Dr. Thomas Szasz
And you're right, everyone's experience is different and it is a personal journey.
That's also why I think that those psychiatric categories don't work that well.
They always handed me a questionnaire about depression and I even could think about suicide in an highly depressed mood but on this questionnaire I ALWAYS scored negative.
I figured out that it had to do with my autism and that my behaviour having depressions is much more different than those of NTs. In the end I was still dx with depression because it was clear that I had them.
But psychiatry looks very much at behaviour and even not that much at feelings and not even that much if there are any reasons for your behaviour. But I'm not depressed because I act in a certain way, no depression is a behavioural issue, it's a feeling.
Just because I learned to be able to sit quiet while having a hypomania, doesn't mean that I don't have one.
Also while getting dx with anything I was never asked: "How do you feel?" (I guess this one just once) or "Why do you act in a certain way?" (this one clearly never) and in my opinion those are the most important questions and not so much the behaviour.
_________________
"I'm astounded by people who want to 'know' the universe when it's hard enough to find your way around Chinatown." - Woody Allen
Last edited by Raziel on 04 Feb 2013, 11:57 am, edited 3 times in total.
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
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!
I suppose to me it's self-explanatory and having to explain my point in more detail implies to me that you just aren't getting the point I'm making full stop so I'm not on receptive ground so to speak, so further explanation doesn't seem worth it
I have got to the point where if I can talk to friends and have them understand exactly the point I'm making very easily, I've realised the problem of understanding/definition isn't at my end
This is probably why I understand and agree with Thomas Szasz's ideas whereas many don't ie I'm more of a Thomas Szasz type of person than a mainstream type one
and I prefer it like that
I think we all try to cultivate friends and acquaintances who are on the same wavelength as ourselves. Mine too don't have any problem understanding my points or definitions! One of the parts of friendships is having things in common with those people, including outlooks. It takes all sorts to make a world as they say. I indicated in my first post on this thread, I do agree some of his points to a degree, but I never agree with people because of majority view, I may choose at times to stand alone in my opinion if necessary, if it's what I believe (or have reason to believe). So you aren't alone in not succumbing to viewpoints that are considered accepted or acceptable by the mainstream. Probably many if not most Aspies fit into that category.
_________________
*Truth fears no trial*
DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum
That's a very good point.
_________________
"I'm astounded by people who want to 'know' the universe when it's hard enough to find your way around Chinatown." - Woody Allen
Depends on the psychiatrist. Mine was very interested in my feelings and experiences.
Depends on the psychiatrist. Mine was very interested in my feelings and experiences.
I guess my new shrink is quite alright, but I wish I had met a shrink like this earlier.
Most just asumet what I'm supposed to have or how I feel because of my actions.
I don't like psychotherapy too much anymore.
I propably works with a good psychotherapist whom you trust and understands you and so on, but I tryed it a fiew times and it just didn't worked out.
_________________
"I'm astounded by people who want to 'know' the universe when it's hard enough to find your way around Chinatown." - Woody Allen
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!
I suppose to me it's self-explanatory and having to explain my point in more detail implies to me that you just aren't getting the point I'm making full stop so I'm not on receptive ground so to speak, so further explanation doesn't seem worth it
I have got to the point where if I can talk to friends and have them understand exactly the point I'm making very easily, I've realised the problem of understanding/definition isn't at my end
This is probably why I understand and agree with Thomas Szasz's ideas whereas many don't ie I'm more of a Thomas Szasz type of person than a mainstream type one
and I prefer it like that
I think we all try to cultivate friends and acquaintances who are on the same wavelength as ourselves. Mine too don't have any problem understanding my points or definitions! One of the parts of friendships is having things in common with those people, including outlooks. It takes all sorts to make a world as they say. I indicated in my first post on this thread, I do agree some of his points to a degree, but I never agree with people because of majority view, I may choose at times to stand alone in my opinion if necessary, if it's what I believe (or have reason to believe). So you aren't alone in not succumbing to viewpoints that are considered accepted or acceptable by the mainstream. Probably many if not most Aspies fit into that category.
I'm not used to having to refine my point - I tend to tell someone about something like this subject here and not have it challenged as they often aren't sufficiently interested or knowledgeable on the subject to come back with a question even
So I expect to come in as the 'expert' and say 'it's like this'
Lol
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
I'm listening to some stuff C. G. Jung said himself at the moment in German.
Thanks for the advice.
_________________
"I'm astounded by people who want to 'know' the universe when it's hard enough to find your way around Chinatown." - Woody Allen
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
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!
I suppose to me it's self-explanatory and having to explain my point in more detail implies to me that you just aren't getting the point I'm making full stop so I'm not on receptive ground so to speak, so further explanation doesn't seem worth it
I have got to the point where if I can talk to friends and have them understand exactly the point I'm making very easily, I've realised the problem of understanding/definition isn't at my end
This is probably why I understand and agree with Thomas Szasz's ideas whereas many don't ie I'm more of a Thomas Szasz type of person than a mainstream type one
and I prefer it like that
I think we all try to cultivate friends and acquaintances who are on the same wavelength as ourselves. Mine too don't have any problem understanding my points or definitions! One of the parts of friendships is having things in common with those people, including outlooks. It takes all sorts to make a world as they say. I indicated in my first post on this thread, I do agree some of his points to a degree, but I never agree with people because of majority view, I may choose at times to stand alone in my opinion if necessary, if it's what I believe (or have reason to believe). So you aren't alone in not succumbing to viewpoints that are considered accepted or acceptable by the mainstream. Probably many if not most Aspies fit into that category.
I'm not used to having to refine my point - I tend to tell someone about something like this subject here and not have it challenged as they often aren't sufficiently interested or knowledgeable on the subject to come back with a question even
So I expect to come in as the 'expert' and say 'it's like this'
Lol
There you go, (presuming those 'someone's' are NTs ) you can be sure another Aspie will want to get to the nitty-gritty every time
There used to be this comedienne with a TV series in the UK, and she used to do this old lady character who was always saying "ooh, let's have a heated debate!"
_________________
*Truth fears no trial*
DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum
Last edited by whirlingmind on 04 Feb 2013, 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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!
I suppose to me it's self-explanatory and having to explain my point in more detail implies to me that you just aren't getting the point I'm making full stop so I'm not on receptive ground so to speak, so further explanation doesn't seem worth it
I have got to the point where if I can talk to friends and have them understand exactly the point I'm making very easily, I've realised the problem of understanding/definition isn't at my end
This is probably why I understand and agree with Thomas Szasz's ideas whereas many don't ie I'm more of a Thomas Szasz type of person than a mainstream type one
and I prefer it like that
I think we all try to cultivate friends and acquaintances who are on the same wavelength as ourselves. Mine too don't have any problem understanding my points or definitions! One of the parts of friendships is having things in common with those people, including outlooks. It takes all sorts to make a world as they say. I indicated in my first post on this thread, I do agree some of his points to a degree, but I never agree with people because of majority view, I may choose at times to stand alone in my opinion if necessary, if it's what I believe (or have reason to believe). So you aren't alone in not succumbing to viewpoints that are considered accepted or acceptable by the mainstream. Probably many if not most Aspies fit into that category.
I'm not used to having to refine my point - I tend to tell someone about something like this subject here and not have it challenged as they often aren't sufficiently interested or knowledgeable on the subject to come back with a question even
So I expect to come in as the 'expert' and say 'it's like this'
Lol
There you go, (presuming those 'someone's' are NTs ) you can be sure another Aspie will want to get to the nitty-gritty ever time
There used to be this comedienne with a TV series in the UK, and she used to do this old lady character who was always saying "ooh, let's have a heated debate!"
Lol yes and on a day when I had nothing else to focus on I'd be more than happy to have one
I just seem overwhelmed with stuff to do today though
Not even interesting stuff either
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
So you saying my OCD is just due to some underlying "trouble" and I can simply resolve that?
Last edited by Dreycrux on 04 Feb 2013, 2:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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
So you saying my OCD is just due to some underlying "trouble" and I can simply resolve that?
I think that's true for some psychological problems and out of my own experience I know those are hard or even impossible to dx if you are using the current diagnostic system.
But not for all so called "psychological problems" and that's also another experience I made.
_________________
"I'm astounded by people who want to 'know' the universe when it's hard enough to find your way around Chinatown." - Woody Allen
I think that's true for some psychological problems and out of my own experience I know those are hard or even impossible to dx if you are using the current diagnostic system.
But not for all so called "psychological problems" and that's also another experience I made.
Surely if behaviour is chronic, unnatural and un-wanted...it is a disorder. Some physical process in the brain is not working as it should. I agree somewhat on the ambiguity of a few diagnoses who are more environment specific or learned... but a biological basis for the major disorders such as OCD, schizophrenia, bi polar, ect have been well studied.
"The analyst sprinkles and buries false nuggets of Oedipus, castration (or penis envy) and bisexuality,""Then, as the patient digs (where he is directed to dig) and discovers the planted material, the analyst is convinced that he has struck pay dirt ... It is by suggestion that the patient is taught to find what he never possessed in the first place . . . Psychoanalysis can make no discoveries in the individual. It can only discover itself."
"Modern psychology,has shown Freud's map of the mind to be as inaccurate and wildly fanciful as the pre-Columbian maps of the New World."
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
So you saying my OCD is just due to some underlying "trouble" and I can simply resolve that?
OCD is a form of anxiety displacement
ie something specific is causing your anxiety but rather than face it you displace this anxiety/fear into the OCD activity,
which gives you a feeling of control
Usually the more checking/hand washing etc that goes on, the more anxious the person is about something
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
So you saying my OCD is just due to some underlying "trouble" and I can simply resolve that?
OCD is a form of anxiety displacement
ie something specific is causing your anxiety but rather than face it you displace this anxiety/fear into the OCD activity,
which gives you a feeling of control
Usually the more checking/hand washing etc that goes on, the more anxious the person is about something
Hmm i'm not sure where you were going with that but ocd It is said to have a physical component. And then there is the dopamine hypothesis for schizophrenia...Again I am not sure if your against mental disorders having a physical component or not. You seem to be... which I find bewildering.
A possible genetic mutation may contribute to OCD. A mutation has been found in the human serotonin transporter gene, hSERT, in unrelated families with OCD.[33] Moreover, data from identical twins supports the existence of a "heritable factor for neurotic anxiety".[34] Further, individuals with OCD are more likely to have first-degree family members exhibiting the same disorders than do matched controls. In cases where OCD develops during childhood, there is a much stronger familial link in the disorder than cases in which OCD develops later in adulthood. In general, genetic factors account for 45-65% of OCD symptoms in children diagnosed with the disorder.[35] Environmental factors also play a role in how these anxiety symptoms are expressed; various studies on this topic are in progress and the presence of a genetic link is not yet definitely established.
People with OCD evince increased grey matter volumes in bilateral lenticular nuclei, extending to the caudate nuclei, while decreased grey matter volumes in bilateral dorsal medial frontal/anterior cingulate gyri.[36][37] These findings contrast with those in people with other anxiety disorders, who evince decreased (rather than increased) grey matter volumes in bilateral lenticular / caudate nuclei, while also decreased grey matter volumes in bilateral dorsal medial frontal/anterior cingulate gyri.[37] Orbitofrontal cortex overactivity is attenuated in patients who have successfully responded to SSRI medication, a result believed to be caused by increased stimulation of serotonin receptors 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C.[38] The striatum, linked to planning and the initiation of appropriate actions, has also been implicated; mice genetically engineered with a striatal abnormality exhibit OCD-like behavior, grooming themselves three times as frequently as ordinary mice.[39] Recent evidence supports the possibility of a heritable predisposition for neurological development favoring OCD.[40]
Rapid onset of OCD in children and adolescents may be caused by a syndrome connected to Group A streptococcal infections (PANDAS)[41][42] or caused by immunologic reactions to other pathogens (PANS).[43]
- Wikipedia
Let me explain OCD like this...This is how I explain it to everyone. OCD is like a fire that you keep batting the flames down, but the fire (anxiety) never fully goes out and it can rage up at anytime (triggers) where you have to beat back the flames. The underlying problem of anxiety and rumination is still there, you can get over some things with exposure and response therapy but then underlying ocd just spread to other topics over your life time. It's a never ending fight against the spreading flames. SSRI's are almost like a fireplace to contain the fire so it doesn't spread...it's still there and you would have to feed it with triggers to get it going as it will just be hot coals ready to ignite at any time. It is a physical disorder in function.
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
So you saying my OCD is just due to some underlying "trouble" and I can simply resolve that?
OCD is a form of anxiety displacement
ie something specific is causing your anxiety but rather than face it you displace this anxiety/fear into the OCD activity,
which gives you a feeling of control
Usually the more checking/hand washing etc that goes on, the more anxious the person is about something
Hmm i'm not sure where you were going with that but ocd It is said to have a physical component. And then there is the dopamine hypothesis for schizophrenia...Again I am not sure if your against mental disorders having a physical component or not. You seem to be... which I find bewildering.
A possible genetic mutation may contribute to OCD. A mutation has been found in the human serotonin transporter gene, hSERT, in unrelated families with OCD.[33] Moreover, data from identical twins supports the existence of a "heritable factor for neurotic anxiety".[34] Further, individuals with OCD are more likely to have first-degree family members exhibiting the same disorders than do matched controls. In cases where OCD develops during childhood, there is a much stronger familial link in the disorder than cases in which OCD develops later in adulthood. In general, genetic factors account for 45-65% of OCD symptoms in children diagnosed with the disorder.[35] Environmental factors also play a role in how these anxiety symptoms are expressed; various studies on this topic are in progress and the presence of a genetic link is not yet definitely established.
People with OCD evince increased grey matter volumes in bilateral lenticular nuclei, extending to the caudate nuclei, while decreased grey matter volumes in bilateral dorsal medial frontal/anterior cingulate gyri.[36][37] These findings contrast with those in people with other anxiety disorders, who evince decreased (rather than increased) grey matter volumes in bilateral lenticular / caudate nuclei, while also decreased grey matter volumes in bilateral dorsal medial frontal/anterior cingulate gyri.[37] Orbitofrontal cortex overactivity is attenuated in patients who have successfully responded to SSRI medication, a result believed to be caused by increased stimulation of serotonin receptors 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C.[38] The striatum, linked to planning and the initiation of appropriate actions, has also been implicated; mice genetically engineered with a striatal abnormality exhibit OCD-like behavior, grooming themselves three times as frequently as ordinary mice.[39] Recent evidence supports the possibility of a heritable predisposition for neurological development favoring OCD.[40]
Rapid onset of OCD in children and adolescents may be caused by a syndrome connected to Group A streptococcal infections (PANDAS)[41][42] or caused by immunologic reactions to other pathogens (PANS).[43]
- Wikipedia
Let me explain OCD like this...This is how I explain it to everyone. OCD is like a fire that you keep batting the flames down, but the fire (anxiety) never fully goes out and it can rage up at anytime (triggers) where you have to beat back the flames. The underlying problem of anxiety and rumination is still there, you can get over some things with exposure and response therapy but then underlying ocd just spread to other topics over your life time. It's a never ending fight against the spreading flames. SSRI's are almost like a fireplace to contain the fire so it doesn't spread...it's still there and you would have to feed it with triggers to get it going as it will just be hot coals ready to ignite at any time. It is a physical disorder in function.
People probably have a genetic disposition to OCD but I think it's mainly environmental things that trigger it, such as interpersonal relationships and how much stress a person suffers from other things on a daily basis, like work etc