04 Feb 2013, 7:18 am
Raziel wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
There's a whole world of fascinating stuff written by intelligent people that is completely overlooked - because only other intelligent people usually relate to it (and they are in the minority).
Who?
I'm curious.
The whole period when Freud and Jung were practising is interesting - that's when the whole concept of psychotherapy was invented
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
04 Feb 2013, 7:19 am
04 Feb 2013, 7:20 am
04 Feb 2013, 7:21 am
04 Feb 2013, 7:26 am
04 Feb 2013, 7:32 am
04 Feb 2013, 8:05 am
04 Feb 2013, 8:22 am
04 Feb 2013, 8:38 am
04 Feb 2013, 8:50 am
04 Feb 2013, 8:57 am
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
04 Feb 2013, 9:14 am
nessa238 wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
I agree with an element of what he is saying, but I think he is being way too simplistic.
He is saying that because there were e.g. 6 recognised psychiatric disorders when he trained, and now there are over 300 that most of them do not exist and are made up. This is ridiculous. Science evolves, our understanding evolves, genetic research as to what genes are responsible for disorders has evolved and there being more disorders now is a product of those things, as well as possibly more disorders arising being the result of environmental causes which are new since he trained.
He is basically saying ADD doesn't exist. I am sure parents of an ADD or ADHD child would beg to differ! What has caused an upsurge in psychiatric conditions needs to be analysed rather than just brushing them off as untrue purely based on their numbers. We are a sick society, for many reasons. Overcrowing, pollution, modern life, medication etc.
He is also a bit contradictory. He says that disease is a disease of various organs, but then he says that most psychiatric disorders are pretty much made up, but many of them have recognised genetics involved - which is a disease!
He is saying that because there were e.g. 6 recognised psychiatric disorders when he trained, and now there are over 300 that most of them do not exist and are made up. This is ridiculous. Science evolves, our understanding evolves, genetic research as to what genes are responsible for disorders has evolved and there being more disorders now is a product of those things, as well as possibly more disorders arising being the result of environmental causes which are new since he trained.
He is basically saying ADD doesn't exist. I am sure parents of an ADD or ADHD child would beg to differ! What has caused an upsurge in psychiatric conditions needs to be analysed rather than just brushing them off as untrue purely based on their numbers. We are a sick society, for many reasons. Overcrowing, pollution, modern life, medication etc.
He is also a bit contradictory. He says that disease is a disease of various organs, but then he says that most psychiatric disorders are pretty much made up, but many of them have recognised genetics involved - which is a disease!
He's saying that rather than keep creating new diagnoses for every permutation of human behaviour, it's far better to find out what it is specifically that is troubling that individual person and resolve that, instead of labelling them with a psychiatric diagnosis
A lot of these diagnoses are just pathologising the human condition
I don't personally think the name matters too much (within reason of course), if you are receiving the right treatment for it. I think the reason they give names is so that they have a clear structure to what services they offer who and why. It would be chaos without some labelling.
No, there is a societal control aspect to it all
But there is societal control to everything we do, I don't think that psychiatry stands alone in this, that's part of life (good or bad) and like I said, without some labelling there would be chaos - which applies in a general way to society too, laws, rules, regulations, departments, family structures etc.
There's a power structure to who gets labelled though
If a man punches someone after drinking in a pub he won't usually get labelled with a psychiatric diagnosis as men punching others when drunk is seen as normal
If I, as a woman already known to mental health services and with an Aspergers diagnosis did it though I'd probably get sectioned!
I agree that is probably likely, bearing in mind that as ever, it's still a man's world anyway. I'm not sure that is the same point we were talking about though. You said the labels for disorders were a form of societal control. But what you now point out, is there being a power structure to the labelling. I may well be taking you literally
and thinking that by societal control you mean that the "powers that be" want everyone neatly parcelled in a box for ease of control, but with what you said about a power structure, I've taken it to mean that they will only label those they want to label because of their status? Do you mean that only the deserving get labelled, or do you mean that the undeserving get labelled to deliberately stigmatise them for some reason?
04 Feb 2013, 9:22 am
04 Feb 2013, 9:25 am
whirlingmind wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
I agree with an element of what he is saying, but I think he is being way too simplistic.
He is saying that because there were e.g. 6 recognised psychiatric disorders when he trained, and now there are over 300 that most of them do not exist and are made up. This is ridiculous. Science evolves, our understanding evolves, genetic research as to what genes are responsible for disorders has evolved and there being more disorders now is a product of those things, as well as possibly more disorders arising being the result of environmental causes which are new since he trained.
He is basically saying ADD doesn't exist. I am sure parents of an ADD or ADHD child would beg to differ! What has caused an upsurge in psychiatric conditions needs to be analysed rather than just brushing them off as untrue purely based on their numbers. We are a sick society, for many reasons. Overcrowing, pollution, modern life, medication etc.
He is also a bit contradictory. He says that disease is a disease of various organs, but then he says that most psychiatric disorders are pretty much made up, but many of them have recognised genetics involved - which is a disease!
He is saying that because there were e.g. 6 recognised psychiatric disorders when he trained, and now there are over 300 that most of them do not exist and are made up. This is ridiculous. Science evolves, our understanding evolves, genetic research as to what genes are responsible for disorders has evolved and there being more disorders now is a product of those things, as well as possibly more disorders arising being the result of environmental causes which are new since he trained.
He is basically saying ADD doesn't exist. I am sure parents of an ADD or ADHD child would beg to differ! What has caused an upsurge in psychiatric conditions needs to be analysed rather than just brushing them off as untrue purely based on their numbers. We are a sick society, for many reasons. Overcrowing, pollution, modern life, medication etc.
He is also a bit contradictory. He says that disease is a disease of various organs, but then he says that most psychiatric disorders are pretty much made up, but many of them have recognised genetics involved - which is a disease!
He's saying that rather than keep creating new diagnoses for every permutation of human behaviour, it's far better to find out what it is specifically that is troubling that individual person and resolve that, instead of labelling them with a psychiatric diagnosis
A lot of these diagnoses are just pathologising the human condition
I don't personally think the name matters too much (within reason of course), if you are receiving the right treatment for it. I think the reason they give names is so that they have a clear structure to what services they offer who and why. It would be chaos without some labelling.
No, there is a societal control aspect to it all
But there is societal control to everything we do, I don't think that psychiatry stands alone in this, that's part of life (good or bad) and like I said, without some labelling there would be chaos - which applies in a general way to society too, laws, rules, regulations, departments, family structures etc.
There's a power structure to who gets labelled though
If a man punches someone after drinking in a pub he won't usually get labelled with a psychiatric diagnosis as men punching others when drunk is seen as normal
If I, as a woman already known to mental health services and with an Aspergers diagnosis did it though I'd probably get sectioned!
I agree that is probably likely, bearing in mind that as ever, it's still a man's world anyway. I'm not sure that is the same point we were talking about though. You said the labels for disorders were a form of societal control. But what you now point out, is there being a power structure to the labelling. I may well be taking you literally
and thinking that by societal control you mean that the "powers that be" want everyone neatly parcelled in a box for ease of control, but with what you said about a power structure, I've taken it to mean that they will only label those they want to label because of their status? Do you mean that only the deserving get labelled, or do you mean that the undeserving get labelled to deliberately stigmatise them for some reason?People get labelled so they can be controlled more easily and denied a voice
If your behaviour is seen as the norm it won't be labelled as pathological but if you are in a minority or a more vulnerable, weaker group you are far more likely to have your normal behaviour pathologised
I am not able to split the issue/point into such different categories as yourself - it's all the same issue as far as I'm concerned
It hampers debate if people have to fit their point into some limited definition of what the point is
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
04 Feb 2013, 9:33 am
nessa238 wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
I agree with an element of what he is saying, but I think he is being way too simplistic.
He is saying that because there were e.g. 6 recognised psychiatric disorders when he trained, and now there are over 300 that most of them do not exist and are made up. This is ridiculous. Science evolves, our understanding evolves, genetic research as to what genes are responsible for disorders has evolved and there being more disorders now is a product of those things, as well as possibly more disorders arising being the result of environmental causes which are new since he trained.
He is basically saying ADD doesn't exist. I am sure parents of an ADD or ADHD child would beg to differ! What has caused an upsurge in psychiatric conditions needs to be analysed rather than just brushing them off as untrue purely based on their numbers. We are a sick society, for many reasons. Overcrowing, pollution, modern life, medication etc.
He is also a bit contradictory. He says that disease is a disease of various organs, but then he says that most psychiatric disorders are pretty much made up, but many of them have recognised genetics involved - which is a disease!
He is saying that because there were e.g. 6 recognised psychiatric disorders when he trained, and now there are over 300 that most of them do not exist and are made up. This is ridiculous. Science evolves, our understanding evolves, genetic research as to what genes are responsible for disorders has evolved and there being more disorders now is a product of those things, as well as possibly more disorders arising being the result of environmental causes which are new since he trained.
He is basically saying ADD doesn't exist. I am sure parents of an ADD or ADHD child would beg to differ! What has caused an upsurge in psychiatric conditions needs to be analysed rather than just brushing them off as untrue purely based on their numbers. We are a sick society, for many reasons. Overcrowing, pollution, modern life, medication etc.
He is also a bit contradictory. He says that disease is a disease of various organs, but then he says that most psychiatric disorders are pretty much made up, but many of them have recognised genetics involved - which is a disease!
He's saying that rather than keep creating new diagnoses for every permutation of human behaviour, it's far better to find out what it is specifically that is troubling that individual person and resolve that, instead of labelling them with a psychiatric diagnosis
A lot of these diagnoses are just pathologising the human condition
I don't personally think the name matters too much (within reason of course), if you are receiving the right treatment for it. I think the reason they give names is so that they have a clear structure to what services they offer who and why. It would be chaos without some labelling.
No, there is a societal control aspect to it all
But there is societal control to everything we do, I don't think that psychiatry stands alone in this, that's part of life (good or bad) and like I said, without some labelling there would be chaos - which applies in a general way to society too, laws, rules, regulations, departments, family structures etc.
There's a power structure to who gets labelled though
If a man punches someone after drinking in a pub he won't usually get labelled with a psychiatric diagnosis as men punching others when drunk is seen as normal
If I, as a woman already known to mental health services and with an Aspergers diagnosis did it though I'd probably get sectioned!
I agree that is probably likely, bearing in mind that as ever, it's still a man's world anyway. I'm not sure that is the same point we were talking about though. You said the labels for disorders were a form of societal control. But what you now point out, is there being a power structure to the labelling. I may well be taking you literally
and thinking that by societal control you mean that the "powers that be" want everyone neatly parcelled in a box for ease of control, but with what you said about a power structure, I've taken it to mean that they will only label those they want to label because of their status? Do you mean that only the deserving get labelled, or do you mean that the undeserving get labelled to deliberately stigmatise them for some reason?People get labelled so they can be controlled more easily and denied a voice
If your behaviour is seen as the norm it won't be labelled as pathological but if you are in a minority or a more vulnerable, weaker group you are far more likely to have your normal behaviour pathologised
I am not able to split the issue/point into such different categories as yourself - it's all the same issue as far as I'm concerned
It hampers debate if people have to fit their point into some limited definition of what the point is
Fair enough if you don't see what I mean, we all have different ways of looking at things. I thought I was making what was being debated clearer by asking for more explicit meaning so I could accurately respond (I really do heavily follow the Aspie trait of needing the details correct and with our potential for misunderstanding meanings as well, I wanted to be sure) and that it would help the debate if we were on the same page so to speak. I just wanted clarification of what exactly you were saying, I wasn't limiting definition. No worries, if we having different ways of understanding definitions and how they apply we probably won't get get any further in this debate at least!
04 Feb 2013, 9:36 am
