I don't like it either. Talk about it here. I need time to regain my focus.
Screw psychiatry
I don't appreciate my label of schizophrenic-bipolar. The doctors say I have to learn to accept the world the way it is. Fuck that. They're crazy, I'm not. Although my postings don't back that up. :(
If you consider that 20-30 years after developing symptoms 50% of people with schizophrenia can't look after themselves independently sure, maybe they get better. (Abnormal Psychology (Canadian Edition) by Davidson, Neale, Blankstein and Flett) Sorry for the thread drift, correcting erroneous information. Please continue. I will note however, that research indicates that schizophrenia quite often does fade with age, particularly for women.
Misinformation bothers me too. I am tempted to say "fuck psychiatry". But I wont.
No one even really knows what schizophrenia really is. Now, believe me I am not saying that there are not distressed people who suffer from various kinds of delusional states, because of psychological stress or biological imbalances, but anyone who affirms anything about the mental state of persons, and the evolution of psychiatric disorders as absolute facts, without first prefeacing the statement with as many tentative modifying caveats as possible is selling a line.
Give me "studies indicate", or there is "evidence to believe", but don't tell me that all "50% of schitzophrenics can't look after themselves" blah, blah blah, when I know for a fact that not even 2% of all pyschiatrists will agree on a diagnostic definition of schizophrenia.
I don't even like the fundamental premise of the title of your quoted book: "Abnormal Psychology".
Well taking the comments of cue's from the other thread here
No one even really knows what schizophrenia really is. Now, believe me I am not saying that there are not distressed people who suffer from various kinds of delusional states, because of psychological stress or biological imbalances, but anyone who affirms anything about the mental state of persons, and the evolution of psychiatric disorders as absolute facts, without first prefeacing the statement with as many tentative modifying caveats as possible is selling a line.Give me studies "indicate", or there is "evidence to believe", but don't tell me that all "50% of schitzophrenics can't look after themselves" blah, blah blah, when I know for a fact that not even 2% of all pyschiatrists will agree on a diagnostic definition of schizophrenia.
When I was Chair of the Regional Health District Mental Health Board, I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the world mental health conference, when it was in Vancouver.
One session was devoted to the theory that schitzophrenia may well be PTSD, undiagnosed, and untreated, until it reaches its furthest extent of socially tolerated behaviour and thus becomes diagnosed as schitzophrenia. The postulations put forth were very compelling, but they were meeting with resistance from psychiatrists.
And you are correct more than 50% can look after themselves, at least to some extent. For example, Nanaimo has several appartment buildings owned by a non-profit, designated strictly for schitzophrenics, and they require minimum assistance, if any at all, most were just an occassional update of status.
It seems likely my chain was yanked and I responded poorly. Refuge doesn't seem to be interested anymore.
Probly just trolling the AR forum.
That sounds interesting, you should expand on that inquirey.
I didnt actually venture a figure on how many can and can not take care of themselves, I questioned the existence of a diagnostically consistent definition of schizophrenia, agreed upon by psychiatrists to the extent where one could argue that it exists, in an empirical scientific sense.
I'd like to start of with a firm figure from the book "Abnormal Psychology" on the number of people that "Davidson, Neale, Blankstein and Flett" think are schizophrenic, per capita.
And you are correct more than 50% can look after themselves, at least to some extent. For example, Nanaimo has several appartment buildings owned by a non-profit, designated strictly for schitzophrenics, and they require minimum assistance, if any at all, most were just an occassional update of status.
Wow, they're warehousing us? I wouldn't want to live in a borg. Please understand my drift.
Nice personal attack Cueball but no I am here, reading the posts, dialup can be a hassle for time.
Disagreement among specialists - and the resultant hyper-liberalist rantings of a Thomas Szasz, among others - is no solid indication of the inexistence of a real troubled condition. I have a number of friends who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Most of them have come to manage it successfully, but their condition, more than the diagnostic - indeed the diagnostic has been a relief for some of them -, has caused them and their close ones major suffering.
double post
Indeed Martin but I'd prefer to examine why there is no social support for these conditions? It's not talked about. It's not reported. There's a reason.
Any suppositions?
Disagreement among specialists - and the resultant hyper-liberalist rantings of a Thomas Szasz, among others - is no solid indication of the inexistence of a real troubled condition. I have a number of friends who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Most of them have come to manage it successfully, but their condition, more than the diagnostic - indeed the diagnostic has been a relief for some of them -, has caused them and their close ones major suffering.
I am talking about science here Martin. Confirming a postulate, hypothesis, theory etc. You know the story. Not making up categories and then trying to define the category we have just invented.
Nice personal attack Cueball but no I am here, reading the posts, dialup can be a hassle for time.
So how many schizophrenics per 100 according to "Davidson, Neale, Blankstein and Flett"?
My anecdotal evidence is 100/100.
Martin, I agree as well. I have friends diagnosed as well. One is able to live pretty independently, though he has developed many coping mechansisms but another lives with friends, sometimes, can't hold down work and is only in sporatic contact with his wife and kids.
Remind, I am intrigued by that concept, I have always been interested in finding out how all disorders are related not only to eachother but to the all behaviour.
RevolutionPlease, I would like to hear your thoughts on your experiences. I will also write my personal opinion on the lack of supports in my next post. I also agree with your 100/100 sentiment.
Cueball, I am looking while trying to keep up with the thread, will let you know when I find it.
Thanks.
I'd prefer to examine why there is no social support for these conditions? It's not talked about. It's not reported. There's a reason.
Any suppositions?
I am here specifically talking about supports for people who are not in the position wher they need self care, meal preperation etc
My thoughts on this are that there are supports but they are set up by a group of people who are doing it without right intentions. Some want to feel better, some want to feel powerful, some want to just earn a buck so they can go home. So any supports a person who they are intended for wouldn't actually see them that way. And rightly so. I talked about the power dynamic on a homelessness thread awhile back.
Well Refuge, I definitely have a different train of thought, it's not immersed in the world around us but what it could be and as long as shrinks tell me that's silly, i'll be labelled.
I am here specifically talking about supports for people who are not in the position wher they need self care, meal preperation etc My thoughts on this are that there are supports but they are set up by a group of people who are doing it without right intentions. Some want to feel better, some want to feel powerful, some want to just earn a buck so they can go home. So any supports a person who they are intended for wouldn't actually see them that way. And rightly so. I talked about the power dynamic on a homelessness thread awhile back. I'd prefer to examine why there is no social support for these conditions? It's not talked about. It's not reported. There's a reason. Any suppositions?
I think any attempt to delegitimaze social worker's is wrong. If it weren't for them the shrinks would have me medicated.
okay cueball, I found something close but still looking for prevalance rate
One study shoed genetic relation percentages the first one is spouse so that would be the normal prevelance rate
Spouse 1%
Grandchild 2.84%
Nieces/Nephews 2.65%
Children 9.35%
Siblings 7.3%
DZ Twins 12.08%
MZ Twins 44.3%
oh- found it - little less than 1%
FYI: Shrinks medicated me and I went psychotic. Never again.
oh- found it - little less than 1%
Execelent. Thank you. Fine, so any general behaviour patern that is expressed by a little less that 1% of the population qualifies as "abnormal"?
RevoltionPlease, I am glad that you have found some support with social workers, that is not always the case in my experience.
Just to clarify I don't like psychitry on the whole. To be a psychiatrist you have to become a MD then take one year of abnormal psychology (sorry Cueball, that is what it is called). I am not convinced that this is enough learning to deal with sometimes very complex issues.
Are you happy with your life, or were you happy with your life before?
You are really going to engage in lay psychoanysis online in casual chat forum?
I'm very happy with my life and unhappy at the same time. How much more bi-polar can I get.
And that's why Cueball was pointing out the quackery.
Are you happy with your life, or were you happy with your life before?
Your not really going to try and engage in lay psychoanalysis on an informal internet chat forum are you? I don't really want to get into this but that seems a little invasive.
Your not really going to try and engage in lay psychoanalysis on an informal internet chat forum are you? I don't really want to get into this but that seems a little invasive. Are you happy with your life, or were you happy with your life before?
Meh, can't be any worse than psychiatrists in my opinion.
statistical abnormalities is more helpful when looking for things like developmental challenges - meaning that if a child has an IQ that is 40 they are shown to be statistically low and need extra help. It breaks down a bit for things like behaviour.
When looking at behaviour is other things considered like the violation of norms. This would be where a person does a behaviour that threatens or makes others anxious ie flashers in the park would fall under this.
Personal distress is another. If a person feels a great amount of torment. Depression would be a good diagmosis for this or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
Disability or Dysfunction is another where the person is not able to function - many forms of Autism would fall under this.
Unexpectedness is another category to look at - when a person's reaction is unexpected - PTSD would be a good example for that.
When you are looking at "abnormal behaviour" you have to consider more than just statistics.
Sorry, I feel a little messed up tonight, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I am trying to help him here with his pathology. Never mind you. You are fine.
Running around the internet and engaging in lay psychoanalysis with unknown persons in chat forums must be a behaviour patern appearing in far less than 1% of the population, so I think that qualifies it as "Abnormal psychology." statistical abnormalities is more helpful when looking for things like developmental challenges - meaning that if a child has an IQ that is 40 they are shown to be statistically low and need extra help. It breaks down a bit for things like behaviour. When looking at behaviour is other things considered like the violation of norms. This would be where a person does a behaviour that threatens or makes others anxious ie flashers in the park would fall under this. Personal distress is another. If a person feels a great amount of torment. Depression would be a good diagmosis for this or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Disability or Dysfunction is another where the person is not able to function - many forms of Autism would fall under this. Unexpectedness is another category to look at - when a person's reaction is unexpected - PTSD would be a good example for that. When you are looking at "abnormal behaviour" you have to consider more than just statistics.
Let's call it "invasiness syndrome".
I feel naked.
ug, I hate psychoanylisi, no I am not.
I was just following up when about the different train of thought. Didn't want to assume it made you happy or not. Assumptions, to me, are invasive.
Why are you assuming what I'm assuming you assumed to have said?
ug, I hate psychoanylisi, no I am not. I was just following up when about the different train of thought. Didn't want to assume it made you happy or not. Assumptions, to me, are invasive.
People avoid using the word "Ugh" around here. I don't feel like explaining why, nor is it necessarily my place to do so. Heh.
Now I feel invaded with you assuming that is what I was doing.
ETA:Sorry RevolutionPlease, this was for Cueball.
Now I feel invaded with you assuming that is what I was doing. ETA:Sorry RevolutionPlease, this was for Cueball.
I guess we should make sure we quote in the future.
statistical abnormalities is more helpful when looking for things like developmental challenges - meaning that if a child has an IQ that is 40 they are shown to be statistically low and need extra help.
Why is the "stupid" diagnosis necessary for the child to get the required help? I mean, if a child has an IQ of 40, one would think that it would be quite evident to everyone who was involved that the child needed special attention? With that kind of IQ, I think it would be blindingly obvious.
statistical abnormalities is more helpful when looking for things like developmental challenges - meaning that if a child has an IQ that is 40 they are shown to be statistically low and need extra help.Why is the "stupid" diagnosis necessary for the child to get the required help? I mean, if a child has an IQ of 40, one would think that it would be quite evident to everyone who was involved that the child needed special attention? With that kind of IQ, I think it would be blindingly obvious.
So ugly but so poignant.
Early detection, using statistics for IQ can help pick up kids that aren't obvious but are statistically different (example mom know something is wrong but doesn't know exactly what) at the age of one or two. The parents can then put them in specialized early intervention programs. Why is the "stupid" diagnosis necessary for the child to get the required help?
Also in general this type of testing can rule out this diagnosis of developmental delay if it is something else like Autism but looks like a developmental IQ delay.
About the "ugh" I checked the search and couldn't find much beyond threads using it the way I did, maybe someone could PM me so I know?
You still haven't explained why the assistance isn't already built into the natural functioning of the system, and instead requires a special diagnosis.
Furthermore, none of that actually happens. What happens is that kids are funnelled into schools where the overworked staff discover that there aren't enough resources available to deal with even mildly abberant behaviour, and then are forced to have the children diagnosed, even though they don't really want to do that because they know they could cover off the job if there were more staff, but do it anyway just to preserve the learning environment in the classroom, and so mark the childs record forever, so that child is then funnelled through even more inadequate programs, where there are not enough resources and staff and so functionally turn what was probably a minor problem into a great big mess, more often than not.
My point is the the diagnosis of the psychological disability or the learning deficit, is not evidence of a dysfunction in the person, but evidence of a dysfunction in the system. What you recited to me, is just the propaganda the psychiatric industry uses to sell the destruction of the child to the parents.
Paging N R Kissed and Oldgoat!! This thread could use your insights!
Why are you assuming what I'm assuming you assumed to have said?
[old joke alert]
Never assume, because when you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME.
[/old joke alert]
Alright, in the absence of mods,
Ccueball, I think you are mistaken about where children with diagnosis are given help.
This doesn't happen in schools, at best a school can accomidate, but not deal with the complex issues.
(Still hoping for N R Kissed and oldgoat to pop in with their thoughts)
Returning to the topic in the OP, RevolutionPlease, here are some links for groups in Toronto (I know you're north of here, but maybe you get into the city sometime?)
Mad Pride Toronto: http://www.madpridetoronto.blogspot.com/
The Friendly Spike Theatre Band: http://www.globalserve.net/~friendlyspike/
Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault (CAPA): http://capa.oise.utoronto.ca/Home.html
CAPA's blog: http://capacanada.wordpress.com/
As an aside, I've heard only good things about Dr. Szasz. Martin, please share your thoughts on him. Via PM if it's too much thread drift. Thanks.
My point is the the diagnosis of the psychological disability or the learning deficit, is not evidence of a dysfunction in the person, but evidence of a dysfunction in the system. What you recited to me, is just the propaganda the psychiatric industry uses to sell the destruction of the child to the parents.
I agree 100 percent with this. Funny how people are being diagnosed with "Borderline Personality Disorder" when it is, in reality the way normal people react to abnormal situations. The psyciatric system is full of shrinks who first attempt to drug you, with shitty, horrible drugs like Effexor, then tell you that YOU have a mental illness. Raped? Feeling depressed, sad or even suicidal? Must be that you're suffering from some sort of mental illness. My position on this has always been that it is NOT mental illness to have reactions to things such as rape, abuse, neglect etc. It is simply a means of coping and NOT a mental disorder.
On top of that, these shrinks dole out the term Boderline Personality Disorder like it was candy, and these same bastards won't treat you because, according to the lies spread by these idiots, BPD people are "manipulative".
[MOD HAT ON] First, we need to be respectful here. There are a lot of opinions on this subject, and damn few facts. What we do know for sure is our own subjective experiences, so when someone in this thread chooses to share some of those, they will be treated with respect. Babble will NOT join the psychiatric community in invalidating anyones subjective experience, even if it differs from your own, someones you know, or what you've heard. (or especially what you've read)
Maybe a ground rule or two. Mispell it anyway you like, but people are NOT schiziphrenics. They may be people with schizophrenia, or better yet people that some overpaid knob who's too clumsy to be a surgeon calls schizophrenic. (you may be getting my own bias here) This is just basic.
Also, it's nice to sound supportive, but let's not get into internet therapy with eachother. It's likely disrespecful and unwelcome, and for sure ineffective. [/MOD HAT]
As some may be aware, I work in the community mental health field. the distinction there is, that I don't work for a hospital or like institution. Here's my charitable outlook. The huge majority of psychiatrists mean well, and believe in what they're doing. I even know a few who I think are really good.
IMHO, most are locked in a disease model western medical mode, and are too bound by their own inertia, and that of the institution to stray far from that place, at least for the forseeable future. I say this despite initiatives to bring more clients on board in a peer role, and other progressive initiatives. That's a good thing mind you, but I don't see it as achieving it's potential due to the aforementioned institutional inertia.
Some may be aware of the buzz that when the DSM 5 comes out in 2011, the term schizophrenia will be abandoned. I'm not sure exactly what the thinking is there, but my own problem with the term schizophrenia, is that there are too many different things going on, such as PTSD, as noted above, to really mean anything.
...gotta pause for a bit here. I have too many thoughts on this and too many other things to get to at the moment.
Just want to say though, I've had three psychiatrists myself, two of whom I found quite good. They were more analytically oriented, which is what suits me personally. One of the things I liked about them is they were reluctant to reach for their prescription pad. As major depressive disorder has been a lifelong companion for me, I've tried meds with varying results. My own position right now is I won't use them again.
I wonder what all of this means for Victor Li - who was found criminally not responsible for beheading Tim McLean due to schizophrenia? There were no witnesses whatsoever called and the only two people that testified were psychiatrists.
My experiences with psychiatrists have been good. I first saw a psychiatrist when I was 19 to get off meds I had been taking for ADHD. He did a great job of monitoring my withdrawal and asking the right questions. The second personal experience was when we were consulting a child psychologist re. our first son who has Aspergers. Again, very helpful. In my decade of working with students with disabilities I found most members of the healthcare professional to be helpful.
Nope, no warehousing, just spaces that are accommodating the needs of those who live a different lifestyle, and providing affordable and nice housing. There is not even a manager for the buildings on site 24 hrs a day. Wow, they're warehousing us? I wouldn't want to live in a borg. Please understand my drift.
They are very successful, and the people who live there love it. For example, if some are up all night because that is their lifestyle, there is no one "normal" to complain to management that they are disrupting their peace and space throughout the night.
I will be brief for the moment although I'm sure I'll hve more to say later.
Psychiatry is not only a pseudo science, it's claims of the existence of chemical imbalance have not only not been empirically validated they have been demonstrated false whether that be the dopamine theory of "schizophrenia" or the catecholmine or serotonin theories of "mood disorders." Despite this they continue to make fraudulent claims concerning knowledge and treatment.
I do not find diagostic labels useful in fact for the most part they are harmful in that they impose a "spoiled identity" on people that negatively impacts an individuals sense of self and margnalizes them in relation to others. Schizophrenia carries with it what Dr. Patricia Deeghan apaptly called the prognosis of doom in which the labelled person is told that the best they can hope for is to "manage their condition" and they should give up hope of any dreams concerning what most consider important in life relationship, work and meaningful activity and engagement. The label schizophrenia is meaningless in any phenomenological way that would help someone make sense of their experience. I have never in ten years as a community mental health worker( or twenty years as a psych survivor) met someone with this diagnosis who was not the survivor of significant trauma.
THe label that Stargazer mentioned BDP is an odious pejoritive that is imposed primarily on women who have experienced severe and ongoing trauma particularly in childhood.
Psychiatric treatment is not only ineffective it is to a large extent harmful and traumatizing. I almost always recommend people read Robert Whitakers MAD IN AMERICA:BAD SCIENCE, BAD MEDICINE, AND THE ENDURING MISTREATMENT OF THE MENTALLY ILL. SUE JOHNSTONE'S USERS AND ABUSERS OF PSYCHIATRY IS ALSO VERY GOOD.
I would agree with Oldgoats assessment of psychiatrists that they are well meaning to the extent that they mean well in concern for their own sense of power privilege and self interest. I have not seen them demonstrate the same concern to those they are intending to support. I'm sure though that Oldgoat would also agree that when dealing with psychoemotional distress good intentions are not really sufficient.
Revolution Please, I myself was diagnosed Bipolar( amongst other things) over ten years ago I do not take psychiatric drugs and I have not experienced severe distress "manic" "depressive" or otherwise. I have found my experiences of psychoemotional distress understandable and crucial aspects of my own experience and essential in both my practical and theoretical understanding of madness and distress.