psychiatry

"...had similarly unhelpful effects", seems like an understatement from the first part of that paragraph. Like a concealment.

"... compliance with ‘treatment’", not only that, but with unreasonable and false expectations from society and resignation to abusive behaviour by the community and family.

Take the "manipulatable character" of people with psychosis: the family and the community exploit that to have a sense of "control" over their irrational fear that people with SMI are MORE dangerous than said family and community.

That sort of manipulation can be enraging and dispairing for the sufferer. It might encourage provoking the sufferer into rage, into lashing to prove a "see, he is dangerous!, can't be dealt with!, he needs to be institutionalized!.

I have no trouble imagining that in a lot of settings...

As an intellectual prodding: What evidence requires to go from “We don’t know” to "We can't know, honestly"?.

How does one falsify schizophrenia, at least?.

I don't think a diversity of perspectives or expressions leads necessarily to the conclusion that understanding is possible. It's at least confusing instead of guiding, science is simplifyng by generalization, even if it comes from multiple inductions.

Having multiple religions really has not made understanding of God possible from the multiplicity. On the contrary, it lead many of us, atheists, to conclude it does not exist, it's not real. It's useless for our lives, even if for some brings comfort, guidance, understanding, protection, enlightnment and yes, knowledge about the divine.

Touching blindly that elephant lead to inconsistencies that strengthened atheism. The death of God.

How is schizophrenia different?. Because the priests and theologians of it think it so?. Faking it until making it?.

"... what that might be depends heavily upon who you are and where you are coming from.", like religion...

"...growth of ‘knowledge’" in that paragraph seems to assume knowledge has grown in a meaningfull way. That sounds to me mere accumulation of revelations with no basis in reality as to the divinity, the spirituality of schizophrenia, not it's science.

That description of the accretion of knowledge, the selection of the true facts only works when there is a theory to accumulate them into, that is real science, not empiricism. That process is still lacking and will be for schizophrenia. That only happens when a paradigm has been proven beyond doubt...

The narrative started somehow with a blank page: no theory. Accumulated constructs are not a theory, at best a model. A narrative, a tale about something immaterial, unreal, lacking objectivity, invisible to the minds eyes. Prone to faith, creed and dogma. Impervious to reason...

Narrowing on the details is a form of deluding oneself that the details are meaningfull. And prevents doing something else effectively on sunk costs basis. Too much time spent on the details to back off now...

Clearly pointed for "theoretical physics"?. Cars fly, literaly on that esoteric form of thought.

Is that not a projection?. A Freudian slip?.

The "big one" was built and inspired from "theoretical physics". As nuclear reactors, MRI machines and radiotherapy equipment.

Understanding is a feeling corroborated as correct, as real, by providing an explanation.

A paraphrasis, correct responses, accurate empirical predictions with a theory behind all of it.

I see the blank page rearing it's head, again.

The geography and demographics of "mental disorders" might have more to do with exposure to predators than intrinsic qualities of preys.

Has any applied mathematician looked into that: build a mathematical agnostic model of psychiatric incarceration?.

Because I know of at least one article that claims that proximity to A psychiatric hospital increases the chances of demise by own hands.

It sounds to me that the testable hypothesis proposed removes agency from individuals. More of the same in different disguise, from a diverse perspective. Like there is no human model, let alone a theory to build hypothesis from any humanities perspective.

And the whole narrative looks to me like  finger pointing without looking into the mirror and admit: I can't do research on this thing. It does not exist beyond my constructs. Mere constructs do not lead to science.

Schizophrenia and it's concepts have not been proven to exist independently from the human mind, regardless of try and effort, therefore those concepts lack objectivity and therefore are not addreasable, manageable, treatable with science, it's contents and it's methods. Period...

Searching persistently for the inexistant can last an eternity...

The we have to do something includes doing nothing if it comes from accurate reasoning.

(blank space)