Nutcases and stigmatisation - Page 5

MNBrant · 23rd January 2013, 08:48 PM

Looks like he is into drugs and doing readings on fringe subjects. I want to know some of the titles. They look like fun. That doesnt meet the definition of mental illness though. I have met some of these types at Nami meetings though. They are not told to leave but really don't fit in.

Looking at some of his posts he is into some fringe readings on Quantum Physics. I met a schizophrenic at a Nami meeting who was reading a small thin book on QED for light reading. I posted it here. I guess its a rather respected theory. Here's the post if you want it Jonesboy.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=229488

Jonesboy · 24th January 2013, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

You miss the point by a mile. It was stated that you have to have a mental illness in order to attend these meetings and in order to be accepted you have to state that you have a mental illness. Got it now?

Having to accept a judgement in order to live with the judges does smack of social cowardice, or at least demonstrates a grim pragmatism.

Jonesboy · 24th January 2013, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

You can create your own definitions for any word you like as long as you are clear about it. However I will continue to use conventional meaning of the word.

No, wrong on both scores. Firstly, it is an idea with utility. I am happy to consider the concept of mental disorder as a human construct with no essential reality in the world outside our minds. As I have said here before it, is a tool with the utility of identifying things we seek to treat.

Secondly, though it seems I need to repeat myself here, behavior or mental states being anomalous alone is not sufficient for the label disorder. This has not always been the case and it is counter to popular ideas about what a disorder is. But diagnostic categories have come a long way, though you may argue we have further to go. Consider the change in medical professional attitude to homosexuality and, more recently in the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, towards gender dysphoria.

An anomaly, in the context we are speaking in, as being "a social category that demarcates unacceptable behaviours " is your definition too. You don't have any other available. See last point, below.

The idea that mental illness is the name of a tool we use to treat people still begs the question Why treat?

If behaviour or mental states are not the criteria for an anomaly or disorder, then what is? Here, there is a void. My point all along is that there is an enormous conceptual vacuum that is filled with circularities in this debate - there are no medical or physical criteria for a disorder or an anomaly. These terms are social categories and values.

Sideroxylon · 24th January 2013, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

An anomaly, in the context we are speaking in, as being "a social category that demarcates unacceptable behaviours " is your definition too. You don't have any other available. See last point, below.

The idea that mental illness is the name of a tool we use to treat people still begs the question Why treat?

You have this bum-backwards. If it is a problem people generally want solved we apply the "disorder" label to it. If this is not the case, it is not a disorder. Consider the recent DSM move from "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria."

This quote demonstrates what I have been saying:

Quote:

“All psychiatric diagnoses occur within a cultural context,” said Jack Drescher, a member of the APA subcommittee working on the revision. “We know there is a whole community of people out there who are not seeking medical attention and live between the two binary categories. We wanted to send the message that the therapist’s job isn’t to pathologize.”

http://www.advocate.com/politics/tra...nder-dysphoria

Quote:

If behaviour or mental states are not the criteria for an anomaly or disorder, then what is? Here, there is a void. My point all along is that there is an enormous conceptual vacuum that is filled with circularities in this debate - there are no medical or physical criteria for a disorder or an anomaly. These terms are social categories and values.

Lets try this again.
- A disorder must be a behavior or mental state that people desire treatment for.
- Not all anomalous behaviors or mental states are things people desire treatment for. Therefore this subcategory of anomalous behaviors or mental states should not be labeled disorders.

Jonesboy · 24th January 2013, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

You have this bum-backwards. If it is a problem people generally want solved we apply the "disorder" label to it. If this is not the case, it is not a disorder. Consider the recent DSM move from "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria."

This quote demonstrates what I have been saying:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/tra...nder-dysphoria

Lets try this again.
- A disorder must be a behavior or mental state that people desire treatment for.
- Not all anomalous behaviors or mental states are things people desire treatment for. Therefore this subcategory of anomalous behaviors or mental states should not be labeled disorders.

If I have a problem with bleeding I don't call a doctor to get rid of my blood.
I can imagine a world where scientists have excised the experiences of dying, losing control, peak experiuences and transformation, on the grounds that they are disorders. If these are the roots of the human template it would be catastrophic meddling.
The idea that my problem with debt is a problem that my doctor can solve is popular of course.

There is still a circularity. You need to provide a criterion of disorder in order to justify the claim that it needs medical treatment. (You can't say that it is a disorder because treatment is needed)
For at the moment it can be argued that disorders and anomalies exclude all treatment models.

Perhaps I can assist here. It isn't the experiences themselves that are signs of some illness, as experience itself is its own justification. However, we might want to say that experiences are a problem if they are happening either too infrequently or too frequently. but there are problems with that, too.

MNBrant · 24th January 2013, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

If I have a problem with bleeding I don't call a doctor to get rid of my blood.
I can imagine a world where scientists have excised the experiences of dying, losing control, peak experiuences and transformation, on the grounds that they are disorders. If these are the roots of the human template it would be catastrophic meddling.
The idea that my problem with debt is a problem that my doctor can solve is popular of course.

There is still a circularity. You need to provide a criterion of disorder in order to justify the claim that it needs medical treatment. (You can't say that it is a disorder because treatment is needed)
For at the moment it can be argued that disorders and anomalies exclude all treatment models.

Perhaps I can assist here. It isn't the experiences themselves that are signs of some illness, as experience itself is its own justification. However, we might want to say that experiences are a problem if they are happening either too infrequently or too frequently. but there are problems with that, too.

A mental disorder is just a label you are right. Can you be stigmatized by a label? Yes, but you can also be stigmatized by features the disorder itself. The disorder doesnt go away just because you refuse to acknowledge it. The label Mentally ill, gives some protection under the law plus entitles you to go to the doctor to treat your illness if you wish. My wife doesnt consider herself mentally ill because she doesn't take any psych medicine, but believe you me, she is. I wont go into the details.

Sideroxylon · 25th January 2013, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

If I have a problem with bleeding I don't call a doctor to get rid of my blood.

The proverbial "cure being worse than the disease"? Of course treatment side effects must be weighed against the malady and the benefits of resolving it. But you do acknowledge here that there are at least some things, like an artery pissing claret, that we should reasonably seek to remedy.

Quote:

I can imagine a world where scientists have excised the experiences of dying, losing control, peak experiuences and transformation, on the grounds that they are disorders. If these are the roots of the human template it would be catastrophic meddling.
The idea that my problem with debt is a problem that my doctor can solve is popular of course.

Looks like a slippery slope argument. Let's not forget we are talking about mental conditions that are causing people distress and these people and/or loved ones are seeking alleviation/amelioration. This point is also addressed by the APA subcommittee member that I quoted earlier where he says, "We wanted to send the message that the therapist’s job isn’t to pathologize." I have heard in interviews therapists putting such an attitude into practice where they are sensitive to the desires of people who hear voices but are not distressed by them and can even find benefit in them.

Still it is an interesting point you make. Would it be nice if we could defecate hermetically sealed capsules and fart Febreze? Some might chose such a modification if the side effects were minimal. Absolutely we and scientists need to be mindful of consequences in the application of any new medicine and technology.

Quote:

There is still a circularity. You need to provide a criterion of disorder in order to justify the claim that it needs medical treatment. (You can't say that it is a disorder because treatment is needed)

I am sorry but I cannot see the circularity in my position. And why cannot we create a bucket category called "disorder" into which the necessary entry criteria is "things we seek treatment/resolution to"? In the same way "chair" is a bucket category with an entry condition along the lines of "things built for the function of being sat on". Both are categories are human social constructs that provide us with some kind of communication and navigation utility in the world.

Quote:

For at the moment it can be argued that disorders and anomalies exclude all treatment models.

The subcategories should not be arbitrary and they are not. They should help inform possible treatment modalities. These categories will also change as human understanding on the subject of brains and minds does.

Quote:

Perhaps I can assist here. It isn't the experiences themselves that are signs of some illness, as experience itself is its own justification. However, we might want to say that experiences are a problem if they are happening either too infrequently or too frequently. but there are problems with that, too.

I grasp only what you are saying in the last lines. So as you led me to see earlier, being an anomalous experience/behavior is also a necessary part of the definition for a disorder. For as unpleasant some may find the process of defecation, it is non anomalous and therefore not a disorder. Still, I am not convinced that we might not like to change elements of human existence like that if we had the ability to do so. Consider that modern human existence is starkly alien compared to the hunter-gather lives of our ancestors. We have already eliminated so much of what was part of everyday discomfort for them.

Jonesboy · 25th January 2013, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by MNBrant

A mental disorder is just a label you are right. Can you be stigmatized by a label? Yes, but you can also be stigmatized by features the disorder itself. The disorder doesnt go away just because you refuse to acknowledge it. The label Mentally ill, gives some protection under the law plus entitles you to go to the doctor to treat your illness if you wish. My wife doesnt consider herself mentally ill because she doesn't take any psych medicine, but believe you me, she is. I wont go into the details.

You are right of course. See new post.

CapelDodger · 25th January 2013, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Entrepreneurial freedom, and the hope that one day we shall raise ourselves out of, and upon, the common herd, was a freedom bequethed to us by the founding fathers ...

Not to me it wasn't, and yet I still have that freedom. How weird is that, eh?

CapelDodger · 25th January 2013, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

You are right of course. See new post.

I, for one, will exercise my freedom not to see it.

Jonesboy · 26th January 2013, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Not to me it wasn't, and yet I still have that freedom. How weird is that, eh?

WE know that, but there's an awful lot of your mates who don't.

Sideroxylon · 26th January 2013, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

WE know that, but there's an awful lot of your mates who don't.

Nothing more to say on your topic? Just going to toss about vague insults now?

Dancing David · 26th January 2013, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by MNBrant

I think someone else quoted elsewhere that the dopamine pathways a schizophrenic uses are different than the ones drugs use. So you can hear voices while on drugs but they are not the same thing as what a schizphrenic hears. The drug I hear that causes permanent schizophrenia though is meth, not hallucinogens.

Correct most hallucinogens are serotonergic.

Dancing David · 26th January 2013, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Nobody "uses" chemical pathways. We have the experiences we have. The fact that chemicals are associated with that doesn't gift us with judgements upon it.

Almost all my clients found their hallucinations terrifying and uncomfortable, none wanted them or enjoyed them. I had one who when she was manic had happy hallucinations from jesus, when she was depressed they were demons telling her to kill herself.

So the person having the hallucinations says it scares them, makes them sad and want to kill themselves. That is not a judgement by others, that is there own personal judgement.

Dancing David · 26th January 2013, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

I can define anomaly for you. It is a social category that demarcates unacceptable behaviours.

Second, there is no thing "mental disorder". It is a non-idea, an unrecognised synonym for social anomaly.

What if someone has auditory hallucinations that scare them all day long for weeks and months and years? Or they engage in compulsive rituals that make them unhappy and frustrated? What if these are the judgement of the individual about their personal experience?

Jonesboy · 27th January 2013, 10:04 AM

...

LaurelHS · 27th January 2013, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

...

Good argument.

dafydd · 27th January 2013, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by LaurelHS

Good argument.

The best so far.

quarky · 22nd February 2013, 12:11 PM

I go away for a month, and Jonesboy gets banned.

I hope it wasn't based on his provacative angles on various matters.
Did he threaten someone?

I enjoy the inclusion of all the various 'nut-jobs' here...and I wish we could find more tolearnce for them, lest our own views get lazy and stale.

Sideroxylon · 22nd February 2013, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by quarky

I go away for a month, and Jonesboy gets banned.

I hope it wasn't based on his provacative angles on various matters.
Did he threaten someone?

I enjoy the inclusion of all the various 'nut-jobs' here...and I wish we could find more tolearnce for them, lest our own views get lazy and stale.

I remember you. Welcome back.

23rd January 2013, 08:48 PM	#161
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,156	Looks like he is into drugs and doing readings on fringe subjects. I want to know some of the titles. They look like fun. That doesnt meet the definition of mental illness though. I have met some of these types at Nami meetings though. They are not told to leave but really don't fit in. Looking at some of his posts he is into some fringe readings on Quantum Physics. I met a schizophrenic at a Nami meeting who was reading a small thin book on QED for light reading. I posted it here. I guess its a rather respected theory. Here's the post if you want it Jonesboy. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=229488
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,156	Last edited by MNBrant; 23rd January 2013 at 09:19 PM.

24th January 2013, 05:01 AM	#162
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156	Originally Posted by dafydd You miss the point by a mile. It was stated that you have to have a mental illness in order to attend these meetings and in order to be accepted you have to state that you have a mental illness. Got it now? Having to accept a judgement in order to live with the judges does smack of social cowardice, or at least demonstrates a grim pragmatism.
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156

24th January 2013, 05:10 AM	#163
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon You can create your own definitions for any word you like as long as you are clear about it. However I will continue to use conventional meaning of the word. No, wrong on both scores. Firstly, it is an idea with utility. I am happy to consider the concept of mental disorder as a human construct with no essential reality in the world outside our minds. As I have said here before it, is a tool with the utility of identifying things we seek to treat. Secondly, though it seems I need to repeat myself here, behavior or mental states being anomalous alone is not sufficient for the label disorder. This has not always been the case and it is counter to popular ideas about what a disorder is. But diagnostic categories have come a long way, though you may argue we have further to go. Consider the change in medical professional attitude to homosexuality and, more recently in the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, towards gender dysphoria. An anomaly, in the context we are speaking in, as being "a social category that demarcates unacceptable behaviours " is your definition too. You don't have any other available. See last point, below. The idea that mental illness is the name of a tool we use to treat people still begs the question Why treat? If behaviour or mental states are not the criteria for an anomaly or disorder, then what is? Here, there is a void. My point all along is that there is an enormous conceptual vacuum that is filled with circularities in this debate - there are no medical or physical criteria for a disorder or an anomaly. These terms are social categories and values.
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156

24th January 2013, 05:32 AM	#164
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,603	Originally Posted by Jonesboy An anomaly, in the context we are speaking in, as being "a social category that demarcates unacceptable behaviours " is your definition too. You don't have any other available. See last point, below. The idea that mental illness is the name of a tool we use to treat people still begs the question Why treat? You have this bum-backwards. If it is a problem people generally want solved we apply the "disorder" label to it. If this is not the case, it is not a disorder. Consider the recent DSM move from "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria." This quote demonstrates what I have been saying: Quote: “All psychiatric diagnoses occur within a cultural context,” said Jack Drescher, a member of the APA subcommittee working on the revision. “We know there is a whole community of people out there who are not seeking medical attention and live between the two binary categories. We wanted to send the message that the therapist’s job isn’t to pathologize.” http://www.advocate.com/politics/tra...nder-dysphoria Quote: If behaviour or mental states are not the criteria for an anomaly or disorder, then what is? Here, there is a void. My point all along is that there is an enormous conceptual vacuum that is filled with circularities in this debate - there are no medical or physical criteria for a disorder or an anomaly. These terms are social categories and values. Lets try this again. - A disorder must be a behavior or mental state that people desire treatment for. - Not all anomalous behaviors or mental states are things people desire treatment for. Therefore this subcategory of anomalous behaviors or mental states should not be labeled disorders.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

24th January 2013, 06:07 AM	#165
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon You have this bum-backwards. If it is a problem people generally want solved we apply the "disorder" label to it. If this is not the case, it is not a disorder. Consider the recent DSM move from "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria." This quote demonstrates what I have been saying: http://www.advocate.com/politics/tra...nder-dysphoria Lets try this again. - A disorder must be a behavior or mental state that people desire treatment for. - Not all anomalous behaviors or mental states are things people desire treatment for. Therefore this subcategory of anomalous behaviors or mental states should not be labeled disorders. If I have a problem with bleeding I don't call a doctor to get rid of my blood. I can imagine a world where scientists have excised the experiences of dying, losing control, peak experiuences and transformation, on the grounds that they are disorders. If these are the roots of the human template it would be catastrophic meddling. The idea that my problem with debt is a problem that my doctor can solve is popular of course. There is still a circularity. You need to provide a criterion of disorder in order to justify the claim that it needs medical treatment. (You can't say that it is a disorder because treatment is needed) For at the moment it can be argued that disorders and anomalies exclude all treatment models. Perhaps I can assist here. It isn't the experiences themselves that are signs of some illness, as experience itself is its own justification. However, we might want to say that experiences are a problem if they are happening either too infrequently or too frequently. but there are problems with that, too.
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156

24th January 2013, 07:48 PM	#166
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,156	Originally Posted by Jonesboy If I have a problem with bleeding I don't call a doctor to get rid of my blood. I can imagine a world where scientists have excised the experiences of dying, losing control, peak experiuences and transformation, on the grounds that they are disorders. If these are the roots of the human template it would be catastrophic meddling. The idea that my problem with debt is a problem that my doctor can solve is popular of course. There is still a circularity. You need to provide a criterion of disorder in order to justify the claim that it needs medical treatment. (You can't say that it is a disorder because treatment is needed) For at the moment it can be argued that disorders and anomalies exclude all treatment models. Perhaps I can assist here. It isn't the experiences themselves that are signs of some illness, as experience itself is its own justification. However, we might want to say that experiences are a problem if they are happening either too infrequently or too frequently. but there are problems with that, too. A mental disorder is just a label you are right. Can you be stigmatized by a label? Yes, but you can also be stigmatized by features the disorder itself. The disorder doesnt go away just because you refuse to acknowledge it. The label Mentally ill, gives some protection under the law plus entitles you to go to the doctor to treat your illness if you wish. My wife doesnt consider herself mentally ill because she doesn't take any psych medicine, but believe you me, she is. I wont go into the details.
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,156

25th January 2013, 12:49 AM	#167
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,603	Originally Posted by Jonesboy If I have a problem with bleeding I don't call a doctor to get rid of my blood. The proverbial "cure being worse than the disease"? Of course treatment side effects must be weighed against the malady and the benefits of resolving it. But you do acknowledge here that there are at least some things, like an artery pissing claret, that we should reasonably seek to remedy. Quote: I can imagine a world where scientists have excised the experiences of dying, losing control, peak experiuences and transformation, on the grounds that they are disorders. If these are the roots of the human template it would be catastrophic meddling. The idea that my problem with debt is a problem that my doctor can solve is popular of course. Looks like a slippery slope argument. Let's not forget we are talking about mental conditions that are causing people distress and these people and/or loved ones are seeking alleviation/amelioration. This point is also addressed by the APA subcommittee member that I quoted earlier where he says, "We wanted to send the message that the therapist’s job isn’t to pathologize." I have heard in interviews therapists putting such an attitude into practice where they are sensitive to the desires of people who hear voices but are not distressed by them and can even find benefit in them. Still it is an interesting point you make. Would it be nice if we could defecate hermetically sealed capsules and fart Febreze? Some might chose such a modification if the side effects were minimal. Absolutely we and scientists need to be mindful of consequences in the application of any new medicine and technology. Quote: There is still a circularity. You need to provide a criterion of disorder in order to justify the claim that it needs medical treatment. (You can't say that it is a disorder because treatment is needed) I am sorry but I cannot see the circularity in my position. And why cannot we create a bucket category called "disorder" into which the necessary entry criteria is "things we seek treatment/resolution to"? In the same way "chair" is a bucket category with an entry condition along the lines of "things built for the function of being sat on". Both are categories are human social constructs that provide us with some kind of communication and navigation utility in the world. Quote: For at the moment it can be argued that disorders and anomalies exclude all treatment models. The subcategories should not be arbitrary and they are not. They should help inform possible treatment modalities. These categories will also change as human understanding on the subject of brains and minds does. Quote: Perhaps I can assist here. It isn't the experiences themselves that are signs of some illness, as experience itself is its own justification. However, we might want to say that experiences are a problem if they are happening either too infrequently or too frequently. but there are problems with that, too. I grasp only what you are saying in the last lines. So as you led me to see earlier, being an anomalous experience/behavior is also a necessary part of the definition for a disorder. For as unpleasant some may find the process of defecation, it is non anomalous and therefore not a disorder. Still, I am not convinced that we might not like to change elements of human existence like that if we had the ability to do so. Consider that modern human existence is starkly alien compared to the hunter-gather lives of our ancestors. We have already eliminated so much of what was part of everyday discomfort for them.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman Last edited by Sideroxylon; 25th January 2013 at 12:54 AM.

25th January 2013, 07:18 AM	#168
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156	Originally Posted by MNBrant A mental disorder is just a label you are right. Can you be stigmatized by a label? Yes, but you can also be stigmatized by features the disorder itself. The disorder doesnt go away just because you refuse to acknowledge it. The label Mentally ill, gives some protection under the law plus entitles you to go to the doctor to treat your illness if you wish. My wife doesnt consider herself mentally ill because she doesn't take any psych medicine, but believe you me, she is. I wont go into the details. You are right of course. See new post.
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156

25th January 2013, 07:48 PM	#169
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,740	Originally Posted by Jonesboy Entrepreneurial freedom, and the hope that one day we shall raise ourselves out of, and upon, the common herd, was a freedom bequethed to us by the founding fathers ... Not to me it wasn't, and yet I still have that freedom. How weird is that, eh?
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

25th January 2013, 07:51 PM	#170
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,740	Originally Posted by Jonesboy You are right of course. See new post. I, for one, will exercise my freedom not to see it.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

26th January 2013, 10:28 AM	#171
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156	Originally Posted by CapelDodger Not to me it wasn't, and yet I still have that freedom. How weird is that, eh? WE know that, but there's an awful lot of your mates who don't.
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156

26th January 2013, 11:23 AM	#172
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,603	Originally Posted by Jonesboy WE know that, but there's an awful lot of your mates who don't. Nothing more to say on your topic? Just going to toss about vague insults now?
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

26th January 2013, 04:21 PM	#173
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by MNBrant I think someone else quoted elsewhere that the dopamine pathways a schizophrenic uses are different than the ones drugs use. So you can hear voices while on drugs but they are not the same thing as what a schizphrenic hears. The drug I hear that causes permanent schizophrenia though is meth, not hallucinogens. Correct most hallucinogens are serotonergic.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

26th January 2013, 04:24 PM	#174
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by Jonesboy Nobody "uses" chemical pathways. We have the experiences we have. The fact that chemicals are associated with that doesn't gift us with judgements upon it. Almost all my clients found their hallucinations terrifying and uncomfortable, none wanted them or enjoyed them. I had one who when she was manic had happy hallucinations from jesus, when she was depressed they were demons telling her to kill herself. So the person having the hallucinations says it scares them, makes them sad and want to kill themselves. That is not a judgement by others, that is there own personal judgement.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

26th January 2013, 04:26 PM	#175
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by Jonesboy I can define anomaly for you. It is a social category that demarcates unacceptable behaviours. Second, there is no thing "mental disorder". It is a non-idea, an unrecognised synonym for social anomaly. What if someone has auditory hallucinations that scare them all day long for weeks and months and years? Or they engage in compulsive rituals that make them unhappy and frustrated? What if these are the judgement of the individual about their personal experience?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

27th January 2013, 10:04 AM	#176
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156	...
Jonesboy Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,156	Last edited by Jonesboy; 27th January 2013 at 10:14 AM.

27th January 2013, 10:20 AM	#177
LaurelHS Thinker Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 198	Originally Posted by Jonesboy ... Good argument.

27th January 2013, 11:46 AM	#178
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by LaurelHS Good argument. The best so far.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

22nd February 2013, 12:11 PM	#179
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	I go away for a month, and Jonesboy gets banned. I hope it wasn't based on his provacative angles on various matters. Did he threaten someone? I enjoy the inclusion of all the various 'nut-jobs' here...and I wish we could find more tolearnce for them, lest our own views get lazy and stale.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

22nd February 2013, 12:41 PM	#180
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,603	Originally Posted by quarky I go away for a month, and Jonesboy gets banned. I hope it wasn't based on his provacative angles on various matters. Did he threaten someone? I enjoy the inclusion of all the various 'nut-jobs' here...and I wish we could find more tolearnce for them, lest our own views get lazy and stale. I remember you. Welcome back.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman