Contrasting Problems with Psychology and Psychiatry

[keirsey]

Failing in different ways

To quickly address the “drug” question. I am going to make a statement, but important point is the details, so make no mistake, this “problem” of drugging is a complicated problem. The problem is drugs often can “help.” But, just like alcohol, the “help” in many cases, turns quickly into “THE PROBLEM.”

There are effective methods of dealing with “problems.” Psychology (and some very rare psychiatrists) have come up with many effective methods in the past to deal with those “behaviorial” problems. THE PROBLEM WITH PSYCHOLOGY IS THOSE EFFECTIVE METHODS ARE NOT WIDE SPREAD WITHIN THE “COMMUNITY.”

The vast majority of people must face their problems on their own. Psychology, as a whole, is still in the dark ages.

THE PROBLEM WITH PSYCHIATRY IS THE METHOD OF DRUGGING HAS BECOME WIDE SPREAD, AND IN FACT, OVERWHELMLYING DOMINANT. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; they are trained on the physical body. They have essentially no psychological training. The “chemical imbalance in the brain” theory is now the dominant mythology, but it serves its pushers well. Psychiatry is, on the whole, a hazard to one’s health.

The harm of psychiatry is getting worse, but they and the psychologists have been playing games with words, from the beginning.

Hypomania – Manic Depressive – Bipolar – ADD – ADHD. All words that were used to describe an individual as being “crazy” or my father’s favorite technical term “bonkers” The name has changed with the times: the 20’s-30’s, 40’s-50’s-60’s, 70’s to today, but the symptoms (“observable behavior”) haven’t changed essentially – except now the psychiatrists is more liberal with their diagnosis, such that any person is vulnerable to being branded, from old people to two year old babies. The only thing that is important is that the psychiatrist can push his pills, so he can get paid.

Let’s simplify the “bipolar” problem. FOR ALL PEOPLE, there are “ups” and “downs” in life. In other words, there are natural “highs” and “lows” in life. Some people tend to be more “moody” (read the descriptions of Artisans and Idealists) – in other words, in outward behavior, exhibit higher highs, and lower lows. If there is a conflict with one’s parents or school authorities, then the evidence of “problems” (those ups and downs) can be used to justify there is something “wrong.” It is a “mental disease” (mental disorder) – the brain is “out of balance.” [Remember the humours theory of Hippocrates!!??] The idea is to “get the brain back into balance.” The story told is -- pills “restore” the balance in the brain.

Coffee, booze, and cigarettes are no longer considered healthy. Briefly, there are four kinds of mood pills – uppers, downers, calmers, and confusers. I will discuss them to some degree, next blog.

[For those who want to read ahead, can go to Drugged Obedience in Schools]

[Quinta]

Important topic to discuss.

Other temperament researchers like Stella Chess and Alexander Thomas assert that the mental disorders don't coincide with temperamental features, but that the outcome and mastering of illness very much depends on temperament.

Like with people who are diagnosed with bipolar, a regular life style can prevent many of those wild mood swings. But temperamental traits may determine whether the sufferer chooses to lead a regular life-style or not.

Still, it seems to me that many medical doctors are a bit superstitious about giving pills for treatment. And then on the other hand, there's practical experience that pills have some kind of effect on difficult conditions.

[Goodrum]

Western medicine, generally speaking can be focussed on the "broken" aspects of human condition, unfortunately, and medication to "treat" the unwell bits...I live in hope more and more people see "WELLNESS" as the important part of their life.

Drug therapy and use of medications, for not only our very young and vulnerable, but for our elderly concerns me. (And the folk in between).

Getting the balance, what a challenge that is when the scales are so heavily weighed against peoples overall mind and body wellness.

Great article, Failing in different ways...we can all strive to seek better, to do better...I commend you on writing about such a complicated, and very real issue.

[Cerebro93]

This controversy really is very personal to me. Two of my best friends are on medications, one for depression, the other for bipolar disorder. And my twin was diagnosed with ADHD several years ago.

When I tell people I really would love to be a psychiatrist, some are a little... stunned, because of the major medication controversy. Truthfully, that is the reason I want to be a psychiatrist. I want to help rid others of the barricades in their life, that which inhibits them from living their life fully. And I'm not entirely against the use of psychoactive medications, but I am very much against using them as a solution. While psychoactive medication can help stabilize a patient, i would only use it temporarily, and as little as possible to allow their brain to be more receptive to the neuroplastic psychoanalytic therapy.

And frankly, the idea of "mental illness" is as load of crap in my opinion. Modern psychiatry does not take into account sociocultural ideals. Something like autism would not be considered an illness if socializing was not a norm. Depression would not be considered an illness if "happiness" was not a norm. In my book, "mental illness" doesn't exist. Struggle does. And a psychiatrist should not work to cure someone, rather help the patient live comfortable while maintaining a sense of self.

Also, as you mentioned, Dr. Keirsey, the "chemical imbalance" theory is only one side of the story. I don't understand the brain vs. mind debate. I see the neural activity, the cognitive processes, and the external behaviour to all be different representations of the same thing, metaphysically speaking. So I don't believe in correcting the brain per se, but seeing all angles and layers of each situation. Therapy can change the structure of the brain, and then the cognitive processes change, and then the outward behaviour changes. But there is NO proof that one causes the other, only that they may correlate.

[RandomUser191]

And a psychiatrist should not work to cure someone, rather help the patient live comfortable while maintaining a sense of self.

so you're saying that a patient (for example) suffering from depression should stay depressed forever, but "learn to live with it"?

a lot of mental instablities can be succesfully altered without the use of medication. the biggest problem is that it takes a lot of time, a lot of personal effort (both from the doctor and the patient), a lot of support from the family and/or friends, a change of enviroument... not to mention how much this would cost over time.

cerebro, if you wanna help your depressed friend, talk to him/her, let him/her know that he/she can count on you, spend time with that person, do sport activities together, make sure he/she makes plans and tries to follow and accomplish them.

another good method is also listening to the "right" songs.

for bipolar disorder... i'm not 100% sure. sometimes making the person see how "weird" they sometimes act makes him/her want to change. you can start from there i guess.

[Cerebro93]

And a psychiatrist should not work to cure someone, rather help the patient live comfortable while maintaining a sense of self.

so you're saying that a patient (for example) suffering from depression should stay depressed forever, but "learn to live with it"?

I'd rather you not put words in my mouth. I don't think you quite understand what I meant.

Every "mental illness" has two sides of the same coin. I do not ignore the destructive affects of depression, I'm not that naive. But frankly, if we're to follow the evolutionary theory of natural selection, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, ADHD, autism, all these so-called mental illnesses would have been wiped out if they were absolutely useless.
You a fan of Beethoven at all? You know of my good old friend Carl Jung? Both of these brilliant minds underwent major episodes of depression, and came out of it with their greatest works of their lives. Someone with ADHD can take in a HUGE breadth of information from their surroundings. Someone with Autism has an uncanny ability to focus, with a prodigious ability in some sort of domain.

These is just too much to simplify it as an illness. You want them to keep their empathy and sympathy that comes with their depression, but you want to control it so it is no longer destructive. I believe I may suffer from a form of depression, mild, though, and frankly, it sucks, but the insight it gives me is something different. I don't want one to lose the good that come from their depression.

But even more importantly, I don't want someone to change in such a great degree. Medications can deaden people, change them. Therapeutic methods should seek not to change them, but stabilize them, aid them in their struggle to cope. It's a fundamental part of who they are, and to take that away would be an absolute disgrace to the individual. Read DWK's essays on ADHD, my beliefs I share with him very much, but it extends, for me at least, to other "mental illnesses".

[RandomUser191]

Every "mental illness" has two sides of the same coin. I do not ignore the destructive affects of depression, I'm not that naive. But frankly, if we're to follow the evolutionary theory of natural selection, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, ADHD, autism, all these so-called mental illnesses would have been wiped out if they were absolutely useless.
You a fan of Beethoven at all? You know of my good old friend Carl Jung? Both of these brilliant minds underwent major episodes of depression, and came out of it with their greatest works of their lives. Someone with ADHD can take in a HUGE breadth of information from their surroundings. Someone with Autism has an uncanny ability to focus, with a prodigious ability in some sort of domain.

you are right about the fact that we can find something good in EVERY bad thing. that doesn't mean we shouldn't eliminate mental illnesses though. personaly, i'd much rather be happy than be famous for something i did out of pain, agony and misery.

when it comes to ADHD... there's an entire mystery around it since some don't even consider it as a mental illnesses and that it for sure shouldn't be treated with personality-altering medication. i'm not sure what the "right" thing to do would be here...

These is just too much to simplify it as an illness. You want them to keep their empathy and sympathy that comes with their depression, but you want to control it so it is no longer destructive. I believe I may suffer from a form of depression, mild, though, and frankly, it sucks, but the insight it gives me is something different. I don't want one to lose the good that come from their depression.

first of... empathy and sympathy doesn't come from depression, it comes from experience we draw from every positive and negative siatuation in our life and of course from our own personality. "losing depression" does not make you forget everything you've been through nor does it make you less empathic.

second... i don't understand how you can control depression.

and third... the next time u feel troubled you can send me a pm. i'll be sure to reply ASAP.

But even more importantly, I don't want someone to change in such a great degree. Medications can deaden people, change them. Therapeutic methods should seek not to change them, but stabilize them, aid them in their struggle to cope. It's a fundamental part of who they are, and to take that away would be an absolute disgrace to the individual. Read DWK's essays on ADHD, my beliefs I share with him very much, but it extends, for me at least, to other "mental illnesses".

you are right about the ADHD part. it's not like every mental illness is the same though. what about schizophrenia or DID?

[christina]

As a woman, I'm particularly disturbed by early Fruedian ideas and the fact that autistic behavior was one blamed on "cold, unloving" mothers. Although, I don't consider it the norm, I have to accept the occurrence of prejudice. I absolutely agree psychiatry is in the dark ages. Electric shock therapy and lobotomies were once considered legitimate practices. I'm unsure of the "scientific principles" they were actually based on. Personally, I'm disturbed by some Hollywood films such as Changeling and Sucker Punch.

There are other people who are more familiar with brain chemistry than I, but even I can see that something doesn't make sense. If I'm to believe ADHD is a a single imbalance in brain chemistry, then I cannot believe a single drug can fix it. I avoid this subject matter, but I'm under the impression, ADHD is treated with drug cocktails nowadays? If I'm to believe ADHD is a single imbalance in brain chemistry, then I cannot believe a drug cocktail can fix it. Likewise, if "ADHD" is a spectrum of imbalanced chemicals in the brain, then I cannot believe its one measly symptom is the inability to sit still.

Personally, I had some contact with 'ADHD' kids in college and for all the "academic miracles" those drugs are supposed to accomplish, both kids failed out of school. One boy held a conversation just fine, but still felt unsure about his ability to succeed in school. I would have to say that his ability (or "inability") to stay focused had no bearing on his feelings about how well he could perform in school. I think this person would have been better helped with moral support and behavior modification than induced dependence and being thrown into a situation where he feels the need to constantly defend his "defect" to others.


I had a class taught by a consultant to a pharm company. I've told others, but I still find incredulous responses. Drug companies make money by expanding their market, hence, most people are fed a line of marketing BS. They don't require a drug to fix their problems; Their problems are universal. In order to make money, the drug is commonly repackaged to extend the patent. The drug is commonly re-labeled to be used in the 'treatment' of different or additional diseases (again, broadening the market). This extends the life of the patent, because now it is a 'different' product. There are no good intentions or misguided dreams of helping society in the distribution of these drugs. The consultant did not candy coat this and in fact defended these practices as a "necessary evil".

[brian423]

I had a class taught by a consultant to a pharm company. I've told others, but I still find incredulous responses. Drug companies make money by expanding their market, hence, most people are fed a line of marketing BS. They don't require a drug to fix their problems; Their problems are universal. In order to make money, the drug is commonly repackaged to extend the patent. The drug is commonly re-labeled to be used in the 'treatment' of different or additional diseases (again, broadening the market). This extends the life of the patent, because now it is a 'different' product. There are no good intentions or misguided dreams of helping society in the distribution of these drugs. The consultant did not candy coat this and in fact defended these practices as a "necessary evil".

I'm in danger of sounding foolishly glib to the non-libertarians on these boards, but I'd like to balance out the discussion by quoting from Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." I'm cynical and utilitarian enough to allow drug manufacturers their profit motive. If they encourage consumers to use drugs as crutches, it seems a far lesser evil than any effort by government to stop them. But why should we worry so much about advertising campaigns for drugs anyway? The wisest of the merchants in drugs that happen to be illegal can tell you that drugs sell themselves.

I'm not worried about the "greed" of the drug makers. I'm worried about the many roads to hell paved with the good intentions of government officials. Parents wouldn't face such pressure to drug their kids if not for the outrageous demands of the government-run, factory-model schools. It's senseless and inhumane for those damned bureaucrats to make children stay in their seats and be spoon-fed dollops of random information all day. And yet, "corporate greed," not government overreach, is the boogeyman of the "progressives." Wake up, you idiots!

[christina]

I was once in favor of corporations. That is, my once ambivalent yet positive view of corporations is changing. I couldn't help but notice in a rather biased documentary, that the laws are structured to dictate how a corporation is to run, i.e. "government designs corporations".