>encouraging psuedo-scientific beliefs about psychiatry (which is, make no mistake about it, more of an 'art' than a science, but so was the beginning of many now-scientific fields)
This back-pedaling is where you begin to lose steam.
> Nobody tries to tell a cancer patient how to treat their cancer, yet so many people feel obliged to opine about mental illness.
Including the psychiatrists who admit to 'more art than science.'
>You pretty much need to start with the medication, then work from there to figure out which group they're in, and adapt their treatment accordingly (i.e. stick with meds or drop them but help them learn how to manage it).
Sounds essentially like just guessing.
Now let's look at your first statement.
>While I'm sure you mean no harm, you are - quite simply - wrong.
While I'm sure psychiatrists mean no harm, that doesn't mean they're right.
This back-pedaling is where you begin to lose steam.
> Nobody tries to tell a cancer patient how to treat their cancer, yet so many people feel obliged to opine about mental illness.
Including the psychiatrists who admit to 'more art than science.'
>You pretty much need to start with the medication, then work from there to figure out which group they're in, and adapt their treatment accordingly (i.e. stick with meds or drop them but help them learn how to manage it).
Sounds essentially like just guessing.
Now let's look at your first statement.
>While I'm sure you mean no harm, you are - quite simply - wrong.
While I'm sure psychiatrists mean no harm, that doesn't mean they're right.