The Future of Psychiatry

[Cory Duchesne]

Decided to start a new thread, given that Faust and I veered away from the theme of the thread that our original discussion stemmed from.

I'd like to hear what forum members think about the present state and potential future of psychiatry.

Here is what Faust and I have to say on it so far:

The challenge of giving a name and description to someones distinctly disorderly behavior is an empirical matter. A large amount of cases are compared, similarities are noticed, a judgment, however uncertain, is made. In many instances, this is reasonable.

no it's not you belligerant jackass. You're a fucktard for talking about "distinctly disorderly behaviour" because it's purely SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED.

What isn't socially constructed? Are you saying that we shouldn't have ideals?

e.g.; do you think we should not assent to a social construct that says that this child is not receiving a normal level of nourishment?

There's no such thing as being fucking "normal" because it's all statistically compared to the rest of the people in a given culture and social clique.

When I consider the case of a guy like Ted Bundy, I think it's reasonable to build up a social construct, an ideal human nature, an ideal normal environment to raise a child in, and thus, because we have an ideal human nature, we have a sense of normality.

But with that being said, my personal sense of normality really doesn't correspond to the middle of the present statistical bell curve of present day human behavior. According to my personal social construct, there is a minority of exploiters - 'the careerists', who I consider abnormal in relationship to the exploited - the consumers' who I consider subnormal. In my view, normal people are those who can, in the name of wisdom, regard the ambitious successful exploitative careerists (yes, many would be psychiatrists) as undesirable abnormals who subsist upon the downtrodden, dim-witted, indignant, indolent 'subnormals'. That being said, only a very small minority of people in the world qualify for what I idealize as ideal and normal. The polarization between the subnormal and abnormal may seem like a master slave dichotomy, but really, each is a slave to the other. Each Nietzsche would regard as a 'slave soul'. Like Nietzsche, I idealize the creation of a superspecies, which implies we must have an idea of inferior, normal and superior.

And in this Collective age, the statistical normis regarded as the 'best' when really it's the average.

I agree that the average aren't very desirable in the big picture.

Just because you don't like the way someone is acting, is not a fucking disorder, it's not hard to get you belligerant jackass.

Maybe the labeling is a bit crude, but when a person is stressed and miserable because they are acting in a way that 'they can't control' - then I don't think it's incredibly unreasonable to suggest that biologically, they are relatively in a state of disorder, degradation, subnormality, abnormality, weakness, inferiority, etc.

I don't think they would be regarded by anyone as disorders if the person experiencing the depression or paranoia was able to maintain their ability to interact and function in a way that they themselves were ok with. People are labeled according to the symptoms they report. People are labeled because they seek help. Otherwise they often end up bums on the street, sometimes muttering to themselves while staring into space.

Ahahah, people ARE NOT labelled according to the symptoms they report, you have no idea how corrupt and powerful psychiatrists are, and politicians are giving them even more in the name of "medical security" to incarcerate and degrade patients without their consent.

Do you realize the contradiction you are in here? How can you 'degrade' patients without an idea of normal, good treatment? Degrading patients implies that you value an idea of normality, doesn't it?

The only way people interact with depression and paranoia that "themselves are okay with" is simply by ignoring it. You don't need to FUCKING LABEL SOMEONE just because they seek help, that's what's so retarded!!!!

I agree that labeling people is likely counterproductive and I'm against it, in fact, my first class in psychology, the text book as well as the teacher actually pointed out this problem, that the labeling may simply reinforce the patients mental troubles, and my impression is that psychology and psychiatry is looking to move away from such labeling. However, that is not to say that all of the definitions of different labels, from OCD to Bi-polar, to catatonic schizophrenia are not useful for recognizing and discussing the type of patient you are dealing with. The key here is to refrain from telling the patient that he has a disease called such and such. Instead, the message should be, “if you want help, you need to become aware of your behavior as an undesirable pattern of behavior to overcome, and to overcome it you need to educate yourself about why you are behaving the way you are behaving” I believe the future of psychotherapy is going to involve developing the patients philosophical capacity. If the patient proves incorrigible, then we need to understand the physiological basis of their mind, as well as get an approximation the sort of childhood that influenced their mind, and from there, psychiatry/psychology should be a tool for weeding out undesirable humans.

These people just don't have the same control to cope with these life problems, that is all, there's no disorder or abnormality or disease to label.

They likely have the potential to cope with life’s problems, much like a person has the potential to make it through childhood without succumbing to a fatal cancer or illness. But sometimes the childhood wasn’t protective enough, nutrition was bad, too much stress occurred, and thus, the child contracted the sickness and died. It could have just as easily gone the other way if the environment was better. Some people are more vulnerable to contracting an illness, but sometimes a good environment helps them become strong adults.

Some of these people THINK they need "professional" help because they're credulous.

I think very extreme forms of behavior, ones that cause great misery to the person exhibiting them, should be studied by people who have devoted their lives to understanding the biological basis of the behavior that the patient is miserable about and can't control. If the patient wants help, then I think people who are very educated about the mind, should help.

They think some shrink in a lab coat with some bullshit academic qualifications knows all the answers, etc etc.. I mutter to myself when staring into space, it's called contemplating the Infinite. There are plenty of bums who choose not to participate in the madness of society.

These bums are, for the most part, not contemplating the infinite. Their thoughts are generally a mess, they really haven't any wisdom, and often they are trying to gather enough money for lottery tickets, drugs or unhealthy food. In the future, I'd like to see humanity make an effort to create the ideal human, one that does not succumb to the generic madness of the masses, but also has the will power to not end up damaging their brain from drugs, living on the streets rambling and begging for money to buy more drugs, to buy more bad food and lottery tickets, and to think more poor thoughts.

some problems such as depression or loneliness may never be solved for some people due to the nature of the human condition, but there's nothing DISORDERLY or DISEASED about this, it's JUST LIFE.

And you want to preserve this sort of life? You're worse than Mother Teresa. The human condition should be overcome, not preserved.

I don't think it's very radical to suggest that it is a problem in the brain that is causing someone to stand for many hours in a very bizzare position. Especially when the person is oblivious to external stimuli one minute, stunned in a stupor and then unpredictably flies into an agitated excitement the next minute. Not to mention their auditory and visual hallucinations.

what the fuck is a "bizarre" position???? Why do you think it is "abnormal" because thousands of other people don't do it???

No, I think it's bizzare because not only is it very rare, but it's hopelessly ineffective when it comes to the supporting the survival of wisdom. When a person can't control their limbs and can't think logically, they are just a waste of resources in my opinion - well, that is, unless you can study their brain, biology and develop a case study of their upbringing. That way, you can at least derive something beneficial from their life. Otherwise, it's just another body to feed, clothe and warm. A waste of energy.

Hallucinations can sometimes be lied about, we're not sure if they're existing for the person.

Well, any such person who tells lies about hallucinating, obviously has some irrational emotional issues. They are wounded, damaged, biologically 'unideal' persons. They may be lying simply because they want to take advantage of the system and get a free ride. In that case, they are just taking advantage of everyone else.

Not to mention there's thousands of "regular" people who see apparations all the fucking time.

Well, if they are ok with seeing such apparitions, then let them see apparitions. That they get upset and indignant about other people who don't value such visions, only testifies to their puerility. Otto Weineigger apparently had hallucinatory visions, and he was wise enough to interpret them in an enlightening way and keep it to himself.

People think it's fine to talk to God, but a hallucination if God talks to them.

Oh man, what drivel.

Ever hear of the man who mistook his wife for a hat? Message from God, right?

The funny thing is that you ignored my fundamental problem with this, the fact that it's called SCHIZOPHRENIA. This specific definition of schizophrenia HAS NOTHING TO DO OR IS AT ALL RELATED TO THE OTHER 100 QUACK DEFINITIONS.

I didn't ignore it, I addressed it when I spoke of the coiner of the word, and his unique use of the term 'split mind'. What he meant by the term really isn't that unreasonable.

In a person with Catatonic Schizophrenia, it looks like this

and HOW THE FUCK IS THAT RELATED TO "split-mind" or "disordered thinking" or "paranoia" or "depression" or "psychoses" etc etc..

It's related to split mind insofar as one's mind has lost it's integration, the central control has frayed apart, and the bodily movements aren't corresponding with what is normally present, psychological desires.

Yes, well catatonic schizophrenia is much more extreme than this.

except the other 100 quack definitions HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

Psychology students these days aren't being introduced to 100 quack definitions. There are four major categories of schizophrenia. Catatonic, Paranoid, Disorganized, and the most vague would be undifferentiated type. My guess is this more vague type is a sort of gray zone, maybe an area that a full blown disorganized type might at first begin with.
Also, each category of the disorder can either be type 1 or type 2.

Well, I don't deny what William James once said: that abnormality is simply normality under a microscope. When someone is miserable and wants help because their once normal behavior has become so amplified and exaggerated that they have lost their sense of self control, then that is a problem. Giving labels for various abnormalities and trying to devise better treatment for these people, not to mention a better understanding of how these people have become the way they are, I don't think is unreasonable.

WHAT? their "normal behaviour" has become "amplified and exaggerated" what??? wweirdddd.

Sure, we all know what it's like to be so hungry we feel starving. The feeling of hunger is normal. But being this hungry is abnormal.

Most of us also know the angry feeling of wanting to retaliate and hurt people who we perceive as harmful. That's normal. But actually going on a killing spree is abnormal.

I never said people don't have problems, but this has nothing to do with labelling them with disorders as if it's some sort of disease that is seperate from the human condition and "fixable" with quack electroshocking and quack medications.

This quack electroshocking is largely a thing of the past and when it's used, it's only because the degenerate patient insists he wants it. The relationship between patient and doctor is usually slave vs. slave. Both are what Nietzsche would consider 'slave souls'. Both are undesirable in my view. But they are what we presently have to work with.

"loss of sense of self-control" is also VERY VAGUE, and there's plenty of explanations, ranging from financial, existential, relationship, attachment problems.

Which all stem from a relatively poor quality mind operating at a level I consider unideal.

nor does it make logical sense from a philosophical and psychological stance. You don't understand that no psychiatric medication is good, because it's designed to destroy the brain.

Do you think it's intentionally designed to do such a thing?

Psychiatrists EVEN ADMIT that they DON'T KNOW how these medications work, only idiots and gullibles but victims nonetheless trust these criminals. Yes psychiatrists have had much experience destroying people's lives, destroying their brains, their reputation, their social standing, their self-respect and sanity, destroying inspired boys with "ADD" and ritalin, and so on and so on. These aren't just small cases or corruptions, they're on a massive scale, and psychiatrists who have done this ARE NOT GOING TO JAIL LIKE THEY SHOULD BE. Enough is enough you belligerant jackass.

I agree that the ADD medication is a major blunder, related I think to trying to raise boys the same as girls and also related to trying to teach dull material in a culture that is seeped in entertainment to such an unprecedented degree.

However, one of our most sober-minded forum members, takes medication for depression - I think he says he's been on it for over 10 years now. He says it works great for him.

Eugene Bleuler, when he originally coined the term, intended to suggest that certain mental functions, such as thought, language and emotion, which are joined together in normal people, are somehow split apart. Again, this really isn't that unreasonable.

his definition is also vague and can mean anything, "split-apart"???

Can mean anything? Please read again. Bleuler emphasized what he meant by his usage of the term. It's not illogical.

this definition HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH motor disruptions, catatonic states

I would say when it comes to assessing a person in a catatonic state, hallucinating and locking their limbs in positions for no reason, regarding their central nervous system as impaired to the point where their thoughts and bodily movements are not unified and cooperating (split apart) is not an illogical way of putting it. I would argue that it’s a metaphorical way of putting it, but in a reasonable way.

I'm curious, how do you account for what you apparently believe is inferiority in certain races? Or do you still hold to this belief?

I base inferiority/superior on the quality of thinking and the structure of society that races have had.

Ok, so you assent to ideas of inferior, normal and superior.

Although this is subjective, looking at Truth and philosophy it becomes much more objective since some specific races have been more philosophical than others.

Ok, so you assent to the idea that some have very low philosophic ability, some have normal (relative to the low and high) and others high.

Your outlook is very contradictory, Faust. Schizophrenic, really.

Inferior/superior may very well be caused by genetics and brain structure, but they aren't DISORDERS or DISEASES, they're just LEVELS of functioning.

Ok fine. So the future of psychiatry should be prioritized around helping to fix and/or weed out undesirable levels of functioning.

There are many people who share this view, but they don't end up hallucinating, getting their limbs locked into weird positions, unable to take care of themselves, etc.

hallucinations occur to many "regular" people with no problems as well.

Well there you go, they are able to maintain their independence. So what's your point?

Getting their limbs locked, and if it really is not done on purpose

[laughs] done on purpose....funny.

has nothing to do with psychiatry or with the 'psyche' of the mind, it may be entirely physiological.

What are you a medieval Galen-inspired dualist? The mind is not some divided thing separate from physiology. It is physiological.

"depression" "paranoia" "psychoses" "bipolar" etc etc.. have nothing at all to relate with locked limbs, since one is entirely existential and psychological, while the other is physiological.

depression, manic highs, paranoia, you think these are caused by some entity that exist separately from physiology?

You see, the problem is that some people have a lower threshold for stress, becoming incapacitated much easier. It's apt to give these people unique labels, given that the ways in which they become incapacitated vary, albeit, their unique form of disability is often not unprecedented, but rather, is recognizable due to past cases or other present cases. Some cases are trickier than others and I have no doubt that psychiatrists are very gaunt in their awareness of what the most significant factors are to consider. But I also feel that the most extreme and consistent forms of disorder need to be studied and treatments should be devised and continually improved with better understanding.

See because some people have a lower threshold, it makes no sense to give labels, cause it's entirely on different levels basis, not on a YES or NO basis. If everyone has a threshold to certain problems, then everyone has a "disorder" but some can't control it. This is why labelling is wrong.

Ok, I agree labeling might not be as wise as an approach as others. But I disagree that we should get rid of terms like bi-polar, Obsessive compulsive, paranoia, depression. We need these words to describe the generic and undesirable behavioral patterns that they refer to.

There was a case with identical twins, where one brother was diagnosed with schizophrenia, whereas the other brother had no problems. An MRI was done on both of their brains. Guess what? The schizophrenic brother's brain showed atrophy and enlarged ventricles. This is science. Taking that evidence and putting forth the hypotheses that brain abnormalities combined with environmental factors play a role in schizophrenia is also science.

hmm this fortunately REFUTES your genetic hypothesis of "disorders."

No, it doesn't. The brother without the atrophy and enlargements may have had an identical vulnerability to developing in such an undesirable way, but due to different experiences growing up, he maintained his normality. Something relatively more extreme must have been experienced by the brother who had the atrophy and enlargements.

So much for gene therapy.

Be careful not to jump so hastily to conclusions.

Sure, wasn't it you who expressed conviction that some races were weaker than others? What is the origin of this weakness? Or did you change your mind on that issue?

mentally weaker yes, genetic yes. But this isn't a disorder or disease, it's just different levels of functioning. Calling something a disorder or disease is like saying there's an objective "normality" with this "disorder" not being part of the human condition and that which can be "fixed" from the person. Inferior races don't have "disease" or "disorder" it's just evolution and genetics.

You seem to be forgetting that within each race/culture there are mental illnesses. Even indigenous tribes had names for behavior which they regarded as illnesses and sicknesses of the soul/mind/spirit.

That things have an order and regularity to them allows us to have a sense of free will. If things were totally disorganized and chaotic, a sense of freedom would be impossible. Most people who admit to having a mental disorder admit that 'they just can't help it.' Their disorder robs them of their sense of free will, to varying degrees.

freewill is an illusion. Wtf are you talking about order and regularity?

I agree that freewill is in an ultimate sense, illusionary, but unlike relatively more disordered people, I am caused to have a sense of will. I can strive for superior possibilities, all the while having the very real sensation and temptation of inferior ones. The most internally crippled sort of person is a slave soul, totally deprived of will, unable to will himself.

Some people are more disorganized and chaotic than others

These people have no sense that they can will themselves to achieve higher states. They are locked into a degrading pattern of behavior that they dislike, but cannot stop. Relatively more normal people have a sense of inferior and superior and can make progress as they strive to more superior states. Inferior persons are too internally crippled to make progress.

it's called being different.

Yes, sometimes being different is very good, and sometimes it's very bad.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

So the future of psychiatry should be prioritized around helping to fix and/or weed out undesirable levels of functioning.

It seems to me that at this stage of progress, influencing governments to implement stricter regulations is probably the wisest course of action. Here are some that I thought of -

1. Prisoners that have serious mental illnesses should get material incentives for getting vasectomies.

2.People should have to apply for parenting licenses and pass a serious of tests to prove that they understand the proper environment to raise children.

3. Military force should be used to eliminate gang activity by violent street criminals.

4. Teenagers should be given free birth control at younger ages.

The major problem I see with the progress of psychiatry is that it seems unlikely that sages will ever have enough power to adequately enforce their ideals of superiority. Mediocre humans will only allow policies to be implemented that won’t affect their core value system, which will only remove the extremes from the genepool.

Moreover, mediocre humans will likely endorse the sorts of policies that will remove serial killers, rapists, molesters, and so on from the genepool, but if the ideals tackle the more common emotional weaknesses of humans, then I’m afraid we’ll all end up nailed to a cross say to speak… ; )

This is another problem I see with genetic engineering, it seems unlikely that sage-minded individuals will ever have enough power to breed super-humans in the academic public eye, that is why I thought privatized research faculties is the only way this sort of thing could happen, and their activities would need to remain a secret to the masses.

However, the major problem with this idea is that the scale of operation needed to pull it off would cost millions of dollars, and typically sages aren't the wealthy types as they lack ambition, so this creates a serious problem....

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory wrote:

So the future of psychiatry should be prioritized around helping to fix and/or weed out undesirable levels of functioning.

It seems to me that at this stage of progress, influencing governments to implement stricter regulations is probably the wisest course of action. Here are some that I thought of -

1. Prisoners that have serious mental illnesses should get material incentives for getting vasectomies.

2.People should have to apply for parenting licenses and pass a serious of tests to prove that they understand the proper environment to raise children.

3. Military force should be used to eliminate gang activity by violent street criminals.

4. Teenagers should be given free birth control at younger ages.

Sounds good to me.

The major problem I see with the progress of psychiatry is that it seems unlikely that sages will ever have enough power to adequately enforce their ideals of superiority.

Maybe not the sages, but I think the secularist community, led by Dawkins, Dennet, V Ramachandra, Stephen Pinker, Hans Rosling and others, are a pretty reasonable group, and that it is these types who will probably be the first to use genetic engineering in a way that supports wisdom.

Mediocre humans will only allow policies to be implemented that won’t affect their core value system, which will only remove the extremes from the genepool.

But also consider the core value system of the elite secularists. These people may not have negated women, but I don't think they generally are the sort to get married to bombshell women in pursuit of greater hedonism. Daniel Dennet for instance, advises that if you want meaning in your life, you should identify something that is more important than you are and dedicate your life to it. This tendency to dedicate one's life to something more important than one's animalistic ego really is a key trait to breed for, IMO - and so why not be optimistic that the people with good education and wealth will continue to realize this? Of course, it's just as important to doubt they will, as that will ensure that one does their best to contribute all that one can in an effort to point humanity in the right direction.

Consider this Dennet presentation

Moreover, mediocre humans will likely endorse the sorts of policies that will remove serial killers, rapists, molesters, and so on from the genepool, but if the ideals (don't) tackle the more common emotional weaknesses of humans, then I’m afraid we’ll all end up nailed to a cross say to speak… ; )

I think that once we eliminate the gross inadequacies, human discontent will naturally hone in on the relatively more subtle imperfections.

I mean, this seems to be the most likely possibility. I really don't see how else we are going to progress.

[Greg Shantz]

I am in agreement with Faust13's depiction of psychiatry.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Greg,

Would you mind expounding on that a bit? Backing your agreement up with some observations or draw out your perception of the flow of causality?

I believe that psychiatry should be handed over to neurology where they can actually study the organ in question - the brain - and work in conjunction with endocrinology (as the body chemistry plays a significant role in how we think). General medical conditions should also not be overlooked as possible causes for mental dysfunction. Sometimes things are physically wrong, and it is appropriate to fix that (agreeing with Cory).

Good psychological work is also important, but it is important for all people and works better as a preventative than a cure. Now the biggest trick is to assure that the psychological work is actually good, rather than the quackery that so often plays out by incompetent and unethical practitioners behind a veil of secrecy dubbed "patient confidentiality." It is no more shameful to have a mental illness than to have the flu - but all the extra "confidentiality" feeds into the perception of shame and actually only serves to hide the bad practitioners and make it more difficult for people to find the good practitioners. People don't mind talking about which dentist they had good or bad experiences with, but people are less likely to talk about which psyc worker laughed at them or fell asleep during the session, much less anything worse. The mental health profession tries to regulate itself, but it is not possible to legislate good reasoning skills. They try to write out codes of ethics, but good ethics requires good judgment about when the exact same action is a good thing or a bad thing. Loopholes and apparent contradiction are inherent to trying to draw that out anyway, then adding the multiple interpretations especially by people with imperfect logic, and all that is left is a mess.

There are also good and bad practices, along with good and bad practitioners, and sometimes accepted psychological practice is later recognized as inappropriate. The psyc profession used to advocate getting anger out by hitting pillows or hitting each other with foam sticks. Later they realized that all that did was to train violence into the subconscious and raise anger biochemicals. There was a long period when it was considered bad to tell a child "no" because it stifled their creativity. 10+ years later, there were more teenage murderers, fewer people paying their bills, and increased general mayhem. The Bible admonishment "spare the rod and spoil the child" had some merit. Too much restriction and punishment is bad, but so is too much freedom (read "lack of direction").

Psychiatry and psychology may be new, but philosophy on human behavior is quite old and not useless. It is okay to question the old thoughts to see if they really are accurate or best, but learning what philosophers figured out hundreds or thousands of years ago could save a lot of mistakes.

[ChochemV2]

It's not all BS. We have found biological differences between people with depression and those without, especially between "normal" people and those who are bi-polar. Anything from a chemical imbalance to a genetic mutation can cause all kinds of psychological disorders. Soldiers were suffering from what we now call Post Traumatic Stress Disorder before we had a name for it or knew what really caused it. Sometimes a person just can't handle something and they react negatively to it.

I tend to think therapy is BS but I've never gone through it so I really have no idea. I rarely question psychiatry where biological problems are involved because it's far easier to see the "normal" and "abnormal" sides of a person when they are bi-polar or something similar.

[Cory Duchesne]

Psychiatry, decades ago, was a blind flailing infant, and now it's eyes are beginning to open. Like humanity, the field as great potential to be strong.

Consider the criticism leveled on psychiatry by Roshenhan, and the response to that criticism by Robert Spitzer:

Rosenhan published his findings in Science, criticising the validity of psychiatric diagnosis and the disempowering and demeaning nature of patient care experienced by the associates in the study. His article generated an explosion of controversy.

Many defended psychiatry, arguing that psychiatric diagnosis must rely heavily on the patient's own report of their experiences. Hence, mis-diagnosis in the presence of fake symptoms no more demonstrates problems with psychiatric diagnosis than would lying about other medical symptoms. As an example, psychiatrist Robert Spitzer wrote in a 1975 criticism of Rosenhan's study:

If I were to drink a quart of blood and, concealing what I had done, come to the emergency room of any hospital vomiting blood, the behaviour of the staff would be quite predictable. If they labelled and treated me as having a peptic ulcer, I doubt I could argue convincingly that medical science does not know how to diagnose that condition.

However, despite the perceived shortcomings of Rosenhan's study, Spitzer felt that there was still a laxness in the field. He played an important role in updating psychiatric diagnosis, eventually resulting in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, in an attempt to introduce more rigor and reliability.

Criticism of a field doesn't necessarily mean we totally negate the field altogether, but rather, much criticism should function simply to sharpen and improve the object being criticized. And in the case of Rosenhan and Spitzer, that is what happened. Of course, the way the DSMM is used has it's shortcomings, but it's a step in the right direction.

[Faust]

What isn't socially constructed? Are you saying that we shouldn't have ideals?

there are tons of things that aren't socially constructed, ie gravity, atoms, etc etc... We should have ideals, but not adhering to those ideals is not a 'disorder' or a 'disease' or an 'illness,' that's the difference idiot.

e.g.; do you think we should not assent to a social construct that says that this child is not receiving a normal level of nourishment?

yeah and that's an entirely PHYSICAL illness with physical and clear attributes that can easily be diagnosed. Not a 'mental disorder' that exists purely within the mind.

When I consider the case of a guy like Ted Bundy, I think it's reasonable to build up a social construct, an ideal human nature, an ideal normal environment to raise a child in, and thus, because we have an ideal human nature, we have a sense of normality.

yah and who makes these ideals, you??? Then we'll all listen to you? Pftttt... What is the ideal human nature, according to who, you? an ideal normal environment for a child? give me a fucking break. No we don't have a sense of normality just because of an ideal human nature. This reasoning is totally retarded. You can't use socially constructed ideals that will definitely clash with each other, to find 'normality,' sorry. That's one step behind tyranny.

According to my personal social construct, there is a minority of exploiters - 'the careerists', who I consider abnormal in relationship to the exploited - the consumers' who I consider subnormal. In my view, normal people are those who can, in the name of wisdom, regard the ambitious successful exploitative careerists (yes, many would be psychiatrists) as undesirable abnormals who subsist upon the downtrodden, dim-witted, indignant, indolent 'subnormals'. That being said, only a very small minority of people in the world qualify for what I idealize as ideal and normal.

this isn't 'normal' at all. This is just values and ideals, it has nothing to do with 'normal.' Normal implies a state of being that nature intended for us, and of course, there's no such thing. Not only that, people like you who intend to exploit the Western social programs for full subsistence are also 'abnormal' as they subsist on the downtrodden and dim-witted. Indolent??? Who's indolent here? So by your definition, exploiting the rest of the population is 'abnormal.'

The polarization between the subnormal and abnormal may seem like a master slave dichotomy, but really, each is a slave to the other. Each Nietzsche would regard as a 'slave soul'. Like Nietzsche, I idealize the creation of a superspecies, which implies we must have an idea of inferior, normal and superior.

who cares about fucking Nietzsche, saying 'like Nietzsche I idealize' doesn't justify shit all what you think should be conceived as inferior, normal, superior. Not only that, inferior and superior has nothing to do with 'normality.' There's no such thing as 'normality' in the first place, inferior and superior rely on each other for their existence, they don't rely on 'normality.'

I agree that the average aren't very desirable in the big picture.

except the average aren't 'abnormal' either, or 'disordered' or 'ill.'

but when a person is stressed and miserable because they are acting in a way that 'they can't control' - then I don't think it's incredibly unreasonable to suggest that biologically, they are relatively in a state of disorder, degradation, subnormality, abnormality, weakness, inferiority, etc.

this is just stupid. For one thing, there are many existential and philosophical reasons to be stressed and miserable, it has nothing to do with 'illness.' Acting in a way they can't control? too vague and unfounded. The human condition is hard to control, it's not easy. Some say falsehood is a condition of existence, knowing that the ego might be delusional would make you act in a way 'you can't control' if you're looking for consistency. Not only that, wtf are the diagnoses for 'they can't control'? So a paralyzed person is biologically 'abnormal?

Do you realize the contradiction you are in here? How can you 'degrade' patients without an idea of normal, good treatment? Degrading patients implies that you value an idea of normality, doesn't it?

uhh no it doesn't. Normal good treatment is not coerced institutionalization, coerced 'electroshock treatment' and coerced 'medication.' This is hardly good and normal treatment. if the patient feels degraded, they are being degraded, 'normality' has nothing to do with this.

However, that is not to say that all of the definitions of different labels, from OCD to Bi-polar, to catatonic schizophrenia are not useful for recognizing and discussing the type of patient you are dealing with. The key here is to refrain from telling the patient that he has a disease called such and such. Instead, the message should be, “if you want help, you need to become aware of your behavior as an undesirable pattern of behavior to overcome, and to overcome it you need to educate yourself about why you are behaving the way you are behaving” I believe the future of psychotherapy is going to involve developing the patients philosophical capacity. If the patient proves incorrigible, then we need to understand the physiological basis of their mind, as well as get an approximation the sort of childhood that influenced their mind, and from there, psychiatry/psychology should be a tool for weeding out undesirable humans.

weeding out undesirable humans? who the fuck is this Nazi? Those labels you mentioned are rubbish. Bi-polar is just passion, of course psychiatry doesn't tell you that. OCD is just a bad habit, not something you fix with drugs. It's disgusting how psychiatry uses ordinary problems to make money. Future of psychiatry going to involve philosophy? pft, not in a 1000 years.

They likely have the potential to cope with life’s problems, much like a person has the potential to make it through childhood without succumbing to a fatal cancer or illness. But sometimes the childhood wasn’t protective enough, nutrition was bad, too much stress occurred, and thus, the child contracted the sickness and died. It could have just as easily gone the other way if the environment was better. Some people are more vulnerable to contracting an illness, but sometimes a good environment helps them become strong adults.

this is just idiotic. A person's childhood isn't the sole reason for his many problems. Not only that, there's some problems that it is impossible to cope with them, such as having to work when you don't want to, that's a big one, or ending up paralyzed or blind or something, that'll be tough to get over, and if you can't cope with it, that's not a disorder, it's just that severe, that's life, not a fucking 'illness'. Now some piece of shit like you comes along and tries to milk the system and hard-working people, while talking shit about 'they have the potential to cope with life's problems,' what a douche.

I think very extreme forms of behavior, ones that cause great misery to the person exhibiting them, should be studied by people who have devoted their lives to understanding the biological basis of the behavior that the patient is miserable about and can't control. If the patient wants help, then I think people who are very educated about the mind, should help.

first, there's no evidence that it's biological, jumping for this as the first thing is typical of shrinks. The patient can't control himself because of ignorance and delusions, this is easy to understand but I guess not for a dimwit like you. Psychiatrists aren't educated about the mind, neither are most psychologists, academic psychology doesn't have much to do with the human condition.

These bums are, for the most part, not contemplating the infinite. Their thoughts are generally a mess, they really haven't any wisdom, and often they are trying to gather enough money for lottery tickets, drugs or unhealthy food.

that's what happens when you make a string of bad choices in your life, this has nothing to do with a 'biological illness' or any of that rubbish.

In the future, I'd like to see humanity make an effort to create the ideal human, one that does not succumb to the generic madness of the masses, but also has the will power to not end up damaging their brain from drugs, living on the streets rambling and begging for money to buy more drugs, to buy more bad food and lottery tickets, and to think more poor thoughts.

yeah? well fuck you. You like to see that? do it yourself you indolent ass. How is this going to happen, what is the ideal type, according to who, you? this isn't Nazi Germany you jackass. fact is, the tendency to 'improve humanity' is mostly the tendency to simply rule it. idiots like you think they can control everyone and that would be better instead of just leaving them alone.

And you want to preserve this sort of life? You're worse than Mother Teresa. The human condition should be overcome, not preserved.

boy you are an idiot. I never said anything about preserving that sort of life, I simply said the origins of it, something that shrinks shrug at.

No, I think it's bizzare because not only is it very rare

bad reason jackass.

When a person can't control their limbs and can't think logically, they are just a waste of resources in my opinion - well, that is, unless you can study their brain, biology and develop a case study of their upbringing. That way, you can at least derive something beneficial from their life. Otherwise, it's just another body to feed, clothe and warm. A waste of energy.

wow.... look who's talking. the indolent ass that wants others to pay for his pathetic life.

Well, any such person who tells lies about hallucinating, obviously has some irrational emotional issues.

or they want social security. I'm sure you have your own tactics other than this.

They are wounded, damaged, biologically 'unideal' persons.

hahaha, what a nutcase. There's thousands of 'normal' people who report hallucinations of people they know, etc etc.. all the time, what about that. Wounded, damaged? wtf? Who's to say what's ideal, you? Fuck you bitch, this isn't Nazi Germany and it will never be, contrary to your ridiculous desires.

They may be lying simply because they want to take advantage of the system and get a free ride. In that case, they are just taking advantage of everyone else.

hmmm I remember someone else who plans to do this if they don't finish university, hmmm...

Well, if they are ok with seeing such apparitions, then let them see apparitions. That they get upset and indignant about other people who don't value such visions, only testifies to their puerility. Otto Weineigger apparently had hallucinatory visions, and he was wise enough to interpret them in an enlightening way and keep it to himself.

So what if they get upset about it? That's just attitude and individuality, not a fucking 'biologically unideal person.' if you don't value their hallucinations then don't listen to them.

Ever hear of the man who mistook his wife for a hat? Message from God, right?

that was most likely caused by a brain tumour or brain damage, it wasn't at all a 'mental disorder.' Getting angry if someone doesn't value their hallucinations however, is not a brain tumour.

It's related to split mind insofar as one's mind has lost it's integration, the central control has frayed apart, and the bodily movements aren't corresponding with what is normally present, psychological desires.

this isn't even the definition of what the coiner of the word made, jackass. The coiner gave 2 definitions, 1: disordered thinking. HIGHLY vague, ambigious, and outright prone to exploitation. 2: something else that has nothing at all to do with the above quote. How do you know what are the person's normally present, psychological desires? Also, that can happen from severe paranoia.

Psychology students these days aren't being introduced to 100 quack definitions. There are four major categories of schizophrenia. Catatonic, Paranoid, Disorganized, and the most vague would be undifferentiated type. My guess is this more vague type is a sort of gray zone, maybe an area that a full blown disorganized type might at first begin with.
Also, each category of the disorder can either be type 1 or type 2.

those categories all contain quack definitions. What's even worse is that the institutions, psychiatrists and others who abuse power are introduced these quack definitions. Catatonic has nothing at all related to paranoia, so that immediately is retarded. Disorganized? wtf is that??????

from http://www.antipsychiatry.org/schizoph.htm

According to Dr. Torrey in his book Surviving Schizophrenia, so-called schizophrenia includes several widely divergent personality types. Included among them are paranoid schizophrenics, who have "delusions and/or hallucinations" that are either "persecutory" or "grandiose"; hebephrenic schizophrenics, in whom "well-developed delusions are usually absent"; catatonic schizophrenics who tend to be characterized by "posturing, rigidity, stupor, and often mutism" or, in other words, sitting around in a motionless, nonreactive state (in contrast to paranoid schizophrenics who tend to be suspicious and jumpy); and simple schizophrenics, who exhibit a "loss of interest and initiative" like the catatonic schizophrenics (though not as severe) and unlike the paranoid schizophrenics have an "absence of delusions or hallucinations" (p. 77). The 1968 edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-II, indicates a person who is very happy (experiences "pronounced elation") may be defined as schizophrenic for this reason ("Schizophrenia, schizo-affective type, excited") or very unhappy ("Schizophrenia, schizo-affective type, depressed")(p. 35), and the 1987 edition, DSM-III-R, indicates a person can be "diagnosed" as schizophrenic because he displays neither happiness nor sadness ("no signs of affective expression")(p. 189), which Dr. Torrey in his book calls simple schizophrenia ("blunting of emotions")(p. 77). According to psychiatry professor Jonas Robitscher, J.D., M.D., in his book The Powers of Psychiatry, people who cycle back and forth between happiness and sadness, the so-called manic-depressives or suffers of "bipolar mood disorder", may also be called schizophrenic: "Many cases that are diagnosed as schizophrenia in the United States would be diagnosed as manic-depressive illness in England or Western Europe" (Houghton Mifflin, 1980, p. 165.) So the supposed "symptoms" or defining characteristics of "schizophrenia" are broad indeed, defining people as having some kind of schizophrenia because they have delusions or do not, hallucinate or do not, are jumpy or catatonic, are happy, sad, or neither happy nor sad, or cycling back and forth between happiness and sadness. Since no physical causes of "schizophrenia" have been found, as we'll soon see, this "disease" can be defined only in terms of its "symptoms", which as you can see are what might be called ubiquitous. As attorney Bruce Ennis says in his book Prisoners of Psychiatry: "schizophrenia is such an all-inclusive term and covers such a large range of behavior that there are few people who could not, at one time or another, be considered schizophrenic" (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1972, p. 22). People who are obsessed with certain thoughts or who feel compelled to perform certain behaviors, such as washing their hands repeatedly, are usually considered to be suffering from a separate psychiatric disease called "obsessive-compulsive disorder". However, people with obsessive thoughts or compulsive behaviors have also been called schizophrenic (e.g., by Dr. Torrey in his book Surviving Schizophrenia, pp. 115-116).

Sure, we all know what it's like to be so hungry we feel starving. The feeling of hunger is normal. But being this hungry is abnormal.

uhh that 'abnormality' is totally different and not the same as 'abnormality of the mind.' Starvation is a physical, scientific evidence, not an 'abnormality of the mind' that is socially constructed and not even agreed on by quack shrinks.

Most of us also know the angry feeling of wanting to retaliate and hurt people who we perceive as harmful. That's normal. But actually going on a killing spree is abnormal.

once again, no such thing as 'abnormal.' Ancient Aztecs could have seen us today and said our lack of sacrifices were 'abnormal.' You haven't proven 'abnormality' here at all.

This quack electroshocking is largely a thing of the past and when it's used, it's only because the degenerate patient insists he wants it.

now this is 100% bullshit on a stick. it's not a thing of the past, it's still widely used as a billion dollar industry. And just because a 'degenerate' patient wants it, doesn't mean you should do it. And that's just plain lies, I bet there's still coercion going on.

The relationship between patient and doctor is usually slave vs. slave. Both are what Nietzsche would consider 'slave souls'. Both are undesirable in my view. But they are what we presently have to work with.

you're so pathetic. Who cares what Nietzsche thinks, he's not the fucking ultimate authority, and he was dead wrong many times. He was a baffoon and he rightly admitted it once. They aren't what we presently have to work with, traditional analytic, honest, concise and ethical philosophy and talk will do wonders.

"loss of sense of self-control" is also VERY VAGUE, and there's plenty of explanations, ranging from financial, existential, relationship, attachment problems.

Which all stem from a relatively poor quality mind operating at a level I consider unideal.[/quote]
yeah, what YOU consider, SO FUCK OFF!!! Fact is, if you are going to milk the system by social benefits you're just as sick.

Do you think it's intentionally designed to do such a thing?

yes i do. Psychiatrists themselves don't know how the fuck meds work, not only that, but there's plenty of evidence that meds also increase the problems. Big Pharma just wants money, one needs to be very cynical of these bastards.

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/drugs.htm

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/drsmith1.htm

However, one of our most sober-minded forum members, takes medication for depression - I think he says he's been on it for over 10 years now. He says it works great for him.

who is this person? Fact is, depression is always an existential or philosophical or attachment problem. If one had everything one wanted, and by everything I mean spiritual, financial, etc.. they wouldn't be depressed. The drugs work by masking and destroying the brain. That person should find the reason for his depression.

Eugene Bleuler, when he originally coined the term, intended to suggest that certain mental functions, such as thought, language and emotion, which are joined together in normal people, are somehow split apart. Again, this really isn't that unreasonable.

his definition is also vague and can mean anything, "split-apart"???

Can mean anything? Please read again. Bleuler emphasized what he meant by his usage of the term. It's not illogical.[/quote]
now this is just hilarious. nice circular reasoning. intended to suggest that certain mental functions, such as thought, language and emotion, which are joined together in normal people, are somehow split apart. This is so vague and lacking in substance that just about anything one doesn't like about a person they can use this against them. Bleuler had shit all for any of this junk.

I would say when it comes to assessing a person in a catatonic state, hallucinating and locking their limbs in positions for no reason, regarding their central nervous system as impaired to the point where their thoughts and bodily movements are not unified and cooperating (split apart) is not an illogical way of putting it. I would argue that it’s a metaphorical way of putting it, but in a reasonable way.

except this has nothing to do with the traditional definition of schizophrenia, not to mention the 100 quack definitions, such as "delusions of grandeur" "paranoia" "depression" "too happy" "emotional blunting" "jumpy and nervous" "calm and in a stupor." I would say there's a reason for everything, including for locking limbs in certain positions, which certainly has nothing to do with a 'mental disorder.'

I'm curious, how do you account for what you apparently believe is inferiority in certain races? Or do you still hold to this belief?

I base inferiority/superior on the quality of thinking and the structure of society that races have had.

Ok, so you assent to ideas of inferior, normal and superior.[/quote]
no i dont. I assent to inferior and superior, but these are still relative. And they have nothing to do with normal. There's no such thing as 'normal,' no such fucking fact of 'normality' when considering the 'mind' of the person.

Ok, so you assent to the idea that some have very low philosophic ability, some have normal (relative to the low and high) and others high.

Your outlook is very contradictory, Faust. Schizophrenic, really.

having low philosophic ability is not 'abnormal' though, there's nothing abnormal about it. these are just skills, there's no such thing as a standard 'normal' created by nature. it's like saying because blacks are superior in athletics other races are 'abnormal' because they're inferior in athletics, it's totally deranged. Schizophrenic really??? Fuck off you malignant sow. If being contradictory is 'schizophrenic' then everyone is schizophrenic. This was such a piss-poor pathetic and childish attempt to put me down.

Ok fine. So the future of psychiatry should be prioritized around helping to fix and/or weed out undesirable levels of functioning.

no it shouldn't, you malignant sow. Psychiatry needs to be abolished. weed out undesirable functioning? what the fuck is undesirable, according to who, YOUR fucking ass? Too bad cocksucker, there's more of us and we like to be left alone with our own minds.

Well there you go, they are able to maintain their independence. So what's your point?

wtf independance??? My point is that hallucinations are not a 'mental disorder' jackass. Those people with them who have trouble coping should be said that they aren't mental disorders, that it's alright to have hallucinations.

Getting their limbs locked, and if it really is not done on purpose

[laughs] done on purpose....funny.[/quote]
yeah it happens.

What are you a medieval Galen-inspired dualist? The mind is not some divided thing separate from physiology. It is physiological.

But the mind doesn't always control the body, the brain on its own does. epileptics don't CHOOSE to have seizures jackass. Therefore, limb locking is probably done by the brain only.

depression, manic highs, paranoia, you think these are caused by some entity that exist separately from physiology?

physiology certainly doesn't CAUSE them, it only supports their existence. The thought of paranoia is the source of paranoia, then the brain's physiology supports the existence of the thought. There's a huge psychological component of the brain that causes these things, they relate to the outside world and to the Psyche of the human mind. we're not just rats with no outside commitments sitting in a cage.

But I disagree that we should get rid of terms like bi-polar, Obsessive compulsive, paranoia, depression. We need these words to describe the generic and undesirable behavioral patterns that they refer to.

bi-polar is just a stupid word. it has replaced the better word of 'passion.' Those other words aren't 'disorders' they are a part of the human condition. I didn't say to abolish those words, I said to abolish the retarded notion that those words are just 'disorders' when in fact they are an integral part of the human condition and psyche.

No, it doesn't. The brother without the atrophy and enlargements may have had an identical vulnerability to developing in such an undesirable way, but due to different experiences growing up, he maintained his normality. Something relatively more extreme must have been experienced by the brother who had the atrophy and enlargements.

this is of course, pure rubbish THEORY nonsense, with no evidence whatsoever. Hell, maybe you should research if he did have bad experiences growing up, that would be much smarter, of course a dimwit like you wouldn't think of that. not only that, you would have to say what EXACTLY is the supposed schizophrenia symptoms are, since there's about 100 quack definitions. I doubt at all that those enlarged ventricles and atrophies were caused by 'bad experiences' unless it's being hit with a baseball bat in the head or something. Of course that's just plain ole' brain damage, not 'schizophrenia.'

So much for gene therapy.

Be careful not to jump so hastily to conclusions.[/quote]
i'm the one jumping to conclusions? Nazi Germany is dead and forever will be.

You seem to be forgetting that within each race/culture there are mental illnesses. Even indigenous tribes had names for behavior which they regarded as illnesses and sicknesses of the soul/mind/spirit.

uhhh yeah, and they all stemmed from the same sources of bullshit: ignorance, fear of the unknown, lust to conquer and have power over people, wanting others to conform, lust to degrade, etc etc.... Quick! Get the shaman and the witch doctor!!! he's possessed by evil spirits!!!

but unlike relatively more disordered people, I am caused to have a sense of will.

everyone has a sense of Will, it's just that it's not free. Having a Will doesn't mean it's free.

The most internally crippled sort of person is a slave soul, totally deprived of will, unable to will himself.

many reasons for this. You make the stupid assumption that one's life circumstances are the exact same as yours. These problems can be fixed through uncovering delusions and ignorance, not psychiatric 'treatment.' Hell, some things can't even be fixed by uncovering delusions and ignorance, such as not wanting to work, but not wanting to leech off the system either.

These people have no sense that they can will themselves to achieve higher states. They are locked into a degrading pattern of behavior that they dislike, but cannot stop. Relatively more normal people have a sense of inferior and superior and can make progress as they strive to more superior states. Inferior persons are too internally crippled to make progress.

no such thing as 'normal'. These problems are caused by many existential and personality factors. People aren't the same as you. some people just cannot take the hideousness of the world and the disgusting characteristics of humans, they become misanthropic, rightly so. They can't just ignore all this in a sea of indifference, that would make it worse. 'Sanity' really means ignoring Reality.

[Faust]

1. Prisoners that have serious mental illnesses should get material incentives for getting vasectomies.

retarded. What are mental illnesses jackass??? According to who, you??? Besides, those material incentives take taxpayer money, which makes the idea even more idiotic.

2.People should have to apply for parenting licenses and pass a serious of tests to prove that they understand the proper environment to raise children.

HAHAHAH, holy shit. Who are you Tony Blair????? who the fuck makes those tests, who decides what is 'proof' and what is 'right for children and a proper environment for them?' You??? Get lost fuck face. People want to be left alone, and in no way in hell will the government forcibly 'teach' parents how to raise their own children. That's just totally retarded, as if the oppression of governments right now isn't enough.

3. Military force should be used to eliminate gang activity by violent street criminals.

yeah ok. We'll have little mini-wars in our streets!!!

4. Teenagers should be given free birth control at younger ages.

this already happens jackass. Birth control isn't even good for the woman, fucks up hormones, the reproductive system, can even make them infertile.

The major problem I see with the progress of psychiatry is that it seems unlikely that sages will ever have enough power to adequately enforce their ideals of superiority. Mediocre humans will only allow policies to be implemented that won’t affect their core value system, which will only remove the extremes from the genepool.

hahahah, this guy's such a douche!!! Sages won't have enough power to enforce their own ideals of superiority???? That's as bad as mediocre people 'enforcing' ideals, totally retarded. Which sages is it going to be??? You??? This forum has a bad tendency to be corrupt Communists. The tendency to 'save humanity' is almost always the tendency to rule it.

Moreover, mediocre humans will likely endorse the sorts of policies that will remove serial killers, rapists, molesters, and so on from the genepool, but if the ideals tackle the more common emotional weaknesses of humans, then I’m afraid we’ll all end up nailed to a cross say to speak… ; )

that was sooo funny!!!!...... jackass.

This is another problem I see with genetic engineering, it seems unlikely that sage-minded individuals will ever have enough power to breed super-humans in the academic public eye, that is why I thought privatized research faculties is the only way this sort of thing could happen, and their activities would need to remain a secret to the masses.

hahaha this is so childish and idiotic, and just totally wrong. Once again with the 'sages'. Which ones, you???

However, the major problem with this idea is that the scale of operation needed to pull it off would cost millions of dollars, and typically sages aren't the wealthy types as they lack ambition, so this creates a serious problem....

and thank god for that!!! Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Kim Jung Il, all thought of themselves as sages to breed superiors!!! Go to hell faggot.

[Faust]

Maybe not the sages, but I think the secularist community, led by Dawkins, Dennet, V Ramachandra, Stephen Pinker, Hans Rosling and others, are a pretty reasonable group, and that it is these types who will probably be the first to use genetic engineering in a way that supports wisdom.

HAHAHAH, what a douche this shitbag is!!! Dawkins has wisdom??? Pftttt. Am I the only one who thinks this shitbag is a fucking nutcase? Who else wants to rule themselves and not have idiots such as the above and this poster rule things for them? exactly. The tendency to 'save humanity' is the tendency to rule it.

I think that once we eliminate the gross inadequacies, human discontent will naturally hone in on the relatively more subtle imperfections.

I mean, this seems to be the most likely possibility. I really don't see how else we are going to progress.

what a douche. you aren't going to eliminate 'inadequacies' whatever those are. Progress is surely not done by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Kim Jung Il.

[Faust]

General medical conditions should also not be overlooked as possible causes for mental dysfunction.

what is mental dysfunction? What about poverty, depression, misanthropy, cynicism, the fact that we die alone? How are you going to fix that? These things aren't just quick fix-things.

It is no more shameful to have a mental illness than to have the flu

except the flu is a real physical disease and mental illness is, pure quackery.

The Bible admonishment "spare the rod and spoil the child" had some merit. Too much restriction and punishment is bad, but so is too much freedom (read "lack of direction").

uhh yeah. that's parenting, and the government has no business in forcibly 'teaching' parents how to raise their kids 'properly.' I would think you weren't a fan of idiotic Tyrannical Big Government like the rest of the douches on this thread, but I have my doubts.

Psychiatry and psychology may be new, but philosophy on human behavior is quite old and not useless.

philosophy on human behaviour is psychology jackass. Psychology has been around for centuries, psychiatry however is a modern quackery to appease modern corruption.

It is okay to question the old thoughts to see if they really are accurate or best, but learning what philosophers figured out hundreds or thousands of years ago could save a lot of mistakes.

yeah...too bad academic psychology and psychiatry has not much to do with philosophy.

[Faust]

We have found biological differences between people with depression and those without, especially between "normal" people and those who are bi-polar.

oh yeah?? Show it bitch. As if depression is a one-time deal that will never reoccur or happen once in a person's lifetime. No such thing as 'normal', and 'bi-polar' is passion.

Anything from a chemical imbalance to a genetic mutation can cause all kinds of psychological disorders.

do you have evidence for a chemical imbalance? No, it just sounds good, like schizophrenia, so the masses eat it up. Genetic mutation?? Evidence?

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/depressi.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=chemical ... lz=1I7GFRC

Soldiers were suffering from what we now call Post Traumatic Stress Disorder before we had a name for it or knew what really caused it. Sometimes a person just can't handle something and they react negatively to it.

WOW DUDE, you just fucking figured out something that NO ONE KNEW BEFORE!!! That people react negatively to things they can't handle holy shit!!! Soldiers suffer from PTS not PTS disorder!!! It's not a fucking disorder to experience the horrors of war after doing it, I mean the human condition will react badly to bad experiences, it's not a fucking disorder for fuck's sakes. We didn't know what caused it??? Wow that's pretty fucking idiotic. Jeez, this soldier is having nightmares of war, it surely can't be because he was a soldier!!

I rarely question psychiatry where biological problems are involved because it's far easier to see the "normal" and "abnormal" sides of a person when they are bi-polar or something similar.

my god, are you 10 years old??? "I rarely question psychiatry where biological probelms are involved" Good critical thinking douche. The rest of that quote is just deranged. It's far "easier" to see the normal and abnormal sides of a person? NO it isin't you jackass. Because there's no such fucking thing as normal and abnormal. when they are bi-polar or 'something similar'???

[Faust]

Psychiatry, decades ago, was a blind flailing infant, and now it's eyes are beginning to open. Like humanity, the field as great potential to be strong.

hahaha, what a douche. As if something that began in criminality, corruption, degradation, ignorance, robbery, can finally start to become good.

If I were to drink a quart of blood and, concealing what I had done, come to the emergency room of any hospital vomiting blood, the behaviour of the staff would be quite predictable. If they labelled and treated me as having a peptic ulcer, I doubt I could argue convincingly that medical science does not know how to diagnose that condition.

except the labelling of physical diseases that can be physically found is entirely different to the labelling of quack 'mental illnesses' that have nothing to do with the special circumstances of the patient or the special causes of the problems, or the fact that these 'mental illnesses' are problems of life that aren't 'fixed' by paying a shrink.

despite the perceived shortcomings of Rosenhan's study, Spitzer felt that there was still a laxness in the field. He played an important role in updating psychiatric diagnosis, eventually resulting in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, in an attempt to introduce more rigor and reliability.

there's nothing rigorous or reliable about that monstrous document. That monstrous piece of shit labels all the complex problems of life and treats them as 'illnesses' that can be fixed by drugs. This is hardly conscientous or intelligent work.

Criticism of a field doesn't necessarily mean we totally negate the field altogether, but rather, much criticism should function simply to sharpen and improve the object being criticized.

uhh yeah, lobotomy was also a field, we shouldn't criticize it and totally ban it but 'improve' it. Hell, bleeding could also have been considered a 'field' I guess we shouldn't have abolished it.

Of course, the way the DSMM is used has it's shortcomings, but it's a step in the right direction.

hahaha it's nothing but shortcomings. It's not a step in the right direction at all, a total huge step in the wrong direction. In the direction of homogenizing patients' special circumstances, of turning the human condition and human nature into a farce, of turning the complex human psyche into a stupid book of fragmented illnesses. It assumes that everyone is the same and that everyone has the same needs and interests. The fact that psychiatrists diagnose philosophers as "schizophrenic" or "personality disorders" or "anti-social personality disorder" explains alot.

"anti-social personality disorder". My god, how far will these shitheads go??

[daybrown]

By and large, psychiatry is still in denial, mainly over the DNA data and the resulting hormone levels which drive so much of behavior. Couch time just dont cut it any more.

Maybe someone remembers the name of the arthritis med that cures obsessive compulsive in few weeks that several years of 'therapy' had no effect on.

Or the early LSD therapies that helped schizophrenics, but also cured people of a faith in Jesus.

Or the fact that as the adrenalin level rises so does the reflex speed, but also impulsive aggression, and as the seratonin level drops so does the amount of restful sleep because it sharpens the senses. However, as the melanin level rises, so does the adrenalin level while the innate seratonin level falls.

Thus it is that Jared Diamond reports on all the violent trauma seen on the skeletons of the Greenland Norse, and the draconian law they had to try to control it, and cites the letters to the bishop from clergy reluctant to serve such an unruly flock. What Diamond didnt think about was that he's looking at the descendants of Eric the *RED*, and that there's a red form of Melanin.

Of course, if I talk about the black form, everyone gets their panties in a wad and calls me racist. And Psychiatry cant go near that issue. Despite the fact, that if you find a violent man in prision from a larg family, you'll also find several of his male kin are also in the can, or have been. And have the same DNA markers.

You cant have a science limited by ethnicity and religion.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Chochem, sorry for picking on you, but your post was short so I was able to read it (and faust privately asked me to give my two cents).

It's not all BS. We have found biological differences between people with depression and those without, especially between "normal" people and those who are bi-polar.

This is the BS. Right there. There are biological differences between all people. Dubbing some "normal" and some "abnormal" is the problem of psychiatry. There is no standard to measure normalcy, except some crude expectation of what a person ought to behave like -- which is a moral claim, not a medical one. You should know this. You are a philosopher.

Psychiatry is a moral institution, designed to medicate the behaviour of those that average people deem no longer productive (or that they can no longer tolerate for some other moral reason). It is usually the nervous breakdown of his family members that causes a bipolar man to be sent to a hospital: they can no longer deal with him. He does not suffer from the same problem: he is perfectly able to deal with all their bullshit. Being hospitalized for several months (read: imprisoned), and then filled full of highly toxic, behaviour-modifying drugs (read: drugged for the rest of his life); and forced to consent to this treatment to get out (read: you have to compliment the doctor before he'll even think of letting you loose), and then being stuck with a terrifying label (read: "schizophrenic" is worse than "nigger" ever was) -- well! It's no wonder that more than 10% of all people diagnosed with mental illness commit suicide in the first year.

A doctor who claims that bipolar disorder is just like diabetes (a common enough claim) is full of shit. There are stories of doctors who lose their jobs after they discover that they suffer from one of the illnesses they treat -- and they lose it solely because they can't cope with the label!! They know what it means. It is not medicine. There is no true distinction between normalcy and "bipolar disorder" (a fake disease that keeps having to change its name for political reasons).

Here it is, once and for all, the difference between conventional psychiatry and homeopathy:

Me: I once smoked crystal meth.
Psychiatrist (immediately): You are a drug-induced psychotic, no doubt about it. Here are some powerful assembly-line chemicals, potentially as dangerous as crystal meth, that you must consume every day for the rest of your life. If you do not comply, one of my nurses will have to get her hands dirty as she jams a needle in your ass and forces you to take it. Have a nice day. [1 year later, these broad-spectrum meds caused me to return to the hospital, since they drove me insane.]
The conversation is over, and I am in the hospital until I compliment the drugs he gave me.

Me: I once smoked crystal meth.
Homeopath: What symptoms did you feel like this drug was treating? How did it make you feel? Why did you choose this drug over other drugs?
45 minutes later, I have had a full consultation, and he has given me the option of taking two different single-symptom cures, one for anxiety and one to help detoxify my bloodstream. He has informed me that the process of decreasing psychiatric medications is a long one, but it will certainly help me prolong my life.

Sometimes a person just can't handle something and they react negatively to it.

Oh, really? Like how when I was twice thrown in hospital against my will, and angrily demanded that they let me out? Was I "reacting negatively" to the treatment when I screamed for my immediate release from the 10x10 cell with only a blanket and a sheet? Was it a "negative reaction" when, after several days of being in that cell, I decided to smear shit on the walls and viewing window so that they'd be forced to let me out for a few hours? Was it a "negative reaction" when I refused to drink or eat any of the food they were giving me, for fear that they had decided to slip a few extra pills into my diet without my knowledge? I guess these are all negative reactions, signs of psychosis, and nothing a normal person would ever think of.

I tend to think therapy is BS but I've never gone through it so I really have no idea.

A good therapist asks such important questions as "where are you going to live when your mom kicks you out?"
If you can't answer that question, he hunts for housing you can afford.

I rarely question psychiatry where biological problems are involved because it's far easier to see the "normal" and "abnormal" sides of a person when they are bi-polar or something similar.

Well, then: fuck you.

If I think faster than my doctor, I have "racing thoughts". I'm not "smarter than him".
If I'm trying to piece together a complicated bit of philosophy, I have "grandiose ideas", not "a genuine philosophic problem that I'm trying to resolve".
If I decide to cut my own hair to save money, I have "poor hygiene".
If I question the medications he gives me, or look for alternatives, I am called "non-compliant".
If I can't be labelled schizophrenic or bipolar, but he really really wants to give me those drugs, I can be called "schizoaffective" instead. In fact, everyone in the world can be called "schizoaffective".

If a single psychiatrist thinks that I have these symptoms, my medications will increase, and I could be thrown into a hospital. A second psychiatrist might see me for 30 seconds or so and sign a sheet of paper, but that's just a formality. I am in the hospital for the next 2-3 months, minimum, and he gets away with it.

His disagreement does not even have to be psychiatric in nature. It could simply be due to an argument -- about anything!

[Cory Duchesne]

For the love of....

Okay, mental illnesses are diseases that are incredibly difficult to treat, primarily because so little is known about them.

(quote taken from this thread)

And thus, I don't think I was off base insisting that we should not abandon psychiatry, but rather, regard it as an infant in need of a good scrub in the tub, as well as more nurture and development. That's really all I've been saying to Faust, who denies the merit in regarding some individuals as mentally ill. I'm quite sure he thinks we should completely turn our backs on psychiatry as a field, and of course, I couldn't disagree more.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Cory: conventional medicine needs to collaborate more with alternative treatments, and cease with the double-talk. If the drugs alone do not cure a patient -- then the drugs should not be treated as the cure whatsoever. Given the dangers of each drug, each and every medication must be optional before the patient is administered them. A patient who does not want to take his medicine should not be a patient in the first place. The mental hospital needs to be radically reworked so that it bears no similarity to imprisonment (bear in mind that mental hospitals were originally out-growths of prisons: the prisoners complained, so the insane were moved elsewhere).

The idea of calling a mental hospital an "asylum" is actually a step in the right direction, so long as asylum is understood in the religious sense. Psychiatry has so much more in common with religion (in that it treats moral corruption) than with medicine (in that it does not treat anything life-threatening) that the blinders need to be thrown off. Psychiatry needs to admit that it is a religious institution, a place where the disturbed may seek voluntary sanctuary in the precise way that monasteries and churches have traditionally fulfilled that role. It is poor science and poor medicine, but it is an excellent religion. That fact should not cause psychiatrists any shame.

[daybrown]

Part of the problem is that people are affected differentially by a host of compounds common in the modern urban environment. That's a biochemical response, and sometimes the only effective treatment is another chemical, ie, a 'drug'.

We see asthma and allergies, but nobody considers that some of the responses to exposure are not obviously physical, but subtlely, or obviously, psychological. Likewise, some can use outrageous amounts of alcohol or LSD and appear completely lucid.

The biggest problem psychiatry still has comes out of the Christian concept of free will, that we all have the same power to make choices for "good" or "evil". This ignores the retarded. Are they given a free pass to heaven? How stupid do you have to be for Jesus to take you anyway?

A field study of the Mandrill is instructive. At some point, the females decide they've had enuf of old Blue Nose's DNA, and begin running away from him. The beta males pick up on this, and begin to take him on, one at a time. At some point, the old alpha gets tired, some beta gets in a lucky shot, and then he gets the living shit beat out of him.

Couple days later, that beta now is alpha and has the Blue nose, and the old man looses his color as the testosterone drains out of his system, and from then on, he's a good boy. Likewise, in my neck of Ozark woods, we all know where the woodshed is. And our schools still have paddles hung prominently on the back wall of the office. And I remember when I found out my own son had his ass snatched up by the princple and a couple teachers for the trip to the office. The attitude adjustment was immediate, and as with so many others, fully effective.

Which is why, if you look at the school reports from these small hill towns, you see the violence rate is: *ZERO*. There are animal studies that show that the inevitable application of negative re-inforcement reduces the testosterone level. The military boot camp used similar methods to get immediate and full compliance with orders. Its been that way since the Romans. It still works.

I know the liberals get their panties in a wad about this. But do the bloodwork. The data is irrefutable; you can see the change in the hormone levels that drive behavior. I spoze you could change the level with some drugs, perhaps Ritalin. I'll be interested to see the long term effects. We already know, from history, the long term effects of the old fashioned method.

And if you read the Stoics, you find the diff with 'abuse' is that the treatment *must* be administered by someone who is in full control of his own emotional state. Fathers often are not.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

daybrown: if the data is out there on how to manipulate human beings, it is absolutely essential that we use this information wisely. We can alter any human's behaviour more than ever before. A paddle to the bottom has nothing on divalproex (a medication that I take 1 gram of daily that makes sure that the way I present myself to other people stays within a certain range of acceptable actions -- everything down to facial expression and the volume of my voice is moderated by this drug... so if I were to stop taking it, I would be insufferable), or 3 weeks in a 10x10 cell without explanation. Psychiatrists can prescribe the most powerful mind-altering drugs on the planet, and force you to take these for the rest of your life. Psychiatry changes our behaviour. There is no doubt about that. To what end?

[Faust]

what jackasses like Cory still don't see is that 'mental illness' is a purely socially constructed idea, it's not real science or objectivity. This is why psychiatry is so stupid. Ideals or standards of behaviour have nothing to do with 'normality,' they're just relative ideals that douches like Cory think they can coerce onto other people. 'Mental illness' does not exist, it is purely social, purely guided by the arbitrary whims and tastes of jackasses. It dazzles me how much we like power, and how much we lust to control other people, you see it everywhere. People just don't like nonconformists, it's sad but true. Anyone who just doesn't like the way someone is acting immediately shows it in his facial expression and his most gaudy sayings, "that guy's weirdddd, what a whacko, etc etc..."

[Cory Duchesne]

Faust, is your use of underlines intended as some sort of laxative to help me digest what you're saying?

Who wouldn't become constipated trying to digest all of that cheese.

[Ryan Rudolph]

hahaha. I still say that Faust has way too much fun on GF with the constant barrage of vulgar name calling, the excessive and redundant use of punctuation (especially exclamation marks), and his mean, but pungent abbreviations like wtf...

I think we should all pitch in for Christmas and get Faust a stress ball and a grammar handbook.

[Cory Duchesne]

I think we should all pitch in for Christmas and get Faust a stress ball and a grammar handbook.

I was thinking more like a one way ticket to some far away island with no internet access.

[Cory Duchesne]

Just joking, Faust - no hard feelings. I admire some of what you're driving at and your passion, but like I said, I don't believe we should totally turn our back on psychiatry. Some people are just incredibly mentally ill and have absolutely no control over them selves, disliking the irrational things they find themselves doing. More studies have to be done to determine why some medication succeeds at stabilizing some people, why others don't respond well, and how to eliminate dangerous side effects.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Overall, I think Faust has a common masculine fallacy, which I have been guilty of myself in the past - it involves seeing the falsity and injustice in part of something, but negating/condemning that entire thing in a very emotional manner, without being able to consider the thing as whole, to see if it may have some more positive aspects to it.

My father does this - I'll expose him to something such as how many drug companies sell people drugs that do not address the fundamental causes of their illnesses, therefore they are just band aid cures that result in many additional negative side affects, and he will absorb the idea, but then he comes to the conclusion that the entire medical profession is corrupt, a waste and should be done away with altogether.

And then I present him with all the positive aspects of the medical profession that are useful, and that should be retained, but he is reluctant in incorporating a more positive outlook on parts of the profession because it conflicts with his entire emotionally negative view. And this seems like a common masculine fallacy to me.

The key is acknowledging that to condemn something wholeheartedly with negative emotion is not seeing the entire thing at hand in an objective manner.