaluation changes completely my method of search and who I am searching for.

If I conclude the state is legitimate, then psychologists who claim otherwise will likely be the delusional ones.

So, I completely agree when you say:

I’m not questioning your general thesis that (of course) the state tried to coopt the institution of psychology to it own ends, like it does every institution. Just saying that you can’t dismiss every participant in every such institution as an agent of the state. There are people in every institution the state tries to coopt who don’t go along willingly if at all, and though the state tries to get rid of them when it can (of course), it’s usually not completely successful, and sometimes not very at all. — Pfhorrest

As I mention in another reply "Edward Snowden did not remain a contractor for the NSA."

The main purpose of the OP is to establish that political reality precedes psychological reality, in the academic sense of some science and mental health service.

State agents can subvert and undermine or even be traitors to state policy, but, as you clearly agree, we can't expect this to be the norm; so, what we expect from state agents will follow from our evaluation of the state as a whole.

I am referring to academic psychologists and clinical psychologists, both, of whom, cannot "do their work" without the state. I have already explained that they are selected because their beliefs conform to state policy. An illegitimate state will select for beliefs that help maintain an illegitimate state. — boethius

You could say the same about academic philosophers.

You could say the same about academic philosophers. — A Seagull

I did say the same:

The same can only be said of all academic scientists: the primary roll of mathematics, physics and engineering becomes the arms industry, the primary roll of "political science" becomes apologetics for the state, the primary roll of creative pursuits becomes entertainment and distraction, the primary roll of psychology becomes manipulative marketing, the primary roll of philosophy becomes the denial of moral courage as a component of "the good life", if not the denial of any moral truth as such. — boethius

It was on another thread, so I wouldn't expect you to have read it, but suffice to say we are in agreement here.

State agents can subvert and undermine or even be traitors to state policy, but, as you clearly agree, we can't expect this to be the norm; so, what we expect from state agents will follow from our evaluation of the state as a whole. — boethius

My point though is that being a participant in an institution the state tries to coopt does not make you a state agent. The state tries to coopt every institution, but clearly not every participant in every institution a state agent.

My point though is that being a participant in an institution the state tries to coopt does not make you a state agent. — Pfhorrest

In my terminology, you are a state agent in this case, but you can still choose whether to subvert or not the institution's relation to state policy. Whole institutions can try to subvert state policy.

The reason to use this terminology is because we can't easily tell subversive and conformist state agents apart, they may seem the same. The other reason to use this terminology is because it's likewise unclear if a subversive state agent is successful in their subversion or not. A subversive state agent must usually still carry out at least some actions that genuinely contribute to state policy, so they are state agents under any definition while doing such actions; it takes a much larger analysis to conclude whether they are "doing some state agent duties but on the whole effectively undermining state policy".

It is simpler, in my view, to start analysis with who appears to be state agents, why we identify them as such and what processes lead to such appearances, and then go onto to discuss what state agents might be doing with regard to state policy (such as effective, incompetent, subversive, benign agents, and whether they are mostly deciding or following, mostly planning or implementing).

When @unenlightened jokes about "hippies putting on suits" it's an observation about what they seemed to mostly have done in practice, not that it was unavoidable.

From the state agent's point of view (actually wanting to be lucid and be morally autonomous agents and not just conform to state policy), it is necessary to fully acknowledge state agency and one's contribution to maintaining state policy and keep track of that in order to be able to contrast that with other activity and be able to conclude "I am doing more to change the system from within than maintain it".

Spies supported by hostile nation states have little problem doing this, but it turns out "revolutionary hippies" coming off a sabbatical year of recreational drug use and sexual exploration then putting on suits do not leave us with much historical evidence that they were so effective in practice (on the whole) as what they seemed to imagine would happen. I wasn't there, but @unenlightened maybe able to provide us more insight into what may have lead to such lack of historical evidence.

perhaps somewhere in the BPS, if there isn't, there should be, a department of international relations that makes relationships with its foreign counterparts, and if the occasion arises remonstrates publicly with them. No? — unenlightened

I'm not sure about a department, but did you read the quote I gave Fishfry to their particular rant (about the APA covering up psychologist's involvement in torture)? When the BPS found out about the APA's complicity in the torture of suspects for the US Government they uncompromisingly condemned them in the press and in their guidelines. I don't know if anything's been said about China, but I think the BPS's influence is not quite so strong there so it would have been little more than shouting at the wind if they had. As I said in my previous post, there's only any point in loudly condemning behaviour if your voice carries any weight, otherwise it's just virtue signalling (which I'm guessing is what you might mean by "if the occasion arises").

I'm still not sure I'm seeing the benefit of the 'responsibility' thing here though. Let's take Chinese 're-education' camps for example. They are a disgrace and need to be stopped. Pressure on the Chinese government might make them stop. Which is going to be most effective in doing that - a boycott of Chinese goods until they stop; a voluntary psychology society in another country condemning those who carry it out? Unless you've got some insight I'm missing, it's pretty obviously the former. So where's the advantage in this quest (the OP, not you) to lay the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of some group of people who can do very little about it?

I'm still not sure I'm seeing the benefit of the 'responsibility' thing here though. — Isaac

I don't see it as a benefit at all, but as a fact. I have almost no influence on anyone because I haven't ever lived for power or money. But I always vote, for example, because it is irresponsible not to vote, even though it is vanishingly unlikely that my one vote will change the result. The guy I vote for usually loses, but the vote is counted and it counts, because he loses by one less vote and that makes him a bit more electable next time.
Everything is important, everything matters for its own sake and as a part of the whole. To look for benefits is to be a consequentialist and consequentialism fails because consequences are infinite and unknowable. I do a lot of things in a lifetime, and who knows, one post I make here just might change the mind of the next crazy tyrant, or persuade someone to stop beating their wife, or whatever. Or it might in a thousand years become incorporated into a book of aphorisms that guide a million people. So I try to get it right.

I think we are each responsible the way each neurone is responsible for the functioning of the brain. Our relations and our communication create the social world, and that is why it is so important to pay attention to relationships and speak the truth. They are the fabric of our life.

The framework of this discussion is that state have policies, and the primary mechanism for selecting agents to carry out state policy is ensuring, state agents already believe in state policy when they are selected, and furthermore the primary mechanism of deciding on the vast majority of research that happens is through state subsidy. — boethius

And yet, despite repeated requests you've given not one shred of evidence to demonstrate that this actually happens (outside of your fevered imagination) in anywhere other than oppressive regimes - which we all know already are bad places, so you're not serving up anything new here.

Take the UK for example. What is the exact mechanism the UK government uses to ensure psychologists believe in state policy? What is the mechanism they use to decide on the vast majority of research? Then give me some examples where research opposed to state policy has been shut down or suppressed in recent psychology. If you can't even demonstrate having done any research into the topic how do expect anyone to take you seriously?

I did not say there is no negotiation that happens in such processes, nor that such mechanisms are perfect. — boethius

You said...

Psychologists are agents of the state — boethius

Not 'some...', not 'at times...', no qualification at all, so the point that @Echarmion makes about the limits og government is extremely relevant. In fact the extent of those limits will determine the very question we're seeking to answer here. If the government is very limited in its reach then psychologists will be hardly agents of the state at all, most of their activities will be free of state interference. If the state has a substantial reach the psychologists might be strong agents of the state, spending most of their time carrying out state policy. So resolving the extent of the states reach into a field determines the extent to which that field can be said to carry out state policy. and you how we determine the reach of a particular government into a particular field - evidence, not whatever you reckon might happen after having a bit of a think about it from your executive armchair.

Edward Snowden did not remain a contractor for the NSA. — boethius

The NSA is not an academic discipline, it's an organisation. Edward Snowden did remain a data scientist. Arguably he even remained a spy - disseminating sensitive information to agencies other than your government. He just recognised he was working for the wrong organisation. I'm almost certain there'd be a fairly substantial walk-out if my university decided it was going to help the government torture suspects. What you're trying to claim here though is that the entire field of study is somehow complicit.

The OP is about "Mental health under an illegitimate state". — boethius

I don't care what topic you claim the thread is about. I'm disputing the actual written claims you make within it. If I were to make overtly racist comments in a thread about housing I don't get to deflect the indignation by saying "that's not what the thread is about". You have made claims about the specific complicity of all psychologists in the actions of illegitimate states and claimed that even in legitimate ones they act as agents of the state. It is those two claims I'm disputing. You can bleat on about the thread title all you want, if you don't want it derailed elsewhere then I suggest you don't make outrageous claims that you can't support.

If we agree here more-or-less, you are simply adding weight to my "ludicrous point that psychology prevents new mental structures toward truth while philosophy encourages them". — boethius

No, because you've not presented a shred of evidence for your claim that 'philosophy encourages them', not that psychology currently prevents them. all you've done is present a single episode where psychology (in common with every other institution in the country at the time) hampered the acceptance of homosexuality.

When psychologists believe a state they represent (for instance to "understand and cure homosexuality") is legitimate when it is not (more so if they believe it is not even up for debate), they are delusional and the entire practice of psychology becomes the maintenance of this central delusion. — boethius

1. The idea that homosexuality can be cured is not 'the state's' idea, it is the idea of the society the state represents.

2. Psychologists do not act in unison as one legion. Different psychologist have different opinions.

3. You've not provided any arguments at all to show how some psychologicist's delusions somehow make the entire practice of psychology become the maintenance of this central delusion. What is the mechanism which forces the whole of psychology to act in step with the delusions of some? And I'll add now to save time later - I'm not asking what the mechanism is in your little fantasy world, I'm asking what it is in the real world, which means you will be able to provide modern examples of it happening.

And yet, despite repeated requests you've given not one shred of evidence to demonstrate that this actually happens (outside of your fevered imagination) in anywhere other than oppressive regimes - which we all know already are bad places, so you're not serving up anything new here. — Isaac

So you're saying that the difference between an illegitimate and legitimate state, a "bad place" and "oppressive regimes", is obvious?

I don't want there to be any doubt that you are holding this view, I said I would provide examples if you fully clarified your claim of ignorance:

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. — boethius

You seem to have moved the goal posts, so please first clarify your position relative the first issue (the "state stopping psychologists practice and research, generally speaking, if it doesn't conform to state policy").

So clarify this first issue where you "wanted examples", and then clarify that you really do need examples of state legitimacy being up for debate.

Furthermore, your whole question simply ignores that people in "oppressive regimes - which we all know already are bad places" may want good faith analysis about their situation to be created that it may get to them one way or another.

It is only in your "fevered imagination" that I am saying anything else. I have never claimed I am an oracle of state legitimacy, I have made it very clear it is up for debate in each instance, in terms of the criteria and it's realization (that's what assuming a premise means, "assuming this is true, what follows"). Of course, if it is up for debate and a psychologist claims it's not, that such analysis is only relevant in "oppressive regimes - which we all know already are bad places", then that psychologist is completely delusional.

Not that it's likely I'll support your view you live in a legitimate state (assuming you abandon your delusion it's not up for debate, that we already "know" what countries are oppressive and not), which according to me would be based on majority rule with credible safeguards towards the influence of money and propaganda; but, I want it to be clear to people following this conversation that you don't have the cognitive abilities to interpret what has been said so far, and you are a hack and a fool.

Everything is important, everything matters for its own sake and as a part of the whole. To look for benefits is to be a consequentialist and consequentialism fails because consequences are infinite and unknowable. I do a lot of things in a lifetime, and who knows, one post I make here just might change the mind of the next crazy tyrant, or persuade someone to stop beating their wife, or whatever. Or it might in a thousand years become incorporated into a book of aphorisms that guide a million people. So I try to get it right. — unenlightened

I agree with you in principle here, but in practice there are a limited number of narratives and we each have a limited bandwidth. We cannot talk about and deal with an infinite number of topics. We might all be responsible in some small way for every atrocity on the planet, be that through our shared membership of groups, our suffrage, our purchasing choices... So given this plethora of ways we might be responsible, and the limited bandwidth and discourse space we have to explore those ways, I think it matters a lot that we choose to discuss, and think about, those which can have the most positive impact.

Getting it right I completely agree with, dominating the discourse (as boethius is trying to do here) does more harm than good by taking attention away from areas where acting on our global responsibilities can be way more effective.

So you're saying that the difference between an illegitimate and legitimate state, a "bad place" and "oppressive regimes", is obvious? — boethius

No, I'm saying that the only modern example you've provided so far of state control over the direction of psychological research is China (and even then you've failed to provide concrete examples, but I don't doubt your ability to to do so). I'm asking for evidence of state control over the direction of psychological research in states which we do not already all agree are bad.

No, I'm saying that the only modern example you've provided so far of state control over the direction of psychological research is China — Isaac

This is a philosophy forum, it is fairly usual to be concerned with sound argumentation, that conclusions follow from the premises.

Here, I am concerned with what arguments with regard to psychology and psychologists follow from the conclusion one lives in a illegitimate state.

I could carry on in this discussion making no empirical investigation at all, leaving it an exercise to the reader to decide whether illegitimate states even can exist, if they do are any around, and if they are around which one's are which. Since everyone seems to agree, including yourself, that oppressive regimes can exist, do exist, and China is one such example, I have provided some additional argumentation on this agreed premise and another premise:

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 — boethius

However, on the subject of empirical claims, you make the empirical claim:

oppressive regimes - which we all know already are bad places — Isaac

Please write a simple list from memory of all the countries and which are oppressive and bad places and which not, since you know this information.

All I can say is that the journey towards truth is a mentally hazardous journey. — boethius

they should put that as a warning for new members, lol.