Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Sigmund Fraud

It would be easy enough to criticize Saletan for being hopelessly out of his depth in the fields of "science, technology, and life" that his blog-column purports to cover, for being a scientific illiterate, for engaging in endless moral persnickery on questions about abortion and sexuality in which he extrapolates from his own juvenile discomforts broad social mores. But that beat is already covered in blawgonia, so let me say this instead: what columns like his prove, albeit unintentionally, is that psychology and psychiatry are total frauds, more pseudoscientific than more infamous fields like eugenics, which at least managed a pretense of consensus. The therepeutic fields are full of totally contradictory ideas and practices that are nevertheless held to have commensurable value. As a science, they lack predictability and repeatability. Any two psychologists can examine the same patient under the same conditions and draw almost diametrically opposed conclusions about diagnosis, treatment, or both.

69 comments:

Justin said...

"The therepeutic fields are full of totally contradictory ideas and practices that are nevertheless held to have commensurable value."
Unlike, say, physics. Oh, wait...

la Rana said...

Wrong two days in a row. You and the Mets grow closer.

....and on the third day he said "all that is psuedoscientific shall be called "psychology""

Aaron said...

Bombast. The truth is that most disciplines calling themselves "sciences" are making an essentially metaphorical appeal to physics or genomics in the effort to score grants from state and private funding sources. This includes a range of medical disciplines, especially once you get out of the tertiary-care environment where environmental factors are strictly controlled for (and even there things like poor hand-washing can really fuck shit up). Why do you think it's so hard to deliver health care in Africa?

Mental health care serves essential needs. All human societies have some equivalent. Some practitioners are good at it some bad, it seems to have little to do with the specific discipline they adhere to, granted, but ideas like "transference" are clearly helpful. Someone who's eclectic and empathetic can do as good a job as any witch doctor with a person who's stressed/distressed, which is really the point.

As for 'switching' gay people -- I don't know. Is there really only one kind of homosexuality? Given the complexity/biological antiquity of desire it seems unlikely. If there is not one kind of homosexuality, why wouldn't some "men who have sex with men" (as they say in the public health biz) be doing so for a variety of reasons? Granted no psychiatrist ought to tell people their sexuality is wrong, but if it's uncomfortable to them, doesn't seem unreasonable to help a person explore that discomfort and perhaps modify their preference--> behavior in the process. They issue would be whether the desire for realignment in sexuality was autonomous with the person seeking help.

Saletan, of course, is a moron.

IOZ said...

Someone who's eclectic and empathetic can do as good a job as any witch doctor with a person who's stressed/distressed, which is really the point.

Is this meant to be a counterargument to the proposition that psychology as an academized, credentialed, semi-medical discipline is a fraud?

Anonymous said...

What was it Uncle Kurt wrote about those two noble professions?
Something about how they tell clever lies to keep us well-programmed?

Of course, the award for the best one-liner on the subject has to go to Sam Goldwyn; the Yogi Berra of his generation.

Prof. Obvious

A Different Matt said...

Medicine in general has a pseudoscience-y feel because patient's subjective symptoms are treated by a (largely) service-oriented industry. Just because a headache might be treated with xrays, ct's, mri's, pain meds, or none of the above doesn't invalidate the practice of medicine, just like just because a psychiatrist attempts to "treat" homosexuality doesn't repudiate psychiatry.

You wrote a really smart post that I think is more relevant here in explaining medicine and the mental health industry's failings: the post about LeeSiegel. Just as some intellectuals try to conceptualize literal statements describing how the world works, so to do some practitioners miss-apply theory to practice.

Dishonestly or incompetently applying Ritalin to any hyperactive personality, or lithium to treat mood swings doesn't mean the underlying science of ADD/bi-polar disorder is bunk. It means slapping a specific treatment to general symptoms shows a problem with practical applications.

Psychology has it's limitations (it's not my place to call it a fraud), but psychiatry's a real science, right? Granted, one under commercial influence and susceptible to human flaws/limitations in practice, but that's no reason to dismiss the discipline entirely. I mean, mechanical engineering can only reveal so many truths...

Anonymous said...

What was it Uncle Kurt wrote about those two noble professions?
Something about how they tell clever lies to keep us well-programmed?

Of course, the award for the best one-liner on the subject has to go to Sam Goldwyn; the Yogi Berra of his generation.

Prof. Obvious

thepudgiereport said...

Yes, maybe we should ban fiction too, also full of contradictory ideas that are held to have commensurable value.

Seriously, I get that it's not a "science" but that doesn't make the field inutile.

This is a semiotic version of don't hate the playa, hate the game, where playa is therapy and game is language.

I thought you and Risky Biz were better than that.

Mr.Fundamental said...

oh, and here I thought Monsieur was going to argue that the field is more of an art.

dveej said...

IOZ, dude, I luv ya, but "...psychology and psychiatry are total frauds..."????

Look a parent of a schizophrenic child in the eye and say that. I dare ya.

No, their need for comfort and stability and an authority figure to steer them through the hell they are going through is not of itself proof of the efficacy of the science. I would submit that if you were a parent of such a child, you would want someone to consult with who had a degree in psych*y. N'est-ce pas?

Justin said...

Really and respectfully, IOZ.

What field of inquiry does not have contradictory ideas, theories, and the ability to get multiple answers from the same data set? Or hucksters who use the science to lend credibility to their crackpottery (i.e. eugenics.)

This is why we have specialists in fields, for example the rules of quantam mechanics don't apply to objects with mass past the atomic level, economics, high-level mathematics, etc. To take my first example, physics, we a different systems to describe events at the atomic level and another for larger bodies, these laws do not crossover (in other words, they give divergent results from the same data set.)

Every model we create to explain the real world is by definition limited and incomplete, otherwise it would be the real world. We continue to create better models and improve on the existing ones, and often we end up with competing models that predict different outcomes, both of which may prove more or less accurate in different circumstances. Sometimes this does not get resolved until a better model is created, hence the string theories and search for the unified model in physics.

Why would psychology be any different than every other science/study?

Of Saletan, we can agree. I am particularly fond of his personal experience with people who have struggled with their sexuality, deviated for a time, and regressed back followed by his remark that at the margins, he has seen people change their orientation.

Justin said...

"regressed" - an unfortunate word choice.

la Rana said...

"the proposition that psychology as an academized, credentialed, semi-medical discipline is a fraud" is a non sequitor. walk out your argument. All the standards you claim psychology does not meet are either arbitrary, not met by many fields of study, or are actually met by most psychology that you evidently are not aware of. As Justin ably pointed out, you are doing the equivalent of declaring physics not science because string theory doesn't make sense.

"The complexity of the human mind does not lend itself to simple scientific understanding" is your argument, and its a valid one. Unfortunately, that argument applies to many fields of study, so, uh, blawg.

IOZ said...

A nerve, a nerve:

"The complexity of the human mind does not lend itself to simple scientific understanding"

The human mind does lend itself to scientific understanding. But this was not a post about behavioral neuroscience.

And if any of you reading this have a schizophrenic child: you can read the above post and consider it said to your face.

String theory has testable hypotheses, yo. Quantum physics is incomplete but not incoherent. CERN, etc. I mean, the Pauli exclusion principle describes actual physical properties. It may be counterintuitive if you quit paying attention after Newtonian mechanics in 9th grade, but it makes sense.

Meanwhile, schizophrenia, to take the example, is a word describing the symptoms of schizophrenia, ad inf.

Aaron said...

Is this meant to be a counterargument to the proposition that psychology as an academized, credentialed, semi-medical discipline is a fraud?

No, silly, it's meant to be a counter-argument to the proposition that psychology's academized, credentialed, semi-medical disciplary pretensions are relevant to the question of whether it is valuable. And of course it follows an argument that most if not all medical specialties are similarly "fraudulent," which seems to be the consensus reaction to your little stink bomb.

Aaron said...

Is this meant to be a counterargument to the proposition that psychology as an academized, credentialed, semi-medical discipline is a fraud?

No, silly, it's meant to be a counter-argument to the proposition that psychology's academized, credentialed, semi-medical disciplary pretensions are relevant to the question of whether it is valuable. And of course it follows an argument that most if not all medical specialties are similarly "fraudulent," which seems to be the consensus reaction to your little stink bomb.

la Rana said...

Which string theory is that one? And what does testable mean?

And no, physics does not make sense. Some modern physics cannot be experientially tested at all, but relies on mathematical proof. Special and general relatively can be imagined, but to call them intuitive is to misuse the word. And quantum mechanics? Please. You explain how spin "makes sense" and I'll let you slide on this psychology nonsense.

"The human mind does lend itself to scientific understanding" is another non sequitor to add to your collection. Sez who? On the basis of what? The human mind, like everything else we can observe, is amenable to study and comprehensive understanding. We have developed a few approaches, some of which study biological processes and some of which study behavior. Psychology has fewer testable hypotheses than most "sciences," but if you think its not dominated by testable, repeatable studies and hypotheses then I must recommend you extend your understanding of psychology beyond the outpatient setting.

Mr.Fundamental said...

math is a pagan cult. ftw!

IOZ said...

General relativity can be observed by any amateur astronomer with the patience to wait for an eclipse. Meanwhile, what about spin doesn't make sense? Subatomic particles have intrinsic angular momentum. It's a physical property. It's subject to empirical verification. Shit, ever had an MRI?

fish said...

As with most disciplines in medicine, there are researchers and there are practitioners. Psychology, including Clinical Psychology you are referring to here, can have testable hypotheses, rigorous experimental conditions, and sound conclusions.
There are also jacknut Freudian wannabes obsessed with sticking their penises into their mothers, who charge rich assholes exorbitant fees to not help them. Not the same thing by a long shot.

Anonymous said...

“…that psychology and psychiatry are total frauds, more pseudoscientific than more infamous fields like eugenics,…”
100 years ago every burg on the planet had a warehouse for the “demon-possessed”, ie people with mental illness. Today many of those suffering from the exact same “demon possession” are able to lead perfectly happy, productive lives by taking medications prescribed to them by….charlatans? Witch doctors? Quacks?
IOZ, as a general rule of thumb, when you find yourself in total agreement with Tom Cruise, it may be time to rethink your position.

Solar Hero said...

OK, let me try:

Therapeutic psychology is normative. This forever excludes it from the empirical science that IOZ is talking about.

Many great artists and writers had "psychological" issues, that modern day therapy would drive out with drugs. Now according to many of these writers and artists own words, to not do their art would be the greatest crime. Are you comfortable telling the next Proust just to get on some meds?

Solar Hero said...

AND ANOTHER THING:

Incommensurable or inconsistent theories in science leads to RESEARCH; the same in psychology just makes different "schools" of psychology.

IOZ said...

IOZ, as a general rule of thumb, when you find yourself in total agreement with Tom Cruise, it may be time to rethink your position.

You're just saying that because you have not reached a sufficient Operating Thetan level.

Justin said...

Ioz, my point about competing theories in physics that make different predictions which are taken to be more or less accurate depending on the scale of bodies studied is not that they cannot be tested, but that they are different and contradictory, as per your criticism of psychology.

I chose physics because it is a gold standard of science.

To walk back to pscychology and the more closely related medical fields... you are right that at some level it is describing symptoms rather than underlying causes, but so does all other medical research. Take a ubiquitous categorization for medical studies - age.

Age is used as an independant variable in cancer research, for example. Well, Ok, but what are we describing? Cancer happens at the cellular level, meaning that a 50 year old does not have any 50 year old cells in his/her body. They just have 50 years of accumulated cellular divisions, but we are still not describing what is going on. Age is a description of a symptom of accumulated cellular divisions over time, but we still don't know what is going on well enough to predict why things go haywire sometimes and how to prevent that from happening, yo.

cb said...

String theory has testable hypotheses, yo
Not according to any of it that I've ever encountered. Could you name one?

la Rana said...

Curvature of space, relativity of time, and 1/2 spin can all be measured, but to the extent that "makes sense" is extricable from "mathematically proven", I don't know how you can maintain that because I can observe light proceeding on a nonlinear axis or measure the spin of a particle, the curvature of the dimensions I inhabit or the fact that a spin-1/2particle must rotate 720 degrees to return it to its original state, "makes sense."

But we're off track here. The point is that psychology, like physics and every other science, is yet to explain everything within its purview. As always, the application of what we do understand to what we don't is often messy and frought with error. Such is life.

I agree that clinical psychologists can seem to be making it up as they go along, but to suggest that psychology is just made up and untethered to empiricism is to crow ignorance.

cb said...

Upon reflection, I see what you did there. Nice.

Anonymous said...

IOZ said: “You're just saying that because you have not reached a sufficient Operating Thetan level.”
True, but I am a 33rd degree Mason.
Solar Hero said: “Many great artists and writers had "psychological" issues, that modern day therapy would drive out with drugs.”
As much as the art work of Vincent Van Gogh has contributed to the lives of millions, I will state unequivocally that Van Gogh would have been much better off living a life in which cutting off his fucking ear didn’t seem a reasonable option.
Stop romanticizing severe mental illness.

la Rana said...

Cutting my ear off seems like a reasonable option.

Anonymous said...

la Rana: Go for it.

Justin said...

"As much as the art work of Vincent Van Gogh has contributed to the lives of millions, I will state unequivocally that Van Gogh would have been much better off living a life in which cutting off his fucking ear didn’t seem a reasonable option."

I don't know if there is a literal connection between his mental issues and his artistic genius, but since that link is so often made (and if there is a link, or correlation, then what science can explain the underlying connection rather than simply say yay or nay on its existence? I digress...) then let's assume that the answer is yes.

Let's speculate further that at some point someone came to Van Gogh and offered a pill that would make him sane, but rob him of his artistic vision and drive, what do you suppose his answer would have been? What life would have have chosen, i.e. what would have been a more fulfilling life for him? (Someone may know the answer this to this question with enough knowledge about how he viewed his stay at a mental institute.)

Or what of Dali and his paranoiac visions? I feel certain that he would have chosen his illness and life's work over a pill.

Or Newton...

and so on...

I will state unequivocally that one or more of these afflicted geniuses would have valued their lives of genius and illness over a more mundane life.

Solar Hero said...

"Stop romanticizing mental illness!"

You freaking idiot, stop romanticizing "sanity!" Have you looked around? Has 100 years of psychotherapy made this place any less crazy?

la Rana said...

Anon: a deal. I'll stop romanticizing mental illness as soon as you define it. triple dog dare ya.

Aaron said...

Mental or physical, losing one's ear seems like a serious medical problem any way you slice it.

Anonymous said...

The things people think they know are in far greater quantity than the things they actually know. As is often the case, IOZ's wit exceeds his grasp. He read some stuff some where and made some smart-sounding conclusions. Big fucking deal.

IOZ said...

A thread full of people trying to justify all those therapy bills. Sunk costs, bitches.

Justin said...

Havent spent a penny on any of it, Ioz...
calmer than you.

Cüneyt said...

This is funny, because the thing I heard most consistently in my mental health training is precisely that it's not an exact science. At least as far as counseling, it is an art, a practice. And no theory will save you: understanding your texts are fantastic for passing the tests, but they don't provide you with the answer to everyone you meet.

So I guess this is kind of a concession. IOZ makes a few good points. But he does not really destroy what he seeks to criticize. Psychology in all its guises has destroyed itself before. Odds are it will be destroyed again. So much has yet to be discovered. It's a very flawed field. No wonder there are over 500 schools, and as many have been discredited.

That said, if anyone thinks that mental health professionals haven't been made to justify their existence, they are probably being hasty. We can debate the functionality of managed care, but mental health professionals are pushed to prove their worth and their efficacy. Of course, I'm willing to believe that it's all mass hypnosis.

I'd also add that treatment of substance abuse is a wonderful example of a service which isn't scientific and can't be standardized. There's no such treatment that's a sure bet. Recidivism is frequent, no matter what mode of treatment. Does that mean it's useless? We might say more or less useful, but I'm not convinced we should chuck the whole field. Then again, I'm biased.

Keifus said...

Sounds like your NPD is acting up, dude. (http://www.slate.com/id/2213740/). Must be something in the water this week.

I'd call relativity weird, the idea of spin intuitive if you get electrons and magnetism, and Saletan, of course, a tool. (Not that it matters.)

Bolo said...

Uh, I'm married to a psychologist who does experiments that are repeatable and which allow prediction. She uses the scientific method to set up experiments, then uses rigorous statistical methods to analyze her data. The results of her experiments and of others in her area are used by businesses and the government to understand human cognition and design interfaces, feedback, etc.

In other words, she gets real results that are verifiable, repeatable, and which actually work based on psychological theory.

"String theory has testable hypotheses, yo."

Yes, it does. However, to the best of my knowledge (1) those that have been tested are not new and (2) those that would be new cannot be tested without some serious equipment that we cannot manufacture. So, string theory is still just a wonderful collection of untestable models for people to make careers out of.

"Quantum physics is incomplete but not incoherent."

Well, coherent systems are generally of more interest in quantum mechanics anyway (zing!).

But seriously: We still have to use the magical "and now the wave function collapses under observation" trick to get much out of quantum physics. Is it decoherence? Or is it just an artifact of some deeper process we don't understand? And there are still many competing points of view on what's happening underneath it all. I had a professor in grad. school tell me that wave functions collapse only when a human being observes a system. Meanwhile I hear other physicists say that its the Many Worlds theory, or that its just the plain Copenhagen interpretation. They are all doing great research in a field that has a great deal of disagreement on fundamental issues.

"I mean, the Pauli exclusion principle describes actual physical properties. It may be counterintuitive if you quit paying attention after Newtonian mechanics in 9th grade, but it makes sense."

Yeah, and did you know that human reaction times have a very particular lower limit? Or that people tend to coordinate their breathing and motion in particular numerical ratios when doing work? Or that human motor skills act in certain patterns that can be analyzed and learned from? All of this (and much, much more) from psychologists doing research that has real impacts and applications.

Anonymous said...

Oh man you have no idea how suspended my judgment is on this topic.

so suspended.

Anonymous said...

I think the part of IOZ's post that maybe preempts some of the criticisms is when he says "the therepeutic (sic) fields"; as in, he's not talking about the clinical research into human reaction times, and all that. Even the successes of therapy, as noted by a previous anonymous (the comment about how all those people who would previously have been considered possessed by demons now can live relatively normal lives) depend heavily on the clinical research part. The problem with psychiatry isn't just that there is no consensus on the philosophical underpinnings of various methods of treatment, it's that there's no consensus on which treatments work.
So, I think the real argument here is about psychology/psychiatry as therapy. Which I think is a far more defensible point.

Also, Bolo:
I think there is a distinction between the different interpretations of QM and the different schools of psychiatry. Many worlds, Copenhagen, Bohm's pilot-wave, and all the others agree on probably as many fundamental issues as they disagree. It doesn't matter which view you hold, almost all calculations will yield the same results. The same is not true of psychiatry; different schools might advocate wildly different approaches.

Anonymous said...

Ummm...somehow "The problem with psychiatry isn't just that there is no consensus on the philosophical underpinnings of various methods of treatment, it's that there's no consensus on which treatments work" ended up misplaced in my comment. It should be at the end of my response to Bolo. Not where it is. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

I'm still trying to figure out what 'inutile' means.

Christopher M. said...

So IOZ went to a shrink years ago and it didn't really work out and now he feels ripped off. Sorry, man, shit happens. I went to a dentist once who nearly got my gums infected, but I don't think the entire notion of dental hygiene is a fraud.

IOZ said...

Don't stop now!

la Rana said...

Calmer than you are.

fish said...

meaning that a 50 year old does not have any 50 year old cells in his/her body

Um, yes they do. In fact, most of the cells...

Anonymous said...

Solar Hero said... You freaking idiot, stop romanticizing "sanity!" Have you looked around? Has 100 years of psychotherapy made this place any less crazy?
Gosh, what an insight. Put down your copy of Cuckoos Nest and no one gets hurt.
la Rana said... “Anon: a deal. I'll stop romanticizing mental illness as soon as you define it. triple dog dare ya.”
Mental illness is cutting off your ear because the voices told you to.

Justin said...

"Um, yes they do. In fact, most of the cells..." go through a cellular lifecycle where they replicate themselves and die. It's called mitosis, use the google.

krausmc said...

The human mind, emotion and motivations are too complicated to put into a neat little bucket wrapped up in a bow. Does not work that way. The relationship between patient and therapist is the biggest predictor of success in a therapeutic situation. So its the theories that are conflicted, not the practice itself.

fish said...

No Justin, after a certain point, most cells hit a terminal cell division and stay that way. Only a relatively small number of cells continually divide (like bone marrow) and a slightly larger number can divide if they need to after injury (basically most stem cells). This is the minority of cells in your body (admittedly a very important minority). Many of the cells in your body are as old as you are, most cells are as old as you are after you stopped growing. Nerves and heart never turnover. This is why chemotherapy works. It kills actively dividing cells.

Perhaps you are not using teh google correctly...

Solar Hero said...

Also, nobody's made the observation that psychotherapy rose along with the decline of religion.

Chopping off your ear because the voices told you to: insane

Joining the military because your society says its noble: sane

We could keep going with these things. My brothers in Iraq and Afghanistan are just as likely (probably more likely) to get something chopped or blown off as a 19 year old schizophrenic, so what's the diff?

bill said...

Everybody's got too much time around here. I'll just say that, having been involved with expert witnesses in a fairly wide range of cases -- capital to contract -- any lawyer will tell you the shrinks is the easiest to work with. They get right away what testimony you need. That doesn't mean QM is inutile, necessarily, but at least I haven't spent any money on therapy!

Justin said...

Fish, not sure what your point is since I discussed the issue of age in the context of cancer. I guess we could argue the meaning of "most", me taking up blood, bone marrow, muscle, skin and you going for the nerve/brain/internal organs. Whatevah

Anonymous said...

Solar Hero: Join me in DC some day so we can watch all those people who are just as “sane” as anyone else debate the invisible demons while wearing shit-stained clothes. Hard to get your laundry done when you live beside a dumpster in an alley. That whole “there is no such thing as insane” line of thinking certainly has done wonders for mankind.
How I hope you are 16 years old. If past the legal drinking age there is no hope for you whatever.
Bet you thought the Matrix trilogy was some deep philosophizing.

IOZ said...

That whole “there is no such thing as insane” line of thinking certainly has done wonders for mankind.

What's this got to do with closing down the asylums? Also, Foucault.

Anonymous said...

The drive to close institutions – and here I talk only of the US – was lead by a combination of – hell, for want of better terms lets take the easy modern labels - conservatives and liberals. The conservatives wanted to limit government spending and cut outlays. The liberals claimed – as many commenters’ here do – that there is no such thing as sane or insane and that government used institutions to lock up people for the crime of not being sufficiently pliable. Of course there is some truth to those liberal concerns. Some.
The result? Skyrocketing rates of homelessness and incarceration.
If you’ve ever spent 30 seconds in the presence of a truly schizophrenic individual you would find it difficult to ever be so dismissive about mental illness again.
As for Madness and Civilization, I have no idea how you get from that to “psychology and psychiatry are total frauds”
Biology has been used to “prove” people of African descent or women or Jews or Eastern Europeans are inferior or superior, smarter or dumber, more emotional or less emotional. So therefore biology is a total fraud?
Look, I’m not arguing that an awful lot of what goes on under the heading “psychology and psychiatry” is no more valid then phrenology. However, dismissing it all as 100% quackery is no more defensible a position then claiming its all good.

IOZ said...

Who's dismissive of mental illness? If I wrote a post denouncing the chiropractic, would you accuse me of disbelieving slipped disks? It was a good attempt at outrage, though.

paul from the clue-by-four said...

That's crazy. That's nothing but a racket for the Jews.

Aaron said...

Has Foucault done wonders for mankind? Don't think that's what he was aiming for.

la Rana said...

I am being dismissive, to the extent Anon thinks the "mental illness" + anecdote = anything close to an explanation or understanding of the issues involved. I repeat my offer.

IOZ said...

Don't stop now!

Mike said...

Really.
What Ioz said.
This is the greatest thread ever!

Anonymous said...

"If you’ve ever spent 30 seconds in the presence of a truly schizophrenic individual you would find it difficult to ever be so dismissive about mental illness again."
this argument really makes me angry, because my best friend was diagnosed as schizophrenic and has been in and out of institutions, and on and off of medications, for the last decade. is he insane? if you actually know the person, have known him for years, that question is almost impossible to answer.
what i can say for sure is that he would be pretty fucking agrivated if he knew some shit on the internet was trotting out the plight of The Schizophrenics in order to justify his unflinching belief in a "soft science".

Anonymous said...

Anon: a deal. I'll stop romanticizing mental illness as soon as you define it. triple dog dare ya.

Gosh, that's tough. Maybe the screamingly obvious fact that, say, a homeless schizophrenic person CAN'T FUNCTION AND CAN'T CHOOSE TO BE ANY DIFFERENT? He or she isn't just going through a struggling artist phase, can't just decide to settle down and get to work on that novel or composition.

Cüneyt said...

You know, I bet a few of you would be surprised to find out that mental health professionals have the same debate about what precisely mental illness and mental health actually are, and how you very well can't define the former without being able to define the latter.

Aaron said...

Yeah, well no one has been able to define "health" very well either. If it is a human right, how does that apply to a country like Malawi? Etcetera. These are all norms, which is to say assertions, which is to say value relations, of which is to say not end-points but discursive processes that get worked out provisionally in discussions like this one and never resolved.

But the ear-slicing motif was pretty fun.