Psychiatry re-examined

Sunday 20 October 2013 5:00PM

The so called psychiatrists bible, is deeply flawed argues U.S. psychotherapist Gary Greenberg. 

In his scathing examination of the leading manual of mental health classification, the DSM, he says that the politics behind it has caused the diagnosis rates of autism, ADHD and bi polar disorder to skyrocket.  

He challenges the status quo of modern psychiatric practice and suggests that it has become impossible to differentiate mental illness from everyday suffering.  

In this program we consider the future of psychiatry.  

View comments (15)



Jon Ronson: I was at a friend's house and she had on her shelf a copy of the DSM manual which is the manual of mental disorders, and it used to be, back in the '50s, a very slim pamphlet and then it got bigger and bigger and bigger, and now it's 886 pages long and it lists currently 374 mental disorders.

So I was leafing through it wondering if I had any mental disorders, and it turns out I've got 12. I've got generalised anxiety disorder, which is a given, I've got nightmare disorder, I've got parent-child relational problems, which I blame my parents for, and I've got malingering.

Anyway, I was looking through this book wondering if I was much crazier than I thought I was or maybe it's not a good idea to diagnose yourself with a mental disorder if you're not a trained professional, or maybe…

Lynne Malcolm: Today, a critique of modern psychiatry. Since its first edition in 1952, the DSM or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual has provided a standard criteria and a common language for the classification of mental disorders, assisting psychiatrists in mental-health diagnoses. It's often referred to as the psychiatrists' bible.

Gary Greenberg: It is like the Bible, a set of stories. They are convenient and they are useful and sometimes they are interesting, although not always.

Lynne Malcolm: As you can hear, US psychotherapist and author Gary Greenberg is not exactly reverent towards this classification system, and we'll hear why shortly.

You may remember much heated discussion several months ago, leading up to the release of the latest version of the manual, the DSM-5. There was furore over whether the proposed changes would turn normal human frailties into pathological conditions and lead to over-prescription of medication.

Professor Perminder Sachdev is Scientia Professor of Neuropsychiatry at the University of New South Wales and was also a member of the DSM-5's Neurocognitive Disorders Workgroup.

Perminder Sachdev: I think the notion was that most of us would probably fit some description in the DSM, and people thought that was over-diagnosis. And I don't think that has changed radically. I think there was an expectation that perhaps DSM-5 would be more imbued with neuroscience, because there was so much talk about the neuroscientific revolution and that you'd have diseases rather than disorders. And then there was some tinkering with certain criteria, and people thought that that was probably going to make it easier to achieve a certain diagnosis and therefore perhaps lead to more prescription drugs et cetera. I think these are fears but I don't think they are actually based in fact, but they are legitimate concerns that people might have.

Lynne Malcolm: But psychotherapist Gary Greenberg says that the DSM and the process by which it's produced raises concerns that go to the heart of modern psychiatry itself. He's drawn on history and interviews with people on all sides of the debate to write an exposé on the DSM. It's called The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry. He begins with a mental disorder I'll bet you haven't heard of; drapetomania.

Gary Greenberg: Well, drapetomania was the brainchild of a doctor in the pre-Civil War American south and he was an apologist for slavery. And he was confronted by the need I think to explain why so many slaves wanted to run away, since one of the prevailing ideologies was that Africans were not quite human and that their nature was to be enslaved. That was how many people justified slavery to themselves. And so he explained that slaves who wanted to run away must have an underlying mental disorder that made them want to do that.

So it's a sort of a critique of their desires based on the notion that a normal African person would want to be enslaved. And I thought it was an interesting example, not only because it showed the mendacity that even doctors are capable of, but also because this is one of the functions of medicine, is to create stories that tell us about why and how people suffer. And sometimes those stories are greatly effective and greatly comforting, and sometimes those stories, at least in retrospect, are horrible.

And I thought it was really interesting that at the time the northern doctors rejected the idea but the southern doctors don't seem to have objected at all. And it sometimes takes a long time to see whether or not and to what extent medical diagnoses are problematic in just the way that drapetomania was.

Lynne Malcolm: So another example related is that homosexuality was included in the DSM up until 1973.

Gary Greenberg: Yes, it is, and so we have to assume on the good intentions on the part of the psychiatrists who included homosexuality as a diagnosis from the beginnings of the DSM in the 1950s, that they saw people suffering and they wanted to help them. But what you see is that by turning it into a mental disorder you allow an entire society to justify its prejudice. So you are no longer objecting to people having sex with people of the same sex because you don't like it or you think it's a religious problem or whatever, you are just disgusted by it, now you can say it's an illness. And once you do that you seem to have taken it out of moral contention and into the realm of science. And what happened in the 1970s was that basically gay activists revolted inside the psychiatric establishment and forced the American Psychiatric Association, which owns the DSM, to remove it from the manual. And when it was done they voted, it was done by referendum. It's probably the only time in human history that a disease has been eradicated at the ballot box.

Lynne Malcolm: So one of your critiques is that the DSM has medicalised normal human suffering. What do you mean by that?

Gary Greenberg: What I mean is that it's very tempting to think of all of our suffering, physical and mental, as potentially relieved by medicine. The idea that we can get a treatment and make our suffering go away is absolutely compelling. And starting in the 1850s it became apparent that it could be done, at least in physical medicine, in a scientific way. So I say that as a preface to answering your question because it's importance to see that what's really going on here is that that idea that suffering can be relieved with a pill extends now to psychological suffering. And what has happened with the DSM is that over time, partly because people demand it, more and more of the ways in which we suffer have been put into these terms and made the object of treatment by medical doctors. And the DSM is really just the means by which it gets done. It's the handbook of these disorders that help doctors say what disorder you have and how it can be recognised, and help them claim that this is scientific knowledge.

Lynne Malcolm: You suggest that the DSM-4 created false epidemics of paediatric bipolar disorder, ADHD and autism. Can you explain how that happened?

Gary Greenberg: Yes, so those are all unintended consequences. What happens is that when you create a label and people are suffering, they flock to the label. The doctors flock to the label because it gives them a way to treat them, and the people flock to the label because it gives them a way to understand their suffering. And it has different kinds of outcomes. An interesting contrast can be made between, let's say, paediatric bipolar disorder on the one hand and Asperger's disorder on the other. Both came in…well, in 1994 with the DSM-4, it didn't create paediatric bipolar but it allowed it.

And what happened was that a large number of children who would otherwise have been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder or oppositional defiant disorder were suddenly seen as suffering from a lifelong serious mental illness called bipolar disorder which is treated with powerful antipsychotic drugs. And so suddenly, and it really was sudden, there was a 40-fold increase in this diagnosis, and the result was that children under the ages for which these drugs had ever been studied were taking them. And I think on balance it can be seen as a bad thing.

Now, you contrast that with Asperger's disorder, which also came in in 1994, and created a community, because suddenly people, kids who were awkward and weird and had trouble getting along and poorly understood by teachers and classmates suddenly had an identity based on this label. And on balance I think that was a successful diagnosis, that was one that created opportunities for people to create identities that they didn't have before. So these consequences were…neither of them was intended, and they are obviously quite different, but they are both enabled by the presence of a diagnostic manual with all the authority of medicine behind it.

Lynne Malcolm: What do you think is the social fallout of what happened in those two areas?

Gary Greenberg: Well, the answer to that question is nobody knows. The changes are made without much respect to what it's going to do. The American Psychiatric Association was surprised to hear that people didn't want their diagnoses taken away, particularly in the gendered identity disorder community and the people with Asperger's.

The other interesting question here is what led up to the changes in the first place? Let's remember that here are two disorders that the people really need; in the case of Asperger's for educational services, in the case of gender identity disorder it is the gateway to getting sex reassignment treatments, whether it's surgery or hormones. And without the disorder you don't qualify.

So here what we have are really good examples of the social impact of these medical diagnoses. As I said earlier, they create communities, they create justification for treatment, and they create an impetus for research that is also really important. So when you have an advocacy group based around a diagnosis, they become possessive of the diagnosis. And in the case of gender identity disorder it's really interesting because it was some of the same people in organisations who wanted to get rid of homosexuality from the earlier DSM who now were in favour of not getting rid of gender identity disorder.

Lynne Malcolm: Gary Greenberg, amongst other critics, is concerned that changes in psychiatry's classification system can mean an increase in the diagnosis rate of mental disorders such as ADHD and depression, and this may in turn mean that more psychiatric medication is prescribed. But there's no doubt that many people get a great deal of relief from medication and their lives are vastly improved. Isn't that a good thing, Gary Greenberg?

Gary Greenberg: Well, here's something that we are not very good at, as a society or within medicine, which is thinking about the good things that happen because of drug treatments, in this case, at a collective level. I mean, there's no question, if you give a child an antipsychotic drug he's going to calm down because they are tranquillisers. Similarly, if you give a child a stimulant like Ritalin or Adderall, that child is likely going to become focused, because that's the nature of the drugs, that's what they do. Nobody knows why.

But to take the next step and say the reason we should do that is because you're treating an underlying condition, rather than you're trying to make somebody feel better in the case of antidepressants, or you're trying to help somebody function better in the case of Ritalin, or you're trying to manage behaviour in the case of the antipsychotics, that's a step that I'm not sure we should take. If you just stop and say, well, we're going to manage behaviour or emotions or something like that with the drugs, that at least would be honest. Would that change the overall numbers of these diagnoses, these treatments that are implemented? I have a feeling they would. I think parents are much more likely to agree to treatments using drugs if they are told that they are treating an underlying condition.

And this is one of the problems with the DSM. It helps doctors convince themselves and each other and parents and patients that they are treating underlying conditions, but in fact they are not because nobody really knows at a physiological level what the underlying conditions are. So yes, it's a good thing if you want that kind of outcome, but it's very poorly understood. And the social implications…in the United States anyway, 20% of the American people are on a psychiatric drug. That's a huge number. What are the social implications of many people taking mind altering drugs on a daily basis? Nobody really knows.

Lynne Malcolm: When the DSM-5 was released earlier this year, one of America's leading psychiatrists, Dr Allen Frances, who supervised the previous version of the DSM 19 years ago, controversially described the latest edition as a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry. It tapped into many people's concerns that there can be too close a relationship between the DSM and the development and promotion of drugs by pharmaceutical companies.

Professor Perminder Sachdev from the University of New South Wales:

Perminder Sachdev: People talk a lot about conflict of interest, that a lot of people on the panels, a lot of the experts had conflicts of interest. Because I was on the panel for neurocognitive disorders, and I must say that if you look at our panel they were leading psychiatrists, neurologists, neuropsychologists from the United States. I was the only overseas person. But all of them had impeccable reputations. In no way would I ever dream of them being influenced by a drug company to arrive at a certain diagnosis or certain criteria. And I met the other panels as well.

There was a very rigorous process for conflicts of interest, because the American Psychiatric Association was very sensitive to this. This had been criticism from earlier times really. So again, it's not a new criticism. And they had certain thresholds, and in fact usually they look at your vested interest in pharmaceutical companies, and of course a lot of these people, because they do drug trial research et cetera would have had grants to some extent from drug companies because certain kinds of research, especially pharmacological research, is intertwined with industry, because academia intermixes with industry for that.

But I think the process was very rigorous, and I think that is probably one of the cleanest panels that one could have assembled, who had the expertise and yet were otherwise clean and respected by the profession and by their peers as being academically sound.

Lynne Malcolm: So, Gary Greenberg, do you think that the relationship between the DSM panels and pharmaceutical companies is too close?

Gary Greenberg: The nature of the problem is a little slippery. I mean, it would be nice I suppose in some ways to think that there are conspiracies out there where the drug companies are paying off psychiatrists to get diagnoses into the DSM so that they can treat them, and there are many people who believe that. I don't happen to be one of them.

But, what I would say is that there is sort of an unholy alliance, there's a kind of intellectual corruption going on here where there is a presumption that all psychiatric illness is the result of brain disorder, and brain disorder is treatable with drugs. Now, those are very contentious statements that people make as if they'd been proven. None of that has been proven.

So when it comes time to define mental disorders, as long as that's the belief and as long as the drug companies are in the business of making those drugs, it's going to suit their purposes no matter what anybody else does. And in the case of psychiatry, most psychiatrists, even if they are not directly in the employ of the pharmaceutical companies, they believe in the same approach. So there are unsavoury instances and there are unsavoury statistics, like the fact that more than half the people on the DSM committees were, one way or the other, being paid by the pharmaceutical companies. But these are just indications that there's something wrong, they are just a finger pointing at the problem. The problem itself is a little deeper than that.

Lynne Malcolm: You're with All in the Mind on RN, I'm Lynne Malcolm and I'm speaking with Gary Greenberg, US psychotherapist and author of The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry.

You write also about melancholia and about the decision not to include it in the latest version of the DSM. Why is that significant to you?

Gary Greenberg: So melancholia is the original form of depression. It has been reported since at least the time of Hippocrates. I make an argument in another book that it goes back to the Book of Job, which is one of the earliest documents we have. And it's a very distinctive form of depression that includes delusional guilt and certain physical symptoms like hand-wringing and so on. And 30 or 40 years ago when the DSM-3 came out an attempt was made to subsume all kinds of depression under the one label; major depressive disorder. And what happened was that we lost the distinctions among many depressive disorders.

One of the strongest is this melancholia. The reason melancholia is of interest is because it not only has a very consistent symptom profile, it also has physiological findings. Unlike any other disorder in the DSM, it has physiological findings that go along with it. People who have melancholia tend to have a particular kind of cortisone metabolism that can be measured and studied. They also have a certain kind of sleep disturbance that again can be measured and studied, and they respond quite consistently to a particular class of antidepressants and to electroconvulsive therapy. This is unlike any other psychiatric disorder in the consistency and robustness of these responses and these correlations.

So a group of psychiatrists, very prominent psychiatrists, including Gordon Parker from Australia, proposed that they make melancholia a disorder in the DSM-5. They were turned down summarily without any consideration on the grounds that this would be the only diagnosis in the book that had any kind of physiological findings. So, in other words, even though this is presumably what psychiatry has been after for years, this kind of exactly a disorder that looks like a real medical disorder, it was not included because it would make the rest of the book look bad, it would highlight how little evidence there is like this for every other disorder in the book.

Lynne Malcolm: Is that the explanation that you've been given?

Gary Greenberg: I'm saying it in a little more exaggerated form, but yes, that's the explanation that the people on the panel who were charged with making this decision provided to the people who made the proposal, that it would be the only one in the book. They didn't make the next step and say, well, because it's the only one it makes everything else look bad, but what other possible reason would there be except for that it changes the paradigm? Now you have two paradigms in the same book, and from their point of view that would be unacceptable.

Lynne Malcolm: Gary Greenberg.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual lists detailed descriptions of mental disorders based on clinicians' observations. So I wondered what influence emerging neuroscientific research would have on future DSM updates. Is biological information likely to have more of a sway in defining disorders in the future?

Perminder Sachdev: I think that is a hope. I'm not sure when it will become a reality. I think we are at a very early stage, and when it comes to human suffering we suffer sadness, we suffer anxiety, we suffer delusions and hallucinations, and these are higher order constructs, and to be able to reduce them to neurobiology, to activities in certain neural circuits and neural chemical disturbance or neural electrical disturbances in those circuits is I think a tall order. I'm not sure whether it will ever be achieved fully because you are talking about two levels of explanation. And as soon as you reduce a level of explanation from a higher level to a lower level you lose something, and you may never be able to capture those higher order constructs with the reductionistic approach of neurobiology.

Lynne Malcolm: So you don't think there is a danger that we will begin to undervalue non-biological therapies and talking therapies as part of treatment?

Perminder Sachdev: I don't think so. I think we have to look at the brain-mind interaction as a two-way street, just as we recognise that mental processes are neural processing is, although there is a gulf in our understanding between the two, but we do accept that, that mind emanates from the brain, so when you talk of mental processes you are inferring a neural process that underlies that mental process.

And because change in the neural process can cause a change to the mental process, we know that—brain disease will cause psychiatric symptoms—but we also recognise that change in the mental process will influence change in the neural process, so it can be a top-down as well as a bottom-up approach to this interaction. So what we are doing with psychotherapy or talk therapy is we are trying to change the mental process, and by that inducing a change in the neural process as well.

Lynne Malcolm: So what do you see is the future direction, I guess, of the field of psychiatry? Where is it going?

Perminder Sachdev: I think there is of course a big impetus on trying to understand neurobiology, there is a lot of work being done in genetics, the expression of the genes in terms of RNA and proteins, changes in other metabolites in the brain and the blood. And at the same time there is more sophistication in terms of understanding social processes and psychological processes. So in the end I think we will have a more complex understanding of these processes, and of course we have more computational power to be able to bring together large amounts of data.

One hope is that we will have better markers of disease, and I think this was a hope for the DSM-5 which I think we have not been able to achieve. In the early '80s, even the '70s there was a big push towards biological markers of disease, for example for melancholic depression. In the early '80s there was the dexamethasone suppression test that was introduced, and it was hoped that if we have those kinds of tests which we will be able to do to diagnose patients with psychiatric disorders.

Somehow that hope has not been met. But there is still this expectation that as the complexity of our understanding of the brain increases we will have better biomarkers of disease, and that's really where we are going in terms of the future of diagnosis of psychiatric disorder, definitely.

I think in terms of treatment, of course we are trying to explore other avenues in addition to drugs. At the moment the drugs we have work on a few neurochemicals, but there is a vast variety of other changes that occur in the brain where we could have drugs in the future. We're looking at brain stimulation techniques and I think that's a very fast-growing field.

Certainly there have been some developments in psychotherapy, in cognitive behavioural therapy, dialectical therapy, there are other kinds of therapies that are being developed. But the emphasis now is of course on empirical evidence of their efficacy, and of finding the appropriate patients for these kinds of interventions.

Lynne Malcolm: Perminder Sachdev, Scientia Professor of Neuropsychiatry at the University of New South Wales.

So you're a psychotherapist, and given your criticism of the approach taken by the field of psychiatry, tell me about what approach you take and how successful you think it is.

Gary Greenberg: Well, what I do is I talk with people, and I try to help them come to terms with the meaning of their lives. What I do I don't consider to be medicine at all. The marriage of psychotherapy to medicine was totally a marriage of convenience, and it was in some ways a shotgun marriage. A lot of psychotherapists didn't want to get in bed with medicine. However, 60 or 70 years ago they did, and this is the result.

What I do, I think, is something that people in the civilised world seem to need, the opportunity to go off into a room and talk with somebody about what their lives are like. If we lived in a more cohesive society, if we lived in a society that wasn't quite so cruel, wasn't quite so difficult to negotiate, I'm sure I'd be out of business. What I resist is the assumption that that suffering is medical or biological in nature. The brain is necessary for every experience that we have, but it is not the sufficient condition for the experiences we have, at least it hasn't been proven yet to be that way. And so what I tried to do is I tried to focus on the mind rather than the brain.

Lynne Malcolm: I'm just wondering, having gone through this intensive experience of writing the book, do you think it has affected the way you conduct your clinics or?

Gary Greenberg: Well, the major way that being aware of the problems with the DSM affects my clinical work is that I've become very sensitive to the way that people talk about their suffering. They come in already prepared to think of it as a medical, biological, neurochemical problem. I do challenge that idea. When people talk to me, they come in and they say, 'You know, I've got this OCD,' and I'm thinking, okay, tell me what that means. What does that mean to you? Or, 'I have an anxiety disorder.' Who told you that? It's sort of a decontamination process. It happens over time as I'm seeing somebody, but I really encourage them to think of themselves that way as opposed to the way that they might be prone to if they are just reading the newspaper and looking at all those pretty MRI pictures.

Lynne Malcolm: Gary Greenberg, psychotherapist and author of The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry, and it's published by Scribe.

That's all for today. Drop by the All in the Mind website for more details about this program and all the others, and leave a comment, love to hear your thoughts. That's via

I'm Lynne Malcolm. Thanks for your company.


Dr Perminder Sachdev
Neuropsychiatrist, Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing, UNSW
Mr Gary Greenberg
Psychotherapist and author


The Book of Woe
Gary Greenberg

Further Information

Perminder Sachdev - CHEBA


Lynne Malcolm
Sound Engineer
Mark Don

Comments (15)

Add your comment

  • barbara hasslacher :

    19 Oct 2013 1:42:57pm

    Program on Psychiatry Re-examined was excellent.
    Thank you

  • Trev Clark :

    20 Oct 2013 6:45:16pm

    Thank you.

    This was the best show I have listened to in a long time. RN should be happy with their achievement in representing the DSM and the larger field of mental illness in such a balanced way.

  • Geof Nanto :

    21 Oct 2013 8:38:13am

    I whole heartedly support Gary Greenberg’s insights into contemporary psychiatry. Perhaps in decades to come there will be a commission of enquiry into the systematic abuse of people medicated whilst under the supposed care of psychiatrists. The increasingly wide spread use of psychiatric medication on children is especially disturbing.

    From an epistemological perspective this program was an excellent example of how we, as a society, construct reality. My preference, based on extensive practical experience, is for the reality Gary Greenberg constructs. I applaud him for his stance against the pervasive construct of mainstream psychiatry (coupled with the pharmaceutical industry) as defended by Dr Perminder Sachdev.

  • Bayne MacGregor :

    21 Oct 2013 11:31:17am

    While some Transgender people have wanted to keep the diagnosis large numbers of Transgender groups have been pushing internationally to remove it. Some have been pushing for it to be shifted to biological medicine instead, others for a consent-based rather than gatekeeper based access to medical options either of which resolve the suggested problem that a psychiatric diagnosis is required in order to access proper medical care.

    So this piece mischarecterises the Transgender situation as the push to remove GID from the DSM has been from Transgender people demanding that the growing scientific evidence for a biological from-birth causation be recognised.

  • Lee Formica :

    21 Oct 2013 1:44:04pm

    How refreshing to hear a balanced view recognising the implicit bio-medical bias in modern mental health care.

  • Geoffrey White :

    21 Oct 2013 2:31:39pm


  • John Spurling :

    21 Oct 2013 5:25:47pm

    What was the interesting parody on a Carpenters track that was played?

    Moderator: It's a parody of "Top of the World" by Bob Rivers.

  • Deena :

    22 Oct 2013 9:49:23am


  • Jill Hamilton :

    22 Oct 2013 12:41:13pm

    I agree that a lot of "mental" problems can be traced to how we treat each other and the values we are sometimes unconsciously encouraging through popular culture. To be "sensitive" is an undesirable trait and we must all "toughen up"! It is no coincidence that bullying has become such a problem with people switching off their intelligence and empathy to adopt the worst human character traits to "succeed" and not be a "loser".

      • John in WA :

        26 Oct 2013 2:26:23pm

        Jill. I am interested in your relating bullying to some aspect of psychiatry.
        It seems to me that we, society, do very little about the problem (i.e. “cure” the bully) and have a public expectation that the victims should be taught to cope!
        Can you add to your comment and enlarge and clarify where you are coming from and where we might go?
        An “All in the mind” session on bullying might be useful too.

  • Michael Bradley :

    22 Oct 2013 1:29:54pm

    Very helpful and insightful program.
    Greenberg is very cogent about theunhealthy relationships between doctors and drug companies. No conspiracy-theories are needed, or helpful.
    I love the black joke of melancholia. Was it excluded included as a possible diagnosis *because* there are actual empirical tests to show its presence? Unlike the rest of the menu?

    My former psychiatrist was quite cheerful about the lack of good scientific information about idiosyncratic reactions to medications, or adverse reactions from combining different ones, or just from remaining on medication long-term. But better a gram than a damn...

  • Nick Stuart :

    24 Oct 2013 12:50:36pm

    Shame that there was no mention of Dr Thomas Szasz who has been saying exactly this for over 50 years.

      • Darrell :

        29 Oct 2013 8:24:19am

        Yes. Thomas Szaaz also writes the introduction to the latest edition of James Hillman's book 'Suicide & the Soul'. And, of course Hillman also wrote 'Re-Visioning Psyhcology'...

  • Doug Humphries :

    27 Oct 2013 8:42:04pm

    The new mental health legislation before parliament in Western Australia abdicates its responsibility to protect freedom of speech, thought and person by referring to pseudo law the DSM iv and the European equivalent as to what constitutes “mental illness” that can result in imprisonment without trial and involuntary administration of drugs and electric shock based on the subjective opinion of one or two psychiatrist’s interpretation of the DSM iv. Is this not tyranny administered by a narrow sect of western medicine that flies in the face of all the freedoms our society has aspired to?

  • Kathrin Samad :

    30 Oct 2013 10:55:18pm

    Hi, loved these podcasts. They keep me company on my daily commute. Can you tell me where I can find the lyrics to the version of rainy data and Mondays that you plated on the psych podcast . This ought it was really well done.