Caffeine withdrawal is now a mental disorder

clairefontaine

So the dsm v is out. The DSM is an extensive manual of mental disorders used by the American psych industry. It's amazing to think someone actually sat down and wrote this book, listing every human imperfection and vulnerability imaginable and possibly even imagined.

Now we have "caffeine withdrawal" added to the lists of mental disorders. Well I never...

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/05/31/caffeine-withdrawal-is-now-a-mental-disorder/

With every passing day I am more and more convinced there are people in white coats sitting in a boardroom somewhere trying to convince the world we are all a bunch of cripples moving towards more and more dependency and less and less moral accountability.

This perfectionism driven in the dsm is a pathology in itself, and these people are the only ones who can lock you up without a trial.

bluefinger

Allen frances, lead editor of dsm four declared defining mental illness as Bullchit in an article in wired in 2010. Some say it was sour grapes. I think he was close to the mark.

Czarcasm

More and more health professionals and those involved in the industry are moving away from using the DSM as a reference for mental disorders, simply because it's become more about pleasing people and pandering to various sensitivities rather than providing any meaningful, clinical and objective definitions and criteria for diagnosis of mental disorders.


The "Criticism" section of the DSM Wikipedia article make for somewhat interesting reading.

usersame

Man, caffeine withdrawal is a nightmare

I'm probably an extreme case, I started drinking white coffee when I was about 10

If I forget to have tea/coffee in the morning I will have a splitting headache by about 3pm

I tried to go cold turkey, I lasted 3 days, was very irritable, depressed mood and had a migraine, nothing OTC could hit the pain so I just drank a can of coke and everything was perfect in about 30 minutes

When I try to give up again I'll have to take a week off work. I gave up cigarettes and there's no comparison, withdrawing off cigarettes isn't actually painful and debilitating like caffeine withdrawal is

DK man

I remember reading in one of those learned tomes that biting ones nails was some sort of pathology!

There are many vested interests and the more madness the more mula for some

KyussBishop

Psychology is still in that awkward period between being a social science vs a real science, with neuroscience slowly edging its way towards bridging the gap - some parts of psychology is in fact more related to regulating what is acceptable in society, rather than real mental disorders - for example, homosexuality was a mental illness for a very long time, female 'hysteria' was also something that used to be classed as a mental illness, and (a controversial one to contrast with these preceding ones) pedophilia is classed as a mental disorder, but that is also more about (justifiably in this case) regulating society.

There has been a lot of debate about taking the whole section of 'paraphilia's out of the DSM altogether, but it's a pretty politically controversial topic.

clairefontaine

KyussBishop wrote: »

Psychology is still in that awkward period between being a social science vs a real science, with neuroscience slowly edging its way towards bridging the gap - some parts of psychology is in fact more related to regulating what is acceptable in society, rather than real mental disorders - for example, homosexuality was a mental illness for a very long time, female 'hysteria' was also something that used to be classed as a mental illness, and (a controversial one to contrast with these preceding ones) pedophilia is classed as a mental disorder, but that is also more about (justifiably in this case) regulating society.

There has been a lot of debate about taking the whole section of 'paraphilia's out of the DSM altogether, but it's a pretty politically controversial topic.

Psychology is in no way a science. It is so intepretive it is very much an art but trots on the science bandwagon to gain legitimacy, research money, and authority. (I posted this article in US politics, http://nypost.com/2013/11/07/psychologist-called-dad-unfit-parent-for-refusing-son-mcdonalds-suit/)

And there is ZERO accountability for their screw ups.

wretcheddomain

usersame wrote: »

Man, caffeine withdrawal is a nightmare

I'm probably an extreme case, I started drinking white coffee when I was about 10

If I forget to have tea/coffee in the morning I will have a splitting headache by about 3pm

I tried to go cold turkey, I lasted 3 days, was very irritable, depressed mood and had a migraine, nothing OTC could hit the pain so I just drank a can of coke and everything was perfect in about 30 minutes

When I try to give up again I'll have to take a week off work. I gave up cigarettes and there's no comparison, withdrawing off cigarettes isn't actually painful and debilitating like caffeine withdrawal is

But it's not a mental disorder. It's called withdrawal effects for a reason.

Imagine not having a cup of coffee, experiencing a headache, and then admitting "Sheesh, I'm suffering from a mental disorder"; it's bonkers and its the consequence of appeasing sensitivities and holding in high esteem that of pseudoscientists.

clairefontaine

wretcheddomain wrote: »

But it's not a mental disorder. It's called withdrawal effects for a reason.

Imagine not having a cup of coffee, experiencing a headache, and then admitting "Sheesh, I'm suffering from a mental disorder"; it's bonkers and its the consequence of appeasing sensitivities and holding in high esteem that of pseudoscientists.

Wouldn't NOT having withdrawal symptoms to an addictive substance be more of a disorder?

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

After you have a baby, you have no sleep for months, can barely have time to eat, get no head space. Of course your ****ing depressed. It would be weird if you weren't.

wretcheddomain

clairefontaine wrote: »

Wouldn't NOT having withdrawal symptoms to an addictive substance be more of a disorder?

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

After you have a baby, you have no sleep for months, can barely have time to eat, get no head space. Of course your ****ing depressed. It would be weird if you weren't.

Precisely, the abnormality is if you wouldn't suffer from such effects given particular circumstances. Morphing this into a 'disorder' is bordering on pathetic.

poundapunnet

clairefontaine wrote: »

Wouldn't NOT having withdrawal symptoms to an addictive substance be more of a disorder?

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

After you have a baby, you have no sleep for months, can barely have time to eat, get no head space. Of course your ****ing depressed. It would be weird if you weren't.

Agreed, I think the danger is that also that if you expand the categories and overmedicalise things then the genuine cases (psychotic post partum depression for example) are kind of lumped in with normal human reactions and their seriousness is diluted a bit. I used to spend a fair bit of time on eating disorder forums in my teens and the DSM would be invoked like the Bible in countless "I'm more anorexic than you" pissing contests, I'm nearly tempted to go and have a look at a few of them now if the new one is out.

I'd say there's two reasons for what's going on: one is that people want a sick-note for being an asshole, not to put too fine a point on it; and another is that there's a lot of money to be made out of people who are defined as sick. I read an article in I think the London Review of Books a while ago about how much the definition of Bipolar Disorder has been changed, which has upped pharmaceutical companies profits a lot. Here's the first quarter of it, can't find a free full version unfortunately, highly recommend it if anyone's subscribed

clairefontaine

poundapunnet wrote: »

Agreed, I think the danger is that also that if you expand the categories and overmedicalise things then the genuine cases (psychotic post partum depression for example) are kind of lumped in with normal human reactions and their seriousness is diluted a bit. I used to spend a fair bit of time on eating disorder forums in my teens and the DSM would be invoked like the Bible in countless "I'm more anorexic than you" pissing contests, I'm nearly tempted to go and have a look at a few of them now if the new one is out.

I'd say there's two reasons for what's going on: one is that people want a sick-note for being an asshole, not to put too fine a point on it; and another is that there's a lot of money to be made out of people who are defined as sick. I read an article in I think the London Review of Books a while ago about how much the definition of Bipolar Disorder has been changed, which has upped pharmaceutical companies profits a lot. Here's the first quarter of it, can't find a free full version unfortunately, highly recommend it if anyone's subscribed

Yeah, I can definitely see that.

I also think, especially with childhood diagnosis [like the astronomical rise in boys' autism] is that when the system can't accommodate what they perceive to be your eccentricities, then they slap a label on, and then of course parents want the diagnosis in order to get some compassion, which should have been there in the first place, as in why do you need a formal diagnosis to get some compassion. No I don't have sensory processing disorder, that sweater is just too damned rough and itchy. So why do I need a note from a psych to be exempt from the uniform, why cant you just accept that it's just too damned itchy for me and it's giving me a rash? No, someone has to spend E500 to get a note from a psych.

And bright boys, watch out, the autism boogie man sure is out to get you!

They have also found with all their so called science that autism for girls is grossly under-diagnosed, and often was misdiagnosed as borderline, and again who only knows how many kids, people were laden up on pharma drugs, even locked up because this self assessed so called science, got their interpretations arsed ways?

Who exactly are the insane here?

MaxWig

clairefontaine wrote: »

Psychology is in no way a science. It is so intepretive it is very much an art but trots on the science bandwagon to gain legitimacy, research money, and authority. (I posted this article in US politics, http://nypost.com/2013/11/07/psychologist-called-dad-unfit-parent-for-refusing-son-mcdonalds-suit/)

And there is ZERO accountability for their screw ups.

I think your heart is in the right place Clairefontaine, but Psychology is a science.

That is not contested. Nor should it be. Any contention to the opposite is silly and unfounded.

The DSM has courted controversy for a long time.

Some (the large majority) of the disorders covered are silly, and as a result, dangerous.

But claiming that psychology is not a science ???????

I'm not sure what 'interpretation' has to do labelling something a non-science btw.

Surely interpretation what science does.

newmug

My sister-in-law has been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder. While I agree she is not the full schilling, there is no way she has bi-polar. I know 2 other people who have been diagnosed with it, both of whom exhibit similar behavioural oddities (to each other), but the SIL just needs a kick in the arse. She uses the bi-polar as an excuse for everything. Cant wait till the day they change her diagnoses.

clairefontaine

MaxWig wrote: »

I think your heart is in the right place Clairefontaine, but Psychology is a science.

That is not contested. Nor should it be. Any contention to the opposite is silly and unfounded.

The DSM has courted controversy for a long time.

Some (the large majority) of the disorders covered are silly, and as a result, dangerous.

But claiming that psychology is not a science ???????

I'm not sure what 'interpretation' has to do labelling something a non-science btw.

Surely interpretation what science does.

How can it possibly be a science, a species which observes itself? It loses objectivity right there.

How can ou read anything by Freud or Jung or anything that follows and conclude yes this is a science?

Ok it's a science in the same way political science is a science, which is to say, not really.

riffmongous

clairefontaine wrote: »

How can it possibly be a science, a species which observes itself? It loses objectivity right there.

How can ou read anything by Freud or Jung or anything that follows and conclude yes this is a science?

Ok it's a science in the same way political science is a science, which is to say, not really.

I knew people who studied psychology through science at Maynooth and that is not what they studied.

wretcheddomain

clairefontaine wrote: »

How can it possibly be a science, a species which observes itself? It loses objectivity right there.

How can ou read anything by Freud or Jung or anything that follows and conclude yes this is a science?

Ok it's a science in the same way political science is a science, which is to say, not really.

Unfortunately, I can't agree with you on this one.

Freud and Jung are mostly theorists and nobody accepts their analysis as gospel precisely because many of their assertions have, or cannot, be shown to exist objectively.

However, theorists are only a very small percentage of the field of psychology. It would be equivalent to dismissing physics because of the previous theories by physicists.

Many experiments can and have been held under the umbrella of psychology. These controlled experiments help to gain further insight into the psychology of individuals and groups. So while reflecting on theories, such as Freud, may not produce scientifically objective facts, there are many other areas of psychology which do engage in controlled experimentation to yield conclusive behavioural patterns of humans.

clairefontaine

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Unfortunately, I can't agree with you on this one.

Freud and Jung are mostly theorists and nobody accepts their analysis as gospel precisely because many of their assertions have, or cannot, be shown to exist objectively.

However, theorists are only a very small percentage of the field of psychology. It would be equivalent to dismissing physics because of the previous theories by physicists.

Many experiments can and have been held under the umbrella of psychology. These controlled experiments help to gain further insight into the psychology of individuals and groups. So while reflecting on theories, such as Freud, may not produce scientifically objective facts, there are many other areas of psychology which do engage in controlled experimentation to yield conclusive behavioural patterns of humans.

Freud and Jung are a distraction from the bigger topic at hand.

The problem is labelling. Slapping a label on a person at a young age and then they are stuck with it for life, and how this label shifts expectations of behavior.

Just this morning at drop off I saw a young boy, probably around 8 years old, lying face down in the middle of the hallway. I informed the front desk there is a child lying face down in the middle of the floor where he could get stepped on or someone could trip on him.

Their response was the guidance counsellor told them to ignore him. Apparently some learning or behavioral disability and not to reward him with attention. Well there are two things at play here. One is if he is in the middle of the floor, he is a danger to himself and to other kids. Secondly, if he is allowed to just lie in the middle of the floor face down, the school is signalling to other children this is acceptable behavior. Third thing is, leaving him lying on the floor face down is a demonstration of zero empathy from the surrounding educators.

Now in my local primary there are approximately four boys per classroom [of about 22 kids] with so called learning and behavioral disabilities. There is something very wrong about that. And when one of them spits, pushes, kicks, other people are expected to just suck it up because of their disability. That is the problem with loosening of moral accountability.

Then you have cases like these, of gifted children getting corralled into the problem child corner.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/schools-put-genius-child-in-special-ed-tell-mom-he-cant-learn-now-free-and-hes-on-track-to-win-a-nobel-prize/#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_tot=1&at_ab=per-4&at_pos=0

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/21/thats_not_autism_its_simply_a_brainy_introverted_boy/

wretcheddomain

I would agree with everything you've said but that doesn't undermine psychology as a legitimate scientific enterprise.

I abhor labels. I believe them to be self-fulfilling prophecies. If you tell a person they have depression, this is reinforced over and over throughout the day to day routine of this person. This individual will then be told to take medication which reinforces they have a 'problem'. This can be manipulated by the person very well as they can control situations based on a) the expectations of others and b) the capacity to change other peoples behaviour in direct response to their own. In addition, it could exacerbate the need for attention by giving them legitimate means to seek this out. Factoring all this in, the very fact you tell somebody they have a problem is what changes them, rather than what they went into the doctor originally for.

This must be sharply divorced from the extreme cases which have legitimate needs for medication at appropriate doses.

clairefontaine

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I would agree with everything you've said but that doesn't undermine psychology as a legitimate scientific enterprise.

I abhor labels. I believe them to be self-fulfilling prophecies. If you tell a person they have depression, this is reinforced over and over throughout the day to day routine of this person. This individual will then be told to take medication which reinforces they have a 'problem'. This can be manipulated by the person very well as they can control situations based on a) the expectations of others and b) the capacity to change other peoples behaviour in direct response to their own. In addition, it could exacerbate the need for attention by giving them legitimate means to seek this out. Factoring all this in, the very fact you tell somebody they have a problem is what changes them, rather than what they went into the doctor originally for.

This must be sharply divorced from the extreme cases which have legitimate needs for medication at appropriate doses.

I still cannot see it as a science. Overall it is still an experiment and that is the extent of its scientific nature. I cannot see how a species can observe itself with any objectivity through repetitieve patterns to make predictable outcomes.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

Seriously, how can a field which calls caffiene withdrawal a mental illness be taken seriously as a science?

uberalles

Its only when you give up coffee that you see all the coffee advertising everywhere.

Its everywhere.

Very addictive stuff

Runs off to boil kettle.

MaxWig

clairefontaine wrote: »

I still cannot see it as a science. Overall it is still an experiment and that is the extent of its scientific nature. I cannot see how a species can observe itself with any objectivity through repetitieve patterns to make predictable outcomes.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

Seriously, how can a field which calls caffiene withdrawal a mental illness be taken seriously as a science?

I don't mean to be pedantic - but it is referred to as a disorder. A temporary disorder. Whether you object or not to this classification, grouping together the symptoms of caffeine withdrawal for the purposes of identification can only be useful at some point. Even if that is to rule it out as a cause of mania and/or anxiety etc..

wretcheddomain

clairefontaine wrote: »

I still cannot see it as a science. Overall it is still an experiment and that is the extent of its scientific nature. I cannot see how a species can observe itself with any objectivity through repetitieve patterns to make predictable outcomes.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

Seriously, how can a field which calls caffiene withdrawal a mental illness be taken seriously as a science?

First of all, you have to stop taking the extremes of the subject as representative of the science of the subject.

We all know of quack scientists who use the scientific method to prove their own mad conclusions. The same is no less true of psychology.

If you have adequate controls then of course you can analyse the behaviour of others - it has already been done. Observing the psychology of humans is no different to observing the patterns of behaviour of apes - as long as we have appropriate methods, observations and controls, then the scientific method can be applied, regardless of what mad conclusions some self-interested psychiatrists arrive at.

clairefontaine

wretcheddomain wrote: »

First of all, you have to stop taking the extremes of the subject as representative of the science of the subject.

We all know of quack scientists who use the scientific method to prove their own mad conclusions. The same is no less true of psychology.

If you have adequate controls then of course you can analyse the behaviour of others - it has already been done. Observing the psychology of humans is no different to observing the patterns of behaviour of apes - as long as we have appropriate methods, observations and controls, then the scientific method can be applied, regardless of what mad conclusions some self-interested psychiatrists arrive at.

If the DSM is the referring authority then it seems this so called science is based on a fantasy of the perfected self, and that research and practise of this so called medicine is to demand that populations conform to the systems in place for this perfected self.

MaxWig

clairefontaine wrote: »

If the DSM is the referring authority then it seems this so called science is based on a fantasy of the perfected self, and that research and practise of this so called medicine is to demand that populations conform to the systems in place for this perfected self.

It's interesting you mentioned medicine.

I see no reason you can't apply that logic to medicine also.

It is based on the fallacy of the perfected self/body also.
I suppose doctors are quacks too, in the sense that by suggesting you stop smoking and eating ham-burgers, they are perpetuating the myth that we might live forever.

Nobody I know does not look with a very skeptical eye upon the proliferation of classifications in the DSM. That is an understatement.

However you seem to be saying nothing more than 'You can't see the mind, so it doesn't exist. Therefore any attempt to analyse or study it is nonsense'.

Within the DSM there are pretty ridiculous classifications, that one would be hard-pressed to consider.

In there too however are some of the most baffling, debilitating, cruel and vicious disorders known to humanity. The sciences you approve of have nothing to say about them because they can't measure/read/see/x-ray/scan them.

That doesn't mean they can't be tackled