Could Mental Illness be a useful tool of the mind?

Adblock · 27-10-2005 6:35pm #1

I have recently been revaluating my understanding of mental illness.

I am now dabbling in the assumption that mental illness in some cases [i.e. schizophrenia, General Anxiety Disorder] could be the person’s way of viewing the world and not an illness as such.Now I don’t feel this applies to all mental illness, certainly not depression.

I mean for whatever reasons a person could ignore reality [or deal with it in a different way] by abstracting the mind or teaching it to overlook certain factors; we as a society define this as a mental illness.

This would happen subconsciously. I accept that mental illness is/most likely a genetic issue, but I am becoming more convinced that what I said above is true. That the mind abstracts its self away from reality because it cannot accept the way reality is constructed.

This all stems from a thought I had about Near Death Experience or Out Body Experience. Reports of people on the operating table seeing themselves and having a feeling they should return to their body. I am hitting on the theory that this is the mind seeing itself from a safe distance so as to relax the body. The mind can abstract itself away from reality to cope with life events.

Any thoughts.

nesf · 27-10-2005 7:15pm

No. I don't personally agree with the anti-psychiatry stance on this issue. Neither myself nor anyone who I know that have suffered from disruptive psychotic states due to mental illness consider them to be valid ways of viewing the world. Though, I feel that people who have never experienced prolonged states of such ever really grasp that fully tbh.

It's not an altered perspective. You simply do not grasp reality correctly. Yes you can argue that this is a constructive thing but I don't really see that as making mental illness an advantage in an area such as philosophy.

Yes, in art and creative forms of expression. But (logical) philosophy is not condusive to it in my experience.

simu · 27-10-2005 7:19pm

Moved to the newly-created psychology forum as I believe it is more suited to there!

-simu

snorlax · 27-10-2005 7:40pm

to the original poster; i have just clarified in the charter the rules about discussing mental health, so please do not post looking for cures, please go and see your GP or relevant health professional for that.

bear in mind this a psychology not a psychiatry forum so we can not help in curing or treating specific illnesses/ symptoms, to anyone else who posts here; this is to be a general discussion so no diagnosing or suggesting of treatments.

Adblock · 28-10-2005 10:17pm

nesf wrote:

No. I don't personally agree with the anti-psychiatry stance on this issue.

I accept your views, but I disagree, indeed I have never suffered from a long-term mental illness. I did however have a brief spell with GAD [well brief as in a year] and I was shocked to see how the medical profession treats these kind of disorders [although I will not discuss this as Snorlax has pointed out it is against the rules].

But yes this is somewhat an anti psychology stance, I do respect psychology as being possibly the best method of treating illness we don’t fully understand, But I also am very critical of it.

I believe psychology is a science discipline that relies more [if not unfairly] on hypothesis than any of the other sciences. I understand the reasons for this are associated with the complexity of the issues being studied and the limited way in which they can be studied.

nesf wrote:

It's not an altered perspective. You simply do not grasp reality correctly. Yes you can argue that this is a constructive thing but I don't really see that as making mental illness an advantage in an area such as philosophy.

I completely disagree with this. There is no “correct” way to grasp reality this has to be accepted [I mean diversity of culture has to be proof of this].

I understand there are illness that could limit a person’s ability to perform efficiently in modern western society. But I accept that there are a large number of people now working/depending on the modern world and I find it hard to believe that all these people are just suited to the modern world. I believe the modern world is the source of many anxieties and I don’t see these anxieties as an illness, I see them as a warning to the individual that there may be a profound need for change in that persons life. And possibly the method to change ones life is not clear/not possible which leaves one stuck with the brains alarms going off.

nesf wrote:

Yes you can argue that this is a constructive thing but I don't really see that as making mental illness an advantage in an area such as philosophy.

I do believe that people who have experienced a mental illness are effectively more aware of there existence. My basis for this is, an upset to one’s mental self can be and in my case was very frightening. I found myself in constant reevaluation of my mind’s state, trying to preemptively detect if something was wrong. This has left me with what I perceive to be a better understanding of myself and how I think.

I was wondering if anyone had experienced the same.

John · 28-10-2005 11:10pm

Adblock wrote:

I am now dabbling in the assumption that mental illness in some cases [i.e. schizophrenia, General Anxiety Disorder] could be the person’s way of viewing the world and not an illness as such.Now I don’t feel this applies to all mental illness, certainly not depression.

Mental disorders aren't a state of mind, they have biological underpinnings. Schizophrenia is a very complicated disorder. GAD and depression are more straightforward but still not fully understood. But the main point is there they are not a way of looking at the world.

This would happen subconsciously. I accept that mental illness is/most likely a genetic issue, but I am becoming more convinced that what I said above is true. That the mind abstracts its self away from reality because it cannot accept the way reality is constructed.

I can see your point but there's an overwhelming body of evidence that suggests otherwise. Some mental disorders have a genetic component but genetics only makes up a small part of the problem (for example if you're schizophrenic and you have kids then they have a 10-20% chance of developing schizophrenia). In diseases like Alzheimers there is genetic, dietary and environmental factors (each of these broad headings break down into more complicated factors).

I believe psychology is a science discipline that relies more [if not unfairly] on hypothesis than any of the other sciences. I understand the reasons for this are associated with the complexity of the issues being studied and the limited way in which they can be studied.

This is becoming less and less of a problem. Advances in technology allow us to study psychological phenomena from the molecular (actually measuring the amount of neurotransmitter) to the systemic (using fMRI to view a live human brain while it is performing a task and seeing what parts of the brain are active). These have opened up science to a whole new world where we can see how indeed a schizophrenic's brain is different to a "normal" person's brain.

I believe the modern world is the source of many anxieties and I don’t see these anxieties as an illness, I see them as a warning to the individual that there may be a profound need for change in that persons life.

Anxiety is part of anyone's life. Anywhere and at any time in history. However there are anxiety disorders where people are anxious even over the littlest things. This isn't a simple thing of them not being able to cope with modern life, it is that the processes in the brain that deal with suppressing anxiety are not working properly.

Adblock · 29-10-2005 1:40am

John2 wrote:

Mental disorders aren't a state of mind, they have biological underpinnings.

This in my opinion is not true. Depression in its mildest form can be controlled by the ”state of the mind” i.e. a depressed state induced by recurring thought’s of an event can be controlled if not corrected by forcing the mind to forget/ignore events. I’m not fully sure if I am making my point clear here. The mind can be induced into a state that can cause depression [I understand that this is not clinical depression but it can lead to clinical depression if not controlled] but the mind is capable of developing a mental disorder by induced state. There is a great example of this on the basis that depression as a state is contagious. Similar to laughter induces laughter

“Like the flu, depression is a highly contagious disorder that can be transmitted socially.”
http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=PTO-20030723-000001

John2 wrote:

Some mental disorders have a genetic component but genetics only makes up a small part of the problem (for example if you're schizophrenic and you have kids then they have a 10-20% chance of developing schizophrenia).

Yes but the question is weather it is the environment of the individual that causes genetic changes. Or are these illnesses strictly biological. The argument here would be nature vs nurture. I would also like to know here if the individual had been otherwise healthy up to his mid 20’s then was diagnosed with schizophrenia, what factors in his life could have caused such a chaotic change in the persons mental state.

John2 wrote:

Anxiety is part of anyone's life. Anywhere and at any time in history. However there are anxiety disorders where people are anxious even over the littlest things.

I accept this. There is a certain level of anxiety in everyone’s life, I would love to understand how extreme this condition can become and exactly how specific to an event/object the mind could become anxious towards.

John2 wrote:

This isn't a simple thing of them not being able to cope with modern life, it is that the processes in the brain that deal with suppressing anxiety are not working properly.

I disagree with this, it has been reported that during times of war mental illness among the population are substantially increased.
“Nearly one in five U.S. combat troops returning from war-torn Iraq suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression or other serious mental afflictions, according to new data detailing the psychic costs of the bloodiest war in a generation.”
http://www.cep79m.tv/soldiermentalillness.htm

A war environment is probably the most stress full situation in our society. I find it remarkable that so many soldiers regardless of training seem to develop a mental illness as a result of their experience. This relates back to my original topic that mental illness can at times be seen as the mind abstracting itself away from traumatic events.

For example if you were in an environment where you knew/felt there was an immediate risk of death/injury. The normal body’s response is to run “flight or fight response”. This option is not available to soldiers, as they are obliged to stay and fight. The mind is effectively split between two opposing responses.
The mind is forced to compromise, it dose this by saying yes to the logical decision to stay, but then to satisfy the primitive response to run [which cannot be ignored] it distorts reality so as to give the impression everything is fine. Otherwise in my opinion the brain could not possibly function on any level.

PS: This is just my theory from a completely independent analysis of the issue using my own knowledge. I accept this may very well be completely inaccurate but to me it seems like a logical response of an intelligent brain.

John · 29-10-2005 2:11am

Adblock wrote:

This in my opinion is not true. Depression in its mildest form can be controlled by the ”state of the mind” i.e. a depressed state induced by recurring thought’s of an event can be controlled if not corrected by forcing the mind to forget/ignore events. I’m not fully sure if I am making my point clear here. The mind can be induced into a state that can cause depression [I understand that this is not clinical depression but it can lead to clinical depression if not controlled] but the mind is capable of developing a mental disorder by induced state. There is a great example of this on the basis that depression as a state is contagious. Similar to laughter induces laughter

I get your point, it just goes against about one hundred years of solid research (Yes I know Einstein went against about 400 years of theory but that was a different situation). Depression in its mildest form is normally due to situations like bereavement, extreme stress or other similar situations. This normally resolves itself in the manner you suggest of just willing it away (although it's not as easy as it sounds). Clinical depression is when the serotonin transmission circuit in your brain (an area called the Raphe Nucleus) is not working as much as it should. Antidepressants work by boosting your serotonin levels and this leads over time to a loss of depression which would not resolve itself if left on its own. An induced mental state cannot be compared to a mental illness like this.

Yes but the question is weather it is the environment of the individual that causes genetic changes. Or are these illnesses strictly biological. The argument here would be nature vs nurture. I would also like to know here if the individual had been otherwise healthy up to his mid 20’s then was diagnosed with schizophrenia, what factors in his life could have caused such a chaotic change in the persons mental state.

OK, first up there is no such thing as nature vs nurture. No one in their right minds believes in nature being 100% responsible or that nurture is 100% responsible for anything. The nature vs nurture argument is really a hypothetical argument used to try and figure out the processes on both sides. Schizophrenia presents itself in late teens/early 20's because your genes don't just all turn on the moment you're born. The various genes involved in schizophrenia only seem to turn on during later stages of human development. Of course as I said just above that genes aren't the only causative factor in schizophrenia, drug abuse, alcholoism and head injury can all play a role.

I disagree with this, it has been reported that during times of war mental illness among the population are substantially increased.
“Nearly one in five U.S. combat troops returning from war-torn Iraq suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression or other serious mental afflictions, according to new data detailing the psychic costs of the bloodiest war in a generation.”
http://www.cep79m.tv/soldiermentalillness.htm

A war environment is probably the most stress full situation in our society. I find it remarkable that so many soldiers regardless of training seem to develop a mental illness as a result of their experience. This relates back to my original topic that mental illness can at times be seen as the mind abstracting itself away from traumatic events.

Well war is a little different to normal modern society (and it's not a trait unique to our modern society). I'm sure even the Greeks came home from Troy with post-traumatic stress disorder. The quote you give says that one in five soldiers suffer from a mental disorder when returning from war. The environment has obviously affected those prone (genetically) to these disorders or else the incidence rate would be much higher in my opinion.

Adblock · 29-10-2005 3:19am

I was going to leave my reply until the morning but you hit my most sensitive nerve with.

John2 wrote:

Clinical depression is when the serotonin transmission circuit in your brain (an area called the Raphe Nucleus) is not working as much as it should. Antidepressants work by boosting your serotonin levels and this leads over time to a loss of depression which would not resolve itself if left on its own. An induced mental state cannot be compared to a mental illness like this.

There has been millions spent on research into the cause of depression and it isn’t nearly as simple as you outlined above. Also there is much debate on the effective use of SSRI’s in treating depression.

“Recently the (FDA) acknowledged an increased suicide risk associate with children taking (SSRI) antidepressants. The mental health of our children is worse off today than it was 50 years ago. But for years the National Institute of Health (NIH) has been following a biomedical model that seeks a drug to solve every problem. It's clearly been a massive failure.”

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2004-09-22-suicide-rates-doubled-5-14.htm

[I really don’t want to go off topic here so I’m going to keep this very brief]

Basically depression as a biological reaction inside the brain has been explored excessively. I am not trying to discount the effectiveness of antidepressants. Millions upon millions are taking AD’s so I assume with that level of people there is bound to be a % at risk of disagreement. But I feel it is not my place to decide weather they are good or not. With every drug there is a potential risk. Enough said.

[I think the posts are getting to large so I will not respond to all the points you raise]

Just a final note:

John2 wrote:

Well war is a little different to normal modern society (and it's not a trait unique to our modern society). I'm sure even the Greeks came home from Troy with post-traumatic stress disorder.

I wasn’t comparing war to modern society I was showing how mental illness that *could* have been in the individual were brought to surface by the environment. *The environment could also have created the illness* but that is debatable.

I believe the structure of modern society allows for mental illness to prevail even more than it normally would.

[An interesting study would be to see it the perfect environment could be created to induce mental illness i.e. a natural basis for this would be the country side being a natural low and war a nature high. But then again this would probably depend on the individual]

John2 wrote:

The environment has obviously affected those prone (genetically) to these disorders or else the incidence rate would be much higher in my opinion.

This is not fully correct. I mean it is debatable whether the environment created the illness or whether it just brought out an illness that was already there. Your point about there being individuals more prone than others is exactly what I was saying earlier about individuals not being able to cope with modern life. Some people are better at abstracting there mind away from the current events and returning to the original mental state once the underlying problem has been avoided. I think latent inhibition and GAD are very closely linked.

snorlax · 29-10-2005 11:19am

[Adblock]

I was going to leave my reply until the morning but you hit my most sensitive nerve with.

Adblock if this is a personal issue please remember that this is a science forum and as such most people replying here will probably give you scientific answers whether they are right or wrong is either here nor there, but the likelihood is that there will be different points of view. If you feel uneasy about anything brought up please talk to someone who can help you better then anyone here. i stuck up some links in the charter that may be of some use.

my own opinion is that i often find myself disaggreeing with the biomedical view in that it often see's people from a reductionist point of view and often ignores the individual.
the most popular approach at the minute is actually the social model which means people are impowered by choice and are encouraged to make their own decisions.

John · 29-10-2005 2:08pm

Adblock wrote:

There has been millions spent on research into the cause of depression and it isn’t nearly as simple as you outlined above. Also there is much debate on the effective use of SSRI’s in treating depression.

“Recently the (FDA) acknowledged an increased suicide risk associate with children taking (SSRI) antidepressants. The mental health of our children is worse off today than it was 50 years ago. But for years the National Institute of Health (NIH) has been following a biomedical model that seeks a drug to solve every problem. It's clearly been a massive failure.”

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2004-09-22-suicide-rates-doubled-5-14.htm

I'm well aware that it's not as simple as just serotonergic transmission. The fact that it takes 2 weeks for an SSRI to have any therapeutic effect shows that it's not just serotonin. I don't know your background so I didn't want to start moving into more complicated issues in case I left anyone behind. You have to remember that we are still in the very early days of understanding how the millions of chemical interactions and the billions of connections work (there are more synapses in one brain then there are stars in the known universe).

The view now of clinical depression is that neural plasticity is reduced. Neurotrophins are chemical signals in the brain (BDNF, NGF, NT-3, etc) that tell nerves to grow and form connections. They are modulated by many processes. Depressed patients have lower levels of these chemicals but after treatment with an SSRI the levels return to a control level. This normally begins about two weeks after the start of treatment. So there's one correlation.

Exercise is known to alleviate depression (as well as improve your skill on cognitive tasks, reduce your risk of brain damage after a stroke and lower your chances of suffering from a neurodegenerative disease). It does all this by increasing the levels of neurotrophins. Combined with antidepressants it has an even higher effect on releaving depression and the levels of neurotrophins are even higher. So research has started on drugs that will target the receptors for these neurotrophins directly instead of working through a serotonin middle man. This will cut down the side effects and boost the performance in the treatment of depression.

So my point is that whilst we can be somewhat wrong in thinking what exactly is causing the disease, generally we are working in the right direction. People fail to realise how complicated the biology is in the brain, there is more than enough room to explain any psychological phenomena in my opinion once you go to the right level of detail. Who knows, some day someone could be sitting here typing how in fact neurotrophins modulate things on a quantum level and how silly we were to think that molecules could be enough.

I wasn’t comparing war to modern society I was showing how mental illness that *could* have been in the individual were brought to surface by the environment. *The environment could also have created the illness* but that is debatable.

I believe the structure of modern society allows for mental illness to prevail even more than it normally would.

Sorry, I thought you were trying to compare the two, my bad. Maybe you're right in that modern society can bring about certain psychological phenomena. I'm just thinking now about eating disorders, they are diseases which seem to only effect women of a certain age, economic status and in western societies. Of course it's not just an environmental thing as there is a genetic component to these diseases. To me it looks like certain genes have built up in this gene pool and that they have a negative effect under certain situations. Am I backing up your point now? I've lost track because you're right, the posts are huge!

snorlax · 29-10-2005 2:19pm

please keep discussion of specific treatments/ drugs to a minimum John.

from what i know from psychiatry the social environment can have as much to do in bringing on depression as the biological one

John · 29-10-2005 2:27pm

snorlax wrote:

please keep of specific treatments/ drugs to a minimum John.

from what i know from psychiatry the social environment can have as much to do in bringing on depression as the biological one

Yes but if you take out one you significantly reduce the other and in my opinion most people would be more likely to stick to a pill than a cognitive behavioural treatment (at the beginning at least) as the lack of motivation in depression is a major obstacle. Combination therapies indeed have shown the best results.

And as for discussing treatments, I am not diagnosing. I am backing up my arguments with current research. There is no way this can be miscontrued as giving medical advice.

snorlax · 29-10-2005 2:41pm

you are discussing specific treatments(specific info about SSRI's above and how long they take to effect the CNS ) and that is not allowed and i have to draw the line as we don't want people trying to cure themselves instead of seeking the help of the relevant health professional even if you don't feel what you we're giving was medical advice.
although i know you are of a neuroscience backround and your information probably is credible, discerning what is and isn't credible evidence on the internet would be very hard unless you we're a consultant psychiatrist, that which i am not and therefore i have to set controls on what is and isn't allowed to be said.
whether or not your information is credible or not, it could be construed as a specific treatment for depression by anyone reading though it especially someone in a vunerable position. imagine the side effects of the wrong dosage of drugs?

this thread has crossed to line and im not happy with it.

snorlax · 29-10-2005 7:39pm

seen as Indy seems to want to take on this on ill send it his way.

DrIndy · 29-10-2005 7:49pm

I welcome this thread as it raises a lot of issues that form the groundwork of psychiatry - do you treat the permorbid personality, the disease or the circumstances.

It also raises the issues of the intricasies that these enmesh.

Feel free to discuss this further.

snorlax · 29-10-2005 8:04pm

i will send all threads of this nature to this forum in future as i think they are probably more relevant here then in the psychology forum which is chiefly set up to look at mental illness from a psychological point of view rather then a medical one.

Pet · 30-10-2005 10:47pm

I am now dabbling in the assumption that mental illness in some cases [i.e. schizophrenia, General Anxiety Disorder] could be the person’s way of viewing the world and not an illness as such.Now I don’t feel this applies to all mental illness, certainly not depression.

Just to go back to this for a second..I agree that there's a tendency to label any mental deviation as "bad" and an "illness", and our society tends to be excessively cautious and wary of anyone who acts different to the norm. But with GAD, you're talking about an illness which is mainly biological in nature, even though it is triggered by social/psychological events. And it's an illness that people don't want or need, and affects them on a daily basis, which is why people seek help and get treated. It could be slightly useful, I agree - it would make you a lot more cautious in your daily life, but it would be more detrimental in the long run - that level of stress is just not healthy.

Also, with schizophrenia, the overwhelming paranoia and delusions interfere with a person's life in a NEGATIVE way. I agree that this country, and western society in general, has a terrible history of mistreating the mentally "ill", but severe schizophrenia is a miserable experience, and sometimes intervention is necessary. However, I do think that intervention usually happens much earlier than necessary in a lot of cases, and I don't think a person should be "committed" unless they are harmful to others.

However, mild states of schizophrenia can encourage creativity, and many artists and musicians would have been diagnosed as mentally ill if they had consulted with psychiatrists.

I think that mental illness is largely genetic, but it can lie dormant until triggered by social events. There are so many factors to take into account that I doubt we'll ever get a conclusive "it's nature" or "it's nurture".

DrIndy · 30-10-2005 11:36pm

To be clear, there is a difference in diagnosis of psychiatry between personality disorders such as schizophreniform states and schizophrenia. Psychiatric disorders are defined by being out of context with the patients sociological/psychological background (such as believing that they are cursed or voodoo in a western person is abnormal but for an african where that is part of society - it is not)

Any condition becomes a psychiatric diagnosis if the perceptions begin to disrupt someone life where they lose their job, family or friends - then intervention is appropriate. Just because someone has a paranoid or anxious trait does not mean they are schizophrenic or have GAD.

Mild cases where it encourages creativity are by default not a psychiatric illness as they do not disrupt their life. However if they are creative from the condition but are also suicidal/ non-functional in society in addition, then you are left with the quandary to treat or not to treat.

The classic example of this is mania - where ideas rush out of nowhere. Spike Milligan had Bipolar disorder and his creativity stemmed from that - however if this progresses into much more frank delusions such as discovering the secrets of God in a packet of processed cheese or you are carrying the child of God, then you have a problem that you need help with.

The decision to treat is also something which is negotiated with the patient as it is the only way to ensure that they continue to take their medications - except in cases of extreme depression or frank psychosis when temporary certification would be appropriate as they are a danger to themselves or others and cannot make a rational judgement at the time they are assessed.

What many people do not realise is that where psychiatrist intervene is in clearcut cases - and do not simply start people on tablets against their will or ignore the effect that has on their psychological well being.

The biggest problem in many ways in people with psychiatric illnesses is not the condition they have, but their coping skills to overcome it and changing the life circumstances which perpetuate the condition.

Schizophrenic people who have very supportive families and friends have a low relapse rate, but those who have poor support networks do very badly and relapse more often. There is a strong correlation between increasing relapses and psychological/coping abilities of patients and it becomes a vicious circle. Hence it is good to intervene relatively strongly early on in the process.

belgravy · 01-11-2005 10:14pm

I came to a similar conclusion, about mental "illness" being another frame for theories of thinking, but the defecits caused by mental illness can be be pretty damaging; after reading Oliver Sachs (anthropologist on mars in particular) I saw Tourettes syndrome as another way thinking; but with little or no first hand experience of Tourette's . Using someone's mental state as a "tool" is unreliable at best, as we do not understand mental illness fully yet, but an interesting idea and we as a society need to change how we treat and understand mental illness and how we deal with and percieve people who suffer from mental illness (especially in ireland) with thier own individual pathologies.

nesf · 01-11-2005 11:11pm

My apologies, I was away for the weekend

Adblock wrote:

I accept your views, but I disagree, indeed I have never suffered from a long-term mental illness. I did however have a brief spell with GAD [well brief as in a year] and I was shocked to see how the medical profession treats these kind of disorders [although I will not discuss this as Snorlax has pointed out it is against the rules].

I do know where you are coming from. But I am slow to say that the medical profession mistreats people with certain disorders. They are trying to do the best they can to help people. But you cannot directly compare it to mainstream medicine, it is a very different subject.

Adblock wrote:

But yes this is somewhat an anti psychology stance, I do respect psychology as being possibly the best method of treating illness we don’t fully understand, But I also am very critical of it.

Anti-psychology or anti-psychiatry? There is a crucial difference between the two.

Adblock wrote:

I believe psychology is a science discipline that relies more [if not unfairly] on hypothesis than any of the other sciences. I understand the reasons for this are associated with the complexity of the issues being studied and the limited way in which they can be studied.

It depends on what you consider sciences tbh. If you think of science as meaning "hard sciences" like the natural sciences then yes I agree with you. But I don't think they are comparable really. This is a very young science and technology is only catching up slowly.

Again, whether one is talking about psychology or psychiatry comes into play. Psychiatry is (afaik) more "scientific" since it is based around empirical results of treatments. Psychology has a much more difficult task as what it's trying to measure is far more difficult to quantify and observe (if not impossible to directly observe in some cases).

Adblock wrote:

I completely disagree with this. There is no “correct” way to grasp reality this has to be accepted [I mean diversity of culture has to be proof of this].

I don't think you know what I mean when I'm talking about psychotic symptoms. I'm talking about delusions and paranoia that severly inhibit a person's quality of life.

Adblock wrote:

I understand there are illness that could limit a person’s ability to perform efficiently in modern western society. But I accept that there are a large number of people now working/depending on the modern world and I find it hard to believe that all these people are just suited to the modern world. I believe the modern world is the source of many anxieties and I don’t see these anxieties as an illness, I see them as a warning to the individual that there may be a profound need for change in that persons life. And possibly the method to change ones life is not clear/not possible which leaves one stuck with the brains alarms going off.

I do appreciate what you are saying here. But you have to remember that there is more to mental illness than GAD and mild depression. As tough as these conditions are for the person who is going through them are, they are not the sum total of mental illness.

Because you've suffered from severe anxiety doesn't mean you understand what it is to suffer from severe manias or psychotic symptoms.

Adblock wrote:

I do believe that people who have experienced a mental illness are effectively more aware of there existence. My basis for this is, an upset to one’s mental self can be and in my case was very frightening. I found myself in constant reevaluation of my mind’s state, trying to preemptively detect if something was wrong. This has left me with what I perceive to be a better understanding of myself and how I think.

I was wondering if anyone had experienced the same.

I'd think that you might be a bit wiser afterwards if you make a full recovery. The problem there is the if.

nesf · 01-11-2005 11:20pm

DrIndy wrote:

The biggest problem in many ways in people with psychiatric illnesses is not the condition they have, but their coping skills to overcome it and changing the life circumstances which perpetuate the condition.

Schizophrenic people who have very supportive families and friends have a low relapse rate, but those who have poor support networks do very badly and relapse more often. There is a strong correlation between increasing relapses and psychological/coping abilities of patients and it becomes a vicious circle. Hence it is good to intervene relatively strongly early on in the process.

Extremely true points. A psychiatrist can only help a person get to a stage where they can help themselves. And vice versa. A person with a mental illness can get to a stage where they are coping very well with it but whose lives are still stongly effected negatively by it.

A question, is this thread a general discussion on mental illness now? It seems to have deviated strongly from the original discussions on perceptions of reality.

DrIndy · 02-11-2005 9:34pm

It seems to have become so! However, there are a few cobwebs to clear and I do not want to restrict the conversation in any way so long as its flowing, albeit at a mild tangent......

I'm an easy going moderator so long as the rules ain't broken or random stuff appears - its all good......

joflo · 02-11-2005 10:12pm

I have become quite saddened by the lack of general knowledge and understanding about mental health (amongst thread posters and possibly otherwise?!). The bigger issue surrounding mental health in modern society Ireland is the stigma still obviously attached to it and sufferers of any mental health problem: neurosis or psychosis!? I agree an understanding of mental health, its multifactorial aetiologies, presentation and its effect/affect on individuals is warranted to alleviate such stigma and aid early recognition of possible signs of some mental illness's, however, the bigger issue is at a more humanistic level.
As mentioned before, the causes are multifactorial......the treatment options are also multiple and can cross the biological,sociological,cognitive and behavioural boundaries. Any person with a mental health illness is at the end of the day an individual, and in modern day mental health practice that is the first thing taken into account....focussing on the person; not the mental illness and helping them in as many ways as possible to become well enough again for them to function as well as before they became unwell (in the case of nerosis) or provide them with the coping,social and educational skills, whether its in conjunction with neuroleptic medication/in patient care(always for a limited time) psychotherapeutic input and follow up once they have reached an optimum mentally healthy level for them: the individual?

John · 04-11-2005 12:32am

joflo wrote:

I have become quite saddened by the lack of general knowledge and understanding about mental health (amongst thread posters and possibly otherwise?!). The bigger issue surrounding mental health in modern society Ireland is the stigma still obviously attached to it

There's a discussion on stigma going on in the psychology forum (at least when I last checked there was).

solicitous · 06-11-2005 8:41pm

Adblock wrote:

I have recently been revaluating my understanding of mental illness.

I am now dabbling in the assumption that mental illness in some cases [i.e. schizophrenia, General Anxiety Disorder] could be the person’s way of viewing the world and not an illness as such.Now I don’t feel this applies to all mental illness, certainly not depression.

I mean for whatever reasons a person could ignore reality [or deal with it in a different way] by abstracting the mind or teaching it to overlook certain factors; we as a society define this as a mental illness.

This would happen subconsciously. I accept that mental illness is/most likely a genetic issue, but I am becoming more convinced that what I said above is true. That the mind abstracts its self away from reality because it cannot accept the way reality is constructed.

This all stems from a thought I had about Near Death Experience or Out Body Experience. Reports of people on the operating table seeing themselves and having a feeling they should return to their body. I am hitting on the theory that this is the mind seeing itself from a safe distance so as to relax the body. The mind can abstract itself away from reality to cope with life events.

Any thoughts.

So you wouldnt be inclined to believe that it these disorders are a result of a chemical imbalance in the brain, genetics and post traumatic experiences dont have a part to play? taking panic disorder for example, if this is a 'learned' behaviour, there is no doubt we 'learn' to become afraid of panic attacks,From this fear, the multitude of fears grow. Each feeding on each other and impacting severely on daily life. This screams chemical imbalance to me. So I dont think i'd go taking the depressed, and PD sufferers off their meds just yet..
And i can see where you are coming from with it as for PTSD sufferers
experience:

A subjective sense of numbing, detachment or absence of emotional responsiveness.
A sense of being in a daze
Derealisation
Depersonalisation
Dissociative amnesia. the inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma
Marked symptoms of anxiety
Difficulty sleeping
Irritability
Poor concentration
Hyper vigilance
Exaggerated startle response

Ive no doubt that your theory has already been investigated though.

solicitous · 06-11-2005 10:08pm

Well here is a real life example for you.
I have been treated for panic attacks since last October, to cut it all short i was kicked off by PTS. At first, like most sufferers; i thought i was having a heart attack. What baffled me was I was waking up from sleep with the attacks. It didnt make sense to me why it was happening to me.
Ive gone through 10yrs of being completely unsettled. A turbulant relationship, 2 c/sections etc. the 'event' that was traumatising to me, saw the end to my relationship - but i was left with 'mental scarring'.
When stress builds over time, which i believe causes the onset of chemical changes in the brain, something eventually snaps, and before you know it your body is giving you a wake-up call like PD.
This is why I believe its chemical changes within the brain/trauma related.
Studying psychology, has helped me to understand the condition, and learned to deal with it. By de-stressing my life, i have changed that - and havent seen an attack now for some time.

Could Mental Illness be a useful tool of the mind?

Comments