Armchair Experts

[SallyNow]

After hearing, and then reading, what Tom Cruise has said about psychiatry (you can read it here: http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/4537415/detail.html ) I became rather annoyed. Armchair experts are everywhere, and they can have thought-provoking insights at best, but are generally harmless at worst.

To sum up the article in a nutshell:
Tom Cruise essentially libeled the sciences of psychiatry, human biology, and neuroscience, not to mention psychology, sociology, and criminology, ie, those who know much more and have studied and devoted their lives to actually figuring out the human mind. He went so far as to say that Brooke Sheilds, who has spoken about her own battle with postpartum depression, was wrong to do so because part of her treatment included medication. (despite the fact that she did not say everyone with PPD should go on medication, simply that it was part of her own treatment)
Tom Cruise is no expert, or even student, of any human science. He is an actor. That's his specialty. That makes him an armchair expert!

Now, before I let the discussion begin, I will say this: Yes, too many people are on drugs when better nutrition, support networks, and basic behavior modification techniques would work just as well. But the fact remains that for many people, changes to diet are not enough, casual therapy is not enough, and medication and intensive therapy is needed.

Please don't take this a thread about if psychiatric drugs are good or bad. Instead, I am trying to start a discussion about armchair experts:
-those who have never gone through problems, but know exactly what you should do.
-those who think they know exactly how treat you, and don't just give you suggestions, but insist that their advice is more valid than those have gone through a problem or those who have studied it extensively.
-some only "know" exactly how to treat biochemical disorders, and would not dream of knowing how to treat cancer, although...
-They most often seem to exactly how to treat: biochemical disorders, chronic physical ailments, nutritional woes, and yes, even cancer.
I am not talking about friendly suggestions from loved ones and well-wishers, or carefully thought-out recommendations from those who have gone through similar situation. These are both great kinds of support, and generally not negative, although they can be annoying...

I would like this just to focus on those who, without much research or education into a given subject, know everything about it. Are they a negative or positive voice? Do they contribute to the overall awareness of a subject, or are they just wearing the newest Prada tinfoil hats? Can they do more harm than good, or more good than harm?

 

[Randall McNally]

Poor Tom Cruise has been unfortunately duped by an even better actor: L. Ron Hubbard.

 

[stubeeef]

Half of hollywood qualifies as armchair experts!

From Alec Baldwin to Barbara Streisand, I am now an armchair expert at tuning out the tv, and tuning in to God!

 

[Randall McNally]

Half of hollywood qualifies as armchair experts!

From Alec Baldwin to Barbara Streisand,

I think offering one's opinion on a political topic is a far cry from presuming to speak authoritatively about a scientific discipline for which some practitioners spend a decade just training.

 

[MuAndNu]

I would like this just to focus on those who, without much research or education into a given subject, know everything about it. Are they a negative or positive voice? Do they contribute to the overall awareness of a subject, or are they just wearing the newest Prada tinfoil hats? Can they do more harm than good, or more good than harm?

I can see two sides. Certainly, the real experts ought to be lent the more credence. On the other hand, to suggest they're the only ones entitled to an opinion would mean I'm not entitled to one. Unlike such esoteric fields as the pure sciences, psychiatry is an area where everyone has some experience by simple virtue of living. The advantage of the specialist is that he has not only his experience, but the accumulated experiences of many others. That doesn't mean he'll always be right. What it does mean is that, all other things being equal, he'll more likely be right.

 

[SallyNow]

I can see two sides. Certainly, the real experts ought to be lent the more credence. On the other hand, to suggest they're the only ones entitled to an opinion would mean I'm not entitled to one. Unlike such esoteric fields as the pure sciences, psychiatry is an area where everyone has some experience by simple virtue of living. The advantage of the specialist is that he has not only his experience, but the accumulated experiences of many others. That doesn't mean he'll always be right. What it does mean is that, all other things being equal, he'll more likely be right.

To clarify: I have nothing against people having opinions. I think it is great when people voice their opinions, especially when they have actually listened to both sides and have valid opinion. (for instance, a person could come in this thread, only reading the title, and say, "I liked the armchair experts at LaZBoy, they sold me a great recliner" An opinion, but hardly valid to the topic at hand )

People giving general or even specific opinions is not what I am talking about here, as stated in the OP. I am talking about those who claim to know exactly what they are talking about, dismissing other voices, when in fact they have done little research and have had little contact with it.

For instance, I don't doubt that Tom Cruise found a good program to help with dysexia, and I think it is great he wants to pass that on.

But with psychiatry in general, and postpartum depression in general, Tom Cruise went one further than giving his opinion. He went much further than Brooke Sheilds, who shared her experience with postpartum depression. Tom Cruise, who will never have postpartum depression, and did not give any indication of ever coming in contact with it, gave a blanket statement about it, and without having a degree in a field even close to a social science, and with little indication that that the idea came from elsewhere from one source, he has said psychyiatry is bunk and Brooke Sheild's opinion should not be shared. He has a right to say it, but I have right to discuss if it is valid.

 

[MuAndNu]

Tom Cruise, who will never have postpartum depression,

I'd say that's a good bet.

 

[Spinrad]

I don't think the problem is the archair experts at all, really. I mean they are no more or less entitled to harp on subjects about which they know little than the guy I work with who constantly wants to get me on tea and off prozac. The problem, as it is with al celebrity phenomena is that the public wants to see Oprah ask Tom Cruise things. Or Bono or Striesand or D James Kennedy or who have you. The public somehow got the impression that if people they recognise as famous say things to them it's worth hearing and paying special attention to. In other words we are the problem, and by bringing up a topic devoted to it we are actually maintaining this illusion. Education is the answer but no one wants to hear it, especially those who are already past the educational age and can't afford to be exposed as idiots.

 

[El Brujo]

Unfortunately, we live in a culture that seems to think celebrity status = authority. Tom Cruise's opinions on psychiatry are about as valid as Madonna's thoughts on the Kaballah (or Qabalah, however you want to spell it).

While it's irresponsible of the media to air/print Cruise's opinions, knowing that he belongs to a religion with a long history of animosity towards psychiatry, it's equally irresponsible for people to lend any credence to what he says simply because he's Tom Cruise.

The article linked in the OP might as well have been written by Scientology's PR department... pure fluff.

Thomas Szasz and Park Dietz are qualified critics of psychiatry, but since they're psychiatrists and not movie stars, the general public is probably not too interested in what they have to say.

When James Dobson speaks about homosexuality or when Kent Hovind speaks about evolution, I am well aware that their level of "expertise" is on the same level of Cruise's expertise on psychiatry. The same goes for Rosie O'Donnell's thoughts on gun control and Woody Harrelson's opinions on his father's guilt. Having a bias against something doesn't qualify anyone as an expert.

 

[MuAndNu]

People giving general or even specific opinions is not what I am talking about here, as stated in the OP. I am talking about those who claim to know exactly what they are talking about, dismissing other voices, when in fact they have done little research and have had little contact with it.

Here's another thought. I've gotta admit that I, too, get a little peeved when this celebrity or that comes on and starts spouting something I suspect he really doesn't know much about. (Of course, he could be more of an expert than I realize.) What irks me most is that I know a lot of people will hang on every word just because of his celebrity.

But then I'm struck frozen as I consider what I'd want to do about it. The problem is, celebrity gives one a high platform and a loud microphone. Would I want to take those away? Should it be illegal for him to express his opinion? Maybe I should yell at him for not being more careful about how he expresses it. Should I demand equal time from the news outlets? I don't have a good solution.

 

[Spinrad]

Here's another thought. I've gotta admit that I, too, get a little peeved when this celebrity or that comes on and starts spouting something I suspect he really doesn't know much about. (Of course, he could be more of an expert than I realize.) What irks me most is that I know a lot of people will hang on every word just because of his celebrity.

But then I'm struck frozen as I consider what I'd want to do about it. The problem is, celebrity gives one a high platform and a loud microphone. Would I want to take those away? Should it be illegal for him to express his opinion? Maybe I should yell at him for not being more careful about how he expresses it. Should I demand equal time from the news outlets? I don't have a good solution.

It wouldn't matter because you are not famous so n one would watch. Remember, you are the problem. We are all the problem.

 

[MuAndNu]

It wouldn't matter because you are not famous so n one would watch. Remember, you are the problem. We are all the problem.

How do you know I'm not famous?

Okay, I'm nowhere near famous. What would you do about said problem?

 

[Spinrad]

I would give up hope.

 

[Hydra009]

Unfortunately, we live in a culture that seems to think celebrity status = authority. Tom Cruise's opinions on psychiatry are about as valid as Madonna's thoughts on the Kaballah (or Qabalah, however you want to spell it).

I hate that. I really could care less about what celebrities say on issues they don't really know anything about. I don't understand why people fawn over them, as if their every word is golden simply because it came out of a rich and famous face.

 

[SallyNow]

I don't think the problem is the archair experts at all, really. I mean they are no more or less entitled to harp on subjects about which they know little than the guy I work with who constantly wants to get me on tea and off prozac. The problem, as it is with al celebrity phenomena is that the public wants to see Oprah ask Tom Cruise things. Or Bono or Striesand or D James Kennedy or who have you. The public somehow got the impression that if people they recognise as famous say things to them it's worth hearing and paying special attention to. In other words we are the problem, and by bringing up a topic devoted to it we are actually maintaining this illusion. Education is the answer but no one wants to hear it, especially those who are already past the educational age and can't afford to be exposed as idiots.

I think you may have a point there. And on that point, it's too bad some celebs want to take advantage of their celebrity to push along certian shallow, even sometimes dangerously ignorant, points of view, rather than pushing for the public to be more aware of causes and to find out the truth for themselves. (one reason, despite Bono's often over-zealous speil, I don't disrespect him: he at least seems to want to encourage people to find out the truth about poverty for themselves, on top of listening to him)

 

[stubeeef]

I think offering one's opinion on a political topic is a far cry from presuming to speak authoritatively about a scientific discipline for which some practitioners spend a decade just training.

I don't feel that way at all, just the opposite. I believe the time these psuedo political experts from hollywood spend yapping in front of Katie Curic and the nation, is FAR more damaging (Michael Moore) than making comments about science. Influencing votes and the direction of the nation is a power that should not be taken lightly. And having many of those make comments when they are not even politically active, drives me crazy. I can take it from liberal or conservative actors if they are politically active and not just making wild accusations off the cuff.

 

[Faithful nonbeliever]

I think these people are speaking their minds just like the rest of us, only they have the oppurtunity to reach larger audiences because of their fame. I can only imagine all the ranting that would be produced if I was in his place. Everyone thinks they know something, and most are wrong. Including people with doctorates & degrees.

 

[Madcoil]

People actually listen to celebrities?

 

[Jetgirl]

After hearing, and then reading, what Tom Cruise has said about psychiatry (you can read it here: http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/4537415/detail.html ) I became rather annoyed. Armchair experts are everywhere, and they can have thought-provoking insights at best, but are generally harmless at worst.

Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, rest my case.

To add for your informational purposes:

What Scientology says for itself-
http://www.scientology.org/

What opponents of Scientology say about them-
http://www.xenu.net/

From my own interaction with Scientologists:
"They are one taco short of a combination plate, and can be quite dangerous."

 

[Randall McNally]

I don't feel that way at all, just the opposite. I believe the time these psuedo political experts from hollywood spend yapping in front of Katie Curic and the nation, is FAR more damaging (Michael Moore) than making comments about science.

I don't know about that. Politics is adversarial by nature - facts buried under mountains of ideological spin. Everyone has an opinion and everyone knows that everyone has an opinion.

Science, however, is at its most vulnerable, at least from a public opinion perspective, when it's being debated by people who know just enough terminology to get things spectacularly wrong.

Influencing votes and the direction of the nation is a power that should not be taken lightly. And having many of those make comments when they are not even politically active, drives me crazy. I can take it from liberal or conservative actors if they are politically active and not just making wild accusations off the cuff.

But, for better or worse, that's politics. And the way I remember it, most of the celebrity opinions were highly polarized. Not the sort of stuff that really appeals to the ideological center.