100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: RF disorder - should it be studied? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The science of mind (psychology) is finding evidence that there are links between many disorders, autism, Asperger's and schizophrenia for example.
I contend that it's possible the link between those three may find a connection in the brains of people who suffer from extreme religious fundamentalism. I call it RF disorder and it tends to be subject to early onset, possibly due to persistant requsts from authority figures that a child learn to think illogically. I think it should be studied. What do you think, is religious fundamentalism a psychological disorder? EXAMPLE of what I call RF below. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/17/402438/santorum-staffer-says-women-shouldnt-be-president-because-its-against-gods-will/ Santorum Staffer Says Women Shouldn’t Be President Because It’s Against God’s Will By Marie Diamond on Jan 17, 2012 at 9:35 am In an article about the reasons Rep. Michele Bachmann’s campaign fizzled, the Des Moines Register points to “sexism among conservatives,” singling out an offensive email written by a staffer to Rick Santorum: Rival presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s Iowa coalitions director, Jamie Johnson, sent out an email saying that children’s lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president. [...] “The question then comes, ‘Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will, … to have a woman rule the institutions of the family, the church, and the state?’ ” Johnson’s email said. Johnson, who remains on Santorum’s staff, complained that the email was “blown out of proportion” and should not be held against him because it was sent from a personal email account. But he refused to back away from the substance of the email, saying “I was sharing my personal reflections with a friend…[T]hey were reflections on over 25 years of formal, theological study [based in] classical Christian doctrine.” After Bachmann left the race, several of her advisers pointed to sexism as a contributing factor. “We did believe that sexism — I use the stronger word misogyny — was at play,” said Peter Waldron, her faith outreach coordinator. Waldron said that several influential pastors called for her to drop out of the race, reasoning “that a female could not be a civil magistrate.” Johnson himself is a pastor at a central Iowa church. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HAhahaha, girl that actually made me laugh. You know you just missed the DSM-X, now you're going to have to wait till the next revision to get it in there. But that's fine, it'll give you time to work on all the psychiatrists you know. I think you definitely have a shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HAhahaha, girl that actually made me laugh. You know you just missed the DSM-X, now you're going to have to wait till the next revision to get it in there. But that's fine, it'll give you time to work on all the psychiatrists you know. I think you definitely have a shot. Why thank you, Bravelady but don't rush things, the DSM-V is not even due out till 2013. I'm waiting to see if they will finally include a section for psychopathy. Perhaps when neuroscience and its technology becomes more sophistocated, both RF and paychopathy will have their own category.  I won't hold my breath. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, sorry, I mixed up the ICD and the DSM again. Don't know why I can't keep them straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 01/18/12 09:33 AM
|
|
I think it already exists, most people are just afraid to apply the diagnosis.
The DSM-IV, and psychologists, generally agree that personal beliefs should be evaluated with great respect to complexity of cultural and religious differences since some cultures have widely accepted beliefs that may be considered delusional in other cultures. This is clearly unscientific. Delusions are delusions regardless of culture. The criteria of delusion is what matters not the background cultural acceptance of the delusion. Talk about tossing away any ground gained by an appeal to political correctness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It might be, but there are so many different kinds of beliefs that it would be difficult to draw the line between what might be called a "disorder" and what might be accepted as a valid belief.
If you start trying to draw a line, you might discover that all beliefs are a disorder of some kind. This whole reality could be a holographic projection of our minds. Hence everything is a delusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It might be, but there are so many different kinds of beliefs that it would be difficult to draw the line between what might be called a "disorder" and what might be accepted as a valid belief. If you start trying to draw a line, you might discover that all beliefs are a disorder of some kind. This whole reality could be a holographic projection of our minds. Hence everything is a delusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taste the Rainbow!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you trivialize the seriousness of Autism and schizophrenia in order to insult a man with whom you disagree and label a large number of the people in the world mentally ill? Stay classy Redykeulous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 01/18/12 01:48 PM
|
|
So you trivialize the seriousness of Autism and schizophrenia in order to insult a man with whom you disagree and label a large number of the people in the world mentally ill? Stay classy Redykeulous. Quick question Spider do you agree that women cannot be equally adept leaders? Does the bible inform your position on this question? The topic is "should it be studied", so I assume you disagree and believe that the phenomena should not be studied? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If someone believed in an invisible dragon in there garage that told them to murder people that would be crazy, but when its a god its not? I wouldn't say that the person seeing the invisible dragon was crazy. Quick question Spider do you agree that women cannot be equally adept leaders? No. Does the bible inform your position on this question? No. The topic is "should it be studied", so I assume you disagree and believe that the phenomena should not be studied? What phenomena? That some people are sexist or ignorant and use religion as a defense? What do you hope to learn? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't say that the person seeing the invisible dragon was crazy. Even if they murdered people becuase it said so? You do not think any kind of mental disorder would be called for to explain this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't say that the person seeing the invisible dragon was crazy. Even if they murdered people becuase it said so? You do not think any kind of mental disorder would be called for to explain this? Crazy indicates abnormal behaviors or mental patterns. A person who believed in invisible dragons wouldn't necessarily be crazy, that person could be having adverse reactions to drugs, feverish, have a chemical imbalance, etc. If the person who believed in the invisible dragon then decided to burn down an orphanage because an orphan laughed at him once, that would indicate he was crazy and delusional. If he didn't just believe in invisible dragons, but he also heard or saw them, then he would be suffering from hallucinations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 01/18/12 02:30 PM
|
|
I believe the DSM, and all attempts to categorize mental disorders have fallen short of hard science.
Crazy indicates abnormal behaviors or mental patterns. A person who believed in invisible dragons wouldn't necessarily be crazy, that person could be having adverse reactions to drugs, feverish, have a chemical imbalance, etc. Yup clear as mud. The first sentence is simple and clear and objective, the next sentence says that the causes of the abnormal behaviors or mental patterns may change the diagnosis without specifying why . . . Fair enough. Clear as mud. I agree with redy that we need to pair diagnosis with technological advancements that allow objective analysis. I would further this however and say that regardless of cultural norms when a person exhibits . . . abnormal behaviors or mental patterns. If the cause was believed in the invisible dragon then decided to burn down an orphanage because an orphan laughed at him once or a prophet said kill infidels, and someone claimed to not believe in your god, then they would equally represent an irrational, and delusional cause. Both are irrational, both believe some supernatural entity is encouraging the behavior, and both share abnormal behaviors or mental patterns. Now if we could take it a step further and find a pathology for these abnormal behaviors or mental patterns. That would be a benefit of such research . . . . I believe indoctrination is abuse, and the DSM also has clear precedents for abuse to cause abnormal behaviors or mental patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bushidobillyclub,
A person who believes in invisible dragons isn't necessarily exhibiting abnormal behaviors or mental patterns. Therefore, the person might be mentally ill but not crazy. A person can have delusions or hallucinations while feverish. Is that person now mentally ill? No. Is that person crazy? No. Just sick. I don't look at a person who is suffering delusions or hallucinations and think "crazy". Even if the delusions or hallucinations are permanent, that doesn't make the person crazy. Crazy (aka insane) people exhibit abnormal behaviors (rubbing tortillas on their face) or mental patterns (my neighbor woke me up last night, so I'll kill a homeless guy). A person who believes that the FBI are spying on him isn't acting abnormal if he closes his blinds and stays indoors. That's what any sane person who was being spied on would do. Having delusions or hallucinations doesn't necessarily mean you are crazy, which is why I said "I wouldn't say that the person seeing the invisible dragon was crazy." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 01/18/12 03:21 PM
|
|
I agree that the word crazy has no real merit in science. What is and isn't a mental disorder is rather weak science, and highlights the subjective nature of many of the diagnostic criteria used in modern psychology. Hence the need for further research and links to pathology. Technology has offered many new modalities in this pursuit.
Makes me wonder what the brains of fundamentalists look like when they are working through a decision that engages those beliefs as it compares with a brain of someone who engages rationally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Wed 01/18/12 04:14 PM
|
|
I agree that the word crazy has no real merit in science. What is and isn't a mental disorder is rather weak science, and highlights the subjective nature of many of the diagnostic criteria used in modern psychology. Hence the need for further research and links to pathology. Technology has offered many new modalities in this pursuit. Makes me wonder what the brains of fundamentalists look like when they are working through a decision that engages those beliefs as it compares with a brain of someone who engages rationally. What delusions are you talking about? Just because someone is a fundamentalist, that doesn't mean they are delusional. This is the problem that I have with the original post, belief does not indicate a mental illness. There is nothing sexier on this planet than a woman, should we regard homosexual men as mentally ill and "research" them? Honestly, just because you disagree with someone, that doesn't mean that person is mentally ill. Speaking as a libertarian, it makes me nervous that you can't see this slippery slope that you are walking down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mama says "Crazy is as crazy does"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It might be, but there are so many different kinds of beliefs that it would be difficult to draw the line between what might be called a "disorder" and what might be accepted as a valid belief. If you start trying to draw a line, you might discover that all beliefs are a disorder of some kind. This whole reality could be a holographic projection of our minds. Hence everything is a delusion. Sorry, I don't get your analogy. Let me be more specific. You can't say that "extreme religious fundamentalism' is a "disorder." If you do, then you would be forced to examine every belief that even slightly differs from what the so-called authority agrees is normal or "reality." I'm quite sure that there are an infinite number of beliefs from "There is no God" to "extreme religious fundamentalism." Materialists think only they are right and everyone else has some sort of disorder. Materialists think they are the only rational living human beings in existence. Materialists think they and only they are the authority who decides what is real or what is crazy. That is so arrogant that it borders on a disorder itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 01/18/12 05:52 PM
|
|
To say that extreme religious fundamentalist is a disorder is basically saying that all religion is a disorder.
If people actually take their religions literally or seriously they all begin to appear as a disorder. If they don't take their religion seriously, then they are just hypocrites going along with and humoring the crazy fundamentalists, which outnumber them. As the saying goes, if you are locked in an insane asylum you will eventually go crazy or pretend to be just to fit in. Everything is relative. Sanity is probably one of those things. |
|
|
|
|
