alex3619
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,810
- Location
- Logan, Queensland, Australia
Alex, you are being too kind to them.
There are only Options 1 & 2.
Mistaken ideology drives most of the evils of mankind so far as I can see. When we are wrong, but so sure we are right, we can drive through with an agenda regardless of the harm it does.
Here is something about economics and the 2008 economic crisis, in which there is a parallel between what is claimed here, and what I see in psychogenic medicine:
(My bolding.)Most mainstream macroeconomic theoretical innovations since the 1970s (the New Classical rational expectations revolution associated with such names as Robert E. Lucas Jr., Edward Prescott, Thomas Sargent, Robert Barro etc, and the New Keynesian theorizing of Michael Woodford and many others) have turned out to be self-referential, inward-looking distractions at best. Research tended to be motivated by the internal logic, intellectual sunk capital and esthetic puzzles of established research programmes rather than by a powerful desire to understand how the economy works – let alone how the economy works during times of stress and financial instability. So the economics profession was caught unprepared when the crisis struck.
http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/...state-of-the-art-academic-monetary-economics/
If their ideology says there is no need to worry about those making benefits claims and the system failing, then many will dismiss the problem. If the researchers are sure they understand what is going on, they will dismiss, trivialize or sideline counter-claims. They may create diversions such as claims of mavericks, extremists or people following other debunked ideology.
Freudian theory was full of this inward looking internal logic. Everything could be explained from within the system.
If someone has devoted decades of their lives to psychogenic or BPS theories, built their careers on it, then their mind will interpret things seen through BPS designed goggles. Being academics, they will seek to explain away any issues ... defending their ivory towers. As clinicians they could not easily accept they are wrong either - otherwise they spent decades doing the wrong things to patients. If an investigator asked the chicken farmer if something is wrong with the chickens, the investigator will probably hear "no", everything is under control. Criticism should come from elsewhere in medicine and academia, but this very rarely happens, and that's a problem for all of medicine, psychology and psychiatry. More should speak out than currently do. Their silence gives consent.
If someone has any doubts, then strong voices supporting them may quell those doubts. These voices, in the case of BPS, come from government, government institutions and the insurance industry. See my old blog: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?entries/the-doggy-treat-model-of-why-it-is-so.830/
Its worse within politics. They are used to operating in an environment of dissenting views, and supporting their own view in argument regardless of what the opposition is saying.
Evidence that can establish that these are false views of the world is good, and bit by bit it can alter the discussion. However so very much of this is political, and not based on sound reason. Whoever has the most persuasive voice is heard the most.