Mental Health DSM and mental health v Alphabet soup

[herbavore]

In my life I have found that something akin to fasting, but in this case "cultural fasting" is necessary to see how much my own craziness is determined by the craziness of the culture. This culture markets unhappiness with the self. We consume it daily and the only way to see it for what it is is to get completely out of it for periods of time. This could be through solo trips in nature (backpacking), traveling in foreign countries that are completely different from your own, working with animals. There are a lot of ways to sidestep the importance of everything this culture tells us to be concerned with. You do not realize how much you have internalized until you try to let it go completely.

 

[Shrooms00087]

"This culture markets unhappiness with the Self". I think it's more that it targets the Self in its incompleteness (which would technically be a weakness). I mean conquering your desires is the whole purpose behind Christ going to the Desert. He was faced with his desires and his incompleteness (which is why he had to go through trials). So the culture itself isn't to blame but the Self as such. This shifts the burden to the Self, completely, which is exactly where the lens should rest.

 

[Vaya]

And then the psychologists came along.

I haven't literally "laughed out loud" at anything in a long while, but this really got me!! :D

You and herbavore struck up a really tight discussion regarding the nuances and potential divisions between and amongst psychology and psychiatry; I thoroughly enjoyed reading it!

As for the DSM-V, I actually haven't delved into much of the primary new additions, deletions and revisions of the material as suggested in the DSM-IV-TR, which was the volume out most recently (obviously) and, as such, is the version that I studied in college, was exposed to in all the classes relevant to my degree and was the reference for most of the scholarly research I've performed over the years - whether it was related to school or undergraduate studies.

Regardless of that, I still have thoughts on the 'DSM,' regardless of which edition you may be referring to.

I was not diagnosed with anything because I grew up in a time when these "disorders" and "syndromes" and "illnesses" were part of the continuum of human nature.

This is a really interesting observation. It, in fact, reminded me a lot of the book "My Lobotomy." Highly recommended book.
Unfortunately, this was not also my reality growing up. I was teased a lot in the 3rd and 4th grades. I became depressed and withdrawn because of it. Both my parents are clinical psychologists, and one day after school when I was in 4th grade, my mom took me to see my first psychologist. That was sixteen years ago, and I've exhausted the book as far as psychiatric medications goes - all of which were prescribed following the guidelines for global psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-IV-TR.

Alongside, and aside from, my deep-rooted belief in the fact that the course of my cognitive development would have been significantly altered for the better had it not been for the intrusion of powerful psychoactive chemicals over the course of my adolescence, young and current adulthood, I believe that the diagnosing guidelines are based on a highly speculative axis understanding regarding untangling the mystery that is the human mind. Thinking about it leaves me feeling mindf*cked thinking about it, frankly.

The DSM was very important in the development of my understanding of psychology & psychiatry, but not of the human mind. And that is definitely to say that we still understand very little of that which there is to be understood, though we as a species have made great strides. The DSM is not reflective of that. I believe it is reflective of over-generalization in the face of bewilderment, an over-emphasis on compartmentalization and differentiation whose complexity ultimately betrays itself, and of humankind's baffling desire to create a "manual," as it were, for its own spectrum of behavioral nuances. The DSM has not, IMO, furthered our understanding of one another, nor of ourselves.

 

[Shrooms00087]

The DSM has not, IMO, furthered our understanding of one another, nor of ourselves.

Lets give to the devil what belongs to the devil. Their way of figuring out the mind and how to recover it, in a reasonable sense, requires correlating data of symptoms and what works along with placebo's. In fact the FDA mandates that for your drug to enter the market it has to over reach placebo's by a rather large percentage.

Now compare the scientific method with psychoanalysis which is more like seeding thoughts as opposed to the authoritarian institution of knowledge (Which performs exactly as one would expect). This works wonderfully theoretically and has a fair record. Up until you get to true mental disorders to which logic and discipline make no sense as treatment. So you must have this authoritarian institution. However Psychoanalysis and CBT and be very powerful tools if a person really commits.

 

[herbavore]

"This culture markets unhappiness with the Self". I think it's more that it targets the Self in its incompleteness (which would technically be a weakness). I mean conquering your desires is the whole purpose behind Christ going to the Desert. He was faced with his desires and his incompleteness (which is why he had to go through trials). So the culture itself isn't to blame but the Self as such. This shifts the burden to the Self, completely, which is exactly where the lens should rest.

I agree with you here, shrooms and perhaps I should clarify that in my post I was trying to describe our own complicity in the dis-ease with ourselves. The marketing that I speak of could only be effective because it hits a natural mark. We are the culture, individual and collectively.

But our sense of incompleteness seems different from the layers of self-hatred we heap on ourselves. Modern media culture reflects images at us constantly. This was not the case throughout most of human history. So while our most basic human struggles remain the same, our reality is so much altered by media that the struggle is that much more complex IMO. I guess you could argue that people always had these images of the unattainable to compare themselves to only before they centered on the internal as opposed to the external. (I'm thinking that the christian religion with its myths of saints gave people in earlier times a sense of perfection they could not achieve whereas nowadays it is an ad for skin cream). If you follow that thread of thinking it is pretty funny that we have gone from worrying more about the imperfection of our souls to worrying about the imperfection of our looks.8)

 

[Shrooms00087]

I agree with you here, shrooms and perhaps I should clarify that in my post I was trying to describe our own complicity in the dis-ease with ourselves. The marketing that I speak of could only be effective because it hits a natural mark. We are the culture, individual and collectively.

But our sense of incompleteness seems different from the layers of self-hatred we heap on ourselves. Modern media culture reflects images at us constantly. This was not the case throughout most of human history. So while our most basic human struggles remain the same, our reality is so much altered by media that the struggle is that much more complex IMO. I guess you could argue that people always had these images of the unattainable to compare themselves to only before they centered on the internal as opposed to the external. (I'm thinking that the christian religion with its myths of saints gave people in earlier times a sense of perfection they could not achieve whereas nowadays it is an ad for skin cream). If you follow that thread of thinking it is pretty funny that we have gone from worrying more about the imperfection of our souls to worrying about the imperfection of our looks.8)

These layers are still something able to be shed so it's a matter of mental discipline. As for the media culture (specifically the commercial industry has a personal hero, Freud's brother, who is a family member of Rupert Murdoch) I find it specifically to prey on the idea of "if I were That". It enters our very fantasies of ourselves so you were right to say it reflects images at us, but perhaps these images are nothing more than our own projections. So when you see a car commercial you know it has a few logical fantasy selling points. Family, luxury (wealth), Working Man. So that you cannot really escape your own fantasy, your own wants, desires --unless you eliminate them. Which obviously is rarely achieved and rarely desired.

"we have gone from worrying more about the imperfection of our souls to worrying about the imperfection of our looks"
I see these things as the same thing. I know we went way off topic but it's a fun conversation.

 

[herbavore]

I agree it s a fascinating conversation. The DSM/medicalizing and pathologizing normal variations in human personality as well as the myth that somehow we should always be happy or we are sick is such a complicated tangle I don't know if it is possible to get off topic LOL!

 

[Pretty_Diamonds]

Why shouldn't the information be available to anyone who wants it? Without going back through the whole thread I don't remember anyone mentioning having access to the DSM so they could diagnose people.

It's dangerous to have. I don't know, that's my opinion. Glad I made Vaya laugh. Lol.

 

[Eva 33]

CoffeeDrinker, I sympathize with you. I've also had some horrible experiences with psychiatrists. They tried to diagnose me with 'disorders' that I do NOT suffer from.

In one horrid experience, I felt like I was being interrogated by a cop. In just 50 minutes, this b---- of a shrink made the most damaging and libelous accusations that I've ever heard in my life! You literally would NOT believe the crap that she wrote about me! (When I tell my friends what she said, they tell me that the SHRINK is likely the one suffering from a mental disorder!) According to her, every story I told was "bizarre" and "odd". I was just telling her about my friends and my work. And if I declined to answer one of her extremely intrusive personal questions? Then I was labeled as "paranoid" and "schizoid"!

I also suffer from a chronic physical illness, which was the main reason I was there. I cannot believe that ANYONE would have so little compassion for someone who was undergoing a health battle for their very life! I was looking at chemo, radiation, mastectomy, and possible DEATH! All this at a very young age. This B's 'specialty' was psycho-oncology, believe it or not.

The shrink then INSISTED that I accept a prescription for Lexapro, falsely claiming, "There is NO downside to Lexapro. It has ZERO side effects". Did she think I'm some kind of moron?! I was truly offended. I had told her that I have a Master's Degree in Psychology and that I graduated from college Summa Cum Laude. Perhaps she thought that this claim was a "delusion"! (I know a LOT about psychiatric medications and their side effects. Some of these meds can be VERY damaging, indeed! I've seen first-hand people suffering from tardive dyskinesia brought on by antipsychotic drugs. It is NOT a pretty sight.)

Another thing: The shrink wrote all sorts of derogatory comments criticizing my physical appearance. I don't have tattoos or piercings or a Mohawk, not that it would matter if someone did. I look very conservative and 'normal' in my appearance. People tell me I look pretty, so maybe she was jealous.

I was wearing a skirt and blouse, simple make-up, and I had my hair slightly curled. The shrink actually wrote: "Patient is obsessed with the 1950s and wears 1950s clothing, make-up, and hairstyle". WTF!? I think she is just VERY ignorant of fashion. She even criticized my lipstick application! What?! (I have naturally full lips---maybe she was jealous of that, too). She made a big deal out of the fact that I bleach my hair blonde. I do look a little bit like Marilyn Monroe, which I believe is a huge compliment whenever people tell me that. But the shrink wrote: "Patient is obsessed with Marilyn Monroe; doesn't have own identity"----it was HORRIBLE! None of that is true---I actually like Jean Harlow (1930s film star) equally as much as Marilyn Monroe. And if my look is a little bit "retro-glam", who the Hell cares?!

I totally agree that these psychiatrists are NOT qualified to be making diagnoses OR to be prescribing drugs, especially after seeing someone only ONCE and barely listening to what the 'patient' had to say! I truly believe that it is a 'power trip' thing. The whole, "I am superior to YOU. I am an MD. I am God. I am 'normal'; YOU are 'abnormal' and need to be drugged".

I just wanted to let you know you are not the only one who has suffered at the hands of an incompetent psychiatrist (or two). Going to "therapy" did me so much more HARM than GOOD. I'd go in feeling happy and I'd leave feeling terribly wounded. I'd then go home and cry, even thinking about ending it all, just because of the crap that those shrinks said to me. And they were always pushing drugs---SSRI's, tricyclics, anti-psychotics, lithium, etc.!

When I'd tell the shrink, "This drug makes me feel like a walking zombie; it makes me feel so much worse, the shrink would just say, "Oh, maybe then you're not depressed. If that's not working, then you must be bi-polar. Here's a script for lithium." (Thank God even at 14 years old I knew enough to 'just say no'. My parents are smart, but knew nothing about these meds. My parents believed anything the shrink told them about me, and wanted me to take the crummy drugs). I REFUSED, thank God!

 

[nuttynutskin]

I wouldn't base my view of psychiatry on your experience with one person who was clearly not only unprofessional but harmful. Unfortunately just like other doctors psychiatrists are only human. There's good psychiatrists and bad psychiatrists just like anything else. I don't have an invested interest at all and I think there's a lot of things wrong with psychiatry, but I just wouldn't let one bad experience keep you from necessarily seeking help in the future. Just my 2 cents.