Venting Yet another argument against psychotherapy, pro-therapy culture, and psychiatry!

[TAW122]

I have just thought of another strong argument against our pro-therapy culture (which of course, is still prevalent in modern day today, in the year 2026 and will be prevalent in the future as well). In the past, even though I have written many arguments stating my position, including a megathread (linked here) as well other threads (#1, #2, and #3), I decided to solely focus on this particular argument in this thread.

So my argument is that there is in addition to such suggestions or claims being inane and often dismissive as well as the fact that such claims are "unfalsifiable", it not based on objective criteria, but rather subjective criteria, meaning that anything that deviates from society or something that someone "subjectively" finds wild, or irrational, doesn't agree with their values or so, they automatically slap the label or use that line there. Then there is the issue of paternalism, when the State, various institutions, and/or authority figures decide to take action, in the name of welfare/goodness, in other words, they acting like they know what is best for the individual(s), that is crossing into the realm of tyranny (but I'll hold off on that point for now..).

For example, when it comes to a bruise or cut, it is observable and demonstrable, such as there is actual real objective evidence to suggest that someone is injured in some manner (a wound is observable), whereas someone's belief or criteria is subjective (hence religion and such). However, when it comes to certain positions or thoughts that are either unpopular or not well received, the person presenting such thoughts are dismissed, downplayed, and even pushed to seek "help" (which in this case, means psychiatric help), rather than being reasoned with or acknowledge. It's as if their thoughts, opinions, or arguments aren't worth any weight or consideration, their credibility and position discredited and being declare unable to reason, which is a heavy indictment of their civil rights and competence.

If people are going to use "subjective" labels that the collective masses deem objective (even though it isn't), but rather a set of arbitrary rules and values dictated by people, not grounded in scientific, objective, facts, and then impose those onto others, then they should be okay with others also using what others' believe to be objective and right, then imposing that onto other people, which of course, if we ask anyone else, they are NOT okay with such impositions! Nor are they okay with the State (government) dictating how they would live their daily lives! Imagine the state telling them what they can eat, wear, or so, or even meddling into their personal health (e.g. a Bariatric unit, task force that polices people's calorie intake, their daily exercise routine, how much they spend exercising, etc., and more, then people would lose their minds and protests would line the streets!). Of course, when the day those things become commonplace or even accepted, only then, would it make logical sense to accept the "subjective" values of pro-psychotherapy rhetoric.

As a disclaimer, I want to say that no, I don't support the State in interfering with our daily lives, nor do I endorse others' from imposing their values onto any individual, nor I myself! This is just an educational, intellectual exercise where I express my argument and defend my position.

 

[Tobacco]

Physicists Have Annual Committee Meeting to Decide Which Law of Physics to Change

This post is actually about psychiatry changing the DSM. Do you know that their magic book of greek myths and arbitrary distinctions now has the word science added to it? That's right, the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual is becoming the Diagnostic and Science Manual. It's sort of like a school...

sanctioned-suicide.net

I'm not necessarily anti-psychiatry but I recognize as a patient, that they are severely unprepared to deal with all these affections. It's like the stone age of mental health.

I will try to read the other threads you linked.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think what annoys me more- is the assumption that therapy and a few pills will cure everyone. The 'just talk to someone' mantra- in the assumption that that will fix everything.

As for suggesting it though- I maybe don't mind so much. If a person is obviously unhappy. If something or other is obviously preventing them from having a reasonable quality of life- it makes sense to try and improve the situation- surely? I think therapy is at least worth consideration there.

Where it does become more complex- I've found- is when assumptions are made. Take ideation itself- not everyone experiences their suicidal thoughts as intrusive. Not everyone wants to put in the work to 'recover'. Not everyone believes that even their ideal life will be worth their effort. In which case, we're not even working with the same mindset that a pro- life person has.

Maybe they would argue that that is depression or a diseased mind talking- in which case- their go- to- will again most probably be psychiatry.

There- I would absolutely agree with you. I don't think they even know enough about the brain to know whether all the brains of suicidal and suicided people are abnormal in some way. So- like you say- without proof- they shouldn't be making assumptions/ assertions. Either that all suicidal people are crazy in some way and that whatever they have- psychiatry has an adequate cure.

 

[Pluto]

 

[TAW122]

@Tobacco that's very true and I read your thread about it (I think you meant psychiatrist and psychiatry and not 'physicists' or 'physics' unless you were intentional?). Given that they keep changing the definition, this alone is evidence that it isn't a concrete science nor anything based on objectivity rather than just subjective guesswork and such.

@Forever Sleep Well said and great points. I would like to add that similar to what you have said about, existentialgoof (EG), the pro-choice activist on Reddit has cited and also taken it a step further in his argument: that such labels are based on unfalsifiable generalisations and therefore, it is a form of discrimination and prejudice against a certain group of people. Here is one of his replies in a thread:

That's just a way to be able to justify a blanket policy of restricting people's fundamental freedoms. There's no other group in society which it would be acceptable to have such sweeping restrictions on their liberties based on an unfalsifiable and unproven generalisation. If people are trying to commit suicide because they can't think for themselves, then it should be possible to demonstrate that on a case by case basis, rather than lumping everyone into one category and then legally relegating everyone within that category to the legal and moral status of a 3 year old.

In other words, what is happening to dissidents (pro-choicers) who hold their own positions (right to die on one's own terms or similar), they are being persecuted and it is under hasty, unfalsifiable prejudiced generalisations, and thus it is definitely a form of discrimination which should be condemned as such. However, because the mainstream view and values of society doesn't recognize (or refuses to rather) it as a form of discrimination, they hide under the veneer of benevolence when it is anything but benevolence, but rather undue, unwarranted paternalism.