GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan, psychiatry does have many flaws, however. It is very difficult to see the upsides, especially if you have been exposed to it first-hand, and not simply in principle.

I know, for instance, that the prison system is essential to a functioning society. But were I reformed convict completely convinced that I had been helped by the system, if upon my release I found it nearly impossible to get or hold a job (due to police record checks, etc.), and I found it impossible to relate to practically everyone, I think it would be very hard to keep hold of my frustration. Schizophrenics suffer these problems and more, and often are exposed to even more prejudice than a criminal, and many have never once commited a crime. As difficult as it is, it's easier for the common person to understand a reformed murderer than a medicated madman.

But a madman is less of a threat than a reformed criminal. He may often be a better worker, with the exception of a few quirks which are hard to get rid of (for instance, my pulse still races when I hear the sound of static, and if someone even jokingly says that I did something because I'm crazy, I have a hard time biting my tongue). But this is not how people view lunatics. They see them as powder kegs. And I do not think that psychiatry is doing enough to combat prejudice. The focus on medication-at-all-costs forgets the fact that the medication is not actually the cure. A doctor can slow my thoughts, but it takes hard work on my part -- hard intellectual work -- merely to learn how to interpret my behaviour. It can take over a year to re-establish myself in the world after an episode.

Medication without anything else leads to suicide, or a lifetime of lethargy punctuated by smoking and obesity, yet doctors press medicine more than they press the work that is often far more necessary than the meds. Psychiatry needs an overhaul; the psychiatrist and his pills, as important as they are, should not be the center of gravity.

I'm in agreement with what you said above, Trevor.

I think one thing that has to go is the term 'Abnormal Psychology'. It should be replaced with 'Debilitative' Psychology. The word 'abnormal' can be appropriately used, but should only be used in a statistical sense. There are plenty of abnormal individuals who not only can take care of themselves, but they are sometimes pioneers, innovators and arguably geniuses. I brought this point up to my abnormal psyche prof, telling him that this really isn't so much about statistics, it's really not about who is abnormal - but rather, really, this is an issue about what we believe is valuable and what we believe is harmful.

His reply was: "you mean, valuable and harmful statistically..."

No, I mean, valuable and harmful cannot be determined via statistics.

(He was very puzzled by this point)

I continued saying, 'An individual who is statistically an abnormality can either be very valuable or very harmful, very good or very bad. Statistics can't help us determine our values. This is about creating values. Also, we need to be open minded to cases where an individual can be both very valuable and very harmful simultaneously.'

He agreed with me, a bit nervously, joking that we couldn't change the name of the field because he already printed out the syllabus! At this point I had interrupted his lecture quite a bit, so he switched gears and continued on with his lecture about the history of 'abnormal' psychology.

Categorizing all of the different notions of 'harm' we have could also be helpful. In how many different ways is the patient harmful? More questions should be: Is this individual having a difficult time functioning and surviving on a mundane level? Is the person making life superfluously stressful, physically and emotionally taxing for those around him? Is the person depressed? Does the person require special care and assistance to ensure that he does not harm himself or others?

If we answer yes to most or all of these questions, we should, rather than regard the person merely as abnormal, regard him or her as 'relatively debilitated' and in need of assistance. Simple as that really.

And from this point on, it's perfectly appropriate for psychology and psychiatry to continue mapping out significant correlations and reoccurring patterns of causation (especially on a biological level, however, environment is equally important), developing an understanding of why medications stabilize, etc.

Trevor wrote: And I do not think that psychiatry is doing enough to combat prejudice.

Do you consider the woman philosophy here to be a form of prejudice? What makes the views of women here different than the common man's views against the mentally ill?

The focus on medication-at-all-costs forgets the fact that the medication is not actually the cure. A doctor can slow my thoughts, but it takes hard work on my part -- hard intellectual work -- merely to learn how to interpret my behavior. It can take over a year to re-establish myself in the world after an episode.

I too had a bout with manic highs and low depression in my late teens and mid twenties, you know. Ended up having problems functioning at work and was advised to see a psychologist. Of course, it was suggested that I had bi-polar. From that day, I struggled quite a bit over the years to be sane. I have never taken medication, but every day I have to be extremely careful about what I allow to happen. I have to get up very early, get lots of exercise, eat very specifically and study hard, or work hard outdoors, depending on the weather. This ensures that I fall asleep. If I spend the day wallowing too much in aesthetics, inactivity and excitement, I won't be able to sleep, and this screws everything up.

My point is that I personally hold no emotional disdain against the mentally ill; however, when I take stock of my biology as a male, as well as my childhood environment, I believe that there is a lop-sidedness and extremity in terms of my inherited femininity and masculinity. In some respect, my mind, biologically, is very masculinized - maybe even somewhat autistic. In other respects, bioligocally, I believe I am feminized to an undesirable degree. There is a strange polarization. The same goes with my childhood, environmentally. I was raised by two different families practically. One was very scientific and rational, the other was extremely feminine and stupid. Most of my emotional attachment, loyalty and identity actually belonged to the later, that is until after high school; however, the former influence played a major role in shaping my mind and I now acknowledge it as a superior factor. When I reflect on the environment I came from and the genetic stock I've inherited, that I've exhibited a bi-polar trajectory is not at all surprising to me. It's perfectly congruous in regards to the forces that appear to have caused me.

But I do discriminate. I certainly do not believe my biology and upbringing were ideal. Some aspects were/are valuable. Much of it is not. My hope is that psychiatry and humanity will mature to a state where it consciously discriminates against certain biological traits as well as certain ideas and values. That being said, the difference between such discrimination and prejudice is not very clear.

Medication without anything else leads to suicide, or a lifetime of lethargy punctuated by smoking and obesity, yet doctors press medicine more than they press the work that is often far more necessary than the meds.

In my experience, this is true. I think it stems from a fear of holding parents and citizens at large responsible for striving to overcome qualities that are not consciously discriminated against, but should be.

Psychiatry needs an overhaul; the psychiatrist and his pills, as important as they are, should not be the center of gravity.

As much as we are in need of a further understanding of the biological factors that generate mental illness, this very focus I think is giving us an excuse to turn a blind eye to the importance of right environment, principles and values, which takes just as much guts.

.


Faust wrote:
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!!!

.....


Study explores manic thinking

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-ex ... 11589.html

(snip)
When people are made to think quickly, they report feeling happier as a result. They also say they are more energetic, more creative, more powerful, and more self-assured. In short, they reported a whole set of experiences associated with being "manic."
To examine this question, Princeton University psychologist Emily Pronon and Harvard colleague Daniel Wegner experimentally manipulated the pace at which participants read a series of statements.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-ex ... 11589.html


.