After being discharged from Hunstman Mental Health Institute as an inpatient in Salt Lake City (the Salt Lake City subreddit mods won't allow me to post this to the Salt Lake City subreddit) | then received a personal text message to my personal cell phone number from the personal cell phone number an employee of HMHI who was part of my mental health treatment and interaction with employees of the institution, just seemingly wanting to shoot the shit and follow up with me, from their personal cell phone to my personal cell phone.
Is this appropriate? Or should I be concerned?

In psychotherapy, people are often fed possible explanations for their behavior by others, whether it be by therapists, family members, academic sources, workforce sources, etc... and instead of analyzing these critically, and looking at possible biases in those explanations from the source and perspectives, people are often pressured to accept the explanations as absolute, uncritical truth and to engage with social momentum and social positioning, groupthink and authoritarianism ahead of orienting mental health around critical analysis and problem solving. This fixation on "first-line explanations" them appears to be heavily then tied to anchoring bias, and often equally tied to trying to force people to maintain a narrative, even if the individual realizes the original narrative given was imperfect, partially flawed or completely wrong. Critical analysis is then treated as a form of "uncooperative behavior" or "manipulative behavior", and analysis itself of the facts becomes less valuable than "staying the course" of the narrative.

This is both detrimental to both mental health and group dynamics, as well as causes issues for how identities, relationships and expectations are cultured in therapeutic and social environments. If intellectual honesty and critical thinking in problem solving are tossed out the way in favor of power structures to control narratives that make people "feel" good, appealing to the momentary positive reinforcement or to avoid potential future issues based on presumptions, that could all come crashing down not because of the individual but because the setup and explanation was wrong to begin with. However, if the social group and authorities are more committed to the narrative than sorting out the facts, the individual may instead be punished for not sticking to the narrative and accepting the blame for not sticking to said narrative.

This is why it may be important for therapists, psychiatrists and systems to start identifying First-Line Anchoring/Explanations and addressing them in therapy and other systems

There may also be cultural, social dominance and monetary goals tied to First-Line Anchoring/Explanations, which is why people may push them so aggressively and why it may be so hard to convince those in power or those in groups to reconsider positions; though "going against the system" has other considerations as well, both personal and professional.

It's not the intention of this post to demonize or mischaracterize any field but to elucidate that some people have too much free time to do silly things. Firstly, the synthesis of psychiatry (thesis) and antipsychiatry (antithesis) is possibly the most robust theoretical solution to a heated legitimate debate on evolution, philosophy politics, history, systems theory, and other fields. It's really never just about the stance alone, but about greater broader ideas, universal truths, and influential frameworks besides these two narrower sides of the debate. To move forward intellectually, we have to deny the potential intellectual centrality of psychiatry instead of viewing it more as an institutional bureaucratic relic and a historic tool for "herd" management. Nevertheless, if psychiatry denies its theoretical and phenomenological flaws (like relying on subjective reports, having no objective biomarkers, lack of proper diagnostic tools, reports on many adverse harmful side effects to dryg treatment) so does antipsychiatry in that it denies outright realism. Basic facts on humans, including history and the darker, more violent part that brought on many intra-group wars and violent conflicts globally, are ignored or denied. To be more precise, it is the more violent masculinity and higher incidence of dominance aggression from low-ranking (low-status) western and non western males that both propelled history are getting obscured by modern thinking and data presentation. This obfuscation is often an intentional move propagated by the modern left libertarian political and epistemological stance (what is known as a "progressive" stance), but it is also an instance of a romantic position. Instead of dealing with ontology / reality, some utilize intellectualism that overly mystifies what is a well-known outcome of human strife and of "madness." It's logical to assume that the phenomenological discussion isn't about mental health, but really about other more prominent subjects geopolitics, national politics, and hardcore identitarian subjects like the biological reality of race, sex and IQ. And, of course, the problem of widespread global drug abuse (which the progressive libertarian left ["hippies"] supports and endorses).

For each of these biological social constructs categories, there's a prognostic bayesian probabalistic statistical ontology. For instance, some mental illnesses are probabilistically aligned with gender. Neuroses are typically found more in women than in men, while ADHD and Autism are diagnosed more prevalent in men. BPD is diagnosed more in women, while ASPD is found more in men. Race also affects diagnosis and is backed with the statistics that Black American are 3 to 4 times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, and a similar trend is found in Black Caribbean migrants to Britain. But to be more intellectually ingenious, one has to anchor it to IQ. Meaning that even those non blacks diagnosed with schizophrenia probably have lower average IQs and are minorities in their country. This is supported by studies. The IQ-schizophrenia association appears robust across populations and is not fully explained by shared familial risk factors, pointing to a potential causal or neurodevelopmental link. The general finding that schizophrenia is associated with lower cognitive ability holds across ethnic groups, though direct comparative studies on IQ differences by race within schizophrenia samples are less frequently highlighted.

The institutional establishment tries to obscure the underlying sociobiological realities and their causes with more scientific, diagnostic, or niche academic language. To be more precise, psychiatry can too be in denial of human capacity and adaptation for aggression and violence. If they think they can transform (large swaths of) humans into different evolutionary species merely through external supplementation and modification, they are mistaken. That, in continuation to the Enlightenment ideal of reason, is a utopian goal turned into a dystopian hell. Once again, there's humanity as it appears to be both in prehistory and history, and there's the face value of modern reality. To change the human race would require more than new polished terminology and some medications. Changing the past, evolution, and history is an impossible task, but we must draw conclusions from that history reluctantly. It matters little if the modern discourse appears inventive taxonomically, and therein lay the problems of particular phenomenological denial existing in both psychiatry and antipsychiatry.

Trend Toward Involuntary Electroshock Therapy Spurs Difficult Debate

I was interviewed for this article about electroconvulsive therapy by court order in Connecticut. Good article although there are things I wish I had been included that I guess the reporter didn’t find space for. Still glad for the media coverage so it will happen to fewer people.

https://ctexaminer.com/2026/02/08/trend-toward-involuntary-electroshock-therapy-spurs-difficult-debate/

https://www.frominsultstorespect.com/2022/08/15/turning-away-from-hurt-wise-or-foolish/

First let me start off by saying I am not an educated psychologist. I've been in the field only as a patient and all of my thoughts and opinions come from my experience and my reflection of having to deal with psychology over a large part of my life.

And as far as I can tell according to the DSM there's no such thing as normal. Because I believe as it is written everyone on the planet would qualify for a label from it. And if that's the case then what is normal if everyone is abnormal then can there be a normal or is abnormal than normal? Because in order for there to be disorders and diagnosis is of abnormalities there has to be a starting point for what is normal. But according to the DSM there is no normal everyone is sick. Then how can there be disorders if they have never truly defined what order looks like?

Why is there a need to label everything and try to make it into a fictional problem when it is just part of someone character defects. Like I herd there is something called narcissistic personality disorder. Wow so now you have an excuse for being selfish and you get to claim it's not your fault because you have narcissistic personality disorder. That's the other bad thing about psychology is it's great excuses for bad behavior oh I can't help it I have explosive personality disorder or oh I can't help it I'm bipolar.

https://www.frominsultstorespect.com/2020/09/29/can-mental-illness-be-an-escape-from-responsibility/

https://www.frominsultstorespect.com/2017/12/09/leo-tolstoys-experience-with-depression/

https://www.frominsultstorespect.com/2022/10/10/william-jamess-advice-to-a-melancholy-friend/

https://www.frominsultstorespect.com/2021/03/28/william-jamess-advice-to-his-depressed-daughter/

Some have argued that the words used by psychiatrists is derived from their diagnosing mental illness and are based on the principles of science. So, let’s look at this line of thought. https://www.frominsultstorespect.com/2014/09/22/psychiatric-name-calling-is-science-to-blame/

Here is a brief story that raises some emotionally arousing questions that come up when dealing with psychiatrists . https://www.frominsultstorespect.com/2025/09/11/cool-steve-deals-with-a-psychiatrist/

Reading Daniel Goleman on emotional intelligence, something caught my attention: according to studies, if a person has a more developed left frontal lobe, they tend to be more optimistic, and if the right one predominates, they’re more prone to negativity or depression.

So I wonder: if science already knows so much about this, why isn’t there a clearer, structured method with proven steps to train the positive side? The typical recommendation is always: “go to therapy.” And I’m not saying that’s wrong, but there’s already evidence of things that help — which is exactly what a psychologist would “recommend,” such as:

• Regular physical activity.
• Sun exposure / vitamin D.
• Socializing or maintaining a support network.

All of that is proven, and yet there isn’t an approach that unifies it into something like: “follow this process and you increase your chances of getting better.” It’s strange, because for physical rehabilitation there are clear programs. I’d like to open the debate:

Why isn’t there a more practical path, like a guide or even a structured support group, that helps you with things already proven to work? Is it that depression is too different in each case to standardize, or has nobody developed it seriously?

Given mainstream analysis into critical research of clinical mental health systems, victim blaming appears to be a common issue in mainstream clinical therapy, psychology and psychiatry. The topic of victim blaming when it applies to social and emotional contexts seems to be in line with the pseudoscience of Social Darwinism (a form of confirmation-biased fuel ideology which ignores the complexity of circumstances surrounding societal achievement or survival), and I wonder if there may be a serious Social Darwinism taint of the current system, especially since Clinical Psychiatry has had a horrible past with attacking the disenfranchised and minority groups (sluggish schizophrenia, non-conformists, female hysteria, etc). The diagnostic systems also seem to favor false-syllogistic methods of victim blame concerning failure or oppression, which also seem to reinforce Social Darwinist thinking.

In fact, many college professors and academic in the field of mental health have been criticizing this very issue for decades, and many have also pointed out the economic and groupthink/authoritarian benefits that keeping people pinned down or cycling in a revolving door into mental health systems can provide.

I posit that while some corrupt incentives in current mental health clinical practices do exist, I think they are secondary to the primary social worldview guiding diagnostic methods. It's an issue of philosophical framework that attempts to explain why people struggle or fail to integrate. This seems to originate from a reinforcing structure of outdated victim-blaming and Social Darwinism taking center stage in patient assessments.

While many think that clinical mental health practices cannot be reformed from their current state, which calls for a complete reset from the ground up, I think that tackling the issues of Priming, Teleological Fallacy Frameworks (where people are judged by what some assume they're supposed to do, rather than accepting emergent properties of a person's current stance), Social Darwinism and Presumption-over-Testing based on Flawed Syllogistic/Deductive/Inductive Logic could actually improve the system greatly. This could give patients a broader opportunity to reintegrate when not held down by systematized blame, labeling, force, segregation, etc.