100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Mental Illness - myth or science? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 10/09/09 05:58 PM
|
|
SkyHook, Yes, I agree that this is a critical, and often blurred, issue. I think this is a great topic, and am displeased that I haven't had time the last week or so to join in more. I haven't read the whole thread, but from the parts I read, and without projecting claims onto you that you didn't actually make, and from what I understood of your position, I agree with your overall theme. We place a tremendous amount of trust in the mental health professionals, and are encouraged to believe that this has a solid, scientific foundation. I think its obvious that the scientific foundation is not so solid - but this doesn't necessarily detract from the value of the techniques used. Massage had benefited people for thousands of years before the science even existed, to provide even a basic scientific explanation. One of the issues you raise is that of liberty, and who decides when (and on what basis) liberty should be denied some who may be a threat to themselves and others. While I do believe that certain kinds of... can I say 'crazy'?... or "people inclined to sudden acts of violence" and such should be safely restrained, I'm not clear on the need to invoke "special discretionary powers of a medical professional". A persons actions (which includes words spoken, threats made, etc) should be enough to address this issue. And if a person can't deal with the consequences of their actions, and they are sane enough to restrain themselves, then they have the choice to simply do so. Otherwise, off to the jail or loony bin with the dangerous - who are known to be dangerous by their actions. An open question is, once a mentally unstable person has proven they are potentially dangerous based on their actions, to what extent should PsychoPriests have special powers? Or should the law not allow double standards for the insane? A crazy woman once threw a rock through my window when I was living in the ghetto, and assaulted a neighbor fifteen minutes later. Now, if one of the kids in the ghetto did that, gets caught, spends a little jail time, spends time working to pay for the widow, etc, there is a good chance the experience will cause him to reconsider his impulses in the future. But this crazy womam - I'm not sure this would apply in her case. Her mental state was abnormal, she was abnormally dangerous, and jail time mightn't help that. If we treat her exactly the same as the hypothetical bored/angry vandal, then we release her onto the street and maybe the next time the rock is aimed at someones head. See where I'm going? I dislike the idea of medical professionals having special powers to deny people liberty based on such subjective evaluations - but I also dislike that this erratic and dangerous woman was wandering the street. So let’s look at the differences between incarceration in a mental institution and incarceration in a prison – specifically, why. There is some disagreement, even at the highest levels, as to why we incarcerate people in prisons. Some say its purpose is to “get them off the streets” or to “protect society from them”. Others claim that it is to “change their behavior” or “get them to realize the consequences of their actions”. But the least common denominator is always “because they did something wrong”. Now is there any difference between that, and why we imprison people in mental institutions? We do it for all the same reasons - “get them off the streets”, “protect society from them”, “change their behavior” and “get them to realize the consequences of their actions”. Yes, it can be argued that, ostensibly, one is intended to “punish” and the other is intended to “help”. But that’s really only saying that there are different means used to accomplish the exact same result. In both cases, the ultimate purpose is to “change the person’s behavior”. So what really is the difference? I submit that there is only one difference in the justification for the imprisonment: In one case the reason for imprisonment is because they did do something wrong. In the other case the reason for imprisonment is because they might do something wrong. That, to me, is the root of the issue. From there we get into the whole issue of a highly lucrative, non-scientific, for-profit industry being given sole, autonomous authority over the decision as to who might do something wrong. As opposed to the very expensive, democratically based industry that is the prison system. And considering the statistics put forth by that highly profitable industry: 25%+ of all U.S. citizens suffer from a mental disorder, 350+ new mental disorders “discovered” in the last 60 years – an increase of over 5000% along with the fact that the group that controls how the determinations are made is the same group that profits by those determinations… Is it any wonder questions are raised? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 10/09/09 06:22 PM
|
|
I have first/second-hand experience dealing with some mental illnesses. the OP seems to have an older generational view of mental illness, from a time when most believed that it was all a matter of self-discipline. I could not disagree more, if this is what you are saying. The real reason that there are far more labeled mental illnesses now, is that it is only in the last century that scientists were even willing to admit there WAS such a thing. The guy who said they are "all invented" is prejudiced in the old way of thinking. I don't care what credentials someone places above or below their name, when they refuse to think, and refuse to alter their beliefs to fit the facts, they are fools. Long ago, it was believed that PHYSICAL illnesses were due to failures in god worship procedures. "Experts" corrected illnesses by sacrificing goats; they graduated to 'bleeding' people until they either healed on their own, or died. Finally germs were discovered, and suddenly a bunch of new diseases were "invented." There are at least two categories that mental illnesses can currently include, and they are those KNOWN to be due to physical problems (such as brain damage), and those that are not yet known to have physical components. They are both REAL. Now, as to whether EVERY person who claims mental illness as a reason for failures, crimes, or other problems in their lives, that's an entirely different question, which the OP did NOT ask. Just as there are people who PRETEND to be physically ill for personal gain, or to get out of an obligation, there are certainly people who PRETEND to have mental issues for the same reasons. Declaring PHYSICAL illnesses to be imaginary, just because SOME people fake them, is recognized as foolishness. The same is true with mental issues. 1) It may well be that there is some scientific evidence I haven’t seen that proves physical factors cause mental illness. But from what I have seen, those are just assumptions based on temporal coincidence. That is, the assumption is made that since they are present at the same time, that one causes the other. As far as “scientific proof” goes, this is the root of my disagreement. 2) Are mental illnesses real? One can call rock a “blargenfarg”. The “blargnefarg” is most definitely “real”. Anyone can see it, touch it or stub their toe on it. So yes, mental illness is real, just as “blargenfargs” are real. 3) There has yet to be (other than the one I offered) any concise differentiation made, in this thread, between a “physical” illness and a “mental” illness (other than the useless circular definitions that use “mind” in the definition of “mental”.) Which begs the question, why is there an entirely separate multi-billion dollar industry built around “mental” illness? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Skyhook. How about Epilepsy? Is that Mental Illness? I think I know what you and everyone else is chatting about here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Skyhook. How about Epilepsy? Is that Mental Illness? I think I know what you and everyone else is chatting about here. If I understand correctly, some kinds of epilepsy are believed to be caused by an observable structural irregularity in the brain tissue. That right there puts it in a different domain than (what I believe) Sky is talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Fri 10/09/09 07:17 PM
|
|
Sky wants to delete the terminology of mental illness and the stigma he sees included with it.
Most of the mentally compromised actually see hope in the diagnosis and treatment of something that has made them suffer for quite a while, usually, before they get diagnosed. Sky is utilizing the differences in the form of scientific "evidence" of said mental illness versus the medical kind as verification that it is a "made up" diagnosis. Also the spirit which will not show in either of above named scientific observations is a possible culprit of mental disorders. It doesn't hold water but that has been his premise so far. Also he has pushed limits of offensive but says it is not intentional. I think that has covered the premise so far that I have read. Now although medical illness can manifest in mental ways, I believe, they are implying that if a medical cause is verified that it cannot be considered a mental disorder so if epilepsy shows a physical verification then it is not a mental disorder. Is this an accurate assessment of the thread so far? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 10/09/09 07:30 PM
|
|
Mr. Skyhook. How about Epilepsy? Is that Mental Illness? I think I know what you and everyone else is chatting about here. If I understand correctly, some kinds of epilepsy are believed to be caused by an observable structural irregularity in the brain tissue. That right there puts it in a different domain than (what I believe) Sky is talking about.From another, more general perspective, there have been no definitions forthcoming that specify the exact differences between a physical and mental illness. (Even the DSM IV itself says that there is none.) So based on that, I would have to say "I have no idea." And from the final perspctive of the one and only definition that makes any sense to me (the DSM IV). I don't think epilepsy is listed in the DSM IV so I don't think it is considered a mental illness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 10/09/09 07:28 PM
|
|
Sky wants to delete the terminology of mental illness and the stigma he sees included with it. Well it's certainly one perspective on it. Most of the mentally compromised actually see hope in the diagnosis and treatment of something that has made them suffer for quite a while, usually, before they get diagnosed. Sky is utilizing the differences in the form of scientific "evidence" of said mental illness versus the medical kind as verification that it is a "made up" diagnosis. Also the spirit which will not show in either of above named scientific observations is a possible culprit of mental disorders. It doesn't hold water but that has been his premise so far. Also he has pushed limits of offensive but says it is not intentional. I think that has covered the premise so far that I have read. Now although medical illness can manifest in mental ways, I believe, they are implying that if a medical cause is verified that it cannot be considered a mental disorder so if epilepsy shows a physical verification then it is not a mental disorder. Is this an accurate assessment of the thread so far? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 10/14/09 07:59 PM
|
|
It’s been a while, so I went back and read over the entire thread. Well…not entirely everything. Some of the longest quotes I just skimmed through.
All in all I think it was a good thread. Many different viewpoints expressed. Some significant scientific information. And quite a few personal experiences related. Some people got a little ruffled, which is to be expected with a subject that is fundamentally subjective and so closely tied to the whole area of emotions. There is one point that I never got around to though. It helps to illustrated my views on the subjective nature of the whole of the “mental health” issue. In a speech to the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights (http://www.cchrint.org/videos/experts/schaler), Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at American Universtity, had this to say: “Mental illness refers to something a person does. Real disease refers to something a person has.
Consider this yet another way. It takes one person to have a real disease. It takes two people to have a mental illness. If you’re alone on an island, you could develop a real disease like cancer or heart disease, but you cannot develop a mental illness such as hyperactivity or schizophrenia. This is because mental illness is always diagnosed on the basis of some sort of social conflict.” |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 10/14/09 11:51 PM
|
|
It’s been a while, so I went back and read over the entire thread. Well…not entirely everything. Some of the longest quotes I just skimmed through. All in all I think it was a good thread. Many different viewpoints expressed. Some significant scientific information. And quite a few personal experiences related. Some people got a little ruffled, which is to be expected with a subject that is fundamentally subjective and so closely tied to the whole area of emotions. There is one point that I never got around to though. It helps to illustrated my views on the subjective nature of the whole of the “mental health” issue. In a speech to the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights (http://www.cchrint.org/videos/experts/schaler), Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at American Universtity, had this to say: “Mental illness refers to something a person does. Real disease refers to something a person has. Consider this yet another way. It takes one person to have a real disease. It takes two people to have a mental illness. If you’re alone on an island, you could develop a real disease like cancer or heart disease, but you cannot develop a mental illness such as hyperactivity or schizophrenia. This is because mental illness is always diagnosed on the basis of some sort of social conflict.” I'm not so sure unless you are saying that reality is purely subjective if you are the only person perceiving it. If a person is alone on an island and he hallucinates things that are not really there, it could be detrimental to his health. The only reason he would not be said to have a "mental" disease is because there is no one else there to tell him that he is hallucinating. So if this is the case, a "real" disease is also subjective. If I were there on that island and had a problem like that, I would diagnose my own 'mental disease' as not being able to think clearly in order to go about my business of basic survival. But I don't think I would care about what it was called. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me... than a frontal lobotomy."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 10/15/09 03:29 AM
|
|
It’s been a while, so I went back and read over the entire thread. Well…not entirely everything. Some of the longest quotes I just skimmed through. All in all I think it was a good thread. Many different viewpoints expressed. Some significant scientific information. And quite a few personal experiences related. Some people got a little ruffled, which is to be expected with a subject that is fundamentally subjective and so closely tied to the whole area of emotions. There is one point that I never got around to though. It helps to illustrated my views on the subjective nature of the whole of the “mental health” issue. In a speech to the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights (http://www.cchrint.org/videos/experts/schaler), Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at American Universtity, had this to say: “Mental illness refers to something a person does. Real disease refers to something a person has. Consider this yet another way. It takes one person to have a real disease. It takes two people to have a mental illness. If you’re alone on an island, you could develop a real disease like cancer or heart disease, but you cannot develop a mental illness such as hyperactivity or schizophrenia. This is because mental illness is always diagnosed on the basis of some sort of social conflict.” I'm not so sure unless you are saying that reality is purely subjective if you are the only person perceiving it. If a person is alone on an island and he hallucinates things that are not really there, it could be detrimental to his health. The only reason he would not be said to have a "mental" disease is because there is no one else there to tell him that he is hallucinating. 1) He’s alone 2) He sees things that aren’t there Now how is it determined that the things aren’t there? There must be someone else involved to make that determination, since you’ve said that he doesn’t (or can’t) make that determination by himself. And that “other” is you. You have determined that there’s nothing there. So he’s not really alone in that example. In other words, in your example, his mental health is a determined by what you say about him not what he says about himself or his environment. And that’s the “social conflict” I believe Dr. Schaler is talking about. And be sure to make the differentiation between that and someone who evaluates his own perceptions and concludes that his perceptions are inaccurate. In that case he is making his own evaluation about himself. This leads to the situation where personA goes to personB and says “I am perceiving so-and-so and I’m doing such-and-such, and I think that’s unacceptable. Now if personA is a “patient” and personB is a “psychiatrist”, here’s what happens. The psych looks into his book of behavior patterns and finds the one that matches the person’s behavior and declares that to be his problem. Say what??? Run that by one more time? The psych looks into his book of behavior patterns and finds the one that matches the person’s behavior and declares that to be his problem. Yes that’s right. The patient told the psych what his problem is, and then the psych told the patient that that’s what his problem is. How brilliant is that? Now I just want to make sure that no one confuses this with medical diseases where behavior is a symptom of the disorder. With mental illness, the behavior is the disorder. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now I just want to make sure that no one confuses this with medical diseases where behavior is a symptom of the disorder. With mental illness, the behavior is the disorder. haven't poked my head into this thread for some time but i see it has made no progress. illness, disease and disorder are synonomous in medicine. i've heard heart disease called heart disorder by the same cardiologist. i've heard mental illnes and mental disorder describe a delusion in psychiatry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 10/15/09 11:23 AM
|
|
Now I just want to make sure that no one confuses this with medical diseases where behavior is a symptom of the disorder. With mental illness, the behavior is the disorder. I believe I understand what you are saying. If I decided to do something (for what ever reason) that other people thought was "crazy" that might be called "Mental disease." Other than their opinion of my behavior, there is nothing wrong with me at all. A similar statement would be to declare that "evil" does not exist because what is "evil" is simply an opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now I just want to make sure that no one confuses this with medical diseases where behavior is a symptom of the disorder. With mental illness, the behavior is the disorder. haven't poked my head into this thread for some time but i see it has made no progress. illness, disease and disorder are synonomous in medicine. i've heard heart disease called heart disorder by the same cardiologist. i've heard mental illnes and mental disorder describe a delusion in psychiatry.And I'm really not sure what you mean by "progress". So I'd have to ask what would constitute "progress" in your view? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 10/15/09 04:11 PM
|
|
Now I just want to make sure that no one confuses this with medical diseases where behavior is a symptom of the disorder. With mental illness, the behavior is the disorder. I believe I understand what you are saying. If I decided to do something (for what ever reason) that other people thought was "crazy" that might be called "Mental disease." Other than their opinion of my behavior, there is nothing wrong with me at all.And really, one could go so far as to say that whatever is "wrong", is wrong with them, not you, since the wrongness exists in their opinion, but not in yours. A similar statement would be to declare that "evil" does not exist because what is "evil" is simply an opinion. Well, "opinions" exist, so I wouldn't state it quite that way. But I understand what you're getting at and I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mental illness is a real problem more nowadays because of many different reasons but people in general when they can put a label on there problems become victims of their illness it takes away personal responsibility would calling it mentaly challenged put some responsibility back on the individual to over come the challenge of the disorder and there are some disorders that require forced hospitlization which is a very hard thing to do to a person
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mental illness is a real problem more nowadays because of many different reasons but people in general when they can put a label on there problems become victims of their illness it takes away personal responsibility would calling it mentaly challenged put some responsibility back on the individual to over come the challenge of the disorder and there are some disorders that require forced hospitlization which is a very hard thing to do to a person "Forced hospitalization" only happens now if a person is declared to be a danger to himself or society. (It did not used to be that way. I'm glad it has changed.) "Mentally challenged" is an opinion. But the term could be interpreted as almost anything including, "stupid, retarded, disturbed, under the influence, psychotic, etc." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 10/18/09 08:29 AM
|
|
Yea, I am not cool with our (humanities) reaction to mental illness, but I do accept the reality of it.
I have met poeple who have had very challenging lives do to mental illness. I have to hope that like many illness, we can learn and help, and hopefully cure. I also think that the desire for such must come from the person effected, and not be forced. The caveat is always that we must be responsible for ourselves, and not present a danger to others, this is the social contract. I am not a big fan of the Psychiatric diagnostic manual, its not science, people vote in and vote out disorders. I am not a behavioral scientist, nor a cognitive scientists, merely an interested party so I don't really have much of an opinion beyond knowing that real science starts with understanding the anatomy, and the anatomy of the brain and how it works is long overdue in this field of medical research. From the articles I have read recently I have great hope that we are in the process of decoding the brain and its functions, and we can achieve the kind of understanding of this organ that we have of all of the other organs in the body, its just a scale of magnitude more complex, and will take a scale of effort equivalent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 10/18/09 07:17 PM
|
|
emm lag double post, but it does allow me to comment on that vid, great work being done here. I think toward the end the speakers tends toward anthropomorphizing the universe, but that is really another matter entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
