Jump to content

Talk:Biological psychiatry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CCHR

[edit]

If no objections I will move the paragraph —:

The movement, bolstered by groups with similar criticisms of biological psychiatry (such as the Church of Scientology), is often labeled, sometimes derogatorily, as Anti-psychiatry. Others with an anti-psychiatry point of view do not dispute the notion that certain behavior phenotypes have an organic basis, but dispute the labeling of neurological differences as disordered and inferior (see, for example, the autism rights movement and the neurodiversity concept).

—to the main Psychiatry article, where it belongs. Reason: the Church of Scientology’s CCHR does not focus on biological psychiatry, but on psychiatry in general. —Cesar Tort 03:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cesar, This article would appear to disagree with your analysis. Rockpocket 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neuropsychiatry

[edit]

I think some mention of Neuropsychiatry, and link to that article, fairly early on. Anyone agree/disagree? Neuropsychology 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that, I have just seen it is in there. Neuropsychology 11:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

The last part of this section reads "Furthermore, some scientists feel that psychiatry is a light science as that there is no tangible evidence for the diagnosis of mental disorders. Thus, biological psychiatry may be the key to bring psychiatry into the realm of actual science." (After some grammatical corrections). The first sentence seems rather POV and probably a reference is needed. I am also not certasin that the expression "evidence for the diagnosis of mental disorders" is correct. --Crusio 05:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Quote

[edit]

The quote from the journal description:

Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry (EHPP) is a peer-reviewed journal ... examining all the ramifications of the idea that emotional distress is due to an underlying organic disease that is best treated with pharmacological therapy. This oversimplified view of human nature permeates virtually every area of our society...

I have remove the request from the article. Rockpocket 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly?

[edit]

Can we have a reliable citation supporting the claim that these journals are scholarly: "The Journal of Mind and Behavior" or "Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry"? See criticism section.--scuro 06:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both are peer reviewed according to their websites, that makes them as "scholarly" as any other academic journal. Some of these source requests are getting out of hand. "Vocal minority" for example? What exactly is supposed to be sourced here. Its patently obvious they are a minority - what else would they be? If "vocal" is the issue, then remove it, as I doubt that is sourceable. Rockpocket 07:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...well agreed, no argument on the word "vocal"...and also no argument with the dictionary use of the term "minority", one simply can't squabble about the use of that word either. Minority simply means less then 1/2. I wasn't really intending to comment on this issue but the objection to the word "minority" that needs addressing, is that in Wikipedialand that word means something else, it means legitimacy and credence within the eyes of society. In Wikipedialand what counts is majority and minority opinion. IE i) A majority of Psychiatrists believe that antidepressants offer more rewards then risk. ii)A minority of Psychiatrists believe that antidepressants offer more risk then rewards. Finally a view that should get very little if any weight....iii)A vocal minority of Psychiatrists believe that antidepressants causes brain damage. Do you see the difference? Do you see the problem?
Same goes for the word "scholarly". In academia land that word has real currency, it means that respected peers from your whole branch of knowledge scrutinized what was published and gave it a seal of approval. For anyone who has actually published a paper in a respected journal, the process really puts your idea through the ringer and if it doesn't cut the mustard it is not published.
Contrast that with certain journals which claim to be scholarly but are not. By scholarly they may mean that others with some letters behind their name, and also possibly the same belief system, have scrutinized your paper. Furthermore, these "scholarly" papers can be made to look authentic, often with reams of citations, when in fact...they are anything but scholarly. The purpose of such papers, journals, and even institutions, may all have to be about giving legitimacy to a belief system which would never be accepted in the academic world.
I know that Peter Breggin the noted antipsychiatrist founded the one journal and is an assessing editor on the other journal. All sorts of alarm bells ring in my head about blinding bias when I know this. I believe David Cohn, who wrote a book with Breggin, also sits on the editorial board of the JMB. In my mind just because their website states that they are scholarly, doesn't cut the mustard. That is why wikipedia loves secondary sources and the need to verify. I bet you would have no problem finding secondary sources which state the the NEJM is scholarly.--scuro 20:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One way of deciding this is to look whether any of these journals is included in the Web of Knowledge. If they aren't, they may perhaps still be "scholarly", but they certainly wouldn't be notable.... --Crusio 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked: neither of them are included. Meaning neither gets enough citations (= attention = notability) from outside its small niche to warrant inclusion into the WoK databases. --Crusio 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those points are all fair, but I do think we have to be careful about projecting what words mean in Wikiland to what words actually mean. Minority means minority. In this case, not the majority. The significance and size of this minority is open to debate (and if it isn't significant, we shouldn't be discussing it at all), but it doesn't change the fact that it is a minority. If there is a source quantifying, or even qualifying, this minority then I am all for adding it. What I don't think is fair, is demanding a source for "minority", as no-one is actually questioning that. The real question behind that tagging is, "Is the minority significant enough to warrant a mention and can we source that?" Requesting a citation for "minority" is not the way forward answering that question.
As for the scholarly issue. I think I may have written that with the intention of distinguishing between peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed journals. No comment on the merit, significance or importance of the journals was intended. If someone has a better way to explain that these are specialist journals publishing research articles for and by academics, rather than, for example, Reader's Digest then please do so. Perhaps something like "niche academic journals" would be better? Rockpocket 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why "niche" at all, then, if the point was "scholarly"? I've never read this article before today and thus wasn't predisposed on the topic one way or the other, but to me the modifier "niche" conveyed not merely "specialist" but "kooky," probably because people aren't referring to all scholarly journals as "niche" publications in this article. In other words, why single out this journal for "niche" treatment?McTavidge (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy

[edit]

An RfC has been created on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. HrafnTalkStalk 06:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed non-sequitur about developmental psychology

[edit]

The removed information was purely about developmental psychobiology, not about the subheading topic. The purpose of this article is about biological psychiatry, not about developmental psychobiology. That article is the appropriate location to add such information. Joema (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A vocal minority

[edit]

calling a group of people that dislike something something a vocal minority sounds highly pov and like an attempt to downplay things. It's also a statement that cannot be verified. Added a neutrality disputed template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.60.103 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of 'Biopsychiatry controversy' in Introduction

[edit]

The final sentence of the introduction (as stands) states that 'The field, however, is not without its critics...'. It seems only fair that, especially given Psychiatry's proclivity towards being misused for state/political control (not just in Communist states), there should be a link to Biopsychiatry controversy which indicates why this term may be misleading. Some might argue that Biological Psychiatry is the name given to try and provide Scientific credence to theories that many other Scientists would dismiss offhand as being based upon fallacious reasoning. Further, I find it difficult to imagine that there is even a single Psychiatrist who would argue that EVERY 'disorder' (note: NOT disease) within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, has a neurobiological basis.

The whole article could be seen as an attempt by Psychiatrists to provide a Post-Hoc Justification for keeping so many people locked up in (expensive) Psychiatric institutions using tenuous Pseudo-Scientific justifications which *appear* scientific (one of which is the term Biopsychiatry). One could try to justify Quackery using the term 'Biological Quackery' to achieve the same (unconvincing) sticking plaster results. The key point to realise is the SCIENTIFICALLY based Medical Tests are often NOT used in reaching Psychiatric Diagnoses. Whereas one can objectively test for high blood pressure using a blood pressure meter, or use brain scans to find a brain tumour, such objective tests are ALMOST-NEVER used in Psychiatry. Also, we find that people often find there way into Psychiatry after engaging in criminal (including misdemeanour) acts, or even visiting Political Demonstrations.

Given Psychiatry's conflation with the misuse of power (both now and in the past) we should be concerned as to whether any attempt at Scientific justification could possibly negate the highly questionable practices of Pscyhiatry. This is perhaps a criticism of practice and not theory - Scientists and Doctors are held to high ethical standards (say, to make sure that they don't make-up results), why shouldn't Psychiatrists be held to those same standards?

I will be making a minor modication to the introduction to refer people to the Biopsychiatry controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASavantDude (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Biological psychiatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Biological psychiatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biological_psychiatry&oldid=1206305182"