ask a Pure O sufferer

[Aractus]

I'm currently writing a blog titled "Is Mental Illness a Sham".

Are you aware that something that is socially abnormal behaviour forms the basis for the definition of mental illness? For instance due to its clear deviant behaviour, homosexuality was listed in the original edition of the DSM as a mental illness - specifically as a sociopathic personality disturbance.

I think it's fascinating, for instance, that the DSM lists Gambling Disorder as an addictive disorder, yet no one has developed a interventional treatment that is more effective than Gamblers Anonymous which is based on 75-year old system that they refuse to change. Don't get me wrong they do have effective treatments - effective in the fact that they are as statistically relevant as Gamblers Anonymous - but they haven't improved upon the effectiveness.

But I know what you're thinking. Psychologists have a clever way of framing this little problem. They will claim that "some people with OCD can be cured, but others will need long-term management". They don't admit to the fact that actually they don't understand the first thing about mental illness, all they think they understand is that it's a problem and they have trial-and-error based treatments. Maybe what they need is a better theory - because the cognitive and behavioural theories are wearing thin; and if they were so valid they should be able to achieve much better outcomes for patients with mental illness than they presently do.

Interesting to think about do you not think?

---

Some of the obsessions (that is, the clinically debilitating ones) tend to be about violence and general paranoia (the West Memphis 3 case shows that a man can be convicted for the most serious crimes on absurdly circumstantial evidence).

Point of order: Even in the original documentary, Jason's lawyer tells Jason that he thinks that Damien is guilty. Even one of the defence lawyers was convinced of the guilt of at least one of the three! I'll make a thread about this where we can debate it (if you wish to participate in it).

[Iroscato]

I'm currently writing a blog titled "Is Mental Illness a Sham".

Well by and large - no, no it isn't. There, I solved it for you. You're welcome.

[Longhorn]

I'm currently writing a blog titled "Is Mental Illness a Sham".

Um. No. Please, please, please don't go there.

Are you aware that something that is socially abnormal behaviour forms the basis for the definition of mental illness?For instance due to its clear deviant behaviour, homosexuality was listed in the original edition of the DSM as a mental illness - specifically as a sociopathic personality disturbance.

The fact that some things in the past have been classified as mental disorders which we now know are everything but does not imply that everything that is categorized as a mental disorder is as harmless as homosexuality.

And well DUH. That doesn't mean that mental disorders are just personality quirks.

I think it's fascinating, for instance, that the DSM lists Gambling Disorder as an addictive disorder, yet no one has developed a interventional treatment that is more effective than Gamblers Anonymous which is based on 75-year old system that they refuse to change. Don't get me wrong they do have effective treatments - effective in the fact that they are as statistically relevant as Gamblers Anonymous - but they haven't improved upon the effectiveness.

But I know what you're thinking. Psychologists have a clever way of framing this little problem. They will claim that "some people with OCD can be cured, but others will need long-term management". They don't admit to the fact that actually they don't understand the first thing about mental illness, all they think they understand is that it's a problem and they have trial-and-error based treatments. Maybe what they need is a better theory - because the cognitive and behavioural theories are wearing thin; and if they were so valid they should be able to achieve much better outcomes for patients with mental illness than they presently do.

Ok, first off, mental illnesses are more in the field of psychiatry, not only psychology. Second... who are you to say psychologists don't understand the first thing about mental illnesses?

"all they think they understand is that it's a problem"

And it's NOT?

"and they have trial-and-error based treatments"

and they DON'T?

Believe it or not, some people get better thanks to treatment. Just because some do doesn't mean the treatment is shit or that mental disorders don't exist.

Interesting to think about do you not think?

I'll give you something interesting to think about. Mental disorders are debilitating and severely impact a person's life quality. And the worst thing you can say to someone who is suffering from one is that their problems are imaginary, or like you did, a sham.

If you're going to insist on debating this, please start a new thread. That sort of discussion isn't for my nerves.

[Rev. Rye]

I'll give you something interesting to think about. Mental disorders are debilitating and severely impact a person's life quality. And the worst thing you can say to someone who is suffering from one is that their problems are imaginary, or like you did, a sham.

If you're going to insist on debating this, please start a new thread. That sort of discussion isn't for my nerves.

I've taken a few psych classes and there's a general agreement among my teachers that for something to count as mental illness, it needs to have a negative impact on the sufferer's life.

Fun fact: In 1950, James Stewart starred in Harvey, the story of a man who is best friends with a 6 1/2 foot tall rabbit nobody else can see. While this is likely a clear-cut case of a hallucination and attendant delusion, which could very well be sufficient for a schizophrenia diagnosis, it should be noted that throughout the film, he sees nothing unusual about it, and, come to think of it, is so easygoing that he doesn't seem to have any problems with his life at all. When I asked one of my teachers about this, whether or not he would be diagnosed in a real-world setting, she said "probably not."

[Aractus]

I'll give you something interesting to think about. Mental disorders are debilitating and severely impact a person's life quality. And the worst thing you can say to someone who is suffering from one is that their problems are imaginary, or like you did, a sham.

If you're going to insist on debating this, please start a new thread. That sort of discussion isn't for my nerves.

You have misrepresented/misunderstood my post. A cognitive psychologist will claim that a mental illness is the result of a cognitive disorder. A behavioural psychologist will claim that a mental illness is the result of disordered behaviour. Most now think both contribute; however they haven't been able to advance the theory to the point where they're able to effectively treat people with consistent results. If I give disordered gambling as an example - it's perfectly true to say that a minimal intervention session (a targeted advice session delivered once lasting between 15 minutes to 1 hour) is just as effective as other longer treatment options and therefore they have indeed found a way to create a more efficient treatment option - certainly much more efficient than the 12-step program - but it fails to deliver better results than the 12-step program.

My argument is not that mental illness is not a valid thing - of course it is. It's just over what it is, how it's caused, how it should be treated, and finally how should it be defined in the first place. As I mentioned in my previous post, it's no secret that mental illnesses themselves are generally defined as being categorised by abnormal behaviour. Although in the DSM-5 they did attempt to re-frame it. In the interest of transparency here's the official definitions...

DSM-IV: "A mental disorder is a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom."

DSM-5: "A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above."


The WHO invoke their own definition as does the CCMD-3 (which by the way has different illnesses than the DSM as well). So the interesting fact is that a person can be diagnosed with one condition in China, and then have their same condition re-diagnosed in America as something else.

Here's a provocative quote from a PsychologyToday blog where I got those definitions from: "The very idea that you can radically change the definition of something without anything in the real world changing and with no new increases in knowledge or understanding is remarkable, remarkable until you realize that the thing being defined does not exist. It is completely easy—effortless, really—to change the definition of something that does not exist to suit your current purposes. In fact, there is hardly any better proof of the non-existence of a non-existing thing than that you can define it one way today, another way tomorrow, and a third way on Sunday."

And before you get up in arms about that, and question why Dr. Maisel doesn't feel he has to use the DSM-5 for diagnosis, he's not alone there's a number of psychologists who attack the DSM and claim that the cause-and-effect nature of disease does not apply to mental health in the same way that it does to physiological health. The psychological perspective he prescribes to (naturalistic) is probably no more-valid or less-valid than any of the others mind you, but at least there are people researching all the various current perspectives and who knows there may be some breakthrough in the future.

All I mean by "sham" is that a mental illness can be framed in a certain way. The fact that psychologists do not know the causes of mental illnesses is well established - it's not something I made up, it's not something controversial - it's well known and established. It's talked about in academic journals. A "sham" means a misalignment of priorities, a miscommunication of fact versus theory, and at least some level of deception. In 50 years from now when we have the DSM-8 which reclassifies all the mental illnesses listed in the DSM-5 and shifts them into new categories, and has a brand new definition for "mental illness" - it doesn't mean that mental illnesses didn't exist now; but it did mean that we didn't know what they were... or how to classify them properly.

These are the issues, and what I think is alarming is the fact that we have the tendency to rely on a diagnostic book that we know is inadequate. There should be greater competition, there should be more than one diagnostic book that psychologists will use - at the same time. Not just one that is limited. It'd be all very well and good to have ONE book if you know the causes of mental illnesses - but we don't, and therein lies the problem.

[Longhorn]

You have misrepresented/misunderstood my post. A cognitive psychologist will claim that a mental illness is the result of a cognitive disorder. A behavioural psychologist will claim that a mental illness is the result of disordered behaviour. Most now think both contribute; however they haven't been able to advance the theory to the point where they're able to effectively treat people with consistent results. If I give disordered gambling as an example - it's perfectly true to say that a minimal intervention session (a targeted advice session delivered once lasting between 15 minutes to 1 hour) is just as effective as other longer treatment options and therefore they have indeed found a way to create a more efficient treatment option - certainly much more efficient than the 12-step program - but it fails to deliver better results than the 12-step program.

My argument is not that mental illness is not a valid thing - of course it is. It's just over what it is, how it's caused, how it should be treated, and finally how should it be defined in the first place. As I mentioned in my previous post, it's no secret that mental illnesses themselves are generally defined as being categorised by abnormal behaviour. Although in the DSM-5 they did attempt to re-frame it. In the interest of transparency here's the official definitions...

Well it was a bit difficult not to misinterpret your post with the whole 'is mental illness a sham' thing

as for the rest, I'm not in any way qualified to argue over any of it as I don't know shit and all that...sorry

[Angrboda]

The bulk of the section of the DSM-5 definition which you point up was in the DSM-IV in the section on differential diagnosis, so no, the definition hasn't changed all that much. The main difference is the change to exclude normal reactions to ordinary stressors.

It takes a long time and a lot of training to learn to apply the diagnostic categories in the DSM to behaviors seen in the clinic. It would be impractical to split time between different diagnostic schemes.

[Aractus]

All good, the other thing I should have mentioned is the fact that pharmaceutical companies are some of the most evil on the planet. Aside from the fact that many of their products are highly addictive, and even cause dependency - they are allowed to advertise them on TV and radio! Just take Prozac as an example. People can become dependant, and it's impossible to get the down to no dosage at all. At the same time side-effects include suicidal thoughts and birth defects if taken when pregnant. Many people who take the drug were never told originally that they could become dependant on it, that information may be provided now but it's now too late for people already dependant on it. At they same time they lobby governments to allow their more controversial drugs to be approved, and do everything they can to maintain patents. Sudafed is out of patent, so the manufacturer started claiming to the TGA that they need to ban the old formula as quickly as possible because it can be used to make Ice, and to only allow their newer, more difficult to convert to Ice, form of the drug. Does that have anything whatsoever to do with the good of the consumers? Pfft, nope. Not to mention they want the TGA to allow them to sell AND advertise e-cigarettes in Australia.

Personally, I'd like to see ALL advertising for pharmaceuticals banned outright. The only places that people should get their information from is their doctor or their pharmacist - not their TV set.