Rosenhan's experiment VS. Spitzer's critique of it ? Help...

[Chelseyh1]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey everyone !

So I recently read the Rosenhan experiment "on being sane in insane places"
and
Spitzer's critique of it "On pseudoscience in science, Logic in remission, and Psychriatric diagnosis..."

I was just wondering, if anyone knows anything about these articles... Who do you argued their point better and why?
It seems as if the main topic of discussion throughout the articles was the psychiatric diagnosis and labels and "in remission"

I just want to get a better grasp of these articles and other people's views!
Let me know, & please help 🙂

Thank you !

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This sounds like a homework assignment....

 

[Chelseyh1]

This sounds like a homework assignment....

Actually it isn't, our assignment is to diagnose a patient from a case she gave us.

 

[erg923]

Actually it isn't, our assignment is to diagnose a patient from a case she gave us.

So, yes, this is a school assignment. Fine with me, just cut the BS.

If you are actually interested in the topic, I would argue that your asking the wrong question, or at least not thinking of issue in the most appopriate way.

Nobody really argued a better point because: 1. both parties were biased with regards to their perspective professions and self-interests. 2. both raise fundamental truths about the nature of psychiatric diagnosis at that time in the US. It's what they both agreed on that is most important here...and should really be the take home message. Both agree that diagnosis (ie., labels) can greatly impact our interpretation of a person's behavior. I really didnt see Spitzer debate this point.

 

[Chelseyh1]

Ahh yes, I am very interested in this topic and yes I realize I probably did ask the question in the wrong manner- couldn't think of a better way - my bad.
However, thank you for your insight! 🙂

 

[wigflip]

Nobody really argued a better point because: 1. both parties were biased with regards to their perspective professions and self-interests. 2. both raise fundamental truths about the nature of psychiatric diagnosis at that time in the US. It's what they both agreed on that is most important here...and should really be the take home message. Both agree that diagnosis (ie., labels) can greatly impact our interpretation of a person's behavior. I really didnt see Spitzer debate this point.

Tip to OP: don't use these exact words in your assignment. TAs and profs can smell plagiarism a mile away.

 

[Chelseyh1]

Wouldn't plagiarize considering I pay for schooling, pretty silly! However, our assignment is on a completely different topic anyways 🙂