Education Part 1 - The Problem Of Psychiatric Drugs
The Fragmentation of Knowledge Part 1 [Or, The case against over-specialization in theory based academics]
Psychology: An introduction to the use of psychology in understanding culture and society
How Can Psychiatrists Be Allowed To Prescribe A Physical Substance For A Mental Disease That Has No Biological Source?
Article: Do Psychiatrists Create the Very Mental Problems They Claim to Treat? It's easy to blame Big Pharma and the DSM for creating trendy mental illnesses, but the real problem is psychiatry's blindness to culture.
Article: Why Psychiatry Holds Enormous Power in Society Despite Losing Scientific Credibility It helps to be funded by Big Pharma.
The modern state of the "science" of psychology and psychiatry kinda prove that even the best college's degree can't help a person become a scientist. A scientist is born or nurtured but certainly not created. Especially given how bound to tradition and resistant to new ideas this field as become.
I've pre-argued this case indirectly in the above 4 posts. This post is just putting all of these in context of the title above. Attacking something with the title "doctor", no matter how undeserved such a title may be (this isn't a medical science but a "mental one), is always risky.
Often people will hear the word doctor or PhD and shut down thier thinking faculties the way a religious person does when they encounter a priest.
This post presents you with a few very important points meant to show how ridiculous diagnosing people's psychological problems from theories in a book when we haven't even understood what humans are or where we are going (for it to be a practical social science) and when the field of psychology repeatedly ignores success in favor of tradition - exactly like a religion does. It may be that one of the ailments humans suffer from when encountering something they are unfamiliar with and without a cultural bestowed framework from which to work from, is to revere it as something extra ordinary, sublime or "holy".
First a very strong critique from psychiatrists against more traditional psychiatrists (who are literally trained to prescribe as if by rote, or more accurately, by pamphlet);
Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology
A few links;
How drug companies' PR tactics skew the presentation of medical research
How flimsy research gets inferior drugs to market
Xanax Addiction from ABC News
Bad Effects of taking Psychiatric Drugs
Psychiatric treatments impair the function of the brain and mind.
PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS: Cure or Quackery?
Why Psychiatry Should Be Abolished as a Medical Specialty
Why I Never Recommend Psychiatric Medications
School Support for ADHD Children May Be Missing the Mark: Inattention, Not Hyperactivity, Is Associated With Educational Failure
Depression is not a one-size-fits-all condition.
A simple alternative to giving kids drugs (unfortunately for drug company shareholders, it's extremely cheap)...
What is it that's said about a hypothesis? That even one negative result proves it wrong?
Clearly psychiatry is no longer a viable science and needs to be treated as such before it causes even more harm, though the harm so far may be immeasurable in itself.
That said, Carl Jung is probably the closest we have had to a real psychological investigator. His personality descriptions still prove to be useful in todays world and is more in depth analysis has clearly been ignored. So that woul be my best guess of where the future of psychology & psychiatry lies.