Everything that is wrong in your head is real and not a myth .

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/nancy_etcoff_on_happiness_and_why_we_want_it.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html

I think alot of it is bunk. Schitzophrenia and some of that stuff is real. I think as long as a person is not violent and can provide for themselves they should be free to walk around with tin foil hats should they please.

I agree that there should be some sort of advocate/representation for those forcibly institutionalized. I was not aware this was not the case, Ill have to check more in to it, but that is definately wrong if its true. Seems they should be appointed an advocate like children get.

I respect and actually love (as a brother, though he is not anywhere near being a relation) SkyHook. But the fact that people jump on him because they don't understand what he may really be saying is not due to people's not taking the time.

People read at their own comprehensive speed. If they took more time they would just waste their own time. And if they don't understand Sky at a speed of compreshension that is comfortable for them, it's not their fault.

It's like blaming a child for not walking as fast as a speeding locomotive.

I feel happy when I read Sky's clev, (clev= noun, cleve= adjective, clever= comparative of that adjectve) and I enjoy his observations for their inherent wit and their showing how he is in control of his thoughts. I revel in reading his not-so-obvious but very true observations and opinions of the situations we discuss. But I also assert that Sky sometimes, for some for me unknown reason, does not always construct his literary compositions in a precise and comprehensible way. This ought not to be used as a blame or as a sign of weakness on the part of his readers.

And I will be the first to admit to that.

(Well, since I am the only one who can admit to it, I guess I'd have to be the first - and the last. )

From the inside looking out, I see it as a combination of two things

1) I tend toward run-on sentences, which are always difficult to follow depending on how long they are.

2) I tend to "skip steps" when trying to put a whole train of logic down in writing, like skipping steps in a mathematical proof.

But regardless of any excuses I may profess, if I were on the outside looking in, I'd say it's most likely because my thoughts themselves are not always precise and comprehenisble - which is not really very far from the actual truth of the matter.

Mental illnesses are real, but much more rare than they are DIAGNOSED as. People are quick to be written off as mentally ill and given some drug instead of being shown how to work through things and become stronger and create better coping skills.

I think mental illness, due to biological and neurological defect, are real. I think the modern mental illnesses, diagnosed pretty much by how people are acting,,are much more of a ploy to help the drug companies make more money and to give adults more excuses to not be held accountable for their choices.

I don't disagree with that. But one can take two rocks, stack one on top of the other, call it a "blargenfarg" and say that the blargenfarg is real. Well yeah it's "real". You can see it and touch it and stub your toe on it - so it must be real.

And that is all that the mental disorders in the DSM are. They are nothing more than an arbitrary "stack" of symptoms that the DMS board votes on. There are no physiological tests whatsoever that are specified as grounds for diagnosis of any of them.

No doubt about that, as the American Psychatric Association is quick to point out. With close to four hundred different symptom checklists available (and if history is any indication, the upcoming DSM V will contain even more), and most of the symptoms being based on a purely subjective opinion, it is a sure bet that virtually ever person alive today could be "diagnosed" with at least one of them.

If there existed a biological or neurological test that invariably linked a biological or neurological condition with one of the mental disorders in the DSM, then I would agree. But there just plain aren't any such tests.

That is exactly right. One need only to look through the DSM to see that as an obvious fact. That is exactly what the “sympoms” are – actions.

In virtually all cases, the actions listed as symptoms in the DSM are in not illegal. They are simply “socially unacceptable”. So what we have, in truth, is an entire industry whose sole purpose is to make people act in a more socially acceptable manner.

But isn’t that the domain of the Justice system?

So why do we need a separate private industry to do the work of the justice system and why would those who control the very foundation of that industry (the DSM) wish to do so in secret? (The authors of DSM V have been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements regarding its contents.)

I think the answer has been presented already in this….Basically, the more “disorders” there are, the more patients there are. And the more patients there are, the more billable treatments there are.

And since all the “disorders” in the DSM are based on nothing more than the vote of a select few, without any objective tests whatsoever, we have what we have today – almost four hunderd different treatable (and thus billable) “disorders” that just magically sprang up out of nothing in the past 60 years. And it is interesting to note that there is an amazing correlation between the rise in mental disorders and the rise in outside (government and psychopharmeceutical) funding of psychiatry in those same 60 years.

Kinda makes one wonder.

Sky,

There is an abundant source of information regarding areas of the brain and their direct connection to some forms of mental illness. Too much dopamine is always a characteristic of schitzophrenia, although it does not always indicate it. That constitutes a chemical imbalance.

FMRI techniques are breaking down so many walls regarding the brain and it's connections to behaviour. You should check out TEDtalks. Search 'the mind' and you can see more of where science is today.

Thanks for finally bringing that up. (I was wondering if I were going to have to do it myself )

I have seen a few of the TedTalks videos on the mind and read a little about FMRI brain scans and their relationship to the mind. And although I have some philosophical disagreements with some of the fundamental premises, there is no doubt that there is some valid, objective science going on in the area.

But really, that is all but irrelevant to my point. Because the fact of the matter is that none of the almost four hundred mental disorders listed in the DSM has any reference whatsoever to any of that science as diagnostic tools or procedures. Not all. Not most. Not some, Not a few. Not one. But none. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Period. Out of almost four hundred!

Find a DSM and see for yourself.

And yet the APA says that the DSM is the definitive source for diagnosing all mental disorders.

Now aside from all the implications and rhetoric I’ve used here, there are some observed hard facts.

One fact is that, since there are no objective diagnostic tests, it is all too easy to get a prescription for a psychotropic drug by simply lying. And if you don’t get the drug you want from your doctor, you can simply try another one. (The drug manufacturers will love you for doing this.)

Now this not hypothetical. This is documented fact. There is actual video footage available (www.cchrint.org/videos) of someone going to a half dozen different psychiatrists, complaining of the exact same symptoms to all of them, and receiving recommendations of different drugs from different psychiatrists.

Or Google “thud experiment” for another example of what can happen because of the subjective nature of “mental disorder” diagnosis.

So much for the objective, scientific nature of psychiatry.

To reiterate…
“We do not know the etiology of really any of the mental disorders at the present time.” - Dr Carl Regier, Director of Research, American Psychiatric Association, Executive Director of the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education (APIRE), and Vice Chairman of the DSM V Task Force.

Now I have specifically tried to avoid going into the financial and political ties between the APA, the FDA and the psychopharmaceutical industry, because of the knee-jerk cries of “conspiracy theory” that it usually brings. I’ll just say that that whole cluster **** would be laughable if it weren’t so disturbing. But anyone with a little curiosity and time is welcome to find out about it for themselves.

I am not sure of your actual experience in psychiatric medicine but I will share mine. Many years ago, I met a beautiful girl through friends at work and started a relationship. There were some odd behaviors but I am generally a laid back and accepting person so I continued on. Eventually we went on a trip to Europe and the stress of the new environment caused daily "departures from accepted behaviors" to put it mildly. Many more events happened afterwords that appeared to form some kind of weird pattern.

Eventually, I convinced her to see a shrink who urged me to attend her sessions also. She was diagnosed with several disorders and the shrink stated that she probably suffered from others too but the overlapping symptoms made it increasingly difficult for an accurate diagnosis. Her brother had the same symptoms and committed suicide at the age of thirty. The shrink stated that the disorder was passed on genetically, usually from the mother.

During all this (years), I read about half a dozen books on the topic and saw where many patients had the exact same behaviors as hers. The drugs used to the treat the conditions developed "tolerance" problems at different rates so her meds had to be changed as their benefit diminished. Many drugs had different effects on different patients so a different "cocktail" was prescribed. Some drugs made her too sleepy to function, some too anxious,and some seemed to have no effect.

Eventually, years later, she moved far away to help her sister care for her ailing mother. I have no doubt that, without the medical treatment, she would be dead today.

I've used the DSM. When working in that field, that book is invaluable.

You say, "One fact is that, since there are no objective diagnostic tests, it is all too easy to get a prescription for a psychotropic drug by simply lying."

Psychologists do have tests. These tests are able to show if people are lying.

Yes, people may receive different meds from different doctors. Each person's physiological make-up is different. There is no "one size fits all" pill.

You say "doctors". I don't think doctors should be giving out those kinds of meds. Psychiatrists are the people that should be doing that.

I must say, you are all over the place on this one...

You started out bashing mental illness as "invalid" - then moved on to the drug companies, and have softened your comments as posters write more specific arguments...

hence is the danger of ignorance - pulling together anecdotal statements and attenpting to present them as a cohesive thought... to support the writers own agenda...

I see no specific point here... other than you like to hear yourself "talk" on a subject the you do not take the time to research specifically - outside of google...

Earthy,

I have to correct something here. Electro shock treatment never quit being used. They used it 10 years ago and they use it now.

It's a better treatment then the old days. Now they give people muscle relaxers before they do it.

I don;t know what tests you're referring to, but if you're referring to the "polygraph", then it is not objective. The instruments themselves may be objective, but the "interpretation" is not. That's why they are not allowed in a court of law. And I'm willing to bet long odds that any other "test for lying" is no more subjective than the polygraph. But if you know of one, I will stand corrected.

But all that aside, the fact is that no "tests for lying" were ever used in the example I gave. Or if they were, they failed.

I don't think doctors should be giving out those kinds of meds either. But it is my understanding that psychiatrists are required to have medical licenses - which makes them "doctors" by any reasonable definition.

Oh I'll admit that I'm covering several different aspects of what I consider to be interrelated issues. No argument there.

And I will freely admit that I have a specific agenda.

And since all the anecdotal statements are related to one or more of the issues I'm covering, I won't deny that I've used them.

Now if you think I'm somehow "wrong" for any of the above, then fine - you're perfectly entitled to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong.

And if you wish to use the ad hominem argument (as with your last statement), you're free to do that as well. But just remember that such an argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues.

Yeah, and they give it a different name and I heard lower voltage (or current or whatever). (I'm being serious.)

Oh, I know you're serious. It does use electricity. It's called ECT now - electroconvulsive therapy. They can put people under for it. I've seen people right after they received the treatment. It saved my Aunt's husband's life.