The Conspiracy Wiki
Advertisement

The theory of the profitable frequent medicine dosing conspiracy argues that since medicines that are taken frequently over a long time generates the most sales and therefore the most profit for pharmaceutical corporations, pharmaceutical corporations have the most incentives to promote medicines that are taken daily or nearly daily. The most profitable medicines would be those that are said to be needed daily for an entire lifetime. This makes the theory imply that Big Pharma have much more incentives to, for example, promote heart medicines by suppressing ageing reversal research that could remove the need or to promote psychiatric medication by falsely lumping behaviors that do not share the same biomarkers under the same taxonomically invalid diagnoses than they have to promote vaccines that are taken months apart (such as Coronavirus vaccines) or to promote medicines that are only taken for relatively short treatments to cure a disease (such as antibiotics).

Repression of non-regressionist genetics[]

Since permanent fixing of genes would remove long term use of medicines, big pharmaceutical corporations have a financial interest in repressing the use of genetic engineering, especially on humans. One way to do that is to allege that genetics is too complicated to fix by modifying one or two genes. The absurdity of the allegation that genetics is "immensely complex" is obvious in the fact that it was the mutation risk in large genomes that led to the discovery of junk DNA in the first place.

Junk DNA is not a synonym for all non-coding DNA. It refers to the vast majority of large genomes such as the human genome that cannot have any sequence-specific function. Hundreds of new mutations happen with every new individual in every new generation. This would have been far too much for natural selection to keep up with if it has to keep the entire genome as fine-tuned as any "immensely complex" system would need to be. Discoveries of regulatory functions in some specific non-coding DNA sequences does not mean that all or even most non-coding DNA have regulatory functions.

It have been claimed (e.g. by John Mattick) that the existence of large regions (over 10000 base pairs long) of non-coding DNA without transposons (jumping genes) "proves" that such large areas of DNA have sequence-specific regulatory functions, but that claim misses the point that transposons can copy themselves. It is possible that a transposon in a location where it causes no direct damage still gives it a "strategic" position to copy itself into nearby DNA regions in the next few generations. If these extra copies damages the great-great grandchildren, it eliminates the lineages with transposons in pre-damage "strategic" locations.

Repression by polarization between puppet movements[]

Neo-Nazi flag[]

One way to do the repression is to first create one lobbied "ethical" standard that labels the idea that one or two mutations can have dramatic evolutionary effects as "unethical", and then create a controlled opposition that claims to attack such "ethics", but still does not actually criticize the assumption of "immensely complex genomes". For example, it is often claimed by geneticists supported by crony capitalism that humans all over the world have the same brain capacity because "the human genome is too complex to change brains in a few thousand years", and claim that it would be "racist" to say that one or two genetic changes can dramatically upgrade the brain.

But at the same time, the neo-Nazi groups that the "ethicists" claim that their "ethics" is a safeguard against do not themselves claim that one or two mutations can be an evolutionary breakthrough for the brain. On the contrary, neo-Nazi groups base their fear of "racial mixing" on allegations of "regression to mean" which is very similar in its premise to the allegation of "too complex" genomes for rapid evolution espoused by the "ethicists", with only the applied detail difference that the neo-Nazis neither adhere to recent African origin nor to the universal selection for intelligence regardless of environment posited by near-mainstream multiregionalism. This goes not only for neo-Nazism, but for original Nazism as well. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and the essays later named "Hitler's second book" that the reason why he believed racial mixing to be destructive was because he believed that adaptations had to be slow and complex, and he did not believe that one mutation could suddenly turn subhumans into superhumans.

In fact, neo-Nazi groups accuse biological non-regressionism of being "politically correct" for criticizing neo-Nazism's fear of mixing just as much as "ethicists" accuse the same nonregressionism of being "racist". The generalizing allegation that so-called "racists" can still vote for neo-Nazis even if they do not commit hate crimes themselves completely misses the point that so-called "racists" of the nonregressionist persuasion cannot support Nazism for the exact same reason as they draw the conclusions labelled as "racist". If one is nonregressionist, one cannot believe that mixing would permanently destroy the ability to create civilization since nonregressionism implies that adaptive introgression can always select for the key genes again and that it can go fast because evolution can re-use the old mutations instead of having to wait for new ones.

And without a belief in permanent destruction of civilization-creating ability caused by "racial mixing", the entire Nazi worldview which is based on allegations of "parasitic peoples" causing mixing to destroy civilization comes crashing down. Since a non-regressionist is an anti-Nazi for the exact same axiomatic reason as the non-regressionist is "racist", the entire claim that "the person would be even more anti-Nazi without racist ideas" is complete nonsense.

And for the same reason, the allegation that "the nonregressionist may vote for the Nazis because he or she is a racist" is bullshit. The nonregressionist may even advocate more immigration and oppose segregation as a hedge for climate change, guaranteeing that even brain mutations that have arisen in the last few thousand years will exist in combination with many different physical characteristics. Some of these characteristics may save their carriers from being killed by future climate change.

The claim that people classified as "white supremacists" would vote a "racist" party to power becomes especially absurd when combined with the claim that worldviews with different definitions of who is "white" can all be considered "white supremacist", since parties drawing the line in different places would be unable to agree on any actual policies. And the entire idea that people can harm others by voting for "bad" parties is nonsense if the government in your country has more than 21 ministers since such large committees cannot make the actual decisions, as shown here. The claim that "racists would create an ethnostate by voting" reaches next level idiocy when combined with the claim that "most people were racists until 30 to 40 years ago", since most countries 40 to 50 years ago did not have ethnostate-type immigration and segregation laws. Not even countries that at the time had 21 or fewer ministers in their governments which allowed their governments to have actual power.

Non-regressionist genetics criticizes the massive modularity model of the brain, since the limited amount of functional DNA implies that there is not room for lots of specialized modules. This includes criticism of the allegation of specialized empathy modules in the brain, as shown here. This, in turn, leads to criticism of Nazism since Nazism assumes empathy modules to exist as specialized psychological mechanisms. Hitler said that "The Aryan is not greatest in his mental abilities as such, but in the extent of his willingness to put all his abilities in the service of the community" which shows that the Nazi racial hierarchy was an empathy hierarchy and not a cognitive hierarchy.

This makes it especially ironic that Hitler claimed to oppose enlightenment since the notion of specialized empathy modules was created by enlightenment-era psychiatrists. Ethno-nationalism is a product of enlightenment philosophy too, as shown here. The claim that Hitler's animal rights activism had nothing to do with his antisemitism is nonsense, as his allegations about why the Old Testament says what it says about animals is the same nonsense as animal rights activist allegations of "rationalization of animal abuse". More evidence for the absurdity of the allegations is shown here. This makes it unsurprising that Hitler could not even get the basic historical facts correct. For example, he missed the fact that ancient Israelites did create their own civilization, see here.

Within a non-regression genetic framework, it is arguable that Nazi "eugenics" was dysgenic. While all "regression to mean" genetics (no matter if they are "racial realist" or "homogenous humanity") claim that killing of people with particular behaviors in one generation cannot dramatically impact following generations, non-regressionist genetics says that it can. That opens the possibility of explaining Germany's loss of its previous world-leading role in scientific discoveries and technological innovation after WWII as a result of Nazi "eugenics" being dysgenic and killing especially children with the potential to become scientists and inventors before they had time to learn how to hide their behaviors. While Hitler claimed that the "superiority" of the German people lay in its "state-creating ability", Germany was not united until 1871 and even then remained less centralized than countries like Russia and Spain were when they were united way back in the 1500s. So Hitler was wrong on the distribution of state creation.

It is possible that Hitler's labelling of behaviors that did not agree with bureaucracy as "anti-social" selected against the "mad scientist" behaviors that made Germany scientifically and technologically superior before the war. The Nazis despised pure science and demanded that all research should ask what their application for society was, which struck hard against theoretical physics. The Nazis labelled the latter "Jewish physics", an ad hominem fallacy similar to intersectionality's use of the labels "mansplaining" and "whitesplaining". Even those who were not Jewish were subject to restrictions against theoretical physics, and practicing of such was labelled as "anti-social".

Nazi animal rights laws also struck medicine. Around 1900, German scientists criticized British psychiatry's allegations of a link between vivisection and violent crimes with reference to the fact that while vivisections were commonly practiced at German universities but already illegal in Britain, Germany had lower rates of violent crimes than Britain. Nazi animal testing laws, requiring applications, medically mirrored the restrictions against pure physics with similar labels of pure science as "anti-social". In all cases, physics, medicine and more, the superiority of general understanding of theories is shown here, building a case that Nazi "eugenics" was dysgenics by selecting against pure science.

So nonregressionist genetics is an example of a third alternative that shows that official academic "ethics" and neo-Nazism are more closely related to each other than either of them is to genetic non-regressionism based on actual understanding of the mutation risks behind the discovery of junk DNA. This theory explains this as a result of both academic "ethicists" and neo-Nazi groups being actors in the same staged pseudofight to use stupid statisticians and politicians with low resolution in the brain as weapons against non-regressionist biology no matter what party rules.

"Woke" and neo-Nazi are the same unistupidity puppetmastered in an Orwellian continuous war by big pharmaceutical corporations to suppress genetic engineering. The argument that "one movement committs much more violence than the other" misses the point that since both movements are puppets controlled by the same corporations, capitalism can decide which movement to order to commit the most violence as a way of making it look like one of the puppets took the initiative instead of the corporations. Those stupid enough to believe that the pointing out of the similarity and shared control "defends" either movement commit exactly the fallacy that capitalism wants them to commit to keep them from attacking the capitalist system itself.

"Choosing sides" between the puppets cannot end the true cause, the puppet master. Puppet movements are easily replaceable to the puppet master (the capitalist system), and if one was "destroyed", the capitalist system would just create another. And as long as there are statisticians committing the fallacy of assuming that the remark that both puppets in a polarized debate are puppets of the same system "defends" the puppet that the system orders to do the most violent actions in power, the capitalist system will have incentives to order one of its new puppets to commit a lot more violence than the other. For example, "destroying neo-Nazis" while the capitalist system and statisticianoid bureaucracy remains would only result in the capitalist system creating a new puppet movement exactly as violent as neo-Nazis.

The scientific meaning of "human races do not exist" is that different genes begin and end their distribution ranges in different places, there are not lots of genes with their distribution range limits in the same place as the myth of "pure" races claims. While it means that a brain gene does not have the same distribution range as a pigment gene, it does not mean that all human brain genes are equally distributed across the world. This is not a new discovery from the genomic sequencing era. Charles Darwin noticed that different physical characteristics begin and end at different lines on the map, creating a long series of steps and not a few races.

The fact that different genes have different distribution ranges shows that the claim that "you either believe that intelligence is equally distributed across the world, or you believe that people regress to different intelligences based on skin color" is bullshit. It is as absurd as claiming that you "must" either believe that all trouts are equally salt tolerant or that having a particular color of the scales makes any trout of that scale color magically "regress" to a different level of salt tolerance. The salt tolerance gene determines the trout's salt tolerance, and how salt tolerant trouts with the same scale color in a different region with a different salinity are has no relevance for the salt tolerance of a trout between the distribution range limit of a salt tolerance gene and the range limit of a scale color gene. That trout has the full salt tolerance of its salinity level, debunking both the claim that it "genetically regresses" to lower salt tolerance by sharing the color of less salt-tolerant trout and the claim that its salt tolerance is "reduced by experiences of oppression" by one and the same observation, its full salt tolerance.

This does not contradict the mutation risk limit to the amount of functional DNA. The existence of other organs with separate genes simply put even narrower restrictions on the amount of DNA available for the brain and further precludes massive modularity. For example, the fact that pigment genes are distinct from brain genes means that they both only have their separate parts of the maximum amount of functional DNA. But the fact that they both, like all other sets of separate genes for separate characteristics, have very restricted information amounts means that they must restrict themselves to a few genes with major effects in analogous ways. While there are six or so pigment genes, there are not hundreds of sets of genes for different types of pigment each fine-tuned by thousands of interacting genes which would have violated the maximum information limit. Similar limits apply to other organs with separate gene sets, like the pancreas, the liver... and the brain. So no massive modularity.

And claiming that "race is a necessary social construct even if it is not scientifically valid" is nonsense since it is the prevention of individuals from opting out of a classification that enables major genocides such as the Holocaust, it has nothing to do with whether the classification is said to be scientific or "a social construct". Nazi law made the Holocaust much bigger than religion-based pogroms because it considered anyone who was once a Jew to always be a Jew regardless of religious conversion. If Hitler had said that race was a social construct, that would not have prevented or diminished the Holocaust as long as the "construct" involved being prevented from opting out of the classification as a Jew.

Creationist flag or "intelligent design" flag[]

Another controlled opposition is creationism, also called "intelligent design". Big Pharma profits from repressing actual natural selection-based analysis of energy costs and mutation risk-based analysis of functional DNA amounts. With enough stupid statisticians in the institutions, that repression can be done by polarization between one Big Pharma-supported pseudo-evolution theory that dismisses such actual natural selection analysis and a controlled opposition that dismisses evolution altogether. And that controlled opposition, orchestrated as a second puppet by the same Big Pharma stagefight that also controls official academic "evolution" theory, is creationism or "intelligent design".

Pointing out that natural selection would never allow rationalization as a psychological mechanism to exist since it would be a waste of nutrients to rationalize decisions that would have been taken even without rationalization is an evolution-based criticism of psychology and psychiatry. To claim that the argument "supports intelligent design" contradicts its own premise since the argument clearly implies that rationalization as a psychological mechanism would not only be negatively selected by evolution in an evolutionary context, but also be stupid design if there was a designer. The allegation that evolution would have to be "perfect" for such an analogy is nonsense, since adaptive introgression would allow any species that hybridized with related species to correct any genetically bottlenecked waste of nutrients by selecting for a genetic lack of such waste inherited from a parent of another species. Homo sapiens have hybridized with multiple other hominin species which debunks the claim that modern humans would be stuck with maladaptive traits from genetic bottlenecks in early Homo sapiens.

Pharma-controlled academia's notions of "extremely complex genomes" that are supported by "sceptics" are also copypasted into young Earth creationism. Just like pharma-lobbied "evolution" models that reject Mendelian genetics as "too simplistic", young Earth creationists also claim that much of the genome has functions. That is why young Earth creationism claims that creation is degenerating through inevitable mutations happening too fast to be purged. In that way, those claiming that evolution fine-tunes complex genomes are the worse "cousins" of young Earth creationists since finetunists do not even apply their nonsense about extremely large functional genomes consistently. By contrast, the theory of Mendelian genetics without regression is logically compatible with natural selection adapting life to changing environments and maintaining a feasible functional genome size.

Just as Mendelian regressionless genetics is distinct from the assumptions of "regression to mean" shared by both the "homogenous humanity" model and "racial realism" and therefore not a "center position" between the two any more than atheism is a "center position" between christianity and islam which both share monotheism, regressionless Mendelian genetics is distinct from the belief in a large functional genome shared by both the self-contradicting "fine-tuned complexity" evolution model and young Earth creationism, not a "center position" between them. This rejection of a "spectrum" has the form of a phylogenetic tree of ideas, not of a horseshoe. The non-regression Mendelian genetics model is neither woke nor "racial realist" and neither creationist nor "complex fine-tuned" evolution for the same reason as a primate is neither a horse nor a donkey.

Regression-free Mendelian genetics can explain many observations of evolution that the fine-tuned evolution model cannot explain. There are cases of species formed through hybridization outcompeting both parent species by combining the advantages of both, something the fine-tuning model claims cannot happen. There are examples of sudden genetic changes with large effects, such as the NOTCH2NL duplication that dramatically increased neuron count in prehumans, the SRGAP2 duplication that increased prehuman synaptic connectivity almost as dramatically, and the fact that a single point mutation in one gene in lungfish and coelacanths, when introduced into other fish such as sharks through genetic engineering, give their fins a tetrapod inner skeletal structure. Whole genome duplications giving rise to new species, both on its own accord and as a "cure" for hybrid sterility, are sometimes falsely claimed to occur only in plants (as animals are sometimes said to be "too physiologically complex") but are in fact also common in teleosts (true bony fish) and not unknown in reptiles, amphibians and insects.

There is also evidence that climate change have reached points where their feedback effects accelerate so fast they become abrupt many times in geological history. Both fine-tuned evolution models claiming that evolution is slow and creationism claiming that major evolutionary change is impossible fail to explain how life could survive such events. But the theory of Mendelian genetics free from regression can explain it as a result of fast evolutionary leaps producing lifeforms capable of surviving abrupt changes in climate.

It is an error to assume that if there was more than one origin of life or more than one origin of a species, that would somehow limit what mutations and natural selection can do or require an "intelligent designer". Just as an independent origin of life on another planet would not have prevented the evolution of all life on Earth from a single cell, separate origins of more than one cell on Earth would not preclude evolution of all multicellular life from single-celled organisms either. The point is that the number of origins that happened to exist has no bearing on what mutations and natural selection can do. An "evolution" organization assuming that a theory of more than one origin of life "is a code for intelligent design" committs the same fallacy as an "intelligent design" organization misquoting a theory about multiple origins of life as if it was evidence for an "intelligent designer".

The same applies to misquotes and assumptions about theories of more than one origin of a particular species.

Repression of ageing reversal science[]

It is the corporations, not rich physical persons, that benefit from repression[]

One example of science that is repressed by allegations that "genetics is too complex to fix it" is the underlying mechanisms of ageing. Since old people usually take a lot more medicines than young people, especially when it comes to long term medicine use that treats symptoms rather than curing causes permanently, successful biological ageing reversal would cut back Big Pharma's profit. So pharmaceutical corporations have motives for repressing ageing reversal research.

It is sometimes claimed that the rich owners have an interest in living forever and that they would therefore have access to ageing reversal treatment if it was possible, but that claim misses the point that the really big pharmaceutical corporations such as Pfizer and Astra Zeneca are so big that no physical person can buy them. Their stocks and shares are distributed in such a way that no individual billionaire can own even half a pharmaceutical megacorporation. This means that no physical person can order a cleanup of the corporate bureaucracy in them, as explained here.

And with no physical person to clean up the corporate bureaucratic swamp, it is the corporate bureaucracy that runs the corporations. This makes the lives of the individual shareholders and board members of the corporation as inconsequential to the corporation as an institution as the lives of individual party members were to The Party as an institution in Geogre Orwell's 1984. There are idiots that claim that "only states can be totalitarian" without explaining why a corporation could not concentrate total power with all of its lobbyist might.

"Competition" between multiple corporations do not preclude total corporate power any more than wars between multiple states preclude totalitarian state power. The sheer similarity between the biggest corporations can easily make the "competition" between them continuous, just as the political similarity between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia made the wars between them continuous in 1984 by George Orwell. So yes, really big corporations can act in a way that hurts all physical persons including their richest share owners. And since it is those gigantic corporations that have the most money, they easily outlobby any corporations that are small enough for an individual billionaire to buy. Such outlobbying can easily take the form of lobbying for laws in the name of "ethics".

This is also an example of how absurd the claim that "it is the very rich who rule the corporations that would use ageing reversal" is. The pharmaceutical corporations spend almost all of the fraction of their money that they actually spend on developing anything (marketing and lobbyism are their largest spendings all categories) on treatments that are supposed to prevent, cure or treat the symptoms of specific diseases. Hardly any money gets spent on studying the underlying mechanisms of ageing. That definitely does not match the course of action that a wealthy organization in which physical persons who wanted to become immortal had any real power would take. Such an organization would, of course, study the underlying biological mechanisms of ageing extensively.

The claim that "only the rich would afford ageing reversal" is also nonsense. Just because a treatment is not invented today, it does not mean that it will be extremely expensive when it is invented. There were no telephones in the Medieval, but that does not mean that telephones are extremely expensive today. Since ageing reversal treatment would only have to be taken once in a few decades, more people would be able to afford it than there are people who can afford taking medicines that treat the symptoms of ageing instead of the causes every day. This is the same principle as there are more people who can afford an airplane flight a year than there are people who can afford daily airplane commutes.

Shoehorning into normal distributions as capitalist repression of ageing science[]

Academic institutions and pharmaceutical corporations claim that "ageing cannot be considered a disease because it is a normal process", as if everything had to be shoehorned into normal distributions. Theories can be falsifiable without normally distributed predictions since absolute numbers can be falsifiable predictions. So the claim that "without normal distribution, there would be no science" is nonsense. Why not treat ageing as a disease because the consequences of ageing are bad in absolute numbers? It is not done by the institutions because the pharmaceutical corporations that control the institutions through lobbyism would lose profit in such a scenario.

Rules demanding normal distributions are also linked to capitalism on the timeline. Rules that shoehorn and distort the data until it fits into a bell curve were passed for psychometrics in the 1800s, shortly after the expansion of capitalism which places it during the consolidation of capitalism's grip. For somatic medicine, an equivalent rule was passed in the clinical trial protocols in the 1950s, during early stage overspecialization when capitalism had recently built new industries on the ruins of the less specialized ones that had been destroyed during the war. It was also during the major expansion of pharmaceutical corporations. It was also in the 1950s that the institutions said that "ageing can never be treated as a disease" for the first time. And during the deindustrialization in the early 1970s, rules demanding normal distributions (and, in the case of research that legally required "ethics" permits, capitalist profitability of the results) were passed all over academia and not just for medicine. Coincidence? Hardly.

Natural selection per generation contradicts the DNA damage theory of ageing[]

Susumu Ohno's limit to the number of harmful mutations natural selection can purge per generation is the base for Ohno's functional DNA limit. While it does not contradict rapid selection for or against specific gene variants, it puts a limit to the number of harmful mutations that can appear in the germline per generation without causing defects to accumulate faster in the germline than natural selection can work, leading to extinction. So if natural laws made DNA damage an inevitable mechanism of ageing, natural law inevitability would by the universality of natural laws strike the germline just like the soma cells and cause extinction by accumulation of evolutionarily unpurgeable amounts of harmful mutations.

The same fact that the laws of nature are universal means that DNA damage cannot specifically make engineered negligible senescence impossible at the species label "human" while permitting negligible senescence in other species. What happened to evolutionary continuity, you fools that claim that "it is not transferrable because those species are not human"? Saying that "the damage just happens slower with slower metabolism and slower generations" would only postpone the result to extinction in a few tens of thousands of years instead of a few centuries, with no chance of the lineage continuing for millions of years. The limit to the number of harmful mutations natural selection can purge from the germline is, after all, per generation and not per chronological year.

Psychiatric medication[]

Psychiatric medication is a major source of incomes for pharmaceutical corporations, giving them strong incentives to lobby for it. And given that the pharmaceutical industry is the second most profitable industry in the world (after military equipment), it has some pretty big lobbying muscles to cause corruption all over the place too.

Corporate profit and the long shadow of involuntary commitment[]

While idiots that buy the nonsensical notion of a "left-right political spectrum" claim that involuntary commitment is created by the state on its own accord and without corporate involvement, Big Pharma profits from involuntary commitment. The claim that involuntary commitment only provides a small fraction of psychiatric medication sales misses that involuntary commitment has a long shadow, that threats of involuntary commitment causes people who would be diagnosed as "psychotic" if they refused psychiatric medication for a "milder" diagnosis to take pills for the "milder" diagnosis to avoid heavier medicines. Statistics that label such cases as "voluntary" is like armed robbery statistics would only count cases where the gun was actually fired as armed robberies and dismiss cases where money was left to the robber at gunpoint without any bullets being fired as "voluntary gifts".

Lack of information about the dangers of "ligher" medicines often mislead "patients" to believe that they could avoid danger by obeying psychiatry. Since psychiatry is lobbied by capitalism to label stupidity as "improvement" because stupid customers are more profitable, psychiatry considers brain damage "improvement". And even with "ligher" medicines, psychiatry changes medicines until they get what they consider "improvement", i.e. brain damage, which means that individual differences in genetic resistence to different poisons are bypassed by psychiatry swapping poisons until they find something that destroys the brain of the "patient" even among the "lighter" medicines. Polypharmacies evade genetic resistence to brain damage even without swapping. And since a destroyed brain is no longer the mind preserved, the "patient" really has nothing to lose by fighting to death against psychiatry (and the infrastructure that supports its supply of psychiatric medication and search for missing persons whom they have decided to involuntarily commit) even if the medicines are "lighter".

Involuntary commitment's long shadow becomes even longer because of addiction to the medicines taken under threat of being involuntarily committed if not taking them. While psychiatry sometimes claims that addiction to psychiatric medication does not exist when citing that addiction involves physical damage and risk of death in the case of withdrawal, the fact that psychiatry itself admits that serious brain damage and even death can result from psychiatric medication withdrawal shows that psychiatric medication causes these hallmarks of addiction.

Claiming that "it is the mental illness that causes brain damage and death during withdrawal" contradicts itself on many accounts. If "mental illness" did cause as rapid neurodegeneration at a constant rate as the rate observed during the weeks after psychiatric medication withdrawal, the "patient" would not have survived until contact with psychiatry for purely neurophysiological reasons. The claim that "mental illness damages the brain" also contradicts psychiatry's own principle of not requiring shared biomarkers for being diagnosed with the same mental illness, as any neurodegenerative disease that physically damaged the brain would have biomarkers. And knowing the biomarkers is important for treating neurodegenerative diseases, since a medicine that works against one neurodegeneration mechanism is ineffective against and often worsens a different neurodegenerative mechanism. This applies even if the symptoms observable without biomarker tests are the same.

This extension of involuntary commitment's shadow follows from the fact that once addicted, the person must keep taking the medicine. This applies even if the threat of involuntary commitment that caused the person to take the first doses disappears. So the number of doses of psychiatric medication that are indirectly caused by the threat of involuntary commitment increases further and further over time, and so does the capitalist profit.

This means that the amount of psychiatric medication that is sold profitably because involuntary commitment exists as a threat is many times bigger than the amount of psychiatric medication administered under involuntary commitment itself. So pharmaceutical corporations have incentives to lobby for involuntary commitment. Big Pharma also has incentives to lobby for the falsifiability-avoiding psychiatric pseudoscience of labelling criticism of psychiatric diagnoses as "a symptom of mental illness", as it provides a threat of heavier diagnoses that coerces up the pseudo-voluntary sales of "lighter" medicines. And even the "lighter" psychiatric medication damages the brain. Capitalism is not your ally in the struggle against involuntary commitment. Big Pharma does not lobby against involuntary commitment. Big Pharma lobbies for involuntary commitment.

Self-contradictions in medicine pollution defeatism[]

Psychiatry contradicts itself when first saying that "psychiatric medication does not damage the brain" and then claiming that it is too late to avoid psychiatric medication damaging one's brain by not taking psychiatric medication "because there is pollution with psychiatric medication in the environment". One of the contradictions is that even if the latter claim was true, that would have meant that psychiatric medication does damage the brain.

Another contradiction regards the dose differences. In order for effects such as brain damage being transferrable from one dose to another, the doses would have had to be functionally interchangeable since there are many substances that cause permanent damage if and only if they exceed a threshold dose. And if the doses of psychiatric medication found as pollutants in the environment were functionally equivalent to taking pills, as would be required for the argument "if the pills damaged your brain, so would the pollutants" to have any merit, that would contradict the claim that "patients need the pills". If the doses found in the environment had interchangeable effects with taking pills, the "patients" could quit the pills and get the medicines they "needed" from polluted water.

So do not believe that it is too late to not take pills. It is worth refusing them since the doses in pills cause permanent brain damage even if the lower doses in polluted water do not. And do not believe in psychiatry's klaptrap about "it is not defeatism, governments can regulate pollution" since big corporations that really do the pollution get away because they control governments, see here.

HR as corporate lobby control over psychiatry[]

One example of corporate control over what psychiatry calls "society", see below, is HR. That is corporate engineering of something corporations and their cronies in psychiatry calls "social groups" within the corporations themselves. There, corporations can train their fools to claim to "feel offended" by intelligent behavior as a way of persecuting intelligent life by labelling intelligent life as "anti-social", as shown by the high percentage of article titles ending with "in the workplace" among psychiatric literature about so-called "empathy disorders".

Capitalism's claim that "HR merely adapts to how people work to make the workplace work" misses the point that work got done before capitalism's hypocritical rules against pointing out that idiots are stupid existed. The assumption that "those rules are fine-tuned by human nature and not created by corporations because they are present even outside the corporations today" misses the point that those outside the corporations that imitate corporate organization under the false pretense that "private corporations are efficient" spread corporately constructed forms of organization beyond private corporations. Those idiotic copiers act as lackeys of corporate lobbyism, even if they are too stupid to understand it. The assumption that something "must be in human nature" because idiots believing corporations to be "efficient" copy it from corporations to outside corporations is stupid.

The distinction between intelligent and stupid is important, as shown here and here. The claim that the intelligent "should be polite by not calling others stupid" misses the point that it would not stop the stupid from accumulating increasingly idiotic nonsense by not distinguishing each other's equally politely formulated bullshit from actual reasoning, as explained here.

To claim that "the body language of those you call stupid proves that they feel offended" is a fallacy, since there are countless possible mechanisms behind the same outward appearance. The allegation that "if you do not think that body language proves that the person genuinely feel offended, you imply that the person is intentionally faking" is a false dichotomy (made even more ironic by psychiatry's claim of having "non-dichotomic thinking" that it alleges its critics to lack) as there are more alternatives than genuinity and intentional individually produced fakes. For example, HR and its cronies may have trained idiots like dogs to produce that body language. The allegation that "accusations" of intentional faking are somehow "worse" than "accusations" of producing bad unintended consequences is itself capitalist persecution of intelligent life, as explained here. Psychiatry's allegation that anyone who considers other possible causes of an apparent body language than "genuine feeling" must "lack the ability to read body language" is a false dichotomy committed by psychiatry.

The assumption that a person was bad for a group if there was more conflict in the group when the person was present than when the person was absent is absurd, as can be illustrated by a thought experiment. Imagine that a chariot is headed towards a cliff. One person in the chariot understands that the cliff is objectively real and lethal to run off, while the others believe that the cliff is a social construct that is no problem if everyone "thinks positively". The presence of the person who understands that the cliff is real at least gives a chance that the person may find a way of stopping the chariot before it runs off the cliff edge, even against the objections of the others passengers. Removing the person may reduce conflict in the chariot because only those agreeing that the chariot should continue towards the cliff are present, but it guarantees that the remaining passengers will all die.

Assessment rules select for puppetmaster drugs in psychiatry[]

The rules of what behaviors psychiatrists should work to reduce or remove are the same as the rules for what behaviors psychiatric medication is officially classified as "having good effects" for reducing, and the behaviors that psychiatrists are told to try to increase in the "patients" are the same as those psychiatric medications are officially classified as "working" if they increase. Since obedience to psychiatrists reduce behaviors that the psychiatrists tells the "patient" to avoid and increases behaviors that psychiatrists tells the "patient" to do, the system effectively classifies drugs that make "patients" blindly obedient to psychiatry as "good psychiatric medication". This effect is ensured by the prescription system, which requires everyone on psychiatric medication to see a psychiatrist every time the recipe is renewed. Changes of laws that permit online meetings do not change this, since puppetmasters can give orders to their puppets online.

Since the abovementioned effect is driven by the similarity of the rules, it has nothing to do with psychiatrists doing what the rules classify as "misconduct" or "malpractice". The corruption is built into the rules of the controlling authorities, and is thus only worsened and not reduced by more controls to ensure that individual psychiatrists follow the "ethics" of psychiatry. The orders that make the corrupt zombification system tick are not made up by individual psychiatrists on whim, but the psychiatrists act as tools for the actual puppetmastering performed by the corporations that control the writing of psychiatry's "ethics" through lobbyism. Thus, the objection that "there are bad psychiatrists but there are good psychiatrists too" misses the point that the puppetmastering is systemic and not about the psychiatrists as individuals. It is also not about "group" classifications of psychiatrists as physical persons by categories such as gender or skin color. It is about the rule-writing institutions as systems.

One example of puppetmastering is psychiatry ordering drugged "patients" to claim to "feel offended" by criticism of psychiatric medication. That is part of systematic nonsense that pharmaceutical corporations profit from by demonizing criticism of their source of profit. This makes organizations that claim to work for the "rights" of "patients" part of corrupt corporate lobbyism. This includes puppetmastering drugged "patients" to claim to "feel helped" by medication. Brain damage that makes "patients" too stupid to reason facilitates brainwashing them into parroting fallacies such as "I also wish that I could find work that I could do without the medicine but it is not psychiatry's fault that such work does not exist" that misses the point that lobbyism makes psychiatry and the labor market controlled by the same megacorporations capable of buying and decommissioning smaller corporations. The fallacy is also part of capitalism's antiintellectual nonsense about "moral agency".

Antidepressants and evolutionarily absurd suicide allegations[]

Antidepressants are one of the most profitable categories of psychiatric medication, giving the huge pharmaceutical corporations really big incentives to lobby for them. The dishonesty of the marketing and the extent of its reach into supposedly "independent" research becomes obvious from an evolutionary analysis of what psychiatry alleges to cause suicide. The list includes many examples of treatment of people, most often of children but also some categories of adults, that psychiatry claims were very common and "normal" in the past and require a modern society to protect people from.

That makes it evolutionarily absurd that humans would be wired to commit suicide because of such treatment, since genes that caused our ancestors to commit suicide when exposed to a treatment that was very common when our brain wiring evolved would have been strongly negatively selected by very high suicide rates and eliminated from the gene pool. For example, the claim that it is "in universal human nature" to become depressed and commit suicide from being stateless is absurd since there were no states at the time when Homo sapiens was spreading out of Africa. Since there were no records of birthdate at the time either, it is also absurd to claim that humans become traumatized and commit suicide from being treated the same when they are 17 as when they are 18 without knowing a birthday.

Falsely crediting antidepressants for selection against genes[]

Organizations filled with money by pharmaceutical corporations claim that it is because of antidepressants that suicide rates per capita have dropped between 1990 and 2019. However, per capita suicide rates have dropped by a similar amount in countries with vastly different antidepressant prescription rates. Sweden have much higher rates of antidepressant prescription than Norway and Denmark, and prescriptions have increased far more over time in Sweden than in other Nordic countries, and yet suicide rates per capita have decreased by a similar amount in Denmark and Norway as in Sweden. That means that antidepressants cannot be the cause of decreased suicide rates per capita.

A different theory that can explain it is rapid natural selection. The same genes that increase suicide rates in some environments decrease suicide rates in other environments. The reason why per capita suicide rates were lower in 2019 than in 1990 may simply be that during the years in between, many of the individuals whose suicide risk increases in the environments created by late stage crony capitalism killed themselves. That means fewer individuals with those genes left in 2019 than there were in 1990, and therefore fewer taking their lives in such environments. By stopping the data at 2019, it leaves out the effects of other environments arising during the most recent crises that jeopardize the capitalist system. The claim that natural selection "cannot work that fast" is nonsense, as explained here.

There are more alternatives than rationalizing or being right[]

When confronted with the point that evolution would not allow rationalization to exist as a psychological mechanism in physical persons or other systems with metabolisms because it would waste nutrients, psychiatry frequently asks if the person who points that out think that all psychiatry patients are right in their claims. That is a false dichotomy fallacy (made even more ironic by psychiatry claiming that its critics have "dichotomic thinking") since there are many more alternatives than being right or rationalizing false beliefs. Some of these involve the "patient" being stupid, others involve the patient being intelligent and misunderstood in other ways without actually being right. And neither the "patient" being stupid nor the "patient" being intelligent excludes the possibility that psychiatry is stupid.

Why the concept of rationalization is evolutionarily absurd[]

Psychiatry's claim that "rationalization" would be selected for by evolution as a way of keping pattern detection together misses the point that simple reflexes can produce a similar level of half-baked decisions as pattern detection that is not self-correcting, but at a much lower nutrient cost. That means that in an evolutionary context in which not having a correct worldview could be compatible with survival, evolution would select for simple reflexes instead of non-objective pattern guesses since the reflexes cost less energy.

The claim that evolution would select for pattern guesses because their effects are not always 100% identical to those of reflexes falsely assumes that complexity would be an evolutionary advantage without objective self-correction. That misses the point that a pattern that makes more complex predictions increases the risk of one of its implications being fatal unless self-correction weeds patterns that makes false predictions out, since no chain is stronger than its weakest link and an increase of the number of links increases the risk of one of the links being fatally weak. This means that in the case of "rationalization" protecting false pattern guesses from falsification, the complexity of the pattern would make it a bigger risk of fatal decisions than simple reflexes in addition to costing more energy, further increasing the negative selection of non-objective pattern assumptions.

The claim that detecting a pattern that does not exist would never kill a caveman while not detecting an actual pattern would misses the point that falsely detecting a danger that does not exist could cause a caveman to flee towards actual danger. For example, falsely detecting a predator that does not exist could cause the caveman to flee towards a real predator and be eaten in a situation in which a caveman that did not do the false detection would survive. This means that psychology's claims of "agent detection" misses the point of evolution. If it is claimed that "agent detection" is the origin of religion, "evolutionary" psychology misses the point that predators hunted many animals and not only early humans when "evolutionary" psychology claims that religion is uniquely human.

Since allegations of psychological rationalization are evolutionarily absurd, the following is definitely not meant to be taken as an exhaustive list and rationalization as any kind of "default truth" in cases where all listed alternatives fail. This is as simple as the fact that a colorless red cold unicorn with fusion-powered metabolism is not a "default truth" about what left footprints that cannot be assigned to any known species. To point out that rationalization does not exist as a psychological mechanism and that self-deception does not exist is to point out that a particular theory is wrong, not to claim that a particular theory is right. It is not "rationalization" for the same reason as the point that geocentrism is wrong is not a "rationalization" of a particular theory of galaxy formation, as there are third, fourth and more alternatives. And since the list is non-exhaustive and open, feel free to add more examples of ways of being wrong without rationalization.

The myth of the declinist "cognitive bias"[]

Stupid psychologists dismiss the entire study of declining civilizations by ad hominem allegations of human brains "remembering their youth in a rosy way because they were more energetic and healthy". Dismissing the study of declining civilizations because of such an allegation misses many points. For example, remembering bad things even earlier in life makes evolutionary sense as a way of learning from mistakes, unlike "rationalization" which would waste nutrients and make no evolutionary sense.

Psychology's allegation of "declinist cognitive bias" also misses the point that many ancient philosophers who wrote about the decline of civilizations stated that the timescale of decline was in centuries or even millennia, precluding any possibility that their views on a "Golden Age" in which they were not even born could have been about their own past youthful energy and health. There are people today who form/formed the view that civilization is declining when they are/were in their teens or twenties too, which is also unexplainable by psychology's nonsense. As is the fact that some people today are nostalgic about eras in which they were not born and have only read about in history books.

One example of reductio ad absurdum of the "declinist cognitive bias" myth is what the allegation that any idea of something global getting worse is "cognitive bias" implies about global warming. If you allege that any idea that something was better in the past is "cognitively biased", you imply that every notion of climate getting worse is "a result of cognitive bias". And therefore you imply that any idea that global warming is bad is "cognitive bias" and that global warming should be embraced and hastened "because change is progress". If you also claim that criticism of change is "rationalization of one's inability to adapt", a logical reductio ad absurdum of your claim is that you imply that anyone who tries to stop global warming "is rationalizing his or her inability to adapt to climate change".

To claim that "declinism is the belief that a society or institution is declining, it has nothing to do with climate" is an unscientific self-contradiction within the context of the assumption of a general "cognitive bias" to view the past in a rosy way. That is because the "theory" of such a "cognitive bias" does not predict that it would specifically apply to societies and institutions only and bar everything else including climate. The absurdity of the self-contradiction becomes even clearer from the fact that the "theory" itself claims that "one's past youthful energy and health" is a driving force, which would automatically make it predict that it applies to physical things like climate and not only institutions.

The allegation that the "patient" is "otherwise reasonable" may be wrong[]

As so-called "evidence" for rationalization as a psychological mechanism, psychiatry often claims that "patients" that they claim to rationalize something are "otherwise reasonable". However, there are fundamental methodological errors in psychiatry's assessments of "otherwise being reasonable" that gives false positives. For example, the fact that computer-generated bullshit text from programs that only analyze word frequencies and do not understand what it means have passed peer review in academic journals show that the methodology falsely detects reason.

High scores on IQ tests are often claimed to "prove" that a "patient" is reasonable other than on a particular issue, but that misses the point that the methodological rules for creating IQ tests avoid measuring brain capacity. Specifically, the rule that the outcome must be normally distributed leaves out tests that do not give normally distributed results, which in the case of populations where stark contrasts in brain capacity exist leaves out tests that actually detect brain capacity. And yes, experiments on human neurons in petri dishes and transgenic mice with human genes show that there are genes that vary among humans in which a single mutation has a dramatic effect on brain capacity.

Since simply being stupid by lack of brain capacity saves energy, the existence of such stupid individuals does not contradict evolution. This contrasts with allegations of brains rationalizing decisions that have already been made, which would be a waste of nutrients that evolution would not permit. Theories of simple stupidity are also simpler, and therefore preferable by Occam's razor, to theories of rationalization. And of course, the patient being stupid does not rule out the possibility that the psychiatrist and/or those who wrote the rules of psychiatry are also stupid.

Deprivation of falsifying data[]

Being stupid is not the only alternative other than being right or rationalizing. One possibility of how an intelligent "patient" can be wrong without rationalization is the lack of exposure to empirical data that falsifies the predictions of the theories that psychiatry labels as "delusions". This includes not only data that have not yet been discovered or published, but also data that the psychiatric methodology keeps away from people who predict otherwise by using arguments from authority instead of empirical facts. If a "patient" does not abandon a theory just because a psychiatrist refers to an authority, it does not mean that the "patient" would stick to the theory even if he or she saw actual falsifying evidence.

One example is that if Mike Hughes had survived his rocket flight, it is possible that he would have admitted that the Earth is round even if psychiatry claims that he would still have believed that it was flat. Such allegations cause psychiatry to not even try to show empirical facts, which contributes to the metodological errors of psychiatry. This applies regardless of whether or not psychiatry murdered Mike Hughes by sabotaging his rocket, which in turn would not require the Earth to be flat since psychiatry would have incentives to prevent him from admitting that the Earth is round. The latter is obvious since if Mike Hughes had survived and admitted that the Earth is round, that would have been a well-known argument against psychiatry's allegation of "closed mad minds".

This also applies to the allegation of "patients" having a "false self-image as unique" when it is so-called "help and support" selecting who they interact with that deprives them of evidence that they are not unique, as explained here.

Confusing sinecural fallibilism with functional fallibilism[]

Psychiatry's misconceptions about the ability to correct false beliefs involve the assumption that one must say that one can be wrong to be able to change one's mind. That misses the point that saying that one may be wrong in words is not what makes falsification of hypotheses possible. If one cannot connect a hypothesis or theory logically to its falsifiable predictions, one cannot falsify the hypothesis or theory no matter how much one repeats "I may be wrong" like a parrot. Conversely, someone who is absolutely sure about the logic by which a hypothesis or theory makes falsifiable predictions can easily recognize evidence that falsifies it, and therefore correct his or her worldview by abandoning false beliefs. And the person need not say that he or she may be wrong to practice fallibilism functionally which is what matters.

Babbling "it is just my personal opinion" instead of testing the theory actually prevents falsifiability, which is part of psychiatry's methodological flaw. Psychiatry's assumption that someone who is sure about what hypotheses or theories makes what predictions "constructs the certitude to rationalize a particular belief" is fatally flawed and misses the point that the logic by which falsifiable predictions are derived from theories is what makes the person logically abandon false theories.

Reading statistical methodology into other thinking[]

One of the fallacies psychiatry committs when claiming "cognitive bias" and/or "rationalization" is to assume that all criticisms must involve statistical methodology. They need not, since falsifiable predictions can be made in absolute numbers which also has the advantage of being able to test theories that predict outcomes that are not normally distributed. One example of psychiatry's fallacy is to assume that "people think they are better than average", which takes for granted that people must assess characteristics based on a concept of "average". Then psychiatry jumps to the conclusion that people must be "biased to exaggerate their abilities" without even considering the Occam-simpler possibility that there are people whose assessments of abilities involve no concept of "average" which requires no such "bias" as an explanation.

Another example of psychiatry committing the fallacy in question is the claim that people who express a view and mention one or more examples of hostility to said view "thinks most other people have the same views as themselves". That is an example of the fallacy of assuming that others use statistical methodology since it assumes that the person "must" use the concept of an "average person" and divide views into "average" and "not average". People who does not do so (including but not restricted to people who think that not all people have clear views) can assess forces that work against a view without making any assumptions about "how large a fraction of the population" shares said view. It also misses the point that it is possible to assess hostility to a view without holding the view, though that is not a necessary condition for the former fallacy to have been committed.

Psychiatry's assumptions that those who distribute criticism of fallacies "believe that most people have the same problems as them" misses both the abovementioned points, and the point that encountering a fallacy gives opportunities to find the errors in the fallacy. Even if you mostly find errors in fallacies that you have heard, that does not make it wrong to distribute criticisms of them since it is better to distribute rebuttals of some fallacies than to not distribute any criticism of any fallacies at all. Then others can distribute criticisms of other fallacies that they have encountered. Psychiatry's assumptions about distributers of specifically criticisms of encountered fallacies become even more absurd when combined with psychiatry's allegations that people who preemptively criticize fallacies that they have not heard "were the ones who committed them" (which is in itself a fallacy of confusing the use of a claim as an example with a belief that the claim is true), since criticism of fallacies that one have not encountered requires thinking about fallacies that could theoretically be committed.

Mistaking demanded alternatives for beliefs[]

Another way that psychiatry can be led by its fundamentally flawed methodology to assume that a "patient" rationalizes a belief is to assume that a person who criticizes a theory "must" believe in a specific alternative and "rationalize" it, when in fact the "patient" may just have uttered an alternative that he or she doubts because someone demanded that the person must come up with an alternative to the theory that he or she criticizes. This applies no matter if it was the psychiatrist or a third person who made the demand of an alternative theory.

This causes systematic allegations of "rationalization" against scientific-brained people who consistently criticize everything. This is explainable as a result of the capitalist system hating thinking people for being able to think of ways to live without their profitable garbage. It is worsened by psychiatry's spurious assumption that people who do not believe in a "nuance" between two specified theories must have "dichotomic thinking" and believe in one of the two theories, when in fact the "patient" may simply be stating that there is a third (and possibly also a fourth and a fifth) completely separate alternative that is not on a scale between the two that psychiatry claims to be extremes on a linear scale.

It may be psychiatry that lacks the ability to understand that there are more than two completely separate theories with no continuum between them and therefore falsely assumes that anything that is not on a scale between two theories must be one of the two in a pure form. That is, psychiatry committs the same type of fallacy as assuming that an atheist must be a fundamentalist Christian because the atheist points out that atheism is not a shade between Christianity and Islam.

Whyisitsoimportantforyouism, whydoyoudefendism and the Augeas cow's fallacy[]

One trick of psychiatry and pro-psychiatry is to formulate bulverism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism as a question such as "why is it so important for you to criticize that?". Despite its grammatical formulation as a question, the content is simply bulverism, and it misses the point that consistent criticism that provides examples cannot be expressed with all examples at the same time. To suppress criticism by conflating the practicality of examplification with an alleged "agenda" against the specific examples leads to accumulation of nonsense, since every time an absurd claim is criticized the criticism gets suppressed by condescending questions of why one have not already expressed criticisms of similar nonsense. That is the fallacy that keeps psychiatry claiming that "consistent critical thinking does not exist" and that "criticism of content has an agenda", but hypocritically not claiming that "bulverism has an agenda". The latter hypocrisy is obvious in psychiatry not claiming its own allegations of "cognitive biases" to be "biased" against what they claim to be "cognitive biases".

This can be illustrated as the Augeas cattle's fallacy. In the 30 years before the story of Heracles says that he arrived to the stables of Augeas, imagine that it was your job to clean out the dung. Imagine that just as you were putting your shovel down to clean out one pat, an oxen asked "what is your agenda for specifically cleaning out that pat and not another?". If the oxen refuses to listen to you when you say that you are going to clean out all the dung, fallaciously assuming that if you did you would not have shovelled his pat first, he committs the Augeas oxen's fallacy. That is the fallacy that keeps the dung accumulating and not get cleaned out. And psychiatry practices that bullshit when claiming that "you do not criticize everything, you only claim to criticize everything as a rationalization for specifically criticizing some things that you are biased against".

Since the question can also be formulated as "why do you defend the other bull's bullshit?", the Augeas bull's fallacy can also be formulated as the whydoyoudefendist fallacy or the whydoyoudefendthatist fallacy. That fallacy is common in identity political organizations that are de facto supported by psychiatry (even when psychiatry purely semantically claims to be "persecuted" by them) in False flag groups and corporate media control. To point out that psychiatry is hypocritical when it claims to be "politically threatened" by the same identity political organizations that it supports by its absurd claims of "cognition being depressed by experiences of structural threats to one's group" is not the Augeas bull's fallacy or the Augeas bullshit fallacy, since the remark does not involve any allegation of a motive for expressing different criticisms at different times. For that to constitute the "why do you defend that" fallacy or the "why is it so important for you" fallacy, psychiatry would have had to criticize the underlying assumptions and not merely downstream applications that it claims to be "threatening" to it.

Self-contradictions on the role of mechanisms[]

Psychiatry frequently claims to only deal with symptoms in relation to the patient's culture and "agreeing to disagree" on mechanisms ("we agree to disagree" is exactly the kind of platitude that automatic bullshit generators get away with), while leaving trials of psychiatric medication to statistics. However, one thing contradicting that claim is the fact that psychiatry insists that rationalization "must" exist as a psychological mechanism. That is a claim of a mechanism (and one that is evolutionarily unrealistic, as shown above). And abandoning mechanism studies cannot turn a non-science into a science since mechanisms are a source of potentially falsifiable predictions, so abandoning mechanisms removes one further from the scientific method as opposed to bringing one closer to it.

Psychiatry's "argument" that empathy "must" be a set of specialized psychological mechanisms (another claim of mechanisms) in turn hinges on allegations of rationalization. Exactly all diagnoses that psychiatry characterizes as "empathy disorders" contain "rationalization" among their diagnostic criteria. While it is true that evolution is capable of selecting for cooperation and not only egoism, it is not necessary to assume that selection for cooperation would take the form of selection for specialized empathy mechanisms as psychiatry understands it. Especially not if the only "arguments" for specialized empathy mechanisms being required for cooperation is that "rationalization" that does not even exist would cause individuals to behave like that-or-that without them. The evolutionary absurdity of the concept of rationalization, and why this does not contradict corporate conspiracies, is explained here. A self-contradiction in the claim of "self-deception" is explained here.

By not having any "rationalization" mechanisms, evolution is fully capable of producing cooperation and altruism without specialized mechanisms for empathy. This saves both energy and the genetic data space that is restricted by the Ohno limit to the amount of functional DNA. It is also superior according to Occam's razor by involving fewer mechanisms.

Psychiatry contradicts itself on how to test empathy too. To consider the ability to understand that others do not automatically know what one knows oneself as proof of the ability to understand the perspective of others contradicts psychiatry's claim that people who consider others stupid lack the ability to understand the perspective of others. To be able to conclude that someone else is stupid while one is smarter oneself is to be able to understand that someone else lacks the ability to understand something that one understands oneself.

Psychiatry's claim to have abandoned mechanism research in favor of symptom "research" in relation to whether a person "fits into society" in the late 1980s is also nonsense, since the claim that "it is society that determines what is mentally ill" was in wide use in mental hospitals by the early 1960s. While One Flew Over the Cuccoo's Nest is fiction, Ken Kesey based it on his in situ studies of the mental hospital system of the late 1950s to early 1960s. To claim that he predicted a concept in psychiatry almost 30 years before it existed and wrote it into his book is especially absurd if one considers him to have been a kook and not a genius, since successful prediction of what institutions will do almost 30 years hence is not the work of a fool. Capitalism's "Nobel" laureates in economy cannot even predict economical crises one year hence!

More likely, his artistic license was in the opposite direction. That is, the concept of "society determining what is mentally ill" was used in many mental hospitals at the time and Ken Kesey depicted it as something that doctor Spivey came up with in only one mental hospital for dramatic effect. After all, the concept being used in many mental hospitals would make it more likely for Ken Kesey to encounter it during his research. If it was only used in one mental hospital, it would be one big coincidence if he encountered it. And the concept being used in many mental hospitals at the time (not just one) strengthens the point that the concept is at least decades older than psychiatry's official history claims.

The concept of "general social ability" ignores Neanderthal cooperation[]

Experiments with growing cloned Neanderthal neurons in petri dishes show that Neanderthal brain organiods assume a "popcorn" shape like that of some "autistic" people. Firstly, the fact that psychiatry says "some autistic people" instead of simply "autistic people" is as good as a signed confession that there is not a distinguishing biomarker shared by everyone classified as "autistic" by psychiatry, implying that "autism" is an invalid diagnosis that lumps different types of brains that are no more similar to each other than some of them are to brains considered "normal" by psychiatry. And secondly, Neanderthals lived in tightly-knit groups and cooperated which debunks the claim that such a brain structure generally impairs social interaction with every biomarker of those one is interacting with that can exist. This supports the theory that so-called "social disability" is simply misunderstandings between brains of different biomarkers and not a general deficiency in the ability to understand other people.

Chimpanzees live in societies, and yet they cannot automatically read human signals. Happy smiles and crying with tears is unknown to chimpanzees, but that does not prevent them from interacting with other chimps. The claim that "their brains are fine-tuned to read different signals" contradicts the claim of empathy as a general ability to read signals regardless of the type of signals. In addition to that, brain examinations do not even support the claim of fine-tuned modular differences in specific brain regions between human brains and chimpanzee brains. At the macroscopic scale, primate brains of different species (including human brains) are simply different sizes with no differences in proportions between brain regions and the claim of specialized modules is evolutionarily absurd. Of course, this applies not only to claims of empathy modules but also to claims of, say, universal grammar. And as predicted, purported "language centers" in the brain are not proportionally different between humans and chimpanzees either.

At the microscopic scale, there are differences between primate brains in neuron count and synaptic density. However, these differences between a slice of a human brain and a slice of a chimpanzee brain examined under a microscope (the human brain slice having more neurons and more synapses) are present in the entire brain and not related to specific brain regions. They are also simple numerical increases without fine-tuned "wiring patterns". While the fact that brain capacity must be able to save your life during danger makes the notion of cognition as a glue-on on the surface of emotion evolutionarily absurd, differences in signals caused by overall differences in brain capacity are logically predicted by Pavlovian research on brain resolution. This is because brain resolution differences make brain capacity affect perception of everything, intelligence is not something that can have lines drawn around it and separated from reactions claimed to be "what the body does" when in fact the reactions are controlled by the brain.

While the question of what brains are "best at understanding people" is misframed, the question of which response patterns are evolutionarily compatible with sapience is a correctly asked question. Since sapience costs energy in the brain's metabolism, it must fill a function that can save one's life to be evolutionarily worth the cost, as explained here. The importance of reasoning working in the midst of danger means that a sapient would never perceive physical signs of agitation as a signal against reasoning. This implies that anyone refusing to listen because they "do not like the tone" of someone raising the voice is non-sapient. It logically follows that sapients can solve problems well when they die if they fail to solve the problems, explaining the old stories about proving one's worth by solving a riddle and being killed if one fails to solve it as a pre-capitalist way of promoting sapients. It also explains why these stories say that solving the riddle is the criterion, not body language or voice.

The claim that "neuroconflict between biomarkers does not apply to us today because Neanderthals were a different species and contributed so little DNA" misses the point that population increase have generated more mutations in the last ten thousand years than there were in the one million years before. Since population increase also cause the combination of recessive genes from both parents in later generations by most individuals producing many descendants, population increase accentuates genetic change as opposed to buffering it. This means that not all "humans" alive today can meaningfully be considered the same species for neurological purposes, so neuroconflict still applies. The claim that biologically invalid diagnoses without shared biomarkers could somehow "create identity" may simply be a capitalist cover-up to prevent unification of intelligent life in biomarker communities that would be an actual meaningful identity.

Intelligent inventors will not lose their intelligence by cooperating and communicating, as explained here.

Why the claim that "society decides what is insane" is nonsense[]

Psychiatry argues for the claim that "society decides what is mentally ill" by claiming that if an idea is shared by a large part of the population, it should benefit the people. However, that claim misses the point that ideas that harm all physical persons as well as society can reproduce if they benefit the procreation of the idea. The principle is the same as the fact that biological pathogens can reproduce and spread while harming their hosts and only helping their pathogen copies. Psychiatry's "scientific" standards are as low as assuming that since the Black Death spread to such a large part of the population, it must have benefitted their hosts at a group level and not qualify as a disease. The claim that "society decides what is mentally ill" is nonsense.

Since capitalism is hostile to intelligent life, its lobbyism designs "society" to suppress intelligent individuals. Not "groups" with equal intelligence "at a group level", as if the notion of "group level" was not absurd enough, but suppression specifically for being intelligent.

The claim that "memetics is pseudoscience because memes in real life are not durable enough to evolve" is bullshit, as explained here. Corporations have virus-like characteristics so while psychiatry's allegations of "rationalization" are absurd to apply to beings with their own metabolisms such as humans, they could apply to corporate decision-making as long as the corporations are run by their corporate bureaucracy without active human decision-making, see here. And the claim that "psychiatry have committed much abuse in the past but it is much better now" misses the point that corporate control over what psychiatry's statistical methodology labels as "normal" have increased in recent decades and not decreased, as shown here. The claim that "society decides what is insane" is bullshit, and not to a diminished extent. The corporate lobbyism expansion means that the claim that "society decides what is mentally ill" is bullshit to a higher extent today than ever before.

Another reason why the claim that "society determines what is insane" is bullshit is that conformity to destructive rules can lead to death and societal collapse. As shown above, such destructive rules can be put in place through memetic pandemics. If a herd of sheep goes off a cliff and one sheep turns back from the cliff and survives, it does not prove that the surviving sheep lacked an ability to conform to social norms that the other sheep had. It is possible that the surviving sheep had an ability to notice that the cliff is dangerous that the other sheep lacked. In fact, the latter explanation is more Occam-parsimonious and compatible with energy-saving evolution since a combination of an ability to notice the dangers of a cliff and a conformity instinct overriding it would make the ability to notice the dangers of the cliff an useless waste of calories in the brain and a redundant explanation model.

This difference in mechanisms between the models does lead to differences in predictions. It is not something that can be isolated as "merely theoretical", as if any theory that qualified as a theory or even hypothesis could lack practically testable predictions. Any ability to make nonsense "theories" that always lacked practically testable predictions would be a waste of nutrients that evolution would not permit, as explained here. The theory that the sheep that turned back was distinguished by having an ability to understand the dangers of the cliff, and not by lacking an ability to understand social norms, makes the prediction that the sheep in question would not fall outside a different herd that was not headed towards a cliff. That theory can be tested by placing the sheep in question in both types of herds, but not by observing the sheep's interaction with other sheep in just one herd.

Even if capitalist lobbyism controls the entire world at some point in time, that does not cause the theory above to fall short of the falsifiability criterion even when applied to humans instead of sheep. The falsifiability criterion only require a theory to be testable in principle, not the existence of an experiment that can test it here and now. This implies that even a theory that can only be tested in the case of societal collapse still fulfills the falsifiability criterion. If that was not the case, a law that banned telescopes could suddenly have transsubstantiated many astronomical theories from falsifiable science to unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

The claim that "today's society is much better and therefore stabler than historical civilizations that collapsed" misses the point that depending on many components for manufacturing increases the risk of societal collapse. It only takes the lack of one vital component for the entire production of finished products to stop. The number of components required to make a computer circuit doubles every one and a half year by Moore's law, but it takes eight years for a human's risk of dying to double by Gompertz law. Digital society ages a lot faster than an individual human does, so the claim that "we will be dead when digitalized society collapses, so it is best to conform to it" is bullshit.

Conforming to the values of digitalized society is suicide, so it is idiotic hypocrisy of a psychiatric establishment that claims to fight suicide to advocate conformity to digitalized society. So it is not only or even primarily in the past that the claim that "society determines what is mentally ill" is bullshit. The rapid ageing of digitalized society makes the current day the best case in point ever of a society so self-destructive it is conformity that is insane! That, in turn, makes today's society the most likely candidate ever for mislabelling people who are in fact distinguished by understanding consequences as "lacking social abilities".

Psychiatry's assumption that what a consumerist society considers "success" is a measure of adaptability committs the fallacy of conflating specialization with adaptability to change. There was a time when the genus Paranthropus was more populous than the genus Homo, during which paranthropines had temporary "success" because of their specialization to eating certain hard-chewed plants that were abundant then. The genus Homo with their human-like opportunism was much rarer. And yet when climate changed, Paranthropus died out while Homo survived.

Applying psychiatry's mismeasure of "success", a psychiatrist 2 million years ago would have assumed that Paranthropus was more adaptable to change than Homo, falsely predicting that Paranthropus would survive climate change that would kill off Homo instead of vice versa. Saying that "Homo could survive with help and support, but they will always need more help and support than Paranthropus" misses the point that Homo survived without intervention while Paranthropus died out in our timeline. Worse still, the psychiatrist would have tried to give Homo "help and support" to become more like Paranthropus, destroying Homo's adaptability to change and dooming the altered genus "Homo" in the image of Paranthropus that was by then only Homo in name to die out with Paranthropus.

Dodo extinction and the myth that adaptability to change means calm[]

Psychiatry's assumption that people who become more upset in some situations are less adaptable to change is absurd. If it was correct, dodos that calmly stood still even when they were hunted would have been more adaptable to change than animals that fled to safety. And yet they died out. So never buy the claim that becoming upset over something that someone else does not become upset over would equal lower adaptability to change than the non-upset individual, no matter how many times psychiatry's official publications commit the fallacy of making that assumption.

Dismissing the above with the claim that "it is a scale, it is not black and white" not only idiotically alleges the ability to distinguish many separate alternatives to be a strawman "inability" to imagine more than two alternatives, it also misses more points. For starters, claiming that "it would be possible to preserve other, less calm species if they get more help and support than the calmer dodos" misses the point that many less calm species survived when the dodos went extinct before there were any wildlife preservation efforts at all. So why assume that "being human" magically causes upsetness to be an absurd "regression" to lower adaptability?

Nutrient costs: why the claim that "you can think it if you do not act on it" persecutes intelligence[]

When psychiatry claims not to persecute brains that think the consequences through by claiming that "if you do not act on it, we do not consider it pathology", psychiatry misses the point that superior brain capacity costs nutrients. If these costs did not give survival advantages that outweighed the costs, evolution would have eliminated such brain capacity altogether as explained here and here. So in order for superior brain capacity to survive evolution, it must be acted on in ways that lead to survival in situations that would have led to death in the absence of such brain capacity.

That means that conformity to rules decided by inferior brains can never be the hallmark of a superior brain. Any such conformity can be done in an evolutionarily energy-cheaper way by being a brain of the same inferior capacity that decided the rules, which would have precluded the superior brains evolving at all if there was any merit to the claim that "if your intelligence is superior, you always conform to society's rules whatever they are". Modern psychiatry's claim of "mitigating a human tendency to ostracize the deviant that was worse in the past" is debunked here and here. The true hallmark of a sapient brain is the ability to simulate consequences, which leads to the ability to understand that not all sets of rules have the same consequences.

The existence of brains that can simulate the differences in outcome between different rules means that psychiatry's implicit assumption that "a brain that does not conform to the rules of one society lacks a general social function and would not function in other societies either" is bullshit. It follows logically that rules created by brains that lack the ability to simulate consequences leads to disasters that only brains that have the ability to simulate the consequence differences between different rules can predict. To follow the disasterous rules despite being able to predict the disasters would be to join into the disasters at a higher nutrient cost than those unable to predict them, which would not be an evolutionarily stable strategy. So superior brains must act on predictions that inferior brains cannot understand to survive evolution.

This means that the entire claim that "you are allowed to think what you want as long as you do not act on it" is capitalist violence against intelligent life. It is capitalism's hatred of inventions at play, as per Capitalist hostility to sapience, not "universal human nature".

Psychiatry's self-contradictions about social media[]

Psychiatry's and pro-psychiatry's claim that "social media merely extends human social interaction that have existed for as long as humans have existed" contradicts any evolutionary plausibility of psychiatry's own claim of different levels of social ability. If social ability is a continuum or a ladder of levels, then it is not evolutionarily plausible that humans would have evolved adaptations for higher levels of extension of social interaction than those that could be used at the time when the biological selection on brain mechanisms happened. This is explained here and applies not only to general intelligence but to "specific abilities" as well.

This means that psychiatry contradicts itself when psychiatry claims that "if you do not think social media are reality, that is a symptom of a deficiency of social ability in your brain". And the claim that "social media are socially accepted today but people who used computers were considered nerds in the past, therefore labelling as nerds have decreased and not increased" misses the point that use of social media is consumtion of ready-made computer programs sold by capitalism. The establishment's labelling of people who understand the underlying computer code as "nerds", just as its labelling of people with any other technical competence as "nerds", have actually increased. This is explainable as a result of lobbyism on the part of a capitalist system that hates technical competence because technically competent people can do without consumerism, as explained here.

Brain damage, biomarkerless diagnoses contradicts "correction of chemical imbalance"[]

Psychiatry's claim that a shared biomarker is not requred to qualify for the same diagnosis contradicts psychiatry's claim that psychiatric medication "corrects a chemical imbalance in the brain". Brains that do not share a common biomarker cannot share a common "chemical imbalance" that can be corrected by a particular medicine. This also implies that psychiatry's lack of biomarker rigor contradicts its claim that a person with a particular diagnosis, because of the diagnosis, would not be brain damaged by a psychiatric medicine that would cause drug-induced brain damage in people without the diagnosis. This is because a chemical resistence that protects the brain from a drug that would otherwise cause brain damage would inevitably show up as a biomarker, just as there are biomarkers for insects that are resistent to pesticides that would kill other insects.

Because clinical trial institutions and psychiatry follows capitalism's antisapient values, it is possible that both clinical trial methodology and psychiatry is biased to label brain damage as "improvement" because it turns thinkers into stupid sheep that follow capitalism blindly. That may be why brain-damaging drugs get approved as psychiatric medication. To claim that biomarkers of brain damage such as a shrunken brain "does not prove brain damage because IQ is not lowered" misses the fatal flaws in IQ tests explained here and here.

To claim that modern psychiatry that does not test for biomarkers have become better at diagnosing conditions that are caused by the same biomarker anyway is bullshit. This is especially clear in the case of biomarkers that would have been easy to discover even with the medical technology available in the past, which includes any chromosome breakages or nerve-pinching skull deformities. For example, the claim that everyone diagnosed as "autistic" today has a breakage on the X chromosome causing babyface and pinched eye nerves cannot possibly be reconciled with increased diagnosing of autism in recent decades being a result of "improved diagnostics". Any condition involving visibly deformed skulls and impaired vision would have been easily detected by hospitals even in the early 1900s (all young men in countries with compulsory military service were medically examined even then) and breakages of chromosomes were visible under microscopes long before genome sequencing existed.

Biomarkerlessness contradicts the claim that "ignorance of diagnoses is the problem"[]

Psychiatry and its cronies claims that "informing" people about diagnoses helps people classified as "disabled" against prejudice. That claim contradicts the notion that a shared biomarker is not required to get the same diagnosis. For example, people labelled with the same diagnosis can have completely different movement patterns. This means that "educating" the police about psychiatry's "averaged out" concepts of how people with a particular diagnosis are supposed to move could not help a person diagnosed with the same diagnosis but moving differently from how psychiatry characterizes the "standard" for the diagnosis. Not even if profiling was used for the unrealistically benign purposes alleged by Big Pharma.

Social groups could not function on the basis of "normal distributions" as an outing mechanism since repeated exclusion of specific population percentages would leave the group without any members left, as explained here. This means that the claim that "it is in human nature to be suspicious to behaviors with low frequency simply because of their low frequency" contradicts its own premise that "humans are social animals". Instead, the profiling is explainable as a result of capitalism lobbying for absurd notions of "security" that labels inventors as "dangerous" because capitalism is the deadly enemy of inventors. This theory also explains why so many inventions were made in the past per capita, as shown here and here, which the theory that "enlightened" societies protect inventors from prejudice that held them down in the past cannot explain. The anti-inventor lobbyism theory can also explain why police profiling of people with diagnoses that many inventors are labelled with today have increased (not decreased) in recent decades when lobbyism increased.

The inventors capable of inventing things that work that capitalism really hates are the brains that think consequences through, as such brains can invent things that work without capitalism's supply chains. This distinction explains why capitalism does not hate user interface designers and other application consults that are mere steps in the capitalist chain and not alternatives to it. Brains that really think consequences through and understand long term consequences such as the collapse of complex digitalized societies worry not only about problems here and now, but also about future problems. This means that brains that think through consequences would appear more "agitated" than other brains, giving capitalism incentives to profile "agitated" movement patterns as "dangerous".

The claim that experiences of threat suppresses cognition is evolutionarily absurd since a brain mechanism that only worked when it was not needed would just waste nutrients. This is explained here.

Falsely labelling the use of known examples as "grandiose delusions"[]

Psychiatry assumes that when a person refers to an example involving famous people as a comparison relevant to something the person have said and done, it somehow "proves" that the person believes himself or herself to be a celebrity. That labelling with "grandiosity" is however a fallacy committed by psychiatry, as the person may simply mean that there are universal principles that are independent of who says and does things and the use of famous people as examples may simply be a way of making the examples understandable.

For example, when Tomas Szasz said (at a time when he was not yet famous, and he never became as famous as a president anyway) that since Theodore Rooseveldt was not labelled as a communist when he made an alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany during World War II, Szasz himself (who was an atheist) should not be labelled as a scientologist for cooperating with scientology against psychiatry, Szasz did not claim to be a president of the United States. His point was that cooperation against a common enemy does not imply that one shares the ideology of one's temporary allies, regardless of whether one is a president or not.

It is just that using an example of a non-famous person as an illustrating example instead (for example, one of one's own friends chosen randomly) would reduce the chance of others knowing what one is talking about. And that is a reason for using famous people as examples, a reason that has nothing to do with believing oneself to be famous. But psychiatry is too stupid and corrupted by crony capitalism to understand that.

Also, most famous thinkers were not born famous. If one applied a rule of never comparing the thinking of someone who is not a famous thinker to someone who was or is, the conclusion is that even the thoughts of the same thinker before he or she became famous are forbidden from being compared to the thoughts of the same thinker after he or she became famous. At least if one applies "probability rules", since there are so many random factors influencing whether a person who comes up with the same kind of thoughts becomes famous for it or not any probabilistic argument applied to the person before he or she became famous would give the result "he or she will probably not become famous". And this argument correctly predicts the fact that there is no biomarker shared by all famous thinkers and only famous thinkers, as well as the fact that philosophers who become famous in their lifetimes do not suddenly start to think like a completely different person than they did before they became famous.

Since celebrity cults are linked to societal collapse, especially if the celebrity cults are based on "arguments" from popularity, psychiatry is decadent in its support for celebrity cults. If psychiatry did not support celebrity cults, it would not consider any popularity-based distinction between "celebrity" and "non-celebrity" to be a relevant distinction between arguments worth listening to and arguments to dismiss as "symptoms of pathology". By being part of a popularity-based celebrity cult, psychiatry is part of the mismanagement that destroys civilization.

Brain lag is predicted by height but not sociality[]

It have been claimed by idiots like Robin Dunbar that since absolute brain size in proto-humans increased after climate change and not during it, that would "prove" that brain capacity was selected for by "social competition" after climate change instead of ecological selection during it. However, that not only fails to provide a mechanism for why there would be more "social competition" during a period after climate change when climate had already stabilized again than during other periods, it also misses the point of nutrition.

Ecological variability selection predicts a lag from climate change to absolute brain size increase since food shortages select for short stature to save nutrients. Since shorter stature scales down absolute brain size, that means that unchanged absolute brain size during climate stress signifies selection for genes that increase brain size relative to height during the climate change itself. That is then predicted to result in larger brain size than before when height returns to its pre-climate change level. Robin Dunbar is an idiot.

Interference, why brain resolution is distinct from processing speed[]

Psychology (and works of psychiatry that cite psychology as "heuristics") often falsely claims that processing speed is the only general measure of brain capacity, dismissing the differences in brain resolution as if it was mere "differences in attention to specific things". The claim that a one-bit computer could simulate the entire universe given enough time misses the point that a one-bit processor cannot contain the necessary information in itself, and that the intermediate steps that translated the information from the databases into something that the one-bit processor could process would be far more advanced than the one-bit processor itself. The processing system that could resolve the universe would need far higher resolution than one bit, otherwise there would be interference destroying the resolution of the simulated "worldview".

Ivan Pavlov did not use simple bells for his conditioned learning experiments, he used metronoms with adjustable ticking speeds. And while some of his test subjects were dogs, he did not only test dogs. He tested a number of different species (including humans), and discovered that species with bigger brains salivated in a narrower range of ticking frequencies around the frequency that they had listened to when serving food. For example, dogs salivated at a much wider range of frequencies than humans did. This general pattern of bigger brains having higher resolution in their conditioned reflexes is precisely what the theory of brain capacity as a limiting factor of resolution, including but not restricted to conditioned reflexes in its effects and not saturated in all mammals even if processing speed is excluded, predicts.

However, since bigger brains consume more energy, the allegation that "the differences in conditioned reflex specificity are merely about attention to specific stimuli, not overall brain capacity" cannot explain why evolution would have selected for the costly solution of a bigger brain (instead of re-tuning the field of attention within a small and cheap brain) in exactly every instance that it selected for higher resolution in conditioned reflex learning. The claim of a trade-off between attention to detail and the ability to see the big picture is bullshit, since a high resolution brain can make precise predictions that allow the theories to be falsified. Statisticians cannot do that. This falsification and precise predictions allow the brain to predict phenomena in general, including the big picture. This is explained further here, especially in the section on claims about "dominant" and "analytical" personalities.

The fact that bigger brains consume more energy has implications for all stages of selection. The claim that "brain size matters for differences between species, but not for individual differences within the same species" is incompatible with evolutionary continuity since if differences within species followed different biological laws than differences between species, that would require lines between species to be absolute and non-continuous. If brain size was not important within the same species, all gradual evolution that did not suddenly create a new species in one generation would select for as small brains as possible to reduce energy costs. And according to evolutionary continuity, that would have precluded evolution of bigger-brained species. So if evolutionary continuity is correct, the existence of big-brained species demands that differences in brain size between individuals within a species has the same effect on brain resolution as comparably large differences in brain size between species. That does not mean that tests ruined by shoehorning into normal distributions must be able to spot the differences.

The claim that rapid learning of avoiding some things in small-brained species such as rats "disproves" the theory of overall brain capacity determining learning ability misses the distinction between speed and resolution. It is possible for small brains to have high processing speeds without contradicting the link between brain capacity and resolution, which is why it is hard to hit flies even though their small brains have low resolution. Even specificity of stimuli that rats learn to avoid faster than humans does not prove cognitively complex mechanisms for specific attention. For example, the vast differences between humans and rats in the nose makes it possible that rats simply smell some poisons that humans cannot smell. That is much Occam-simpler than the claim that rat brains have complex mechanisms for attention to specific details. Since Pavlov's experiment used tick sounds that all species involved in the test could hear and then varied the rate of the same sounds, his experiment successfully ruled out such error sources. So Pavlov's experiment had higher scientific standards than the "research" referenced by contemporary "evolutionary" psychology.

Why idiots mistake distinctions between many alternatives for "black and white thinking"[]

When people with high resolution in the brain point out that there are many separate alternatives, psychiatrists and other idiots with low resolution in the brain often accuse them of "black and white thinking" or "dichotomic thinking". That is, the idiots (including psychiatrists) mistake the understanding that there are three or more separate alternatives for an alleged belief that there is only two alternatives. The theory of brain resolution as a limiting factor explain this as a result of the same low resolution in the brain causing both inability to understand that there are more than two separate alternatives and blurring of the two alternatives the low-resolution brain can image into intermediate interference without clear boundaries.

That is, it is those claiming to "think in nuances" that lack the ability to understand more than two alternatives, the "nuances" being mere blur. Just like a high-resolution image loses its high resolution if represented on a low resolution system, the precise distinctions between many separate alternatives without blur created by a high-resolution brain falsely appear as "dichotomic" if represented in a low-resolution brain. Distinguishing many separate alternatives does not preclude recognition of steps between them when such steps are present, but it means ability to recognize a tree-like structure of the steps that those assuming that rejection of one specific "axis" between two points is a "dichotomy" between said two points cannot understand. Dendric thinking recognizes that ideas branch off in trees of implications, in which theories can be tracked with continuity between them by reversal of their underlying reason back to their common "ancestor" and with recognition of the more closely related branches near them, but not "axial thinking" with a straight axis between two derived twigs that misses the actual tree structure between them.

Of course, capitalism spreads memes alleging brains without blur to be "defective" or even "dangerous" as a way of weaponizing the idiots against intelligent life. Psychiatry is part of capitalism's arsenal, including psychiatry's lumping of high-resolution brains into the same diagnoses as specific subsets of low-resolution brains with completely different biomarkers that do bad things. And when an idiot with a low-resolution brain falsely labelled with the same diagnosis as many high-resolution brains kill people, the media keeps collaborating with capitalism by alleging the biologically invalid diagnosis to be the cause of the killing and misleads the reporting to allege high-resolution brains to be "dangerous".

Low resolution mechanisms cannot tell when higher resolution is needed[]

Any claim that brains can run on lower resolution under some conditions and shift to higher resolution when it is needed misses the point that a low resolution mechanism cannot detect things that it takes high resolution to detect. This means that a low resolution mechanism cannot know when a problem that it takes higher resolution to solve is present. Thus every claim that "all brains have low resolution basic systems as gatekeepers that turn higher resolution cognition on and off" is bullshit. Brain circuitry capable of producing higher resolution than the gatekeeper mechanism would be a waste of nutrients if a lower resolution gatekeeper mechanism was present, and evolution would not permit that.

While a high resolution mechanism that no lower resolution brain mechanism can turn off costs nutrients, at least it is an investment capable of producing solutions that can save one's life, making it evolutionarily worth the cost. This makes it logical to classify brains by overall brain resolution. One implication is that if you judge information by the presence or absence of specific words and refuse to listen to the content if that or that word is present, there is no evolutionary reason to think you would understand the content if it was expressed without words you "black mark" either. That is, you are as stupid as a search engine and "talking politely" to you does not address the real problem. This theory correctly predicts that peer review systems full of those assuming that "peer review is just one step in the process" cannot distinguish computer generated nonsense from meaningful content.

False flag controlled oppositions to psychiatry[]

Scientology[]

People who criticize psychiatry are often alleged to be scientologists. That allegation is, however, absurd for multiple reasons. For example, scientology believes in souls called "thetans" and reincarnation, meaning that scientology has no true reason to care about the damage that psychiatric medication inflicts on the brain. An atheist materialist who do not believe that souls exist at all and therefore thinks that the brain is all there is to the personality, on the other hand, have a real reason to hate psychiatry for its destruction of brains, as psychiatric medication is a chemical weapon against intelligent life. It is simply a matter of someone believing X to be the essence of existence having a much greater reason to protect X from destruction than someone who believe X to be a mere disposable costume.

Indeed, the arguments against psychiatry usually attributed to scientology were not created by scientologists. Most of them were/are created by atheists, and the minority of creators of new arguments against psychiatry who were or are religious were/are not members of religious groups waging any kind of "holy war" on psychiatry. Not only did scientology plagiarize the arguments chronologically later than they were created by non-scientologists, but they contain less information than the original arguments as well. This clearly shows the absurdity of the allegation that the arguments were created as "rationalizations" of scientology (as if the arguments against "rationalization" as a psychological mechanism above were not enough), and instead agrees with the theory that scientologists cannot argue but merely copy and lose information with each copy until all the information is lost.

Furthermore, scientology is obsessed with statistics, just as psychiatry is obsessed with statistics. Scientology's shoehorning of everything into normal distributions closely resemble psychiatry's shoehorning, as if psychiatry's spurious methodology had been copypasted into scientology. It may have been for the purpose of creating a false flag "opposition" that does not criticize the fatal flaws in psychiatry's methodology. This shows that it is completely absurd to allege that people who criticize psychiatry's shoehorning into bell curves are scientologists. Such people criticize an underlying fatal methodological flaw that scientology shares with psychiatry, and therefore in effect criticize both psychiatry and scientology at once!

Also, the autopsy of L Ron Hubbard showed that he had been continuously taking psychiatric medication for a long time, even during the years when he was on the run from the police for his economical scams and psychiatry could not commit him. This clearly casts doubt on L Ron Hubbard's alleged opposition to psychiatric medication. It is possible that the judicial system influenced by pharmaceutical lobbyism promised Hubbard to keep the police hunt for him inefficient in exchange for him turning scientology into a false flag group acting as a controlled opposition. The deal may have involved addicting him to psychiatric medication (yes, true addiction to psychiatric medication exists, as evidenced by the fact that even psychiatry warns for the dangers of severe physical damage or even death if one suddenly discontinues psychiatric medication use). Obviously psychiatry has an incentive to allege critics to be scientologists as a way of handwaving away criticisms instead of arguing rationally, which gives psychiatry a motive to create false flag "oppositions" such as scientology.

The claim that "scientology is a threat to psychiatry" has no sense of lobbyism budgets explained here. The cult of scientology has nowhere near as much wealth as a huge pharmaceutical corporation such as Pfizer or Astra Zeneca. Not only that, but almost all of scientology's fortune is locked in real estate, mostly luxury mansions that its honchos are busy living in instead of selling. As a result of the lock of money in real estate, the scientology cult cannot even match the lobbyism ability of a small corporation. Scientologists cannot afford nearly as much lobbyism as Big Pharma claims it to do. It is possible that many poorly thought out pseudo-criticisms of psychiatry are created by Big Pharma itself in the name of scientology, as a false flag controlled opposition. That, unlike the official claim, is an attribution that the lobbyism budget can account for.

Proper critics of psychiatry, with sapient brains higher in resolution than a dog's brain, are not fooled into assuming that they must "choose sides" between psychiatry and scientology. Sapients can reject both psychiatry and scientology on the same grounds. The budget issues detailed above and their implications for how the strings are pulled are a good reason for genuine anti-psychiatry to not view scientology as an "ally" of any sort, not even a temporary ally.

Pedophilia "advocacy"[]

This is not a debunkal of the existence of child sexual abuse cover-ups. It does not contradict the existence of "family name" groups specifically covering up child sexual abuse committed by members of their own clan. The organizations argued to be false flag oppositions controlled by the psychiatric medication industry are organizations that claim to advocate "rights" for all pedophiles simply for being pedophiles. This does not contradict the existence of nepotists covering up child sexual abuse committed by close relatives, any more than criticism of a hypothetical allegation of a network of murderers wanting to decriminalize murder because they enjoy killing people would contradict the existence of nepotists who cover up murders committed by their family members. And in both cases, the cover-up only works if the family covering it up is wealthy and can afford pulling strings.

Pharmaceutical corporations profit from tricking people into believing themselves to be latent pedophiles and "seek help". The allegation that pedophiles would gain a "knowledge upper hand" by reading about their interests and form identity political groups to decriminalize their actions is absurd, since there is no historical example of identity politics causing decriminalization of any sex act. When extramarital sex was decriminalized, no groups identifying as polyamorous existed. Many countries decriminalized homosexuality before Pride existed. Even countries that decriminalized homosexuality later did so before Pride parades reached the countries. History shows that both criminalizations and decriminalizations of sex acts are controlled by sociological factors unrelated to the sexual tastes of members of movements. Anyone who knows about the history of sex laws knows that identity political groups for pedophiles cannot decriminalize child sexual abuse.

Just as scientology only parrots dumbed-down versions of arguments against psychiatry created by non-scientologists, groups that claim to "advocate" pedophilia never create any original arguments. They never did any of the studies questioning traumatization of child sexual abuse victims. They only quote studies performed by critical psychiatrists who have never been part of any "pedophilic" identity political movement. The identity political groups cannot even explain the research methodology used properly. That is information loss, just as in the scientology example above. Both sales of antidepressants to child sexual abuse victims and sales of libido repressants to non-offending pedophiles (both consists of SSRI today, linking the corporate profit mechanisms even closer) gives pharmaceutical corporations incentives to allege critics to be pedophiles. And such allegations can be made with the help of controlled false flag oppositions.

Identity political pedophilia "advocacy" groups talking about "social stigma damaging child sexual abuse victims" closely resemble psychiatry's talk about child sexual abuse causing psychological damage, as both claims are of intangible "psychological damage". The difference in exactly when they claim the "psychological damage" to arise is small compared to their mutual similarity and shared difference from actual natural scientific theories. The fact that no identity political "pedophile" organization ever says that it is the antidepressants that physically damage the brain in a natural scientifically tangible way shows that the organizations are copypastes of the psychiatric establishment that claims to fight them.

The claim that "society values the children highest, so pharmaceutical lobbyism cannot corrupt it" misses the point that the definitions of "the best for children" followed by the institutions are subject to corporate lobbyism. The use of association fallacy ethics in the organizations that write the definitions makes this easy for the corporations, filling the institutions with definitions that claim that profitable medication that damages children's brains "is important to protect the children" from alleged "threats" that are not so profitable or lobby-powerful.

Alternative medicine and small profits[]

Psychiatry claims that people who criticize psychiatry do so to make money from alternative remedies to "mental illness". The falseness of the claim is obvious from the fact that critics who argue that mental illness is a myth do not try to peddle any remedies at all because they do not think a cure is needed (no illness means no cure needed). Psychiatry may simply create organizations that claim to peddle alternative medicines against "mental illness" as a copypaste of psychiatry's bad methodology that does not itself as much as look for biomarkers. By claiming that mental illness exists and needs a remedy, such organizations actually resemble psychiatry much more than they resemble people who say that mental illness does not exist. This makes it plausible that the alternative medicine organizations are copypastes of psychiatry.

Psychiatry may simply put the methods that they have considered but found that they would be less profitable into the alternative medicine organizations. For example, claiming a permanent cure would be less profitable than peddling daily doses for life. Given the capitalist control over peer review, that may well be what lets psychiatry's biomarkerless nonsense through while stopping other nonsense that is less profitable. This theory correctly predicts the fact that psychiatric medication makes much more money than alternative medicine. That fact, in turn, makes it absurd to claim that alternative medicine lobbyism would stand any crony capitalist chance against psychiatric medication lobbyism as psychiatry's victim mentality of claiming to be threatened by alternative medicine lobbyists claims. More money means more lobbyists that can be afforded, which is a bigger problem today than before, so mainstream psychiatric medication corporations can afford many more lobbyists than alternative medicine peddlers.

Self-contradictory allegations of "social stigma"[]

Organizations often claim that "social stigma around mental illness" is the problem when it comes to psychiatric medication. These claims are fatally flawed, both because of their notions about "mental illness" and because the organizations claim that some but not all non-mental conditions are "socially stigmatized" too. The very assumption that "resisting psychiatric tratment can only be due to stigma around mental illness" is bullshit. It is perfectly possible to fear consequences of psychiatric medication and infringements on one's freedom caused by having the threat of involuntary commitment if one does not comply hanging over oneself without it having anything to do with shame. It is capitalism that has incentives to ignore this and falsely claim that people who resist psychiatric treatment are "ashamed of being mentally ill". More labelling means more pills being sold.

Also, the allegation of "specifically mental illnesses as socially stigmatized" fails to predict a number of demarcations between what the organizations claim to be "socially stigmatized" and what they say is not surrounded by "social stigma". For example, allegations of "fat shaming" are allegations of a "social stigma" surrounding something somatic, not mental illness. As are the cardiovascular medicines that are used to treat most of the diseases that increase with obesity, and also insulin for treating diabetes. So the claim that "it is mental illness that is socially stigmatized" cannot explain why the organizations include obesity among allegedly "stigmatized" conditions. However, the theory of the frequent medicine doses conspiracy can, since psychiatric medication, cardiovascular medicines and insulin are all taken with high frequencies over long periods of time which increases profit from their sales. Just as capitalism would lose money if psychiatric diagnoses were abolished, capitalism would lose money if obesity was reduced too.

Another contradiction in the official claims is that transsexuality is alleged to be "socially stigmatized" even though psychiatry no longer classifies it as a mental illness. Psychiatry does, however, claim that such people need not only surgery (which would not in itself be long-term frequent dosing) but also long-term treatment with both sex hormones and heavy polypharmacies of antidepressants. Changing the name from "delusion" to "depression and suicide risk" is an example of a word cosmetic change that does not adress the profitable shoving of pills down throats.

Recently passed restrictions against trans care of minors in some American states do not restrict the use of antidepressants (or antipsychotics, for that matter). So those laws do not prevent Big Pharma from keeping selling antidepressants to young people registered by trans care, but they give Big Pharma a way of testing whether hormone replacement or a return to antipsychotic treatment is most profitable by geographically segregating the treatments to different states. Surgery is not and have never been frequent dosing, and therefore not very profitable. So the restrictions and the activism against them may be orchestrated by the same lobby organizations, which have expanded.

To define "man" as "someone who identifies as a man" and to define "woman" as "someone who identifies as a woman" is ontologically flawed because it is a circular definition, one that does not boil down to any actual attributes which leaves it as meaningless as a dictionary saying that an "a nissjgr özlöo jgraö ohl s" is "an entity that identifies as an a nissjgr özlöo jgraö ohl s" without explaining what "a nissjgr özlöo jgraö ohl s" means. To claim that "idnetification only defines gender, not other things" is fatally flawed since it does not specify a measurable defining trait that distinguishes a category that is gender from a category that is not gender, nor gives an axiomatic reason for why such a distinction should be made.

The contradictions continue. If gender pronouns were a fundamental human need the lack of which led to suicide, why have languages without gender pronouns not died out by causing their speakers to commit suicide? If morphological freedom over one's own genitals is so important, how can laws against modifying the genes in one's own egg cells or sperm be acceptable? Why refer to laws requiring sterility for sex change treatment as "forcible sterilization" when the hormone doses given cause sterility anyway? The addition of intersectionality claiming links between "transphobia" and "homophobia" adds to the contradictions, since an actual homophobe who also regarded "trans women" as men would consider it wrong for a man to rape "her" by defining "her" as a man, as it would classify such rape as homosexuality. But capitalism profits from the contradictions since both antidepressants and hormones can be given daily for life while genetic alteration of the germline could reduce the needs for pharmaceuticals by preventing many diseases, especially chronic ones.

This theory predicts that since most infectious diseases are either cured by a short treatment or incurable, most infectious diseases should be of little value to pharmaceutical corporations. That explains why so many infectious diseases have vaccines approved against them. The theory also predicts that in the case of infections that are chronic but treatable, there should not be any vaccines approved and the modus operandi of the pharmaceutical lobby should cause allegations of the infections in question being "socially stigmatized". This precisely predicts the situation for HIV, for which there are inhibitor medicines that must be taken daily for life to prevent full-blown AIDS. No vaccine against HIV have been approved by the authorities, and HIV is just about the only infectious disease that the institutions claim to be "socially stigmatized".

The media hype in Sweden about girls being involuntarily committed for having been sexually abused more often than boys claims that it is "victim blaming" and sexism. However, that claim misses the point on more than one account. Firstly, capitalist marketing is never equally distributed everywhere. There are differences in the sales of mobile phones per capita between cities too. Since involuntary commitment (including but not restricted to involuntary commitment of young people) is a capitalist tool for marketing psychiatric medication built into law through lobbyism, it is in that context uneven distributions should be understood no matter if the uneven distribution is between Stockholm and Gothenburg or between boys and girls. The reason why media calls it "victim blaming" and "social stigma" specifically in cases involving medication or the road to medication is because different sectors of Big Business have different corporate bullshit modus operandii, and allegations of "victim blaming" are the corporate bullshit modus operandi of Big Pharma specifically.

Secondly, the use of the semantic formulation about "being committed for their own behavior" does not prove that "victim blaming" exists. It may simply be a matter of how the law is written, and those executing the involuntary commitment just believe that those being committed needs antidepressants and fills out the papers they must fill out to achieve it without believing that it was the victim's own choice to be abused. As for why the law was written that way, the same pharmaceutical corporations that support organizations that allege "victim blaming" may have lobbied for it to create an appearance of "victim blaming" to use as false "evidence". If the law gets changed, it will be one of many semantic changes as it will only change who is semantically said to have done the behavior and not change who gets forced to swallow antidepressants. Such changes are the law lobby equivalent of the Light bulb conspiracy that markets capitalism by touting planned obsolescence as "ethical" and "progressive".

How much clearer can it be that capitalist profit from daily doses over a long time is the common denominator in everything that crony capitalism calls "socially stigmatized medical conditions"? If you believe that you are "working to destigmatize" some condition, what you do is to blindly buy capitalism's nonsense definitions and act as an useful idiot for capitalism. The big corporations control the institutions as explained here, so the institutions that claim to "help stigmatized people get heard", just like other established organizations, are puppets of capitalism.

The fact that all established "social justice" movements today appear to advocate more institutional control over physical persons and allege "cognitive biases" in the brains of physical persons to be the problem clearly places those movements among the cronies of capitalism. The absurdity of the allegations of "cognitive biases" in physical persons, and why it is not hypocrisy to argue that corporations as legal persons conspire, is explained here. The big corporations control those movements just as the corporations control governments. So if you fight for the institutions, you are not "extending the struggle against capitalism beyond the purely economical". You are fighting for capitalism and being too stupid to even understand it.

Advertisement