Ya know for 5 years or so I have randomly pondered the run in I had with social services and their pseudo science tests. After having earnestly answered their battery of tests thinking honesty the best policy, I was informed by their psychiatrist that my results indicated I lied on the tests. This has eaten at me for years because I knew damn good and well I did NOT lie on their tests. My spouse has done everything possible to try to convince me that the results were predetermined by the leading of the state which paid the large portion of funding this office received for operating. I have tried to accept this answer but there has always been a missing piece that did not fit for how a psychiatrist could do such a thing, I mean they went to school to help people, right?
So pondering this recently, I had a curious thought. I remember one of the tests I did with an assistant who was bemused with a particular test I had taken with her where I had gone a good ways further than most people go on and she remarked about that fact. Now, I also made sure I had answered the questions as accurately as possible considering a number of the questions are rewritten within the tests which changes the tone of what is being asked. They tell you to go with your gut when answer the question and answer with your first instinct. However, if you understand the tone of a word change you may be likely to fail the liars questions based on the fact that the question is leading and the nuance of the change inclines you to lean one way or the other. Still something was still missing with the connection between this and my dh's efforts to console me.
Well, since these tests factor into an opinion rendered by an individual who comes from heir own biases, you have to wonder how much overt and even more frustrating is the subliminal misperceptions being put forth as facts. I have long agreed this individual operated from a confirmation bias and it was in their best interest to have findings which support the state's position but how could they render an opinion which was so fallacious because I KNOW what was being said was wrong and from the liars questions the entire rest of the opinion followed. Yet, how could a "professional" be so wrong? Well, they comfort themselves with going by statistical and the "norms". For those outside of the norms it just sucks to be you and besides, how often will the individual psychiatrist run into that problem?
So this "doctor" played the odds and figured it would all work out in the wash. I would either prove the diagnosis accurate because it was, I would prove the diagnosis accurate because I would be so frustrated with its inaccuracy I would react in a manner to substantiate it, or on the smallest probability of options, was the potential that I would prove his diagnosis wrong, but the year of "service" will have timed out and the state gets custody by default. So it was not in his own self interest to buck the system and he could comfort himself that being outside the norm, even though his assistant recognized some measure of this, was unlikely and not worthy of consideration. (This isn't to say I fancy myself to have a superior intellect but that I was testing outside the norms of the experience of this particular office)
All of this brings me to this portion of the op article which struck a chord with me today:
I have found that most psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals are not only extraordinarily compliant with authorities but also unaware of the magnitude of their obedience. And it also has become clear to me that the anti-authoritarianism of their patients creates enormous anxiety for these professionals, and their anxiety fuels diagnoses and treatments.
These "doctors" operate with a superiority complex and have a blind spot for their own weaknesses. They operate in order to inflict a false compliance of normality based upon a preconceived notion of standards. They likely are so enamored with their own profession that they are clueless as to the harm they are inflicting upon those who they falsely accuse of whatever popular diagnosis gives them the best reward. Yet, to argue with them about the veracity of their profession and/or diagnosis is to leave oneself open to being guilty of whatever pet name they can ascribe to the critic to make your critical opinion a psychosis. It is completely infuriating. It is also completely infuriating to be accused of lying and told that based upon such lies they are claiming you have committed you are guilty of a disorder of some sort. The only saving grace is that time eventually proved the bastard wrong. Cold comfort I suppose. I feel sorry for other folks that have had my same experience with the mental health field...
