> Just count the number of times you hear someone say "that guy is certifiably insane, he should be committed to an asylum" any time someone comes up with a non-popular point of view .. this is the government religion at work.
England has government spending on psychology - mostly in the form of health spending on psychological talking therapies.
In England you can't easily[1] be detained under the Mental Health Act for having a "non popular point of view". There are a number of checks and balances built into the system. While the system isn't perfect it is very unlikely that a person would be detained just for an unpopular opinion. So "The Government" is not out to get you.
Of course, your comment talks about the general population. Yep, you're right, many people in the general population display shocking ignorance about mental health problems and they are happy to blame mental illness when a person displays challenging behaviours or opinions. That's not the fault of government propaganda, that's the fault of ignorance about mental health problems.
The point is this: over the last 5 decades, since Psychology became accepted by society, as a movement it has established itself as the High Priests of society - by ingratiating itself as a subject in Law, in Civic affairs, and so on. Western governments have been more than willing to let themselves have this '3rd arm' of enforcement to apply to their protection; time and again, we hear "government-appointed psychologist says [blah]" about some figure, and whenever the psychological health of any individual is discussed, if an 'expert' (high priest) comes along with their statement that the individual has any one of the invented malladies in their bible (DSM-IV), then thats the end of that guy. Take him away!
My point is this: general society hasn't noticed this infiltration of their governments, and are - at this point - perfectly okay with it. So it doesn't really matter if its a science or not - Psychology has been accepted as the official state religion, for determining just how compliant any individual is with the group-think de jour, and that's all that really matters ...
> time and again, we hear "government-appointed psychologist says [blah]" about some figure
Please could you point to a single "government appointed psychologist" saying [blah] about some figure? Because while I'm sure they're common in oppressive regimes I haven't heard of one recently in non-oppressive regimes.
> if an 'expert' (high priest) comes along with their statement that the individual has any one of the invented malladies in their bible (DSM-IV), then thats the end of that guy. Take him away!
There are abuses of the various rules for detaining and treating someone against their will. I mentioned that in my first reply. But it's not as easy as you suggest and hasn't been for some years now.
If you're saying that psychology had severe abuse in the system early on then we both agree.
The only recent examples I can think of of "government-appointed psychologists says [blah]" that would even get close would be in high profile court cases, where it's really court-appointed psychologists.
I agree with you - it's rare to see this abused these days. Though I remember a particular nasty case from my childhood - a man in Oslo was committed with a diagnosis of paranoid delusions in 1971 after having been involved in a political struggle related to a school closure. His claims about violations of various laws in the process intended to close down the school were used as evidence of his supposed delusions. He was not released from the hospital until 1985. At which point he refused to leave the hospital, and camped outside it until near his death in 1996, while campaigning to have his diagnosis reversed.
The utterly bizarre situation was that he insisted that if the diagnosis stood, then he should be admitted, but the hospital refused - claiming he was too well to be admitted even voluntarily, while still insisting he still suffered from paranoid delusions.
In 1988 an investigation indicated that he was likely sane when admitted, though he may at some point later have suffered from mental problems caused or exacerbated by his forced hospitalisation.
In 1995 the relevant government department gave him a formal apology, admitting that the claims he first made in 1968, that was used as evidence of delusions in order to have him forcibly admitted, were in fact true... Nobody were willing to admit that the hospitalisation was politically motivated, but given the fact it's hard to conclude otherwise.
It shows how insidious claims like these could be: Everything he did to fight his hospitalisation and diagnosis was used as additional evidence of his supposed insanity.
I like to think that cases like this doesn't occur anymore..
I recall that in a TV discussion of the scandal a psychiatry professor was extremely critical of psychiatric profiles. I think she even said that she would not allow anyone to create one of herself.
Thanks for that reference. A very interesting example of what I'm discussing (and being downvoted for) .. the state and general public believe that psychiatric 'experts' are the new high priests, regulating human behaviour and casting out anyone that doesn't fit their pre-determined patterns.
Just look what they did to Forrestal in the early years of the takeover of the United States by the military-industrial complex:
England has government spending on psychology - mostly in the form of health spending on psychological talking therapies.
In England you can't easily[1] be detained under the Mental Health Act for having a "non popular point of view". There are a number of checks and balances built into the system. While the system isn't perfect it is very unlikely that a person would be detained just for an unpopular opinion. So "The Government" is not out to get you.
Of course, your comment talks about the general population. Yep, you're right, many people in the general population display shocking ignorance about mental health problems and they are happy to blame mental illness when a person displays challenging behaviours or opinions. That's not the fault of government propaganda, that's the fault of ignorance about mental health problems.
(EDIT: spelling)