Open Letter: Netflix's "Afflicted" Abandoning Ethics and Science

Maya Dusenbery
Pacific Standard
Originally published September 20, 2018

Here are two excerpts:

The problem is not that the series included these skeptical views. To be sure, one of the most difficult parts of being ill with these "contested" conditions—or, for that matter, even a well-accepted but "invisible" chronic disease—is contending with such doubts, which are pervasive among friends and family, the media, and the medical profession at large. But according to the participants, in many cases, interviews with their family and friends were deceptively edited to make them appear more skeptical than they actually are. In some cases, clips in which family members acknowledged they'd wondered if their loved one's problem was psychological early on in their illness were taken out of context to imply they still harbored those beliefs. In others, producers seem to have put words into their mouths: According to Jamison, interviewees were asked to start their answers by repeating the question they had been asked. This is how the producers managed to get a clip of his mom seemingly questioning if "hypochondria" was a component of her son's illness.

(cut)

Even more irresponsible is the inclusion of such psychological speculation by various unqualified doctors. Presented as experts despite the fact that they have not examined the participants and are not specialists in their particular conditions, they muse vaguely about the power of the mind to produce physical symptoms. A single psychiatrist, who has never evaluated any of the subjects, is quoted extensively throughout. In Episode 4, which is entitled "The Mind," he gets right to the point: "Statistically, it's more likely that the cause of the problem is a common psychiatric problem more than it is an unknown or uncatalogued physical illness. You can be deluded that you're sick, meaning you can believe you're sick when in fact you're not sick."

The info is here.

Flawed Humans, Flawed Justice

By Adam Benforado
The New York Times
Originally posted June 13, 2015

Here is an excerpt:

Our justice system must be reconstructed upon scientific fact. We can start by acknowledging what the data says about the fundamental flaws in our current legal processes and structures.

Consider the evidence that we treat as nearly unassailable proof of guilt at trial — an unwavering eyewitness, a suspect’s signed confession or a forensic match to the crime scene.

While we charge tens of thousands of people with crimes each year after they are identified in police lineups, research shows that eyewitnesses chose an innocent person roughly one-third of the time. Our memories can fail us because we’re frightened. They can be altered by the word choice of a detective. They can be corrupted by previously seeing someone’s image on a social media site.

The entire article is here.

Is psychology a “real” science? Does it really matter?

By Ashutosh Jogalekar
Scientific American Blog
August 13, 2013

Fellow Scientific American blogger Melanie Tannenbaum is flustered by allegations that psychology is not a science and I can see where she is coming from. In this case the stimulus was a piece by Alex Berezow, a microbiologist, who in a short and provocative piece in the LA times argued the case that psychology is not a real science. I think he’s right. I also think that he misses the point.

Berezow’s definition of science is not off the mark, but it’s also incomplete and too narrow. Criticism of psychology’s lack of rigor is not new; people have been arguing about wishy-washy speculations in fields like evolutionary psychology and the limitations of fMRI scans for years. The problem is only compounded by any number of gee-whiz popular science books purporting to use evolutionary and other kinds of “psychology” to explain human behavior. Neither is the field’s image bolstered by high-profile controversies and sloppy studies which can’t be replicated. But it’s hardly fair to kill the message for lack of a suitable messenger. The same criticism has also been leveled at other social sciences including economics and sociology and yet the debate in economics does not seem to be as rancorous as that in psychology. At the heart of Berezow’s argument is psychology’s lack of quantifiability and dearth of accurate terminology. He points out research in fields like happiness where definitions are neither rigid nor objective and data is not quantifiable.

The entire blog is here.

A Dangerous Remedy (2 Letters)

Two Letters to the Editor from the New York Times published on October 1, 2012.

One is important to understand how psychotropics are currently being used on a daily basis and the second to underscore how psychological treatments are overlooked.

To the Editor:

Re “A Call for Caution on Antipsychotic Drugs,” (Mind, Sept. 25): “A call for caution” is indeed needed and long overdue to curb the inappropriate overuse of antipsychotics. As the author notes, the use of these highly potent and expensive drugs is drastically out of proportion to the appropriate target population: individuals with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

The misuse of antipsychotics in nursing homes in particular is a widespread yet preventable problem. Approximately one in four residents are given antipsychotics. The percentage of residents with dementia on these drugs is even higher. Too often, they are used as a form of chemical restraint, as a substitute for good care and adequate staffing. Contrary to what the article states, they are harmful for elderly people with dementia, greatly increasing the risk of stroke, heart attack, falls and even death.

Federal standards have long prohibited the inappropriate use of antipsychotics in nursing homes. With increased public knowledge and vigorous enforcement, hopefully we can make those standards a reality for vulnerable residents.

Richard Mollot

Manhattan

To the Editor:

There was no mention in Dr. Richard A. Friedman’s article about the proven effectiveness of psychological treatment, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, for nonpsychotic disorders. Instead, Dr. Friedman suggests that patients suffering from anxiety or depression take other, less powerful medications. By not recommending psychotherapy for the treatment of anxiety and depression, Dr. Friedman is perpetuating the mind-set that all psychiatric disorders should be treated with medicine, which in effect has created a climate that encourages the off-label use of antipsychotics.

Patricia Thornton

Manhattan

These can be found here.

Psychology and Social Justice: Why We Do What We Do

By Vasquez, Melba J. T.
American Psychologist, Vol 67(5), Jul-Aug 2012, 337-346. 

Abstract

Much of psychological science and knowledge is significantly relevant to social justice, defined here as the goal to decrease human suffering and to promote human values of equality and justice. A commitment to social justice has evolved as a more important value in the last few decades for psychology, including for the American Psychological Association (APA). The mission, vision, goals, Ethics Code, and strategic plan of APA all provide a rationale for psychologists' involvement in systematic and visible ways of applying our knowledge to social issues. Although psychology has not been immune to the application of psychological knowledge in destructive ways, overall, psychology, many psychologists, and APA have demonstrated a commitment to social justice. This article provides a brief review of the key proponents, debates, and controversies involved in applying psychological science and knowledge to complex societal problems. Psychologists often find themselves in conflict and honest disagreement when the association addresses complex and controversial issues. An important goal is that we continue to find ways to agree or disagree in a respectful manner regardless of where each of us stands on the various positions that APA takes.

The entire story is here and a member benefit of APA.