Program Statement

In order for psychology to be able to avoid the pitfalls of over-classification, like what the Rosenhan Experiments exposed, psychology has to be in the business of rehabilitation, not just classification in an attempt to quarantine people with life-long disabilities which make no effort to uplift anybody within society. One of the major obstacles to transforming the existing model of classification within psychology, though, is that both the communication and the classification networks of DSM evaluative model do not make sense without proper legal representation and rationale to authenticate and legitimize them. Those of us interested in the practice of psychology might think of this the other way around. However, we have to be pragmatic about how our review networks operate since they are often out of out of step with one another when reviews of private practices do not often equate to reviews at higher levels of methodology or classification, which can cause break downs in the way that appropriate corrective monitoring takes shape. We might argue that evaluation of classification models comes from the top, but this is often a step removed from practice and it is not often the scholars who point out flaws in practice. It is more often the case that it is the law or the recipient of care who highlights potential hang ups in identification but when this happens scholars and evaluators are no longer able to appropriately review the social circumstances of administrative assistance and the model often ends up going unchecked with regards to its reflection on lived experiences.

Another part of the practice of psychology that often plagues the review process is the fact that the service of psychology often gets locked into business models of return service and treatment programs, which make it seem as though diagnosis is a life long sentence or long-term disability, rather than a pathway towards remediation. Some of the things that psychologists are starting to point out is that mal adjustment strategies and psychological states are not necessarily disabilities, but it is the firm contention of this website that an examination of the human condition should be uplifting towards healthy pathway networks rather than closed cycle loops of malady and disfunction. And in defense against a psychological model tied to economics it is the view of this website that law and medicine ought to incorporate views on healthy ecological relations in order to uphold and benefit arrangements of growth within their networks.

In order to do this, though we have to understand where the model currently stands and we have to be able to, in some sense, distance psychology from administration or marketing in order to more appropriately evaluate the process of healing and remediation. We also have to understand where the model is placed within society in order to incorporate broader systems of social evaluation as a safeguard against provincialism and perspectivalism garnered from an elite class of individuals.

In order to prevent the outrageously catastrophic failure of psychologizing victims of the holocaust, we have to understand what kinds of institutional models psychologists are bound to when they perform their practice. We need to be careful to guard against ways of thinking which reduce people to physicalist structures and we need to be careful to guard against the elimination of social examination. What we don’t want to have happen is have our models rely upon diagnosis over anything else and allow ourselves to look at a victim of the holocaust through the lens of something like the Nazi institutional model because any model based on ideas such as those catastrophically annihilates all of the humanity of lived experiences and healthy social relations through the lens of a provincialist and elitist model which does not evaluate human experience.

Ministerial Work Versus Administrative Work

We have to understand where the model is situated within society in order to review health as a public commodity, in much the same way that public safety or the law acts as a publicly communicated model, so we can look upon the practice of promoting health as means of preventing the circumstances of life from coming into conflict with one another. What this website seeks to accomplish is to move from the model of evaluating diagnoses to evaluating remediation process successes, in much the same way that medical practitioners evaluate their own practices, so that psychologists move from being institutional administrators to becoming mentors and ministerial advisors on the pathways of healthy expression and social integration, not just exclusion or certification like what has been developed in the past. Psychology programs in the past have allowed for legal codes and healthy structures to authenticate themselves through things related to safety standards in engineering with things tied to vision, signals, attention, reaction times, and education – like what we might see with driver’s license standards, OSHA codes, or other things related to integrative education models. However, what we are seeing take form within private practices and the law is that psychologists have been misplaced in the ways that politicians have attempted to administer their own forms of social control through excessively abusive business models, practices, and orientation – like what we are seeing with the separation of psychiatry from psychology and the potential for back door uses of the law for the exclusion of rebels and deviants from society.

So, in effect, what has to happen to psychology is that it has to orient itself outside of the context of the highest bidder or the most successful institution so that the psychologist becomes a ministerial worker of society instead of the private executor of a business administration. And what this website’s petitions seek to establish is an environment where politicians and private bureaucrats are no longer able to take advantage of the law to stamp out and discredit much needed social activist work from dedicated citizens of our global community. We have already seen too many politicians stigmatize large parts of our communities through poorly justified social and psychological programs, but what is much worse is the potential for intelligence operatives to discredit and defame activist groups though abuses of the existing legal systems which do not currently understand how psychology and the law might otherwise come together, as exemplified in the writ of habeas corpus from the other page.

Evaluating Spiritual Growth

In order to prevent psychology from being an obstacle to spiritual growth, we have to move away from the diagnosis model, and we have to prevent the law from making people ineligible to participate within acceptable social norms by means of mental health evaluations. As things currently stand within the law, mental health evaluations are the only thing necessary to throw someone into jail, and overclassification is one of the biggest detriments to social and spiritual growth when it can be put to use in any social arrangement without good justification so that good people get thrown out of society for no good reason at all.

We wouldn’t want to run the risk of lacking any social information on racial discrimination and misdiagnosing a person of color with something related to the frustrations that arise from dysfunctional social associations. Anyone dealing with lived in experiences can acknowledge that it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to politically contrived social circumstances. Pre-diagnosing the sense of frustration before any level of understanding of the entire social context is achieved simply locks down the individual and prevents any healing from taking place and in effect misdiagnoses the problem as a means of explaining it away as if it away as if no more evidence or evaluation is ever needed.

In effect, this is what we are dealing with when we are only dealing with the diagnosing arm of the DSM framework, but we have to remember that deviance is not always deviance in a negative sense when mal adjustment to the stilted or contrived circumstances may in fact be an appropriate response. Mal adjustment strategies also have to evaluate where the adjustment needs to take place to determine whether or not it is appropriate to be mal adjusted to certain circumstances that are out of balance and in need of addressing themselves, but you wouldn’t be able to reach at any of the social circumstances without allowing for a full purview on the entire process from start to finish.

The phenomena that this website is hoping to address is that psychology must bridge between the private and the social and, when we are only dealing with diagnoses from scholarly experts, we have to acknowledge that evidence is being outright ignored and overlooked as if it is deviant to even think beyond the surface level of diagnoses to look at things as they arise in the world and in the mind. The paradigmatic model of psychiatry has taken too strong of a hold on the progress of thought within the field, and the DSM framework currently acts as a massive obstacle to spiritual growth and the evaluation of social circumstances related to the outgrowths of the mind.

We can see how much has been accomplished in the past 50 years with regards to some of the programs outlined in the materials for learning section of the website, but we also have to guard against the idea of militarizing and privatizing intelligence operations which seek to manipulate the evidence and society from an administrative level. We cannot let aggressive minds throw away the common good that is discoverable in spiritual growth by segmenting communications and preventing the entirety of society from evaluating the evidence and ideas for themselves.

Social and Legal Integration for the Common Good and Social Security

The evidence for psychic phenomena is very robust and pronounced within the organizations that are addressed in this website, but one of the greatest stumbling blocks to understanding and integrating that knowledge into the existing body of norms that we have available to us is our inability to appropriately represent and contextualize the information in our traditional models of explanation. It is one thing to state that the sciences discovered in programs like the military’s Project Stargate have outpaced traditional models found in the DSM framework but it is important to note that the pathways of communication and the standards of representation have also impeded any network normalization of the data. It is worth noting that the DSM is based off of antiquated models of evaluation that come from the birth of the clinic outlined by Foucault and Szasz, but the mismatch between what private models examine and what is left unexamined in the public theater of expression also makes it difficult to understand what is even being discussed or diagnosed when the data is taken out of context and received from individuals who are even liable to misunderstand what is going on. This obstacle of communication has become a massive liability not only to the military but also the DSM framework since it allows for deviants to be ostracized and vilified through opposing methods of evaluation. On the one hand we have a military that is very jealous of its power and will ostracize rebels of conscience, but on the other we suffer from a secondary problem dynamic when the ostracized rebel of conscience is also unable to get past the obstacles presented by a psychological model that works to stigmatize diagnoses dating back to the Inquisition and early enlightenment era frame of thought which prevents any and all of us from looking at anything outside of the framework of diagnosis and subjugation.

Evidence can be provided to flesh out this dynamic even further, but what is needed within this exacerbated problem dynamic is an internal review of each of the classification systems so that the legality of spiritual practices can be reviewed outside the context of a simple diagnosis framework. If we are ever going to be able to promote safety standards within the public we need to realize that the DSM framework is not going to be able to help us get to the social circumstances that give rise to any level of conflict and we need to realize that the DSM framework does not have the appropriate pathway networks of communication to evaluate the accuracy of diagnoses or the success of rehabilitation.

In order to prevent the overclassification problem dynamics revealed by Rosenhan (cited above), we need to be able to access the social circumstances and evaluate the successes of remediation practices in themselves as a means of being able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of whatever model we are using at the time of diagnosis – which is to say that diagnosis itself becomes susceptible to evaluation instead of holding it over and above any extenuating information that arises from the circumstances of practice and social integration. We simply cannot get caught up in the loop of thought that psychic phenomena are out of question bad or that the mind is not capable of being able to move beyond the body because if we are ever going to be able to promote security within this arena of thought we need to make sure that the legal scholars have a viable point of access that is not tied to any discrimination related to the classification of life-long disabilities. We need to move beyond the DSM framework to evaluate the social circumstances themselves and the phenomena itself outside of the context of a simple diagnosis model.

Once scholars tied to psychology are able to establish arenas of communication where they are able to evaluate the methods of diagnosis and the success of rehabilitation in the context of social circumstances, they should be better equipped to evaluate the phenomena of psychic activity, in and of itself. The law would also be able to address issues related to usury or self-perpetuating business practices which are abusive to the client’s health and wellbeing. Promoting the idea of ministry or greater social integration within the field would also enable private practitioners to foster communication networks between both side of the law so a review of practice makes sense and review of standards makes sense within the context of lived experiences. The practice would in some sense authenticate itself through social forms of democracy, or public law, rather than through the dictates of executive experts.

Some Problem Areas with DSM Diagnosis

The problem areas in psychological diagnosis, particularly when distinguishing between adaptive and biological strategies for identifying deviance from proposed norms, lie in the very ambiguity of what constitutes "norms" and the multiple, often conflicting, sources of influence that shape our understanding of health. These challenges raise crucial ethical, philosophical, and practical questions about where the line should be drawn between what is considered "healthy" and "deviant," especially when the criteria for diagnosis are unclear or contested. Let's break down these challenges:

1. Uncertainty and Fluidity of Norms

One of the core issues is the ambiguity of the "norms" used to assess mental health. Norms are not universal or fixed; they can be culturally specific, socially constructed, and historically contingent. What might be seen as deviant or maladaptive in one culture or era might be perfectly acceptable or even valued in another. For instance, behaviors that are considered signs of mental illness in Western societies—such as certain forms of spiritual experiences or alternative states of consciousness—might be regarded as normal or even revered in other cultures. This discrepancy complicates any psychological diagnosis that tries to label behavior as deviant or "ill."

This also extends to the lack of clarity regarding what constitutes “health” in a psychological context. Is health purely an absence of symptoms? A state of well-being? An ability to function adaptively within society? Different schools of thought within psychology and medicine offer different definitions of what it means to be “healthy,” which creates confusion about where deviance begins.

2. The Problem of Adaptive Strategies vs. Biological Strategies

Psychological diagnosis often struggles to balance adaptive strategies (which focus on behaviors and traits that are functional in a given context) and biological strategies (which typically emphasize observable symptoms linked to neurobiological or genetic factors). These strategies sometimes conflict:

Adaptive Strategies: These view mental health through a functional lens—behavior is considered healthy or deviant based on whether it helps or hinders the individual's ability to cope with their environment or achieve personal goals. From this perspective, what is “normal” behavior is shaped by cultural norms and social expectations. Adaptive behavior helps the person to integrate into society, work productively, and maintain healthy relationships. Deviance, in this framework, is less about biology and more about the failure to function well within one's context.

Biological Strategies: These strategies look at the mind and behavior from a biological perspective, emphasizing neural processes, genetics, and biochemical imbalances as the primary sources of mental health disorders. Biological explanations often rely on identifying deviations from the "biologically normal" (such as neurotransmitter imbalances in depression). This approach sometimes fails to account for the role of environmental, cultural, or psychological factors in shaping behavior, and it risks pathologizing individuals who exhibit behavior outside of statistical norms, even if that behavior is not inherently dysfunctional.

Both strategies have their merits, but they can create diagnostic confusion. For instance, a behavior that is adaptive and functional within a specific cultural context might still be labeled as a disorder if viewed through a purely biological lens (such as the case of ADHD or certain forms of anxiety). Conversely, behaviors that seem deviant from a biological perspective might be adaptive in certain social or environmental contexts, and thus may not warrant a diagnosis.

3. Social, Individual, Biological, and Spiritual Influences

The complexities of psychological diagnosis also arise from the varying influence of social, individual, biological, and even spiritual factors, which can all play a role in shaping what is considered “deviant” or “normal” behavior:

Social Factors: Mental health diagnoses are deeply influenced by societal expectations and cultural norms. What is considered a "disorder" is often defined by social consensus, meaning it can change over time or vary between cultures. For example, homosexuality was once classified as a mental illness in the DSM until societal views evolved. The social construction of norms means that behaviors may be diagnosed as deviant even if they do not impair an individual’s quality of life or function within their community.

Individual Factors: A person’s personal history, coping strategies, resilience, and personality traits also impact whether behavior is perceived as deviant. Someone might exhibit behaviors that society deems abnormal, but if these behaviors are part of a broader context of personal growth or adaptation, it may be inappropriate to label them as a disorder. Moreover, the very subjectivity of mental health assessment means that two professionals may arrive at different conclusions based on their interpretations of an individual’s behavior.

Biological Factors: As mentioned earlier, the biological approach often reduces mental health conditions to the brain's structure, chemicals, or genetic predispositions. While this offers valuable insights into mental health, it can ignore the complex interaction of environmental, social, and personal factors that contribute to behavior. The mind is shaped by both its biology and its experiences, making it difficult to pinpoint a purely biological source of “deviance.”

Spiritual and Existential Perspectives: Many of the behaviors deemed “deviant” or “disordered” in the DSM might be rooted in spiritual or existential concerns. For instance, what a society sees as a “delusion” (such as a belief in divine visions or messages) might be seen as a spiritual experience or calling in another context. If we strictly pathologize such experiences, we risk dismissing a person's deeper sense of meaning or purpose, which could be central to their identity and well-being. This highlights a critical gap in psychological diagnosis: the lack of recognition of spiritual health or existential meaning as legitimate components of human experience. In a world where diverse spiritual traditions and philosophies shape individuals' lives, excluding these elements from diagnostic criteria can lead to the mislabeling of individuals whose mental states and behaviors may be deeply connected to their spiritual or existential journeys.

4. The Risk of Oversimplification and Labeling

One of the most significant dangers of applying psychological diagnoses, particularly within the DSM framework, is the potential for oversimplification and labeling. People may be reduced to their symptoms, with a diagnosis becoming their identity rather than simply a tool for understanding their challenges. This can be especially problematic when norms are unclear or not universally agreed upon. Diagnosing a person with a disorder based on an incomplete understanding of their situation can lead to stigmatization and self-fulfilling prophecies, where individuals internalize their diagnosis and begin to view themselves as fundamentally "flawed" or "ill."

Moreover, the use of diagnostic labels can often obscure the underlying complexity of an individual's experience. A person diagnosed with depression or anxiety may be treated based on the label itself, rather than exploring the multifaceted nature of their suffering, which could include biological, psychological, social, and even spiritual dimensions. The risk of reducing someone's lived experience to a set of symptoms tied to a diagnosis is significant, particularly when the nature of "health" and "deviance" is itself subjective and culturally contingent.

5. The Ethical Dilemmas of Diagnostic Power

The power inherent in psychological diagnoses also raises ethical concerns about who gets to define what is normal and what is deviant. The subjective nature of diagnosis means that personal, cultural, and institutional biases often influence the process. These biases can reinforce societal power structures and marginalize individuals who do not fit conventional norms. For example, women, ethnic minorities, or LGBTQ+ individuals may be more likely to be diagnosed with mental health disorders due to stereotypes or cultural misunderstandings, even if their behaviors or experiences are adaptive within their context. This highlights the ethical issue of gatekeeping: who has the authority to label someone as “deviant,” and on what grounds?

Further complicating this is the medicalization of human experience—the process by which normal human behaviors and emotions are viewed through a medical lens, leading to the prescription of treatments or medications that may not be necessary. For example, many behaviors associated with stress, sadness, or existential questioning are now routinely diagnosed as disorders, even when they might simply represent adaptive responses to difficult life events. This medicalization can lead to unnecessary treatments, often influenced by pharmaceutical interests, that focus on symptom reduction rather than addressing the root causes of distress.

6. Practical Implications for Treatment and Support

The uncertainty surrounding psychological diagnosis also creates practical challenges for treatment. If norms are unclear and the line between adaptive behavior and deviance is not well defined, it becomes difficult to determine the most appropriate intervention for individuals. Should the treatment focus on medication (biological approach), therapy to address coping strategies (adaptive approach), social interventions (to address environmental or systemic issues), or perhaps spiritual guidance?

Moreover, a holistic approach to treatment that integrates biological, social, psychological, and spiritual aspects may be seen as the ideal, but in practice, this integration can be difficult to achieve. Clinical settings often have limited resources, and professionals may be inclined to focus on what is measurable or easily treatable—typically biological interventions like medications—rather than more complex, multifaceted approaches that address the full range of factors influencing an individual’s mental health.

This is where community and social support can play a crucial role, but even that raises ethical concerns. Social interventions or the use of community-based treatments must consider the varying cultural, spiritual, and individual factors that influence the way people perceive their mental health. One-size-fits-all solutions or community models that impose a certain cultural understanding of "health" can inadvertently marginalize or alienate individuals whose experiences differ from the mainstream.

Conclusion: The Need for a Comprehensive, Contextual Approach

In conclusion, the problem areas in psychological diagnosis are deeply rooted in the uncertainty and fluidity of what constitutes "norms" and "health," as well as the competing influences of biological, adaptive, social, and spiritual factors. The rigid application of diagnostic categories, often based on Western-centric or biologically focused models, risks misrepresenting the mind and distorting the complex, multifactorial nature of human experience. Given the complexities of human behavior and the multiple sources that shape an individual’s sense of health, a more integrated, contextual, and flexible approach to diagnosis is needed—one that acknowledges the interplay between biology, culture, environment, and individual meaning.

To move forward, psychological diagnosis must embrace greater cultural sensitivity, acknowledge the role of spirituality, and consider adaptive strategies as legitimate responses to life’s challenges. Only by recognizing the diversity of human experience and the complexity of defining what is "deviant" or "normal" can we hope to develop more ethical, accurate, and holistic approaches to mental health. This approach should prioritize individual narratives and community context, ensuring that treatment is personalized and respectful of the person's unique identity and circumstances.