Talk:Thomas Szasz/Archive 3

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Thomas Szasz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/4th-march-1978/12/psychiatry-and-dissent

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

psychiatric slavery
What about a sub section devoted to his ideas related to psychiatric slavery? Michael Ten (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thomas Szasz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060115054600/http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411b.asp to http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411b.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.scientology.org/en_US/news-media/faq/pg037.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114082408/http://www.americanhumanist.org/AHA/Humanists_of_the_Year to http://www.americanhumanist.org/AHA/Humanists_of_the_Year

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Completely disproved Szasz' hypotheses about the underlying mechanisms of mental illness?
On 20:56, 18 March 2018‎ AWeberMD according to the revision history entry, “ (deleted portion that stated that Alzheimers disease was a mental illness, added clarifying statement regarding current status which disproved most of what Szasz believed.) “

However, instead of saying "most" it actual states “completely disproved Szasz’s hypotheses about the underlying mechanisms of mental illness”.

“Szasz argued throughout his career that mental illness is a metaphor for human problems in living, and that mental illnesses are not "illnesses" in the sense that physical illnesses are; and that except for a few identifiable brain diseases, there are "neither biological or chemical tests nor biopsy or necropsy findings for verifying DSM diagnoses."[5] Over time, however, advances in laboratory testing (specifically whole genome/exome sequencing[6]) and radiological methodologies (specifically enhanced fMRI, MRA, PET[7], etc.) have completely disproved Szaszs' hypotheses about the underlying mechanisms of mental illness.”

Not only is the edit not as actually described in the “revision history”, but even if it were amended to reflect the revision history as stated, the argument would be unfounded by the citations given. Whole genome sequencing and radiological methodologies have not vitiated Szasz substantive critique of mental illness.

86.146.199.241 (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Psychiatry
Why is the Anti-Psychiatry section plopped at the bottom of the Szasz entry? Szasz was a staunch critic of anti-psychiatry, for starters. It is also not clear that all of the people listed would have identified themselves with the anti-psychiatry movement. It doesn’t belong on this page. Nicmart (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry
Szasz states "I reject the term anti-psychiatry because it is imprecise, misleading, and cheaply self-aggrandizing. Chemists do not characterize themselves as anti-alchemists, nor do astronomers call themselves anti-astrologers." I like this quote and would like to put it somewhere. Any ideas? Should there be a section on his relationship to anti-psychiatry? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Additions that would enhance this article
As a psychologist who has had some education in the kind of philosophy that attends to linguistic analysis, I find many of Szasz's assertions to be very interesting. I would like to know considerably more about how he acquired his abilities to discuss the semantics of social control, especially the similarities between the ways social control has been described in religious terms, as contrasted to the ways he asserts that it was, or is, described in psychological, or psychiatric, or (pseudo-)medical terms.

I am paying attention to the developmental state of psychiatry when he began to publish his main arguments, which was in the early 1960s. At that time, his arguments might have seemed much more powerful than they seem now, given that science has detected the physical substrates of a great many more 'mental' syndromes than were understood in 1960. Many such substrates were unknowable in the 1950s, when Szasz was formulating his views. (Still, in the vein of Kendall's thinking, by 1950, the medical causes of some 'mental' disorders were well known: as exemplified by the connection between syphilis and syphilitic dementia, by the connection between Beriberi and vitamin B1 deficiency, and the connection between thyroid dysfunction and what was then called 'cretinism'. There are many more such examples from before 1960.)

However, Szasz's capacity to analyse the similar functions of the explanatory systems of religion, and of psychoanalysis, is very acute. I would like to know how many languages he knew, and whether he studied linguistically oriented philosophy, which was a very busy field in the 1940s, and 1950s. I would like to know how his philosophical views developed, how he acquired his religious views, and whether he changed those views as he was maturing.

I would like to know more about his great attentiveness to mechanisms of social control. He seems to have focussed mostly on the negative effects of society imposing control on its non-conforming members, and this is probably not difficult to understand. Obviously he was of Hungarian origin, and the dates given in the article indicate that he came to the United States when he was 18 years old, in 1938, and that he received his medical degree only 6 years later. He must have had financial resources for this to have been possible. It also seems obvious that the multiple repressions that overtook his homeland must have taught him unpleasant things about the mechanisms of social control. However, was he really committed to the idea that only the courts and the law should be used to cope with social dangers? What would he do if one of his patients became suddenly irresponsible, after suffering, for example, a head injury?

It is interesting that Szasz did not start his career as critic of psychiatry: he was a practicing psychiatrist for most of his life, and he practiced psychiatry for years before he criticized it. He must have had skills and competence. I would like to know how he practiced, what techniques and resources he preferred, which theoretical views he favored, and what he valued about his role as a psychiatrist. I would like to know what he thought about some of the pharmacological advances that occurred during his career, as there were some notable early successes. I am thinking of drugs like lithium for the management of mania, which became well known during the 1950s, and the effects of bromides and phenobarbital, which were used to control agitation as well as epilepsy. These early anti-convulsant drugs were in common use from early in the 20th century, and Szasz must have been familiar with their effects.

I hope that some of the contributors to this article will know how to source material which will give a much more complete picture of Szasz, as a psychiatrist who was obviously committed to positive aspects of his profession, even though he developed very firm views about its boundaries. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You will not find a single place for all the questions you have. In the book, Szasz Under Fire, you will find Szasz’s 30 page autobiography. Beyond that you will have to read many of Szasz’s books to find you answers. There is also a vast collection of Szasz lectures from the Milton Erickson Foundation. I have listened to most of them and psychologist like yourself ask the sort of questions you are asking. I would start with the conversation hour downloads from the Erickson foundation. Unfortunately, the downloads are very expensive. Also read Szasz’s latest book of aphorisms, Words to the Wise. ExistentialStoic (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "It is interesting that Szasz did not start his career as critic of psychiatry: he was a practicing psychiatrist for most of his life, and he practiced psychiatry for years before he criticized it." You are mistaken. Szasz was a psychiatric skeptic before he attended college and was never a "practicing psychiatrist." He refused residency at a psychiatric institution. Szasz was a practicing psychotherapist of long-standing.

Why is there no mention that he committed suicide via a pill cocktail that is legitimately used for that purpose where it is allowed. Also, google censors search results relating to this, including articles about libertarianism and suicide at reason.com. I think it is very noteworthy they he ended his life on his own terms, the way he said he would if he ever had to. This needs to be amended. 97.84.218.68 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Two good posts. You are right that Szasz was not a "practicing psychiatrist." He refused psychiatric residency. He was an advocate and practitioner of psychotherapy, but he rejected the idea that it was therapy rather than conversation. Due to the typical Wikipedia bias, a huge segment of this entry is devoted to critics, which you will not find to be the case for person who are conventionally popular, or popular among editors who seize control of entries. Nicmart (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)