Psychologists are evil

[Magrathean]

This is something i wrote in may. I'm planning on expanding on it and revising it, but this is the first draft. I've finally decided to make it public. Tell me what you think.

I'd have posted this in the general board of UM, but most of the people i know from UM post in the DT board.

--

Psychologists are evil.

So are psychiatrists. They label any non-standard behavior as a mental disorder just because it's different from most people's behavior. They are wrong. Schizophrenia, depression, bipolarity, obsessive-compulsive "disorder", paranoia -- they're not diseases or disorders, just mental states.

I'm supposed to suffer from obsessive-compulsive "disorder". Supposed to because i don't suffer from it. Sure, sometimes i'm too obsessive, i think too much and i realize things i didn't want to know, but it's not like a disease i suffer from. I think every brilliant person is more obsessive than not-so-brilliant people. It's just a mental condition, not something to worry about. And i'm very paranoid. But paranoia isn't a disease, it's more like a defense mechanism. Paranoid people are always more aware and more prepared for anything. It is harder to hurt a paranoid person because it is harder to get them to trust you.

A friend of mine is obsessive-compulsive as well. She takes medication and submits herself to therapy. Has she "gotten better"? Of course not. You can't get cured if you're not sick.

Another friend is depressive, and one of my ex-girlfriends is bipolar. Are they mentally ill? No. They have normal lives. They have an extra burden to deal with, but each person has their own burdens in life.

What is a disease anyway? "A condition which is abnormal in our society"? Then being 2.5 meters tall and having a very unusual name would be diseases. Obviously they are not. Then mental conditions are not diseases. Or you could define a disease as "any circumstance in which there is no correct functionality". It then becomes easy to define a disease in any organ except the brain, since medics (yes, doctors and medics are not the same. One can be a doctor in philosophy or in physics) are able to define "correct functionality" for every organ except the brain. There is no rule or guideline for a brain's functionality because every person is different from every other person and there is no "perfect person" every other person wants to be like. Mental conditions are not "disorders" term used to describe supposed mental "diseases" which are not caused my microorganisms), just that -- mental conditions.

Have you ever noticed that many of the most outstanding people supposedly suffer from mental "disorders"? Take Susanna Kaysen from Girl interrupted. She's an exceptionally smart girl, she stands out.. and she's put in a mental health institute just because she's different from "normal" people (what does "normal" mean anyway? "That which is the same as all the rest"? We're all different; thus, we are all abnormal; thus, the word "abnormal" ceases to make any sense; thus, the word "normal" doesn't make any sense either). Susanna isn't sick. She doesn't have a mental "disorder", just a mind that works differently from most minds. Or take a real-life case: John Nash. He's schizophrenic, and "yet" he's one of the greatest mathematicians ever. Or i could even talk out of personal experience: of all the people i've known, it is usually the ones who have a mental "disorder" that stand out the most. The mind of someone with a mental "disorder" is superior.

A superior mind. That is why people are afraid of us; that is why they call us "freaks" and "crazy" and "mentally ill" and exile us from the rest of the world and lock us away in mental institutes; that is why they insist on destroying us, on changing us, on making us believe we really are sick: because they are afraid. People are always afraid of what's different because they look at it as a threat. People with mental "disorders" could be considered the next step in primate evolution, the first of a new species with greater mental capacity than homo sapiens. In nature, the most advanced species always survives and the least advanced one always dies out.. but not without a fight. We are a threat to homo sapiens, and they are desperately trying to fight back, to destroy us, to survive.

 

[Magrathean]

And the second part or second draft, which i wrote only recently (october or so):

--

There are no mental diseases or disorders. Let us treat disease and disorder as synonyms. After all, a dictionary definition of disease is “a disorder of structure or function” and a dictionary definition of disorder is “a disease or abnormal condition”. First, how does one define disease? “A condition which is not normal”? Then having an unusual name would be a disease, and in the case of the mind thinking differently than most people about something would be a disease. “A disease is a condition which causes uneasiness, discomfort or unhappiness”, some might argue. In that case, a thorn in one’s toe is a disease since it definitely causes uneasiness and discomfort and could end up causing unhappiness until it is removed. And an example of a mental disease could be the memory of someone’s death or any other sad thought. Then “a disease is the malfunctioning of an organ”. True, if we speak of organs whose function(s) we know, such as the heart or the lungs. But, since we do not yet know how the brain works, brain diseases would be unknown to us. And, since brain and mind are one, mental diseases and brain diseases are synonyms.

Continuing with the dictionary definition, a disease is “a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury”. This is more or less the same as the “organ malfunctioning” definition, with the extra details that it affects a specific location and it produces specific symptoms. I will address each detail in turn, starting with the one about specific symptoms.

While conditions like schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive “disorder” have some general symptoms depending on the particular condition, they cause different responses and behavior in different people. This can be compared to any given environmental situation, which will have a different effect on different people, with a group of effects common to all or nearly all people (for example, a burnt-down forest might cause anger or sorrow in all or most people, but beyond that each person will react differently to the scene). Another important thing is that behavioral symptoms are often difficult to determine, since behavior is the one aspect of human or animal nature that varies the most from individual to individual.

Second, these conditions (schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive “disorder”, bipolarity and so on; autism could be considered a “disease” because there are structural lesions, namely the lack or malfunctioning of mirror neurons) do not affect a specific location, but rather overall behavior and thinking. There is no physical injury or lesion in any part of the body directly linked to the mental condition (physical damage caused by the person, i.e. cutting, is indirectly linked to the condition and is possibly not even a cause of the condition, but rather a response to the pain felt because of society’s behavior towards people with “nonstandard mental conditions”).

Another dictionary definition for “disease” is “a particular quality, habit or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people”. This definition is wrong for the same reason the previous ones are wrong. For example, being a serial killer is a habit or quality that affects a group of people and yet isn’t a disease. Eating too much junkfood can cause disease (thus “adversely affecting a person”) but isn’t a disease in itself. The very root of the word (desaise, “lack of ease”) has little to do with what is now considered disease or illness.

Not everything with adverse effects is a disease, especially if those effects are caused by society’s response to the condition and not by the condition itself.

 

[La Rocque]

As with many things in life, it only helps if you go into with an open, positive mind, me personally, I think it's a bunch of BS but I've seen it help people -

http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=200379

 

[wildfyr]

I'll have to digest this later. Maybe add a comment. Maybe not.

 

[Magrathean]

LaRocque: I read the whole thing and, though the subject of it and the subject of this one are different, i am only waiting for Siren, Taliesin et al. to come and start shooting criticism and "you're wrong"s at me, since i believe they would disagree with me as much as they did with King Chaos. I believe i can defend myself and my point better than KC, Misanthrope and marduk did in that thread. Or i might bring them into my team and see how they fare four months and a half after they so miserably failed in that thread (no offense, guys). So start shooting.

wildfyr: Take your time.

I only ask one thing of anyone who posts here: to use correct grammar. More than once i came across very long sentences with no commas and a totally fucked-up grammar structure while reading that thread, which made it impossible for me to understand what the person really intended to say. Let's try to avoid that kind of situation here, shall we?

 

[rahvin]

@undocontrol: while i appreciate the fact that for once the person asking for correct grammar and punctuation does not go by the nickname of "rahvin", i also have to say that most of what you criticize in your posts is a matter of language. i have no problem picturing some very fucked-up things happening in the field of psychology and psychiatry, like in any other, but even if the definitions have loopholes that make it possible to exploit their logic, the basis of therapy seem sound to me. features of your psyche that make it problematic for you to function in society are painful and troublesome for the individual, regardless of whether the names you give to them are updated, state-of-the-art behavioral terms, or plain insults from the times when witch-hunts were popular.

 

[La Rocque]

@ UndoControl: Must say you have become very bossy on the forum in a very short time.
When someone writes (no offense, guys). They are taking offense or they would not write it.
I guess you're looking to debate, argue that you are right.
OK You're right and anyone who disagrees you'll prove them wrong. Ramble on
I read your thesis several times and as I will not be opening this window again
I'll say good bye to this thread with this:
You need many, many years of psychoanalysis.
Good luck -

 

[hyena]

i just think you're going to change your mind in a while. there are phases in life during which we feel relatively sheltered, hence can regard as postive, interesting or simply 'different' any sign of maladjustment present in either ourselves or our friends (and yet nobody regards with fascination, say, a schizophrenic mother, a bipolar father, an autistic brother or sister. food for thought).

on the other hand, there are phases in life during which we need to do things and have material responsibilities, and that's when you discover why paranoia is labeled as a disorder: it might prevent you from accomplishing very simple tasks such as buying a car, taking your children to school, sitting on any type of board with voting rights, and so on.

having a mental disease equates to 'not being able to function'; in some cases, the causes are physical (brain tumors, malformations in the lobes, erroneous transmission of chemicals), and in some cases they are not.

of course there are social factors in deciding whether some behavior is equivalent to 'not being able to function': just think about the famed 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association, the removal of homosexuality from the diagnostic manual for mental diseases.

on the other hand, I think that this type of social influence is relevant only in situations that are not that extreme to start with - homosexuality normally doesn't result in destructive, self-destructive or generally dangerous behavior (and i'm not talking about unprotected sex and AIDS - irresponsibility is not a mental disease). but i don't see anyone wanting to remove multiple personality disorder from a diagnostic manual, and that's because someone who has MPD normally cannot function properly in our world. that's because most people don't have it, so they behave differently.

finally, if what you said was rather a plea for humane treatment of people with mental disorders, i hear you: of course one wants those individuals to be treated as people. still, this can be hard: for example, for me it is hard to perceive someone's 'humanity' through means other than discourse, therefore i am a bit lost when i have to recognize as an equal (in dignity) someone who doesn't impress me in the field. but, see, that's where i might be the one with a disorder.

 

[Taliesin]

having a mental disease equates to 'not being able to function'; in some cases, the causes are physical (brain tumors, malformations in the lobes, erroneous transmission of chemicals), and in some cases they are not.

In most cases, like anxiety-disorders it's very clear. In others, like depression or schizophrenia it's not as clear as that. What's important is that psychologists are there to help. If you think you dont need to be treated, then dont go. People cant be held in a mental institute against their will unless they are a threat to others. And you need the psychologist, a doctor and a judge to sign that paper. At least in Germany you do.

But i don't see anyone wanting to remove multiple personality disorder from a diagnostic manual, and that's because someone who has MPD normally cannot function properly in our world. that's because most people don't have it, so they behave differently.

Actually MPD was probably a bad example because the whole theory of how it works may be out the window soon But other than that you're right. And the diagnosis wont disappear, it's only going to change based on news findings.

[..]it is usually the ones who have a mental "disorder" that stand out the most. The mind of someone with a mental "disorder" is superior.
A superior mind. That is why people are afraid of us; that is why they call us "freaks" and "crazy" and "mentally ill" and exile us from the rest of the world and lock us away in mental institutes

If you really think you're superior to others because you're paranoid and depressive or something, I may have bad news for you.
If what you wanted to say is that celebrities and/or geniuses have mental issues more often than others, you may be right. (Note that not even this combination makes them any more special than anyone else)
While I think that the old "Genius and Insanity are only seperated by a very thin line" is pretty much bullshit, obsessive compulsive disorder may come in helpful for those people. Concerning actors and the likes, I think most issues are being overlooked because the outcome is so nice and shiny. Also, the picture drawn by the media is not nearly complete and Im pretty sure I wouldnt want to live with most celebrities

Frankly, I have a hard time taking this thread seriously. Basically what you're saying is "Im paranoid and whatnot but here is my uberaccurate comment on psychology!" while you obviously dont know shit about the subject

 

[rahvin]

i took the paragraph both taliesin and naku quoted as some way to expose a contradiction in terms (calling something different does not disqualify it in itself). if it was, in fact, a celebration of mental disorder, then it was ridiculous. in a couple of years undocontrol will probably be somewhat embarrassed by this thread.

 

[Taliesin]

What I find particularly sad about the whole thread is the missing of the whole point. If you dont like psychologists, then dont go see one. No one is forcing you. They have their opinions, you have yours, so? At one point you may be less at ease with your "special abilities" and feel the need to change things, to have someone with a special education look into your troubles. And if you dont like what he/she says about them, you can always go see another or try to be happy on your own again.

In every therapy the psychologist and the patient agree on both the problem and the solution. For every therapy you need the patient to understand that there is a problem and you need his will to change things. Of course you can always medicate depressed patients or schizophrenic ones, but that wont be any more than the famous drop of water on the hot stone. If the depressed patient doesnt see the sense in taking his pills, he's very likely to stop taking them at some point and maybe kill himself, same with the schizophrenic one.

The point is.. it doesnt matter how some book defines disease or what society knows about disorders. The question is, are you ok with yourself? If so, perfect. Consider yourself significantly sane. That's all there is to it
(Supposing you're not a danger to anyone.. but I think Im going in circles here so I'll stop )

 

[hyena]

hey, i call a halt to the bashing. i don't agree with what undocontrol said, generally speaking: but i'm also grateful to him for involving several people in a debate on an intellectually challenging subject. as i-spy used to say, our silly band caused a discussion and that's good (the silly band being the regulars, not DT )

 

[Siren]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but i soon will.
Till then, i have two points to make:

-some of those disorders are chemical imbalances of the brain, thus they are actual disorders.
-a condition can be named a disease if it's actually making your life dysfunctional and brings you pain, and that's why there's an effort for it to be cured. You might not feel the need to cure it (yet), but some people do because they understand how it makes their life worse.

Plus, i agree with rahvin's first post in this thread.

Plus, i think you could use some modesty in your life (regarding the "my mind is superior" thing). Let others recognise your superiority, arrogance is one of the worst qualities you can get for yourself.

Or i might bring them into my team and see how they fare four months and a half after they so miserably failed in that thread (no offense, guys).

the fact that you didn't get convinced, doesn't mean that we failed.

 

[Magrathean]

rahvin: It is not the very term “mental disease” that bothers me, it is the attitude people take towards people who have that. Society convinces those people that they are sick and need to be cured, thus turning them into ‘normal’ people like the rest of the world. This is both evil and stupid, in my opinion, since it takes away both the individuality of a person and one worthy person from the world. What bothers me the most is that they insist on ‘curing’ someone who cannot be cured because they are not sick in the first place. Fear, repulsion and hate towards people with “nonstandard mental conditions” is what drives me mad.

LaRocque, in case you read this again sometime, and hoping you will: My sincere apologies for becoming “bossy”. First, i wrote “(no offense, guys)” because i considered the possibility that they might take offense from what i said before and didn’t want to upset them nor get into a fight over something i said that surely could have been said with a better use of words. Second, i am not looking for a fight in which to prove how good i am, but rather i’m stating a point i’ve kept more or less quiet for a while and now chose to make public. Third, i’m not saying that i’m right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I’m not that kind of person. Again, i’m trying to state a point i’ve made and see what others think of it. Maybe someone will come around and make me see that i’m terribly wrong. Maybe i’m right and nobody will be able to prove me wrong. Maybe it’s just a matter of perspective. As you said before, we need an open mind. Fourth, about becoming “bossy”, it is not my intention to seem like such a person, although my attempts to ask things of people and to say things in a way which not everyone necessarily agrees with seem to make me look like such a person. Again, i’m sorry. Maybe a bit of counseling on what to say and what not to say and how to say things would help, as i’ve honestly never been very good at choosing words or ways to say them, and that has cost me many friendships and perhaps a relationship or two.

hyena: As you said, so-called “mental disorders” can prevent people from accomplishing certain tasks. But the tasks you mentioned (buying a car, taking your children to school, and voting) are society-made tasks. Of course, we live in a society and thus have to learn to accomplish society-made tasks, but failing to do so doesn’t mean you have a disease, it just means something about you doesn’t quite fit into society. Think of it as evolution: Suppose you have a population, and in that population there is an individual who has evolved due to genetic mutation. Of course, that individual won’t be able to do everything the rest of the population can, but he will be able to do some things the rest of the population can’t. He’ll be seen as different and maybe even evil (because people are afraid of and tend to hate/reject what is different), but does being different make him evil? I don’t think so. From another perspective, just look at the example you gave me. Homosexuality was removed from the list of mental diseases because people realized it wasn’t a disease. Don’t you think they ought to do the same with schizophrenia, paranoia and so on? Now, if we take your definition of ‘mental disease’ (“not being able to function&#8221 then those conditions could indeed be regarded as diseases if manifested in the extreme. An excessively paranoid person cannot function because the world is society-based and that person will not do anything related to society because he does not trust it. But take your average paranoid person, and they are able to function -- just in a different way than you’re used to.

Taliesin: Again, i’m not merely trying to say why i don’t go to a psychiatrist or psychologist. I’m saying that conditions like that shouldn’t be regarded as disorders. This is not an “is psychology a fake science? part II: the return of the psychology-haters” thread. My point is not to inform the lot of you that i refuse to get psychological treatment because psychology is bullshit. I know that psychologists have helped a lot of people overcome certain situations and will continue to do so in the future. I am not saying that they shouldn’t exist. I am only saying that the part about them that says that conditions like schizophrenia are mental disorders is evil. Think of that as the opening sentence for the first draft i wrote. Think of it as a sentence that’s only there to catch the reader’s attention. That’s how they taught me to write at school. An ‘opening sentence’ to catch the attention of the reader, and then the whole thing. But i stray too far from the main point. The point isn’t whether i’m okay with myself either. I am okay with myself, and maybe the “mentally ill” would be too if they weren’t taught by society that they shouldn’t. But that is not the point. You tend to simplify these discussions into “if you’re okay with yourself, then nothing else matters and the whole discussion is useless”. Look, i know you don’t see a point in this thread, but there is one. Read again. I said what the point was in my response to hyena. Another thing: Why don’t i know shit about the subject? Which subject, in the first place? Psychology? I do know a couple of things. I took a psychology course in high school, and an ex-friend used to play psychologist all the time (which pissed the fuck out of me). And excuse me if i sounded like “i’m better than all of you because i’m paranoid and obsessive-compulsive” (and this goes to Naku ist krig too), but that wasn’t the message. The thing with geniuses and mental disorders (to which you agreed: “If what you wanted to say is that celebrities and/or geniuses have mental issues more often than others, you may be right.&#8221 was only a thought i had, a possibility. The part about evolution of the mind was a hypothesis. Hell, i had that thought months ago, and i forgot (yes, my mistake, i am sorry) to take it away from that text a couple of weeks later, when i realized i was most likely completely wrong on that one point. Back then, i was feeling quite depressed and quite superior to the rest of the world. Do you want me to delete that paragraph or rephrase it in a way that doesn’t sound too self-highering?

Siren: Chemical imbalances are caused by genetic mutation and/or by some other internal factor or, more likely, combination of factors. But that doesn’t make them diseases. If we take genetic mutation, not all mutations cause disease (or else all living organisms would be highly diseased forms of the common ancestor, if there was one). And “some other internal factor or combination of factors” is most likely molecular interactions within the body. Again, this doesn’t make chemical “imbalance” (or rather a different balance than what the world is used to) a disease. I’m sure different species have different chemical balances (and even different chemicals, at that). And if you define disease as ‘a condition that makes your life dysfunctional and brings you pain’ then society itself is a disease (i find that living in a society like the one i live in brings me a lot of pain and is a great obstacle for some of the things i intend to do with my life, thus making it ‘dysfunctional&#8217.

--

I’ll put this in capital letters for all to read, because i think it is necessary: THE POINT OF THIS THREAD, PEOPLE, IS NOT TO SAY “I’M PARANOID/SCHIZOPHRENIC/OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE/DEPRESSIVE BUT I’M NOT MENTALLY ILL”. THE POINT HAS BEEN STATED SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY. IT IS TO GENERATE A DISCUSSION THAT WILL EITHER:

A) MAKE PEOPLE REALIZE THAT THOSE CONDITIONS SHOULDN’T BE TREATED AS DISEASES AND THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEM SHOULDN’T BE TREATED FOR DISEASE

OR B) PROVE ME WRONG (a possibility i’m also open to, since who doesn’t like to realize the truth of things, in case the truth is that i am wrong?).

 

[Taliesin]

Well, you did say "No therapy. That's fucked up. Psychologists are evil." in another thread and named your thread "Psychologists are evil" so I kinda focused on that point. I admit I neglected certain sides of your posts though.

First of all, I find it difficult to talk of "society" as such. There are many different currents and institutions that go under that notion with many different intents. You seem to feel a lot of pressure from society, I mean what do you care what anyone thinks of your "disorders"? If it's not visible, I really dont see the problem.. if it's visible, like hallucinations and someone talking to someone who isnt there, you're bound to get some weird looks. I think it would be a severe overinterpretation to make those looks equate a "I want you to be like everyone else and forbid you to be different!"

I dont see how anyone with mental disorders would feel bad because of how society supposedly wanted him to be. It seems to be the easy solution here to say "If Im unable to do this or that, it's not my fault, it's only the fault of your screwed up definition!"

You're right that the concept of what "normal" is, is a really touchy subject, but that's also one of the great things about the postmodern society, isnt it? During therapy, the patient and the psychologist agree on what's normal, on where they want to be at the end of the treatment and if they dont, the patient goes to see another psychologist or decides he doesnt need treatment.

You say disorders shouldnt be called so. So you call it "Failure to buy a car" instead of say, Social Anxiety Disorder. What's the difference? You're still just as unable to do what you want as before. Even if you say those tasks are society-made, what does that change? No one is forcing you to buy a car. You make it sound like for everything someone labeled "mentally ill" cant do inside society, he can do something else, something new and exciting.. care to provide examples?
The idea of mental disorders being a step forward in the genetic development seems interesting, but I have yet to see a single lead. Except for the genius who studies 18h a day because of his obsessive compulsive disorder, I really dont see any benefit stemming from any mental disorder, but Im open to examples you provide.

You keep saying mental patients are "different" which in the way you use it, seems to also imply that they are being looked down on, which I think is not the case. In fact, seeking help at a psychologist is often seen as a step of maturity, a step of responsible behaviour.
Sebastian Deisler, midfielder of Bayern Munich and member of the national team was treated for depressions 1,5 years ago and no one was laughing or calling him weak or anything. He was given the time he needed and has succesfully reclaimed his place in both teams.

 

[King Chaos]

I believe i can defend myself and my point better than KC, Misanthrope and marduk did in that thread. Or i might bring them into my team and see how they fare four months and a half after they so miserably failed in that thread (no offense, guys). So start shooting.

WE DIDN'T FAIL!! WHAT YOU TALKING ABOUT!!?


Alright, maybe we did (I think I succeeded at a couple of things, off topic). I would take your side to a degree, but I've started seeing things a bit differently now. There's nothing wrong with giving a label to behaviour that's abnormal (non standard as you reffered to it). However there's definately something wrong with it being considred a disease or having negative social connotations (to have schizophrenia, many people would consider you looney, and maybe even dangerous (might be true (but thats prejudice and the way of the world) ) )... Alot of people (everyone really) have what would be considered personality disorders, because there are so many. Then again it's a spectrum. It's not like cancer, where you have it or you don't. You can suffer from mild Borderline personality disorder, or very high avoidant personality disorder etc. My point being you're right not to consider it as some kind of socially retarding disease, but I doubt many people even do anymore. I also happen to suffer from high obsessive compulsive disorder and very high bordeline personality disorder. It's things I don't like about myself, and the fact that these some what negative (in my eyes) elements of my personality can be labelled doesn't really change anything.

 

[Taliesin]

For once I agree with KC in a psy thread
You see, connecting mental disorders with words like "looney" is something I find severely retarded. But I dont think it's the same as looking at someone with hallucinations cautiously or staring at a goth or a punk because of their extreme clothing.
UC said "People are always afraid of what's different because they look at it as a threat" the keyword here would be "potential". People with abnormal behaviour are a POTENTIAL threat, causing people to be cautious, which is also a good survival strategy


I also completely agree with the part about the "mild degrees of disorders", which is why I said

The point is.. it doesnt matter how some book defines disease or what society knows about disorders. The question is, are you ok with yourself?
If so, perfect. Consider yourself significantly sane. That's all there is to it

in an earlier post

Enough for tonight, see you another day

 

[Hitori]

Wow. I don’t even know where to start.

First of all, I find your “use correct grammar” order terribly arrogant. I would also like to point out there are other things besides grammar that are important, such as structure, development, and well organized paragraphs with main and support ideas.

I don’t have a problem with the fact that you’re hesitant about the role psychology plays in society. In a way I agree that psychology is like a new religion, and I share your interest in how people who are considered “insane” have been mistreated throughout history. I strongly urge you to read Michel Foucault’s “Madness and Civilization”, that would be a good start.

Yet the rest of your rant seems over-the-top, childish and lacking of theoretical support. In other words, you should actually read a bit and investigate on the subject before making a profound claim like “psychologists are evil.” Your arguments and your examples (consisting on “a friend of mine” and a movie character) are weak. One of those arguments (“People with mental "disorders" could be considered the next step in primate evolution&#8221 is so ridiculous and unfounded, I’m surprised no one has made any comment on it already, but I guess no one knew where to start either, or they have busier Sundays than I do. Also, a lot of your text seems to be based on the assumption that psychologists decide who is not “normal” and who is, based on their observations, but as Siren said, diagnosis are based on things such as chemical imbalances in the brain. Your reply to Siren is not satisfactory, as you seem stuck on the terms. It doesn’t matter if you call them diseases, disorders, or state-of-minds: the point is, there is a physical reason why a person feels unhappier than what is "normal", and there is a physical solution to it.

I was going to go ahead and comment on your also arrogant “The mind of someone with a mental "disorder" is superior,” but I guess since you ARE the newbie of the year, you must be exceptionally gifted and talented. And just in case you missed it, that was sarcastic. Perhaps to you, it’s a consolation to feel superior to the rest of humanity, but I have known a great many depressed people in my life. Whether they are brilliant or not is beside the point, because at the end of the day, that’s not what it’s all about. It’s about being happy, about having healthy relationships with others, about not breaking down over the smallest little thing, about having the strength to wake up each day and face the world. Being brilliant does not consist on over-analysis, as much as I wish it did. To me, it doesn’t require having deep thoughts, or being an academic or professional success. Being brilliant means having a full, rich life, mixing your intelligence with emotional intelligence. I’m sure my friend N. would give up all her “brilliantness” to just be able to go through the days without crying for any reason. So what would you say to her? “Don’t feel bad, it’s ok to be in that sad state-of-mind, society and evil psychologists make you think you should be able to lead a content life, but they’re evil?”

And as for paranoia, as someone who suffers from it, I very strongly disagree that it is a healthy self-defense mechanism. Quite the opposite, it has caused me (and my loved ones) more pain than it has spared.

Anyway, I’m glad to hear you’re revising your text. My suggestion is to just erase it all and actually do some research next time.

 

[Magrathean]

You seem to feel a lot of pressure from society, I mean what do you care what anyone thinks of your "disorders"? If it's not visible, I really dont see the problem.. if it's visible, like hallucinations and someone talking to someone who isnt there, you're bound to get some weird looks.

I usually wouldn’t care about what anyone thought of “my disorders”, as you’ve so kindly put it, but how they act towards me is influenced by what they think of me, and how they act towards me does affect me.

I think it would be a severe overinterpretation to make those looks equate a "I want you to be like everyone else and forbid you to be different!"

Indeed, weird looks do not equate “i want you to be like everyone else”, but locking people up in a mental institute and giving them therapy does.

It seems to be the easy solution here to say "If Im unable to do this or that, it's not my fault, it's only the fault of your screwed up definition!"

If i’m unable to do something because of my mental condition, it’s neither my fault nor the screwed-up definition’s fault, but indeed it’s my own problem and not the definition’s problem, which is what i believe you’re implying with that (and if not then please tell me what you’re implying). But if i can’t do something and instead of helping me out or leaving me to my failure they start calling me names and looking weird at me and ultimately put me into a mental institute and/or regard me as inferior, fucked up or diseased then it is the definition’s fault. And that’s why it should be changed. And a change in the name is not important. The important thing is that people see that there’s nothing wrong with “mental disordered” people and stop treating them as sick people.

I believe we should make a distinction between psychologist/taking therapy and psychiatrist / medication / mental institute therapy. The first works fine for people with temporary problems (such as trauma, someone’s death, family/relationship problems, and so on), whereas the second is the treatment i’m against, as it attempts to cure people who are not sick, first making them believe they are sick. This way, we eliminate further conflict with the “i will not go to therapy because psychologists are evil” issue. If anyone believes otherwise, please do tell.

You say disorders shouldnt be called so. So you call it "Failure to buy a car" instead of say, Social Anxiety Disorder. What's the difference? You're still just as unable to do what you want as before.

Again, it’s not how you name it, it’s how you act about it.

Even if you say those tasks are society-made, what does that change? No one is forcing you to buy a car. You make it sound like for everything someone labeled "mentally ill" cant do inside society, he can do something else, something new and exciting.. care to provide examples?

I didn’t mean to imply that. First, let’s please choose another example, as i believe everyone, including the “mentally ill”, can buy a car. And when we do choose another example (i’ll let you choose it ) i’ll show you how the inability to do it is caused by society and not by a mental condition.

The idea of mental disorders being a step forward in the genetic development seems interesting, but I have yet to see a single lead. Except for the genius who studies 18h a day because of his obsessive compulsive disorder, I really dont see any benefit stemming from any mental disorder, but Im open to examples you provide.

I’m actually studying genetics at university. Let me learn a bit more and find out if the chemical “imbalances” that lead to these “diseases” are caused by genetic mutation and then i’ll provide research and examples.

You keep saying mental patients are "different" which in the way you use it, seems to also imply that they are being looked down on, which I think is not the case. In fact, seeking help at a psychologist is often seen as a step of maturity, a step of responsible behaviour.
Sebastian Deisler, midfielder of Bayern Munich and member of the national team was treated for depressions 1,5 years ago and no one was laughing or calling him weak or anything. He was given the time he needed and has succesfully reclaimed his place in both teams.

Okay, you got me on that one. Maybe he wasn’t looked down on or frowned upon, but where i come from people do seem to think that mental “disorders” are a bad thing.

A note on depression: depression could or could not be a mental condition. There’s the possibility that it is merely the effect being rejected or called ‘sick’ can have on a person. When it becomes almost constant and so strong that it may look like a disorder, it is not necessarily so, but rather the consequence of excessive suffering. Just a thought i have to develop more.

I suppose many of those which you consider "normal" and giving you an odd look have their own disfunctions or twisted thoughts in one way or another.

And that’s exactly why they/we shouldn’t be called ‘mentally disordered people’. Every person is different. Some are more different than others, and that’s when it seems like disease, but to classify people because they are different is stupid.

WE DIDN'T FAIL!! WHAT YOU TALKING ABOUT!!?

Of course you didn’t. But now’s your chance to win an even greater victory.

However there's definately something wrong with [abnormal behavior] being considred a disease or having negative social connotations (to have schizophrenia, many people would consider you looney, and maybe even dangerous (might be true (but thats prejudice and the way of the world) ) )... Alot of people (everyone really) have what would be considered personality disorders, because there are so many. Then again it's a spectrum. It's not like cancer, where you have it or you don't. You can suffer from mild Borderline personality disorder, or very high avoidant personality disorder etc. My point being you're right not to consider it as some kind of socially retarding disease

Exactly my point. As i said, everyone’s different, and if we start classifying then, like you said, everyone would end up being diseased or disordered. Which is why words like ‘normal’ shouldn’t be used. But i digress.

but I doubt many people even [consider mental disorders as some kind of socially retarding disease] anymore

You’d be amazed at how cruel people can be with those who have such conditions.

I also happen to suffer from high obsessive compulsive disorder and very high bordeline personality disorder. It's things I don't like about myself

Being extremely obsessive and being obsessive-compulsive can be tiresome at times and make you think things you didn’t want to think, resulting in pain. But, as someone said somewhere up there *points to the whole heap of previous posts*, obsession often leads to scientific breakthrough.

You see, connecting mental disorders with words like "looney" is something I find severely retarded.

But you are one among hundreds of thousands who don’t think like you.

But I dont think it's the same as looking at someone with hallucinations cautiously or staring at a goth or a punk because of their extreme clothing.
UC said "People are always afraid of what's different because they look at it as a threat" the keyword here would be "potential". People with abnormal behaviour are a POTENTIAL threat, causing people to be cautious, which is also a good survival strategy

Indeed, potential threats should lead to cautious behavior, not to rejecting / emotinally injuring behavior.

I strongly urge you to read Michel Foucault’s “Madness and Civilization”, that would be a good start.

Will do as soon as i get a chance.

First of all, I find your “use correct grammar” order terribly arrogant. I would also like to point out there are other things besides grammar that are important, such as structure, development, and well organized paragraphs with main and support ideas.

Yes, but how can you ask people to run when some of them can’t even walk? It may have been arrogant, but i’m honestly sick of having to read through paragraphs and paragraphs of stuff without any commas or capital letters while trying to guess the meaning. As politely as i can, i’m asking people to try to write as correctly as they can. If they can’t, then i figure i’ll have to sit back and try to guess meanings, but at least i made an attempt at making posts easier for me to interpret. Oh, please do excuse me if i hurt your feelings by being arrogant.

the rest of your rant seems over-the-top, childish and lacking of theoretical support. In other words, you should actually read a bit and investigate on the subject before making a profound claim like “psychologists are evil.” Your arguments and your examples (consisting on “a friend of mine” and a movie character) are weak.

No. See, scientific theory needs to be supported by empirical fact in order to be accepted as true. I make a theory and then watch examples (such as a friend of mine, who’s always there for me to watch, and a character from a highly realistic movie, not some director’s mindless effort at becoming rich over the night) that support it. It’s called the ‘scientific method’, in case you didn’t know.

One of those arguments (“People with mental "disorders" could be considered the next step in primate evolution&#8221 is so ridiculous and unfounded, I’m surprised no one has made any comment on it already, but I guess no one knew where to start either, or they have busier Sundays than I do.

Now who’s arrogant? Just because it seems unlikely to you you snap at me saying that it’s totally ridiculous and unfounded. First, it may be unlikely, but it’s not impossible. Second, people once thought that the idea of a round Earth which went around the sun was ridiculous. Third, it’s a hypothesis and not something founded on experimental results, of course, but doesn’t every scientific theory begin as a mere hypothesis?

Also, a lot of your text seems to be based on the assumption that psychologists decide who is not “normal” and who is, based on their observations, but as Siren said, diagnosis are based on things such as chemical imbalances in the brain. Your reply to Siren is not satisfactory, as you seem stuck on the terms. It doesn’t matter if you call them diseases, disorders, or state-of-minds: the point is, there is a physical reason why a person feels unhappier than what is "normal", and there is a physical solution to it.

Yes, there is a physical reason, and, again, mutation often results in physical change. These changes don’t cause unhappiness. Being rejected because of them and having to swallow “you’re sick” every single day is what causes unhappiness. It doesn’t fucking matter if you call them diseases or not. For the billionth time, what matters is how you act towards them.

I was going to go ahead and comment on your also arrogant “The mind of someone with a mental "disorder" is superior,” but I guess since you ARE the newbie of the year, you must be exceptionally gifted and talented. And just in case you missed it, that was sarcastic. Perhaps to you, it’s a consolation to feel superior to the rest of humanity, but I have known a great many depressed people in my life. Whether they are brilliant or not is beside the point, because at the end of the day, that’s not what it’s all about. It’s about being happy, about having healthy relationships with others, about not breaking down over the smallest little thing, about having the strength to wake up each day and face the world. Being brilliant does not consist on over-analysis, as much as I wish it did. To me, it doesn’t require having deep thoughts, or being an academic or professional success. Being brilliant means having a full, rich life, mixing your intelligence with emotional intelligence. I’m sure my friend N. would give up all her “brilliantness” to just be able to go through the days without crying for any reason. So what would you say to her? “Don’t feel bad, it’s ok to be in that sad state-of-mind, society and evil psychologists make you think you should be able to lead a content life, but they’re evil?”

Did you even take the time to read through my replies? Or did you just ramble on and on about the original post without caring to see if something you said had already been said? My guess is the second option. The “superior than all humanity” thing was already addressed in one of my replies (please read at least what i’ve replied to people who have posted here, as i don’t believe you have). The definition of “brilliant” i used was the one the others seemed to understand (for example, obsession helping to come up with new ideas), not the one you understood (i.e. a brilliant person being one who is able to live happily). And i don’t see why you’re bringing the “newbie of the year” thing here, as it has nothing to do with all of this. Or was it an excuse to sarcastically say that i’m gifted, thus implying that i’m being stupid, thus insulting me? Because that’s immature, and i thought you were the one who said my “rants” were “childish”. How ironic. ‘Tis true what they say about life being a great joke.

Anyway, I’m glad to hear you’re revising your text. My suggestion is to just erase it all and actually do some research next time.

Again, offensive. Again, immaturity. I thought we were grownups who were able to discuss things in a mature way and without insulting each other. Guess i was wrong. Now, can you please calm down so the tension can be relieved and we can all continue this in a mature, peaceful way?

Despite all arguments and disagreements and despite all the sarcasm and apparent tension, we’re still friends, right, Tail?

 

[rahvin]

No. See, scientific theory needs to be supported by empirical fact in order to be accepted as true. I make a theory and then watch examples (such as a friend of mine, who’s always there for me to watch, and a character from a highly realistic movie, not some director’s mindless effort at becoming rich over the night) that support it. It’s called the ‘scientific method’, in case you didn’t know.

it's really not. observation (least of all observation of fictional characters) is not the scientific method. it might lead to educated guesses, but science implies the possibility to obtain certain results over and over in controlled experiments, thus proving a certain theory. however, psychiatry is a science only in the sense that it demonstrated that a certain medication has certain neurological effects. your constant mixing of perfectly valid scientifical data with conspiracy theories of battalions of shady characters calling people sick is what makes your essay - and the additions to it - hard to take seriously. of course, you can think you're an undiscovered genius of our times (and i mean no mockery with this) who's one of the few enlightened enough to see the truth, but such a view pertains to the world of belief. in the world of fact, your opinion comes off as - yes - completely unfounded.

Now who’s arrogant?

everybody and their mother, apparently. you don't have a leg to stand on if you mean to defend your good faith and humility, with expressions like "it's called the scientific method, in case you didn't know". so just let it go, everyone will defend their point with a little passion and a retort is not going to make it better. you could argue that this point should have been made about hitori's remarks towards you as well, but you're the one who came up with a theory, which seems to be based in part on you holding a small glimmer of the universal truth and waving it around like you're trying to take flight.

First, it may be unlikely, but it’s not impossible. Second, people once thought that the idea of a round Earth which went around the sun was ridiculous. Third, it’s a hypothesis and not something founded on experimental results, of course, but doesn’t every scientific theory begin as a mere hypothesis?

well then i think we will concur that your theory is as likely and as founded as the theory that midgets are in fact reincarnations of the dwarven population from the lord of the rings. it certainly obeys to all the criteria described above: it's unlikely, but not impossible; it could be seen as ridiculous, coincidentally just like one other theory in the history of mankind who was then proven true; it's a hypothesis and not something based on experimental data.
again, this is perfectly undisputable because it belongs to the realm of your private convictions. i can easily validate your theory to the point of "there is the smallest chance that it could be true", but it's a waste of my time to debate every theory that has the smallest chance of being true.

These changes don’t cause unhappiness.

i'm glad if they don't to you. but they do to a lot of people.