Jump to content

Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enemy

[edit]

Enemy is too strong of a word. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 22:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That's a matter of opinion. It actually seems accurate to me. More importantly, it accurately reflects what the source states (the source is a New York Times article that begins "Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist whose 1961 book “The Myth of Mental Illness” questioned the legitimacy of his field and provided the intellectual grounding for generations of critics, patient advocates and antipsychiatry activists, making enemies of many fellow doctors, died Saturday at his home in Manlius, N.Y. He was 92"). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the source actually says the opposite of what the article says - not that Szasz was the the enemy of doctors, but the converse. Dlabtot (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that the book "made Szasz an enemy of many doctors". That reflects the source perfectly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term anti-psychiatrist is applied to him in the same way as the term anti-Soviet was applied to Soviet dissidents and critics of the politics of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to discredit and punish them as enemies of the people. Soviet people were very simple and perceived themselves as the true Soviets and others including Americans as anti-Soviet hostile elements. Psychiatrick (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
generations of critics, patient advocates and antipsychiatry activists, making enemies of many fellow doctors = critics, activists vs doctors ? Enemies not enemy!--G de gonjasufi (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply a falsehood to say that this source [1] supports the assertion that the book "made Szasz an enemy of many doctors". It doesn't say that, nor imply it. It says the exact opposite, as you quoted above. Dlabtot (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of that article reads, "Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist whose 1961 book “The Myth of Mental Illness” questioned the legitimacy of his field and provided the intellectual grounding for generations of critics, patient advocates and antipsychiatry activists, making enemies of many fellow doctors, died Saturday at his home in Manlius, N.Y." So, no, it is not a "simple falsehood" to say that the source supports the claim that The Myth of Mental Illness made Szasz an enemy of many doctors - it's a simple truth. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's plain English, it says quite clearly that many doctors were his enemy, it does not say that he was the enemy of many doctors which is what you insist on putting the article. Why you can't understand this simple distinction is a mystery to me. I guess I'll have to start a Request for Comment. Dlabtot (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you do not understand how the English language works. If someone "makes enemies of many fellow doctors", which is what the source states, then of course that means that they were his enemies just as he was their enemy. If you make an enemy of someone, that means that you are their enemy just as they are your enemy.
NB, no, the article does not say quite clearly that "many doctors were his enemy" - those words are your invention and do not appear in the source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. You may hate me - that does not imply or infer that I hate you. Your inability to understand this is hard for me to grasp. But life is a journey towards understanding. Dlabtot (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most people who understand English realize that if someone is said to have made an enemy of someone else, that means that each person is the other person's enemy. It's a simple point, and everything you've said in response has been totally irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: characterization of Thomas Szasz

[edit]
Closing RfC as there seems to be full agreement not to use this wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article say that he was the 'enemy of many doctors' or the converse? Dlabtot (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
We could say, "alienated the alienists"! EEng 05:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be stupid. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But amusingly alliterative. EEng 05:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peradventure even alleviative of my innate agelastasia. JonRichfield (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For longer-lasting relief, try our time-release formulation [2]. (Notr: not effective in all subjects.) EEng 08:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make comments that have no relation to improving the article. I welcome any actual suggestions on improving the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither, for reasons explained at length below. Maproom (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the article has been changed since the poorly worded RfC began, I don't know what you're objecting to, Maproom, or how you think the article should be changed. Would you mind clarifying? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I was responding to a bot-generated invitation to the RfC. I try to respond to as many of those as I can – perhaps that's a mistake. I have already complained, here, about a process which invites me to RfCs when they're already a fortnight old. Maproom (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      FKC, the RfC is not couched in terms of what the article currently says, but rather asks "should the article say..."? It therefore makes complete sense for invitees to answer the question asked. Your continued berating of everyone who comes here, in good faith, to answer the question asked, is most distasteful. EEng 22:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      That comment appears to be little more than an attempt to carry on a personal dispute with me. I know a poorly worded request for comment when I see one. The actual wording of the question is not "should the article say..."? but, "Should the article say that he was the 'enemy of many doctors' or the converse?" Since it was placed because of wording in the lead that has now been removed, I have of course no idea what people think they are achieving when they respond to the RfC - that is up to them to explain. I do not think most people would regard a request that they explain clearly how they think the article should read as "distasteful". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was an attempt to reassure someone you're berating that he/she hasn't done anything wrong, and to help you see that your dealings with every single person who has innocently come to this page, by invitation, to answer a reasonable question, have been wrongheaded and counterproductive. I don't know how to terminate an RfC, but I'm sure Iridescent does. EEng 04:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not berate Maproom. I requested that Maproom explain what he objected to in the current wording of the article, and how, in his view, the article should read. The request was reasonable, and it stands. Perhaps you should consider that Maproom can speak for himself and does not need you to speak for him? As for the RfC, it's hardly "reasonable" when it is as poorly worded and ambiguous as it is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I apologize. I confused your response to Maproom with your berating of everyone else. Iridescent, please abort this RfC, since its outcome is clear as the driven SNOW. EEng 05:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is irrelevant and it hardly matters whether it is closed now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FreeKnowledgeCreator asked me a civil question, and I answered it. I never felt berated. However, if there is now consensus that the RfC is irrelevant, can someone please close it? That will save other editors who may yet be sent here by the bot from considering and responding to the request. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriate that I close this, given the circumstances, as it just means anyone in future can scream "invalid close!" and reopen it at any time. If all five participants concur,, just slap {{atop}} and {{abot}} templates around it; otherwise, post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, someone should be along shortly. ‑ Iridescent 17:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

[edit]

What a tedious waste of other editors' time and energy to start a request for comment over this minor issue. The RfC does not even pose the issue neutrally or accurately, so it's totally confusing and destructive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is duly noted. Dlabtot (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The posed question, " Should the article say that he was the 'enemy of many doctors' or the converse? ", does not accurately reflect the issue at stake, and the RfC is invalid for that reason alone. Can't you even write a neutrally worded and accurate question? The wording currently used in the lead is, "It received much publicity when it was published, and has become a classic, but also made Szasz an enemy of many doctors", and your wrongly posed RfC question does not convey that.
No one should reply to a wrongly posed RfC question. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the source is: "Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist whose 1961 book “The Myth of Mental Illness” questioned the legitimacy of his field and provided the intellectual grounding for generations of critics, patient advocates and antipsychiatry activists, making enemies of many fellow doctors, died Saturday at his home in Manlius, N.Y. He was 92." [3] Dlabtot (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We already know what the article used as a source states. What point are you trying to prove by quoting that text again? It doesn't show that the RfC question is appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your opinion clear. At length and ad nauseum. Are you now willing to listen to the opinion of other editors? Dlabtot (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding my No position: Per WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD stating 'enemy of many doctors' in the lead based on 1 NY Times article is not an accurate summary of the points of view in the article. Also the word "enemy" seems overdramatic and exagerated to me. FYI, The article in https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reality-play/201209/revisiting-the-myth-mental-illness-and-thomas-szasz uses the phrase "His central view that mental illness is a myth has been dismissed" seems a better statement and summary.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, CuriousMind01, but if you look at the lead you will note that it does not presently state that Szasz was an "enemy of many doctors". What it actually states is that The Myth of Mental Illness "made Szasz an enemy of many doctors". So you are objecting to a wording that is not in the lead. I realize it may seem a minor distinction, but it is a distinction. Your "no" is in response to a wrongly posed question. Notwithstanding your misrepresentation of the current wording of the lead, and misguided response to a poorly-posed RfC question, I agree that it may be an improvement to remove the "enemy" language entirely and replace it with something else, maybe the language you suggest above, if the source is reliable. I should note, however, that the language you suggest as a replacement comes from a paragraph discussing the fate of Szasz's views as a whole and isn't specifically about The Myth of Mental Illness. Something focused more specifically on the book would be preferable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to the RFC as worded.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your response makes no sense, even in terms of the incorrectly posed question. "No" makes no sense as an answer to, "Should the article say that he was the 'enemy of many doctors' or the converse?" Would you care to deal with any of the more substantive issues? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, simple, clear English is somehow not being understood. Why, I don't know. CuriousMind01 simply stated that the article should not say that he was the 'enemy of many doctors' and that it should not say the converse. And he explained why he thinks that. This is not complicated. Dlabtot (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain this in even more starkly simple terms. If someone is asked "Do you want an orange or a pickle?", and they answer "no", it means they don't want an orange or a pickle. Do you understand now? Dlabtot (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And even more simplified: The question "A or B?" has four possible answers:
1. A
2. B
3. Both
4. Neither
    CuriousMind01 has answered (4). Do you understand? Dlabtot (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was started because a user objected to the fact that the lead stated that, because of The Myth of Mental Illness, Szasz "made enemies of many fellow doctors". That language has now been removed. Hence, it is unclear what people who say "no" in the RfC are actually objecting to or how they think the article should be changed. They need to explain themselves properly, rather than give single word answers to poorly-posed questions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong reject-I don't find any (even the flimsiest) of rationales behind using the converse of the presently written statement.In my opinion, the converse statement will be a poor try at ushering general sympathy for the subject, painting him as a victim.(Maybe the sentence would have been apt if the recent decade-long advances in the field had come to support his views and that originally he was subject to a lot of unfair criticism.)Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 17:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the entire exclusion of the statement per CuriousMind01.It gives an overblown exaggerated look.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 17:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the wordings of the RFC being vague,incorrectly posed etc., it is better to not push it down the throat repetitively, commenting here and there.Some things are better said once.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 17:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to look at the article lately? The "enemy" language isn't used in the lead any more. What, then, are you trying to accomplish by participating in the RfC? As I said, it's pointless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article should mention the main reason and point of the book which is why Dr. Szasz declared mental illness is a myth, and also should follow his Wikipedia page.

[edit]

This article does not mention the main, simple, and brief point of the book which is why Dr. Szasz thought mental illness is myth. The main point of the book is that true medicine is about physical diseases and that in order there for there to be a disease there has to be a physical abnormality causing the disease, and that there is no physical abnormality causing mental illness, therefore mental illness is a myth. Also, the “Thomas Szasz” Wikipedia makes this point, and so this article should follow his Wiki because obviously this is his book. Dr. Szasz said that mental illness was not classified as a medical disease until medicine wrongfully classified it as a disease just by declaration without out any proper medical basis of a physical abnormality. Dr. Szasz is still correct all of these years later despite brain scans and promises of finding the physical abnormality causing mental illness, but none has been found and never will be. As an aside there are some physical conditions that cause “mental illness” like starvation, dehydration, sensory deprivation, but that doesn’t change the point that so called mental illnesses are by and large mythical medical diseases. [1]Arthursturges (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the thrust of Szasz's thesis, however, I think the article makes the point. If you think it can be improved I would encourage you to be bold and edit the article as you see fit. see WP:BRD Dlabtot (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Myth of Mental Illness Book

Game theory reference

[edit]

Game theory — for Szasz, mental illness is best understood through the lens of game theory — could we have a source, since I've been unable to find it? 37.252.89.42 (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness&oldid=1213703954"