Though psychiatry and mental health use fewer awful treatments perhaps the terrible things the profession does to people and society hasn't changed.

Psychiatry is not the same as the rest of the medical profession. It treats behaviour. Those behaviours are called illnesses because they are unwanted by the majority of humans or guessed to be unwanted by them in whatever time or place.

The reason the paradigm of illness can be used, in part, is the prognosis. At least in current thinking. There are other, eariler values which disregarded prognosis and simply diagnosed phenotypes which were outcast, excluded or isolated.

In predicting prognosis psychiatry stands head and shoulders above any other attempt to determine an individual's life outcome, way better according to scientific methods than astrology, palm reading or any other methods. Sadly the profession is fixated on those who do worse.

What that means is, according to the measures used which is a really important part of the application of science, people will do worse. They might live shorter lives, have fewer friends and do less well at work. According to the measures.

This is one scientific reason for the use of the paradigm of medicine to pathologise certain phenotypes.

Let me be straight. There is no illness in in psychiatric medicine. Just pathologisation and treatment of symptoms as ajudged by the society or culture which uses the idea of prognosis to enforce temporary norms.

This does not mean types of people do less well in life. Let's take kids with ADHD, or kids as I like to call them. The less disruptive ones, in general, are disciplined more and excluded more by the system and their peers. These effects can contribute to lowered life outcomes in later life.

A good society tries to rectify those mistakes. The problem is the development of psychiatry as part of society, with the use of the paradigm of illness, means individuals rather than society were the target of change.

Let me try to explain. I'm drunk so bear with me. Well. 3.5 pints of porter by this stage is a relatively sober point but perhaps according to your judgements of norms my phenotype may be a drunk or drunkard.

Let's say I did a perfect study for the prognosis factor in mental health but without diagnosis or psychiatric theory beyond one. This perfect study has all the information available about the individuals. The purpose is to discover what factor - whatever it may be - is the significant factor. I'm not going to start this ideal study with something to prove so I am looking at every possible variable which relates to the factors behind people doing less well in life.

This study disregards psychiatry and diagnosis but seeks to create diagnosis which is perfect. Essentially this looks to identify what factors when clustered together mean I can accurately detect, preferrably at an early stage, a person who's going to do worse in life. Specifically, according to the current operational model of diagnosis, the cluster of symptoms approach, I'm looking for a list of factors from awhich a predefined number of are enough to reliably predict life outcomes.

I'm talking about a superstudy with vast amounts of longdituidional information rich in every possible detail. Then I'm talking about a megacomputer running uber mega excellent (superlatives to convey unreal, philosophical ideas) computer with the best science used to seekwhat influences life outcome.

Then this idea of prognosis and diagnosis could be perfect for the moment in humanity's history.

It would also be as pants as a...a lot of pants. Te perfect proof of illness in psychiatry is no truth, at least not a truth spoken by people who'd not spent lots of time sucking on my chocolate salty balls.