Comments by uninvolved parties[edit]

Statement by non-involved party Stifle

This appears to be a content dispute and does not appear to have visited WP:RFC yet. I urge rejection without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration

Inquiry by completely and utterly uninvolved party User:PurplePlatypus

Not directly related to the case, but here's a factor that might be exacerbating these problems, and in any event may itself be a problem. (One of the above statements does obliquely refer to it.) Doesn't the username "Ombudsman" run afoul of the "No confusing or misleading usernames" rule? I particularly draw attention to the text "Users have been blocked in the past for choosing usernames that... gave the impression of being "official". PurplePlatypus 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples/references

Both parties are making accusations, but there are few direct links and references to substantiate their points. Might I suggest that they edit their statements and include links to the relevant changes on the page? This will only make it easier for the ArbCom, and I think they're owed that courtesy. --Leifern 10:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, never mind; I found the evidence page. --Leifern 16:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observations by non-involved party Anarchist42

I'm not sure if this is the right place for my observations, but I hope that the they are read by the arbitrators:

Please feel free to respond on my talk page - I have seem more than a few heated debates on psychiatric articles, and am rather open-minded and tolerant of the beliefs of psychiatric article editors (some of which may seem unreasonable to editors of non-psychiatric articles - I hope you can understand why, and extend more leeway for psychiatric article editors than you would for typical articles). Anarchist42 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of POV tag[edit]

It seems to me that the core issue here is that some editors persist in attaching the POV tag when the others who are involved believe that the article in NPOV.

I think the WP:NPOV policy makes it pretty clear what it takes to make an article NPOV. While there is some basis for dismissing truly fringe points of view, the policy makes it pretty clear that a "mainstream" consensus is not enough to establish "truth." Further, it is pretty clear that Wikipedia does not - after considerable discussion - adhere to the WP:SPOV standard.

It's my view that, when in doubt, an article should retain the POV tag. From what I can tell, those who wish to keep it have reasons for doing so that they have gone to some trouble to explain. Perhaps their explanations aren't persuasive to some; perhaps they aren't well-formulated; perhaps they are shrill. But they may still be valid.

Given this, the Arbcom is now faced with the task of ascertaining whether the arguments for retaining the tag are strong enough; which in effect means measuring the article against the standards of NPOV. The assessment has to be specific enough that it should be pretty clear to everyone what it would take to make the article neutral - it's all a matter of articulating the controversy, isn't it?

--Leifern 16:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that really is the issue at hand. The arguments for bias were not made in terms of WP:NPOV, therefore a NPOV tag should not be used. In contrast, WP:NPOV was explicitly quoted as justification for the arguments the defending editors were making. For example:
"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all".
No one disputes the anti-psychiatry view is held by a small minority. Therefore their views were represented in a short section, with a prominant link to a more detailed anti-psychiatry page. The rest of the article was based upon the facts are presented and accepted by the vast majority. In terms of psuedoscience (which appears to be the major bugbear of at least one tagging editor) WP:NPOV states:
"The task before us ... is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"
In this case the vast majority view is that it is that psychiatry a science and the minority view is that psychiatry is a pseudoscience. No-one disputed that fact. Thus tagging the article because in it qualifies as pseudoscience according to the OR of one editor, is not a valid use of the NPOV tag (as the reasoning not justified in WP:NPOV). This is what this RfA is about: allegations of using a NPOV tag as a tool to further one's agenda. There is no decision to make about whether "the arguments for retaining the tag are strong enough" as no arguments based on WP:NPOV policy were ever made. Rockpocket (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again! The FDA’s and the Commission of European Communities’ (CEC) warnings are everything but a “small minority”.

Comment The FDA and other official bodies give warnings after they have examined data in conformance with the standards of research used for conventional medicine. This is a continuation and application of conventional science and medicine, not a repudiation of it. Ande B 15:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the evidence page, nowhere am I asking to label biopsych a “pseudoscience” in article. I am only asking that the majority view in the Food and Drug Administration agencies and CEC be mentioned. They are so important that you left me no choice but to quote one of my biopsych talk page postings in toto:

Perhaps Ombudsman has a point. Joema and Fuzzform’s article presents antidepressant drugs, as Ombudsman wrote in several posts, in an “ivory tower”, “Pollyanna” way. Consider the following facts:
Comment Describing the history, errors, and reconsiderations that have led to the current understanding and foci of investigation hardly constitutes a Pollyanna or ivory tower of any sort. Description does not constitute endorsement. Ande B 15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2004 the FDA ordered pharmaceutical companies to add a “black box” warning to antidepressants, saying the drugs could cause suicidal thoughts and actions in children and teenagers. The agency also directed the manufacturers to print and distribute medication guides with every antidepressant prescription and to inform patients of the risks (“Suicidality in Children and Adolescents Being Treated With Antidepressant Medications”, FDA Public Health Advisory, 15 Oct. 04).
Comment The FDA is obligated by law to make issue such warnings when it has valid grounds for so doing. This is part of the conventional medical practice model and such warnings do not constitute a rejection of biological psychiatry or any other conventional medical therapy. Ande B 15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On April 2005 the FDA asked manufacturers of the atypical, i.e., the new neuroleptic drugs (misleadingly called “antipsychotics” in biopsych and mentioned in Pollyanna fashion in the article), to add a warning to their labeling that the drugs could increase the risk of death in elderly patients suffering dementia (“FDA Issues Public Health Advisory for Antipsychotic Drugs Used for Treatment of Behavioral Disorders in Elderly Patients”, FDA Talk Paper, 11 Apr. 05).
Comment antipsychotic is a widely used term for neuroleptics and is better understood by lay readers although lay readers may tend to misconstrue the significance and limitations of the term, which is true for specialized terminology in any field. "Neuroleptic" is the currently preferred term, as I understand it, but it is not used exclusively. Ande B 15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same month the European Medicines Agency scientific committee issued a statement concluding that suicide-related behavior and hostility were more frequently observed in clinical trials among children and adolescents treated with antidepressants compared to those treated with placebos (“European Medicines Agency finalises Review of Antidepressants in Children and Adolescents”, European Medicines Agencies Press release, 25 Apr. 05).
Comment This is a useful and important observation and caution made by the EMA and others. It's about time some attention was paid to the special medical problems and challenges facing adolescents. That these warnings are issued is important news, and a good place to discuss them is in the criticism section of the BioPsych article or, most importantly, in a fuller fashion in other articles, particularly those about depression or adolescent mental health. Many of these medications are relatively new and presented unforeseen and paradoxical effects only after they were (over)prescribed to adolescents. Whether there was adequate data to warrant wide-spread use among adolescents is a question that could be directed to the reliability of testing any type of medication. Nonetheless, these results do not mean that any official entity has repudiated biological approaches to mental health care. Ande B 15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On June 2005 the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory entitled “Suicidality in Adults Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications”. The advisory states that several recent scientific publications suggest the possibility of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adults taking antidepressants; and while a review of all available data is being undertaken by the FDA, it is recommended that physicians should monitor adults who take antidepressants for suicidal tendencies (“Suicidality in Adults Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications”, FDA Public Health Advisory, 30 June 05).
  • On July 2005 the British Medical Journal published a study by Joanna Moncrieff, senior lecturer in psychiatry at University College London, who found that antidepressants are no more effective than a placebo and do not reduce depression. The study found that trials of antidepressants with negative results are less likely to be published than those with positive results and that within published trials, negative outcomes may not be presented. Moncrieff found “no good evidence that these drugs work” (Johanna Moncrieff and Irving Kirsch, “Efficacy of Antidepressants in Adults”, British Medical Review, Vol 331, 16 July 05, pp. 155-57).
Comment I don't doubt that Moncrieff accurately reported her results but they do conflict with previously published data. To the extent that negative results of drug trials are not adequately reported, that seems to apply across the board and is not limited to psychoactive medications. I don't track this kind of stuff closely but my recollection is that a number of journals, FDA, and NIH are attempting to remedy this situation which has existed for quite some time. Yet the current clinical trial and publication system has provided countless effective treatments and immeasurable data sets and there is no reason to believe it is in danger of being rejected by any scientific or governmental entity. Ande B 15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On August 2005 the Commission of the European Communities, representing 25 countries, issued its decision to endorse and issue the strongest warning yet against child antidepressants use as recommended by Europe’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). This followed a review of clinical trials that showed the drugs cause suicidal behavior including suicide attempts, aggression, hostility and/or related behavior (“Annex II”, Commission Decision of 19-VIII-2005, Commission of the European Communities, 19 Aug. 05).
In summary, in just twelve months more than 16 warnings (I only mentioned six) have been issued on the previously undisclosed dangers of psychiatric drugs that the current “Biological psychiatry” article so naively promotes. While drug regulatory agencies such as the FDA may be accountable for failing to act sooner, it should be noted that bio-shrinks have been their advisors, and have a vested interest in maintaining a multi-billion dollar biopsych drug industry.
Economic conflicts of interest are a policy issue, not a scientific issue. Ande B 15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there are no blood tests, X-rays, brain scans or any medical means by which bio-shrinks’ diagnoses can be verified. Subsequently millions of men and women and children have been wrongly diagnosed as mentally ill, and prescribed dangerous and potentially lethal psychiatric drugs.
Comment Current inability to have easy reliable tests does not invalidate the methodology or effectiveness of treatment. In part, it is what makes medicine an art as well as a science. This is particularly true for psychiatric disorders which, to a great extent, are diagnosed by subjective self reporting. Aspirin and its natural cousins in willow bark managed to ease pain (another subjective experience) for many long years before its underlying mechanism was understood. Even though there are few if any reliable outer diagnostic indicators for some severe headaches, people continue to get relief from aspirin and other medications with no need for brain scans or xrays to confirm their pain or their relief. Ande B 15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Tort 00:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm trying to find the proper spot to place my comments to the above statements which I believe have been made by Cesar Tort. Just for clarity's sake, readers should know that Rockpocket's comments, below mine, were actually entered before mine.
I don't know why there is this constant recitation of FDA or other drug warnings as if these standard drug safety and informational announcements were in some way indicative of a widespread scientific disavowal of standard medical practice, which is the milieu in which BioPsych takes place. This type of ongoing reassessment is part and parcel of conventional medicine as it has been practiced for quite a long time in the US. Drug alerts are important safeguards. There are drug alerts and warnings issued about most classes of drugs at some point or other. This is how conventional medicine and public policy work together. A properly functioning FDA should never ignore clinical data that would cause one to seriously question the safety or efficacy of any drug. The FDA's ongoing oversight is not evidence of any sort of repudiation of bio-medical models of diagnosis or treatment.
Cesar Tort is a good writer, articulate and even toned. This is laudable in any writer. Unfortunately, his reasoning skills do not match his fine writing skills. This disconnect between Cesar Tort's writing and reasoning abilities may easily mislead unknowledgeable people to be pursuaded by specious reasoning or arguments that fail to address the relevant questions. I can show you literally thousands of FDA assessmants that are less than positive about many medical procedures, devices, or medications. Just read a stack of the Federal Register, you'll find plenty on your own. The FDA has also made costly errors when it has pronounced certain procedures to be dangerous when they had no data to support those contentions and in fact had data that contradicted their satements. So the FDA, although persuasive is not dispositive as a scientific authority. How can it be, it must serve both a scientific interest and, often, political interests, which often conflict. And all people and institutions are capable of error. The greatest error here, though, is the implication that the FDA or any other official entity eschews biological / molecular/ science based medicine.
There are numerous links in theBioPsy article to specific modalities of treatment, most of them pharmacologically based. The articles at those links could benefit a great deal by having well a reasoned presentation of the pros and cons associated with the use of those medications. Side effects, paradoxical effects, toxicity: all of these deserve attention, but specific criticisms of particular drugs or classes of drugs is best carried out on the pages devoted to those drugs where the arguments can be more fully developed. Ande B 03:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


On the talkpage you made a heading "NPOV tag" followed by a justification of why "Biological psychiatry is a pseudoscience like phrenology..." [1] (no mention of FDA and CEC until five days later). Your very next edit two minutes later [2] was to NPOV tag the article. Does that not suggest that you tagged the article because you think it is a pseudoscience? How is that consistant with "nowhere am I asking to label biopsych a “pseudoscience” in article. I am only asking that the majority view in the Food and Drug Administration agencies and CEC be mentioned."? Rockpocket (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It’s very simple, Rockpocket. (1) You already conceded in evidence page that I never intended to label biopsych a pseudoscience in article (though I think I can do it in talk page). (2) When initial differences were ironed out between Ande B and me, just after I introduced the FDA warnings, our friendly discussion was interrupted by Joema’s unexpected request of arbitration. In other words, if we would have been permitted to continue our friendly discussion a little further, a compromise may well have been reached among us (just as I compromised with you in the section “Unjustified focus on genetic factors” in the Anti-psychiatry article). —Cesar Tort 00:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. The opposite is true. I believe your actions suggest you would have liked to label biopsych a pseudoscience (as you essentially did here [3] changing "Many psychiatric hypotheses are claimed to be untestable or unfalsifiable" to "All biological hypotheses in psychiatry are untestable or unfalsifiable" then citing your own webpage as a source). I conceded you never explicitly said so, though your actions all suggest that was your justification.
2. You completely ignore that fact that you never even mentioned the FDA until days after you tagged the article (twice). Your contributions to the talk page in response to the tagging only mentioned pseudoscience, e.g. "evolution is real science; biopsych is not". [4] Thus there was no justification in WP:NPOV at the time of your tagging, so that tags should not have been there. Retrospectively you can conjour up whatever claim you wish in an attempt to justify your behaviour, but your edits at the time must speak for themselves and that is what this AfR is all about. By the way, I only responded here since Cesar appears keen to point out i had not addressed Leifern comments. Now i have done that, i see little point continuing this discussion. ArbCom will make their own decisions based on the evidence at hand, rehashing the same arguments over again benefits no-one. Rockpocket (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rockpocket: you are speculating about my mind. Stick to the facts! You are confusing what I supposedly pretended to write in article with what I wrote in talk page. The Biological Psychiatry article I wrote with Midgley in no way states openly that biopsych is a pseudoscience [5]. That brief article, written before my FDA post, speaks out more eloquently than whatever I can say here. In no way I intended the article to be antipsychiatric pov.
On the other hand, my tagging of Joema’s article was discussed extensively in evidence page and it’s unnecessary to repeat my arguments here. Similarly, I will not enter into detailed discussion with all of your accusations above. Suffice it to say that anyone who reads the whole biopsych Talk Page can see that I acted in good faith and according to policy.
And, Rockpocket, you continue with ad hominem attacks instead of addressing Leifern’s comments. His point only reaches its full power after considering that the Commission of European Communities that represents 25 countries and FDA have nothing to do with antipsychiatry but represent mainstream medical views —this is what you haven’t answered yet. —Cesar Tort 02:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, Cesar, you have made you point. I'm under no obligation to address Leifern’s comments and i have explained why i do not think they are relevent, so please do not continue to insist i "answer him". As i happens, i concur that some of the FDA info could be included. From my contributions to the biopsych page it is pretty obvious that i'm not adverse to including criticism of biopsych, but only within the context of WP:NPOV. But since the FDA was first mentioned a week or so after your part of the POV tagging war (and text for the article incorporating it was never even proposed), it it simply not relevent to whether or not the NPOV tags were justified. We are not psychic and thus your motivations can only be surmised from what you tell us. At the time, all you said was that biopsych is a pseudoscience and then you tagged it NPOV. You essentially tried the same tactic in the ant-psychiatry article previously [6]. That you now choose to ignore that and claim other motivations in retrospect is your perogative, but i have yet to see any evidence from you to back up your assertions.
This is RfA is not about content, remember, it is about behaviour. Therefore quoting your justifications as you explained them is not an ad hominem attack, it demonstrates motivation. Can we now put this discussion to be and let ArbCom come to a decision, please? Rockpocket (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Had Joema not requested arbitration, you and me would be right now in amiable terms discussing how to include the FDA info in the critical article section you yourself introduced. Her move impeded that.
Leifern’s point, as interpreted in my last post above, will surely have enormous consequences on other editors for the future of the Biological Psychiatry article, whatever the ArbCom decision may be in this particular case.
I didn’t violate any policy before my FDA posting. I iterate for the last time: anyone who reads the Talk:Biological psychiatry from beginning to end can attest my civility. I acted in good faith and according to policy. So why you started yesterday this ad hominem little war in evidence page my friend? Was it for my statement in that page that Joema’s assertions and yours were “out of place” in this process? I’m still puzzled by your reaction.
While technically this process is about behavior, Leifern noted that “the core issue here is that some editors persist in attaching the POV tag” when others “believe that the article is NPOV”, and that “when in doubt, an article should retain the POV tag”. And he concluded: “Given this, the Arbcom is now faced with the task of ascertaining whether the arguments for retaining the tag are strong enough; which in effect means measuring the article against the standards of NPOV”.
This can only mean that it’s difficult to put aside content in this case. As to behavior per se, the tag was removed prematurely. It was not me, but Fuzzform, who didn’t conform to policy by removing my tag without good reason. In the case of Ombudsman, he was tagging the article when I explained the reasons for the appropriateness of such tagging in talk page.
In my own personal case, a patently content dispute shouldn’t have been brought to the attention of arbitration, but rejected without prejudice. I should have been left out of this process on principle! —Cesar Tort 19:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My POV tag was removed prematurely[edit]

Around two weeks ago I looked at the Biopsych article, which I mainly felt was lacking in its introduction. In particular, the opening paragraph seemed other than wholly credible through lack of referral to Biopsych’s modern day origins, existing scientific faculties, current status etc, which caused the introduction to fail to support detail provided throughout the remainder of the article.

I feel it’s relevant to mention that I recently entered the Biopsych discussion with two edits outlining my concerns. I then placed a POV tag on the Biopsych article, which I feel was prematurely removed!

Responses from Rockpocket and Joema further ensued along presumptuous lines to the perceived combined effect that I too should be counted amongst the ‘antipsychiatry’ camp on the basis that I’d detractingly associated Biopsych with ‘pseudo science’, whereas I have done no such thing!

I'd thought I made it abundantly clear in the Biopsych discussion page, my view that the Biopsych introduction itself, as well as the ‘mine laying’ defensive antics of the article’s apparent supporters in its present anaemic form, served combinedly to foster the impression that Biopsych might merely be a far fetched notion, or perhaps a ’pseudo science’ i.e. a science in name only.

Given that both Ombudsman and Cesar Tort have openly admitted 'anti-psychiatry' views to whatever degree, I tend to believe from my own experience thus far in discussion, that an inordinately pro-Biopsych agenda beyond the bounds of an ideal ‘neutral’ position (to be found at some virtual mean point in outer space according to Joema) might be held by the article’s present gatekeepers?

The question therefore arises: Is anybody neutral concerning Biopsych? And what is the Biopsych discussion page for, if not to discern neutrality in accordance with movement towards NPOV objectives in encyclopaedic terms, and thus by method involving frank and open discussion?

Clearly also, the issue concerning referral of Cesar Tort and Ombudsman to arbitration seemed timely in relation rather more to the prospect of ducking Cesar Tort’s well reasoned arguments quoting influential and majority (?) sources etc. rather than representing a genuine appeal to arbitration based on the earlier NPOV tagging issue, which seemed belatedly to have been brought into play by Joema as a punitive measure to deter open discussion, and which probably could have been avoided through wider tolerance, as well as more positive and inclusive explanation.Solo999 03:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Solo999 was civilly reminded twice (after an opening gambit where he compared certain editors to the Gestapo, no less) [7] [8], his contributions are very welcome to address the content deficiencies he hinted at - hardly consistant with labelling him "amongst the ‘antipsychiatry’ camp". He is confusing the purpose of this arbitration (to address the repeat tagging without justification in policy) with a "punitive measure" to silence editors who have minority views. Note that efforts were made for mediation, pleas were issued, regrets were expressed, yet both Cesar Tort and Ombudsman refused to engage until arbitration was sought - hardly "ducking Cesar Tort’s well reasoned" afterthoughts. Note also the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a discussion board, nor a forum for opinion. Editors opinions matter not a jot when they do not follow guidelines and policies in their editing. In contrast, that is exactly the motivation of the "present gatekeepers", which is explicitly clear when reviewing their justifications on the talk page.
Before attributing an editor with an imagined "inordinately pro-Biopsych agenda", Solo999 might wish to review their contribitions. Many of those he labels as such have a widerange of edits covering a many subjects. In each case their "agenda" is to improve on this encyclopaedia, contrast that with the contributions of those with self confessed, single issue, anti-psychiatry agendas. Does it thus follow the a critic of on extreme viewpoint must hold an equally extreme opposite? I think there is no evidence for that.
Despite his input being welcomed, his contributions so far have amounted to criticism at a lack of content, personal attacks on others and a single NPOV tagging - no positive contributions of namespace content at all. I would, again, strongly advise actually writing (on the talk page) exactly what text he would like to see incorporated in the article and moving on from there, rather than get involved in an arbitration so early in his Wikicareer. However, should he wish his comment to be considered it would be most welcome, he should make it here: [9] Rockpocket (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solo999, you say the opening paragraph of Biological psychiatry is "other than wholly credible." In fact it's taken almost verbatim from Webster's dictionary, as the footnotes show.
Re your previous edits explaining your POV tag, you compared Wikipedia editors to Hitler's Gestapo. Beyond that I didn't see any clear, specific recommendation for how to improve the article.
Re the article's "present anemic form", you should compare the original state: [10] to the present state: [11]. I think you'll see the article is greatly improved, much more scholarly and encyclopedic in tone and content. If you have specific, concise recommendations for further improvement, those are welcome.
Re Cesar Tort, Ombudsman and arbitration, this was a last resort after they were literally begged to stop multiple times. Cesar describes himself as an anti-psychiatry activist [12], and has previously threatened to have an army of Scientology friends mass-deface Wikipedia with POV tags [13]. Editors are free to have whatever personal beliefs they want, but this shouldn't stimulate threats and uncivil behavior. Joema 23:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joema: as stated in evidence page, I apologized to Rockpocket for my silly remarks the very first days I arrived to Wikipedia on March. It’s most embarrassing to see that what I said then has been exposed here. So I must quote the central part of my apology about those remarks:

“I am very sorry for all the mess I did a few days ago when I mistook you [Rockpocket] for a censor and zealous bio-psychiatrist. As you may now have surmised, I like psychiatrists, but only those working in the trauma model [...]. I was very emotional days ago because a loved one was destroyed by Mexican psychiatrists, and I happen to have debated to some psychiatrists who vehemently advocate lobotomy. But now that I know better you will see I will stay very cool. Sorry again and I hope I may be of some help to edit the long-winded [Anti-psychiatry] article. Cesar Tort, 17 March 2006” [14].

—Cesar Tort 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your apology, which was gracious and welcome, highlights a very important concern about your approach to editing psychiatry related articles. Even if i was a "zealous bio-psychiatrist" it should make no difference to your reaction to my edits, as those you attacked were perfectly neutral in tone and justified in policy. My personal opinions are irrelevent and should not influence your reaction to my contributions. Those should stand for themselves, supported only by the policy i quote as justification.
Similarly, one might presuppose you are a "zealous anti-biopsychiatrist" from your comments. That you have those beliefs does not automatically mean that your content should be attacked by psychiatrists (even the kind that you don't like) or you be censored by them. However, quoting personal influences as justification for edits in namespace or otherwise does little for your reputation as a neutral editor. Thus i fear beginning your wiki-career with a entrenched, partisan "us vs them" attitide (and even this week seeing editors as combatants in a "war" [15]) does not bode well for future collaborative editing on this subject. We should not be interested in other's opinions, or be interested in attempting to change them.
When editors stick to policy there is no reason that those with diametrically opposite views on very controversial issues cannot edit well together. But that means policy must be explicitly stated in talk pages also, and debates and rambling OR critiques should be avoided. Less of what Cesar Tort believes and more of which sourced facts Cesar Tort can provide, would be an excellent position to move forward from. Rockpocket (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis, and bollux[edit]

"But there are no blood tests, X-rays, brain scans or any medical means by which bio-shrinks’ diagnoses can be verified. Subsequently millions of men and women and children have been wrongly diagnosed as mentally ill," Cesar Tort, above, and elsewhere.

Bollux.

The argument extends then to say that all of Hippocrates' diagnoses, for instance, were incorrect. (He didn't do blood tests or x-rays).

Bollux.

Diagnosis is primarily by history. Examination, of which a psychiatric examination is a sort, is secondary, although often important. Special investigations, such as blood tests and imaging may add refinement, and may disprove or prove a hypothesis, but very rarely give a diagnosis unexpected from consideration of the history and examination. Special investigations are often very useful or essential in management of disease. A common fault of those without clinical medical training is to base a decision on a result of a special investigation without considering the patient, and come to an unjustified and unhelpful decision on action from it.

Psychiatry is more difficult and less precise than cardiology or colonoscopy because it deals with a larger and more varied universe, but to suggest that diagnosis is impossible is to be wholly wrong. (I'm taking the text as given not to be an assertion that "millions of people have been correctly diagnosed as having specific mental illnesses ... but millions of diagnoses were wrong" becuase of its context, and becuase it is not accompanied by any suggestion that any psychiatric diagnosis might ever have been correct. I don't doubt that with hindsight a proportion of diagnoses can be refined or turn out plain wrong, in any specialty - we operate safety nets for that.) Midgley 21:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midgley. I do not understand the word “bollux”. Could you explain it for me please? I don’t believe that diagnosis is impossible in psychiatry. Have you read Wikipedia’s DSM article? That article may explain my point. Psychiatrist Colin Ross for example is an absolute believer in DSM diagnoses. He is only trying to say that in psychiatric diagnosis the problem is comorbidity. I myself agree with some of the DSM diagnoses. Actually I don’t have major differences with the DSM. The point I was trying to make can be understood if we distinguish between scientific medicine (Rudolf Virchow’s criterion —disease); clinical medicine (diagnosis); certifying medicine (disability); psychiatric medicine (disorder), and political medicine (fraudulent “schizophrenia” labels such as those in former Soviet Union). —Cesar Tort 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLLOCKS (an explanantion, not a comment). Rockpocket (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the distinction between scientific medicine, clinical medicine, and pscyhiatric medicine (if this is considered a separate category) becomes less and less distinct over time. Andrew73 23:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and some physicians who adhere to the classic Virchowian criterion of disease don’t like this since it can easily drive us to “political medicine”. That’s why biomarkers are important. —Cesar Tort 23:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, biomarkers are important. However, the absence of a biomarker does not preclude a biological basis to a disorder; perhaps one has not been discovered yet! Andrew73 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there biological (probably genetic) mechanisms which indisputably exist based on observation alone, yet which haven't been isolated. A clear example is behavioral encoding of lower animals. E.g, all the complex behaviors of an ant (walking, digging, fighting, communicating, etc) is encoded within a single cell at conception. They don't learn these things -- they are biologically preprogrammed. It's not magic, it's physically stored somehow. If we can't even isolate the genetic basis for this in an ant, it's obvious the inability to isolate all biomarkers for a mental health disorder doesn't prove they don't exist. Joema 13:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True: absence of biomarkers or as Ande B has just stated above "current inability to have easy reliable tests" isn’t proof of biomarker inexistence or aprioristic invalidation of biopsych. As Andrew73 indicates, perhaps they haven’t been discovered yet. The alternative hypothesis is that in most psychiatric conditions they don’t exist and symptoms are caused by psychological trauma. Since child abuse and PTSD do exists, applying Occam's razor I lean toward this latter working hypothesis. Psychiatrist Colin Ross, who prescribes standard psychiatric medication to his patients in his psychiatric clinic and is a regular contributor to the American Journal of Psychiatry, maintains that some of the DSM disorders are neurological (like mental retardation) while others may have a mixed genetic and environmental cause; and still others a purely environmental etiology. This seems more reasonable than postulate that all mental disorders and even ADHD are biological: the blame-the-body scenario we see in today’s biopsychiatry. —Cesar Tort 14:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here is saying all mental disorders are purely biological with no environmental factors. In fact (as stated in the Trauma model article) most mainstream psychiatrists believe "complex genetic factors interacting with environmental factors trigger mental disorders". They don't believe all mental disorders are purely biological. The Biopsych article no more advocates a purely biological approach than the Adolph Hitler article advocates the Nazi regime. An encyclopedia article primarily describes the topic, and doing so doesn't equate to advocacy. Joema 16:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Biological psychiatrists rarely mention trauma. This is why medication, electroshock and psychosurgery are still used (the Ross Institute that treats psychological trauma is a rarity in the profession). To put it briefly, DSM does not propagate bioreductionistic theories. Big Pharma and the media do. And since biomarkers are missing in the profession the selling of the idea that mental disorders are biological is more advertising than science. In the case of ADHD it’s political medicine: just what happened in the Soviet Union with political dissidents “treated” with neurotoxins/neuroleptics. —Cesar Tort 16:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re the genetic statement in trauma article, within contemporary biology it’s assumed that the genome is the fundamental driver of the organism. This biological reductionism has been accepted in the popular culture and in psychiatry. Newspapers paid by the pharmaceutical industry carry announcements that a gene has been found for depression, ADHD, schizophrenia etc. The biomedical model in psychiatry regards human beings as genetically programmed machines. We have become culturally mesmerized by the mantra of “genes”. We think genes make decisions; the genes have become God. But they are not. Genes are just sequences of AT, GC base pairs. In biological psychiatry we have the cosmic joke of bioreductionism. Biology has become destiny. But the genotype can be rendered phenotypically silent by psychotherapy. Once one assumes that the phenotype can be turned off by the environment, it follows that it can also be turned on by the environment. This is the assumption of the trauma model. It doesn’t require the existence of single genes for single disorders. —Cesar Tort 23:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"it’s assumed that the genome is the fundamental driver of the organism."? I think its fair to say the evidence is overwhelming enough to class it stronger than an assumption ;)! You make an interesting suggestion, but inherently flawed (if you'll excuse the pun) due to - with respect - a clear lack of understanding of genetics. Of course the phenotype can be turned "on" by the environment, just as it can be turned "off" (that should be obvious from the definition of 'phenotype.) That is entirely consistant with how genes work (i.e. not in a vacuum). This is no different to Phenylketonuria. Its obviously a genetic disorder, yet the phenotype is almost entirely modulated by environmental factors that interact with the gene to generate the phenotype. The environment (phenylalanine in the diet) thus 'turns' on and 'turns' off the disease (caused by a faulty phenylalanine hydroxylase gene).
Every single biological process so far understood can be explained by the interaction between gene(s) and environment. Every single one. Therefore this must be the most parsimonious explanation for how psychiatric illness occurs also. I fear you are confusing genetic reductionism (a method for understanding complex systems) with simplification ("the existence of single genes for single disorders" is a high school level concept of psychiatric illness). The irony here is, all of your trauma model justifications are entirely consistant with a biological model. May i recommend you read The Extended Phenotype or The Selfish Gene to lean how reductionism does not equal determinism.
Finally, if i may offer a rare personal anecdote as practical illustration of how humble stretches of ATs and GCs can influence the most complex behaviour. Today i was doing some behavioural experiments with transgenic mice that have a single gene, just 5000bp in coding length, removed. Male mice missing only this gene, called TRPC2, completely lack aggressive behaviour towards other male mice. Instead they try and mate with them, just as they do with females [16]. In this case the essential environmental influence to observe the phenotype is the other animal. On their own, the mutant mice behave no different from their normal littermates. Remarkable, is it not, that a single gene can influence such complex social behaviour? Imagine what behavioural complexity two, three, four interacting genes can do... Rockpocket (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, since in biopsych there are no genetic tests for mental disorders (again, no biomarker), and keeping in mind what I said about Occam’s razor above, I still think we have to seriously consider the trauma model. I mean: if psychotherapy works with, say, dissociative schizophrenia or self-harmers, why multiply the entities? Every one of us would get mad with torture and interrogation techniques. The same happens with victims of abuse: all of us have a breaking point. Why not give up the biopsych genetic hypothesis and direct our efforts to heal the injury in the patient’s inner self? Neuroleptics suppress symptoms. Granted. But besides causing tardive dyskinesia the split personality is still there, as I tried to explain in the first draft of the article Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. —Cesar Tort 03:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern with victims of abuse, particularly child abuse is commendable, as is your concern about involuntary treatment. However, involuntary treatment involves a minority of psychiatric patients and there has been no data provided to show their actual representation among patients nor has any data been provided to show what proprtion of them are helped as opposed to harmed by such treatment. Even with such data, the issue is a political one that cannot address scientific legitimacy. Plus, not every person who seeks or needs psychiatric help is the victim of child abuse. And even if that were the case, every human being is a biological creature. Whether our "pychological" difficulties arise from childhood abuse or an indeterminate cause, the results will be biological / biochemical. A psychoactive drug will either work or not work regardless of the source of the psychological damage. The level of its effectiveness may be enhanced or diminished based on the source of the complaint or it may be effected by the concurrent application of additional therapies, but the pharmacology is based on its bioactivity. And I think you're mis-applying Occam's Razor here, but that has been discussed by others. Ande B. 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only in the USA’s psychiatric wards 22,000 people were, by the middle of 2002, involuntary committed that year and drugged (John Cloud, “They call him crazy”, Time (magazine) 15 July 2002). Anarchist42 has already noted that involuntary commitment is not a purely political concern: “since it assumes both accurate diagnosis and effective treatment; I'd like to see a study which validates either assertion”. And he added: “These questions I've just made all question the common assumptions about psychiatry (and hence its theoretical basis, Biological psychiatry), which may or may not be valid”. In other words, it’s not possible to separate biopsych theoretical basis from its political uses and abuses. —Cesar Tort 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cesar, I don't doubt your commitment to rational, fair, and effective care for those suffering from childhood abuse or other traumas. But as for the "involuntary" issue being part of the "science" of biopsychiatry, that just doesn't wash. Or to the extent it is valid, it is equally true for the use of any medical therapy: drugs, surgery, prosthetics, etc. Poorly conducted drug trials, for instance, are just as dangerous for those with non-psychiatric problems as they are for psychiatric patients, voluntary or otherwise. The answers to those problems, at least in most modern nations, particularly in the west, has been the establishment of political, legislative, and legal barriers and remedies that attempt to regulate the use and mis-use of medical treatments, especially drugs. But regardless of whether there is indeed a scientific and political nexus in the field of biopsychiatry, it appears to me that the present article has attempted to accomodate that view and provides an opportunity for its discussion. How much space should be devoted to that discussion seems to be the real crux of the disagreement here. I don't see anyone saying that there should be no discussion or that the minority critics should be silenced. Only that, absent compelling evidence that there is a substantial proportion of the medical / scientific communities that reject biopsychiatry, any criticism should be proportionate to the minority view it represents. Anything more, in this article, is pushing a POV. There are plenty of other articles where specific criticisms about drugs, diagnosis, informed consent, involuntary commitment, can and should be addressed. My arguments with you are editorial not substantive. I don't personally have much faith in many psychoactive medications, I personally believe that there are fads in diagnois that have nothing to do with reality and that children are being needlessly drugged. But that does not change what the majority consensus in the medical field is and it should not form the basis of coverage in a WP article. Ande B. 03:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the article as it stands confuses neurology (real biomarker science) with biopsych (no such markers). This confusion misleads the wiki readership into pharmaceutical interests. Much worse: ECT is mentioned in the biopsych article and doesn’t make any distinction of voluntary and involuntary use of it. Electroshock has been used in USA on perfectly sane people such as Leonard Roy Frank (there’s an abstract of his article “Electroshock: Death, Brain Damage, Memory Loss and Brainwashing” in The Journal of Mind and Behavior [17]. That journal’s special issue dealt exclusively on the dubious science behind biopsych and its political consequences (electro-shocking sane Leo Roy Frank for example). —Cesar Tort 05:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is, of course, why there is a very prominant link to anti-psychiatry where the ECT abuses get plenty of coverage, as it should. Rockpocket 05:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But my real point above was: The article as it stands confuses neurology (real biomarker science) with biopsych (no such markers). This confusion misleads the wiki readership into pharmaceutical interests. —Cesar Tort 05:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article says in its first three sentences:
"Biological psychiatry, or biopsychiatry is an approach to psychiatry that aims to understand mental disorder in terms of the biological function of the nervous system... It is interdisciplinary in its approach ... to form theories about the biological bases of behaviour and psychopathology. While there is some overlap between biological psychiatry and neurology, the latter generally focuses on disorders where gross or visible pathology of the nervous system is apparent"
Please tell me, specifically, how that fails to differentiate between the two?Rockpocket 06:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article sells biopsych as neurology if you read it all. —Cesar Tort 15:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Cesar refuses to respond to the question and instead simply makes an assertion based on his own opinion. This non-responsiveness doesn't make it difficult to communicate with Cesar, it makes it impossible. But for the benefit of anyone who wanders by, I feel this remark cannot be left without a reply. Cesar appears to be so hostile to the use of medication by those who practice biopsychiatry, indeed, he has stated his opposition to any form of psychiatry other than his own preferred mode, that he cannot bear to see an article that is not exclusively critical of biopsych without concluding that it is advocacy of something he doesn't like. The article on biopsych does not "sell" anything to anyone.
  • “First the article seems POV because it tends to present BioPsych as recitation on current procedures and pharmacology”. This comment was posted by 66.58.130.26 in a Rfar page [18]. —Cesar Tort 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting an anonymous user who appears to be part of the Ombudsman activist group along with Solo999 and Prometheuspan hardly gives any credibility to your argument. You might as well be self-referencing here. Neither you nor your cabal of anti-psychiatry zealots do more than make a lot of noise. Whether that noise is warranted is obscured by your incessantly biased views and useless citations. Ande B. 18:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the articles on the US Democratic and Republican political parties: they do not sell the parties' platforms simply by describing them and the party histories. There aren't even critiques written by Republicans in the Democratic article or vice-versa, and we know how critical members of these two parties can be of one another. Cesar continually harps about "biomarkers" as if it were a magic word. When a person is distressed, they can usually describe their non-visible but significant personal condition to the attending physician. Even those with minimal communications skills can make clear that they are constantly afraid, sleepless, tearful and their physical behavior tends to corroborate those descriptions of their inner lives. If their external appearance and behavior conflict with their statements, that too is informaton that the physician can use in arriving at a diagnosis. And just because biomarkers are not established at this time does not mean that the goal of biopsychiatric investigations is a false gaol, only that it has not been achieved. And the absence of "biomarkers" does not in any way refute the efficacy of any medication or other treatment, it simply means that the mechanism is not understood. This is not an unusual state of affairs for the medical field. Cesar is concerned about "involuntary" treatment. So are millions of other people, that is why there is legislation in every jurisdiction I know of that addresses that specific issue. Cesar does not appear to approve of legislation that regulates involuntary treatment unles that legislation simply bans it. But this is clearly and purely a political issue and has nothing to do with the validity of the science or efficacy of the medications. This discussion is going in circles because Cesar has not added any information to the debate, only opinion. Ande B. 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As just stated in other Rfar page, all of these issues are well addressed in psychiatrist Gordon Warme’s recent book DAGGERS OF THE MIND: PSYCHIATRY AND THE MYTH OF MENTAL DISEASE [19]. —Cesar Tort 18:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't selling biopsych as anything, rather it focuses on describing it according to mainstream scholarly thought. Biological psychiatry is much broader than pharmaceutical treatment of common mental health disorders. It includes the study of all possible biochemical influences on behavior. For example various hormone problems such as thyroid, prolactin, testosterone, etc all can influence mood and behavior. Biological psychiatry studies this and the results are published in various journals, including one called Biological Psychiatry. The obtained knowledge is often used in clinical treatment. A specific example is that most psychiatrists nowadays test for thyroid abnormalities before pursuing other pharmaceutical treatment, since thyroid problems can cause depression. Joema 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a citation to support the claim that "most psychiatrists nowadays test for thyroid abnormalities" please? (If that is indeed true it would indicate a radical improvement in clinical psychiatry). - Anarchist42 16:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The DSM-IV criteria for differential diagnosis of major depression specifically states hypothyroidism should be excluded. The correlation between endocrine disorders and mental health issues is well known. A few PMID article numbers: 16314199, 15486818, 9827665. For what limited value it has, every psychiatrist I've spoken to has known this. Joema 23:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the DSM, and I don't doubt that psychiatrists know this, what I do doubt is that they actually test for it; certainly every depressed patient I've talked to was never tested, hence I'd really like to see any study which documents what percentage of disgnosed despressives are tested (honestly, my OR could indeed be an anomaly). My concern is not with the DSM or psychiatric "best practices", but rather whith what actually happens to real patients (which seems, based what I've observed, to contradict is supposed to happen). I hope you can understand why I am skeptical, and why I'd like to see actual citations which support the claims of the psychiatric profession (remember, I am also open-minded). I may add the the lack of hard numbers only fuels the anti-psychiatric movement (of all the sciences I'm interested in, only psychiatry fails to back up its claims with hard numbers). - Anarchist42 00:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I meant that most psychiatrists either do this or ensure it was already done. E.g, in many healthcare systems, the patient only sees a psychiatrist upon referral from a primary care provider, who often already does the test. That said, the information I've found indicates this is a common practice (pdf): [20]. That said, there are likely lots of cases where insufficient medical testing preceeds treatment with psychiatric medication. But rather than get bogged down on this one item, my overall point was that biological psychiatry is much broader than pharmacological treatment for common mental health disorders. Many biochemical influences affect mood, emotion and behavior -- alcohol, caffeine, hormones, etc. Biological psychiatry studies all of these. Likewise research increasingly indicates that life stress or trauma can instigate measurable biochemical changes in the brain [21] These are also studied in the field of biological psychiatry. Joema 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (mostly). Both you and your cited article claim that "most psychiatrists" ensure that thyroid problems are tested for, a claim which I doubt and still wish to see some hard numbers for (honestly, I'd like to know that they've started doing this in the past few years). The irony here is that biological psychiatry is doing a reasonable job, whereas (from my POV) clinical psychiatry is just claiming that it's doing a fair job. - Anarchist42 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible. The trauma model supposes that psychiatric function operates outside the basic laws of genetic variation driving phenotypic variation (and with environment, driving natural selection). That seems a major assumption to me.

Moreover, i simply don't see the relevence of the "no biomarker" argument. By definition, there is no biomarker for any disease until it is discovered. The association between lack of biomarkers and genetic basis is irrelevent, as there have been no genes discovered yet either. The discovery of one, inevitably leads to the other these days. Such is the nature of scientific progress: there was no biomarker of PKU until Følling discovered it in 1934. There is still is no really accurate biomarker of Alzheimers until after death, yet there is "compelling evidence" that it has a genetic basis. There is no biomarker that we know of for monitoring the fighting to sexual behaviour in the mice i mention, but we have demonstrated the genetic basis clearly. If we followed your line of experimental reasoning historically, we would all still be turning to witchdoctors to chase the spirits out of our caves.

I have a lot of sympathy with your proposal we direct less effort on gene hunting and more to reduce the environmental triggers, however that is a political/economic/sociological policy issue and one must be very careful of confusing that with the hard scientific facts.

Considering environment is often the most effective way to manage any disease (think of avoiding the sun and Pseudomonas aeruginosa for melanoma and cystic fibrosis respectively). And there is every reason non biological treatments cannot be highly effective too, it psychological trauma can be a trigger, then psychological healing can be a treatment also, that seems pretty obvious. But none of that invalidates the overwhelming evidence for the ubiquitous law of biology: genes + environment = phenotype. Rockpocket (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated elsewhere that Ross maintains that some psychiatric disorders have both, a genetic and an environmental etiology. Neither Ross nor I believe in spirits! We can continue to argue ad infinitum. I may try another approach. For instance, if we use logic competently we don’t attribute motives to diseases; and would be uttering nonsense if we asserted that diabetes has caused a person to shoot the President. But the same can be said of a self-harmer. As I said in an earlier version of an article I introduced, Self-hate [22] causes that psychiatric condition; not a purported biomedical disease. However, this discussion belongs to Talk:Biological psychiatry. Now that the well is not as poisoned as a few days ago, why not stop this discussion once and for all and wait for ArbCom decision? —Cesar Tort 07:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then it sounds like Ross is a believer in mainstream biological psychiatry theory - do you concur also? Fair point about attributing motive, but that is the nice thing about genes, they don't have motive. They just do their job in the environment they find themselves in. Sometimes that may lead to self harm, should the environment be right. I didn't mean to be confrontational here, i was just shooting the philosophical wind until this ArbCom decision was wound up. Feel free to call it a day anytime. Rockpocket (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in practice is that there is a pattern of behavior, let us say anxiety, the patient is fearful, afraid of open spaces or of falling, so afraid that they cannot walk. They cling to some object, are unable to leave the supporting object and walk independently. A drug is tried, let us say, Zoloft. After a few weeks the effects of the drug kick in and they are able to walk again independently. Fred Bauder 09:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"...the genotype can be rendered phenotypically silent by psychotherapy..."

That is a very large claim from a long way above. Midgley 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: it was badly phrased. I only meant that if therapy works this fact casts doubts on the environmental “trigger”, though basically biological, pet theory of psychiatrists. —Cesar Tort 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you rephrase that again? Because I can't follow this explanation. Ande B. 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain to me the biological reason why psychotherapy improving a disorder triggered by the environmental cue is inconsistant with a gene/environment model. You seem very sure about this, so i expect you have a good reason for believing it. Rockpocket 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that, for instance, the artistic drive of a painter or poet doesn’t have “environmental triggers” in the genetic/bioreductionist/nonsensical sense that poetry behavior is genetic, any more than schizophrenia is. This con word, “environmental triggers”, is used by psychiatrists mainly for bioreductionist purposes. —Cesar Tort 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poets who write haiku are poets who grew up where haiku were written. Poets who write sonnets .... Whether the host of golden daffodils and John Donne's mistress count as environmental triggers is probably a blind alley though. If you take identical twins and raise them in a fashion (as near as possible) identical except that one is exposed to poetry and one to ...er... science, will you end up with an ode to a test tube if the one exposed to poetry does actually commit poesy? Memes move about, neural nets configure, and Larkin's poem is one I've had occasion to prescribe the reading of to people. Where part of the brain runs on a particular transmitter substnace, and that part is used for (elements of) particular thoughts, thinking those thoughts can deplete that transmitter (possibly this is still theory?), and then thinking those thoughts becomes more difficult, but dualism aside, does that get us anywhere? Midgley 18:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Midgley is of course, correct. Genes and environment interact to produce painters, atheletes, philosophers, poets and scientists. Do you not think that, for all his favourable genes working together to provide his mind with the framework for original thought, Einstein might not have had relativity on his mind were he brought up in an Amazonian rainforest? Or do you think, given the identical upbringing and education, you would have formulated his theories? With respect, Cesar, your understanding of genetics is limited. Your understanding of "environment" (the the genetic sense, apparently even more so). Therefore your assertions about what disproves genetic theories, or your dismissal of twin or family studies demonstrating genetic linkage, are inherently flawed. Appeals to false authority does not cut it either (that Breggin/Laing/Ross says "twins studies are flawed" tells me they understand genetics about as much as you do). Show me a geneticist that dismisses the gene environment as theory nonsensical and then we have a starting point. Otherwise your assertions in this field are no more than blinkered, uneducated POV. Rockpocket 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Midgley is of course, correct. " Nice though it is to see such comments, I think the most I'd claim is to probably have a point there and the models need careful consideration. Einstein was of course repeating the work of several dwellers near the headwaters of the Amazon, who also didn't wear socks, the difference being that we didn't get to hear about it. (or may as well have been). One should not go over the top. Midgley 14:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant correct in your assertion that poets write haikus when they grow up where haikus are written. That is the very fibre of cultural (i.e. environmental) variation, which was what the Einstein example was supposed to demonstrate.
I agree our models need careful consideration. However the basic biological truism of genes > RNA > protein as the functional coding of 'life', means that - at the most fundamental level - every single biological function requires at least one gene, and an environment for the protein to exist in. Denying that is redefining the paradigm, and that is what Cesar is proposing when he says, time and time again, that the "most parsimonius explanation" is that there is no genetic component to mental disorder. In other words, it is clearly is not the most parsimonious explanation if you genuinely understand how complex genes work, and that was my point. Rockpocket 16:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laing and Breggin didn’t write much about twin schizophrenia studies. Theodore Lidz did. Since you haven’t read Jay Joseph’s 2006 book I don’t want to discuss any more this issue with you. But I will be happy to discuss it with Midgley, who has always been polite with me, in the approaching future. (To me, politeness is the most important thing of all.) —Cesar Tort 19:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you make wide ranging, unsubstantiated criticism and then time and time again, when asked to back them up, you suddenly no longer want to discuss the issue. From you comments in the past, your policy of politeness does not appear to apply to those you consider "over zealous biopsychiatrists" (i.e. those who disagree with your POV). Politeness is great, but meaningless when you pick and choose who to afford it to. Rockpocket 01:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) I really cannot be bothered continuing this pointless charade. Rockpocket 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More