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:
What isn't socially constructed? Are you saying that we shouldn't have ideals?Faust wrote:no it's not you belligerant jackass. You're a fucktard for talking about "distinctly disorderly behaviour" because it's purely SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED.Cory wrote: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.
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?
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.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.
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.
I agree that the average aren't very desirable in the big picture.And in this Collective age, the statistical normis regarded as the 'best' when really it's the average.
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.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.
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?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.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.
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.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!!!!
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.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.
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.Some of these people THINK they need "professional" help because they're credulous.
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.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.
And you want to preserve this sort of life? You're worse than Mother Teresa. The human condition should be overcome, not preserved.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.
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.what the fuck is a "bizarre" position???? Why do you think it is "abnormal" because thousands of other people don't do it???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.
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.Hallucinations can sometimes be lied about, we're not sure if they're existing for the person.
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.Not to mention there's thousands of "regular" people who see apparations all the fucking time.
Oh man, what drivel.People think it's fine to talk to God, but a hallucination if God talks to them.
Ever hear of the man who mistook his wife for a hat? Message from God, right?
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.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.
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.and HOW THE FUCK IS THAT RELATED TO "split-mind" or "disordered thinking" or "paranoia" or "depression" or "psychoses" etc etc..In a person with Catatonic Schizophrenia, it looks like 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.except the other 100 quack definitions HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.Yes, well catatonic schizophrenia is much more extreme than this.
Also, each category of the disorder can either be type 1 or type 2.
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.WHAT? their "normal behaviour" has become "amplified and exaggerated" what??? wweirdddd.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.
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.
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.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.
Which all stem from a relatively poor quality mind operating at a level I consider unideal."loss of sense of self-control" is also VERY VAGUE, and there's plenty of explanations, ranging from financial, existential, relationship, attachment problems.
Do you think it's intentionally designed to do such a thing?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.
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.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.
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.
Can mean anything? Please read again. Bleuler emphasized what he meant by his usage of the term. It's not illogical.his definition is also vague and can mean anything, "split-apart"???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.
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.this definition HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH motor disruptions, catatonic states
Ok, so you assent to ideas of inferior, normal and superior.I base inferiority/superior on the quality of thinking and the structure of society that races have had.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?
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.Although this is subjective, looking at Truth and philosophy it becomes much more objective since some specific races have been more philosophical than others.
Your outlook is very contradictory, Faust. Schizophrenic, really.
Ok fine. So the future of psychiatry should be prioritized around helping to fix and/or weed out undesirable levels of functioning.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.
Well there you go, they are able to maintain their independence. So what's your point?hallucinations occur to many "regular" people with no problems as well.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.
[laughs] done on purpose....funny.Getting their limbs locked, and if it really is not done on purpose
What are you a medieval Galen-inspired dualist? The mind is not some divided thing separate from physiology. It is physiological.has nothing to do with psychiatry or with the 'psyche' of the mind, it may be entirely physiological.
depression, manic highs, paranoia, you think these are caused by some entity that exist separately from physiology?"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.
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.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.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.
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.hmm this fortunately REFUTES your genetic hypothesis of "disorders."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.
Be careful not to jump so hastily to conclusions.So much for gene therapy.
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.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.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?
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.freewill is an illusion. Wtf are you talking about order and regularity?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.
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.
Yes, sometimes being different is very good, and sometimes it's very bad.it's called being different.