Is psychiatry evil?

[Angrboda]

Meditation has been linked to a variety of health benefits. A study of college students by Oman et al. (2008) found that meditation may produce physiological benefits by changing neurological processes. This finding was supported by an expert panel at the National Institutes of Health. The practice of meditation has also been linked with various favourable outcomes that include: “effective functioning, including academic performance, concentration, perceptual sensitivity, reaction time, memory, self control, empathy, and self esteem.”(Oman et al., 2008, pg. 570) In their evaluation of the effects of two meditation-based programs they were able to conclude that meditating had stress reducing effects and cogitation, and also increased forgiveness. (Oman et al., 2008)

In a cross-sectional survey research design study lead by Li Chuan Chu (2009), Chu demonstrated that benefits to the psychological state of the participants in the study arose from practicing meditation. Meditation enhances overall psychological health and preserves a positive attitude towards stress. (Chu, 2009)

Mindfulness Meditation has now entered the health care domain because of evidence suggesting a positive correlation between the practice and emotional and physical health. Examples of such benefits include: reduction in stress, anxiety, depression, headaches, pain, elevated blood pressure, etc. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts found that those who meditated approximately half an hour per day during an eight-week period reported that at the end of the period, they were better able to act in a state of awareness and observation. Respondents also said they felt non-judgmental. (Harvard’s Women’s Health Watch, 2011)

I suppose you believe the campaigns to get people to exercise and eat right are attempts to push an 'evil' agenda. Yes, they have an agenda. They want to improve people's physical and psychological health. Ph34r!

[dazzn]

Which parameters are these? Based on conservative social norms, which people who claim to study human conduct don't realise their lesser applicability?

Degrees of deviation from the mean. The mean being a sort of general description of the "normal" state of mind. Which is, of course, malleable. That's actually one of the strengths of doing it this way - if the goal is to grease the wheels of interaction with "normal" people. Presumably, it is.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention conservative social norms or their lesser applicability. Rephrase?

Psychiatrists define illness merely by not adhering to norms, per their definition, which are often those of the 19th and early 20th century. To them, anybody who doesn't live in a conservative lifestyle are "ill".

So, according to these "people":

- Spring breakers who get drunk and have sex whilst on vacation are "ill"
- People who smoke weed on weekends a lot despite having good jobs even are "ill"
- People who don't go to church ever and despise religion are "ill"
- People who watch pornography and Hollywood movies containing sex and violence are "ill"
- People who subscribe to relativistic thinking in morals or values, or see no evidence for absolutes in our universe are "ill"

I don't know about you, but in my generation (born from the late 1970s to the current time) these actions/beliefs are the norm by definition since most do/endorse them. Are we "ill"? Who are psychiatrists to label an entire generation as "ill"? If so, this proves that "psychiatry" is not a practice with a benevolent foundation.

---

Meditation has been linked to a variety of health benefits. A study of college students by Oman et al. (2008) found that meditation may produce physiological benefits by changing neurological processes. This finding was supported by an expert panel at the National Institutes of Health. The practice of meditation has also been linked with various favourable outcomes that include: “effective functioning, including academic performance, concentration, perceptual sensitivity, reaction time, memory, self control, empathy, and self esteem.”(Oman et al., 2008, pg. 570) In their evaluation of the effects of two meditation-based programs they were able to conclude that meditating had stress reducing effects and cogitation, and also increased forgiveness. (Oman et al., 2008)

In a cross-sectional survey research design study lead by Li Chuan Chu (2009), Chu demonstrated that benefits to the psychological state of the participants in the study arose from practicing meditation. Meditation enhances overall psychological health and preserves a positive attitude towards stress. (Chu, 2009)

Mindfulness Meditation has now entered the health care domain because of evidence suggesting a positive correlation between the practice and emotional and physical health. Examples of such benefits include: reduction in stress, anxiety, depression, headaches, pain, elevated blood pressure, etc. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts found that those who meditated approximately half an hour per day during an eight-week period reported that at the end of the period, they were better able to act in a state of awareness and observation. Respondents also said they felt non-judgmental. (Harvard’s Women’s Health Watch, 2011)

I suppose you believe the campaigns to get people to exercise and eat right are attempts to push an 'evil' agenda. Yes, they have an agenda. They want to improve people's physical and psychological health. Ph34r!

I genuinely do believe this meditation thing is an agenda, since the psychiatrists who devised this treatment were people from Cali most likely who hate "soulless" Western thinking.

As for healthy eating, well duh, in the 50s and 60s there was little public knowledge of the unhealthiness of fried foods. Today, it's considered medical fact that fried food is unhealthy if eaten in excess. This is based on objective research, not the beliefs or morality of doctors.

[Faith No More]

- Spring breakers who get drunk and have sex whilst on vacation are "ill"
- People who smoke weed on weekends a lot despite having good jobs even are "ill"
- People who don't go to church ever and despise religion are "ill"
- People who watch pornography and Hollywood movies containing sex and violence are "ill"
- People who subscribe to relativistic thinking in morals or values, or see no evidence for absolutes in our universe are "ill"

Are you going to provide the DSM number for these diagnoses, or can I just assume you're pulling this out of your ass?

[Psykhronic]

Degrees of deviation from the mean. The mean being a sort of general description of the "normal" state of mind. Which is, of course, malleable. That's actually one of the strengths of doing it this way - if the goal is to grease the wheels of interaction with "normal" people. Presumably, it is.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention conservative social norms or their lesser applicability. Rephrase?

Psychiatrists define illness merely by not adhering to norms, per their definition, which are often those of the 19th and early 20th century. To them, anybody who doesn't live in a conservative lifestyle are "ill".

So, according to these "people":

- Spring breakers who get drunk and have sex whilst on vacation are "ill"
- People who smoke weed on weekends a lot despite having good jobs even are "ill"
- People who don't go to church ever and despise religion are "ill"
- People who watch pornography and Hollywood movies containing sex and violence are "ill"
- People who subscribe to relativistic thinking in morals or values, or see no evidence for absolutes in our universe are "ill"

Says who? What psychiatrists say that dumb shit? Is that fundamentally built into psychiatry?

[Faith No More]

Says who?

The voices in his head.

[The Grand Nudger]

Psychiatrists define illness merely by not adhering to norms, per their definition, which are often those of the 19th and early 20th century. To them, anybody who doesn't live in a conservative lifestyle are "ill".

Norms which are changing, yes, and as they change any degree of deviation from the mean also changes. It's understandable that the data lags behind the trend (as the trend has to actually occur before data can be collected).

---

So, according to these "people":

- Spring breakers who get drunk and have sex whilst on vacation are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV - index it for me?

- People who smoke weed on weekends a lot despite having good jobs even are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who don't go to church ever and despise religion are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who watch pornography and Hollywood movies containing sex and violence are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who subscribe to relativistic thinking in morals or values, or see no evidence for absolutes in our universe are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

---

I don't know about you, but in my generation (born from the late 1970s to the current time) these actions/beliefs are the norm by definition since most do/endorse them. Are we "ill"? Who are psychiatrists to label an entire generation as "ill"? If so, this proves that "psychiatry" is not a practice with a benevolent foundation.

Who said you were ill?

---

Psychiatrists define illness merely by not adhering to norms, per their definition, which are often those of the 19th and early 20th century. To them, anybody who doesn't live in a conservative lifestyle are "ill".

Norms which are changing, yes, and as they change any degree of deviation from the mean also changes. It's understandable that the data lags behind the trend (as the trend has to actually occur before data can be collected).

---

So, according to these "people":

- Spring breakers who get drunk and have sex whilst on vacation are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV - index it for me?

- People who smoke weed on weekends a lot despite having good jobs even are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who don't go to church ever and despise religion are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who watch pornography and Hollywood movies containing sex and violence are "ill"

Couldn't find that in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who subscribe to relativistic thinking in morals or values, or see no evidence for absolutes in our universe are "ill"

Couldn't find that in the DSMV, index it for me?

---

I don't know about you, but in my generation (born from the late 1970s to the current time) these actions/beliefs are the norm by definition since most do/endorse them. Are we "ill"? Who are psychiatrists to label an entire generation as "ill"? If so, this proves that "psychiatry" is not a practice with a benevolent foundation.

Who said you were ill? You know, you're not actually describing psychiatry right? You're describing public perception and bias. More specifically you're describing moral busybodies who also happen to be loudmouths. None of what you mentioned above is classified as an illness. I think, that if you'll take the time to actually research the subject - you'll find that most of the literature on any of the above describes just how normal it is. To take just one example, say a person had a good job and that's all they did. They went home on weekends and waited for monday. No going out for drinks, no smoking a joint, no real release or leisure activities of any kind whatsoever. That person would probably get diagnosed with something..lol. Meanwhile the successful pothead probably doesn't find themselves at the psychiatrists office in any case.

[dazzn]

Psychiatrists define illness merely by not adhering to norms, per their definition, which are often those of the 19th and early 20th century. To them, anybody who doesn't live in a conservative lifestyle are "ill".

So, according to these "people":

- Spring breakers who get drunk and have sex whilst on vacation are "ill"
- People who smoke weed on weekends a lot despite having good jobs even are "ill"
- People who don't go to church ever and despise religion are "ill"
- People who watch pornography and Hollywood movies containing sex and violence are "ill"
- People who subscribe to relativistic thinking in morals or values, or see no evidence for absolutes in our universe are "ill"

Says who? What psychiatrists say that dumb shit? Is that fundamentally built into psychiatry?

lol..

Most of them have a distrust of modern moral systems and thinking. To them, normalcy is based on being conservative.

Can you prove that most psychiatrists don't deem the aforecited things as "illnesses"?

---

Psychiatrists define illness merely by not adhering to norms, per their definition, which are often those of the 19th and early 20th century. To them, anybody who doesn't live in a conservative lifestyle are "ill".

Norms which are changing, yes, and as they change any degree of deviation from the mean also changes. It's understandable that the data lags behind the trend (as the trend has to actually occur before data can be collected).

---

So, according to these "people":

- Spring breakers who get drunk and have sex whilst on vacation are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV - index it for me?

- People who smoke weed on weekends a lot despite having good jobs even are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who don't go to church ever and despise religion are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who watch pornography and Hollywood movies containing sex and violence are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who subscribe to relativistic thinking in morals or values, or see no evidence for absolutes in our universe are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

---

I don't know about you, but in my generation (born from the late 1970s to the current time) these actions/beliefs are the norm by definition since most do/endorse them. Are we "ill"? Who are psychiatrists to label an entire generation as "ill"? If so, this proves that "psychiatry" is not a practice with a benevolent foundation.

Who said you were ill?

---

Psychiatrists define illness merely by not adhering to norms, per their definition, which are often those of the 19th and early 20th century. To them, anybody who doesn't live in a conservative lifestyle are "ill".

Norms which are changing, yes, and as they change any degree of deviation from the mean also changes. It's understandable that the data lags behind the trend (as the trend has to actually occur before data can be collected).

---

So, according to these "people":

- Spring breakers who get drunk and have sex whilst on vacation are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV - index it for me?

- People who smoke weed on weekends a lot despite having good jobs even are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who don't go to church ever and despise religion are "ill"

Couldn't find that one in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who watch pornography and Hollywood movies containing sex and violence are "ill"

Couldn't find that in the DSMV, index it for me?

- People who subscribe to relativistic thinking in morals or values, or see no evidence for absolutes in our universe are "ill"

Couldn't find that in the DSMV, index it for me?

---

I don't know about you, but in my generation (born from the late 1970s to the current time) these actions/beliefs are the norm by definition since most do/endorse them. Are we "ill"? Who are psychiatrists to label an entire generation as "ill"? If so, this proves that "psychiatry" is not a practice with a benevolent foundation.

Who said you were ill? You know, you're not actually describing psychiatry right? You're describing public perception and bias. More specifically you're describing moral busybodies who also happen to be loudmouths. None of what you mentioned above is classified as an illness. I think, that if you'll take the time to actually research the subject - you'll find that most of the literature on any of the above describes just how normal it is.

I'm saying if conservative norms don't comprise the bulk of "illness", then my generation is most likely "ill".

---

- Spring breakers who get drunk and have sex whilst on vacation are "ill"
- People who smoke weed on weekends a lot despite having good jobs even are "ill"
- People who don't go to church ever and despise religion are "ill"
- People who watch pornography and Hollywood movies containing sex and violence are "ill"
- People who subscribe to relativistic thinking in morals or values, or see no evidence for absolutes in our universe are "ill"

Are you going to provide the DSM number for these diagnoses, or can I just assume you're pulling this out of your ass?

So then prove these are not "illnesses"...

[The Grand Nudger]

So then prove these are not "illnesses"...

They're not in the DSMV....done.

"Conservative norms" btw, just a lot of hype. The norms are the norms. Theres a distinct difference between the "norms" that society (or an individual) expresses and those they they actually exhibit. Kinsey found this in big bold letters back when the only "norm" was a "conservative" norm. Simply put, you just don't talk about rimjobs, whether or not you like them, well.....meanwhile, liking rimjobs isn't a disorder..lol.

[dazzn]

DSM? Oh, yeah, the "book" designed to make psychiatry more PC and acceptable...

You realise your "book" once deemed homosexuality a mental illness and was voted out by fiat and not based on research?

The fact is the aforementioned "illnesses" can be deemed as such by psychiatry, since they don't use any research to deem what is considered an illness or not. It's merely arbitrary and based on the personal beliefs and whims of such people.

[The Grand Nudger]

Its actually a book designed to standardize diagnosis, but hey - you "study psychiatry" so I don't have to tell you that....

RE homosexuality - Sure did, and?

I thought we just went over how illnesses or disorders were classified and diagnosed? There's nothing arbitrary about it. Mounds of research is required, mounds of research has been done, mounds of research continues to be done. Psychiatry can't function without it.

It's actually based on the whims of everyone, in the aggregate, why is this a problem? As I've already mentioned...that's kind of the whole point....