What comes to mind?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by christa, Jan 19, 2013.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    The ugly thing about "mental illness" is that some people use it as an excuse to treat others poorly - and I mean this that some people label others as "mentally ill" as this way, they feel justified to treat them like less than human. Thereby likely exacerbating whatever problem the person originally had.

    "Oh, you're bipolar/a narcissist/depressed/etc.. Therefore I don't have to make an effort to treat you like a human."
     
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    So what? There's lots of a-holes in the world. Many I've noticed post in this forum. Some people even treat the disabled badly. But we don't say "Oh I'd better not be disabled so these people don't treat me badly." The stigma surrounding mental illness is just part of the burden it creates on people. All the more reason to support them and let them know it's totally acceptable and not their fault.
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It's convenient to blame the disease for the damage that happens in families and other social groups. Such blaming helps those who consider themselves "normal" to relieve themselves of taking responsibility for their troubled family etc. situation.
     
  13. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Where are your examples of this? People are very likely to react badly to bad behavior, but people rarely walk around with a placard of their disorder hanging around their neck, so you cannot call this a reaction to the disorder, only the behavior. Just like unruly children, if people cannot behave then perhaps they should not go out, else they are likely to have their behavior constrained by others.

    In a negative sense, enabling is also used in the context of problematic behavior, to signify dysfunctional approaches that are intended to help but in fact may perpetuate a problem. -wiki​

    Only the overly idealistic would pretend that bad behavior is "totally acceptable", and only the individual can truly help themselves.

    According to various sources many famous people must suffer from about every mental disorder out there. Seems those who enable are very interested in keeping people ill (providing encouragement to continue to own said diagnosis), just so long as their symptoms do not impact the enabler's life (i.e. meds, regardless of how those meds impact the patients quality of life).

    Anecdotal.
     
  14. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No, it's very hard to detect. I had a bi-polar friend and when I knew him, he was in the active phase, so he was very entrepreneurial and enthusiastic about things (he gave me a job). When I didn't see was his depressive phase when he lost most of his possessions and his mind. Thankfully for him, he's on meds now, and they have been a lifesaver for him.
     
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I think such constraining is sometimes overdone, though, and it does great damage.

    For example, someone has a very stressful day, and misbehaves. Some people interpret this as evidence of a mental disorder, and they label the person thus, and from then on, interpret all their actions in line with that label.

    Armchair psychology is the new witch hunt mentality.
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I think we can all agree that amateur doctoring has many dangers.
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    As usual you speak out of total ignorance on this subject. IOW a totally LACK of anecdotal experiences. People in their manic state are usually discouraged from going out and interacting socially with strangers as it is well understood they will not fare well. Nobody expects them to get a free pass to act a fool in public. That's why bipolars in their manic state, particular type1's, are usually hospitalized until they can get back to normal. The world is full of moralizing idiots ready to blame the behavior of the mentally ill on their own lack of character. You appear to be one of them.
     
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600

    If the person is stabilized on their meds no. But in their manic state there's a few dead giveaways. One is pressured rapid speaking called "flight of ideas" where they just ramble on from one topic to another. Another is insomnia. Another is a sense of grandiosity about themselves, as in "I'm sending my new movie script to Steven Spielburg" or "I have this great new invention I'm working on that will defy gravity." Then there's a noticeable increase in their libido, moreso than they usually have. And then there's the unfrugal spending of money, often going so far as depleting their account. We had to set my sister up as power of attorney for my mom to keep her from doing that. I have no experience with bipolar people in deep depressive states, but I assume the changes there are also marked enough to be noticed (no motivation, anhedonia, too much sleeping, loss of appetite,)
     
  19. ccdan Registered Member

    Messages:
    40
    Yeah, I'm an "authority" on something that I don't even consider to be real. Curious reasoning on your part.

    So... if I don't believe that "bipolar disorder" is a real disease how could I talk about "faked symptoms?" It doesn't make much sense to me.
    What's a "manic episode?" How can we detect it? Can we measure it in a precise way? How about psychosis? What's that exactly?

    It sounds like a conspiracy... but this time I'm afraid it's for real:

    Financial ties between DSM-IV panel members and the pharmaceutical industry.
    Cosgrove L, Krimsky S, Vijayaraghavan M, Schneider L.
    Source
    University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Our inquiry into the relationships between DSM panel members and the pharmaceutical industry demonstrates that there are strong financial ties between the industry and those who are responsible for developing and modifying the diagnostic criteria for mental illness. The connections are especially strong in those diagnostic areas where drugs are the first line of treatment for mental disorders. Full disclosure by DSM panel members of their financial relationships with for-profit entities that manufacture drugs used in the treatment of mental illness is recommended.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16636630

    But there's more... have heard of the DSM? That's the "bible" of psychiatry! Here's what one of the psychiatric leaders involved in its creation says about it:

    As chairman of the task force that created the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which came out in 1994, I learned from painful experience how small changes in the definition of mental disorders can create huge, unintended consequences.

    Our panel tried hard to be conservative and careful but inadvertently contributed to three false "epidemics" -- attention deficit disorder, autism and childhood bipolar disorder. Clearly, our net was cast too wide and captured many "patients" who might have been far better off never entering the mental health system.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/01/opinion/la-oe-frances1-2010mar01


    If any mental illness had any clear, identifiable physical effect on the brain, then that illness would be diagnosable using some sort of brain scan. But there's not a single "mental illness" that is diagnosable that way.

    There are lots and lots of "reaserchers" who claim that the "patients" with x "mental illness" have different brains, different brain activity and so on. But none of them are able to tell who's ill and who's not, in a blind study (that is, in a study in which they don't know who's (supposedly) ill and who's a control)

    Yet another example of flawed reasoning. Can you guess what's wrong?
     
  20. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    So our brain scans aren't precise enough yet. Just because there are financial connections between diagnosis and treatment doesn't mean that those treatments aren't effective or aren't scientifically supported with statistical evidence. Note that Allen Francis has not spoken out against a bi-polar diagnosis, only about childhood bi-polar, which is a fairly new definition. And he's not at all against psychological diagnosis in general.
     
  21. ccdan Registered Member

    Messages:
    40
    Apparently you don't understand the issue. In order for anything to be treated, it must be real, scientifically confirmed. But it doesn't work like that in psychiatry. ALL the "mental illnesses" are proposed (read invented) and voted into existence by a bunch of individuals at the American Psychiatric Association. Well, that's not how science and medical science works. Nobody votes AIDS infection or cancer in or out of existence as a disease.

    There's a huge problem when there's a financial connection between those who invent the mental illnesses (they're not controlled in any way by anyone, they can do whatever they wish) and those who benefit financially from those newly invented illnesses (from individual psychiatrists to pharmaceutical companies)
     
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Your cited expert, Allen Francis, acknowledges that the process is not precise. It's as possible to overdiagnose as underdiagnose. These mental conditions are not fantasy just because they cannot at present be precisely quantified. They do exist in spite of this. Treatment doesn't depend on understanding the condition to a degree that might only be possible in physics and math. The criteria is only if the treatment works for that particular patient.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Sure they do.

    Is e. coli an infection? How about Helicobacter pylori? Was it a disease before 1982? What changed?
     

Share This Page