• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Wessely Challenges Government to Ring-Fence Mental Health Spending

Status
Not open for further replies.

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
The idea that one can predict behaviour based on personality traits is probably a load of bullshit to begin with. Psychobabble reductionism.

The world is more complex than that. If you don't want bankers to act like psychopaths (as example) maybe fix the legal system to actually prosecute them rather than blaming personality.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
The idea that one can predict behaviour based on personality traits is probably a load of bullshit to begin with. Psychobabble reductionism.

I knew you were going to say that, based on your personality traits!
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
Less conscience you mean?
What I meant was if we "screened out" soldiers less likely to suffer PTSD it would have to rely on all the inbuilt flaws of psychiatric assessment and all the self proclaiming dogma that brings.

Invariably we would be up against old prejudices like "cowardice" etc in the process of establishing just who should be disqualified from being in the military.

Look at the issue of how many police forces have recently introduced a maximum IQ. It would seem the issue of policing and military is more about old fashioned war mongering than actual peace keeping if we are about to screen for "personality traits more likely to suffer turmoil" after being exposed to the horrors or wars, and many of them illegal.

Who made those decisions and the framework the establishments put in place would have massive problems depending on their true motives especially considering it is previously claimed that many of the "top brass of society have psychopathic tenancies".

In any case, I am not sure that you would want to recruit people with a sensitive conscience for military service. The military acts on behalf of the state, under the command of the state. Soldiers are not acting through their own will, but execute the will of state. So individual soldiers should not be carrying the burden of conscience, provided they act within the rules and laws that govern military engagements.

Without a sensitive conscience just how would they make judgments of how to act within the rules that govern military engagements and not to cover up illegal actions they may witness.

Isn't this just how we got into the bloody mess in Iraq and Afghanistan because the military just act upon orders?
 
Last edited:

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
Perhaps they don't in those dodgy and brutally barbaric African militias that appear from time to time, or in countries where you have military rule, but otherwise military action is instigated and authorized by the state. It's odd that you are not aware of this.

Yeah, state sanctioned terror is a sure fire way to end the war on terror.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
What I meant was if we "screened out" soldiers less likely to suffer PTSD it would have to rely on all the inbuilt flaws of psychiatric assessment and all the self proclaiming dogma that brings.

Every means of measurement has inbuilt flaws and inaccuracies. All that counts is whether this approach can reduce the incidence of PTSD; if it can (and that remains to be seen), then it's working.



Without a sensitive conscience just how would they make judgments of how to act within the rules that govern military engagements and not to cover up illegal actions they may witness.

I think just an ordinary degree of conscience would suffice.

A sensitive conscience is what you will find in conscientious objectors, who do not want to be directly involved in any killing whatsoever, even if state sanctioned and for a moral cause.
 
Last edited:

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
The world is more complex than that. If you don't want bankers to act like psychopaths (as example) maybe fix the legal system to actually prosecute them rather than blaming personality.
I think the target of change needs to be the organizational cultures that breed, promote and train psychopaths. Society needs to change, and this involves corporate and bureaucratic governance. Otherwise pre-emptive screening is likely to be a huge wasted effort.

Also I think biology is probably going to be much more important in prediction and treatment of PTSD. I think it happens because the brain gets overwhelmed, and has serious long term changes in physiology. That is, its the intensity of the experience that changes brain function. This is an interesting parallel to ME in which it appears the intensity of an infection changes our immune response. Psychiatric impact is secondary.
 

chipmunk1

Senior Member
Messages
765
The idea that we need some experts making decisions for us whether we want it or not very often leads to abuse or downright insane behaviour.

The irony is that these so-called experts often end-up doing for more damage than doing nothing could have done.

The fact that many of the very influential figures in psychology did not appear to have very good mental health makes me generally doubt the value of such proposals.

I think the problem is that psychiatry/psychology often attracts individuals with pre-existing mental health problems hoping to improve their own mental state. Since the field is still in it's infancy reliable solutions and cures may not exist and they don't manage to improve their mental health significantly despite getting a degree in the field. The same experts then want to decide what mental health is and how society should deal with mental health problems.

Take Skinner for example. He dreamt of a Society that was ruled by so-called "planners" and that would lead to an Utopia, heaven on earth probably.

Skinner was quite explicit about the need for technocratic rule: “We must delegate control of the population as a whole to specialists – to police, priests, teachers, therapies, and so on, with their specialized reinforcers and their codified contingencies.”[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Freedom_and_Dignity

I am not a psychologist but I have no problem stating that this guy was not right in his head.(Megalomania anyone?) I would not want such individuals making decisions for me.

Cameron argued that it was necessary for behavioral scientists to act as the social planners of society, and that the United Nations could provide a conduit for implementing his ideas for applying psychiatric elements to global governance and politics.

Cameron started to distinguish populations between "the weak" and "the strong". Those with anxieties or insecurities and who had trouble with the state of the world were labeled as "the weak"; in Cameron's analysis, they could not cope with life and had to be isolated from society by "the strong". The mentally illwere thus labeled as not only sick, but also weak. Cameron further argued that "the weak" must not influence children. He promoted a philosophy where chaos could be prevented by removing the weak from society
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
The military acts on behalf of the state, under the command of the state.

Even when the case for war is a complete fabrication and the people of the whole state are against the war.

Soldiers are not acting through their own will, but execute the will of state.

See above.

So individual soldiers should not be carrying the burden of conscience, provided they act within the rules and laws that govern military engagements.

Soldiers are duty bound under the Geneva convention not to carry out illegal orders, the Iraq war is illegal.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Freedom_and_Dignity

I am not a psychologist but I have no problem stating that this guy was not right in his head.

In what way is he not right in his head, according to your perspective?

Looking quickly at Beyond Freedom and Dignity, it states that:
Skinner argues that entrenched belief in free will and the moral autonomy of the individual (which Skinner referred to as "dignity") hinders the prospect of using scientific methods to modify behavior for the purpose of building a happier and better-organized society.

I find that view eminently sensible, and in fact, Skinner's view is one I often espouse myself. I have a particular dislike of the idea that right wingers often hold, which is that every person is totally responsible for their actions, because of free will. The right wing view is often that if you do something bad, then it is totally your fault, because you should have stopped yourself by the power of your own free will.

In reality, whatever free will is, it is limited in its powder to control innate drives.

For example, normally sensible men or women may risk their marriages in order to have an illicit affair. Reason may tell them what they are doing is not wise, but their innate sexual and amorous instincts often override reason, and they finds themselves having the affair anyway.

I don't have political affiliations left or right, but I often get annoyed with right wing thought, when it always blames the person for their failings, rather than examining the circumstances of nature and nurture that led to those failings.
 
Last edited:

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
Soldiers are duty bound under the Geneva convention not to carry out illegal orders, the Iraq war is illegal.

I think you are confusing the Geneva Convention, which governs the conduct of armed forces during war, with the laws that govern the circumstances under which a country can legally engage in war.
 

duncan

Senior Member
Messages
2,240
How does moral autonomy work? It's a contradiction.

Lot's of confused roots in the individual vs society thing. Makes for good fiction, but it's full of constructs that when torn down simply reduce to pragmatic group think. Theory meets reality. Kant vs James.

Good conversation, though.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
How does moral autonomy work? It's a contradiction.

That concept I had not come across before, but Professor Google tells me that moral autonomy comes from Kant:
What is referred to as Kant's moral autonomy is the ability of humans to determine the necessary ethical or moral without religion.

So moral autonomy is the idea that you can intuitively know what is morally right or wrong, without needing to refer to an external authority such as the Bible, religion, or as we do a lot these days, to liberal values such as political correctness.

So I guess Skinner is arguing that morality should be set more by external authorities than by our own personal take on what's right or wrong. So for example, I think Skinner would applaud political correctness, which is a set of behavioral rules imposed upon us by the liberal elite, that compels us to be respectful to all groups of people in society.

Not sure I agree with Skinner on this point, as I think in reality, morality comes both from external sources of guidance, and our own intuitive feel for what is right and wrong.
 
Last edited:

duncan

Senior Member
Messages
2,240
Intuitive morality makes about as much sense as innate morality.

There was a reason I placed Kant opposite (William) James.

What works is what works, not necessarily what sounds good.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
I think you are confusing the Geneva Convention, which governs the conduct of armed forces during war, with the laws that govern the circumstances under which a country can legally engage in war.

If its not a legal war that makes the rules of engagement illegal automatically.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Not sure I agree with Skinner on this point, as I think in reality, morality comes both from external sources of guidance, and our own intuitive feel for what is right and wrong.
You missed one, the capacity for reason. Many ambiguous situations do not fit given authority, nor intuitive response, but have to be thought through.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.