NationStates Jolt Archive

Well today I started my first day of a class called deprivation of liberty for my college and the professor brought up an interesting arguement. The basis of the class is to discuss the fact that psychiatry has replaced religion as a source for the government to deprive us of liberty. Fact-Psychiatry is used today to take people and confine those considered to be mentally ill against their will even if those who are consider mentally ill don't want to be. Psychiatry is also used to take people who we know are guilty of crimes and label them as inoccent of them. He argues that there is no such thing as mental illness. He brings up some interesting points and I would like to hear what other people think about this. It would help also if you would say what you think the defenition of a mental illness is also.

No, there are some definite problems with some mentally ill people. Especially the violent ones (which really are the only one that are forced to get treatment).

No, there are some definite problems with some mentally ill people. Especially the violent ones (which really are the only one that are forced to get treatment).

Well can you define for me what you believe is mental illness before we get into the danger to themselves and others arguement.

Well can you define for me what you believe is mental illness before we get into the danger to themselves and others arguement.
Someone incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong (rather, someone who is expected to know the difference, but does not, ie, not a child) or someone who is simply not thinking clearly (depression is a good example at this, I know a few people who have atypical depression and they can, when they are in one of those moods, are completely irrational and unable to listen to any sort of logic).

Someone incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong (rather, someone who is expected to know the difference, but does not, ie, not a child) or someone who is simply not thinking clearly (depression is a good example at this, I know a few people who have atypical depression and they can, when they are in one of those moods, are completely irrational and unable to listen to any sort of logic).

These are examples of things a person with "mental illness" would have but they aren't defenitions. What is a mental illness not what people do when they have one? Also the knowing right and wrong is something that deals with insanity which is something different then mental illness.

The point is somewhat valid. A mental illness is only what society wants it to be. We could have a culture that declares schizos to be divine prophets, alcoholics to be pillars of society and that love is a mental illness that needs to be cured. The point to be made is that mental illness is a means to create conformity and the treatments are methods to socialize individuals. The belief in multiple yet equally valid viewpoints can only go so far in a society before there are problems and psychologists can claim that extreme view points are because of people loving their mothers too much or something.

Ultimately societies need standards and the study of psychology provides this. Heck, quite a few things in psychology are pseudo-science, the branch of humanistic psychology that was used by Maslow and the like is not even based on studies but on the guy's philosophy. There are reasons why psychology sometimes has problems with justifying itself as being an actual science and Freud's love of his mother and penis envy is one of those.

These are examples of things a person with "mental illness" would have but they aren't definitions. What is a mental illness not what people do when they have one? Also the knowing right and wrong is something that deals with insanity which is something different then mental illness. Insanity is a form of mental illness. You're right, to an extent, it is subjective, but there are quite a large number of signs that there are objective signs of say, depression (CAT/MRI scans do the job here). That said, there are two different types of symptoms, one is a sign that something is wrong, the other is a symptom that is only found with that disease. The latter isn't something that is very subjective at all, and although there are gray areas, most of the people forcible confined are very clearly not open to debate that they have some serious mental illness.

Are we including instances of pronounced clinical dementia of a verifiably organic nature, such as advanced Alzheimer's?

Those behavioural disorders that are demonstrably linked to a neural somatic pathology would still be considered "mental illness"?

Insanity is a form of mental illness. You're right, to an extent, it is subjective, but there are quite a large number of signs that there are objective signs of say, depression (CAT/MRI scans do the job here). That said, there are two different types of symptoms, one is a sign that something is wrong, the other is a symptom that is only found with that disease. The latter isn't something that is very subjective at all, and although there are gray areas, most of the people forcible confined are very clearly not open to debate that they have some serious mental illness.

Insanity is a legal term. Mental Illness is a Psychiatry term. There is a difference. And now we get to the syptoms and signs part. Okay so tell me what the definitions of a symptom and a sign are.

Someone incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong (rather, someone who is expected to know the difference, but does not, ie, not a child) or someone who is simply not thinking clearly (depression is a good example at this, I know a few people who have atypical depression and they can, when they are in one of those moods, are completely irrational and unable to listen to any sort of logic).
Right and wrong are in many ways societal constructs so we still go to the same thing where the purpose of psychology is to control. Depression makes people illogical but isn't love supposed to do the same? What about anger? We could say that all 3 emotions are good and make our psychologists say it is so.

Part of the problem with psychology is that problems are introduced by our culture and we are having a supposed science make value judgements. A person bleeding is going to die and can be cured if someone stitches them up, a narcissist is very arrogant but can still be successful despite or even because of his supposed psychological flaw. Many historic figures could be considered to be mentally ill but they were quite successful.

Are we including instances of pronounced clinical dementia of a verifiably organic nature, such as advanced Alzheimer's?

Those behavioural disorders that are demonstrably linked to a neural somatic pathology would still be considered "mental illness"?

Alzheimer's is a brain disease not a mental illness. A mental illness refers to the mind.

Right and wrong are in many ways societal constructs so we still go to the same thing where the purpose of psychology is to control. Depression makes people illogical but isn't love supposed to do the same? What about anger? We could say that all 3 emotions are good and make our psychologists say it is so.

Part of the problem with psychology is that problems are introduced by our culture and we are having a supposed science make value judgements. A person bleeding is going to die and can be cured if someone stitches them up, a narcissist is very arrogant but can still be successful despite or even because of his supposed psychological flaw. Many historic figures could be considered to be mentally ill but they were quite successful.
Which is why they generally aren't forcibly treated unless they pose a danger to themselves or others.

Which is why they generally aren't forcibly treated unless they pose a danger to themselves or others.

Can we first please define what we say is a mental illness before we move on to this arguement.

I think mental illness is the need for an excuse for some behaviors. If people need an excuse for their personality flaws and don't want to face them, they are mentally ill. Others, who society percieves as mentally ill are in fact simply abnormal. Society wants us all to conform so they invent brain-washing pills like prozac. ADD is a perfect example. ADD (which I personally have to some extent) is merely a different way of thinking, a personality trait. It's treated with drugs because people don't want to deal with differences. (or to control their kids with ritalin instead of parenting).

Which is why they generally aren't forcibly treated unless they pose a danger to themselves or others.
Smoking can be considered to be endangering the self and others by some. Are smokers psychotic? What about poor drivers? Are fat people mentally ill because they do not get enough exercise and because others depend on them? If tap-dancing was seen to increase risk of heart failure and create unhappier families then are these tap dancers insane?

I don't know that this is a good definition, but I'll hazard an attempt.
How about a mental illness is

A mental aberration resulting in reduced capacity for thought in one or more areas.

So someone that is super-genium doesn't have a mental illness, because it hasn't resulted in a reduced capacity.
Someone who can't do maths particularly well doesn't count, because it's not an aberration (as it falls within normal bounds)
but someone who is exceptionally bad at maths does have a mental illness.

I have ADD, and can give you direct examples, both anecdotal and scientific, of how my brain works differently to yours (assuming you don't have ADD). As I've stated before, I don't see this as a disadvantage, as it offered me just as many advantages as disadvantages, just as soon as I learnt to play to my strengths and cover my weaknesses.

I didn't learn that alone, I went to special classes for people with ADD, where we had extra tutoring, instead of focussing on working *harder* we focussed on learning in a different way, which our brains respond to better. It helped me to think about how I learn things, and tailor my methods of study.
I'd fall into my definition of a mental illness (I definately had reduced capacity in some mental areas), and I've had my "treatment" - learning to get around those problems and approach things from a different angle. There never was any prison, or condemnation. I'm proud of the way I think. I'm proud of the problems I've overcome, and I'm proud of the mental advantages I have over non-ADD people. (I'm proud, but I don't assume I'm "better" than others)

I'm lucky, as I said, I have as many advantages as disadvantages. Not everyone else is the same way. I know someone who was dragged kicking and screaming from his home and locked in a mental hospital. That was extremely stressful for him and his family, who fought to get him released. These days he's living semi-independantly (he lives in an apartment, has curfews, and a carer to help the residents there, but is otherwise as free as you or me) and will, at some point, be completely released. He was never abused by this system (to my knowledge) other than the shock of the initial "kidnapping" and he and his family seem to be of the impression that he did need the treatment, and is better off for it. I can't speak for them, of course. He certainly wasn't an "average guy" that the government did not like, so decided to lock up.

Mental hospitals should be (and to my knowledge are) only for either violent people, who are violent from mental aberrations, or for people who really need treatment to be able to live a fulfilling life.
Sure, it's us "normal" people who decide who needs treatment, but how many paranoid skitzophrenics are going to book themselves in for treatment? How many could benefit from treatment?

defining the term "mental illness" has been a difficult task for psychologists and psychiatrists to achieve but it is generally agreed that a mentally ill person may be a combination of the below,
. an immediate danger to either themselves or others
. unable to function on their own on a day-to-day basis without severe anxiety or stress
. statistically abnormal in aspects of neurbiological processes (CAT scans etc)

I'm sorry, but after reading your replies, Economic Associates, I have to say that your prof is spewing utter bullshit.

Questioning that X exists and then denying all efforts to define X by placing it into some sort of metaphysical plane beyond comprehension is academic dishonesty.

Instead, why don't you, or your prof, define what you mean when you say 'mental illness' and then tell us why you don't think that definition could work.

You are advancing this idea, the burden of proof is on you.

Alzheimer's is a brain disease not a mental illness. A mental illness refers to the mind.

So any behaviour or proclivity that can be traced or causally associated to some part of the brain would not be considered "mental"?

Some research suggests that the mind has its material manifestation in the brain, and that in fact, what we refer to as the "mind", (including such activities as thougt, memory, laughter, anger, worry, concentration, and decision making), are governed by various parts of the brain. Is that incorrect?

ADD is a perfect example. ADD (which I personally have to some extent) is merely a different way of thinking, a personality trait. It's treated with drugs because people don't want to deal with differences. (or to control their kids with ritalin instead of parenting).

Amen to that.

I don't know that this is a good definition, but I'll hazard an attempt.
How about a mental illness is

A mental aberration resulting in reduced capacity for thought in one or more areas.

How can there be an aberration of your mind? You'd also have an interesting time in the class because the teacher has taken the stance that ADD doesnt exist.

This is a rather interesting and involved topic. I can think of two authors offhand who might be relevant:

Thomas Szasz - argued that mental illness doesn't exist, period, and is entirely made up. Not particularly cogent.


Michel Foucault - brilliant. Primarily in his work Madness and Civilization, but also in Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality Volume 1, he outlines certain more nuanced criticisms of the concept of mental illness. Foucault does not deny that there are people who differ from what society terms as the norm; rather, he questions whether it's useful to categorize such a thing as an illness. For example, masturbation and homosexuality were considered mental illnesses at one point because they deviated from society's idea of what a normal sexual life was. Now we consider these things simply to be difference, not illness. This, of course, begs the question - why isn't what we call schizophrenia simply a difference rather than an illness? What exactly is it that makes something an illness? If the only reason hearing voices is an illness is because its different from the norm, why isn't homosexuality an illness too? And if homosexuality isn't an illness because it doesn't lead to violence, then why do non-violent "ill" persons get locked up in asylums?

Further, Foucault argues, giving the state the ability to classify certain people as ill and thus suspend their rights in the name of their and the public good is incredibly dangerous. This would soon become a discussion of Foucault's broader ideas rather than those on the "reality" of mental illness, but if anyone wants to get into that aspect of his thought, that'd be cool with me.

Smoking can be considered to be endangering the self and others by some. Are smokers psychotic? What about poor drivers? Are fat people mentally ill because they do not get enough exercise and because others depend on them? If tap-dancing was seen to increase risk of heart failure and create unhappier families then are these tap dancers insane?

Um, no.
A smoker is making the concious choice to smoke, having full command of their mental capacities.
A manically depressed person who wants to die, and therefore chooses to smoke is NOT making a concious choice to smoke, having full command of their mental capacities. They are making the choice due to their manic depression and are therefore not thinking clearly.

Doing harmful things is not the problem, doing harmful things because of some mental issue IS.

[QUOTE=Deleuze]
Michel Foucault - brilliant. Primarily in his work Madness and Civilization, but also in Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality Volume 1, he outlines certain more nuanced criticisms of the concept of mental illness. QUOTE]

Interesting. Is this the same Foucault who developed early principals of forensic criminology?

So any behaviour or proclivity that can be traced or causally associated to some part of the brain would not be considered "mental"?

Some research suggests that the mind has its material manifestation in the brain, and that in fact, what we refer to as the "mind", (including such activities as thougt, memory, laughter, anger, worry, concentration, and decision making), are governed by various parts of the brain. Is that incorrect?

Well then in this case we have to differentiate between the mind and the brain. When we refer to the mind we generally refer to your consciousness. It can be construed as that which is represented by the pronoun I. The brain is the organ in your head. When we talk about mental illnesses we talk about things like ADD or schizophrenia. When we talk about brain diseases we talk about alzhimers, brain cancer, etc.

Well today I started my first day of a class called deprivation of liberty for my college and the professor brought up an interesting arguement. The basis of the class is to discuss the fact that psychiatry has replaced religion as a source for the government to deprive us of liberty. Fact-Psychiatry is used today to take people and confine those considered to be mentally ill against their will even if those who are consider mentally ill don't want to be. Psychiatry is also used to take people who we know are guilty of crimes and label them as inoccent of them. He argues that there is no such thing as mental illness. He brings up some interesting points and I would like to hear what other people think about this. It would help also if you would say what you think the defenition of a mental illness is also.

Well I live with a Manic Depresive and have been run throw it a couple times.

One of my buddies dated a gal that mutilated herself. She would cut herself with a knife. :eek:

If your professor truely belives that mental illness is a myth then he is a fucknozzle.

I am curious to his religous background especially with the psychiatry replacing religion comment. I have heard similar comments from a relative who is a redneck baptist.

You might ask him about pedophiles and serial killers.

This is a rather interesting and involved topic. I can think of two authors offhand who might be relevant:

Thomas Szasz - argued that mental illness doesn't exist, period, and is entirely made up. Not particularly cogent.


Michel Foucault - brilliant. Primarily in his work Madness and Civilization, but also in Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality Volume 1, he outlines certain more nuanced criticisms of the concept of mental illness. Foucault does not deny that there are people who differ from what society terms as the norm; rather, he questions whether it's useful to categorize such a thing as an illness. For example, masturbation and homosexuality were considered mental illnesses at one point because they deviated from society's idea of what a normal sexual life was. Now we consider these things simply to be difference, not illness. This, of course, begs the question - why isn't what we call schizophrenia simply a difference rather than an illness? What exactly is it that makes something an illness? If the only reason hearing voices is an illness is because its different from the norm, why isn't homosexuality an illness too? And if homosexuality isn't an illness because it doesn't lead to violence, then why do non-violent "ill" persons get locked up in asylums?

Further, Foucault argues, giving the state the ability to classify certain people as ill and thus suspend their rights in the name of their and the public good is incredibly dangerous. This would soon become a discussion of Foucault's broader ideas rather than those on the "reality" of mental illness, but if anyone wants to get into that aspect of his thought, that'd be cool with me.

I'm going to be reading Szaz as wel as Hayek, and Proctor. Okay now instead of waiting for people's definitions I'm going to offer up one and see if you guys agree. Mental illness is a behavior that is abnormal.

Interesting. Is this the same Foucault who developed early principals of forensic criminology?
If you mean in the scientific sense, highly unlikely. Michel Foucault was a historian and a philosopher, not a scientist. His work is often quoted in crimonology journals, but certainly not in the context of forensic science.

My psychiatrists definition of mental illness: when your percieved reality dirverges from the objective, common reality.

This can be through paranoia, you percieve that you are being stalked, even though you are not. Psychotic rages were you hurt people due to percieved faults that makes you snap etc. etc.

How can there be an aberration of your mind? You'd also have an interesting time in the class because the teacher has taken the stance that ADD doesnt exist.

I meant a mental abberation as in you undergo thought processes wildly different to the norm (either the thoughts are wildly different, or you think much more/less than is normal) - I then qualify this by stating that these differences from the norm must reduce your mental capacities.

I *have* had interesting times in class when teachers did not believe me. Fortunately, I could point out that the school had brain scans from me on record showing the differences and, if they wished I could explain what the scans mean. I also explained that I did not expect any special treatment, nor considered myself disadvantaged in any way.

The biggest problem seemed to come from teachers who thought I was using ADD as some sort of excuse. I was told "I know you have ADD, but you need to make an effort not to talk in class." my reply was "Sorry for talking in class, but my ADD has nothing to do with that. I was just talking."
(in actual fact my ADD did make me more likely to get distracted and talk in class, but it's up to my own self-control to reign that in.)

[QUOTE=Deleuze]If you mean in the scientific sense, highly unlikely. Michel Foucault was a historian and a philosopher, not a scientist. His work is often quoted in crimonology journals, but certainly not in the context of forensic science.[/QUOTE

I see. I dimly recall "Foucault's Principal", stated that "At every location, a human will leave something behind and take something with him", which in the context it was given to me, was referring to semi-micro fragments of skin, hair, clothing, and so forth. Must be a different fellow. My bad.

Well I live with a Manic Depresive and have been run throw it a couple times.

One of my buddies dated a gal that mutilated herself. She would cut herself with a knife. :eek:

If your professor truely belives that mental illness is a myth then he is a fucknozzle.

I am curious to his religous background especially with the psychiatry replacing religion comment. I have heard similar comments from a relative who is a redneck baptist.

You might ask him about pedophiles and serial killers.

The prof is Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D., is a psychologist and adjunct professor of justice, law, and society. And please keep the language to a minimum. I respect your right to speak your mind but also please keep in mind that people have different beliefs then you. I am in no way saying his stance is true only arguing through it now to see others opinions on the topic since I find it incredibly interesting.

Ive been diagnosed as mentally ill and I was never detained against my will.

I meant a mental abberation as in you undergo thought processes wildly different to the norm (either the thoughts are wildly different, or you think much more/less than is normal) - I then qualify this by stating that these differences from the norm must reduce your mental capacities.
Are you talking about the processes of the brain or of the mind. And if it is the mind can you tell me them.

I *have* had interesting times in class when teachers did not believe me. Fortunately, I could point out that the school had brain scans from me on record showing the differences and, if they wished I could explain what the scans mean. I also explained that I did not expect any special treatment, nor considered myself disadvantaged in any way.

The biggest problem seemed to come from teachers who thought I was using ADD as some sort of excuse. I was told "I know you have ADD, but you need to make an effort not to talk in class." my reply was "Sorry for talking in class, but my ADD has nothing to do with that. I was just talking."
(in actual fact my ADD did make me more likely to get distracted and talk in class, but it's up to my own self-control to reign that in.)

Could you tell me exactly when you find yourself most affected by ADD and when you don't find yourself affected by it?

Well then in this case we have to differentiate between the mind and the brain. When we refer to the mind we generally refer to your consciousness. It can be construed as that which is represented by the pronoun I. The brain is the organ in your head. When we talk about mental illnesses we talk about things like ADD or schizophrenia. When we talk about brain diseases we talk about alzhimers, brain cancer, etc.

So if a relationship could be shown between ADD and some malformation or malfunction of the brain, ADD would cease to be defined as a "mental illness" and instead be a "brain disease"?

Heavy metal poisoning, such as mercury exposure, has been known to cause erratic behaviour very similar to schizophenia. Having an organic cause, but results that are behavioural, would you describe the condition as a "mental illness" or "brain disease"?

As a practicing Clinical Psychologist, I'll use the DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, Text Revision) for my primary source.Putting all pseudo-intellectualism aside (by which I mean no offense to anyone) the functional definition from the DSM-IV for mental disorder can be paraphrased as follows:

A mental disorder is conceptualized as a clinically signifigant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an indivudual and that is associated with present distress, disability or with a signifigantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of fredom. The pattern or syndrome must also not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event (ex. death of a loved one). Whatever its origonal cause, it must be currently displayed and considered a manifestation on a behavioral, psychological or biological dysfunction in the individual. Nither deviant behavior, nor conflicts that are primarially between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflictis a symptom of dysfunction in the individual, as stated above.

Pick up a copy of thr DSM-IV-TR. They run around $80 for a softcover, but are just fun to read.

Hope that adds to the fire.

Ive been diagnosed as mentally ill and I was never detained against my will.

And there are also people who are diagnosed as mentally ill and are detained against there will. The point I am trying to get at here is a singular defenition on mental illnesses we can all agree on. The defenition I put forward was a mental illness is a behavior that is abnormal. I'd like to see if anyone agrees or disagrees with it.

So if a relationship could be shown between ADD and some malformation or malfunction of the brain, ADD would cease to be defined as a "mental illness" and instead be a "brain disease"?

Heavy metal poisoning, such as mercury exposure, has been known to cause erratic behaviour very similar to schizophenia. Having an organic cause, but results that are behavioural, would you describe the condition as a "mental illness" or "brain disease"?

All drugs have an effect on the body. People get drunk and have slured speach, lack of cordination and can't remember things. Does this mean when you get drunk you become mentally retarted or mentally ill? This brings up the point of drugs like prozac and other ones used to treat mental illness. If you are treated with one of these drugs and you feel better does it mean you have a deficiency in the chemicals they have? If you smoke weed and you feel better do you have a weed deficency?

All drugs have an effect on the body. People get drunk and have slured speach, lack of cordination and can't remember things. Does this mean when you get drunk you become mentally retarted?

My observations of both intoxicated people and mentally retarded people indicate that neither the cause nor the effect are comparable in this case.
So, the answer would be no.

Again, though, I"m trying to better understand your distinction between a "mental illness" and "brain disease". If ADD (or schizophrenia) were to be causally linked to some pathology of the brain, would it cease to be classified as a "mental illness"?

Also, am I to infer that you would not consider schizophrenic behaviour related to heavy metal poisoning to be a "mental illness"?

The only mental illnesses, are someone with a genetic order, a physically damaged brain, or a chemical imbalance.

Generally something wrong with your brain that is caused by something physically.

An example of something that isn't a mental disorder, is personality traits, anorexia, stupidty, and etc.

My observations of both intoxicated people and mentally retarded people indicate that neither the cause nor the effect are comparable in this case.
So, the answer would be no.

Again, though, I"m trying to better understand your distinction between a "mental illness" and "brain disease". If ADD (or schizophrenia) were to be causally linked to some pathology of the brain, would it cease to be classified as a "mental illness"?

Also, am I to infer that you would not consider schizophrenic behaviour related to heavy metal poisoning to be a "mental illness"?

If it would be linked to the brain then I would refer to it as a brain disease or disorder like mental retardation. You'll have to bear with me as I am not incredibly knowledgable on this subject and just presenting the point of view of the teacher here.

The only mental illnesses, are someone with a genetic order, a physically damaged brain, or a chemical imbalance.
This is more of an explanation for why a mental illness happens. This is not a defenition of mental illness.


Generally something wrong with your brain that is caused by something physically.
Like what and could you point me to the pathology book you have gotten it from

If it would be linked to the brain then I would refer to it as a brain disease or disorder like mental retardation. You'll have to bear with me as I am not incredibly knowledgable on this subject and just presenting the point of view of the teacher here.

I understand; I'm certainly no expert either.

In one view of neuroplasticity, its suggested that concentrated effort on the part of a sentient (the I pronoun thing you mentioned, in my view) to focus its "attentiveness" can actually, over time, have a measurable effect on the growth of the brain tissue.

(That is to say, dwelling on one kind of thought can cause the brain to grow and develop one way, and dwelling on another will cause a different growth.)

What I'm interested in knowing (if any of this is true), does the new "hardware" of the brain then effect the proclivity of the thinker's subsequent choices in turn?

I understand; I'm certainly no expert either.

In one view of neuroplasticity, its suggested that concentrated effort on the part of a sentient (the I pronoun thing you mentioned, in my view) to focus its "attentiveness" can actually, over time, have a measurable effect on the growth of the brain tissue.

(That is to say, dwelling on one kind of thought can cause the brain to grow and develop one way, and dwelling on another will cause a different growth.)

What I'm interested in knowing (if any of this is true), does the new "hardware" of the brain then effect the proclivity of the thinker's subsequent choices in turn?

How exactly does this tie in with mental illnesses?

Does nobody read anymore? Christ, fellows. YOu are arguing the same damned things. Stop philosophizing and try reading comprehension.

How exactly does this tie in with mental illnesses?

Because if "mental illness" precludes the rational focus of attention (under this view of neuroplasticity), it constitutes an inability for the mind to consciously repair itself. The condition then overlaps both abstract and organic states, becoming self-perpetuating and incurable without a dualistic approach of both cognitive behavioural therapy and psychotropic medication.

It thus not mythical, but rather chimaeric (no pun intended).

There is an organization that has been around since the '50s claiming just this, the Socialist Patients Collective (German abbr. SPK), which claims all mental illness (and idiopathic physical illness for that matter) is a result of the continued existence of capitalism past its time. They claim the health care industry works de facto as a weapon of capitalism to make people 'fit into' society along the lines of capitalism, bypassing the root of the problem which is capitalist society itself.

Does nobody read anymore? Christ, fellows. YOu are arguing the same damned things. Stop philosophizing and try reading comprehension.

I read on occasion, but I don't believe books necessarily provide definitve or universally consistent information. So, occasionally I enjoy discussing things with other people.

Which aspect of my reading do you feel I've failed to comprehend?

This question is honest and not any kind of challenge. Which books do you feel offer the best information on this subject? (College texts are often in disagreement and eventually become outdated, so please suggest something specific if you could) :)

Because if "mental illness" precludes the rational focus of attention (under this view of neuroplasticity), it constitutes an inability for the mind to consciously repair itself. The condition then overlaps both abstract and organic states, becoming self-perpetuating and incurable without a dualistic approach of both cognitive behavioural therapy and psychotropic medication.

It thus not mythical, but rather chimaeric (no pun intended).

I'm sorry but you lost me there.

I'm sorry but you lost me there.

Sorry, I guess I didn't really state it very well.

So, imagine if each time you have a particular thought or mindset, various neurons activate, and the pattern of this series of activations causes those groups of cells to grow, develop more dendrite links, and generally become stronger. Now, that kind of thought or mindset becomes more likely, easier to repeat, more "habitual" in a sense. Its (sort of) similar to the way your bicep will grow more muscle fiber if you choose to repeatedly lift a heavy weight.

This relates to mental illness because, if the dynamic described is true, repeating "ill" thoughts or mindsets will reinforce those mindsets, causing the disorder to not only persist, but potentially worsen, with percumbent deterioration in the subject.

Most importantly, this link (if it exists) would demonstrate significant overlap between "brain" and "mind".

Sorry, I guess I didn't really state it very well.

So, imagine if each time you have a particular thought or mindset, various neurons activate, and the pattern of this series of activations causes those groups of cells to grow, develop more dendrite links, and generally become stronger. Now, that kind of thought or mindset becomes more likely, easier to repeat, more "habitual" in a sense. Its (sort of) similar to the way your bicep will grow more muscle fiber if you choose to repeatedly lift a heavy weight.

This relates to mental illness because, if the dynamic described is true, repeating "ill" thoughts or mindsets will reinforce those mindsets, causing the disorder to not only persist, but potentially worsen, with percumbent deterioration in the subject.

Most importantly, this link (if it exists) would demonstrate significant overlap between "brain" and "mind".

I still don't know how this relates to my attempt to define mental illness and then see if the defenition would actually allow us to confine people against their will as well as without a trial. I'd like to talk more but I have an early class and I need to sleep so goodnight.

No, there are some definite problems with some mentally ill people. Especially the violent ones (which really are the only one that are forced to get treatment).
Having been diagnosed with a Mental Illness (BIpolar Disorder) I openbed this thread eager to read the whole thing through, but I couldn't make it past this, the second post. I just have to attack that last statement.

Suicidal people are often confined against their will. Now, keep in mind, this is people LABELED as suicidal. Such labeling doesn't always conote the "diagnosis", and peopl who aren't anywhere near suicidal sometimes do get held in treatment with just such a "diagnosis".

I define Mental Ilness as any neuro-chemical imblance which distorts a persons reallity to the extreme. JUst to make myself perfectly clear here, I'm not talking about it just giving the person a bad attitude, or a phobia of snakes, but something so powerful that it can cause a person to commit suicide, ignore the rules of reallity, hear voices that aren't there, suffer bouts of mania that can lead deadly actions & consequences, etc etc.

Someone who is afraid of hights isn't menatlly ill They aren't suffering from "Acrophobia" or whatever the stupid word is. They're just really afraid of heights. Period.

To argue that such Neurological Disorders don't actually exist is itself an insane proposition, which could only be put forward by a person suffering just such a Disordfer. Only a psychologist could come up with this kind of arguement. The very real evidence for their existence is just too commonplace and verifiable through first person accounts AND exhaustive scientific research. Chemical Imbalances in the brain can really fuck a person up, and there is often not a hell of a lot that can be done about it.

(In case you haven't noticed, I hold psychologists in extremely low regard. They can be played like guitars, but the sounds they make are consistently unpleasant.)

EDIT: Please excuse me as read the rest of thread. Yes, someone has likely already touched on the issues I brought up. I just had to get that out :p

I still don't know how this relates to my attempt to define mental illness and then see if the defenition would actually allow us to confine people against their will as well as without a trial. I'd like to talk more but I have an early class and I need to sleep so goodnight.

No problem, have a good rest.

For later, I can't give you an acceptable definition, since you view "mental illness" and "brain disease" as distinct, which I mostly don't. However, as to the more practical concern of "What justifies the confinement of someone on the basis of mental illness?", my answer is "Not much."

The fact is, unless the accuser (typically the State, I imagine) can present compelling evidence that a subject has a signficant likelihood of taking some action (whether deliberate or motivated by delusion/compulsion) that will harm others, I don't really feel the subject should be involuntarily detained or treated.

If a subject is nonviolent, doesn't wander onto the freeway causing a deadly pile-up, and doesn't hurt others or their property, I think he/she should be free to wander around looking for the vampire leprechauns (or whatever).

Its a somewhat utilitarian view to take, to judge the condition only by the risk of potential consequences, but its a serious step to imprison someone, in a mental facility or otherwise.

Suicidal people are often confined against their will. Now, keep in mind, this is people LABELED as suicidal. Such labeling doesn't always conote the "diagnosis", and peopl who aren't anywhere near suicidal sometimes do get held in treatment with just such a "diagnosis".



I have no solid figures, but it would be interesting to know how often someone is detained for treatment because their insurance company (or the State) will subsequently pay a fat service bill to the hospital.

"Sorry, Mr. Johnson, but you're obviously suicidal and will need to stay here for 3 days. At $800 a day. You'll sit in a TV room for 3 days, and spend an aggregate of 4 1/2 minutes with an actual doctor, not counting group therapy, which we find to be a very cost effective way to treat our customers...I mean patients."

I have no solid figures, but it would be interesting to know how often someone is detained for treatment because their insurance company (or the State) will subsequently pay a fat service bill to the hospital.

"Sorry, Mr. Johnson, but you're obviously suicidal and will need to stay here for 3 days. At $800 a day. You'll sit in a TV room for 3 days, and spend an aggregate of 4 1/2 minutes with an actual doctor, not counting group therapy, which we find to be a very cost effective way to treat our customers...I mean patients."


Very good point you have there. That explanation works up here in Canada too, because of private insurance policies that are very often part of a companies benefits package for employees. Some companies spare no expense in getting the best treatment they can for employess suffering from a Mental Illness. I wonder too if sometimes the hospital isn't just taking the insurance company for a ride through their bank vault.

Can we first please define what we say is a mental illness before we move on to this arguement.

ahh yess.. well let me venture a guess here may i ?

The term that refers collectively to all diagnosable mental disorders. Mental disorders are health conditions that are characterized by alterations in thinking, mood, or behavior (or some combination thereof), that are all mediated by the brain and associated with distress and/or impaired functioning.

Many mental disorders have been identified as imbalances in chemicals within the brain.... if there are no such things as mental disorders which alter moods.. how is we find drugs to also alter moods >.> often to what we consider "normal" levels?

Are you talking about the processes of the brain or of the mind. And if it is the mind can you tell me them.

Sorry for the delay in answering.

I see little to no difference between the "brain" and the "mind" - one is the physical substance of the other. If I am having a really good day, and am happy, that will be represented by a heightened seratonin level in my brain.

Of course, we don't understand the brain well enough to look at the chemical interactions and say "that guy is thinking about elephants" - one of the reasons we can't just scan for pedophiles, and remove their desire. I'm glad that we can't audit peoples thoughts, of course.

Therefore, any aberrations of the mind would be represented (even very subtly) as aberrations in the brain, and vice versa. To my non-brain-doctor understanding.


Could you tell me exactly when you find yourself most affected by ADD and when you don't find yourself affected by it?

Sure. Firstly, I consider myself to be always affected by ADD in the sense that that is just how my brain works, and is a part of me. The times that I notice the biggest difference between the way I think and the way others thing is usually when trying to study. Effective learning processes are different for me to a lot of other people.

For example, I have little to no multitasking abilities. I can sit in a classroom and take notes for a two hour lesson, then walk out of the room and have no idea at all what was even being taught. What a waste of time!
If I don't take notes, and just sit and listen, I'll have a very good idea. It's not that I wasn't paying attention, it's just that I was incapable of absorb new information while I was engaged in another action (in this case, copying the words onto my paper). I can literally repeat word-for-word what people say to me without even conciously "hearing" it. When I knew this, I stopped writing notes, and would just listen. If I needed notes, I'd borrow my friends notes and photocopy them. Suddenly, I started being able to learn MUCH faster, since I was actually gaining the benefit of being in class.

I was never stupid, or not paying attention (although it seemed that way). I was just incapable of learning efficiently by the method of "taking notes" which so many schools seem to love. I was much better at learning by the method of "listening to what is being taught and not being distracted by trying to write"

I suppose you could say I'm not affected by it in....perhaps physical situations. ADD neither seems to degrade nor improve my ability to jog, or play tennis, or do judo. It does give me a somewhat improved sense of spatial perception, but it's hard to see the direct benefits of that (other than while navigating when I'm driving somewhere.)