Is psychiatry real or bs?

[Absurd]

Lel @ Te PoLRs keeping me on permanent ignore and then going all passive aggressive as if they have "purchased" a shield.. Hey, you all better start banning yourselves, so you can gossip uninterrupted and then "cure" people with that silly Fe talking therapies.

Freud "cured" schizophrenic patients simply by talking with them. He must have been a wielder of your functions.

[Ainfigur]

Everyone has mental health, so I think everyone has psychological disorder to varying degrees. I don't personally know anybody that isn't messed up in some way or other. I think the problem is with people thinking that its wrong for somebody to be mentally ill, that it's somehow their fault and they should be avoided. It's the same thing as in the past when people wouldn't talk about cancer publicly, and it was treated as something to be ashamed of. It's a stupid outdated attitude everybody has, but it won't last.
Hopefully during our lifetime attitudes to mental health will change and society will become a lot more supportive in the same way as with physical illness.

[Aylen]

Lel @ Te PoLRs keeping me on permanent ignore and then going all passive aggressive as if they have "purchased" a shield.. Hey, you all better start banning yourselves, so you can gossip uninterrupted and then "cure" people with that silly Fe talking therapies.

Freud "cured" schizophrenic patients simply by talking with them. He must have been a wielder of your functions.

Good morning.

Edit: I just noticed it is after 12 pm now so I am not completely Te PoLR. I have a good sense of timing, usually. Maybe I should self-ban so I can pay some bills today. Deadline tomorrow. Oy!

[krieger]

it's basically an institutionalized form of insulting. it's like saying look, not only i think your behavior and mentality are stupid, society at large does. even SCIENCE does. so there, fucktard.

[Aylen]

All in the name of his religion. Could medication have helped? I would say he was psycho with strong religious beliefs. Now I will post my second dream.

[Raver]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I feel I have a better grasp of this dilemma than I did prior to making this thread.

think the variable that matters is the intensity of the disorder. No one is raised perfectly in a way that would allow them to not have problems. Everyone has problems. But the degree to which those manifest and effect your(or others) life for the worse is what matters when consider the veracity of "psychological disorders" as an idea.

Well said. There is definitely a lot of grey area when it comes to interpreting psychiatry and how removed from reality it really is. I agree that the severity of the psychological disorder goes a long way in determining on whether it should be taken seriously or not. The problem with psychiatry stems from the fact that mild disorders get over treated, but in instances of severe disorders then medication is probably necessary in order to cope with daily life.

What exactly is "functioning normally." Society values and trends change so much, what is acceptable today won't be acceptable tomorrow (and vice-versa) which is why for a lot of people it's stupid to even try. The DSM isn't about what's actually unhealthy or healthy, it's about social control. You can't trust it. And taking a pill cannot force somebody to behave in ways other people find 'acceptable.' There will be so many quirks later down the road that everybody shunned that we now accept.

Behaving normally I take it from American standards is going to a job you don't like for eight hours, then spending time in a family unit with a few people that you are told you need to hang around to prove to others that you are 'normal'. But this is just a type of prison in many ways and an enlightened person is going to break through this veil. Obviously celebrities travel the world often and have broke through out of this suburban matrix hell programme. That is why they are really happy and why the middle class secretly loathes them for it.

Face it: We all become terrorized into following a script. But whom is writing the script, the ultimate puppet string puller? The leaders of the illuminati of course, the ones who created Psychiatry to begin with. Of course they themselves know it's bullshit and are laughing all the way to the bank while they explore wonderful and exotic lands narcissistically while we rot in a prison of our own minds. WAKE UP. WAKE UP. WAKE UP.

I agree. This reminds me of this quote: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." I feel that once one becomes married and has children that it becomes very difficult to escape the system as one is bound to it in order to survive and that's how it succeeds at trapping people unfortunately. Our society contains many jobs unfortunately that function like a rat race where one must compete with others and work very hard just to survive and they're trapped in them because of marriage, bills and children.

[Raver]

My stepmom before has said everybody has a psychological disorder. I've made the argument to her before that it's a bad way of wording things, since saying someone has a "disorder" is severe and serious, like saying something is wrong with them. She clarified she meant that we all have our predispositions and strengths/weaknesses, and that healthy people can 'mask' their disorder/tendencies more, to which I agreed.

Though I don't encourage a society that is mostly focused on what is 'wrong' with us, because constantly encouraging that kind of talk makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's more productive, in my opinion, to focus on what is 'right' with us.

Exactly. What is often ignored is that each disorder contains strengths as a byproduct of the weaknesses. You remove the weaknesses and the strengths are gone as well. Basically, there can be no good without bad and vice versa.

[some chair]

There's a lot of confusion in this thread between psychiatry and psychopharmacology.

Source(s): I take drugs. I read about them more.

Like, is anyone going to argue depression is a strength and beneficial to the individual? Thanks but no thanks, I'll take my euthymia, high spirits, neuroprotection, and my golden seal regimen over constantly feeling somewhere between bad and apathetic about everything, all the time.

[chriscorey]

I don't like broad generalizations. Here's an interesting article w/replies arguing two sides of a coin:

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/bipo...r-not-you-dsm5

In contrast, I would characterize psychiatry as a "young" science which, nonetheless, utilizes many traditional scientific methods of empirical investigation and testing.

I agree with ^

[wacey]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I feel I have a better grasp of this dilemma than I did prior to making this thread.



Well said. There is definitely a lot of grey area when it comes to interpreting psychiatry and how removed from reality it really is. I agree that the severity of the psychological disorder goes a long way in determining on whether it should be taken seriously or not. The problem with psychiatry stems from the fact that mild disorders get over treated, but in instances of severe disorders then medication is probably necessary in order to cope with daily life.



I agree. This reminds me of this quote: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." I feel that once one becomes married and has children that it becomes very difficult to escape the system as one is bound to it in order to survive and that's how it succeeds at trapping people unfortunately. Our society contains many jobs unfortunately that function like a rat race where one must compete with others and work very hard just to survive and they're trapped in them because of marriage, bills and children.

I would say that in my experience this statement you made doesn't go nearly far enough. The rat race is much more pervasive then marriage, children, bills. Those things are relative. The big mind opener comes when the realization hits your heart that we live within a collective hallucination, a grande samsara. This collective hallucination is everywhere outside your mind and inside your mind. Everyone participates in it, unknowingly. It has been with us since the first humans started a type of culture in one form or another. Waking up out of culture is a great realization and milestone on the path, a troubling one and often disturbing, as well as an enlightening one. You can really see people, without the incessant chatter in your mind naming everything you see. This is also the place compassion comes from. You can still participate in the world, marriage, bills, kids, but you are no longer of it. I know this paragraph won't make sense to most of you, I apologize, I'm crazy wacey spouting off again.

Many of our mental illneses, in my view, are a way our minds attempt to cope with the illusion, travesties, unbalances, unnatural modes of being far removed from the natural settings of our ancestors. Many, but not all mind you.

In regards to psychiatry, I would say simply that it couldn't hurt could it? To help an individual find freedom and peace within their mind and body in whatever method used by psychiatry, for instance cognitive behavioural therapy, reflection, teaching people to recognize thoughts, feelings, emotions, and helping people with the myriad of mental disorders, inherited or developed, find sanity and a means of coping with these issues, gets my stamp of approval. Obviously the field has a long way to go, but we understand a hell of a lot more now then we used too and thank god for that.

[Raver]

I found an interesting article that delves into this topic that you might find interesting: http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...03/am-i-normal

[Reginald FlaxSeed]

http://isnt.autistics.org/dsn-npd-txt.html

I take this test to find if i have the Normal Disorder. Test is broke. How can I know?

http://isnt.autistics.org/ntscreening.html

[strangeling]

http://isnt.autistics.org/dsn-npd-txt.html

edit, also: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/un...disorders.html

heh,

[marooned]

The reason I ask this question is because I've pretty much diagnosed every single family member and close friend with at least one psychological disorder

i believe the solution is simple. you could undiagnose them.

[Raver]

i believe the solution is simple. you could undiagnose them.

If only it were that simple. That doesn't make the difficulties I have communicating with them go away. Though, to be fair I'm sure I cause some difficulties for them as well. It's a two way street after all.

[Words]

I found this interesting

Evidence from the World Health Organization suggests that nearly half of the world's population are affected by mental illness with an impact on their self-esteem, relationships and ability to function in everyday life.

So it would seem a close call to define not having a mental illness as normal as normal is what most people are

I think it's safe to say most people have their hang ups over something or other.

As to whether pyschiatry itself is bs, i would say it is to an extent. My thinking is that psychiatry is something similar to how medicine used to be, for instance leaches around the ears (or what have you) to fix an upset stomach. Some of it worked (herbal treatment) some it kind of didn't - drawing blood to cure an illness.

With medical advances and a greater understanding of human physiology, medicine is more of an exact science than what it has been. As we as yet are not able to understand the mind (and therefore mental health) as well as we can understand the physiological health, I think that psychiatry has some good some bad, along the lines of how medicine used to be, and still therefore has a way to go.

Although I don't wish to underestimate the peace to be found in just talking out problems, because a listening ear is therapeutic for many things.

[golden]

So it would seem a close call to define not having a mental illness as normal as normal is what most people are

I think it's safe to say most people have their hang ups over something or other.

As to whether pyschiatry itself is bs, i would say it is to an extent. My thinking is that psychiatry is something similar to how medicine used to be, for instance leaches around the ears (or what have you) to fix an upset stomach. Some of it worked (herbal treatment) some it kind of didn't - drawing blood to cure an illness.

With medical advances and a greater understanding of human physiology, medicine is more of an exact science than what it has been. As we as yet are not able to understand the mind (and therefore mental health) as well as we can understand the physiological health, I think that psychiatry has some good some bad, along the lines of how medicine used to be, and still therefore has a way to go.

Although I don't wish to underestimate the peace to be found in just talking out problems, because a listening ear is therapeutic for many things.

I'm not sure what all of the differences are between U.S. and UK approaches, but in the U.S., psychology and psychiatry are separate fields.

A therapist or counselor will "talk" with you (they might not just "talk," not all therapy is quite like that) and cannot prescribe medicine and usually will not give you a proper medical diagnosis

A psychiatrist will deal primarily with mental illnesses -- physically rooted problems -- and medication for those. And psychiatry is more science-based. You could, for example, study the brains of patients with a particular disorder and compare them to controls and find organic differences.

In practice, you might have both a therapist and a psychiatrist, who might or might not coordinate their efforts, or you might have one or the other.

And seeing a therapist doesn't mean you have a mental illness, it might only mean that you're getting support with the kinds of problems that arise in the course of life -- grieving, for example.

This is how it goes in NY, there may be parts of the U.S. where things are somewhat different, but primarily it will be the same.

As for my opinions, they are both young fields, not perfect, and circumscribed by societal values in terms of defining normal. But they both attempt to categorize, explain, and treat people's real distress and functional impairment.

[FDG]

I'm not sure what all of the differences are between U.S. and UK approaches, but in the U.S., psychology and psychiatry are separate fields.

A therapist or counselor will "talk" with you (they might not just "talk," not all therapy is quite like that) and cannot prescribe medicine and usually will not give you a proper medical diagnosis

A psychiatrist will deal primarily with mental illnesses -- physically rooted problems -- and medication for those. And psychiatry is more science-based. You could, for example, study the brains of patients with a particular disorder and compare them to controls and find organic differences.
.

Same in continental europe, afaik. And people who book sessions with a therapist aren't considered mentally ill, as much as someone booking a session with an ortophedic doesn't necessarily have hernia or broken bones.

[Reficulris]

The reason I ask this question is because I've pretty much diagnosed every single family member and close friend with at least one psychological disorder (including myself - I'm aware of my strengths and flaws). I'm not going to share what they are because it's personal of course.

Also, the reason I've noticed this only among people close in my life is because you have to spend a lot of time with someone to realize their strengths and flaws and you won't figure it out easily with a stranger unless you're forced to spend a lot of time with them as well. Also, after spending a long period of time with certain co-workers, I've discovered what their psychological disorder was as well.

So the question I ask: Are me, my family members, close friends, certain co-workers all psychologically disordered and an exception to the "normal person" or does every single person in the planet have at least one psychological disorder and psychiatrists are just propagating the false idea that you have a "disorder" so they can cure it for you with a pill?

The alternative to this possibility is that only a minority of people are raised properly and thus a majority of people will likely end up with at least one psychological disorder as a result. This is a puzzle that's been bugging me for quite a while and I feel this is the perfect place to ask for some rational discussion on this matter.

Psychiatry is a social construct. In that sense it's both real and not real.

I'd say that your laymen diagnosing is not real. Not trying to diss you here, but if anyone takes DSM IV/V and goes through their aquaintences, friends and family members they'll notice that every one of them fits a disorder. This is a common problem with the diagnosis which stems partly from the fact that many psychiatric problems are matters of scale regarding to the norm, that is, they are extremes of "normal" psychological traits.
Psychology students often suffer from dokters dissease where they'll become hypocondriac about their own psyche's due to the above.

As an example, the trait Narcisism is necessary for a healthy personality, that is, without self love and a certain amount of self delusion a human functions badly in society. Now, the extreme form where the narcisism doesn't develop equally leads to compensatory narcisism where the self-love is linked to love by others. That is, the individual becomes extremely dependant on praise and excessively vulnerable to criticism. That leads to defense mechanisms that make the person either disregard others in behaviour (not internally though) or to manipulative behaviour where the individual tries to ellicit praise and avoid criticism from others.

The things above, are things that people do often, it's the matter of ammount and the extend to which these mechanisms are ingrained or intergrated into the personality that determines in DSM wether or not it's problematic or not. Believe me, someone with NPD functions on a whole different level than someone who just is insecure or needs praise or is afraid of criticism. NPD's have a complex structure that determines their lives compulsively. All the factors above are linked together and if the system seems to be threatened it's seen as a direct thread to the survival of the individual. There lies the difference, where criticism is painful to most people (if it's not then we're in ASPD field) and praise is liked by most, to NPD's it's a matter of survival and they'll go to great extends to uphold the system, including elaborate manipulation of the external and internal self delusion.

the above is just an example. But on avarage, people speak too freely about "depression" "psychopath" "borderline" "narcisist". Those terms are ok to use in laymen terms in order to indicate someone has certain traits, the problem is when people start to equating them to the similarly named personality disorders. Those are a whole different beast.

I've said it before and i'll say it again, i'm confident that 95% of the people in the world would NOT be able to spot someone with BPD, NPD ASPD. These people are "balanced" in the sense that their mechanisms are completely in control. Not being spotted is essential for them and they'll go to extreme lenghts not to be found out. Those who do appear narcisistic or unhinged or psychopathic are those on the less intergrated scale and are often less dangerous.

In general, my statement would be that psychiatry is realy in the sense that there is a certain group that can be diagnosed as dangerous to themselves and or others. These get diagnosed after they get spotted (usually during a crisis where they either threaten themself or others) and treated or put away. For normal, healthy individuals, DSM and psychiatry has no meaning really. It only describes the far end of the bellcurve, the extremes of human behaviour and the demarcation line for it is danger to others.

So yes, Socially constructed, fairly arbitrary, but still meaningful and usefull. Also, almost always misused on the internet and fairly badly understood (bad faith, it's rather scary stuff if you really get into it).

[golden]

... people who book sessions with a therapist aren't considered mentally ill ...

Yep, I think the misconception that only "crazy people" go to therapists creates a stigma that prevents people from getting support when they need it.

Good therapists are more objective and less judgmental than friends or family. They don't have a personal stake in outcomes. And your shit stays private.

[mu4]

I've said it before and i'll say it again, i'm confident that 95% of the people in the world would NOT be able to spot someone with BPD, NPD ASPD. These people are "balanced" in the sense that their mechanisms are completely in control. Not being spotted is essential for them and they'll go to extreme lenghts not to be found out. Those who do appear narcisistic or unhinged or psychopathic are those on the less intergrated scale and are often less dangerous.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1936543
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...th-child-rape/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...t-will-hayden/

Recent thing. I think it's more most people don't even want to go there as far as how they think of the people around them. Of course a lot of his family protected this abuser even tho he was abusing them, but that's somewhat typical.
I thought this guy was some sort of NPD. A lot of times people just don't want to go to the place where they think the worst, even when the worst has already happened or is happening.

I think clinical diagnosis actually only get outliers that self-report or get incarcerated for some disorders. And is woefully inadequate for actually figuring out disorders before something occurs. Not that you can do much either without committing a whole mess of human rights violations.

[Reficulris]

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1936543
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...th-child-rape/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...t-will-hayden/

Recent thing. I think it's more most people don't even want to go there as far as how they think of the people around them. Of course a lot of his family protected this abuser even tho he was abusing them, but that's somewhat typical.
I thought this guy was some sort of NPD. A lot of times people just don't want to go to the place where they think the worst, even when the worst has already happened or is happening.

Yeah, it's kind of stockholm syndrome like to defend your abusers. Most abusive situations are co-dependant in a way.
I agree that this guy shows the set of markers or NPD. NPD's are among the least likely to seek treatment because they don't self harm directly but affect their environment. So they usually only get found out when they commit crimes. The stardom seeking strategy as well as the abuse fits into a more intergrated pattern.

[Reficulris]

Yep, I think the misconception that only "crazy people" go to therapists creates a stigma that prevents people from getting support when they need it.

Good therapists are more objective and less judgmental than friends or family. They don't have a personal stake in outcomes. And your shit stays private.

This EXACTLY.

Psychiatry = psychology.

Getting a great councelor BEFORE you ever suffer problems is probably one of the smartest things you can do. Professionals don't get tired of your problems, can offer insight and an outlet. And when you're already in a shitty situation you don't want to have to search for a good one... I consider them to on the same level of necessity as dentists and general health practitioners for a nice life (if you can afford them ofc).

[mu4]

This EXACTLY.

Psychiatry = psychology.

Getting a great councelor BEFORE you ever suffer problems is probably one of the smartest things you can do. Professionals don't get tired of your problems, can offer insight and an outlet. And when you're already in a shitty situation you don't want to have to search for a good one... I consider them to on the same level of necessity as dentists and general health practitioners for a nice life (if you can afford them ofc).

Group Therapy is good too, it's also often cheap.

[Reficulris]

Group Therapy is good too, it's also often cheap.

Yes, actually i liked group therapy a lot because you can actually also help some people which feels good. Also i felt less on the spot. But in holland group therapy is not readily available. It's usually behind paperwork and or ques

And i found two councelors that together kinda get my entire spectrum of needs filled, one to untangle my thoughts and stop me from obsessing and one to manage my emotions. It's kinda a safetynet for if I ever go off the rails again and provides a feeling of security that my family and friends just won't be able to provide (they provide it in other senses, love, support etc, but not understanding).

[golden]

Surprised this guy hasn't been mentioned yet—The Myth of Mental Illness by Thomas Szasz

Just some thoughts, I'm not saying you've taken any particular stand here by linking to that article . . .

"Mental illness" is no different from saying "deviates from the norm" -- not just behaviorally, but neurologically. But a ruptured appendix is also an appendix different from the norm. And it needs to be addressed.

If society isn't going to change to accommodate someone defined as "mentally ill," then presumably the person will need help of some kind. (Depends on severity.) I think I told you abt a friend of mine who has psychosis. She was a danger to herself in the past, possibly a danger to others, and didn't want to be in that situation. It was terrible for her.

To encourage her in thinking that mental illness isn't real, even if it's a highly legit question from an outsider's pov, is really NOT helpful to her. That line of thought keeps her stuck in mental loops.

I showed you at some point a program about Rufus May, who takes people off antipsychotics and teaches them coping strategies instead.

What kind of help should someone receive? Will the approach be fear-based, or empowerment-oriented? Can doctors in some nations work without meds, given the constraints of malpractice liability?

Here's a study showing that schizos might not do better long-term with antipsychotic drugs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22340278

More about the Hearing Voices movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_Voices_Movement

[Words]

I'm not sure what all of the differences are between U.S. and UK approaches, but in the U.S., psychology and psychiatry are separate fields.

A therapist or counselor will "talk" with you (they might not just "talk," not all therapy is quite like that) and cannot prescribe medicine and usually will not give you a proper medical diagnosis

A psychiatrist will deal primarily with mental illnesses -- physically rooted problems -- and medication for those. And psychiatry is more science-based. You could, for example, study the brains of patients with a particular disorder and compare them to controls and find organic differences.

In practice, you might have both a therapist and a psychiatrist, who might or might not coordinate their efforts, or you might have one or the other.

And seeing a therapist doesn't mean you have a mental illness, it might only mean that you're getting support with the kinds of problems that arise in the course of life -- grieving, for example.

This is how it goes in NY, there may be parts of the U.S. where things are somewhat different, but primarily it will be the same.

As for my opinions, they are both young fields, not perfect, and circumscribed by societal values in terms of defining normal. But they both attempt to categorize, explain, and treat people's real distress and functional impairment.

Yeah it is same in UK also. I wasn't sure if raver was meaning medication only as per the first post.

Yeah agree with everything you said

[golden]

Buried this link in a previous post, worth watching if you're interested in the "reality" of mental illness:

[mfckr]

.

[IBTL]

Of course it's also rooted in the standard orthodoxy of the medical approach; if you see life as a chemistry problem, then your preferred solutions to life problems are going to be chemical ones.

precisely

[golden]

Just a bunch more thoughts, since this topic interests me. @Raver, regarding your original question, my response is related to one of my core life philosophies:

Everyone is crazy, and what matters to me is whether they try to see the ways in which they are crazy and take responsibility for how that affects other people. No one can see all of their own flaws, but people who make no attempt are pretty hard to deal with. They no longer get my time and attention.

From what I gather, Szasz isn't arguing that 'mental illness' doesn't exist per se (or "problems in living" as it were). He's merely saying that we need to be very careful in how these constructs become defined/pathologized, as everything about how we treat these matters will become predicated on those conceptions.

This seems to be more or less the position taken by people working within the medical model but calling for changes in definition, care, and recovery.

And I'd agree that medicalizing mental illness may've been somewhat short-sighted, because it gives a pretense to objectivity that the methods themselves just do not (and often cannot) reflect. E.g., something like schizophrenia isn't eminently measurable as something like hypertension, where a few clear and obvious clinical markers can render a convincing portrait of what's probably going on with someone. While the typical diagnosis for schizophrenia relies solely on the subjective inference of a clinician, entirely unaided by any sort of objective instrumentation. The lack of epistemic parity here between methods vs. practice clearly leaves something to be desired.

M-hm. I don't disagree. But I know that not all medical conditions are straightforward; I've got friends with lupus and celiac and chronic fatigue disorder, and these more global, chronic illnesses are somewhat harder to diagnose and manage, and require a lot of lifestyle adjustments. Medications may or may not help. These are a lot more like "mental illnesses."

We can see from brain scans of ppl diagnosed with schizophrenia vs. "normal" controls that there are significant and consistent differences, and there are other helpful studies on schizophrenia, so it appears there is some material basis for it as a distinct disorder, except brain scans are not generally used to diagnose.

With something as disruptive as schizophrenia symptoms, I think the diagnostics matter less, and the real issue is, how does the person recover? What I like about Rufus May and the like is that they recognize a mental illness as a societal-adjustment and -acceptability problem, and work to help ppl find non-stigmatizing ways to define their experiences and to resolve distress. The approach is not simply about controlling patients.

There exists something like a psychiatry-pharmacology industrial complex, yes? A mental illness can be defined if there is a drug treatment shown to mitigate symptoms. Diagnostics work similarly, it's a medication crapshoot in some cases. "This drug 'works,' so retroactively, you must have X disorder."

The use of meds as the goto treatment of choice has more to do with medical insurance policies I think. Meds are typically cheaper than treatment, and more importantly from an insurer's POV, they're something that can be quantified—ingredients, doses, etc.—and thus are easier to track for corresponding results. Insurers like things that can be put into actuarial numbers, whereas approaches like psychotherapy are not so easy to quantify.

I'm not so sure about this and would want to hear from people in the industry whether this is so. When I was entered therapy, my insurer didn't have a category for my actual diagnosis, so the therapist just checked the box for something else, something more general.

The DSM of course plays a big part in how the medical industry as a whole defines mental distress. I didn't know this:

The initial impetus for developing a classification of mental disorders in the United States was the need to collect statistical information. The first official attempt was the 1840 census, which used a single category, “idiocy/insanity”. Three years later, the American Statistical Association made an official protest to the U.S. House of Representatives stating that “the most glaring and remarkable errors are found in the statements respecting nosology, prevalence of insanity, blindness, deafness, and dumbness, among the people of this nation” and pointing out that in many towns African-Americans were all marked as insane, and the statistics were essentially useless.

Over time, the DSM becomes more and more granular. To the point of absurdity. I'm not sure there's any one driving force behind this trend now, owing to its reach and momentum . . . psych-pharma-research-insurance intertwine in continuing to create new diagnoses, new meds, new opportunities for research funding and publication credits for the researchers.

Like my experience with my therapist, maybe clinicians and clients find themselves working outside that construct, since they are dealing with reality, one hopes. A lot of them seem to recognize "on the ground" that their clients don't neatly fit into all these molds.

Some of those issues are described in quarrels over the DSM V:

Psychiatrist Allen Frances has been critical of proposed revisions to the DSM-5. In a 2012 New York Times editorial, Frances warned that if this DSM version is issued unamended by the APA, it will “medicalize normality and result in a glut of unnecessary and harmful drug prescription.” In a December 2, 2012 blog post in Psychology Today, Frances lists the ten “most potentially harmful changes” to DSM-5:

* Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder, for temper tantrums
* Major Depressive Disorder, includes normal grief
* Minor Neurocognitive Disorder, for normal forgetting in old age
* Adult Attention Deficit Disorder, encouraging psychiatric prescriptions of stimulants
* Binge Eating Disorder, for excessive eating
* Autism, defining the disorder more specifically, possibly leading to decreased rates of diagnosis and the disruption of school services
* First time drug users will be lumped in with addicts
* Behavioral Addictions, making a "mental disorder of everything we like to do a lot."
* Generalized Anxiety Disorder, includes everyday worries
* Post-traumatic stress disorder, changes opening "the gate even further to the already existing problem of misdiagnosis of PTSD in forensic settings."

Frances and others have published debates on what they see as the six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis:

* are they more like theoretical constructs or more like diseases
* how to reach an agreed definition
* whether the DSM-5 should take a cautious or conservative approach
* the role of practical rather than scientific considerations
* the issue of use by clinicians or researchers
* whether an entirely different diagnostic system is required.

In 2011, psychologist Brent Robbins co-authored a national letter for the Society for Humanistic Psychology that has brought thousands into the public debate about the DSM. Approximately 14,000 individuals and mental health professionals have signed a petition in support of the letter. Thirteen other American Psychological Association divisions have endorsed the petition. Robbins has noted that under the new guidelines, certain responses to grief could be labeled as pathological disorders, instead of being recognized as being normal human experiences.

I don't agree with all of these contra opinions about the DSM V, but I agree with the general line of thinking of the opposition.

[krieger]

psychosis is liberation by another name. when they call you crazy what they mean is that you are too free.

[golden]

Apropos of your above post, @lecter. (From Humans of New York) --



“When my sister’s having a manic episode, she thinks she has superpowers. She’ll go outside and strip off her clothes. She’ll develop all these conspiracies about the government being out to get her, and she’ll think that something she’s done has made our whole family unsafe. Sometimes she thinks that I’m not me, but an avatar of myself, and I’ll have to do all these things to prove that it’s really me. One time she stole someone’s bike off the street because she thought she was in a movie and was in a race to the Statue of Liberty. Luckily someone stopped her and took her to the hospital. It’s hard to see her like that, and it’s hard to say that there’s anything nice about it, but then again, I can’t help but feel that she has a certain freedom that I envy when she’s having an episode. I feel like everyone’s a little crazy and we all walk around with this armor of sanity, and she’s just able to cast it off completely. I’d almost like to join her and run around the city if only she could keep it from spinning out of control.”

[kopyk]

new: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...rt-narcissist/

repost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idée_fi...gy)#Background
http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/06/...nd-resistance/
http://isnt.autistics.org/dsn-npd-txt.html
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/un...disorders.html
http://www.eqi.org/bruce_levine.htm
http://forums.school-survival.net/sh....php?tid=15553
http://www.encognitive.com/node/892

[kopyk]

http://www.szasz.com/Levatter.htm

[kopyk]

https://www.reddit.com/r/SanctionedS...ion_or_called/

[wacey]

psychosis is liberation by another name. when they call you crazy what they mean is that you are too free.

hmmm, I think I agree. There are some psychosis that lead to more confusion and clouded perception - as in when someone spirals into themselves in ways that are harmful to the individual.

I'm thinking you are talking about the freedom that comes with a break in the linear sense of self and freedom for that mindframe, which is the usual mindframe for most of the people on the planet. That sort of psychosis was once supported by spiritual traditions in many cultures.

There are other kinds that lead to more delusional states of mind and do not bring freedom at all. These perceptional aberrations are generally speaking undesirable to live in.

I totally agree though that a person who go where you might be talking about needs to keep a tight lid on their experiences because otherwise people are going to view them as crazy.

[mu4]

This EXACTLY.

Psychiatry = psychology.

Getting a great councelor BEFORE you ever suffer problems is probably one of the smartest things you can do. Professionals don't get tired of your problems, can offer insight and an outlet. And when you're already in a shitty situation you don't want to have to search for a good one... I consider them to on the same level of necessity as dentists and general health practitioners for a nice life (if you can afford them ofc).

Having engaged in talk therapy recently, I think talk therapy is our modern day confession. "God is dead", go talk to your therapist instead of your priest/rabbi/etc.

Instead of a relationship with god(which is often just a relationship to ourselves as part of a greater whole).

Transference is very important part of this process and because of this, the therapeutic experience takes on the potential to change us or re-traumatize us. It definitely has the ability to deeply affect us if that channel is open for good and bad.

Ultimately the therapeutic relationship is a information feed back mechanism which offers a professional avenue to deal with cognitive issues/distress/whatever.

For all its flaws therapy provides a service which is often required by individuals for various reasons. The medical side of this with prescriptions and such is a whole another side to it which is more clinical/medical and offers generally some kind of mood altering functions.

I also don't think therapy can really "solve" all cognitive issues, I'm not sure that's possible no more than a doctor can save your life forever, or prevent every strain of disease out there. That doesn't mean there can't be significant benefit from therapy.

I think Szasz comments on the similarity between psychiatry and religion often and the comparison is often apt.

They both deal with the same domain of human problems and they both can produce situations which reduce an individuals ethical agency, there are virulent memes and thought patterns which religion and various psychiatric practices latch on to propagate to spread itself, anti-psychiatry being one of them.

However, when looking at the universal problems, emotions and traumas which individuals deal with, humans seek answers, and these questions need an outlet which can offer if not a material solution, a subjective relief.

[Reficulris]

Having engaged in talk therapy recently, I think talk therapy is our modern day confession. "God is dead", go talk to your therapist instead of your priest/rabbi/etc.

Yes, this is also my view.

Instead of a relationship with god(which is often just a relationship to ourselves as part of a greater whole).

Transference is very important part of this process and because of this, the therapeutic experience takes on the potential to change us or re-traumatize us. It definitely has the ability to deeply affect us if that channel is open for good and bad.

Yes, it's either this or (psychedelic)drugs imho, both have the option to open up some of the old shit, but therapy usually does so in a more controlled way. Drugs can work faster, but i'm not sure it's for everyone.

Ultimately the therapeutic relationship is a information feed back mechanism which offers a professional avenue to deal with cognitive issues/distress/whatever.

For all its flaws therapy provides a service which is often required by individuals for various reasons. The medical side of this with prescriptions and such is a whole another side to it which is more clinical/medical and offers generally some kind of mood altering functions.

Yup, im not a big fan of psychofarma as sollution, but sometimes it can help make progress more easy. For me getting rid of some irrational fears required a year or so of some very slight nerve calming anti depressants. It worked and now (through exposure) I have almost no issues with any of them any more.
Alternatively hypnosis works very well for the irrational fears, got some of that too at some point, but it's not covered in healthcare here in holland and as a hobby it was kinda expensive

I also don't think therapy can really "solve" all cognitive issues, I'm not sure that's possible no more than a doctor can save your life forever, or prevent every strain of disease out there. That doesn't mean there can't be significant benefit from therapy.

I think Szasz comments on the similarity between psychiatry and religion often and the comparison is often apt.

yeah, it's basically just a tool, a bit of help. Surely not "saving" although it can feel that way (in the same way religion can).

They both deal with the same domain of human problems and they both can produce situations which reduce an individuals ethical agency, there are virulent memes and thought patterns which religion and various psychiatric practices latch on to propagate to spread itself, anti-psychiatry being one of them.

yup

However, when looking at the universal problems, emotions and traumas which individuals deal with, humans seek answers, and these questions need an outlet which can offer if not a material solution, a subjective relief.

exactly. Even if you understand the world fully rationally (colloqual speaking) and or if you understand psychology yourself, it's still very hard to "treat" yourself. This is because your full mental powers usually protect itself and the status quo. Getitng a (good) councelor that you (can) trust is extremely nice and potentially helpfull, even though, cynically speaking it's just a form of self delusion, emotional wankery, or any of the other negative interpretations that some give to the concept.

In generally I think some (especially the older generations and the lower educated) see looking for help as a weakness. I think therapy is interesting in and of itself because it adds another dimension to my own self-analysis/perception and can shatter some constructs that I cannot reach myself.