Some issues I have with Schizophrenia Diagnosis

[Artsu Tharaz]

So, pretty much all of the Schizophrenia diagnostic criteria I have seen seem to be really, really vague. Based on the definitions, it seemed to me that Schizophrenia was this thing which is actually based on quite standard experiences, however it has occurred to me that actually there may be an actual illness that is being called Schizophrenia, however the diagnostic criteria are simply horrendous, due to an overall lack of understanding of the illness. Whatever actual schizophrenia is, I have little to say on that matter. I have some thoughts on the diagnostic criteria, though.

Now, first of all, there is this whole notion of "hearing voices", and these voices can be experienced internally, it doesn't have to be like, literally thinking someone is in the room talking to you when no one is there.

However, from what I understand, verbal thinking is experienced in every person as being auditory, i.e. when a person thinks verbally, they are hearing voices, and thus technically having auditory hallucinations. So every person who thinks verbally, which I assume is everyone who knows language, even if in varying degrees, hears voices.

Now, there's this thing about "delusions". A delusion is apparently a fixed false belief. So, apparently a person believes something false, and won't change their mind in response to evidence to the contrary. So ok, two issues here:

- first of all, from my experience, a patient will be labelled as delusional even if their beliefs are not disproven. In fact, it may be admitted that the patient might actually be correct, but it will still be labelled as a delusion

- second of all, I think almost everyone has at least one belief which is false, and which they would refuse to change their mind on even if someone were to go and show them heaps of evidence to the contrary, even logical proofs which disprove their idea. People believe things that are not factual, everyone does to some degree or another.

Now, here is another problem. There is distinctions made in diagnostic criteria between whether a patient says "this is what is happening" and "it is as if this is what is happening", and by saying "it is as if" at the front, then it as if the person then goes from delusional/non-insight status, to insight status, and could even be given a totally new diagnosis.

Well, first of all, diagnosis should not in general be made based on what a patient says they believe, as they could be lying or expressing themself incorrectly, or the psychiatrist could simply be misinterpreting.

Second of all, it should be quite obvious that when a person says something, it is not either a literal truth or a simile (when they say "it is as if"). Actually, I believe that it was in 7th grade english that I learn about this word called "metaphor", which is a kind of figurative use of language, like a simile, however they don't say "it is as if" at the front, they just say "it is...", with a sort of implied assumption that what is said will not be taken literally.

Ok, then there is this thing called thought disorder. I have no real understanding of what a thought disorder is, but again, it seems to be deduced from what a patient actually says. Basically, diagnosing someone with a thought disorder is a case of "mind reading", which is a faulty way of thinking according to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. It goes by the name of "cognitive distortion", and actually psychiatrists and other mental health professionals use many cognitive distortions.

You know what else mental health professionals use? Avoidance, and Alienating Messages.

Avoidance is giving incomplete messages, often to avoid conflict. Alienating messages include things like threats.

Mental health professionals give incomplete messages to their patients. However, they will talk more openly about their thoughts with each other. Mental health professionals use threats against their patients, AND often act on these threats.

Now, let's look at the definition of a "conspiracy".

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Now, if someone says that there is a conspiracy against them, obviously they must be mistaken, for otherwise it would not be secret. Yet, as we have seen from the game Forum Mafia, which is largely centred around the notion of a conspiracy, often we can infer that people are operating in conspiracy through how they behave and communicate.

Through the use of avoidant messages and threats by a group of people, such as mental health professionals, it becomes a reasonable suspicion that they may in fact be planning to cause harm to the patient. When they do then unleash some sort of attack on the patient, for example in the form of use of forced medication even with lack of a diagnosis or emergency or any statement as to why it is appropriate, then all doubt is removed as to whether there was a conspiracy.

There was. There is plenty of evidence that shows that this is a harmful practice, at least in many cases. If it is appropriate in some cases, then from what I have experienced, it is not the case that mental health professionals actually bother to go through a process of determining whether it is appropriate or not. There is some degree to which they do, however it is very far from foolproof, and is probably harmful in the majority of cases.

A person with terminal cancer can choose to not receive treatment.

A person diagnosed with schizophrenia, whether they have it or not, can be forced to receive treatment, if a certain protocol is followed.

Is this right? No. Are there better ways? Yes.

Why is it done that way, then? I don't know, I can't read minds.

Thanks,

your friendly local neighbourhood 5ch1z0phr3n1c, Artsu Tharaz.

 

[Grayman]

Have you reviewed the changes from DSM-4 and DSM-5?
http://ccpweb.wustl.edu/pdfs/2013_defdes.pdf

One of the first three symptoms are required see table one on the right.
1) Delusions
2) Hallucinations (auditory)http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/schizophrenia/auditory-hallucinations-psychiatric-illness
3) Disorganized Speech http://ccpweb.wustl.edu/pdfs/2013_defdes.pdf


In 2) link Hallucinations

Auditory hallucinations are false perceptions of sound. They have been described as the experience of internal words or noises that have no real origin in the outside world and are perceived to be separate from the person’s mental processes.1

Delusions DSM-5 Glossary:

"Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g., persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose). Persecutory delusions (i.e., the belief that one is going to be harmed, harassed, and so forth by an individual, organization, or other group) are most common. Referential delusions (i.e., belief that certain gestures, comments, environmental cues, and so forth are directed at oneself) are also common. Grandiose delusions (i.e., when an individual believes that he or she has exceptional abilities, wealth, or fame) and erotomanic delusions (i.e., when an individual believes falsely that another person is in love with him or her) are also seen. Nihilistic delusions involve the conviction that a major catastrophe will occur, and somatic delusions focus on preoccupations regarding health and organ function.

"Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. An example of a bizarre delusion is the belief that an outside force has removed his or her internal organs and replaced them with someone else's organs without leaving any wounds or scars. An example of a nonbizarre delusion is the belief that one is under surveillance by the police, despite a lack of convincing evidence. Delusions that express a loss of control over mind or body are generally considered to be bizarre; these include the belief that one's thoughts have been "removed" by some outside force (thought withdrawal), that alien thoughts have been put into one's mind (thought insertion), or that one's body or actions are being acted on or manipulated by some outside force (delusions of control). The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity."

 

[Grayman]

Have you seen this site? Good stuff. https://www.madinamerica.com/
Their mission statement:

Mad in America’s mission is to serve as a catalyst for remaking psychiatric care in the United States (and abroad). We believe that the current drug-based paradigm of care has failed our society, and that scientific research, as well as the lived experience of those who have been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, calls for profound change.

Anyways I found this on delusions. It has some details on how DSM missed the mark.

https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/08/delusions/

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Have you seen this site? Good stuff. https://www.madinamerica.com/
Their mission statement:


Anyways I found this on delusions. It has some details on how DSM missed the mark.

https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/08/delusions/

Yeah, I think I've seen that site a bit before when I was doing some research on this stuff.

That article on delusions goes with a lot of what I said. The main point I think which is highly relevant and which I perhaps did not include is that, when face with a failure: " we can distort our perception of the situation to such an extent that it no longer seems to be a failure."

This is relevant to me (obviously so, from what some of you know). What adds to this, is that being locked in a psychiatric facility and put on anti-psychotic drugs as a supposed schizo- patient, would to most people I think, be seen as a huge failure.

So, I wouldn't say that it's a huge exaggeration to suppose that being "treated" for schizophrenia or a similar disorder could make someone (more) "delusional".

All in all, I think psychiatry is quite a terrible institution. I have seen little evidence of actual help being given. (I'll note that psychology/counselling can be good, although it seems to have an over-rated efficacy)

 

[QuickTwist]

I tell you what. Why don't you go back and read some of my earlier writings on this forum and tell me if you can tell a difference that I have had with treatment.

 

[Grayman]

I think when deciding if psychiatry is good or bad we need to consider the location, the regulations, and the doctors.

Where I live you cannot just force someone into a ward without something drastic happening and even then there is a time limit. This is for adults though. I had a friend whoes mother sent him into such a facility at young age. I would say his experience had a very negative impact on him.

 

[QuickTwist]

I think when deciding if psychiatry is good or bad be need to consider the lacation, the regulations, and the doctors.

Where I live you cannot just force someone into a ward without something drastic happening and even then there is a time limit. This is for adults though. I had a friend whoes mother sent him into such a facility at young age. I would say his experience had a very negative impact on him.

Yes, Psych wards are not a good place to be. Its kinda like prison. That said, There are plenty of outpatient options that are not as drastic and can help you a ton if you are willing to take a good hard look at yourself. therapy has been beneficial for me over the long run. I am a much more centered person now than I was 5 years ago.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I tell you what. Why don't you go back and read some of my earlier writings on this forum and tell me if you can tell a difference that I have had with treatment.

Maybe you did benefit; however, many people don't.

Question: were you forced into your treatment, or was it mostly your own choice?

For me, I actually enjoyed the psych ward for the most part, since it took a way a lot of the stresses from the outside world temporarily, and it was an opportunity to do a lot of socialising.

However, can I really say that it helped me in the long run?

Are you for or against the idea that people diagnosed with Schizophrenia can have a legal obligation to take medication? In my country, there are things called Community Treatment Orders, which mean that if a patient refuses medication while under one, then there can be Police involvement, and police have a right to enter that person's house without a warrant in such a case.

--

As for whether I have been helped in the long run, well there's the argument that I have learnt a lot and become much more psychologically strong. That's the main thing I can think of.

Something to do with now having fairly good use of my inferior function in the MBTI. Or something.

Apart from that, there is little real objective evidence that I have benefited from treatment, except I guess that I had quite a few friends for a while there.

And yeah, there is a trolling aspect to what I say, however I have a hard time knowing how to post without including any trolling. I think I legitimately have a hard time knowing what is true nowadays. So I kinda just say and do whatever.

--

Oh, and yeah, I do believe therapy itself is generally beneficial. I've found that that did help me, even if I do think it's a bit over-rated or whatever. I've never really heard of someone being forced to talk to a psychologist. All therapy that I've received I had to seek on my own, or with help from family.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Spoiler

*krrrrr krrrrrr*

Come in. Do you read me?

We have a 51031. I repeat, we have a 51031.

*krrrr krrrrrr*

Understood. Backup is on its way.

Stay where you are. It'll be handled soon.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I tell you what. Why don't you go back and read some of my earlier writings on this forum and tell me if you can tell a difference that I have had with treatment.

Yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGpD7rrzTo

I remember watching this show years ago back in the day. Bobby had a race around the track and he did gone try his hardest golly gosh. Inspiring.

DUN DUN DUN

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Based on the criteria used for Schizophrenia, a religious belief is a delusion, and a spiritual experience is a halluciation/psychosis.

If you are religious, then you are "safe" in that your experiences come under the clause "socially appropriate". This is subject to change as social appropriateness changes or the clause is dropped.

If you are spiritual, however not backed by a religious tradition, then you are already targetted by the criteria for Schizophrenia used by the mental health industry.

I stilll have no idea what is meant by "thought disorder".

 

[Analyzer]

Based on the criteria used for Schizophrenia, a religious belief is a delusion, and a spiritual experience is a halluciation/psychosis.

Exactly. All these types of things are BS. The criteria is too vague and subjective, it's essentially a way to control people.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

All these types of things are BS.

Mental illness diagnoses, or people complaining that mental illness diagnoses are bullshit?

 

[Analyzer]

Mental illness diagnoses, or people complaining that mental illness diagnoses are bullshit?

The former. http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=534279&postcount=25

 

[QuickTwist]

Exactly. All these types of things are BS. The criteria is too vague and subjective, it's essentially a way to control people.

This is not true. When a psychiatrist/Psychologist/therapist is looking into a possible diagnoses for an individual there are very black and white criterial that is looked at, such as symptoms that that person is experiencing. This can be objectively observed by mental health professionals at a hospital.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

The former. http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=534279&postcount=25

Awesome!

In terms of whether mental illness diagnoses are themselves bullshit, I think it's a similar sort of validity to what MBTI typing has, which is... probably a fair bit but there's way more to it.

In terms of involuntary treatment... well, with a parent treating their child for a disorder, it can be hard to argue against. Of course, parents can be manipulated into thinking one course of action is good when it's not. When we're talking about an independent adult though, it should be quite... black and white that they should be in charge of their own treatment.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

This is not true. When a psychiatrist/Psychologist/therapist is looking into a possible diagnoses for an individual there are very black and white criterial that is looked at, such as symptoms that that person is experiencing. This can be objectively observed by mental health professionals at a hospital.

That's the thing though.

Delusions, hallucinations and thought disorder cannot be objectively observed.

Hallucinations by definition are only experienced by the person having them.

The presence of a "delusion" depends on all kinds of criteria that are very difficult to verify.

And thought disorder... as I mentioned before, unless we use mind reading or high tech neuroscience, thought disorder is inferred from speech, so I would not say that this is objective.

There are mental illness symptoms that can be objectively observed, i.e. the behavioural symptoms; however cognitive symptoms tend to, by their very nature, not be objectively observable.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Today my MBTI type is ENTJ.

So, it is claimed that I am delusional in the sense of forming beliefs without evidence.

Yet, my dominant function is Extroverted Thinking.

Gonna argue with me as to whether my beliefs have evidence or not?

GET FUCKED

--

oh, and I do welcome argumentation of what I claim. I think a lot of people don't bother because either they don't know what I'm claiming, or they figure I'm most likely right anyway.

But to assume that I don't know what I'm talking about because you don't know what I'm talking about?

Then, yeah: get fucked.

 

[Seteleechete]

This is not true. When a psychiatrist/Psychologist/therapist is looking into a possible diagnoses for an individual there are very black and white criterial that is looked at, such as symptoms that that person is experiencing. This can be objectively observed by mental health professionals at a hospital.

That sounds even worse than making a subjective decision. It implies that you make a decision based on a set of observable symptoms without taking into account potential reasoning behind the symptoms and other excruciating circumstances.(Which is very relevant for these cases). That kind of "objectivity" is more appropriate within physical medical fields rather than the case by case basis in mental ones.

 

[QuickTwist]

That sounds even worse than making a subjective decision. It implies that you make a decision based on a set of observable symptoms without taking into account potential reasoning behind the symptoms and other excruciating circumstances.(Which is very relevant for these cases). That kind of "objectivity" is more appropriate within physical medical fields rather than the case by case basis in mental ones.

Why? A condition of the mind is not much different than a condition of the body. If you have to diagnose people based on subjective criteria, it could be impossible to find a correct diagnosis for some individuals. The reason objectivity works in mental illness is because it gives concrete criteria. If it was solely based on subjective means, we wouldn't even be close to even knowing what symptoms even are at this point. It might be heuristics at this point, but its a lot better than anything else we can/could come up with at this point. Its a system that works for the time being and we actually know quite a bit about how the brain works at this point. Its about viewing behaviors from an objective standpoint. making things more complicated than they need to be doesn't lend itself to predictable results. In this way, mental health professionals are much like scientists in that the observe things and record them and then come up with hypothesis and then theories and finally a solution. What other way can this be done really?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Why? A condition of the mind is not much different than a condition of the body. If you have to diagnose people based on subjective criteria, it could be impossible to find a correct diagnosis for some individuals. The reason objectivity works in mental illness is because it gives concrete criteria. If it was solely based on subjective means, we wouldn't even be close to even knowing what symptoms even are at this point. It might be heuristics at this point, but its a lot better than anything else we can/could come up with at this point. Its a system that works for the time being and we actually know quite a bit about how the brain works at this point. Its about viewing behaviors from an objective standpoint. making things more complicated than they need to be doesn't lend itself to predictable results. In this way, mental health professionals are much like scientists in that the observe things and record them and then come up with hypothesis and then theories and finally a solution. What other way can this be done really?

The difference between conditions of the mind and conditions of the body is a topic of debate...

However, one major difference, even if they belong to the same class, is that diseases of the body are much easier to find strong evidence for. Symptoms can be very objective, such as presence of a cough. Of course, in this case, a cough is a symptom of a huge range of physical conditions. Then, there are medical tests where you might have say a 95% chance of correct diagnosis based on a positive result, based on statistical analysis of research.

When forming a mental health diagnosis however, we are dealing with theoretical constructs which for the most part do not have associated tests which can give a positive result. Yes there are those questionnaires, however these are subjective reports. Statistical analysis may well show that they are a good predictor, but you're getting no where near the 95% you might get from a physical test for an illness.

So with objective criteria, you are looking at things like impulsive or reckless behaviour, or on the other hand overly withdrawn behaviour, or symptoms of anxiety, or emotional outbursts. There may be behaviours which are objectively dangerous, with little apparent purpose, and which the patient may seem to do compulsively. It may be found that in the majority of cases of patients indicating a certain profile of symptoms, that administration of a certain drug will bring these behaviours to a manageable level, thus easing burden on both the patient and those around the patient.

I'm sure there are many, many success stories from people obtaining services from both psychology AND psychiatry, however in this thread I more want to focus on the many, many cases which have been very far from successful. I want to focus on all the downsides of the industry.

For example, from what I've gathered, the scientific status of psychiatry is dubious at best. Drug efficacy is generally over-stated, and there are vague models used to explain how they work, the main one being the "chemical imbalance" hypothesis, which seems more to be buzzwords than an actual scientific model.

My understanding of the science behind all of this is limited, but I would say that it is solid enough to know that the science behind all of this is limited. I don't know the answer to how to make the industry suddenly work much better than it currently does, but I am willing to help work towards better ways, rather than simply accepting how things are done right now.

 

[QuickTwist]

The difference between conditions of the mind and conditions of the body is a topic of debate...

However, one major difference, even if they belong to the same class, is that diseases of the body are much easier to find strong evidence for. Symptoms can be very objective, such as presence of a cough. Of course, in this case, a cough is a symptom of a huge range of physical conditions. Then, there are medical tests where you might have say a 95% chance of correct diagnosis based on a positive result, based on statistical analysis of research.

there is no difference between the two here.

When forming a mental health diagnosis however, we are dealing with theoretical constructs which for the most part do not have associated tests which can give a positive result. Yes there are those questionnaires, however these are subjective reports. Statistical analysis may well show that they are a good predictor, but you're getting no where near the 95% you might get from a physical test for an illness.

Brain scans. With this tool you can tell right away if it is a tumor or simply a form of a mental illness. Not only that, but some brain scans can in fact detect that a person has a specific mental illness. The difference is that a brain scan happens first when dealing with mental illness and questions come first with physical symptoms. That is the only real difference is the process in how to narrow it down.

So with objective criteria, you are looking at things like impulsive or reckless behaviour, or on the other hand overly withdrawn behaviour, or symptoms of anxiety, or emotional outbursts. There may be behaviours which are objectively dangerous, with little apparent purpose, and which the patient may seem to do compulsively. It may be found that in the majority of cases of patients indicating a certain profile of symptoms, that administration of a certain drug will bring these behaviours to a manageable level, thus easing burden on both the patient and those around the patient.

the thing you are missing is that you are only talking about extremes.. What happens in therapy is the same only they are trying to narrow down specifics and use that to help the patient.

I'm sure there are many, many success stories from people obtaining services from both psychology AND psychiatry, however in this thread I more want to focus on the many, many cases which have been very far from successful. I want to focus on all the downsides of the industry.

If anyone refuses treatment then they are not going to get results. If a person with a broken rib refuses to go to the hospital they are not going to get the best results. The same is true with Mental illness. If people are not willing to fully commit to the treatment, then of course they are not going to get positive results from doing it.

For example, from what I've gathered, the scientific status of psychiatry is dubious at best. Drug efficacy is generally over-stated, and there are vague models used to explain how they work, the main one being the "chemical imbalance" hypothesis, which seems more to be buzzwords than an actual scientific model.

I'm not sure what your point here is. do you think it would be better to just say "its not good enough, forget the whole process"? We are objectively better at psychiatry than we were 20 years ago. That is fact.

My understanding of the science behind all of this is limited, but I would say that it is solid enough to know that the science behind all of this is limited. I don't know the answer to how to make the industry suddenly work much better than it currently does, but I am willing to help work towards better ways, rather than simply accepting how things are done right now.

Saying "I don't like this way, lets try something else" without giving a something else to try leaves you in worse shape than you would be if you tried to improve a system that does seem to work better than nothing all things considered.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

there is no difference between the two here.

Brain scans. With this tool you can tell right away if it is a tumor or simply a form of a mental illness. Not only that, but some brain scans can in fact detect that a person has a specific mental illness. The difference is that a brain scan happens first when dealing with mental illness and questions come first with physical symptoms. That is the only real difference is the process in how to narrow it down.

This is an area that I think does show a lot of promise. However, from what I understand there is a fairly limited use of it thus far. For example, it can rule out a tumor in the case of schizophrenia, however from what I understand it can't then tell that the illness is schizophrenia specifically, apart from maybe some correlations of size of various brain regions.

As an aside, neuroscience seems like it can determine Jungian cognitive functions (Dario Nardi). Once it's developed better, it probably will have a very high ability to detect various mental illnesses.

the thing you are missing is that you are only talking about extremes.. What happens in therapy is the same only they are trying to narrow down specifics and use that to help the patient.

Yeah, I have a tendency to do that when looking at an issue. I'll go to the extremes, and then fill in everything in between. As I stated, my opinion on therapy is quite moderate.

If anyone refuses treatment then they are not going to get results. If a person with a broken rib refuses to go to the hospital they are not going to get the best results. The same is true with Mental illness. If people are not willing to fully commit to the treatment, then of course they are not going to get positive results from doing it.

Yeah, but what if the treatment proposed is actually kinda retarded, and hasn't been getting results anyway? Yes I have a personal issue with the system due to my own treatment, however from what I've gathered from online sources, my case was hardly isolated, thus I feel that there is reason to push the issue.

I'm not sure what your point here is. do you think it would be better to just say "its not good enough, forget the whole process"? We are objectively better at psychiatry than we were 20 years ago. That is fact.

I think there should be more honesty, and more objectivity. I think many psychiatrists and other mental health workers with certain levels of power over their patients will often have an unjustifiable level of confidence that they're doing the best thing, however often it is accompanied by a level of bias towards their own methods and there's fairly little look at alternatives.

This thread is specifically looking at patients diagnosed with an illness which may give them little say in their own treatment, which is what I have noticed in those with a schizophrenia diagnosis.

When I was put under a treatment plan, I was given a psychiatrist to talk to occassionally regarding medication, and a nurse who would basically make chit chat and monitor my levels of paranoia and drug use. I've sought out therapy independently, and no psychologist I've spoken to has said that I seemed psychotic - they only said some of the things I described sounded like they might have been psychosis.

The therapy was focused on depression and anxiety.

Saying "I don't like this way, lets try something else" without giving a something else to try leaves you in worse shape than you would be if you tried to improve a system that does seem to work better than nothing all things considered.

If no one says "I don't like this way, lets try something else", then will anyone bother looking for a different way? Maybe they'll try to improve the system either way, however with many voices of discontent, I think it adds to the urgency to put some more effort into it.

Yes, it is better to solve a problem than to point it out, but I think it is better to point out a problem than to not point it out all. I do know where you're coming from in saying that - I've said basically the same thing somewhere else. I think I called it the "deconstructive" approach (completely unrelated to the term used in Critical Theory).

So, here's some basic suggestions from me to the mental health system:
- give patients more power over their own treatment, with all treatment being voluntary except perhaps in very, very extreme cases, and possibly in people such as children who already lack a high degree of independence (not that I think children shouldn't have a say in their treatment, rather that children already have much of their lives somewhat scheduled for them, so this would then come under a different topic of debate).
- provide alternatives and the ability for patients to design a treatment plan, rather than having one single one essentially enforced on them.

Yes, I'm looking at extremes. I think the extremes are where improvements can be made the most easily, and I think they comprise a significant proportion of cases overall, thus it is a highly relevant issue.

Oh, and sorry to go all "no u", but what suggestions would you make regarding improving the mental health system, or improving my outlook in doing so myself?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Then, there are medical tests where you might have say a 95% chance of correct diagnosis based on a positive result, based on statistical analysis of research.

Oh, and I'll add some commentary on this comment that I made previously:

Based on statistics (look into Bayes' theorem), a positive result in a medical test may still mean that the condition is probably not present, if the condition is generally quite rare.

However, it means the chances are much higher and so there is a good reason to investigate further.

 

[QuickTwist]

Oh, and sorry to go all "no u", but what suggestions would you make regarding improving the mental health system, or improving my outlook in doing so myself?

There is nothing wrong with giving your perspective.

I think you are right that Psychiatrists need to be more objective, but that only comes with experience from both that individual and the system as well.

And I agree that its not a perfect system and that we should think about alternate ways of solving these problems people have with their minds that then influences their behavior. But that doesn't mean starting excavation on what we have now. The whole mental health field is based on people trying to be objective about things and solving problems that other people have in their perception.. typing it like that I'm sure you can see just how monumental this task is. It started with individuals trying to figure out other individuals and trying to solve their problems. So solutions aren't so simple; its a process.

In a perfect world (relative to people having mental illnesses) mental health professionals would be far more effective in not only healing symptoms, but preventing them in the first place. This is a bigger issue than just getting "smarter" mental health professionals. What we did to treat people in the 60s is barbaric compared to now. I think eventually I would like to see mental health professionals work themselves out of a job. This would mean a huge shift in the way humans on this planet even interact with each other - something that I definitely don't see happening in my lifetime. But that's the goal. I think the root cause of mental illness in many cases (prolly not all) is a lack of understanding on that individual. It goes all the way down to when you are a baby and how nurture shapes who you grow up to be. So that's really the source of much of the problems we have when it comes to mental health.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Perhaps everyone does hear voices but it's the nature of the voice, or voices, that would constitute whether delusion or not. Of course, you can say schizophrenia is difficult to define and indeed it is a broad category with different kinds of schizoaffective symptoms. They've been trying to pin it down and it usually has to do with the person's brain producing more dopamine than usual, or sometimes not enough. If that were the case usually the body displays symptoms, which they associate with having to do with illness or schizophrenia.

From there you can say there is a conspiracy or agenda, whether it be to reap profits or something more oriented towards the goal of control. Basically, this means the field of psychology or psychiatry comes under scrutiny for some reason. My two cents there is we should have the best of the best doing therapy or prescribing. Most of the employees probably just don't care enough to pore through all the literature to be more objective or less attached to the mechanical methods that earned their degree. It probably works different in real life but they can only do so much, realistically. If they know their job is fairly useless or restricted then that may be a step in the right direction.

They used to think that pot caused schizophrenia or was related to it. But now, it seems like pot does something else. If you were too stoned that in effect was associated with schizophrenia and some of their studies said those with genetic predispositions were more likely to be inclined to start smoking weed and that it could finally trigger schizophrenia in the prone individuals but these theory comes under scrutiny for faulty methods or possible agenda dealing with the demonization of weed, however, I initially thought it sound hypothesis. They dub the cannabis psychosis as a separate thing and temporary but with some associations to the schizophrenic state.

Certainly there are some criteria, with the way some schizos behave. You may be able to attach patterns and diagnostic criteria to it. Delusions could be related to any number of kinds of schizophrenia with some of them being legitimate hallucinations such as delusions of grandeur or persecution, or the person believing they are Jesus. It may be hard to interact with those people, I don't know, but society seems to have little use for them. In the past, their state may have been a little more welcome but nowadays there is a such thing as "mental illness", the institution of which has since become a target for conspiracy, and deliberate fund generation by big pharma.

The criticism can be just. The curing part is related to lobotomies, involuntary at that, of the past, which didn't work, and were performed to cure certain mental illnesses, by way of removing sections of the brain thought responsible. This is seen as a violation of freedom. Similarly, doping patients with chemicals is seen in the same light. That solution may only partially work or not at all, so the important thing seems to be to talk about their life issues to figure out what is going on or may be additionally responsible for psychotic like behavior. It may not always be a chemical imbalance in the brain.

And if so, the meds aren't always designed perfectly to fix it. There are various side effects.

But I guess no one knows what the solution could be. Not saying schizophrenics are the answer to society. Some say they are better off in the homes where at least they are safe and protected. Not all crazy people are specially schizophrenic, some of them legit may be insane, and would kill or rape someone, and don't know how to behave; etc.

In the past, certain psychotic people would be revered for their gifts, and could help people, but not all so called crazy people are that.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

You don't have to pour through all the literature, you just have to not be a fucking twerp.

Holding the keys to someone's safety, and throwing them in a fucking lion's den, great.

Schizophrenics aren't known for killing or raping people, that's psychopaths i.e. reptiles.

Reptiles are in our government and our schools, and they are hatching up in all places.

We thought we wiped out the dinosaurs, but they still walk among us, in cloaks of ice.

Now we must protect our families with rifles loaded with poison, or we risk death.

All known obstacles are beknown by three of all, yet only the second has site of thrive.

All else are benonst, and often bemourned, yet never the scorned shall profess to once.

Such I say unto the day of destruction of habitation that it is all too little and too much.

Such and such, and such. And such.

yeah

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

This is a message to the mental health system:

Your time has come.

You messed with the wrong motherfucker.

Get it? Motherfucker?

I'm on an Eminem binge, for the last 500 years and the next 20, so I'll just drop a line:

Shit, dissin' me is just like pissin' off the Wizard of Oz
Wrap a lizard in gauze
Beat you in the jaws with it, grab the scissors and saws
And cut out your livers, gizzards, and balls
Throw you in the middle of the ocean in a blizzard with Jaws
So sip piss like sizzurp through a straw
Then describe how it tasted like dessert to us all