I could carry on in this discussion making no empirical investigation at all — boethius

Well then I'll leave you to it. If you've no interest in what actually is the case but would rather waste time discussing what might be the case when the evidence is right there to be seen by anyone interested, then I've absolutely no interest in continuing.

Raise as many speculative accusations of complicity as you like, I will continue to point out that you have no justification at all for doing so, but don't try to dignify it as a 'discussion'.

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. — boethius

I said 'oppressive regimes which we all know are bad' and I've already provided my list. China. The only place you've drawn any modern examples from. Hence the point that you can't extrapolate to the whole world state activities which you can only prove occur in known oppressive states.

The key point of contention here is not that in known oppressive states the government controls psychological research, it's your contention that in states whose legitimacy is in question this occurs.

Every European state is one in which the legitimacy of their government is in question (by which I mean they are not ones where we would all already agree are illegitimate). It is my claim that in those states, regardless of the fact that their legitimacy has not been established, there are little to no mechanisms by which the state can control the direction of psychological research and practice. Thus the question of their legitimacy is moot, it doesn't matter, psychological research will carry on in much the same direction regardless as it is not dictated by the state.

In order to disprove this claim you'd have to provide evidence that states whose legitimacy is still in question (ie not China and the like) have mechanisms in place by which they control the direction of psychological research. You've failed to do so.

As to your trivial contention 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 — boethius

...this applies equally to absolutely every person in the world and so is a useless truism. We all have some connection to oppressive states which in some way lends legitimacy to their activities. As I said to unenlightened, the important thing to talk about is which connection can be leveraged to have the most impact. It certainly isn't sharing an academic field of study.

I said 'oppressive regimes which we all know are bad' and I've already provided my list. China. — Isaac

Your list includes only china?

May I remind you of your claim, since not only you don't have the cognitive skills to follow what I'm saying, you don't have the cognitive skills to even follow what you're saying:

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

Do you even understand your own claim here? That "I am not serving up anything new" because "there is not a shred of evidence this actually happens".

Are you not able to read that you put an "s" at the end of "regimes" and thus implying you know there are more oppressive regimes other than China.

Is your list "China" or is it "China" in addition to other "regimes"?

Since it's obvious to you and something you already know, provide the list from memory according to your criteria of "oppressive and bad".

I didn't claim I "know" which regimes are oppressive and bad and which aren't, you're making this claim. Tell us so that we may know what you know (or then, either way, we can then evaluate this as evidence you don't have the cognitive skills to follow this conversation, and you are a hack and a fool).

Do you even understand your own claim here? That "I am not serving up anything new" because "there is not a shred of evidence this actually happens". — boethius

Yes, that's exactly what I'm claiming. There's no evidence that the state significantly dictates the direction of psychological research in countries other than the ones we'd generally agree are oppressive (like China). You could add North Korea if you're obsessed about the fact that I used a plural.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm claiming. — Isaac

But, according to yourself:

I said 'oppressive regimes which we all know are bad' and I've already provided my list. China. The only place you've drawn any modern examples from. — Isaac

So according to you, there's evidence this happens in China.

You're refusal to provide the rest of your "list" or then your denial of the basic syntax of your own claims, again, just demonstrates you don't have the cognitive skills to participate in this conversation, that you are a hack and fool.

You're claim in it's formal form is: "there's only evidence where there's obviously evidence! Ha! Show me the evidence!".

When I inquire about "the obvious nature of the evidence" you are unable to follow through and complete your list of "bad place" that you "already know" (the claim we "all know" these things is even more absurd, but let's start with your own part of "we all").

actually happens (outside of your fevered imagination) in anywhere other than oppressive regimes - which we all know already are bad places — Isaac

You are saying you "already know" what are "bad places" to which my analysis applies.

Tell us the whole list, not just China. Or then accept you didn't have the cognitive skills to understand your own claim, but now that it's been explained to you, you realize it's a hackish and foolish thing to do.

So according to you, there's evidence this happens in China. — boethius

Yes.

You're refusal to provide the rest of your "list" — boethius

I've just supplied the rest of my list, China and North Korea.

You're claim in it's formal form is: "there's only evidence where there's obviously evidence! Ha! Show me the evidence!". — boethius

No, that's not my claim in formal form, it's not any claim in formal form, its a completely different claim in the same colloquial form all the other arguments have been presented in.

When I inquire about "the obvious nature of the evidence" you are unable to follow through and complete your list of "bad place" that you "already know" — boethius

No, I've done so, China and North Korea. What you haven't explained yet is why you think the completion of my list is so important. It is only relevant to my claim that we agree on countries which are not on any such list. I've suggested using the European countries.

Your claim is that psychological research is largely constrained by states. Your evidence is that this is the case in China. My counter-argument is that China is especially oppressive and doesn't represent the state of affairs in most other countries. I'm waiting for you to demonstrate that this counter-argument is wrong (ie show evidence that it is the case in other countries). Otherwise all you've proven is that psychological research is contrsined to agree with state policy in those states which regularly control citizens in line with state policy.. Since psychologists are citizens, this is nothing but a truism.

I've just supplied the rest of my list, China and North Korea. — Isaac

So to be perfectly clear, these are the only places on earth where state oppression exists, that you know to be "bad places"?

You've checked, it's obvious.

To summarize: You're defending the claim that not only that you've checked but that furthermore it's obvious, that you don't need to supply your own criteria of "oppression" and "bad place", as that's obvious too, and any debate about anywhere else concerning these political topics can be dismissed prima faci, as the list is clear and settled in your mind: China and North Korea, t'is all.

No.

I have no idea where you're getting all that from. My claim is that I think you, I and anyone else taking part in this discussion would agree that China and North Korea are 'obviously' oppressive regimes. That's it. None of the other crap you've bizarrely ascribed to me.

Please note the bolded terms. I'm referring to us, the current participants in the discussion, not everyone in the world. I'm suggesting we would agree on North Korea and China, not that we would know for sure having exhausted all lines of enquiry.

The claim above, exactly as it is worded, is a sufficient counter-argument to your claim that Chinese state control over psychological research is good evidence that states in general control psychological research.

It is a sufficient counter-argument because it demonstrates that China is not a typical example of the types of state we are talking about as we agree them to be.

My claim is that I think you, I and anyone else taking part in this discussion would agree that China and North Korea are 'obviously' oppressive regimes. — Isaac

To quote you again:

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

You're key operative claim here is "oppressive regimes - which we all know are bad places".

The OP is literally entitled "Mental health under an illegitimate state".

So, either your complaint is "you're just analyzing the OP, what's up with that?".

Or, then you're trying to say something less transparently bad faith, relating "we all know" to "oppressive regimes", that this is somehow obvious to determine, that agents of the state, such as psychologists, we can't assume may try to lead us to believe a illegitimate state they represent is a legitimate state, that political analysis is not first required wherever we are that is independent of state agents -- outside China and North Korea, which I guess you do accept the framework and all the analytical conclusions I've presented, and that their psychologists do try to gaslight their people (being selected for this delusion in the first place, or then generally conforming to it anyways) as to the local oppression levels; that this is key state policy to maintain to stay in one's job as a psychologist in these places (or do you not accept the analysis even for these "bad places"?).

You're key operative claim here is "oppressive regimes - which we all know are bad places". — boethius

"Oppressive regimes - which we all know are bad places" is not a claim, it's a qualifier. Not the set {oppressive regimes}, but the subset {oppressive regimes which we all know are bad places}.

The OP is literally entitled "Mental health under an illegitimate state".

So, either your complaint is "you're just analyzing the OP, what's up with that?".

Or, then you're trying to say something less transparently bad faith, relating "we all know" to "oppressive regimes", — boethius

No, I've written perfectly clearly in my previous post what my complaint is. I'll try one last time.

You claimed that psychogists were agents of the state because they required state permission to carry out their research. Forget the title of the thread, you made a claim within it and I'm disputing that claim.

The only evidence you have provided to substantiate your claim is that such coercion happens in China.

I countered that something happening in China was not applicable to other states because China is very different (we would all agree it is an oppressive, we would not all agree such a thing about, say, France). So my claim is really simple..

Contrary to 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. They represent state authority when dealing with individual patients or research subjects (far more so, when doing so with state and/or state proxi corporate subsidy). — boethius

My claim is that they are not generally agents of the state because they do not generally need a licence to practice psychological research, they do not have to conform to state policy to do research. The only influence of the state is the trivial requirement to abide by the law, none of which dictates what can and cannot be researched in any way other than basic humanity (we cannot beat people just to see how they react, but really, who the hell would want to do that?).

Global exchange of scientific information (even with China) means that data gathered in the UK will reach scientists in China.

So your entire premise is utterly wrong when it comes to psychology as a science. It is virtually unhindered by government in most countries, it can reach whatever conclusions it feels the evidence supports, and it can freely disseminate that information to nations whose research might be more constrained.

None of this is true of the practice of psychiatry, with which you seem determined to confuse psychology.

"Oppressive regimes - which we all know are bad places" is not a claim, it's a qualifier. Not the set {oppressive regimes}, but the subset {oppressive regimes which we all know are bad places}. — Isaac

A qualifier of who?

Does the Chinese Communist Party qualify as "we all".

If your statement has any content, it is because "we all" relates to obviousness, that the analysis is only applicable to places that are "obviously bad" and that we need not think about other places not on our "obviously bad list". Your use of "regimes" provides this obvious interpretation, that there are "other oppressive regimes" but with regard to them as well we "all know they are bad places".

Now, if you are walking this interpretation back to an idea that "we all" does not relate to obviousness, then your statement is simply "your analysis applies only to those places we all know it applies; and, by we all I mean to refer only to those people who agree with me of where it applies and already agree with me on where it does not apply".

This is meaningless, unless, again, you are using "we all" to refer to people that agree to you because the agreement is obvious; otherwise, who cares who agrees with you or not.

So, investigation, political analysis, is needed to try to distinguish between the places where the analysis applies or not, the "bad places" and the "good places".

You do not have the cognitive abilities to follow this conversation, you don't even know where you are in the chain of argumentation. I have not even arrived at "how do we know which states are oppressive or not", so by jumping to this topic, you only demonstrate your fear of eventually getting to that topic (because you are a hack and a fool).

You claimed that psychogists were agents of the state because they required state permission to carry out their research. Forget the title of the thread, you made a claim within it and I'm disputing that claim. — Isaac

More strawmen. You do not have the cognitive skills to understand my arguments.

I mentioned 3 things: 1. Psychologists are selected because they already agree with state policy (there is a large state apparatus one needs to navigate to become a psychologist with lot's of filtering at lot's of steps), 2. Psychologists need permission from the state to carry out research or then to "cure people", 3. Psychologists receive state subsidy (directly or from state proxies) to get the resources to do research (vast majority of the time).

I've already mentioned legitimate sates also maintains policy through these mechanisms, and will also use coercive force to stop psychologists breaking the rules. The difference is, a legitimate state tends to have 'reasonable rules" (because the policy is to have "reasonable rules").

I will not bother to explain why you thought your strawman would work and why it doesn't actually work. I will only mention here that you don't have the cognitive skills to follow this conversation, you are a hack and a fool.

My claim is that they are not generally agents of the state because they do not generally need a licence to practice psychological research, they do not have to conform to state policy to do research. — Isaac

Psychologists do not need a degree (which is a license from the state) to be a "psychologist", nor "generally" work in institutions that contain a large network of people and state licenses for those people and institution as a whole, nor get permission from various oversight boards (which are specific license to perform specific actions) to conduct human experiments on a case by case basis?

Psychologists do not "generally need" state subsidy directly, or through proxies, to perform their research?

We all know they need lot's of licenses to interact with research subjects and also money from the state to fund those interactions, and I mean "we all" here to mean "obviously it's the case".

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

State policy (in both legitimate and illegitimate states) allows for choices. Those allowed choices, formally or functionally, reflect state policy. For state agents, their space of choice conforms further to state policy through the process of being selected for "proper belief in state policy" in the first place and the type of funding that is available (both generally speaking as well as the case by case basis of grant approval in particular cases).

Your discursive, and perhaps thinking method too, is to simply throw up tons and tons of straw, and you think you've accomplished something when your interlocutor cannot exhaustively analysis each piece of straw in every straw man you present. Certainly, you believe that with enough straw, the weight and the pressure of it will be so great as to produce one tiny diamond that you can run off with and covet. But that's not how diamonds are made, no one's ever just piled a bunch of straw to make a diamond, so when you find rocks in your straw piles it's simply more delusion when you think they are diamonds.

Psychologists are selected because they already agree with state policy (there is a large state apparatus one needs to navigate to become a psychologist with lot's of filtering at lot's of steps), — boethius

No there isn't. Universities are mostly private institutions and the state plays no part in their curriculum nor their decision about who to award doctorates to.

Psychologists need permission from the state to carry out research or then to "cure people" — boethius

No they don't. I have never in my entire career applied to the state for permission to carry out my research, neither has my wife nor any of my colleagues.

Psychologists receive state subsidy (directly or from state proxies) to get the resources to do research (vast majority of the time). — boethius

No they do not, funding comes from all sorts of sources, companies, charities, government or direct from the university.

I've already mentioned legitimate sates also maintains policy through these mechanisms, — boethius

No they don't. You've made up a load of mechanisms and then when asked to prove they exist have just resorted to childish insults.

Psychologists do not need a degree (which is a license from the state) to be a "psychologist"...? , — boethius

Degrees are awarded by universities which are private institutions.

nor "generally" work in institutions that contain a large network of people and state licenses for those people and institution as a whole...? , — boethius

No. No state licenses at all are required to carry out psychology research. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this. You are just absolutely fundamentally wrong here.

nor get permission from various oversight boards (which are specific license to perform specific actions) to conduct human experiments on a case by case basis? — boethius

Oversight boards are made up of a range of people connected to the profession, and from outside the profession. None of them are government officials, none of them negotiate with the government, there are no government policies directing the choices they make other than the exact same laws which bind all of us equally (against murder, physical abuse etc).

Psychologists do not "generally need" state subsidy directly, or through proxies, to perform their research? — boethius

No psychologists do not generally need state subsidy (or proxies) to carry out their work. Some is funded by the state, some by charities, some by private companies, some by private investors, some by the institutions of psychology themselves. All data is then freely disseminated so any restriction the government funded elements placed on research could easily be undone by other funding sources. The biggest restriction on psychological research comes from the journals, which are private companies.

We all know they need lot's of licenses to interact with research subjects — boethius

No they don't. I do not need a single license to interact with the people in my study groups. I could design and publish a questionnaire tomorrow, write a paper based on the results and have it published without having to ask a single person for permission. You are just outright wrong about this point.

No there isn't. Universities are mostly private institutions and the state plays no part in their curriculum nor their decision about who to award doctorates to. — Isaac

You have no idea how the state functions, and you do not have the cognitive ability to participate in this discussion as anything other than a troll to put on display the hackish foolery of yourself and your colleagues.

Make a separate thread if you want to argue "private universities" are "independent institutions" that are legitimately independent of state power and do not serve as proxies to that state power for implementing state policy.

Furthermore, where's you "evidence" to establish "mostly". Lot's of people and universities in China, lot's of public funded and publicly owned universities in Europe. Lot's of "private universities" receiving state subsidy in exchange for conforming to state policy. These are in the minority according to you?

By "mostly" do you mean "mostly in the world" or just referring only to your own delusional understanding of things to maintain your precious ego with regard to what you delusionally believe will help your case.

The mere appearance of "independent intellectuals patting each other on the back" does not establish that those intellectuals are independent and not state agents. The mere appearance of "a legitimate state" does not establish that such a state is legitimate.

For, we expect the hackish fool to claim he's not a hackish fool. We expect agents of the state participating in the central delusion that they are not agents of the state and that they offer independent council and research to critique the state, to claim they are not state agents and their council and critique is genuine and not delusional.

To remind you of your own claim again:

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

When you say "outside your fevered imagination" this is to further emphasize the obvious claim "we all know here" you are making that oppressive regimes are easy to identify. That, even if my analysis is obviously true for oppressive regimes, that we need not engage in analysis of what oppression means and if it can manifest in more subtle ways than China and North Korea. You are saying trust to appearances by literally making the statement that that "one shred of evidence to demonstrate that this actually happens (outside of your fevered imagination)".

You did not say "ok, yes, I agree Chinese psychologists are agents of the state participating in oppression, selected either for their willingness to do so or then delusions about state legitimacy, but, you haven't provided evidence that this occurs in any nominal Western Democracy". To which I could reply, "Ah, someone with the cognitive abilities to understand the analysis so far and that further political analysis is required to evaluate state legitimacy in places where, if it is there, it is not obviously so (well, at least to the privileged classes that live there ... just like Chinese state illegitimacy and oppression is not obvious to the privileged classes that live in China)."

So, unless you demonstrate you have the cognitive abilities to understand your own words and honesty about what "outside your fevered imagination" was meant to mean in relation to "oppressive regimes -which we already know are bad places", then there is no longer any purpose for me to engage in discussion with you, due to your lack of cognitive abilities to participate usefully in the discussion because you are a hack and a fool.

Not that I will abandon this discussion, but my next post will treat you as my case-study research subject to understand how psychologists in illegitimate states maintain their delusion. Fortunately I don't need state license for this particular form of psychological research. For the benefit of people following this conversation, I will demonstrate exactly how various smoke screens are thrown up and immediately abandoned when they don't work, exactly how strawmen are frantically crafted into an army of confusing discourse, how goal posts are moved again and again, how ad hominems are brandied about but dropped as soon as it's realized the "stigma power" the research subject "Isaac" is deluded in believing to have is not effective, how desperate the research subject "Isaac" is to transition the conversation to "peer reviewed" research in a field that has no intellectual legitimacy at all (other than as an afterthought to political analysis) because there is no credible way to disentangle psychology from state power, and, ultimately, how the research subject "Isaac", probably because he was selected from birth by various forms of state apparatus at various gates (the first selection gate simply being the class one is born into or then deluded into wanting to be apart of out of self-hatred for one's origins), participates in the central delusion that he lives in a legitimate state that does not maintain oppressive class relations, that he lends his credibility to other state agents who maintain this delusion for themselves and the populace with more clinical precision, and does research within the bounds and for the purposes of state policy (obviously, nothing politically relevant, and certainly the lack of any politically relevant ideas or intuitions or basic social skills that were not developed as a child, due to a postulated emotionally deprived upbringing, also played a part in the selection of the research subject "Isaac" to serve state purposes at later selection gates, and filtering out other candidates who would be "trouble makers" due to a more lucid understanding of political analysis and better infant phase social skill development, such as object permanence; that the research subject "Isaac" is unable to fix permanently abstract concepts in order to participate in clear adult discussion, but such concepts simply disappear and reaper and how they are related in each appearance is not understood by the research subject but rather the research subject "Isaac" treats such appearances as separate and therefore appears foolish and hackish and lacking in basic cognitive ability to anyone who is able to see where these conceptual objects go when they are not in direct manifestation).

I wasn't there, but unenlightened maybe able to provide us more insight into what may have lead to such lack of historical evidence. — boethius

I'm not sure. There was something of a cultural revolution, but there was a great deal of naivety. The suit thing actually happened, and I think it shows that for most people, it wasn't a revolution but a fashion, a temporary lifestyle thing. But some things did survive. The whole-food movement, the ecology movement the anti psychiatry movement, the interest in Eastern philosophy and religion, and indeed the sexual revolution. The Vietnam war was stopped. But when you attack the guns with flowers, you've got to mean business and be prepared for shooting. A lot changed at that time, and some of it was destroyed or subverted by reactionary forces (Thatcherism in the UK), and some just became the way things are.

My claim to fame is that I used to make wholemeal bread for the people who set up [url=http:// https://www.suma.coop]Suma[/url], because they were born out of an informal food cooperative connected with the Free School and alternative newspaper that were part of the Leeds alternative scene in the seventies. Perhaps the answer to your question is that where a revolution succeeds, it becomes the norm and so invisible.

Ken Kesey was the American hippie of magic bus fame who wrote One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, which we were all reading along with Laing, and that contributed to considerable reform of psychiatric treatment, including the ending of lobotomies and a vast reduction in electro-shock, which was used as a punishment more than as a treatment. It's hard to even conceive that a standard treatment for mental illness (for difficult cases) at the time was basically to stick a spoon in the patient's head and give his brain a good stir.

But my concern with bringing all that up was to illustrate how a concern with student unrest was prioritised over academic excellence at the the time, and how the curriculum was politically censored and liberal and critical views suppressed. This illustrates how academia can be and is distorted by political considerations. It is obvious since both universities and students are funded out of taxation, the government exercises a deal of influence, whereas students exercise very little. Arguably, modern students have a bit more power since they have become 'customers'. But arguably too, this is an illusion. But apart from the talk that money does on behalf of the government, there is legislation that controls what counts as a university, and what they can and must do to provide an education that counts for a degree. Indeed the whole curriculum is now measured in a ghastly points system derived from the Open University, where each module counts so many points at this or that level, and so many points get you a degree. A national system about as independent of state control as something that is totally controlled by the state. Fortunately, this is all quite OK, because the UK is a totally legitimate state. We hope.

I'm trying and failing to stay away from mentioning the controversial statue of Cecil Rhodes, Colonialist, Empire builder and benefactor to Oxford University. That place of independent scholarship that does not influence the government, any more than the government influences it.

Indeed the whole curriculum is now measured in a ghastly points system derived from the Open University, where each module counts so many points at this or that level, and so many points get you a degree. A national system about as independent of state control as something that is totally controlled by the state. — unenlightened

I'm not getting the link here. How does the government's cackhanded attempt to make degrees into quantifiable commodities actually make any difference to the research (which is the point that's trying to be made here). It's not enough to point to some bungled government intervention in the grading system and just insinuate the rest.

In order for this level of intervention to have had anything like the effect boethius is claiming, it would have to select (maybe grade higher) individual modules which support current government policy (there isn't even a mechanism for them to do this, but let's presume there is for a minute). This slight change would have to be sufficient to put off any would-be mavericks from even bothering to apply (why a maverick would care about points is beyond me, but we'll leave that too). Any maverick who dared the terrifying fate of 'not getting quite as many points as they might otherwise' (a true James Dean of their time) would only have to publish a single paper on their anti-establishment research and everyone would know. The government would have to install a whole host of shills to counter it (persuaded to go against the very science they love by...we're presuming 'points' right?). And all this effort to what? Make people think that depression's not the government's fault, so they can carry on their consumerist project. Make people think ADHD is a disease so they can keep kids in schools. Well they don't need psychologists to do either, they have pop stars and parents, who already do a completely adequate job of making people feel like shit if they don't have the latest stuff and insisting that everyone and their dog is to blame for the school not handing little Tommy's violent outbursts.

Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to for something that literally every corporation and mindless consumer in the country is already delivering in spades.

I'm not getting the link here. How does the government's cackhanded attempt to make degrees into quantifiable commodities actually make any difference to the research (which is the point that's trying to be made here). It's not enough to point to some bungled government intervention in the grading system and just insinuate the rest. — Isaac

I did more than that. It's a bit silly to pick one point from a broad sweep of a picture and claim it is not enough; it is already supported by a load of other stuff that makes connections of power and influence between academia and the state. So one of the changes that came along with the points system was the ending of free (or very cheap) evening classes put on by universities and technical colleges funded by them, the government and the Worker's Educational Association, in favour of points based courses which were "quality controlled" and free only with a means test. If you cannot notice how this aligns with the institution of the national curriculum for schools and centralises control of the content of education courses t all levels, and thus of what anyone might be qualified and competent, never mind funded, to research, then I really don't know what anyone might say to you that would start to be "enough".

But I'm not an expert in the matter, and am only pointing out the most obvious influences.

But what's most odd about this is that I, at least, want research to be controlled, because when psychologists are free to do whatever they like, some of them like to do things that are frankly abhorrent and inhumane. And you are trying to convince us that they are completely out of control.

But anyway, it looks to me as though mental health is defined in oppositional terms to mental illness, and mental illness seems to constitute a failure to sufficiently conform to the norms of a social situation. ADHD is a failure to conform to the norms of typically a school type situation. homosexuality is a failure to conform to the sexual norms, Drapetomania is a failure to conform to the norms of enslavement, Hysteria is a failure to conform to the norms of femininity, and so on. So as society changes, mental illness changes.

So one can still research homosexuality, but one does not call it a disease. But I wonder, and perhaps this is another argument you are having with @Boethius, what the morality is of sharing the results of such research, with other countries where it is perhaps still considered a mental illness and a crime. One might not want to share the gay recognition software that might be developed, for example.

you cannot notice how this aligns with the institution of the national curriculum for schools and centralises control of the content of education courses t all levels, and thus of what anyone might be qualified and competent, never mind funded, to research, then I really don't know what anyone might say to you that would start to be "enough". — unenlightened

I really don't, honestly. I'm not trying to be picky here, I really cannot see a mechanism for infusing any meaningful kind of government policy into psychological research. All the mechanisms that you've brought up (and I'm grateful for the fact that you've at least bothered to check yours actually exist) have such broad brush effects I can't see it having any meaningful impact. Not more than, say, television or random cultural shifts.

Removing cheap evening classes was a really shit move, but it lessened the educational opportunities of the less well off. It didn't stop research into glucocortisoid responses to negative stimuli in neonates or something like that. I'm just not getting what government policy could be enacted by these means.

Back in the days you're talking about, with a real sense of revolution in the air, I can see how easy it would be to identify a certain class of anti-establishment intellectual and ensure they were kept out of academia. Now, there's such a spotlight on admissions everyone knows about it if we drop any minority access even by a few points (which is a good thing, mind).

Now schools are another matter. Their curricula are set by government and they are about as designed as you can get to churn out good little consumers, but everyone goes through those. The stiffs, the mavericks and the outcasts. They may do a tremendously good job at churning out traumatised automaton, but they also let the odd maverick through, and virtually nothing stops them at university. As I said before, it's the journals that stop them postgrad, and they have barely any shackles to government (in fact, if you look at the shocking number of journals owned by Robert Maxwell at one point, it's more like the journals telling the government what to do than the other way round).

when psychologists are free to do whatever they like, some of them like to do things that are frankly abhorrent and inhumane. And you are trying to convince us that they are completely out of control. — unenlightened

Not at all, I've mentioned several times that we've still subject to the law, but this comes back to what @Echarmion said. The range of possible activities not restricted by the law is so wide that talking about the law as the primary determinant of behaviour is silly.

mental illness seems to constitute a failure to sufficiently conform to the norms of a social situation. ADHD is a failure to conform to the norms of typically a school type situation. homosexuality is a failure to conform to the sexual norms, Drapetomania is a failure to conform to the norms of enslavement, Hysteria is a failure to conform to the norms of femininity, and so on. So as society changes, mental illness changes. — unenlightened

I broadly agree with this, but

(1) Mental illness is a small fraction of what psychology does. I've repeatedly tried to make the distinction and have repeatedly been told that, no, this is about the whole of psychology.

(2) Societal norms without doubt form a basis from which we judge mental health. I'm not 100% convinced that's even a bad thing, it depends what you then draw from the diagnosis, we have to use some kind of baseline. Or are you suggesting just don't even help the guy who has voices telling him to kill his friends, because hey, who are we to say that's not okay behaviour?

(3) Things are way better than they used to be in terms of diagnosis. Criteria (particularly in Britain) are transparent and trend away from 'illness' towards identify those who might need to be treated differently. Particularly with something like autism (my wife's specialty) the emphasis is on how the institutions around them need to change to accommodate, not how the children need to change to cope.

I wonder,... what the morality is of sharing the results of such research, with other countries where it is perhaps still considered a mental illness and a crime. One might not want to share the gay recognition software that might be developed, for example. — unenlightened

An interesting point. I think on the whole I'd plump for sharing, but it's a very difficult moral decision. I'd base it on the fact that, in my limited experience of Chinese students and professors I've not found them particularly 'state tools' they're mostly pissed at the restrictions the government place on them. Whatever mechanisms the state there are using to fill universities with government shills it doesn't seem to be working. All of which means exposing these students and researchers to evidence which contradicts the party-line is, I think, more important than the risk of research being used nefariously...but I'm not sure. Luckily my research is of no use to anyone so I don't have to worry about it.

in my limited experience of Chinese students and professors I've not found them particularly 'state tools' they're mostly pissed at the restrictions the government place on them. — Isaac

I'm so ignorant I don't know what the Chinese government's position on homosexuality. But with a totalitarian regime, you do what you're told, pissed or not, if you want to practice at all.

I really cannot see a mechanism for infusing any meaningful kind of government policy into psychological research. — Isaac

It doesn't have to be precise or absolute to be meaningful. Let us say that gradually, A-level psychology becomes more commonly offered as a course. It is quite likely to start in those places that anyway have smaller classes - not state schools. Psychology departments might come to like the qualification, but not everyone gets the opportunity. So a class bias is introduced into the intake.

That's a simple example of what we know is an endemic problem for the prestigious universities - a class biased intake. And that leads to a political bias towards conservatism, but also affects on average the kind of assumptions about 'normality' that are made and the kind of questions that are asked.

So for an example from mainstream psychology, one finds a deal of interest in intelligence tests (because we like measuring stuff) that coincidentally (???) favour white Western-educated middle and upper-class folks and is championed by Eysenck who uses it to promote what turns out to be a fake scientific racism. And it takes a long time to expose this nonsense, because from the population of psychology departments, it would appear to be true. You have to be smart to do psychology, don't you? Well no, it turns out you have to be middle class.

I'm so ignorant I don't know what the Chinese government's position on homosexuality. But with a totalitarian regime, you do what you're told, pissed or not, if you want to practice at all. — unenlightened

Absolutely, but we'd have to assume nothing will ever change in these regimes if we assume that all people always do as they're told, so I prefer to take a more positive view that the scientists in China are, at least in part, doing what small things they can to make progress. Otherwise we're just abandoning it. Even maverick protestors need information from time to time, and if we don't share what we know for fear it might be misused, they'll never know anything about the outside world other than the party-line. It's not easy though.

A-level psychology becomes more commonly offered as a course. It is quite likely to start in those places that anyway have smaller classes - not state schools. Psychology departments might come to like the qualification, but not everyone gets the opportunity. So a class bias is introduced into the intake. — unenlightened

OK, I can see how that could happen (though I don't think it has happened). The first thing that would result from this is a background bias in Psychology intake. There are checks in place for this sort of thing at most universities. We keep an eye on the class, race and gender balance of courses and the university as a whole. As I said, there's quite a spotlight on these issues now. But let's say for know this class bias got past the checks...

And that leads to a political bias towards conservatism — unenlightened

...does it? Are the middle-class more conservative? I don't think the figures back that up. We're not talking about dedicated psychology courses excluding all but Jacob Rees-Mogg's monstrous offspring, it would (if it managed to have any effect at all) reduce intake to eliminate the poor only - any more than that and the university's going to start losing money as it can't fill its courses. So the bias in research will be to eliminate solutions or topics which might interest the poor. Can you think of any subjects of interest to the poor that the middle class aren't already all over (in their simpering, virtue-signalling, self-castigating efforts)?

also affects on average the kind of assumptions about 'normality' that are made and the kind of questions that are asked. — unenlightened

I can see this being a possibility, Like treating ADHD as 'abnormal' behaviour would be more likely among middle- or upper-classes because they'd more likely expect their kids to behave whereas working-class kids might be a bit more raucous normally and so ADHD is less likely to be seen as abnormal. The trouble with that analysis (apart for the problems of cause/correlation errors) is that we are already trying to treat ADHD as a problem of the school, not the child. Why? Not because we had a sudden influx of working-class, but because culture changed. People started to think less in terms of authoritarian control and more in terms of institutional responsibility. That cultural shift got into psychology departments (in fact a good portion of it started there). No government policy involved.

Again, the mere existence of a possible mechanism is not sufficient evidence that it is used. In this case we don't have any evidence that the government is using its power to manipulate the class intake onto psychology courses to shut down or promote any broad research topics. Nor, more importantly, do we have any evidence that it would even be capable of doing so contrary to cultural shifts in attitude.

So for an example from mainstream psychology, one finds a deal of interest in intelligence tests (because we like measuring stuff) that coincidentally (???) favour white Western-educated middle and upper-class folks and is championed by Eysenck who uses it to promote what turns out to be a fake scientific racism. — unenlightened

But...

The focus is on the child, with...communication of the test results in the context of the child's particular background, behaviors, and approach to the test items as the main goals. Global scores are deemphasized, flexibility and insight on the part of the examiner are demanded, and the test is perceived as a dynamic helping agent rather than an instrument for placement, labeling, or other types of academic oppression. In short, intelligent testing is the key. — Alan Kaufman

..from nearly three decades ago.

So again, how did these radicals decrying the use of the intelligence testing to favour white Western-educated middle and upper-class folks get to such dominant positions in psychology at the same time as Eysenck if his position was delivered and ensured by state apparatus?

Doesn't it sound far more like there was simply a range of opinions in psychology which broadly reflect the range of opinions of society at the time?

Doesn't it sound far more like there was simply a range of opinions in psychology which broadly reflect the range of opinions of society at the time? — Isaac

Is psychology then a matter of opinion? Nothing much more than a reflection of the society of the time? Then my work here is done.

Is psychology then a matter of opinion? Nothing much more than a reflection of the society of the time? Then my work here is done. — unenlightened

Ha. No, that's not quite what I meant. I just meant that we're both sensible enough to know that cultural bias influences the sorts of hypotheses that get tested and the way those get interpreted. And that goes for all studies from politics to physics. So the debate here is not whether psychological research is influenced by something other than 'the truth', it's what those factors are, whether they influence psychology more than any other subject, whether they influence academia more than other institutions, and whether they cause more harm in psychology than other disciplines.

It seems to me that the crux of boethius's complaint (and yours to perhaps a lesser extent) is that the state represents the most significant of those factors, that psychology is particularly affected, that academia is particularly affected and that this causes great harms that would otherwise be avoided.

I'm trying to counter that the state is not the most significant factor (it's mechanisms are very weak, broad brush, and indirect). Culture in general is a far greater influence. I'm also trying to argue that psychology is not particularly affected. Medicine, politics, sociology, art and literature are all examples of fields I think more vulnerable to external influences. It's also not true that academia is particularly effected either. Law, corporations an education are all as easily, if not more easily influenced. Finally the harm that bad practices has within psychology shouldn't be ignored, but it's not being ignored. Like most other institutions it's being addressed pretty much in line with the changes that wider culture has adopted.

I just don't think there's much to see here. Psychology has had some fairly shameful moments, as have most institutions, but it's coming along at least averagely at making the sorts of changes that address those problems.

I'm trying to counter that the state is not the most significant factor (it's mechanisms are very weak, broad brush, and indirect). — Isaac

Yes, but you have been over-enthusiastic. We have rather established that fact and science are not the most significant factors either, but rather fashion and local prejudice.

I just don't think there's much to see here. Psychology has had some fairly shameful moments, as have most institutions, but it's coming along at least averagely at making the sorts of changes that address those problems. — Isaac

I think this is where I borrow your tactics and ask for some evidence that problems are being addressed. We have already established that as old diagnosis of mental health issues have been found to be unacceptable, new one have come along to replace them, and that at least some of them are also highly questionable. And we have also established that fairly major fields in psychology aside from psychiatry can also turn out not just to be wrong, but to be politically (ie racially in my example) biased and motivated.

We have already seen quite a lot, and no evidence that fundamental changes in methodology, governance, or anything else have addressed these issues. On the contrary, we have a psychiatrist, yourself, defending with almost fanatical fervour the reputation of his profession, and finally reduced to mere blandishment.

We have rather established that fact and science are not the most significant factors either, but rather fashion and local prejudice. — unenlightened

I really don't think we've 'established' that at all. What I've been arguing for it that of the non-science, non-fact influences, culture is more important that state. I still think the greatest influence over the psychological body of knowledge has bee the results of the actual experiments.

We have already established that as old diagnosis of mental health issues have been found to be unacceptable, new one have come along to replace them, and that at least some of them are also highly questionable. — unenlightened

Right. Which part of that is not "Psychology has had some fairly shameful moments, as have most institutions, but it's coming along at least averagely at making the sorts of changes that address those problems". Are other institutions, or even just ordinary working class people, making better progress than that? We've identified some unacceptable practices, eliminated them, but there's still some to be dealt with. That sounds pretty much like the state of the entire world. Unless you have a bigger list than I do of these 'highly questionable' new ones. We can discuss examples if you do.

we have also established that fairly major fields in psychology aside from psychiatry can also turn out not just to be wrong, but to be politically (ie racially in my example) biased and motivated. — unenlightened

Again, nothing odd or unique here and none of the situations you described from the past are current, just as huge swathes of other openly racist attitudes in all walks of life are now thankfully less prevalent. If you have any examples of racist models which are currently being used we can discuss them, other wise this is nothing but historicism.

We have already seen quite a lot, and no evidence that fundamental changes in methodology, governance, or anything else have addressed these issues. — unenlightened

I've provided quotes, policy guidance, and anecdotal evidence to counter every single on of the supposedly harmful practices you and boethius have mentioned or implied, and yet neither of you have produced a single contemporary example. It's unbelievably disingenuous to suggest I'm the one failing to provide the evidence here.

For the sake of clarity, you tell me the list practices that you think are currently still going on in psychology and I will either re-iterate or produce the evidence if they are no longer supported.

Here's a couple to get you started

On IQ Testing.

As the concept of learning disabilities may be seen as a social construction...the idea of any permanency of the concept must be questioned...’ — BPS official guidlines on IQ testing

Here is the current BPS recommendations if you'd like to check for yourself. In summary, testing must be directed at specified therapeutic goal aimed at -"A person ...judged to be in need of community care or educational services due to a failure to cope with the intellectual demands of their environment and are suffering significant distress or are unable to take care of themselves or their dependents or unable to protect themselves or their dependents against significant harm or exploitation.". IQ testing to prove hogwash pseudoscience about race is contrary to current BPS guidelines.

On ADHD.

Educational psychologists (EPs) have become increasingly concerned by the number of children being identified as suffering from ADHD and prescribed medication, often without sufficient consideration of systemic factors or adequate professional liaison. Many children living in adversity may demonstrate behaviours that are associated with ADHD, but may be a reaction to stresses in their life rather than as a result of the underlying biology. — Vivian Hill, Chair of the BPS Division of Educational Psychology

On unequal intake.
The UCAS figure here show that there is “no evidence of bias within the [aggregate] admissions system” with regards to race gender or class. There is statistically significant bias in individual institutions (Oxford and Cambridge being two such), but the trend is consistently to reduce this bias in all institutions measured. Bias in universities is significantly lower than bias in government, law, top executive jobs and even literature.

Any more?

Here is the current BPS recommendations if you'd like to check for yourself. — Isaac

Of course, the scandal has been exposed, and the official line has changed, and that is why you cannot deny that there was anything wrong with the previous orthodoxy. And of course the next scandal has not yet been revealed, and so even if I were to tell you about it, you would simply demand the scientific evidence as per. Frankly, at this stage, your continued complacency is becoming frightening. What would it take to convince you that there are fundamental problems?

A delusion is where a person has an unshakeable belief in something untrue.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/psychosis/symptoms/

What would it take to convince you that there are fundamental problems? — unenlightened

Evidence that there are fundamental problems. It's not that hard.

What I don't do is simply assume there are fundamental problems because there used to be. If people say they have dealt with them, if I've no reason to disbelieve them, and if I've no evidence they haven't indeed been dealt with, I tend to believe them. It's called trust. I think you wrote an OP all about how essential it was to functioning society.

Let me ask you this in turn. What is the alternative you propose? If we cannot trust psychologists to carry out their duties what do you propose we do?

Should we stop doing anything for the schizophrenic? Should we abandon the investigation into the changes schools can make to accommodate autistic children. Shall we just not bother finding anything out about how people think at all?

If so, should we do the same to every other institution with a history of reflecting cultural norms? Dismantle the art establishment, stop writing books, disband the judiciary and the bar, raise all universities to the ground, stop all investigation in physics, engineering and medicine? What's the plan?

What I don't do is simply assume there are fundamental problems because there used to be. — Isaac

That's very odd, actually. We have only been through a little of the history, and surely you know it as well as I do, but the whole history is littered with frankly weird supposedly scientific theories that have far more (small p) politics than science to them that have been popularised, then exposed and replaced with new much more scientific theories that in turn are exposed as false and are replaced by this time really really scientific theories that ...

And without there having been any significant change in governance or methodology or philosophy, you conclude that this time, it's all perfectly legitimate. I call that wishful thinking when I'm trying to be polite, and psychotic delusion when I'm being scientific.

Let me ask you this in turn. What is the alternative you propose? If we cannot trust psychologists to carry out their duties what do you propose we do? — Isaac

I propose that we carry on; but that we do so with more attention to the nature of the discipline, which is only possibly scientific at the margin where it merges with human biology, and that for the rest we adopt a much more humble and far less dogmatic let alone coercive stance in relation to education and psychiatry in particular. I propose that we acknowledge the inevitably cultural nature of psychology and the reflexive way that theories of psychology change the human behaviour they describe.

If so, should we do the same to every other institution with a history of reflecting cultural norms? Dismantle the art establishment, stop writing books, disband the judiciary and the bar, raise all universities to the ground, stop all investigation in physics, engineering and medicine? — Isaac

Obviously not. There is nothing necessarily wrong with reflecting public norms; there is a great deal wrong with representing this reflection as science. This does not apply to any of those establishments and disciplines you mention, with the possible exception of medicine, which is at least aware of the problem and sometimes tries to investigate whether its nostrums and surgeries and care programs actually work.

without there having been any significant change in governance or methodology or philosophy, you conclude that this time, it's all perfectly legitimate. — unenlightened

There has been significant change in all those areas. The governance is made up 100% of different people to the ones who presided over the issues you raised from the past, the methodology is massively revised with much more stringent ethical standards and the underlying philosophy has completely changed from one of maintaining the status quo to one of understanding problems within a social context. It's ludicrous for someone outside of the profession, with no experience or evidence to just come in and say "nothing's changed" and expect us all to just take your word for it.

I propose that — unenlightened

we do so with more attention to the nature of the discipline, which is only possibly scientific at the margin where it merges with human biology, and that for the rest we adopt a much more humble and far less dogmatic let alone coercive stance in relation to education and psychiatry in particular — unenlightened

Good principle. What evidence do you have of current practice taking a dogmatic coercive stance in relation to education and psychiatry? Because without evidence of current practice how can we attempt to change? I need to know exactly what practices (or some examples of them) you think are coercive and dogmatic, and some examples of how we could do better. Otherwise it's just hot air.

I propose that we acknowledge the inevitably cultural nature of psychology and the reflexive way that theories of psychology change the human behaviour they describe. — unenlightened

Again, a very good principle. What current practices do not already acknowledge this? What things would you like to see stopped and what practices would you like to replace them with?

there is a great deal wrong with representing this reflection as science. — unenlightened

So, hang on. Earlier you were decrying the whole institution for it's role in advertising, for fear it might learn to detect homosexuality, for it's complicity in torture methods. Now you're saying it's not a science. Well, at least that lets us off the hook for those things. If it's not a science, then the contributions from psychology in those areas were just pseudo-scientific guesswork. The only people responsible for those things were the advertisers, the (hypothetical actions of the Chinese state and the torturers. We didn't supply them with anything, because what we 'discovered' was just hogwash which doesn't even work.

Earlier you were decrying the whole institution for it's role in advertising, for fear it might learn to detect homosexuality, for it's complicity in torture methods. Now you're saying it's not a science. — Isaac

We didn't supply them with anything, because what we 'discovered' was just hogwash which doesn't even work. — Isaac

That is a non-sequitur of truly epic foolishness. A sign of desperation. I'm going to end this conversation here because either I am completely wasting my time, or I am endangering your stability.