"What's normal? What's mental illness?"

Labarbapostiza

dar100 wrote: »

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosalindadams/how-a-6-year-old-got-locked-on-a-psych-ward?utm_term=.uuWx3M81v#.jxOeVkX75

Not sure of the reliability of this, but if accurate it's very worrying indeed

It's likely true. Most if not all American states have laws that allow the involuntary commitment of children. All kinds of things happen and on a very large scale. Parents can and do have their teenagers committed because they believe their teenagers to be gay. And because they're minors and because of the power of religion in America, they can find themselves in therapies that involve a lot of Jesus.

In some instances, if committed as minors, they can be held well into their twenties. I've heard stories of parents having their children committed just before their 18th birthdays. Police like SWAT teams turning up, putting them in restraints and carting them off to a facility, for absolute bogus but deeply traumatising treatment.

JuliusCaesar

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

It's likely true. Most if not all American states have laws that allow the involuntary commitment of children. All kinds of things happen and on a very large scale. Parents can and do have their teenagers committed because they believe their teenagers to be gay. And because they're minors and because of the power of religion in America, they can find themselves in therapies that involve a lot of Jesus.

In some instances, if committed as minors, they can be held well into their twenties. I've heard stories of parents having their children committed just before their 18th birthdays. Police like SWAT teams turning up, putting them in restraints and carting them off to a facility, for absolute bogus but deeply traumatising treatment.

Bloody hell. Literally.

oneilla

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Okay...No

An x-ray is relatively straightforward technology, an encephalogram is not. X-rays have been around for a long time. So for a long time you could x-ray a body and see a broken bone. But if you x-ray'd a schizophrenics brain it would appear to be no different than a non-schizoid brain. And this absence of evidence, was taken by many to mean evidence of absence, and not maybe the use of an inadequate and inappropriate tool for the job.

Urine tests can tell you a lot about the kidney, but they can't see broken bones. It would be absurd to tell a patient that their urine shows them to be perfectly health, and the terrible pain they feel in their arm is just something in their imagination, that they imagine their arm to be broken. But this kind of absurdity is rampant when it comes to mental health.

Encephalography is still a developing field. Getting computer technology to the point where you can actually see the physiology of psychiatric conditions is only just about happening now. And as of the moment there isn't enough data to determine the "statistical" brain (that is not enough to model what would be the functioning of a "normal" brain..).



What's going on here is something technically referred to as Theory of Mind.

Theory of mind (often abbreviated ToM) is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.

To give an example. Dogs have Theory of Mind. You meet a dog for the first time. They look at you and approach you in a friendly and curious manner. The dog has a Theory of your mind. In their theory of what your mind is thinking, they do not automatically assume you have the intent to harm them, and they do not automatically assume they completely know your mind; but they are curious and not threatened by the fact your mind is different from theirs. They may assume you're more likely to be a potential friend than a potential enemy.

But not all dogs are alike.

There can be another dog you approach. And they can have a different Theory of your Mind. In their theory, you are a potential threat. They assume the worst. Though with no concrete evidence or provocation, they theorise that you have the intent to harm them, so they bark and bite.

I've been bitten by a lot of dogs.

I've stayed away from responding on this thread, because it was very difficult to control my anger and not let rip.

I've been bitten by dogs in the work place. I've been interviewed for jobs by dogs.

I've been bitten so many times by dogs, it's changed how I feel about dogs in general. And by far the worst dogs are the ones who rigidly believe the pathology is in the people they bite, and they are in fact "normal" dogs.

People ought to let rip on this topic imo. This being a psychology forum I'd expect some dissenting views. I've spoken to psychologists who avowedly take the position not to use the term mental illness. Bit risky if you want to work in the field of clinical and counselling in the public health system perhaps as psychiatrists are King. Alas I digress.

If - and in my skeptical view it's likely a big if - a physical basis in the brain for mental ilness can be found, one that can be tested, verified and/or proven false then we're in the odd position of saying "well, the tests show you're not depressed/manic/schizophrenic" when the patient, client (or whatever preferred term is used) might disagree. If we use the model of distress one could perhaps call it emotional pain - it'd be an appalling vista for a doctor to tell a patient that their physical pain isn't real for the doctor cannot feel or test their pain, only evaluate it with the 1-10 scale.

I might have come across misunderstood on the fractured tibia analogy. It's just that I've seen claims elsewhere that "mental health" is just the same as a broken leg, diabetes, heart disease ie. an enduring physical illness or some ailment of some sort where one cannot overcome without diagnosis and treatment - and that just seems wrong to me. When discussing health we tend to defer to medical science with regards to diagnostics, treatments etc. (and quite rightly - I don't want herbal remedies and snake oil for my heart, lung, kidney problems). The branch of medical science which deals with mental health views your thoughts literally as symptoms of an (unprovable) quasi- physical disease.

I agree with your dog biting analogy - I've met dogs who were fine and dogs who would growl, bark and attack no matter what. Similar to viewing what is "normal" or "mentally healthy", it seems quite subjective.

I am vaguely familiar with CTE. Neuroscience has a ways to go but the more advances in studying the brain the better. Ask a psychiatrist to explain the brain/mind and you'll get evasive nonsense (if you're lucky!) . This Guardian science podcast on consciousness I've often found interesting and worth revisiting

The Black Oil

Fridge magnet time. The absence of illness is not the same as the presence of wellness.*

*I don't mean the wishy washy weekend diploma variety.

Freedive Ireland

oneilla wrote: »

If - and in my skeptical view it's likely a big if - a physical basis in the brain for mental ilness can be found, one that can be tested, verified and/or proven false then we're in the odd position of saying "well, the tests show you're not depressed/manic/schizophrenic" when the patient, client (or whatever preferred term is used) might disagree. If we use the model of distress one could perhaps call it emotional pain - it'd be an appalling vista for a doctor to tell a patient that their physical pain isn't real for the doctor cannot feel or test their pain, only evaluate it with the 1-10 scale.

I am vaguely familiar with CTE. Neuroscience has a ways to go but the more advances in studying the brain the better. Ask a psychiatrist to explain the brain/mind and you'll get evasive nonsense (if you're lucky!) . This Guardian science podcast on consciousness I've often found interesting and worth revisiting

I don't think it's in any doubt that physical changes in the brain can be tested and verified but we'd still have to be open to the idea that a problem exists despite no physical evidence to show it.

This guy has been doing some interesting stuff. EMDR Bessel van der Kolk. There is a also a good podcast of him here the Onbeing podcasts are usually worthwhile especially if traveling/driving. Just interesting people.

The Black Oil

Bit tired of the word narcissism being thrown around.

https://twitter.com/LettersOfNote/status/831906394647433217

https://twitter.com/AllenFrancesMD/status/811038227595280384

Wanderer78

The Black Oil wrote:

Bit tired of the word narcissism being thrown around.

I actually think he maybe a sociopath and may also be slightly autistic. What do people think here?

JuliusCaesar

Well, I never come to conclusions about public figures because I haven't actually assessed them and may not be in possession of all relevant information. Plus, it's unethical to be guessing the state of mind of a public figure from afar.

However, as Allen Frances says, it is possible to make POLITICAL evaluations of people. In which case I take off my psychologist hat, put on my concerned citizen hat, and say: yes, he is a self-centred, self-serving, egotistical bigot who doesn't give a fcuk about what damage he does to anybody else, and that includes the whole of the USA (as he seems to be going around setting off diplomatic bombs left right and centre at the moment).

But that's a bit off-topic for the Psychology Forum, isn't it? Which way to Politics?

Labarbapostiza

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Well, I never come to conclusions about public figures because I haven't actually assessed them and may not be in possession of all relevant information. Plus, it's unethical to be guessing the state of mind of a public figure from afar.

I think the way Allen Frances is behaving is an indication of NPD. His claims are a little grandiose and proprietary, as if NPD is his personal property. And there's been claims he's exaggerating his role in the inclusion of NPD in the DSM.

NPD is fashionable in pop culture right now, so that's pop diagnosis he's going to get, it this was the 90s they'd be saying he''s bi-polar.

At this stage I believe we've spent enough time with the client know there's something seriously wrong. I believe he has severely disabling Borderline Personality Disorder. His manipulations are chaotic, he also has a problem with language, which indicated an impaired access to higher cognitive functions. That's not a fancy way of saying he's stupid, when BPDs go into their manipulation mode that drives everyone crazy, their higher cognitive shuts down, they appear to be thinking, they even speak, but it's more of a stress response. If you ever get the time, watch bits of the Jodie Arias murder trial. Arias was diagnosed as BPD as a teenager. Under cross examination Arias keeps saying really odd and infuriating things. Her psychiatrists testimony is really interesting too. BPDs can appear manipulative, but it's a chaotic.

I've got some interest health facts on Clinton too, which may have led to her losing the election. Much more clear cut because they come from the health report she released. There is a chance Donald Trump is completely sane...but it's probably a very slim chance.