Misperception

Today I'd like to explore some of the ways that diversity of perception has be evaluated.

Just as art imitating life is a two way street, the pattern of how we define history influences future events.

In particular I am most interested in the events that have seemed to me to have influenced how decisions were made reguarding how difficulties and/or differences in human perception are evaluated and treated.

Since there has never been any absolute defining lines in the evaluations of psychologist, psychiatrist, and sociologist, I feel that the best way to influence future methods of evaluations is by looking at which events might have had more influence on the direction of the interventions they have chosen to use.

Psychologists (along with the unresonable social standards some of the ideals of psychology have created) have described peoples responses to situations as the prime cause of all their difficulty. These evaluations create a great deal of acceptance and promotion of abusive behavior.

Psychologists and their followers often describe many of worlds problems as a result from people not taking personal responsibility over their own lives. This description of course places that responsibility on the most vulnerable and most convinient people. Being inapropriatly blamed in this way often leads to the wrong person feeling shameful and unsupported.

The origins of psychiatry are quite frightful and the only changes in psychiatric treatment that have seemed to become more civilized have seemed to be done for the sake of creating more dependence on the psychiatric industry by adding more consumers. Just like any other industry, once a monopoly has been created it becomes more difficult to moniter. We cannot trust an elite few to make decisions about which types of treatment are civilized. This power has too often been abused.

The dangers of how some people are exploring neurology are becoming more apparent all the time. We cannot afford to trust the fate of future generations to genetisists with terrible agendas. These agendas are often disquised as compassionate ways to end suffering.

When specialist diagnose people with learning disabilities, any programs that are designed to provide them with learning stratagies must be monitered by the public to prevent some "one size fits all program" from becoming exclusionary even when it claims to be promoting inclusion.

Diversity of perception will always continue to be a part of who we are as the human race. However, unless we fight for the rights of expressing how that perception effects each of us individually, there will be people who abuse their power that will try to more narrowly define our perceptions and use that as a tool to more narrowly curtail our expressions.

Defining how diverse populations can be better accomidated will certainly promote diversity but not every program that claims to have that as their objective can go unmonitered by the people who are most effected by how they do things.

It seems to me that for true diversity of perception to be protected we who are effected by the groups who are defining this diversity, must work to understand their history and what has led to the methods that they use to make their decisions. By doing this we can all be more responsible in making sure that these desisions are made in ways that serve us rather than hurt us. (Note: I will be making more blog posts that are dedicated to this very effort)