
Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill - cycojesus
http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/02/why-anti-authoritarians-are-diagnosed-as-mentally-ill/
======
neilk
The whole concept of authority fascinates me. I've had a lot of troubles with
this, although I'm not disobedient at all. In fact I'm kind of a goody-two-
shoes, am eager to please, and often wish I were bolder and more concerned
with my own agenda.

Yet I've been told multiple times in the past five years that I'm undermining
authority. By both management and peers. (Sometimes admiringly, by colleagues
who think I'm the only person who isn't subject to the leader's reality
distortion field.) I've asked what I can do to not be as "disruptive" and
nobody can quite produce anything concrete.

I think there's something about my attitude that people can detect -- I do
believe that authority needs to be earned with results. And even though when I
have defended the current authority, again this is not good enough, because
I'll do it in terms of "we need to be unified", "we don't know everything X
knows", "X has taken on this leadership role and it costs him a lot, no one
should question X's dedication", etc.

The one thing I'm not saying is that we should all bow down to X just because
"he's the man". There is something about this atavistic concept of authority
which demands a posture of submission, often literally. You don't look the
other person in the eye any more, you allow yourself to be swept up in his
obsessions, his sense of humor leaks into yours, and you treat his ideas as
automatically superior. You're supposed to be happy even if he snatches a
slice of cake right off your plate. I just don't have it in me.

~~~
chipsy
The ways in which an anti-authoritarian outlook manifest can vary widely. I
mean, we stereotype it as a "smash the system, direct action now" thing, but
creativity, intellectual curiosity, and a sincere desire to reorganize the
system(even through completely legal, above-board means like electoral
politics and entrepreneurship) can all get demonized as viewpoints that
challenge the establishment. Once collective views are in place, the
discussion in most people's minds is over; it takes a strong individual effort
to work your way back to truth.

An great example of an authoritarian stereotype controlling the debate is in
our discourse about anarchy. In any mainstream forum of the USA, the mere
mention of the term is an impossibility - the assumption of anarchy equating
to chaos dominates the discussion. Instead, many of the concepts from anarchic
literature are now shared, in a modified form, via the less besmirched term of
"libertarianism." We don't equate the Tea Party movement with anarchy, yet the
connection is all over Wikipedia.

------
DanielBMarkham
I like where this article is going a lot, but let's be clear on terms.

"Anti-authoritarians" are people who question and/or reject authority
aggressively.

"Assholes" are people who have emotional and/or maturity issues that cause
them to irritate others.

Neither of these are diseases, and you can be both, but don't confuse one with
the other. I'm a fairly asocial person, but I've learned to be more diplomatic
at times. On the other hand, the world is full of angry immature people who
just want to "tear it all down!" without actually at heart being for or
against anything. They're just a bundle of emotions looking for a place to
vent.

But the underlying thesis here, that the professionals diagnosing people as
mentally ill carry lot of bias with them that even themselves are unaware of?
Spot on. Psychiatry has always been about introducing conformity (both in a
good way and in a bad way) to society. Of course, that doesn't mean that there
aren't a lot of really mentally ill people who need help, just that when you
have a hammer, the world is your nail. :)

ADD: I would just be very careful about working this problem backwards, from
effect to cause. That is, simply because somebody or another supports a cause
you believe in doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't emotionally ill. My
personal opinion is that there are a lot of emotionally-struggling people who
choose politics as a socially acceptable way to vent on the world.

~~~
digitalchaos
I propose that many of the "assholes" and "tear it all down" types are anti-
authoritarians who fell through the cracks in the authoritarian system. They
have all the anger, anxiety, and hate for the authority that surrounds them
but they never found a way to obtain the higher knowledge about what is really
going on. Maybe the "smart ones" just have a higher capacity to modify their
world to fit them, maybe they had a better environment, or maybe they weren't
as anti-authoritarian.

~~~
billswift
More likely they are better at _avoiding_ the authorities. That is what I
usually try to do.

~~~
jgiancarlo
Here I think you are getting at a distinguishable difference between those who
are pushing against authorities and those who are hacking the system and
flying under the radar. I think that anti-authoritarianism is more a directed
attitude of questioning, while avoiding them/it is something different
entirely; less trying to change the system, more accepting or ignoring it
altogether. That is not to say that one cant do both things; in fact it might
be a necessary way to live outside of the norm of blind obedience.

------
itmag
Good reading to become a mature (ie not just childish) anti-authoritarian:
"Prometheus Rising" by Robert Anton Wilson and "No more Mr Nice Guy" by Robert
Glover. I would also throw in "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover" by Robert
Moore, and maybe an occasional dose of LessWrong.com (helps to know of
cognitive bias pitfalls if one wants to dance to one's own tune). Rand,
Aurelius, Thoreau, Emerson and Nietzsche might be cool too, for the
philosophically inclined (what they all have in common is the belief in
defining your own values, not just following others blindly).

Of course, the way I see it, being anti-authoritarian is just a corollary
effect of being a mature, competent, self-validated man who is following his
own purpose in life. _Of course_ such a man is going to have trouble with
those who want to foist their value-systems on him through threats,
psychological manipulation, or subterfuge.

~~~
grandalf
I think as a corollary to your comment, the following is also true: Someone
who defines his/her own values is extremely unlikely to list "holding power
over others" as a primary goal.

Yet many seemingly self-actualized people do end up in positions of authority.
Why? I'd argue that power over others is, like some drugs, highly addictive
and often corrupting. Mature, self-actualized people rarely feel a void that
makes holding this power desirable, since they vastly prefer to be respected
than to simply be obeyed.

Yes there are some authority figures who are just and who inspire trust and
motivation in others, but many others who appear this way at first and then
disappoint -- I wonder how all the young Obama supporters feel now that he's
expanded the drone program and continued all of Bush's most controversial and
horrible policies.

~~~
mw1
As one of those younger Obama supporters, I feel betrayed. Look to the Occupy
movement to see how many of us are moving on and looking elsewhere for hope.

~~~
itmag
Maybe you should just stop looking elsewhere for hope period.

~~~
mw1
That's pretty much what participation is OWS is... The realization that we
don't have a political system that can deliver and that it's time to take back
control.

~~~
itmag
Are you the type of person who should be in power?

If not, work on that first.

And if you are, you don't need trendy SWPL causes-du-jour.

------
steve8918
This is basically the premise of the book "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest".
The major question of the book was: "Who was really crazy, the inmates or the
System?"

It's kind of frightening that views haven't changed in the 40+ years since the
book was written. I guess the difference is that they will simply overmedicate
rather than lobotomize.

~~~
JonnieCache
Firstly, things have changed _massively_ since one flew over the cuccoos nest
was written. It wasn't even representative at the time. As I understand, it's
more an allegory for the wider society and about institutions. A modern
psychiatric hospital is utterly unlike the place in that book in every
respect. They still use electroshock therapy, because it has been proven to
work. Now they do it under general anaesthetic and it's an altogether less
messy affair. Watch this moving TED talk if you don't believe me:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEZrAGdZ1i8>

Secondly, closely related to this is the famous Rosenhan experiment.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment>

The really relevant bit is this paragraph:

 _For example, one nurse labeled the note-taking of one pseudopatient as
"writing behavior" and considered it pathological. The patients' normal
biographies were recast in hospital records along the lines of what was
expected of schizophrenics by the then-dominant theories of its etiology._

I also remember that one participant had their habit of standing around
outside the cafeteria waiting for it to open for lunch noted down by a nurse
as "neurotic behaviour around eating and food" and again framed as part of
their disorder and used as a reason to keep them there.

Remember though that this was in america in the 70s, and things have changed a
lot since then. Partly as a direct result of that study, which made a huge
impact on the profession and caused a lot of soul searching. Someone repeated
it, I think in the 90s, and they were all just put on pills rather than being
committed. The crucial difference being that one can choose not to take pills.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Isn't this the "all politicians are untrustworthy" problem. Politicians are
not any more untrustworthy or criminal than the general populace, they are
just _more closely watched_.

And the same is obviously true of those 'under observation' - psychiatric
disorders or not.

I am not sure just how many of my strange habits would be diagnosed under the
DSM - but enough to worry me :-)

~~~
JonnieCache
_> I am not sure just how many of my strange habits would be diagnosed under
the DSM - but enough to worry me_

That is exactly why doctors don't diagnose _just_ using the DSM checklists.
Obviously if they did, we'd all be mad as hatters. There are a whole load of
other criteria which must be met, for example, the behaviours have to be
detrimental to your life or to the lives of others around you. They also must
be abnormal within your culture, which is why religious people aren't all
immediately locked up and sedated.

I _really_ wish I could remember/find the name of this other set of
assessments that doctors make but alas I cannot. Also my knowledge is based on
the UK system, where incidentally they use the ICD-10, which is like the
european version of the DSM. Things may very well be different in the states
or elsewhere.

~~~
SimHacker
Our culture would benefit greatly if religious people were immediately locked
up and sedated. They ARE crazy and harmful to those around them, and humoring
them is bad for society.

~~~
anti-atheist
yeah, it would be much better if instead of 'thou shalt not kill' we taught
our children 'do unto others before they do unto you'. Don't conflate the
failings of a minority with the actual religion.

------
firefoxman1
That was a really good analysis on why people are diagnosed, but I would like
to take a guess at why people _want_ to diagnose their fellow man as such.

First, I'm no psychologist or historian, so feel free to disregard everything
that follows...this is just a hypothesis.

I've noticed (but I'm probably far from the first) that every seemingly
"modern" human behavior can be traced back to a handful of primitive instincts
or tribal behaviors (fear, greed, prejudice, etc.). So my guess would be that
diagnosing someone as mentally ill because they act anti-authoritarian comes
from the tribal instinct that allowed, or even required, all humans to work
together without questioning their orders. It was necessary to hunting,
protecting the tribe, etc. that everyone act as one. Not acting as one would
cause the hunt to fail or the tribe to lose a battle, either way they would
die. It's the same way that packs of animals like wolves behave. Shun the
outlier because he could put all our lives at stake.

So expanding on this theory, maybe the reason we as humans act this way is
because our cousin species died out because they _didn't_ act as one. Perhaps
those other semi-human species that died out were more independently-minded,
but for the first few hundred thousand years that was a negative thing that
led to natural selection filtering them out?

I guess I get this idea from Seth Godin's talk about "Quieting the lizard
brain." Pretty interesting, if anyone is interested:
<http://vimeo.com/5895898>

~~~
StavrosK
The assumption there is that not blindly following orders is bad for the
group. That's clearly false when the orders are bad for the group.

~~~
srl
Not so clearly after all. The harm caused by the orders may well be less than
the harm caused to the social structures in the group by one or two people
disobeying - or by everyone disobeying, and the group needing to somehow
select a new authoritarian figure (which usually gets nasty).

~~~
frankydp
Also known as war. Which one could argue is not good for the species
statically speaking.

Nicholas Wade also addressed part of this issue in The Faith Instinct. He
postulated that religion as a whole was the translation of our hereditary pack
instinct following consciousnesses evolution and that conformity was rewarded
over time with a bigger stronger more aligned pack and more babies or more DNA
in the pool.

It could be argued that the non-conformist is rewarded in the opposite,
through persecution by the pack and a smaller group of mates.

But, of course great change requires great sacrifice and cost.

~~~
firefoxman1
Thanks for the info on The Faith Instinct. I knew I couldn't have been the
first to suggest this idea.

Another idea I might add to my original thought would be people's fear of
change. I would guess that goes back to before the days of agriculture, where
you had to move with your food source. Any change could be dire to you tribe's
survival. Change in food source means learning new land, hunting techniques,
poisonous plants, etc.

So I think that anyone challenging authority is also challenging the status
quo and is seen as one that wants to bring about change. The primitive
(lizard) brain cares about two things: survival and reproduction. Change
threatened survival in the past, and that fear is still with us, causing us to
condemn the changers. People who are in a position to prevent social change
(like, say, a psychologist) will do anything in their power to feed that fear
of change because they _like_ the way things are. "Things right now are the
way they are supposed to be," their lizard brain tells them. And so they close
the minds of individuals who might have otherwise had a great impact on
society.

What gets me is how people never learn. Socrates was condemned and executed
for questioning religious and governmental authority. Soon after the Greeks
regretted it and erected statues in his honor, yet that same mistake of
casting out the independent minds is made every generation. Sad, really.

~~~
syawaworht
Humans don't learn because of our short lifespans. If humans from ancient
Greece were still alive, we might have learned something.

But our short lifespan is also a boon in many other ways.

------
scrrr
_"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."_

~~~
Mansyn
I enjoy thought provoking arguments as much as the next guy, but too many
people seem like they just want something to be unreasonable about. And they
act like children, in that they only scrutinize the process when their not
getting their way. They just want to be a malcontent, and it appears pathetic
to me. I'll be first in line when there's a revolution that isn't full of drum
circles and free-loaders.

~~~
nknight
When else would you analyze a process than when it's causing you a problem? Do
you routinely attempt to fix things that aren't broken?

~~~
rprospero
Imagine that you find an ATM machine that's spitting out free money. It's
certainly not causing you a problem, but that doesn't mean that it's not
broken.

It's easy to see that the system is broken when you're getting less than you
deserve. It takes a degree of maturity to admit that the system is broken when
you receive more than you deserve.

~~~
nknight
Uh, it's also not my job to go over to the ATM and find out why it's broken.
On the contrary, trying to do so would probably get me arrested.

I have no reason to fix or even analyze a process until it is somehow relevant
to me. Calling me immature because I decline to go hunting for problems I
otherwise wouldn't even know about is bizarre at best.

~~~
UnFleshedOne
That is a reasonable position. But only if you wouldn't stuff your pockets
full of money should you pass one by while at the same time complaining about
all the free-loaders on welfare. I know some people who would do both things
without having any cognitive dissonance induced discomfort at all.

~~~
nknight
But that has nothing at all to do with anti-authoritarianism, and doesn't seem
to resemble what Mansyn was talking about in any way.

I can't stop thinking, while reading his and rprospero's comments, of the
stereotypical parent screaming at a fussy eater, "Don't you know there are
starving children in Africa?!".

------
JonnieCache
_Please_ try and remember that while there may be many problematic practices
and practitioners in the world of psychiatry, the majority are just trying to
heal the sick like all other doctors. There is a big difference between
putting someone on pills to stop them from presenting a problem in school or
at work, and putting someone on pills to stop them cutting out their own eyes,
or to help them regain their desire to breathe in and out.

A large number of mental disorders are extremely debilitating and often fatal
to the patient. When successfully healed, sufferers are usually extremely
grateful to their psychiatrist, feeling that they owe them their life.

You only hear in the media and online about the times when it all goes wrong,
because it makes a good story. Who wants to hear blog posts about how someone
was sick, and then they got well? Especially when talking about your
experience with mental illness is seen as an admission of weakness or personal
failure by society, which it is.

This is not to discount the fact that there _is_ a huge amount of malpractice,
abuse, and just plain poor quality thinking out there in the world of
psychiatry. Most of it is connected to big pharma and their big dollars, as
you might expect.

You also can't absolve the patient of all responsibility. Go to any
psychiatrist, particularly here in the UK with our NHS where doctors don't sit
around _hoping_ for more ill people, and they will tell you that they are sick
and tired of the parade of perfectly healthy middle class idiots shuffling
before them with non-problems, or worse, dragging children with non-problems.

You can't really just turn these people away, it's unethical (illegal?) to
just deny someone treatment. Unless you can invoke something like Münchausen
syndrome, you have to treat these people or their charges in some way if they
are in distress. Doctors are reduced to giving them some pills and complaining
to each other behind closed doors about the endless stream of "worried well"
affecting their ability to help those with the actual problems discussed at
the start of this now overly-long comment. Actually, increasingly they send
them off to a homeopathy clinic or something like that. That in my eyes is the
one good use for alternative medicine, it keeps little jemima off the hard
stuff when her dangerously irrational mother decides she needs to be fixed.

The DSM and it's ilk make this worse by giving the public cosmo-style
checklists they can run against themselves, without all the other contextual
understanding that a diagnostician has. It is then made worse again with the
DSM published on the internet.

~~~
fooandbarify
I had to log in just to upvote this. Yes, diagnosing mental illness is less
clear-cut than the problems we typically enjoy as programmers. Yes, mistakes
are made. But for every mistake there are 9, or 99, or 999 successes (EDIT: I
have no statistical reference for this assertion, please take with large grain
of salt) who, as you say, feel that they owe their life to the professional(s)
who helped them. I know, because I am one, and regardless of society's opinion
that is no less an admission of weakness than admitting that I had chicken pox
one time, and occasionally come down with the flu.

~~~
Alex3917
"But for every mistake there are 9, or 99, or 999 successes who, as you say,
feel that they owe their life to the professional(s) who helped them."

The problem is that isn't true. The amount of people helped is generally lower
than the amount of people harmed, at least with longterm use of many of the
major psychopharmaceutical drugs. The book the blog is promoting explains this
quite well.

Just this morning there were a flurry of articles on a new study showing that
the most commonly prescribed sleeping pills raise your all cause mortality 3x
- 5x, and that's over only 2.5 years. One can only imagine what the all-cause
mortality over 10+ years is.

~~~
fooandbarify
You're right, I have no source to back that up and was making a flimsy
emotional assertion. (I've edited my comment to reflect that.) I stand by the
(desired) sentiment of my comment, though: psychiatry and the related sciences
are important and there should be no related stigma.

------
bbeaudoin
I believe "Anti-Authoritarian" is a misnomer. People labeled as "Anti-
Authoritarian", myself included, are more likely "Auto-Authoritarian"; they
trust their own authority first, rather than blindly believe the asserted
authority of others.

~~~
adaml_623
I think your point is quite a good one. Taking control of the language used to
describe the situation/subject under discussion is important to avoid the
negative implications.

------
ctdonath
Hence the propensity of authoritarian governments to declare opponents
mentally ill.

Beware political positions quick to write off differing views as clinical
insanity. When they start committing people, that's a sign the line has been
crossed.

------
derefr
> After he did enter college, one professor told Einstein, “You have one
> fault; one can’t tell you anything.” The very characteristics of Einstein
> that upset authorities so much were exactly the ones that allowed him to
> excel.

I find it an amusing corollary that later in life, no one was able to convince
Einstein of the truth--or at least the usefulness--of quantum mechanics. A
failing of the anti-authoritarian mindset is that if you have an opposed
opinion to an authority on an issue--and that authority happens to be _right_
\--you'll never figure this out until you work it out for yourself.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_I find it an amusing corollary that later in life, no one was able to
convince Einstein of the truth--or at least the usefulness--of quantum
mechanics._

Einstein never disputed the usefulness of QM. He merely disputed the idea that
theories based on configuration space were fundamentally correct.

He even attempted to disprove them by showing that QM predicts the EPR
paradox, which most people agree is pretty weird. He then spent the rest of
his life trying to come up with theories that didn't predict nonlocal effects.

It turns out that the EPR paradox and other nonlocal effects are observed in
real life (so any such theory he might have concocted would have been wrong),
but the experiments were only done after Einstein died.

------
jcarden
Any 'anti-authoritarian' diagnosis is bunk. This is one aspect of the DSM (of
many actually) that seriously bothers me. Since there is no objective scale
for delineating behaviors that are acceptable to "authorities", how can one
claim this is a valid diagnosis ? THIS is why we can't have nice things.

------
Tooluka
During reading I always thought about Sheldon, from The Big Bang Theory, in
one of the first series when he was sacked from his job. And when he comes to
apologize with his mother, he says "I've called you an idiot during our first
meeting. I'm sorry... for pointing that out.".

I suppose it's the same with many doctors who stamp "mentally ill" diagnoses
on people. "If you disagree with me, then you should be treated."

~~~
cgoddard
What's the same? Not trying to be rude, but what point were you trying to
make?

~~~
Tooluka
Many powerful social positions in our society are occupied by not qualified
enough people, who only have it through connections or inheritance or just
conforming to overcomplicated modern social rules. Basically unquestioning
conforming to any relevant authority until a person grows higher in power than
it. In Sheldon case it was his new boss, who fired him for a reason than
Sheldon did not bow to him (meaning that he should not ever question
qualification of a more powerful person). In the essay, this behavior was
shown on the example of a psychologist or psychiatrist, who also can develop a
tendency to negatively evaluate anti-authoritarian people because they
themselves have an opposite character type and are in a more powerful
position. This especially concerns me because there are evidence of such abuse
of power in cases of children, who can be put on medication just to be kept in
the boarding school indefinitely (not sure if this a right name in English).

------
seles
There was a seemingly related hacker news page on the top page along side with
this one <http://qaa.ath.cx/LoseThos.html> , about the 64 bit OS LoseThos and
the mental insanity of its author. It was a very interesting read and I wanted
to see the comments, but now it appears gone. Was this flagged and if so why?

~~~
organico
I think there were concerns the LoseThos guy might be worse off by seeing it,
and the OP removed it. Really interesting to read about him though, and see
his extraordinary work. I hope he is around people who can help and that he'll
be ok.

------
cbodolus
I've grown up diagnosed as ADD (and ADHD), ODD, and Bipolar. The bipolar was
because I was not mature yet, and had trouble communicating effectively. I get
angered when I hear people talk as if these aren't real. My ADD makes it to
where I have a tough time evaluating priorities to the point where my
impulsiveness can cause me to 'not' do thing. I just can't. Like I recently
tried doing a bit of homework on paper (first time to write on paper this
semester) and my mind raced faster than I could write (I just saw the answer),
but most importantly I had trouble just writing. I just couldn't force myself
to do it. The hyperactive portion of ADHD is just because I'm either 150%
going all out, or I'm asleep. (This makes 60 hour work weeks a breeze because
I just keep going and going and going, as long as I have someone around that
can help keep my focus, or if my attention isn't needed (like large compiles
for programs, somehow I can focus better in the spurts between compiles). The
ODD part comes in because I love to challenge people, especially authority,
but only when I feel like they are incorrect or misguided. Interestingly
though, I find that, for example, I can't bring myself to do the dishes when
at my Parents house, but at anyone else's house I'm the first to clean the
table up after dinner.

~~~
cgoddard
Maybe the problem isn't with you, but with the things you're being required to
do. Maybe ideally it would be better for you to focus on doing the things
you're especially good at and enjoy doing, rather than following arbitrary and
impersonal directives on what you should do.

That's up to you to decide, but currently you're required to meet expectations
in your life that maybe you're just not personally suited for, not out of any
disability, but because your strengths are elsewhere, or maybe you're just not
interested and would rather learn or focus on something else at that time.

The problem comes in thinking something is wrong with somebody just because
they don't conform to expectations or are caused angst and turmoil through
their nonconformity. It doesn't matter if it's the sufferer or the society
that seeks it out. It is still misguided.

------
cjensen
I can't help but notice we are all discussing the opinions of one guy, who is
not a psychiatrist, regarding what he has seen in his practice. And this one
guy, if you look at his "about the author stuff" is basically an activist left
wing hates-the-system damn-the-capitalists kind of guy.

This is not science, it's opinion untethered from the constraints of evidence.
If we want to have a long conversation about this, it would behoove us to
start from science so that actual facts might be involved.

~~~
cgoddard
I don't see why a mental health worker's critique on the culture and practices
of other professionals in the field wouldn't be valid cause for discussion. If
someone observes corruption in the field they are working in, is it not valid
to raise the issue for discussion before performing a formal survey on how
widespread that corruption might be?

What type of evidence exactly would satisfy your requirement?

~~~
cjensen
I did not intend to suggest he should not raise his voice. Rather I suggest
that a Hacker News discussion is not well-served by starting from his post due
to the lack of factual (in the scientific sense) content.

Raising an issue that needs study is just plain Good Science. But it's a
starter for science, not us.

------
jakeonthemove
Authority (and people in power) are currently seen as "once accepted, never
question", and that has served humanity well for thousands (even millions) of
years because it's effective - you have a leader, you acknowledged he's at
least good enough and you start working on common goals under their
supervision.

But that doesn't work as well anymore because there's so many of us, so much
stuff to do and so much information. That's why we've been moving towards
increasingly democratic societies and organizations for the past several
hundred years, and the trend will only accelerate.

Questioning authority usually stopped the whole organization, and people
couldn't move forward unless they found a consensus. Today it's easier to
question/review/change authority without having to stop everything - it's like
it's a separate module instead of a core piece, but obviously, that doesn't
sit well for those whose authority is questioned, hence the struggle against
anti-authoritarians...

------
cdcox
This is mostly inaccurate. He starts by cherry picking his definition of ODD
describing it as “a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior
without the more serious violations of the basic rights of others that are
seen in conduct disorder" and "often actively defies or refuses to comply with
adult requests or rule". This is ridiculous, and leaves out a half a dozen or
so other symptoms including

"Have temper tantrums Be argumentative with adults Refuse to comply with adult
requests or rules Annoy other people deliberately Blames others for mistakes
or misbehavior Acts touchy and is easily annoyed Feel anger and resentment Be
spiteful or vindictive Act aggressively toward peers Have difficulty
maintaining friendships Have academic problems Feel a lack of self-esteem"

Those aren't authority problems, those are major social issues that must
persist for greater than 6 months and make the home or school environment
hostile. Also, he acts like all psychologists and psychiatrists do is
prescribe medicine. This is silly, most psychiatrists and all psychologists
would advocate combined therapy or behavioral therapy to help them with parent
child interaction and problem solving skills. These authoritarian behavioral
treatments include things like "Recognize and praise your child's positive
behaviors, offer acceptable choices to your child, giving him or her a certain
amount of control." ODD should NEVER get a drug prescription except in the
case of comorbitity. Read more here:
[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/oppositional-defiant-
disord...](http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/oppositional-defiant-disorder/)

ADD and ADHD are over-diagnosed and ODD might also be, but there are people
who legitimately suffer from major crushing behavioral deficits which can make
properly learning difficult. Sloppy historical analogy with 'famous people
would totally be ADD' is a terrible marginalization of this disorder and it's
sufferers.

Also, lots of people are mentioning the Rosenhan experiment and claiming that
psychology hasn't changed at all since then. This is largely inaccurate. I
would direct them to this askscience thread
[http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/orf88/how_has_ps...](http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/orf88/how_has_psychiatry_changed_since_the_rosenhan)
about changes that have occurred including the rise of counseling and patient
bill of rights.

------
jfoldi
I'm no psychologist but I hope to see those in that profession read this
article. I've noticed that many are quick to label a patient mentally ill and
prescribe medication. The brain is one of the most misunderstood organs in the
human body. While the drugs help some, the profession is far from ready to
alter brain chemistry.

------
blisper
Non-conformance, and non-compliance against authority runs the risk of being
separated out from the pack, and being treated differently... Does this have
any relevance to the debate over ADHD - i.e. there are some that believe a
'good old-fashioned spanking' would set things right.

------
guscost
Prussian schooling is the most counterproductive and expensive ritual ever
foisted on innocent kids.

------
choros12
I'm not sure if too many people nowadays take Psychiatry and Psychology
seriously. Most problems they label as illnesses are legitimate issues people
have that need resolution not pills.

I had severe allergic reaction to shrimp. Ended up at the ER where I was
treated with Epinephrine, Prednisone and Diphenhydramine (Benadryl
administered directly to bloodstream though).

Guess what, I had serious panick attacks for another2 days. When the following
day I showed up at the ER, I was told by a Doctor who originally treated me
day before that I clearly have mental issues because this reaction shouldn't
last so long. Psychiatrist didn't even ask questions and prescribed me anti-
depressants. Obciously, anxiety diminished on its own next day. FDA.GOV
confirms that all 3 medications I was given may cause anxiety (severe) and
panick attacks. Including benadryl that does cause anxiety in me. This was
widely studied and is believed to be caused by liver enzymes. So, all in all I
had never had mentall issues before, never had issues after. But had 3 days of
panick attacks and severe anxeity causeb clearly by medication. Hey, but I'm
considered depressive, anxious now. It is in my medical records. Just amazing
how fast they are to label you and how difficult it is to clear the record.
All result of ignorance, but what can I do? Recently I went through
cholestycomy procedure outside my insurance, just because I didn't want to be
treated by medical stuff with suspicion.

I don't believe psychiatrists now at all. I mean this is some type of
witchcraft, not science for sure.

~~~
disgruntledphd2
Please note that Psychiatry and Psychology are very different fields, despite
the common associations between them. In most countries, psychologists may not
prescribe drugs, while psychiatrists, as medical doctors are allowed to do so.

Incidentally, I highly recommend reading the DSM (diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders) and figuring out which disorder you show the most
signs of. Myself, I meet all the criteria for ADHD, and if I had been born
some years later or in a different place, could easily have been diagnosed
with it.

~~~
MortenK
Self-diagnosing psychological disorders is a VERY bad idea.

~~~
disgruntledphd2
I'm not really suggesting that people self diagnose, I just thought it might
be interesting for non-professionals to read the diagnostic criteria to get a
sense of how easy it is to be diagnosed on these bases. Unfortunately, due to
the way the american insurance system works, I can't see DSM ever being rolled
back to a semblance of sanity (with pun intended)

------
CPlatypus
The true test of whether someone's really anti-authoritarian is how they
behave when they're in authority. 99% of people who use "question authority"
as an excuse for what is really anti- _social_ behavior fail this test.

~~~
Sufrostico
anti-social means that a person does not conform with what authority says.

"authority" has an opinion on religion, good manners, social interaction,
biodiversity, climate change, whales hunting, and every possible topic on
earth.

People can choose to fight the authority at any level they want on any topic
they want.

Two people can fight authority on different topics, both of them see each
other as anti-social; but both of them are anti-authority.

"Choose your weapons, your enemy has been chosen long ago, even before you
realized." -- anonymous

~~~
CPlatypus
"anti-social means that a person does not conform with what authority says."

Simply incorrect, both etymologically and logically. Authority is
hierarchical; society is peer to peer. Authority is hard power; society is
soft. When you're anti-authoritarian you're defying hierarchy and force. When
you're anti-social you're just being a jerk to your neighbors. Not the same
thing _at all_.

------
ilaksh
The reality is that political dissenters are often diagnosed with
schizophrenia if they, for example, accuse their government of crimes. Of
course governments do commit crimes, but one can only acknowledge the crimes
of someone else's government, or crimes that occurred long ago.

Even in the United States, the automatic reply to any significant claim of
criminal behavior against the US government is "bat-shit crazy conspiracy
theorist".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_i...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry>

<http://thejcl.com/pdfs/munro.pdf> The Ankang: China's Special Psychiatric
Hospitals

Governments, including the United States, project through their propaganda and
education, a false reality in which the most important state actions are
always moral and justified.

There is a type of mass pathology going on in which almost everyone ignores
facts that contradict the official reality presented by authority.

I think this is unfortunately a normal aspect of group behavior because I have
observed it even in a small technical group where the manager decided that
Windows Communication Foundation worked differently than it actually did and
everyone went along with it even though the documentation clearly stated
otherwise.

~~~
cgoddard
Your anecdotal evidence isn't very strong support. If someone had instead
stood up in the group and told the manager he was wrong, would you believe the
opposite, that not blindly following leadership was the norm?

~~~
ilaksh
I explained to the manager and the group how they were wrong about that and
got fired.

The business about it being a normal group behavior is really a side issue
though, and I'm not trying to make a scientific case.

The bigger issue is government suppression of dissent by the misuse of
psychiatry or just by suggesting theories involving criminal activities of the
government are signs of insanity.

