Anything plus ignorance equals crap

religulous

So I watched Bill Maher’s “Religulous” movie the other day and, for the most part, I had the typical “non-believer” response—a general feeling of smug superiority coupled with a diminished sense of hope for the human race. Of course, Maher presents mostly the kookiest nut-jobs he could find (which unfortunately includes Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor), sidestepping the undeniable fact that there are many, many highly intelligent religious people who hold nuanced beliefs that are not so easy to dismiss. I know several people who are smarter and more sensitive than I am who are down with Jesus, so that right there takes the stance “religious people are morons” right off the table.

I get Maher’s main point though, and I agree with it: People believe some crazy shit! But ignorance and stupidity are hardly limited to religious beliefs. How about politics? And yes, even science! We all pay attention to certain things and ignore other things, depending on cultural conditioning, unconscious processes, choices, and whatever other random shit. “Paying” attention is an apt metaphor too, because there are multiple vendors competing to make a sale, and we’re always buying what someone is selling. Critical thinking skills and self-awareness are a couple of the tools we use to make sense out of what we’ve paid attention to, fashioning the whole ball of wax into what we believe. Whatever we are unaware or ignorant of won’t be included in our belief system, and the less that’s included, the more distorted the belief system.

Most of the yahoos interviewed by Maher were ignorant of the basic content and history of their own religions. A lot of them seemed dimwitted to boot. They had whacky religious views, sure, but I bet their understanding of politics and science is a little off too. So, it’s not religion per se that’s problematic. The problem, as I see it, is that ignorance and dimwittedness are and always have been part and parcel of human societies. This cluelessness is encouraged and exploited by multiple institutions, including religions, governments, and even scientific research departments at universities. We always hear that religion and politics are all about money and power, but few want to acknowledge just how “ridiculous” science can be, and is, when corrupted by those same dark forces.

It’s fashionable these days to pit science against religion, as if the former represented objective truth and the latter blind faith. This is off the mark, as far as I’m concerned. Take psychiatry, for instance. You see all these authoritative figures in hospitals and universities, dressed up in white coats sometimes, preaching from their “Bible” of mental disorders, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). All these “leading scientists” from the “leading institutions” releasing their latest studies showing how our personal problems—like anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, substance abuse, our inattentive children—are essentially matters of faulty brain chemistry or bad genes. They show us the brain scans to prove it, and assure us that the latest drug treatment has been shown to be effective. Scientific and objective, right? Yet this article in The Washington Post leads off with: “Every psychiatric expert involved in writing the standard diagnostic criteria for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia has had financial ties to drug companies that sell medications for those illnesses”. Gee, I wonder if that set-up distorts the scientific process any?

Now, I’m not saying that science is a religion or any crap like that. I’m just saying that science plus ignorance equals bad science, just as religion plus ignorance equals bad religion. In my personal experience, most of what passes for religion in our society is bad religion. As a naturally curious and philosophically inclined person, I’ve engaged hundreds of people in dialogues about their religious beliefs. My general conclusion is that most people believe what they do simply because some authority figure told them it was so. No critical thinking, no compelling reasons, no real dialogue possible. Whatever. People believe whatever keeps them most comfortable, it seems. The believer’s anxiety is assuaged and the preacher’s car has heated leather seats. It’s a win – win.

Unfortunately, the “science” of psychiatry is sliding into the same pile of horse-poop. For instance, “Say it ain’t so Joe” Biden introduced the “Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007,” in which he declared “addiction is a chronic, relapsing brain disease.” The National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol, and Twelve Step groups all over the country already endorse the same general disease model, so it must be true, right? Well, Stanton Peele, for one, doesn’t think so, and neither do I. The notion that chemical imbalances or “brain diseases” cause psychological problems takes a partial truth (namely, that all subjective experience correlates with some pattern of neurological/biological activity), ignores several other partial truths (like that life experiences can and do shape the structure and function of the brain), and arrives at a badly distorted conclusion that keeps drug companies rolling in dough, certain researchers rolling in grant money, and the rest of us blissfully ignorant as we hand over the reins of our health and happiness to authority figures. Sound familiar?

End of rant.

Joe Biden and the “Disease Model” of Addiction

biden

One could structure an entire graduate-level curriculum around this year’s political season. I am particularly fascinated by the different ways people arrive at various positions, form opinions, and make important decisions as 21st Century world citizens. It seems clear that a very significant percentage of Americans are not going to vote this November based on a thoughtful consideration of issues and policy differences. Frankly, this disgusts me. 90% of African Americans voting for Obama over Clinton in some areas during the primary? Clinton supporters voting for McCain in the general election? You gotta be kidding me. And that’s just the B.S. on the left. Step to the right and your other shoe will get a thick coating. The Sarah Palin nomination? Enough said.

While conservative types seem fine with faith-based policy making (as long as it’s THEIR faith), the more progressive types tend to put their faith in science. Take Joe Biden, for instance. His believes, as a Catholic, that life begins at conception. Yet he recognizes that we live in a pluralistic society, and it would be inappropriate to impose (through legislation) his faith-based view on other reasonable, ethical people with different beliefs. Yet Biden IS willing to legislate that addiction be recognized as a disease (via his “Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007). And here he has the backing of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and prominent scientists and healthcare professionals all across the country. It would be easy to arrive at the conclusion that “Science” is indeed moving toward a consensus that everything from inattention in children to depression in adults is fundamentally a matter of brain dysfunction or disease. But can “Science” be relied on here? I wouldn’t take it on faith.

Admittedly, I have a fondness for thinkers who take on the status quo. For now, I would like to highlight two of my favorites who have each recently posted interesting pieces on their respective blogs. First, check out Stanton Peele’s perspective on Joe Biden’s addiction legistation. Peele has a very unconventional yet quite reasonable perspective on addiction, one which has not been taken seriously enough, in my opinion (I have been a mental health professional for fifteen years). Then we have Ben Goldacre, who rails against the “Medicalisation of Everyday Life” and the unscrupulous use of science to support bogus conclusions.

Celebrity Rehab

celebrehab.jpg

Okay, so I couldn’t resist. I don’t have cable TV in my own home, but since I’ve been staying at my parents’ house (recovering from knee surgery) I’ve succumbed to the power of the remote. Last night I sat in front of the tube for three hours straight, first to watch the Democratic debate and then to check out the latest episode of Celebrity Rehab.

Now, for those who don’t know, I spent the last three years of my professional life working at an adolescent substance abuse recovery center, so I could pull a Pete Townshend and claim my watching the show is strictly “research.” The truth is, though, I cannot look away.

At first I was disgusted by the entire premise of the show. Especially disturbing were the scenes of an obviously mentally ill Jeff Conaway weeping and threatening suicide. It quickly dawned on me though, as I continued to watch on, that what I was seeing on the show almost exactly mirrored what I saw day in and day out on the job. I’m telling you, it’s positively uncanny. Everything is right out of the Adolescent Chemical Dependency Unit playbook — from the patients trying to hook up with each other, the sneakiness and rule breaking (secret cell phone conversations), the “these rules are stupid” attitude, the constant threats to leave treatment, the mind-boggling contradictory statements, the rationalizing of any and every behavior, the horror stories of abuse, the emotional immaturity, the group dynamics, the crazy visitors and dysfunctional relationships.

The main difference, other than the cameras and microphones, is that the majority of the kids I worked with were court-ordered and had zero motivation for change. The similarities are striking though, and how it is that rural Kentucky teenagers can be so much like washed-up semi-celebrities, I just don’t know. The obvious answer is: “They’re all addicts.” But I don’t think I’m buying that.

In fact, the more I think about it, the less sure I am about what “addiction” really is. Frankly, the party line towed by many addiction professionals — that addiction is a treatable, medical disease, based in the brain — seems to me to be a deeply confused misreading of the available data. I’m in the process of exploring some alternative approaches, which I’ll discuss in more detail some other time. For now, you can check out my Integral Recovery page, which is part of my new Integral Psychology Portal (an ongoing project to both clarify and share my evolving perspective on life and whatnot).