Leon Eisenberg, the “scientific father” of ADHD .. 7 years ago, in the last interview Leon made before his death, he admitted that ““ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease.”
Allan Frances, lead editor of DSM-IV, goes even further as he 6 years ago admitted that “There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it. “
I’ve argued that there is a definition for mental illness — that mental illness is a position in a pecking order — but there is an ever better definition:
Mental illness is coerced contractual agreements..t
from pecking order post:
Diagnoses are the contemporary equivalent of racial biology. It’s used to legitimize ideas that would otherwise have been contested, provides the authority necessary for statism to emerge, and has no real science or empirical evidence to back it up.
These diagnoses are not science, they are local tradition, a form of superstition and a pre-requisite for statism. Without them there could be no statism — the pecking order would collapse — which is why we need to stand up for the fact that they are myths.
It’s fight and flight from coercion. What DSM diagnoses is individuals who rightfully try and either fight, or flee, from other individuals who try to coerce them. The problem is that in the eyes of the law, they’ve signed contracts, and their attempts to fight or flee are therefore seen as illegitimate by their peers. But the so called social contract that is nation-state citizenship is, to begin with, coerced upon each human being .. t.. as they’re registered at birth like animals, without being asked to consent to the contractual agreements that are signed between the individual and their nation-state. There is no consent to begin with. And any contractual agreement that happens on top of a nation-state citizenship is per extension not voluntary either. Thence, it is only natural that people try and escape or fight the constant coercion that they face as citizens..t.. under a coercive state.
In that sense, we are all pre-programmed with a form of mental illness from the point we’re registered as citizens, .. t.. a neurosis that Deleuze and Guattari saw as the origin of all other mental illnesses.
The human brain did not evolve to deal with that amount of coercion from peers in one’s tribe, and that’s the systemic origin of the fight and flight symptoms and cultural schisms that we call mental illness..t
cope\ing et al
This is not a new idea. There’s lots of consensus amongst psychologists that coercion is what causes say, a struggle to pay attention to something that the law coerces someone to be mediated by. It’s not a controversial idea. What I emphasize here is the idea that psychologists should focus more on legal mediation when they study human behaviours. We are mediated beings and coercion causes us to behave in all sorts of strange ways..t.., and as it stands, what DSM currently diagnoses, ADHD, autism, bipolarity, schizophrenia — those are all mediated behaviours.
For example, ADHD is the human brain in conflict with a legal system that tries to coerce it into something it has not accepted or agreed upon. . t.. As Leon Eisenberg said, ADHD is a fictitious disease, and it’s morally, ethically, and scientifically wrong to pretend otherwise.
We needed a story to normalize coercion..t
public consensus always oppresses someone
It seems to me that the religion of psychiatry, and the religion of the nation-state, what many call statism, is two sides of the same thing. Psychiatry is what made statism possible and it is what kept people from revolting against inequality. Psychiatry legitimized coercion and gave authority to the nation-state..t
*true.. but have to let go of all types of measuring/validating ie: ethereum, bitcoin, decent law/finance
johan responding to last tweet:
@monk51295 to me it seems to be more about the use of coercion (monopoly on violence), not so much about the use of social agreements. I have been working on a new social contract for example, one that is similar to what has been used so far, but without coercion,
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/resilience_me/status/1079089371251396610
Proof-of-power as a new, voluntary, social contract..Proof-of-power is the first social contract with actual consent, and makes it possible to signal, voluntarily, that you choose to coordinate around a state,
i think we can go much deeper – and simpler .. than that..
Pseudonym Pairs is a dApp for global proof-of-personhood, through monthly pseudonym events that last 20 minutes, where *every single person on Earth is randomly paired together with another person, 1-on-1, to verify that the other is a person, in a pseudo-anonymous context. The events provide NYM tokens, global personhood tokens, untraceable from month to month and disposable, a sort of “temporary access tokens” similar to festival bracelets. The proof-of-personhood is that you are with the same person for the whole event
imagine *every single person on earth connected locally via daily curiosity .. to see if they want to do/be that curiosity.. together.. that day.. repeat (listen to 7bn daily curiosities via self-talk and use that data to connect locals) next day and everyday.. in spaces of permission w nothing to prove
The population sorts themselves into pairs..people continuously join mixer..t
johan responding to last tweet:
have facilitated daily curiosity since 31 years now. for a personhood system, probably better to use a protocol.
Pseudonym Pairs is simple, and scales to dunbar’s number pretty well. It’s based on the research from Bryan Ford last decade under MIT, where he conceptualized Pseudonym Parties, offline gatherings, Pseudonym Pairs does online video talks instead, 1-on-1.
This one goes into more detail, ieet.org/index.php/IEET…. I started med. school in 2009, then distanced myself from it after three trimesters because the monopoly-on-violence (MoV) exploits the authority in medical science for psychiatric science, a pseudo-science.
When confined in a centralized legal system, enforced by a monopoly on violence, the executive function is in a battle-of-wills with the agency of that system.  Failure to integrate with that external violence in some way (either by winning, conforming, escaping or competing) causes law-integration disorder, what has been falsely described as mental disorder..t
Law-integration disorder (what has wrongly been called mental disorder) is a dys-integration between law and the executive function, causing an attenuation of the executive function as a result of coercion through external legal forces and physical violence (including threat of violence. )..t
Mental illness is a secondary infection, resulting from law-integration disorder..
Under monopolies on violence, where from a government perspective then violence is ‘good’, then slave mentality looks at use of physical force, and devalues it by forming narratives that violence does not even exist.  To not even recognize the other, as the most extreme form of rejection of value. This is the origin of psychiatric mythology, where instead of being attentive to physical violence, slave mentality forms a narrative where it’s “in your mind”…t
Psychiatric mythology  has evolved as a reaction to the nation-state, as a way to maintain horizontal trust between slaves, who secure the nation-state consensus and who also benefit from government as it co-ordinates them so that there can be economic and technological growth.
Centralized law is not that old, and if laws can be hosted in smart-contracts and blockchains, then where have they been hosted before? In human brains. If you run a nation-state on top of human brains, those brains will spin stories to subjectify the legal processes that they perform, which causes the culture that is often called “statism”.
rather.. let’s make centralized law irrelevant.. not host it anywhere
It’s probable that psychiatry and DSM have had an adverse effect on culture and social evolution as they normalized coercion using a sort of pseudo-science that had more to do with government or religion than with the *study of the human mind.
New social systems in the internet age will outgrow this somewhat medieval behaviour for two reasons:
1\ Decentralization works better
his ie: is johann gevers (@johanngevers) tedx [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=8oeiOeDq_Nc] – saying agri changed everything.. changing social orders.. 10 000 yrs of centralized/abused society.. then a turning back to decent society.. tech based systems allowed change first via printing press – allowing ordinary people freed from centralized state/church.. communicating freely w/o censorship.. then internet and bitcoin.. i refer to all of these techs put together as tech of trust.. allow to scale w/o limit beyond dunbar’s number.. then goes into *4 pillars
if have that – don’t need ie: decent law or finance (part 2 & 4 of *4 pillar – decent 1\communication 2\ law 3\ production 4\ finance)
2\ Science evolves too fast for tribal beliefs such as mental illness to keep pace. There’s just too much data pointing out that it’s not science.
we’re focusing on the wrong data anyway – let’s try self-talk as data
Johan Nygren is a natural born creative who abandoned med.school to pursue a career in the digital revolution. He’s currently focused on the ongoing decentralization of everything and what is often called “the 4th industrial revolution”, and how humans will *leverage these P2P technologies to create something that is larger than themselves.
loved much of this post johan – yet see your *leveraging of p2p techs as perhaps a kinder/more-open version of coerced contractual agreements
‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’