Psychiatry/psychiatric medicine [Archive]

soyonstout

29th June 2010, 05:35

I'm just curious if there are others who see psychiatrists and what their feelings are about it, especially with regard to the psychiatric medicine vs. therapy vs. alienation debate (what is real help for a person who is depressed, etc., should we try to minimize the amount of psychiatric drugs we need to feel normal? what if life is rough and we don't just want to feel normal?)

I personally have recently gotten back into both therapy and seeing a psychiatrist and both have been rather dissatisfying--and with the psychiatrists I'm starting to feel like a Guinea Pig (I told him the new medicine seemed to be working a little better and he said, "ok well then let's double the dosage" after only a week on the new stuff), and I also just feel like its impossible for the psychiatrists' view to not be involved in what their prescribing. And the one I have seems to think that if you ever get depressed you need to take more drugs until it never happens at all, which is downright frightening to me.

I'm not against science and don't really believe in remaining miserable to prove that the society we live under is intolerable, or waiting until that society is abolished to not be depressed, but there's just something a little fishy about what's going on that bugs me.

Also suspicious of the way money plays into "peer reviewed" trials and articles in the pharmacology business and generally suspicious of any service that tells you you'll need it for the rest of your life (chiropractors as well). Not to mention the propaganda that has been put out over the course of the 20th century that has turned out to be wrong which makes me unreceptive to those times when psychiatric knowledge continues to support theses it used to purely as propaganda, only now with much better arguments. Basically I would like to be able to receive psychiatric treatment somewhat on my own terms, but I think this is illegal. I think you either shop around until you find someone who isn't just trying to shove drugs down your throat and tell you what to do to be happy, otherwise you don't get any psychiatric drugs. There are a lot of life decisions I've made based on whether or not I could still get psychiatric medicine if I made this or that choice and in some ways I feel ripped off by that (although people get ripped off for every other disadvantage anyway, so I guess I should feel too bad about that). I'm really not a lifestylist, but I definitely feel pretty pushed around by this thing that I'm technically electing to do and paying for part of and I wonder if its all worth it.

Not asking for advice just curious what others' thoughts are.

-soyons tout

soyonstout

29th June 2010, 05:46

I should also say that I've got no problems with SSRIs in general. I've been taking them for more than 10 years, but I've recently started trying new ones since being back in therapy and this year is the first time I've run across the idea that I could be completely free from depressive symptoms if I only took enough drugs. I also had something of a laissez-faire relationship with my old shrink who would basically just write me the scripts because we'd known each other for a while and this new guy is kind of an asshole. Honestly, I would prefer just being able to get what I needed and be able to talk to someone about lowering or increasing my dosage if I felt like it and not have following orders be the condition for continuing to get medication. I've taken double doses in the past when I was having a really fucked up day and I didn't go crazy, I've also forgotten it about once a month for more than 10 years, gotten drunk while taking it, etc. Maybe I would be perfectly content if I never did these things or never had done these things and this is the only thing holding me back from never ever ever getting depressed, but I really doubt it. I kinda think it's a bit over controlled in some ways.

-soyons tout.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 05:53

Scientology Tom Cruise to the rescue.

Nothing you see in our capitalist society is 100% real. All products are embellished and pushed from all angles with the sole purpose of maximizing profits. The medical industry is no different.

Hell, psychiatry in general has largely been crafted from a bourgeois perspective. Freud (the cognitive angle) was pretty anti democracy and pro mass manipulation. Psychiatrists have fukt up the American mind and have strengthened capitalism from day one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUYFr-uDQgg

Plus, I'm not sure pharmacology is an exact science. Don't they usually have to say "we think this is how the meds work"? I haven't really spent much time delving into the specifics outside of psyche 101, knowing the goal of all businesses ( profit) and reading Freud/Jung etc.

Try watching "Century Of Self". It was enlightening. If I had to answer I would probably say there is such a thing as a lack of serotonin flow in some people brains which leads to depression. What causes it is another question. What should 'cure' it is also another question. Is it cognitive, environmental, hereditary?

I was wondering the other day.....did hoarding exist in non capitalist cultures? Did most of our modern disorders exist or have they been a bi product of our economic system. Obviously schizophrenia and severe mental disorders have existed which were blamed on demon possession at one point but I'm more talking about eating disorders and such.

Is capitalism making us mentally ill? applying Marx's materialist conception of history to this issue may answer part of that question.

x371322

29th June 2010, 05:57

I'm on the SSRI Lexapro. Not so much for depression, but for Anxiety and Panic disorder. I do feel that Doctors are often too quick to throw drugs around, but by God these things work... for me at least. I also think depression is misrepresented a lot. Depression is not just feeling sad, as is commonly believed. Anyone who really goes through this shit knows what hell it can be. Here's one of my stories:

I once had an anxiety attack so bad that my blood pressure nearly gave me a stroke, literally! My body shook at night, I couldn't sleep, had constant intestinal problems, I had chest pains, my heart rate was resting at 100, and my heart beat itself was REALLY hard... you can see why panic attacks are often mistaken for heart attacks. All this for no apparent reason. I had this constant feeling of "impending doom" you hear so much about. It went on for two weeks before I went to a doctor (I'm uninsured. Ended up paying out of pocket). My blood pressure when I got there was 190/110. My doc gave me the Lexapro and blood pressure meds and sent me home. This shit is real.

If someone can find some relief in a (really expensive) little white pill, then more power to 'em. That's my philosophy. After a few months on the Lexapro all my symptoms are gone. My blood pressure is still high, (not stroke high though) but I've had high blood pressure all my life, so...

soyonstout

29th June 2010, 09:35

Yeah as I said I'm really not anti-SSRI. I've taken them for more than 10 years and I they do help considerably for my clinical depression. I just think there's a lot that hasn't been adequately explained to me and an enormous amount of blind faith in the opinions of people I don't really have any way of getting to know. And I say opinions because every psychiatrist will try something different (or has anyway), which is what is so frustrating. I could conceivably spend the rest of my life changing psychiatrists every 6 months without moving out of my area and they would probably all tell me something different in terms of what medicines I should be taking, how much, whether therapy was needed as well, etc., all of which would I think be a reflection of certain opinions they had. I guess there's not a really good answer for this, I just felt like complaining because my new shrink seems like an asshole

soyonstout

29th June 2010, 10:07

Also these:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070614091656/http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/mentaldisorders0339.pdf
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/16/3
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/washington/12psych.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
http://chronicle.com/news/article/?id=4922

and I've worked in industries related to the medical publishing business before and remember that we used to hear about this all the time with regard to "peer reviewed" studies. The medicine works for some people (and has really helped me in the past and still does help me) but there's not nearly enough research about anything in the field to be very close to conclusive. Also these are people who less than 40 years ago changed their minds about a specific "psychological disorder" because of social pressure. In previous threads it has been said that as a science, psychiatry is still in its infancy, I agree and maybe am judging things a bit harshly but why does it cost so goddamn much to be treated by people who only barely know what they're doing, and can't really claim much more, and why do they have so much authority in terms of prescriptions, etc.?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

29th June 2010, 10:41

I have a psychiatrist. I take Celexa, Wellbutrin, Adderall, and Modafinil for some form of depression or combination of depressions. Never bothered with a formal diagnosis as all the things end up with similar medications anyway these days.

I am rather hostile to anti-psychiatry opinions because they are usually misinformed. Mental illness can be brought on by life circumstances, but I've had periods in my life where I wasn't depressed. It's probably less stable as I am still younger and was when this was occurring. Symptoms usually bounce around especially in developmental ages.

There were times where my depression started or got worse for no reason. Or times where it got worse for such insignificant things. I mean if someone got depressed whenever they had a minor difficulty in life, it's not really the capitalist system that's to blame.

Does capitalism mess me up? Yes. I worry about finding a career that I can tolerate, mostly, as I seriously can't psychologically deal with many things for long periods. It's just too much for me to deal with.

Some doctors and psychiatrists are better than others. I had a therapist when I was really young who was terrible. Another two terrible therapists in high school. They listened to my feelings, which I didn't need. I wanted people to help me with problems. I had another therapist who helped some, but it wasn't with mood but goal-setting. Then another therapist I saw once and never came back. They tried to diagnose me with aspergers on the basis that I don't like conforming to social norms when I find them to be ridiculous (lol).

Then another therapist who said "I can't see any psychological issues, but I'll assume there is something so we can try and help you." More like assume there is something so you keep getting paid.

I've had bigger issues with therapy. And yes medications are a huge pain. I've tried a bunch of them in different contexts. It's also arguable that chemicals and all those capitalist-caused environmental factors could be increasing mental illness. That and social contexts.

The alienation people make me want to slap them sometimes. Even if depression is caused by the capitalist system, depressed people are tired, apathetic, and unmotivated in most cases. They aren't pumped up to start the revolution. They need medication to even function enough to consider going out of the house sometimes let alone going to a rally.

Too many misconceptions about mental illness. Scientology really irritates me. I think everyone in it should be admitted to a psychiatric ward and its leaders jailed. It exploits people who are clearly in a vulnerable state. Now yes, religions do that too. But you can single Scientology out without making the other religions inclined to feel like their next. Scientology targets adults who would never believe that nonsense unless something shifty was occurring.

piet11111

29th June 2010, 17:18

I have been on various anti-depressives but the most effective was Venlafaxine Hydrochloride or effexor XR.
It fucked up my memory though making all those crap memory's go away was the best thing that could happen to me.

Funny is that i never had any withdrawal problems after quiting cold turkey because i could no longer read a page without forgetting what was read at the start of the page.

pastradamus

29th June 2010, 17:26

piet11111

29th June 2010, 17:30

Forgive me if im going off the psychiatric side of things but I just want to say that I believe that many medicines are now over-prescribed. In Ireland our doctors seem to hand out anti-biotics almost by default. This is a dangerous practice as it may mean a person will become immune to these anti-biotics when they really need them.

From what I can see this practice seems to be the same in many countries but especially the US where I believe people are being over-prescribed with anti-depressants... thoughts?

Getting real help is expensive as such the docs seem content to throw some pills at their patients to make them go away.
And there is also a large profit margin on these types of meds and that certainly sways the decision to prescribe pills.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 21:21

lol @ scientology. I wasn't serious. did you know how many people in hollywood are in that shit? will smith, tom cruise, john travolta, the woman from cheers, the manager guy from avatar, lisa simson from the simsons etc and so on...fucking scary.

Comrade Phil

29th June 2010, 22:03

When it comes to psychiatry/clinical psychology the patient needs to make a genuine effort to be pro-active. If you come to the therapist with a helpless and passive attitude, it is very understandable that you might wind up feeling like a "guinea pig" or that the therapist is unable to address the real problem. You need to be an agent of your mental health; open, honest, direct (not hostile), and willing to establish a sense of trust with your therapist. If you are concerned about what your therapist is prescribing you, tell him/her about your concerns in a constructive manner. Always remember that you have rights as a patient, in most cases the therapist/physician is legally bound to accommodate the patient's wishes regarding treatment regimens.

Obviously being an effective patient is easier said than done when you are suffering from a mental health disorder such as depression, but becoming one is an important part of the healing process. The book "How Doctor's Think" by Jerome Groopman helped me a fair bit in this regard.

You've probably come across this already but there are studies which suggest that using cognitive-behavioural therapy is just as good if not better than just taking an SSRI for treating depression. Obviously, going off any psychotropic drug is a very serious matter (withdrawal/ increased risk of suicide) and a physician is the only person who can help you make a safe decision with a monitored dosage reduction. It took me about 6 months to taper off my SSRI dosage and I was still kinda fucked up from withdrawal symptoms.

From my experience, I think SSRIs are only good for allieviating the symptoms of depression and anxiety, it is therapy that allows one to overcome the problem on a longterm basis. However, alot of practitioners like to use both approaches, which seems very reasonable.

http://www.thoughtsonhappiness.com/?q=content/cognitive-therapy-versus-medication-depression&page=2 <- concise summary of study, the website it is posted on doesn't seem that reputable.
[/URL]

[URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748674/ (http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v9/n10/abs/nrn2345.html)

I just read that you weren't looking for advice, so I apologize for sounding preachy. These are my thoughts when it comes to the sort of thing anyways. I hope things get better for you man, hang in there.

Hell, psychiatry in general has largely been crafted from a bourgeois perspective. Freud (the cognitive angle) was pretty anti democracy and pro mass manipulation. Psychiatrists have fukt up the American mind and have strengthened capitalism from day one.

Modern psychiatry/clinical psych has largely abandoned Freudien theory (called the psychoanalytical perspective not cognitive) in favour of.. actual scientific thought. With the exception of some of his theories on the unconscious mind, Freud's theories have been shown to have little to no scientific validity.

Is capitalism making us mentally ill?

I think it is kind of ridiculous to think that capitalism is a significant cause of mental illness. There is too much evidence suggesting that other factors not inherently related to capitalism (genetics, neurological development/function, personal trauma, childhood development) play a large role in an individual's vulnerability to mental disorders. The environmental factors which are related to capitalism (poor nutrition, poor sleep hygiene, exposure to dangerous substances, etc) can cause many different types of medical problems not just mental illness.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

29th June 2010, 23:14

Comrade Phil

30th June 2010, 05:09

Some patients only need therapy and some only need medication. Some need both. The effectiveness of using therapy and medication, on average, is higher than either one alone. It doesn't mean everyone needs to do that as it is essentially just throwing to solutions at someone because the problem isn't discernible.

You're right, everyone has different personalities and neural wiring. It is understandable that some treatments work for some individuals while others do not.

However, I think it is important that practitioners offer both forms of treatment with equal enthusiasm. This allows the patient to decide for themselves what treatments are effective for him/her. That said, when it comes to patients with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, it's obvious that medication takes priority over therapy.

In some areas it is fairly common for psychiatrists to refer their patients to a clinical psychologist so that both forms of treatment are given full attention. To me this makes the most sense as it allows the patient to more easily manage their treatment options and negates any bias towards one form of treatment or the other.

soyonstout

30th June 2010, 05:46

concise summary of study, the website it is posted on doesn't seem that reputable.

as someone who used to work in a related field to medical publishing, I was sorely disappointed with the quality of the websites on which one has to search for this information when not using a medical college's subscription databases--but this is part of the problem, isn't it?

Modern psychiatry/clinical psych has largely abandoned Freudien theory (called the psychoanalytical perspective not cognitive) in favour of.. actual scientific thought. With the exception of some of his theories on the unconscious mind, Freud's theories have been shown to have little to no scientific validity.

...I think it is kind of ridiculous to think that capitalism is a significant cause of mental illness. There is too much evidence suggesting that other factors not inherently related to capitalism (genetics, neurological development/function, personal trauma, childhood development) play a large role in an individual's vulnerability to mental disorders. The environmental factors which are related to capitalism (poor nutrition, poor sleep hygiene, exposure to dangerous substances, etc) can cause many different types of medical problems not just mental illness.

I frankly think that the monoamine hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_imbalance)is far from even acceptable as a model for this stuff--it may be the best model under some circumstances but to tell you the truth, I've been on at least ten psychiatric drugs (usually 1 at a time, but sometimes as many as 3 at a time) over the course of the last 10-15 years and I'm fairly certain that people really know very little about what these drugs do in relation to specific symptoms and different bodies--they have what the drugs are supposed to do biologically, and they have ideas about what kinds of drugs will help different symptoms, but the "chemical imbalance in the brain" is not actually a quantifiable phenomenon (as far as I know--show me the series of peer-reviewed studies with a sample groups and I will perhaps eat my words), so its completely trial and error. The commercials on TV still say "psychiatrist think that depression may be linked to a chemical imbalance in the brain, and zoloft/paxil/prozac is designed to correct this imbalance." And a science that is still-in-its-diapers in this way does not deserve a fraction of the money and authority thrown at it, and certainly doesn't deserve to dominate the treatment schemes for psychological problems in as much as it does today in the US. And I'm saying this as someone who's derived a lot of help from (some) psychiatric drugs (SSRIs in particular).

As for Freud vs. the prevalent Biopsychiatric model, I frankly think I would put them the other way around. Biopsychiatry is hopelessly empiricist, ahistorical, asocial, etc., and has very little concept that anything outside the body of an individual organism could ever cause changes in it that couldn't be biologically drugged away. This is a totally bourgeois conception, in my opinion, and is really not very "scientific" (if by that we mean critically examining every possible cause and evolution of a problem) in that it immediately factors out all but one potential source of the problem. Freud has at least the merit of having pointed out that modern society is no place for healthy human beings (I don't really know where one of the posters is getting the "anti-democratic" idea, although we all know Freud was rather sexist) and that adjusting someone to it is not the same as healing them. At all. No one (I don't think) is arguing that leaving depression untreated will hasten the revolution, but there is a very clear way in which individualizing these problems (and the sources for them) is a reflection of the mode of social life that predominates on planet earth at the moment.

Lastly, I've heard people say that the reason there is so much less diagnosis of depression and other psychological issues in the third world is because of less money/medecine/teckmology/etc. This can't possibly explain everything. Do we really think living in a society where most people don't have to move far away from their communities to find work and live in a city full of strangers would have no effect on people? Or a society with more nature, tighter-knit communities, etc.? To me this is viewing the world with blinders on.

Comrade Phil

30th June 2010, 18:22

I frankly think that the monoamine hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_imbalance)is far from even acceptable as a model for this stuff--it may be the best model under some circumstances but to tell you the truth, I've been on at least ten psychiatric drugs (usually 1 at a time, but sometimes as many as 3 at a time) over the course of the last 10-15 years and I'm fairly certain that people really know very little about what these drugs do in relation to specific symptoms and different bodies--they have what the drugs are supposed to do biologically, and they have ideas about what kinds of drugs will help different symptoms, but the "chemical imbalance in the brain" is not actually a quantifiable phenomenon (as far as I know--show me the series of peer-reviewed studies with a sample groups and I will perhaps eat my words), so its completely trial and error. The commercials on TV still say "psychiatrist think that depression may be linked to a chemical imbalance in the brain, and zoloft/paxil/prozac is designed to correct this imbalance." And a science that is still-in-its-diapers in this way does not deserve a fraction of the money and authority thrown at it, and certainly doesn't deserve to dominate the treatment schemes for psychological problems in as much as it does today in the US. And I'm saying this as someone who's derived a lot of help from (some) psychiatric drugs (SSRIs in particular).

I agree, the way big-pharma and the medical profession promote this unproven theory is quite manipulative. The model has become so popular because there simply because there hasn't been any other credible explanations. These institutions seem to use it as a means to talk down to the public and justify the widespread use of these types of drugs. This coupled with the fact that so much of the negative side effects of SSRIs were originally covered up makes me fairly wary of these medications.

As far as I know, science is currently unable to quantify the levels of any neurotransmitter beyond the blood-brain barrier (I think they are able to measure the number of activated receptors, but that in no way provides an accurate estimate of neuotransmitter levels). I was once told that any study which attempts to do so is "a bunch of horseshit."

As for Freud vs. the prevalent Biopsychiatric model, I frankly think I would put them the other way around. Biopsychiatry is hopelessly empiricist, ahistorical, asocial, etc., and has very little concept that anything outside the body of an individual organism could ever cause changes in it that couldn't be biologically drugged away. This is a totally bourgeois conception, in my opinion, and is really not very "scientific" (if by that we mean critically examining every possible cause and evolution of a problem) in that it immediately factors out all but one potential source of the problem. Freud has at least the merit of having pointed out that modern society is no place for healthy human beings (I don't really know where one of the posters is getting the "anti-democratic" idea, although we all know Freud was rather sexist) and that adjusting someone to it is not the same as healing them. At all. No one (I don't think) is arguing that leaving depression untreated will hasten the revolution, but there is a very clear way in which individualizing these problems (and the sources for them) is a reflection of the mode of social life that predominates on planet earth at the moment.

I just don't think the psychoanalytic approach is an effective treatment option regardless of our society. It usually takes years even decades for patients to improve using this method. Given the immense treatment period, one could point to spontaneous remission as a source of successfully treated patients. So much of Freud's underlying theories are unprovable assumptions piled upon unprovable assumptions. If a patient is presenting a characteristic which contradicts a core theory...of course he/she is repressing this or that. That said, I fully support the other forms of psychosocial therapy derived from the cognitive, behavioural and cross cultural schools of thought as they are far more effective and scientifically credible.

I don't really see how biopsychiatry is bourgeois, it is in opposition to the bourgeois notion that mind and body are completely seperate. The fact of the matter is that as science uncovers more about the functions of the nervous system, we gain greater understanding about how the mind is indeed associated with the body. It makes sense that one avenue to treat the mind is to treat some aspect of the body. Even Freud said that biology and psychology would one day converge. If you are specifically criticizing therapists who only offer biological treatment, then I fully agree with you.

Wolf Larson

30th June 2010, 19:16

"I think it is kind of ridiculous to think that capitalism is a significant cause of mental illness. There is too much evidence suggesting that other factors not inherently related to capitalism (genetics, neurological development/function, personal trauma, childhood development) play a large role in an individual's vulnerability to mental disorders. The environmental factors which are related to capitalism (poor nutrition, poor sleep hygiene, exposure to dangerous substances, etc) can cause many different types of medical problems not just mental illness."

I never said capitalism was the sole cause and I also mentioned genetics :) You mention personal trauma, childhood development etc. How much of that can be attributed to the stress of being raised in a capitalist society? Also, have you ever read the DSM (case in point-homosexuality)? I mean c'mon man....and 'therapists' have various methods Freudian analysis being only one. I never said Freud was the dominate one these days I simply mentioned how he, or more specifically Edward Bernays, used his work to manipulate the American mind.

Do you think 500 years ago there were people living in homes hording shit from the floor too ceiling? Do you think there were people eating plates of food and purging afterward? I think capitalism (and psychiatry) has in fact created a whole number of various illnesses. I don't argue with chemical imbalances....science is science but there is a certain amount of subjectivity to be found in the DSM. Atop of that I find it hard to believe there was a bunch of people who had to wash their hands 200 times a day in ancient Egypt.

I'm not necessarily saying many of these disorders aren't real or being experienced... I bring up the materialist conception of history because it dictates our relation to the means of production sets the stage, if you will, for our entire social construct or reality. So in that sense everything we experience is due to capitalism. Under communism there may be a whole different set of 'disorders'.

Wolf Larson

30th June 2010, 19:20

Freud has at least the merit of having pointed out that modern society is no place for healthy human beings (I don't really know where one of the posters is getting the "anti-democratic" idea, although we all know Freud was rather sexist)

Another interesting study showing the effects of hierarchy (wage slavery can be one example) was the Stanford Prison experiment. It wasnt so much meant to show the effects ofa prison environment- the prison was just a scaled down version of society. I'd go as far as to say in a non hierarchical communist society which has facilitated abundance many of our current disorders wouldn't exist.

As far as Freud being a anti democratic slime ball goes....

Watch this entire 4 part 4 hour series and get back to me. :)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6718420906413643126#

(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6718420906413643126#)

Comrade Phil

30th June 2010, 23:07

I never said capitalism was the sole cause and I also mentioned genetics

Fair enough.

You mention personal trauma, childhood development etc. How much of that can be attributed to the stress of being raised in a capitalist society?

I'll admit it is very possible that a individual may experience personal trauma or a poor childhood as a direct result of capitalism, but I would say it is safe to assume that people will continue experienced such tragedy in their lives long after capitalism has been abolished. For that reason, I do not see thse factors as being inherently derived from capitalism.

....and 'therapists' have various methods Freudian analysis being only one. I never said Freud was the dominate one these days I simply mentioned how he, or more specifically Edward Bernays, used his work to manipulate the American mind.

Fair enough.

Also, have you ever read the DSM (case in point-homosexuality)? I mean c'mon man

I don't argue with chemical imbalances....science is science but there is a certain amount of subjectivity to be found in the DSM.

Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973. I believe there is a significant movement to make revisions in DSM-V regarding classifications such as gender identity disorder as well.

The DSM is not perfect, but it is a very useful tool nonetheless. Most therapists recognize that real patients do not fit into the neatly packaged classifications of the DSM.
Nevertheless, I don't understand how you can accept an unproven theory about chemical imbalances, but not the empirically based observations, widely reported symptoms, and proven effective treatments listed in the DSM. As you say, science is science.

Do you think 500 years ago there were people living in homes hording shit from the floor too ceiling? Do you think there were people eating plates of food and purging afterward?

Yes, I think it is possible that people living 500 years ago experienced such disorders. The specific mainfestation may have been different due to different material conditions but the experience of anxiety if one did not carry out the compulsion probably was the same.

Atop of that I find it hard to believe there was a bunch of people who had to wash their hands 200 times a day in ancient Egypt.

Why not? Brain function and genetics play a huge role in OCD. Even animals can exhibit obsessive-compulsive behaviour. Once again it might not have been specifically hand washing but the cognitive symptoms and the need to formulate a behavioural compensation probably were the same.

I'm not necessarily saying many of these disorders aren't real or being experienced... I bring up the materialist conception of history because it dictates our relation to the means of production sets the stage, if you will, for our entire social construct or reality. So in that sense everything we experience is due to capitalism. Under communism there may be a whole different set of 'disorders'.

I do not believe historical materialism can be extrapolated beyond the superstructure of society. How exactly do the symptoms of depression or schizophrenia experienced by a feudal peasant differ from those of a modern proletarian? Sure there are differences in interpretation and treatment, but how could the symptoms be any different?
Tuberculosis is a disease that has plagued humanity since antiquity. Has TB infection changed as we shifted from feudalism to capitalism? How are mental disorders any different?

Wolf Larson

30th June 2010, 23:44

Fair enough.

1.I'll admit it is very possible that a individual may experience personal trauma or a poor childhood as a direct result of capitalism, but I would say it is safe to assume that people will continue experienced such tragedy in their lives long after capitalism has been abolished. For that reason, I do not see thse factors as being inherently derived from capitalism.

Fair enough.

2. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973. I believe there is a significant movement to make revisions in DSM-V regarding classifications such as gender identity disorder as well.

The DSM is not perfect, but it is a very useful tool nonetheless. Most therapists recognize that real patients do not fit into the neatly packaged classifications of the DSM.
Nevertheless, I don't understand how you can accept an unproven theory about chemical imbalances, but not the empirically based observations, widely reported symptoms, and proven effective treatments listed in the DSM. As you say, science is science.

3.Yes, I think it is possible that people living 500 years ago experienced such disorders. The specific mainfestation may have been different due to different material conditions but the experience of anxiety if one did not carry out the compulsion probably was the same.

4.Why not? Brain function and genetics play a huge role in OCD. Even animals can exhibit obsessive-compulsive behaviour. Once again it might not have been specifically hand washing but the cognitive symptoms and the need to formulate a behavioural compensation probably were the same.

5.I do not believe historical materialism can be extrapolated beyond the superstructure of society. How exactly do the symptoms of depression or schizophrenia experienced by a feudal peasant differ from those of a modern proletarian? Sure there are differences in interpretation and treatment, but how could the symptoms be any different?
Tuberculosis is a disease that has plagued humanity since antiquity. Has TB infection changed as we shifted from feudalism to capitalism? How are mental disorders any different?

1.How many examples of OCD do we see today in non capitalist third world conditions? Can you muster up some case studies? Perhaps in indigenous tribal areas?

2.seeing that homosexuality was in there in the first place shows how their criteria for mental disorder is seriously flawed. i'm also not arguing mental disorders don't exist. i'm making the statement that many of them may in fact be a side effect of our economic system which dictates our very reality itself.

3. you think it possible and probable?

4. animals in captivity (under unnatural stress) or animals in nature?

5. so if, lets say, we lived in an advanced communist society where daily life wasn't filled with competition, toil, endless commercials telling us to be skinny, blonde, smokers, drinkers, fashionable, tall, dark and handsome....lets say TV is not that an imporatnt factor at all and people actually socialize more rather than sit in front of a box and drive back and forth to work (repeat for 40 years) much of the same levels of depression would exist? :)

praxis1966

1st July 2010, 02:05

Just to weigh in on the OP before delving in on later posts, I'd like to say I'm jealous of the folks here who have the financial capacity to get treatment. I'm not saying that I begrudge you anything, in fact I'm all in favor of people who need it getting treatment.

The reason I say I'm jealous is that I'm currently financially unable to be treated and I know I need it. I've got all kinds of neuroses I'm sure, not least of which are probably PTSD that's probably responsible for my anger management, anxiety, and depression problems. In other words, I'm fucked up about six days from Sunday and I wish there was something more I could be doing about it.

As an aside, have any of you guys considered that by spending so much time on your computers that you're actually feeding the beast, so to speak? I'm keenly aware ATM of a study done a few years back that correlated increasing hours of internet use with feelings of isolation and depression.

Anyway, to get on with it...

1.How many examples of OCD do we see today in non capitalist third world conditions? Can you muster up some case studies? Perhaps in indigenous tribal areas?

I couldn't muster up any case studies for you in this area because I think there's probably a serious reporting problem here. I can, however, offer anecdotal evidence. My girlfriend's family is from El Salvador, and every one of them are quite dysfunctional, her brother in particular. He [the brother] almost certainly suffers from some type of bipolar disorder (which I can say with some relative certainty given that my girlfriend is actually a clinical social worker). The trouble is that there's a cultural taboo in communities like hers when it comes to mental health. The end result of that is not that there are fewer mental disorders, but that fewer people seek treatment for them. I'm sure she could proffer up all kinds of sociological studies to support what I'm saying, but she isn't home at the moment so I'll have to get back to you on that one.:)

2.seeing that homosexuality was in there in the first place shows how their criteria for mental disorder is seriously flawed. i'm also not arguing mental disorders don't exist. i'm making the statement that many of them may in fact be a side effect of our economic system which dictates our very reality itself.

The point is that homosexuality hasn't been in the DSM for nearly 30 years. I think you should also keep in mind that birth control wasn't fully legalized in the US until 1965, so the field of mental health wasn't the only medical field retarded by social mores. You're right in your caution, IMO, though, if for no better reason than the agreed upon lack of understanding about the way the brain functions.

3. you think it possible and probable?

I dunno about Phil, but I definitely do. The trouble is documentation of the lives of anything other than the socio-economic elites to that end. In fact, while I don't think anorexia nervosa was as much of a problem, compulsive over-eating probably was. Consider for a moment that being rotund was a sign of wealth...

4. animals in captivity (under unnatural stress) or animals in nature?

I would say that animals in nature probably exhibit just as many, if not more because of relative food scarcity and its effects on in utero neural development, mental disorders that result from a biological-structural source. On the other hand, I think you're partially right if what you're talking about are environmentally stimulated mood disorders.

5. so if, lets say, we lived in an advanced communist society where daily life wasn't filled with competition, toil, endless commercials telling us to be skinny, blonde, smokers, drinkers, fashionable, tall, dark and handsome....lets say TV is not that an imporatnt factor at all and people actually socialize more rather than sit in front of a box and drive back and forth to work (repeat for 40 years) much of the same levels of depression would exist? :)

I think that's impossible to say for certain one way or the other. I can tell you what I feel, though. I fucking hate working. I'm lazy. Period. The only reason I do it is to survive, and I don't think that'll change with a changing relationship to the means of production. I'm going to be irritated at actually having to roll out of bed and do something productive with my day one way or the other.:lol: On the other hand, it couldn't hurt not having a fascist of a boss breathing down my neck all day barking orders at me.:)

As an aside, smoking, drinking, fast cars, and fast women are some of my favorite things. I don't really see that changing, either lulz.

Comrade Phil

1st July 2010, 02:47

Wolf Larson

1st July 2010, 03:02

I agree with praxis on the points above so I'll just leave a couple of studies related to OCD in developing capitalist nations.

OCD in Mexico City
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/582/58222701.pdf

OCD in Taiwan
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118999100/HTMLSTART

Thats all well and good but are there any in indigenous populations which have not been exposed to the reality capitalism creates? I'm not saying there isn't....I'd just be interested to read them.

After all, it's not as if psychiatrists havent traveled the world.

Wolf Larson

1st July 2010, 03:05

praxis1966

1st July 2010, 17:23

"The point is that homosexuality hasn't been in the DSM for nearly 30 years"

so 30 years from now what wont be in there? homosexuality isn't the only 'disorder' which has been taken out of the DSM. Anyhow, for every one taken out a few hundred are put in ;)

All I can say to this is I wouldn't go throwing the baby out with the bath water at this point. Yes, the fields of psychology and psychiatry are flawed. Yes, I have serious grievances and reservations about certain areas of it. But then again, because I'm a thinking person, I have serious grievances and reservations about damned near everything. It's part of what makes me, and you guys as well, intelligent. But I think the fact that we all recognize the need for better treatment models means that we can actually be helpful in terms of activism and advocacy on a macro level as well as being better participants in our own treatment on a micro level.

Anyway, I wonder if you guys, Wolf especially, are familiar with the work of Abraham Maslow. I think his 'Hierarchy of Needs' can go a long way in terms of explaining why folks living in the third world either don't present or don't get treated for psychological disfunction. He basically says that if the primary focus of your daily life is subsistence then it's impossible for you to attain any kind of self actualization. The Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs) on the subject leaves a little to be desired in terms of citations, but it does a fair enough job of explaining the theory.

Also, there's alot to be said in terms of the way indigenous peoples view what we in the first world would call mental dysfunction. I actually asked the ol' lady about this subject this AM. She related the way the Hmong people of Southeast Asia perceive epilepsy: instead of viewing it as an abnormality, they actually believe that someone with the disorder is blessed in a sort of superstitious way. When she told me this, I was immediately reminded of Julius Ceasar. Supposedly, he had epilepsy as well, but the ancient Romans used to view epileptics as divine. They thought that the epileptic was a channel through which the gods communicated to humanity, and the siezures were a result of mortals' inability to cope with the gods awesome power. I would imagine that people who have schizoid hallucinations are viewed the same way; that they're somehow more in tune with the spirit world than the rest of us.

Which way of perceiving mental dysfunctions is better? To answer that involves a value judgement I'm just not willing to make. There are, however, drawbacks to both. We've already discussed the drawbacks of how mental illness is treated in the first world so there's no need to rehash. But in the third world, there's a couple of glaring drawbacks that are obvious: occasionally depressives kill themselves and occasionally psychotics kill other people. Without treatment, this likelihood can only increase.

Wolf Larson

1st July 2010, 18:00

All I can say to this is I wouldn't go throwing the baby out with the bath water at this point. Yes, the fields of psychology and psychiatry are flawed. Yes, I have serious grievances and reservations about certain areas of it. But then again, because I'm a thinking person, I have serious grievances and reservations about damned near everything. It's part of what makes me, and you guys as well, intelligent. But I think the fact that we all recognize the need for better treatment models means that we can actually be helpful in terms of activism and advocacy on a macro level as well as being better participants in our own treatment on a micro level.

Anyway, I wonder if you guys, Wolf especially, are familiar with the work of Abraham Maslow. I think his 'Hierarchy of Needs' can go a long way in terms of explaining why folks living in the third world either don't present or don't get treated for psychological disfunction. He basically says that if the primary focus of your daily life is subsistence then it's impossible for you to attain any kind of self actualization. The Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs) on the subject leaves a little to be desired in terms of citations, but it does a fair enough job of explaining the theory.

Also, there's alot to be said in terms of the way indigenous peoples view what we in the first world would call mental dysfunction. I actually asked the ol' lady about this subject this AM. She related the way the Hmong people of Southeast Asia perceive epilepsy: instead of viewing it as an abnormality, they actually believe that someone with the disorder is blessed in a sort of superstitious way. When she told me this, I was immediately reminded of Julius Ceasar. Supposedly, he had epilepsy as well, but the ancient Romans used to view epileptics as divine. They thought that the epileptic was a channel through which the gods communicated to humanity, and the siezures were a result of mortals' inability to cope with the gods awesome power. I would imagine that people who have schizoid hallucinations are viewed the same way; that they're somehow more in tune with the spirit world than the rest of us.

Which way of perceiving mental dysfunctions is better? To answer that involves a value judgement I'm just not willing to make. There are, however, drawbacks to both. We've already discussed the drawbacks of how mental illness is treated in the first world so there's no need to rehash. But in the third world, there's a couple of glaring drawbacks that are obvious: occasionally depressives kill themselves and occasionally psychotics kill other people. Without treatment, this likelihood can only increase.

No I agree. All sorts of disorders have existed since the dawn of man i'm sure....i'm more so wondering if various economic systems can form differnt disorders. i dont suggest anyone who is depressed shun psychiatry....no no no, not what i'm saying at all :)

praxis1966

1st July 2010, 18:53

No I agree. All sorts of disorders have existed since the dawn of man i'm sure....i'm more so wondering if various economic systems can form differnt disorders. i dont suggest anyone who is depressed shun psychiatry....no no no, not what i'm saying at all :)

Well, I asked the GF how she felt about this one as well. She completely agreed with you that the current system was a huge part of the problem. She told me about this undocumented family that she worked with, single mom was completely unstable, toddlers unable to speak a word in any language, two year old twins who used to rock back and forth constantly to self-soothe. Fucking awful.

She got the mother into treatment, the consequence of which meant that a psychiatrist prescribed wellbutrin for mood stabilization. It worked really well, and before you knew it the benefits had trickled down to the children. They had begun talking, the two year olds stopped rocking so much... Trouble was, like so many people, the mother thought she was cured and came of her meds without consulting her doctor first and everybody was right back to square one.

Anyway, my girlfriend felt that if it weren't for the isolation and complete lack of support compounded by fears of deportation that undocumented immigrants suffer, her client would have been much better off. The whole fucking situation is just so rotten...:crying:

Blackscare

1st July 2010, 19:06

Freud (the cognitive angle)Are you saying Freud was a cognitive psychologist? He wasn't, that's an entirely different school. Freud was a psychoanalyst.

i'm more so wondering if various economic systems can form differnt disorders.

Well social systems and norms in general do, so why not. For instance, something interesting my psychology professor noted that I hadn't really thought of; the patients Freud treated that lead to him developing his theory of early childhood trauma etc as a cause for neurosis, while all basically suffering from the same mental mechanisms that current-day people suffer from, had MUCH more intense symptoms related to their sexual fixations, especially women. Some of his patients even suffered partial/total paralysis. My professor attributed this to the fact that at that time cultural taboos regarding sexual subjects were much more intense, leading to an increased sense of guilt etc.

So yea, I don't see why external factors like societal norms or even relation to economic systems wouldn't play a prominent role. I tend to believe that the human mind and our personalities are little more than an aggregate of all our experiences, in one way or another.

Wolf Larson

1st July 2010, 19:17

Are you saying Freud was a cognitive psychologist? He wasn't, that's an entirely different school. Freud was a psychoanalyst.
i mispoke. mistyped? it wasnt a typo it was amistake :)

as to the second part...yes, and according to marx our experiences are dictated by the way in which we provide (by our economic system). it also seems like capitalism, being based in selfishness and greed, might have created a self obsessed culture? neurosis abound!

Wolf Larson

1st July 2010, 19:32

quoting Praxis:"I think that's impossible to say for certain one way or the other. I can tell you what I feel, though. I fucking hate working. I'm lazy. Period. The only reason I do it is to survive, and I don't think that'll change with a changing relationship to the means of production. I'm going to be irritated at actually having to roll out of bed and do something productive with my day one way or the other.:lol: On the other hand, it couldn't hurt not having a fascist of a boss breathing down my neck all day barking orders at me.:)

As an aside, smoking, drinking, fast cars, and fast women are some of my favorite things. I don't really see that changing, either lulz."

Me Thinks: Capitalism = the myth of sisyphus. it's normal to be an unhappy wage slave. the happy ones are the ones who need intervention ;) i'm not sure you'd be lazy if you only hadto work 4 hour days at a job you enjoyed. the division of labor is like rolling that rock uphill forever. at least thats how i feel at work when i do the same thing over and over :)

""The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and this fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious." -Camus-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

praxis1966

1st July 2010, 19:43

Fair points all the way around in the posts succeeding my last one.

Me Thinks: Capitalism = the myth of sisyphus. it's normal to be an unhappy wage slave. the happy ones are the ones who need intervention ;) i'm not sure you'd be lazy if you only hadto work 4 hour days at a job you enjoyed. the division of labor is like rolling that rock uphill forever. at least thats how i feel at work when i do the same thing over and over :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

lulz @ The happy ones needing intervention. Yeah, I suppose as long as I could still have my dream job in a socialist economy, that is I'd love to be able to make coaching soccer my sole source of income and survive, I'm sure I would be happy. That I can get out of bed and be excited about.

EDIT: Quite familiar with the myth of Sisyphus. Not to toot my own horne, but when I was a kid I was put in "gifted" classes. This meant that they'd round up all the really smart 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders and ship us from our elementary school once a week to the nearest middle school for some advanced classes. From time to time, they'd take us to the library on the middle school campus and let us check out books. I managed to read everything in the entire library on Greco-Roman mythology, dinosaurs, and most of their Alfred Hitchcock and Ray Bradbury collections by the end of my first year in the program. That meant I had read Edith Hamilton's Mythology by the age of 8, and probably accounts for why I got so into Dungeons and Dragons shortly thereafter.:)

Wolf Larson

1st July 2010, 19:50

Fair points all the way around in the posts succeeding my last one.

lulz @ The happy ones needing intervention. Yeah, I suppose as long as I could still have my dream job in a socialist economy, that is I'd love to be able to make coaching soccer my sole source of income and survive, I'm sure I would be happy. That, I can get out of bed and be excited about.

and thats part of my point- if we werent all condemed to roll a rock uphill forever would we see the same ammounts of depression? the division of labor coupled with the self obsessed consumor culture....perhaps some psychyatrists job is to 'normalize' the abnormal, the abnormal being our economic system and thus reality it creates. forgive my typos....i'm on my girlfreinds laptop and not use to the keys:)

praxis1966

1st July 2010, 20:05

and thats part of my point- if we werent all condemed to roll a rock uphill forever would we see the same ammounts of depression? the division of labor coupled with the self obsessed consumor culture....perhaps some psychyatrists job is to 'normalize' the abnormal, the abnormal being our economic system and thus reality it creates. forgive my typos....i'm on my girlfreinds laptop and not use to the keys:)

Eh It's all good about the typos. You know, you've made some good points. At first I was inclined to disagree with you, but I'm starting to change my mind.

I'm reminded of what Paulo Freire talks about in his criticisms of modern educational practice. What education (and psychology as well) currently are doing is teaching the individual to adapt to his/her surroundings like animals do. Freire argues that since we have a higher consciousness than animals, that is to say we are capable of sitting back and objectively analyzing our reality, then we are capable of adapting our reality to ourselves.

He argues that for this reason education (and psychology as a medical field) are inherintly oppressive. However, since we are capable of realizing this and simultaneously that we are historical beings capable of positive action, the next step is overcoming that "limit-situation" (as he puts it) and in the process we take the first step towards a revolutionary consciousness.

Anyway, I'd suggest a reading of Pedagogy of the Opressed. Hell, I'm thinking about rereading it since I haven't picked it up in forever.