Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 11:45:32
In reply to assumptions and generalizations, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 11:18:58
> these are very big generalization in my opinion.
>
> >>>>Ah, they don't need to do therapy in order to diagnose. In fact, society gives them a great deal of power on the assumption that they are capable of determining someone's mental status after very, very short interactions. Clinicians testify in courts after spending only hours with a person they are hired to assess and can commit, imprison and drug someone against their will after talking to them for only minutes.
To discuss this issue, it is necessary to make some generalizations, meaning "a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class." It is impossible to discuss any large issue otherwise. I could understand your taking offense if I was making untrue statements like "all psychiatrists are abusive" but I'm not.I don't understand your objections to the above paragraph. Society does grant psychiatrists powers that are not afforded to someone in the general public. That is a generalization that is absolutely true. Their opinion holds a great deal of weight because they have been trained to assess people's mental status. So, in divorce cases, the judge will listen to a clinician's opinion about who should be granted custody, an opinion they have reached after spending only a few hours with the parent(s) because society believes that doctor has special knowledge. Or in criminal cases, the judge asks the psychiatrist's opinion about the person's ability to know right from wrong. And psychiatrists can and do commit people. Society lets them do these things because it believes psychiatrists are able to make assessments about people's mental status. My point was they testify in court and commit people after spending a very short time amount of time with patients in comparison to the years they spend with each other in training. I don't understand your objection to these points or how you view them as untrue or unfair generalizations.
> These are big assumptions in my opinion
> >>>they are completely unable to tell, which may be true, then how can they maintain that they are capable of judging their patient's mental status?”You left off the "if" This is not an assumption. It is logical problem I am struggling to comprehend. I am asking a question.
>
> “>>>When I read this I interpret you to mean that she should have researched good therapy practices and realized that wearing a dog collar was bad practice. You hold her responsible for wearing it. But she's ill and vulnerable and by the time this guy is putting a collar on her, she was so brainwashed and twisted up and trusting that she isn't really in a position to protect herself.”
>
> You have assumed I thought something which I did not.Again, it is a question. I wrote clearly "I interpret you to mean." I am asking you to clarify or correct me if I am interpreting you wrongly.
poster:toojane
thread:728702
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20070119/msgs/729052.html