Found this in my psychology textbook. I'm bothered

Which textbook is that?

Psych 5 by cengage learning

Ah OK. I haven’t read that one.
It’s kind of weird that they feel they have to explain that you can be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

It seems more for entertainment than education in that respect

1 Like

What is snail mail ? :snail:

1 Like

Yep, it does! And I’m sure they could find something more entertaining to replace it.

get a load of this section as well

sending mail through the postal service on paper

Oh haha :joy: !!!1515151

1 Like

If they don’t have a paragraph after that one explaining how this view is dated by several decades and almost no one thinks that way anymore, and that some overly reductionistic behaviorist explanations like this one have historically been the cause of horrible treatments, then they need a good ass-whooping.

2 Likes

This is outrageously inaccurate! I really hope you write that letter!

2 Likes

Yeah I really can’t stand this textbook

Learning theorists have no business judging the way people living with schizophrenia act, and shouldn’t be compared to the way someone learns in school and the “good student”… Half the time schizophrenia is out of our control and the way we think sometimes is just like inserted in our brain, I highly doubt others are adapting to how to be sz in a hospital setting. That sounds bizzarre, everyone has their own brain and can think for themselves. And sz isn’t even a behavior it’s a chemical Imbalance that causes life to be disrupted and you are lucky if you have insight then you can report things to professionals and try to live the most normal life

2 Likes

The guy is apparently pretty old. Maybe he hasn’t read a clinical textbook in 40 years? I don’t know. I mean do people even still call themselves “learning theorists”?

1 Like

I literally messaged him on LinkedIn. I don’t expect a response.

1 Like

Unrelated to your point, but I didn’t know that John Hinckley had been released.

Yah I was surprised too. I wonder what kind of aftercare he receives after 35 years institutionalized

I have often found the problem with pdocs as that they treat my experiences in sz as ‘delusions’. To them, psychosis is something that I can just ignore once others tell me that it is not ‘real’. But to me, it is experienced as thoughts in my head that I didnt think. Essentially being God, Devil, a government chip, or other people with telepathic ability. Mine was the the devil.

But, almost always, the pdocs telling us that are people who have never experienced sz themselves. What they have learned about sz in their life, they have learned from authors and teachers who have spoken with other szs but also decided that anything the sz tells them about that experience is ‘just a delusion’. So they have judged the reality of it before actually hearing it.

1 Like

i’m concerned about the article too. he obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He is not a pdoc.

1 Like

Literature major here.

This directly goes against the moral principles stated in sociology, and psychology is a closely connected matter in this academic field- and vice versa. It may also violate some acts in the United States’ Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. You may also find this reportable to some academic societies of education.

Also, who on earth contributed to this textbook? As a literature major who had studied citations, this just don’t make sense (in sense of citations) to all of the academic fields of literature, sociology, and psychology combined. Not sure why the editors decided to reference some inappropriate stuff. I’m sure they used APA citation for this and I’m not sure if APA (American Psychology Association) will be happy with this.

1 Like