Nutcases and stigmatisation

[quarky]

Originally Posted by MNBrant

I had you down for a schizphrenic, but now that I think about it, you come off as a severly depressed person. I can tell you why paitents in the city clinics come in early. They are on disability and bored. Seeing a psychiatrist every three months is the big event in their lives. Of course you got the ones who can never keep an appointment too. Plus people like you who think they can walk in when the reality is most psychriatrists are full and not taking new patients. You can try NAAMI meetings. They are everywhere and free and probably meet others like yourself and possibly make some friends.

I didn't come in early. I had a scheduled appointment. The waiting felt like part of a game. I wasn't a person that thought he could walk in whenever he wanted.

Anyway, I fired them all and flushed the crappy drugs.
I've no intention of returning.
The shrinks were all much more insane than me.

[MNBrant]

You can try a NAAMI meeting and meet other people like yourself. They might have tips to cope. All you need is a mental illness to attend. You just show up. A lot of people flush antidepressants. In my case they make me manic so they won't proscribe them to me anymore.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by MNBrant

You can try a NAAMI meeting and meet other people like yourself. They might have tips to cope. All you need is a mental illness to attend. You just show up. A lot of people flush antidepressants. In my case they make me manic so they won't proscribe them to me anymore.

You are still wrong about NAMI, where does any of their material say you have to have a mental illness to attend?

You are making this up, anyone can attend a NAMI meeting.

[MNBrant]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

You are still wrong about NAMI, where does any of their material say you have to have a mental illness to attend?

You are making this up, anyone can attend a NAMI meeting.

I am not. If you don't have a mental illness you can't attend. Its supposed to be a safe atmosphere where people can discuss their problems with their peers. A person without a mental illness who is not a guest would be asked to leave. You are required to state your name and whether or not you have a mental illness at the start of the meeting. NAAMI meetings are generally run by volunteers with mental illness and they very much control the meeting. I suppose if you found someone running one that allowed it that would be ok too. They are hurting for people to come to their meetings.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by MNBrant

I am not. If you don't have a mental illness you can't attend. Its supposed to be a safe atmosphere where people can discuss their problems with their peers. A person without a mental illness who is not a guest would be asked to leave. You are required to state your name and whether or not you have a mental illness at the start of the meeting. NAAMI meetings are generally run by volunteers with mental illness and they very much control the meeting. I suppose if you found someone running one that allowed it that would be ok too. They are hurting for people to come to their meetings.

I am Dafydd and I have a mental illness. Am I lying?

[LaurelHS]

Not all NAMI meetings are the same. Some are restricted to people who have a mental illness, others are not. For example:
http://www.namisandiego.org/generalsupport.php

[quarky]

It's hard to except the word of people that confess to mental illness.

It should be, right?

My sanity is nearly pathological.
I wish everyone would listen to my take on things.

(You know you want to.)

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by MNBrant

I am not. If you don't have a mental illness you can't attend. Its supposed to be a safe atmosphere where people can discuss their problems with their peers. A person without a mental illness who is not a guest would be asked to leave. You are required to state your name and whether or not you have a mental illness at the start of the meeting. NAAMI meetings are generally run by volunteers with mental illness and they very much control the meeting. I suppose if you found someone running one that allowed it that would be ok too. They are hurting for people to come to their meetings.

I find no links for NAAMI, I am aware of NAMI. So what is NAAMI and where can I information on it?

Control the meeting, that does not sound helpful. Now NAMI does have the NAMI Connection support groups, http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?sec...ami_connection

But almost all NAMI meetings are open

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by LaurelHS

Not all NAMI meetings are the same. Some are restricted to people who have a mental illness, others are not. For example:
http://www.namisandiego.org/generalsupport.php

That makes sense, and I imagine it is a lot like community support groups in general unless they require a referral.

edited to remove snaky mean personal to a different poster comment
Many support groups do not allow 'observers' and that is cool and understandable.

ETR: snarky personal comment

[MNBrant]

I would call nami national number to look for local groups. numbers and participation are spotty since not many mentally ill people know or want to go. Its all volunteer. You can also join and get alot of paper for a very nominal fee. It is very educational since you can see people both like, and unlike yourself. Let loose and tell whats bothering the,. The control is important because you want everyone to participate.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by quarky

I didn't come in early. I had a scheduled appointment. The waiting felt like part of a game. I wasn't a person that thought he could walk in whenever he wanted.

Anyway, I fired them all and flushed the crappy drugs.
I've no intention of returning.
The shrinks were all much more insane than me.

Good.

If you want to join fellow nuts, like me, and ditch the psychiatric scurvy crew and do it among knowledgable others, then go to one of Stan Grof's weekend workshops.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I am Dafydd and I have a mental illness. Am I lying?

You would be lying if you knew what you meant.
The thing is , nobody, not even your souls protector, the doc, know what they mean by "mental illness".

There is also a bit of sycophancy in your admission too. A sucking up to scientific intrigue, born a little of natural cowardice, looking to say the right thing and be on the right side.

[Sideroxylon]

Wikipedia says:

Quote:

A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological pattern or anomaly, potentially reflected in behavior, that is generally associated with distress or disability, and which is not considered part of normal development of a person's culture.

I think that distress and disability must be necessary conditions for such a label. Again, I argue that the purpose of such a label should be to identify conditions that we seek to treat. A behavior being anomalous should not be sufficient for such a label as it offers no desirable utility and instead may be used to single people out for discrimination.

ETA: In fact going out for better sources we see this is pretty much the case.

Quote:

Mental illness is defined as “collectively all diagnosable mental disorders” or “health conditions that are characterized by alterations in thinking, mood, or behavior (or some combination thereof) associated with distress and/or impaired functioning.”2 Depression is the most common type of mental illness, affecting more than 26% of the U.S. adult population.3 It has been estimated that by the year 2020, depression will be the second leading cause of disability throughout the world, trailing only ischemic heart disease.4

http://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/basics.htm

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Wikipedia says:


I think that distress and disability must be necessary conditions for such a label. Again, I argue that the purpose of such a label should be to identify conditions that we seek to treat. A behavior being anomalous should not be sufficient for such a label as it offers no desirable utility and instead may be used to single people out for discrimination.

ETA: In fact going out for better sources we see this is pretty much the case.


http://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/basics.htm

The wiki defintion is circular and ultimately incoherent. It asks you to believe in a "psychological" anomaly. It then says that this anomaly isn't behavioural. So what is it? There are no physical markers for a "mental" illness unless they have been judged to be there from behavioral evidence. That's the circularity.

And since when did distress (and not joy?), count as an illness? Have we come to the logical bankruptcy of claiming that painful feelings are not part of being human, but are illnesses brought on by something else?

You, and the industry, must admit that "mental" anomalies and dysfunctions aren't evidenced but are presumed.

[MNBrant]

Jonesboy, I don't know what you are afraid of. Here is a respected psychiatrist doing pratfalls on youtube. Its in two parts. I included the second part because its funnier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKEz-KZln3c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF7JyM8eI80

[quarky]

The sane king eventually drinks the water of madness.
Compassion for his subjects.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

The wiki defintion is circular and ultimately incoherent. It asks you to believe in a "psychological" anomaly. It then says that this anomaly isn't behavioural. So what is it? There are no physical markers for a "mental" illness unless they have been judged to be there from behavioral evidence. That's the circularity.

And since when did distress (and not joy?), count as an illness? Have we come to the logical bankruptcy of claiming that painful feelings are not part of being human, but are illnesses brought on by something else?

You, and the industry, must admit that "mental" anomalies and dysfunctions aren't evidenced but are presumed.

It's not very good but it isn't circular. The definition is seeking to encompass anomalous mental states that do not manifest themselves in behavior. For example someone deeply depressed but going through the motions of life in their society.

Then you start with a straw man, albeit one that highlights the point that while distress should be a necessary condition for a definition of mental disorder, it should not be a sufficient condition. The distressful mental condition must be anomalous as well.

Human categories are tools. The category "mental disorder" is a bucket in which we put things we seek to change about our mental condition. The various subcategories are created to sort them in ways that will largely inform ways of changing them.

[quarky]

Yet, to some extent, it is insane to adopt a behavior that is contrary to the accepted behavior of the tribe.

What to do when the tribe goes mad?

It's a depressing phenomena.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by quarky

Yet, to some extent, it is insane to adopt a behavior that is contrary to the accepted behavior of the tribe.

What to do when the tribe goes mad?

It's a depressing phenomena.

This is where the tribe needs to change. What do you do if you are a gay man in Iran? Speak up and rot in prison if not lose your head literally?

Fortunately in more enlightened and secular societies, and this includes international medical bodies, it is recognized that anomalous behavior is not a sufficient condition for identifying something that needs treatment, abuse, admonishment or removal from society. Secular reasoned approaches are the solution.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

This is where the tribe needs to change. What do you do if you are a gay man in Iran? Speak up and rot in prison if not lose your head literally?

Fortunately in more enlightened and secular societies, and this includes international medical bodies, it is recognized that anomalous behavior is not a sufficient condition for identifying something that needs treatment, abuse, admonishment or removal from society. Secular reasoned approaches are the solution.

I think we agree.
Anyway, i really like you.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by quarky

I think we agree.
Anyway, i really like you.

It's mutual, mate.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by quarky

Yet, to some extent, it is insane to adopt a behavior that is contrary to the accepted behavior of the tribe.

What to do when the tribe goes mad?

It's a depressing phenomena.

To better answer your question, quarky, I think people need to speak up more for the rights of people living in the tribe gone mad. The mad tribes also need at least a few brave souls to defy the real threats made by the tribe and speak up also. Pointing out the madness and a better rational course is a way change can come about.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

It's not very good but it isn't circular. The definition is seeking to encompass anomalous mental states that do not manifest themselves in behavior. For example someone deeply depressed but going through the motions of life in their society.

Then you start with a straw man, albeit one that highlights the point that while distress should be a necessary condition for a definition of mental disorder, it should not be a sufficient condition. The distressful mental condition must be anomalous as well.

Human categories are tools. The category "mental disorder" is a bucket in which we put things we seek to change about our mental condition. The various subcategories are created to sort them in ways that will largely inform ways of changing them.

Here is the circularity:
An anomaly is said to be physical. Evidence for this is the anomalous behaviour. And an anomaly is said to be behavioral becase the evidence for this is the physical anomaly.

It is circular because the anomaly of one justifies the anomaly of the other. The physical anomaly justifies the behavioral anomaly and vice versa. But taken together, there is no ground for an anomaly.

I wasn't arguing that distress should be used as an indication of something going wrong or not. I was arguing that there are no more reasons for thinking there is something wrong with distressful experience than there is for joyful experience.

Finally, there is no category of mental disorder or health that belongs to medicine. The reason why one is invented is to place into it those people who are socially recalcitrant.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Here is the circularity:
An anomaly is said to be physical. Evidence for this is the anomalous behaviour. And an anomaly is said to be behavioral becase the evidence for this is the physical anomaly.

It is circular because the anomaly of one justifies the anomaly of the other. The physical anomaly justifies the behavioral anomaly and vice versa. But taken together, there is no ground for an anomaly.

I wasn't arguing that distress should be used as an indication of something going wrong or not. I was arguing that there are no more reasons for thinking there is something wrong with distressful experience than there is for joyful experience.

Finally, there is no category of mental disorder or health that belongs to medicine. The reason why one is invented is to place into it those people who are socially recalcitrant.

No, an anomaly can be a mental phenomena. I am not sure what you are saying here but subscription to the paradigm that the mental supervenes the physical makes no difference. And as I pointed out mental states are not necessarily represented in behavior. This seems trivially obvious.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

No, an anomaly can be a mental phenomena. I am not sure what you are saying here but subscription to the paradigm that the mental supervenes the physical makes no difference. And as I pointed out mental states are not necessarily represented in behavior. This seems trivially obvious.

But you need a reason to say that "an anomaly can be a mental phenomena" is an anomaly.
We can't say "there is a physical anomaly associated with a mental anomaly" for that can lead to a circularity. The anomaly still needs justifying as an anomaly.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

But you need a reason to say that "an anomaly can be a mental phenomena" is an anomaly.
We can't say "there is a physical anomaly associated with a mental anomaly" for that can lead to a circularity. The anomaly still needs justifying as an anomaly.

To serve an earlier example, being chronically deeply depressed is not the norm in the human population. This makes it an anomaly. That there is an associated brain state that it supervenes makes no difference. We should not forget that environment is an essential part of this mix.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

To serve an earlier example, being chronically deeply depressed is not the norm in the human population. This makes it an anomaly. That there is an associated brain state that it supervenes makes no difference. We should not forget that environment is an essential part of this mix.

There is still no reason to say it is an anomaly.
Deep depression has been associated with immense life changes and with mystical insight (claimed).
The fact that it is intense is no reason to say it is an anomaly, simply infrequent.
Psychedelic researchers found that every human experience listed by psychiatrists could be quickly reached by anyone, and within a healing trajectory.

"Supervenience" is a red herring here. The fact that A supervenes on B does not mean that an anomaly in A can be proven by an anomaly in B (and vice versa).

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

There is still no reason to say it is an anomaly.
Deep depression has been associated with immense life changes and with mystical insight (claimed).
The fact that it is intense is no reason to say it is an anomaly, simply infrequent.
Psychedelic researchers found that every human experience listed by psychiatrists could be quickly reached by anyone, and within a healing trajectory.

This is the part that makes something an anomaly*. But as I have stated this should not be the only criteria. We also need some kind of significant distress or harm to the individual (and/or perhaps to those around them) to label a condition a disorder.

*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anomaly,

I have no idea what you are saying in your last. Could you give me a link to more information? A reliable source would be a bonus. Wikipedia will do.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

This is the part that makes something an anomaly*. But as I have stated this should not be the only criteria. We also need some kind of significant distress or harm to the individual (and/or perhaps to those around them) to label a condition a disorder.

*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anomaly,

I have no idea what you are saying in your last. Could you give me a link to more information? A reliable source would be a bonus. Wikipedia will do.

You cant cite infrequency or distress as examples of something that is wrong.
For example, psychedlic researcxhers found that hyperventilation, images of hell, claustrophobic nightmares, wild perversions, memories of previous lives, physical and mental encounter with death, shaking, gasping for hours, being unreachable, possession, intense sweating, screaming, thrashing around, being unable to breath, intense pain....
were all standard psychdelic reactions. The same experienmce could be reached without psychedlics.
This points to the fact that what we are looking at is not anaomaies but simply natural, unrecognised experiential domains.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

You cant cite infrequency or distress as examples of something that is wrong.
For example, psychedlic researcxhers found that hyperventilation, images of hell, claustrophobic nightmares, wild perversions, memories of previous lives, physical and mental encounter with death, shaking, gasping for hours, being unreachable, possession, intense sweating, screaming, thrashing around, being unable to breath, intense pain....
were all standard psychdelic reactions. The same experienmce could be reached without psychedlics.
This points to the fact that what we are looking at is not anaomaies but simply natural, unrecognised experiential domains.

Things can have natural roots and be anomalous. We seem to be beating a straw man here. Remember that I am arguing that harm is a necessary part of our definition.

So people have unpleasant experiences while taking drugs. This seems to be something many would regard as an undesirable disorder with a simple solution being not taking such drugs (unless out weighed by other benefit).

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Things can have natural roots and be anomalous. We seem to be beating a straw man here. Remember that I am arguing that harm is a necessary part of our definition.

So people have unpleasant experiences while taking drugs. This seems to be something many would regard as an undesirable disorder with a simple solution being not taking such drugs (unless out weighed by other benefit).

I said that these experiences can arise naturally, though psychedlic research points to the same family of experiences. All of them have a healing trajectory, which they wouldn't if they were chaotic,experiences unreoated to the person.

The danger of pathologising infrequent reactions is that we fix our idea of what it is to be human according to our parochial moral prejudices. We pathologise peak experiences, the "only experience I ever had like that".

It is a stern, dangerous puritanism to morally and medically outlaw certain expertiences on the grounds that we haven't seen these experiences before.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

All of them have a healing trajectory...

I wonder if Syd Barrett thought so.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

I said that these experiences can arise naturally, though psychedlic research points to the same family of experiences. All of them have a healing trajectory, which they wouldn't if they were chaotic,experiences unreoated to the person.

The danger of pathologising infrequent reactions is that we fix our idea of what it is to be human according to our parochial moral prejudices. We pathologise peak experiences, the "only experience I ever had like that".

It is a stern, dangerous puritanism to morally and medically outlaw certain expertiences on the grounds that we haven't seen these experiences before.

I have consistently stated here that a human experience or behavior being anomalous is not a sufficient condition for a useful definition of mental disorder.

[MNBrant]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

I said that these experiences can arise naturally, though psychedlic research points to the same family of experiences. All of them have a healing trajectory, which they wouldn't if they were chaotic,experiences unreoated to the person.

The danger of pathologising infrequent reactions is that we fix our idea of what it is to be human according to our parochial moral prejudices. We pathologise peak experiences, the "only experience I ever had like that".

It is a stern, dangerous puritanism to morally and medically outlaw certain expertiences on the grounds that we haven't seen these experiences before.

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.

[Jonesboy]

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.

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.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

I have consistently stated here that a human experience or behavior being anomalous is not a sufficient condition for a useful definition of mental disorder.

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.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

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

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.

Quote:

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

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.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

You would be lying if you knew what you meant.
The thing is , nobody, not even your souls protector, the doc, know what they mean by "mental illness".

There is also a bit of sycophancy in your admission too. A sucking up to scientific intrigue, born a little of natural cowardice, looking to say the right thing and be on the right side.

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?

[MNBrant]

I guess he is right; schizophrenia is not a mental disorder if it doesnt cause you to miss work. Unfortunately, its does, for many people. Jonesboy hasn't said what mental disorder he has so I really dont understand his references. I am guessing he hasn't got a severe one

[Renaiconna]

Originally Posted by MNBrant

I guess he is right; schizophrenia is not a mental disorder if it doesnt cause you to miss work. Unfortunately, its does, for many people. Jonesboy hasn't said what mental disorder he has so I really dont understand his references. I am guessing he hasn't got a severe one

Looking at his post history, I beg to disagree.