Posted by
Andrews on Friday, July 25, 2008 4:46:32 PM
In a post yesterday, and in many posts before, I spoke about how scientists with a particular result in mind can find it in the data, even if the data really doesn't support that conclusion. In particular yesterday I was writing about the cancer researcher who decided his preliminary data didn't need any review, he was convinced cell phones cause cancer.
Well, when looking through
Best of the Web, I found
a headline from the New York Post which provides a perfect example.
It appears a contractor lost this friend's cat in the walls of an apartment. He started breaking through walls to rescue the cat. Upset at the damage and unable to stop him, the super called the police who took him to a psychiatric ward. Used to people being delusional, the staff there decided his tales of trying to rescue a cat were delusions.
Which shows how much your preconceptions control what you see. This man, who apparently functions normally in the outside world, was written off as hopelessly delusional, simply because the assumption was that only insane people end up in psychiatric wards.
Actually, this also is a good argument supporting my reluctance to allow involuntary commitment. I have always had problems with a free society allowing medical personnel to deprive another of his rights, either directly or acting through a court proceeding, and this helps show why. Even without the sinister motives that drove the Soviet Union's frequent diagnosis of "creeping schizophrenia" in political dissidents, well meaning psychiatric staff can find mental disorders where none exist. The power of preconceptions is just too great, and it proves very easy to find mental illnesses in people who can function perfectly well in the world at large.
But that is another essay, and will have to wait for a day when I have more time.
UPDATE
I know I said I would write about involuntary commitment elsewhere, but I do have one thing to add. It is interesting that the left is often concerned over even a single unjust execution or imprisonment, even concerned that different categories of criminal are being treated differently, but they don't seem to care about the potential abuses of commitment proceedings. The only time commitment draws their attention is when it is used against criminals such as rapists to extend their incarceration. Otherwise, they seem completely unconcerned with the potential that sane people may be committed improperly.
Strange.