The apparent epidemic of autism is in fact the latest instance of the fads that litter the history of psychiatry.So they are now deciding that Aspergers is not a disease or disorder after all.We have a strong urge to find labels for disturbing behaviors; naming things gives us an (often false) feeling that we control them. So, time and again, an obscure diagnosis suddenly comes out of nowhere to achieve great popularity. It seems temporarily to explain a lot of previously confusing behavior — but then suddenly and mysteriously returns to obscurity.
Not so long ago, autism was the rarest of diagnoses, occurring in fewer than one in 2,000 people. Now the rate has skyrocketed to 1 in 88 in America (and to a remarkable 1 in 38 in Korea). And there is no end in sight. ...
The apparent epidemic of autism is in fact the latest instance of the fads that litter the history of psychiatry.
We have a strong urge to find labels for disturbing behaviors; naming things gives us an (often false) feeling that we control them. So, time and again, an obscure diagnosis suddenly comes out of nowhere to achieve great popularity. It seems temporarily to explain a lot of previously confusing behavior — but then suddenly and mysteriously returns to obscurity.
Not so long ago, autism was the rarest of diagnoses, occurring in fewer than one in 2,000 people. Now the rate has skyrocketed to 1 in 88 in America (and to a remarkable 1 in 38 in Korea). And there is no end in sight. ...
Dr. Allen Frances, now a professor emeritus at Duke University’s department of psychology, chaired the DSM IV task force.
Meanwhile, California is considering a bill to outlaw certain psychotherapies:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:These are not scientific facts. What is or is not a disease/disorder depends mainly on the latest psychiatry fads. And these findings do not match what the cited sources say. The Amer. Psych. Assn. report says:(a) An individual’s sexual orientation, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual, is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming. ...
(b) Sexual orientation change efforts pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, including confusion, depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources. ...
(c) Recognizing that there is no evidence that any type of psychotherapy can change a person’s sexual orientation and that sexual orientation change efforts may cause serious and lasting harms, ...
The task force conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.It says "unlikely to be successful" but fails to mention that most psychotherapies to change behavior are unlikely to be successful.
The leading study on gay conversion found that it was successful in about half of the (non-random) sample. But some Californians would rather say that it is impossible.
After this fact-finding, the bill attempts to preserve the next generation of gay kids:
The bill is SB 1172, and it bans “psychotherapy” of under-18-year-olds “aimed at altering the sexual or romantic desires, attractions, or conduct of a person toward people of the same sex so that the desire, attraction, or conduct is eliminated or reduced or might instead be directed toward people of a different sex.” This so regardless of whether the patient or the patient’s parents want the therapy to take place.This is a gross invasion of parental rights. If I discover that my child has developed some kinky sexual interest, I ought to be able to take measures to discourage those interests.The bill also regulates such psychotherapy for adults, but the outright prohibition applies only to under-18-year-olds.
While this bill is based on false findings, nanny state thinking, and homosexual promotion, maybe it will be good for California to ban dubious psychotherapies. All of the child psychotherapies are dubious. I don't think that there is one single child psychotherapy that has been shown to work any better than the ex-gay (reparation) psychotherapy. Maybe they all ought to be banned. I would favor the banning of court-orded child psychotherapy, as I have never even heard of a documented case where it did any good.
25 comments:
You wrote: "The leading study on gay conversion found that it was successful in about half of the (non-random) sample..."
Not exactly sure how you can refer to this result as the leading study when the author subsequently renounced it:
"Spitzer renounced his own study in 2012, stating "The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more."[89]
Why is it your posts are riddled with such intellectual dishonesty in support of your whacko theories?
You are referring to the left-wing pro-gay American Prospect article that says, "Spitzer said that he was proud of having been instrumental in removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Now 80 and retired, he was afraid that the 2001 study would tarnish his legacy and perhaps hurt others."
The study is tarnishing Spitzer's legacy among leftists and gays, but it is still the leading study on the subject and Spitzer does not claim that any of it is incorrect.
I am not promoting any theories on this. I am arguing that legislative fact-finding should be based on facts, and not biased superstition from radical advocaccy groups.
So now you're going to cite Spitzer, a Jewish shrink study, when it serves your point, after you've ranted on and on about how Jewish shrinks are destroying family values, etc. ?
Robert Spitzer is not only a Jewish shrink, he was a Columbia (NY) professor and "arguably the most influential psychiatrist of the 20th century." So I do not doubt that he is an anti-family leftist who worked to destroy America.
But I cite Spitzer because I object to the California legislature making it illegal for shrinks to tell the truth to their patients or to cite Spitzer's paper. If Spitzer was wrong, the proper action is to prove that he was wrong, and not just pass a law saying that he was wrong and forbidding anyone from following what he said. And yes, I do sometimes cite research by professors who have different political views from my own.
Sure you cite reearch by prof.s who have different political views from your own....
When you disagree with them, you argue that they're wrong and not to be trusted because they are Jewish, and anti family leftists working to destroy America.
When it's convenient, and you agree with them you point out that they are correct in spite of then being Jewish anti family leftists destroying America.
And when they change their opinion, and or results materalize over time, you point to what you agree with, and slam them for their religous and or political beliefs.
everything seems to prove what you want it to prove.
You are partially right. I don't trust anti-family leftists who are working to destroy America. I also don't trust anti-Christian shrinks like Ken Perlmutter who use their court power to maliciously and vindictively punish dads and kids. And I do slam scholars when their religious and/or political beliefs override the scientific data.
I also don't trust Spitzer. He may have done a lot of bogus work, for all I know. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him. My objection is to California law saying "that there is no evidence that any type of psychotherapy can change a person’s sexual orientation", when in fact Spitzer published such evidence in 2001. The law requires California shrinks to lie to their patients.
Thank you for your honest, sincere response.
I don't trust Spitzer, Perlmutter or shrinks who's practices are not predicated on scientific data.
I still believe Perlmutter and the like, are driven by greed rather than a political agenda, but it is quite arguably a mixture, I suppose.
The courts have no place in dictating children's treatments or lack of treatment, save instances of life threatening issues, which parents ignore or neglect.
Can the courts demand that parents not permit their children to smoke or drink or abuse substances ? and if children begin to smoke and drink the parents must try to discourage or treat the behavior as best possible ? I think yes. This would be reasonable, and in the child's best interest, but this is because there is very strong scientific evidence for the court to rely on.
I think we're much more in agreement here, than disagreement. What do you think ?
P.S.
It's up to you, the parent, George to decide if an alarm clock and math competitions will stress your kids out, or is a valuable method in instilling responsibility, and promOting better academic achievment.
It's up to you, also to decide if you think it's best to promote heterosexuality.
I don't know if down the road it will serve them well or not, and they will appreciate it or resent you for it, but it's up to you as their parent to do what YOU
DECIDE IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST, NOT THE COURTS OR THE STATE.
I don't think that the family court should try to impose any rules on divorced parents unless the law also imposes them on married parents. The legislature has banned underage smoking and drinking. Maybe it will also ban certain types of child psychotherapy. If so, then the family court can expect parents to obey the law.
Spitzer...not only a Jewish shrink, he was a Columbia (NY) professor and "arguably the most influential psychiatrist of the 20th century." So I do not doubt that he is an anti-family leftist who worked to destroy America.
Are all univ. professors anti family working to destroy America ?
Are all influential psychiatrists anti family and working to destroy America ?
No, No one said that about Spitzer in 2001. Right ?
The only reason left for you to not doubt that Spitzer is anti family and working to destroy America, appears to be based on a belief that Jews are anti family, and working to destroy America. What else can be concluded ?
I did not know that Spitzer was Jewish. If it turns out that he is a pro-family, pro-American, right-winger, then I will be happily surprised. But it won't make any difference to my posted opinion about this proposed California law.
I do not even see why you are asking about what was said about Spitzer in 2001. If you have some info about Spitzer, go ahead and post it.
You know that Perlmutter is a Jew, somehow, right ? How did you know Perlmutter is a Jew ?, and why does it matter ?
As for
"And I do slam scholars when their religious and/or political beliefs override the scientific data.
What about Kevin Mcdonald ? You cite his "scientific data on Jews" and don't think his political beliefs override the scientific data ?
George, re. Mcdonald
"I know very little about his political views."
after a post quoting Mcdonald
A major theme of The Culture of Critique is that several Jewish-dominated intellectual movements developed theories in which ethnocentrism by Whites (and only Whites) was an indication of psychiatric disorder."
You keep careful track of who's Jewish, and prof.s studies and their political views.
You are suggesting that Kevin Mcdonald's political beliefs override the scientific data. I don't know whether that is true or not. I know that he has written some scholarly books and papers, and that he has made some political enemies. If there is some scholarly paper showing that he is wrong about the scientific data, then please send me the link and I will happily post it.
Kevin B. MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach ,The academic senate described his views as antisemitic and white ethnocentric.
So I do not doubt that he is anti-family who worked to destroy America.
OK, I'll accept such following statements of your's as...
1.I did not know that Spitzer was Jewish.
2.I guess I knew that Ann Landers and Dear Abby were Jewish twin sisters
3. re. MacDonald
"I know very little about his political views."
But, ...
How did you know Perlmutter is a Jew ?, and why does it matter ?
Thanks.
A California psychology professor is very unlikely to be a Republican. And indeed, MacDonald is not a Republican. So I can understand a Republican being suspicious of him.
Ken Perlmutter has a Jewish name, lives in a Jewish community, works in a Jewish profession, and has Jewish beliefs and values. It matters to me because he used his influence to prevent me from seeing my kids.
I guess I should not have accepted your statement earlier about MacDonald.
"I know very little about his political views."
Now,
"And indeed, MacDonald is not a Republican."
NO, Perlmutter is not a Jewish name. It is a German name which means "pearl"..some Perlmutters are Jewish, some are not.
NO, The vast majority of people who live in his community are NOT Jewish...Palo Alto, right ? 15,900 Jewish residents, last count.
Permutter "works in a Jewish Profession" ...
NO 71% of U.S. psycholgists are NOT Jewish ! And the list of the 100 most influential psychologists in the U.S. contains 50% more non Jews than Jews.
What did Perlmutter ever say, write, or do that reflected any Jewish values or beliefs ?
I despise Perlmutter for what he's done to your, and other families, and his influence. Really, I do.
But can you show me why you know that he's Jewish, or at least how he demonstrated Jewish values, and beliefs ?.
some christian Perlmutters
http://www.nndb.com/people/063/000122694/
Dr. David Perlmutter - Christian Broadcasting Network
I don't know who you are, or how you know so much about Perlmutter. Are you claiming the Ken Perlmutter is a Christian, or are you just being argumentative? I would be surprised if the man even has a soul.
If you have some better info than I do, or you have some theory as to why Perlmutter does what he does, then please post it. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
I know no more about Perlmutter than you do other than Perlmutter is not a Jewish name, or just might be.
Argumentative ? No, I dispise him like you and make a point of saying so.
My theory is he is a greedy whore of the family court, and if, IF he happens to be Jewish, it has nothing to do with his behavior.
What did Perlmutter ever say, write, or do that reflected any Jewish values or beliefs ?
You claim he's Jewish based on what ?
If you think he used Jewish beliefs,and or values, what did he say, write, or do that demonstrated this to you ?
thank you
Greedy whore is too good a term for the Ken Perlmutters of the world.
What did Perlmutter ever say, write, or do that reflected any Jewish values or beliefs ?
You claim he's Jewish based on what ?
If you think he used Jewish beliefs,and or values, what did he say, write, or do that demonstrated this to you ?
If I discover that my child has developed some kinky sexual interest, I ought to be able to take measures to discourage those interests.
Did your daughter make that picture with the rainbow in it ? Maybe you ought to take some measures to discourage her gay interests.
There's also some 5 point stars in it. Maybe your daughter is becoming Jewish ?
I thought that the Jews used 6-point stars. Yes, my child needs help, but I would not some stinking psychologist. I am just saying that parents should have a choice about it.
Jews use the pentagram, a 5 point "Star of David".
It's a nice picture. I doubt it's symbolic of anything consequential.
Whatever problem she may have, I hope that it's able to be addressed without any court interference.
There's a lot of horrible psychologists out there, There's also a lot of good ones, too.
In Family Court, you've run into the worst. If it's "court ordered" it's almost always bad. The court serves itself.
I don't thnk that you've had to endure anti Christian Jews, or anti famiy psychologists, just greedy court personnel, who may happen to be of certain faiths, and occupations.
Overall, your daughters are doing ok, aren't they ? You speak with them right, or no ? How are they ?
In a few years, you'll have the rest of your life to be with them without the court.
Post a Comment