Thread: Diagnosis

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Uh oh...

Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill | Mad In America

Cheers,


AetheLove

Interesting read. As someone who studies neuropsych. I am not buying some of his proposal...

ADD for example was certainly overdiagnosed, but I have personally worked with people who have ADD so badly it is not "anti-authoritarian," they literally have to be in the presence of a caretaker or they will not do things that keep them alive and healthy. Things like washing or eating. And they may fixate on behaviors that are absolutely not beneficial to them and may be dangerous. In some cases attention deficit may be so abysmal a patient has to manually have their attention adjusted from moemnt to moment by a caretaker (rare, but it is one extreme).

The question of medicating is interesting, I think many disorders are often dealt with using medication when behavioral therapy would work. It is clear to me that some types of mental illness and disorders require medication because the brain physically is not working "normally" and it is measurable. In some cases people need to be medicated indefinitely (severe bipolar disorder, severe schizophrenia, etc.) In most cases of disorders just cognitive/behavioral therapy etc. can often be enough, sometimes a drug is needed to oil the gears and may be discontinued after a brief period. We have made a habit though of medicating people when we don't need to though. I blame the pharmaceutical companies. they are pushing their meds on people with a lack of knowledge and then giving doctors incentives to hand over their drugs when those uninformed want them because of an ad they saw in YM.

The word "disorder" as used in psychology by definition means a person is not functioning correctly within their context. The Europeans have different disorders than we do because their societal norms are different. What is expected as normal is different as culture changes. So behavior that makes one "not function normally" varies from context to context. hearkening back to the discussion of American identity I would argue that our individualist nature makes Americans more anti-authoritarian than many other cultures.

More than subduing anti-authoritarian behavior, I see the institution of psychology as medicine capitalizing on need for continued practice. And to be frank most people in the field of psychology are not scientific thinkers (a severe conundrum when psychology so desperately wants to be taken seriously as a science). I have lectured to people countless times on critical thinking and empirical evidence in the scientific method, but I read papers that clearly demonstrate the student is not being impartial. You don't find that in a physics class typically! It is the only branch of science I have heard students in the upper division debating the validity of astrology, I have heard students declare things about behavior to be a well known fact when even a quick glance at wikipedia should enlighten them, etc. In Bio I heard a little bit of that, but not in chemistry, physics, etc.

While only someone with an MD can prescribe drugs, the degree requirements for most other psychology related jobs require only a four year degree. And a psychology degree (even a BS) generally requires only the 100 level version of science courses as elected to satisfy credit needs. I know many psychology students who took geology here because they speculate it is easier than chemistry or biology. If you are studying people's brains wouldn't biology make way more sense? Okay, so lazy thinkers can get a four year in psych pretty easy.

If the said lazy thinker is attractive enough to get a job counseling, they can refer a patient to a psychiatrist with a recommendation for a drug. In many cases the Psychiatrist referenced does not have the time to properly assess the patients needs and may prescribe based on the recommendation of someone who may well be clueless. I think the field of psychology is broken and has allowed a lot of people into the field who don't really belong studying a science. Compound that with aggressive ad campaigns by pharmaceutical companies and we see a problem.

I think most of the disorders the article mentions are real and worth noting. but in many cases are overdiagnosed (I think most people are a bit AD but not many are ADD) and should not be dealt with by medicating. Relying on medication in lieu of teaching someone to deal with an issue has spawned many problems for Americans.

I am babbling now... but that was a good read.

Get a room, you two

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Get a room, you two

But I want the donkey to watch.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

But I want the donkey to watch.

That can be arranged

So, relevantly, I had a long phone conversation with a friend and colleague earlier this evening. She went off to work on fibromyalgia research at a prestigious University; one of the top programs for fibromyalgia. She is Eastern European, brilliant and has oodles of hard science education. It is widely and has long been recognized that FM appears to be psychosomatic.

As it turns out Pfizer gives huge grants to this program and all their research is focused on medication, not therapy. Psychosomatic problems are best solved through cognitive/behavioral therapies. Maybe with meds initially. She left the program in dismay recently and called me tonight to vent about it. She said it was because she felt most of her colleagues there were not as well educated as they maybe should be, and further she said they (the other people in the program) were all career/profit oriented and not patient/research oriented. And further, the focus of the research is not about solving a problem, but about covering it up, and selling meds in the process.

Just an interesting anecdote from someone I trust.

Soy, have you watched Orgasm, Inc.? You might find it interesting. It focuses on the sexual dysfunction medicine industry, but also serves as a broader commentary on the state of medicine and diagnosis as a whole. It's on netflix.