Options

BREAKING NEWS: Shooting at North Illinois University...

13»

Posts

  • Options
    OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    So, you think that the sympathetic stance which encourages that we demonize mental wellness less is a bad thing, or do you just think that the sympathetic stance which encourages facing the reality that mental illness is an issue that must be dealt with life-long is a bad thing -- and I am not necessarily advocating shoving it into the affected's face, but simply as a general principle.

    Alcoholism isn't the greatest example. It's an addiction, in any sense of the word, that you have to pick up elsewhere. People don't carry distilleries around in their abdomens. If you ignore the fact that a large amount of mental disorders are life-long, incurable battles in favor of coddling the affected, you're just setting them up to fail in different sorts -- even my therapist had no hesitation in telling me that I was living with a handicap, albeit one that would do nothing more than inspire fear and distaste in the general population.

    I don't think crossing the line from "every single person in this man's life saw him as a flawless perfection" to "yeah, he had his bad days and talked about them with his friends or faculty once in a while" is going from denial to obsession. If you were talking in a vacuum, yes, I do agree that it's better to take a centrist stance on everything than that of 'eternal extremes' --

    but it's pretty fucking obvious this person was not even near the point of obsession. You're making a post to the tangent of the discussion in the thread, which is acceptable, but you should be more clear about whether you're addressing the actual situation at hand or the idea in general. We can get along just fine as long as we're both clear on stuff like that, and I'll try to play nice instead of accusing you right out the gate. @_@

    Oboro on
    words
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    So, you think that the sympathetic stance which encourages that we demonize mental wellness less is a bad thing, or do you just think that the sympathetic stance which encourages facing the reality that mental illness is an issue that must be dealt with life-long is a bad thing -- and I am not necessarily advocating shoving it into the affected's face, but simply as a general principle.

    Alcoholism isn't the greatest example. It's an addiction, in any sense of the word, that you have to pick up elsewhere. People don't carry distilleries around in their abdomens. If you ignore the fact that a large amount of mental disorders are life-long, incurable battles in favor of coddling the affected, you're just setting them up to fail in different sorts -- even my therapist had no hesitation in telling me that I was living with a handicap, albeit one that would do nothing more than inspire fear and distaste in the general population.

    I'm not entirely sure what the first para means (demonising mental wellness?), so essentially: I think the idea of 'mentally ill people' or 'mental illnesses' is somewhat misconcieved. I think we all display a level of mental wellness and/or mental illness at any time, and this state changes constantly depending on external/internal stimuli, much like physical fitness. Yes, some people have certain proclivities, just as some people are built to lift weights or run fast, but these are still highly malleable characterisitics. Thus, no, I don't accept 'life-long, incurable battles' for the majority of mental disorders (note: not all*) recognised today - and moreover, from what I understand increasingly neither do many psychologists.

    We still know next to fuck all about this stuff, and much current understanding of psychology is still highly open for debate (not that Tom Cruise knows any better). By the way, the 'life-long incurable battles' stance is, if you read about it, centered around the US psychology profession and linked to specific theories of treatment, rather than empirical evidence of disorders; the influence of pharmaceutical companies in these areas from the 1950's for example. It is neither a universally accepted principle, nor a de facto scientific truth.

    The other facet which is more widely accepted is that if you can treat someone in a bad mental state to the point where they have reached a good, functioning mental state, then you have - however temporarily - treated that disorder. You didn't like the alcohol metaphor: well we don't describe cancer as a life-long incurable battle, even though it can maintain a presence and recurr - we describe specific instances of cancer. Inbetween, the patient is cured. It is somewhat bizarre that we describe mental disorders, the treatment of which is so dependent on supporting the mental state of the patient, in worst-case extremes. It's like telling a patient in chemotherapy: "You can fight it off this time, but the cancer will come back and kill you later anway".

    Finally, check out some of the debate about the rise of incidences of a mental 'disorder' in relation to its identification in popular knowledge. The incidences of, for example, diagnosed depression show a significant correlation to the patient group's knowledge of the condition, rather than the diagnostic group's knowledge: for non-psychological medical conditions, the correlation tends to be reversed (ie doctors diagnose the condition as the medical community becomes aware of it, not the condition arises as the patients become aware of it). Standard explanations of this have been to argue that modern living is increasing mental illness - there is a significant body of thought now arguing instead that perhaps this means mental disorders have a special pathology which is more susceptible to, essentially, mass hypochondria.

    In short, considering our uncertainty, there seem to be many more benefits to treating mental 'disorders' as simply proclivities towards a possible condition arising, as we do with cancer threat risk, rather than giving a fete-a-complete mental 'disorder' to patients and marking them as 'handicapped' for the rest of their lives.

    Also, I'm not commenting specifically on this case because there is next to no information, so I don't think it's pretty obvious that we know anything about the bloke.

    * There is a distinction to be made here, for example, between permanent psychiatric conditions of the brain, and changeable chemical conditions within brain physiology.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    Hum well I don't really have time to come up with a good cogent response ... my gut instincts are that I disagree with you on parts of your stance but on others I have to yield. To shore up my own position before I head out, I agree with the distinction between permanent psychiatric conditions of the brain and those which change based on external stimuli. The former should graduate from the [sometimes] voodoo science of 'mental health' and into basic wellness, in all honesty, while the latter should continue plodding along as-is.

    I also agree with your closing, but I think it's overgeneralizing a bit. The idea about introducing deleterious habits as proclivities and attacking them aggressively as something solvable is good -- what I would like is that this idea becomes so widespread, not just among the medical community but among the general population, that people with secret deleterious habits are not ashamed to come forward to a professional with them, or at least come forward in general.

    On the other hand, I've lived with people who suffer from conditions of the brain that get lumped under psychiatry -- autistic spectrum disorders, I guess, would be the only example I can think of off the top of my head that's definitely been shown to take root in physiology. Those cases, I would argue, need to be shown that they are different but the same -- their lifestyle will always have its eccentricities, but as you said, they're just proclivities for an altogether human human being ... just proclivities that will have to be addressed far more seriously and over a longer period of time.

    All this being said, it is far from a field of expertise for me and all that I've heard was either in my introductory courses or what the varied psychiatrists and therapists of my life and my personal experiences have taught me. Maybe it's time for another mental health thread?, since it seems this will just go farther afield from the OP if it continues. Though really, I just love inviting the opportunity to see more posts by Feral. <3

    Oboro on
    words
  • Options
    matisyahumatisyahu Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Can we change the thread title to the actual name of the school, Northern Illinois University? It's dumb, I know, but it's been bugging me.

    matisyahu on
    i dont even like matisyahu and i dont know why i picked this username
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited February 2008
    Zahaladeen wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    So, is this a gun-control thread or a news-item thread? Mixing the two is, generally, a pretty bad idea, OP guy.

    Corrected.

    And thus we avoided the gun-control crap, because I knew the sort of idiocy that would be spewed if we went that way. Let's not have anymore of it.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    What the hell, that's like splitting an Iraq thread because people talk about foreign policy in it. Am I the only one who thinks that arming students & school shootings might be (shocker!) part of the same debate, or has the entire US gone totally mad? At the very least don't lock the other posts the second you split them!

    Sigh.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited February 2008
    How about you fuckers read the thread before posting in it?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Are there any new developments to speak of because I haven't heard anything except the Democrats being 'gun shy' and the girlfriend telling the media to stop saying the killer abused her because it wasn't true.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
Sign In or Register to comment.