NationStates Jolt Archive

This psychology thing looks to me to be almost as much of a scam as religion is.

Here are some anecdotel screw ups from the past.

It was shrinks who suggested long repetive questioning or actually practiced long repetive questioning when many Children gave up false testamony in the Statanic Ritual Sexual abuse trials of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The McMartin trial was one of those witch hunts to give an example.

It is shrinks who came up with multipul personality disorder than later rejected it. I have heard many people treated for this imaginary disorder actually got worse with treatment.

It was shrinks who suggested homophilia ( homosexuality ) is a disease in need of treatment.

It is shrinks who are right now doping kids with ADHD drugs in order to medicate schools and parents.

It was shrinks who practiced labotomies in order to sedate patients.

It is shrinks who right now never consider the sociel factors in so called sexual abuse but rather regard religously any sexualy pleasurable act engaged in between an adult and child as cuasing intense long lasting psychological truama to the child without the need for any sociel factors to be involved. Shrinks would rather make brownie points with religion than construct an actual model of what happens with intergenerational relationships and adopt treatment plans around the reality of what happens around them as opposed to the makeing treatment plans based around the make believe.

It was shrinks who came up with the idea of facilitated communication of which it was later demonstrated that it was just the facilitater talking to themselves.

People in talk therapy do not fare much better than those who talk to the bartender. Just that the Bartender is cheaper.

It appears shrinks have no working model of what mental health is. It is as if whatever is the norm and acceptable in the culture is mentally healthy. So if an observed pupolation was mostly mentally overwieght and had mental high blood preasure the shrinks would feel the need to treat the few who where not.

Maybe some one more educated than me can fill me in.

You know I really don't want to wander into Scientology territory here, but alot of them are full of it. Here at my university they are talking about some crap called SAD--Seasonal something-that-starts-with-A Depression. The symptoms? Feeling down during winter.


Now sure, some look at someone being unhappy and see a chemical inbalance in the brain. I see it as winter being a crappy time of year. It's cold, it's dark, you can't just go mess around outside, you have to pay heating bills, The roads are bitch to drive on, etc.

For the most part I agree, in that psychology is definitely not a hard science, and there is a lot of disagreement between the schools of thought. But there is knowledge, yes - not so much in 'shrinks' or psychiatrists, but in psychological studies which do produce helpful results. When it comes to treating the hardcore disorders like schizophrenia, I'd much rather a psychologist than... er, I dunno, whats the alternative to help you out there? See.

The human mind is pretty hard to understand in general, and no there is no working model of human thought yet either.

People put too much stock in psychology when suddenly everyone becomes a Freudian psychiatrist. Especially in arguments, when its so trendy to whip out "aha! You're just projecting!" or "you're in denial!" or "You are exhibiting a reaction formation due to traumatic sexual experiences with your mother!"

why do you think they call the shrinks?:D :p

why do you think they call the shrinks?:D :p
dunno, why? :rolleyes:

dunno, why? :rolleyes:

I think he meant to say why do you think they call them Shrinks.

Psychiatrists have medical degrees and can prescribe drugs.
Psycholgists can have PhD or PsyD but can't prescribe drugs.
Both are highly useful if they're competent and you go to the proper type of psychologist or psychiatrist. And no, psychological medications are highly effective if proper diagnosis has been made and the patient is monitored to make sure the right drug/diagnosis has been given.

One friend of mine was studying psychology but then decided that it was all bullshit and quit. But another friend of mine has a bout of schizophrenia but is able to live a normal life thanks to psychiatric help and medication.

Some shrinks are full of shit, and some of the science is lacking, but that friend of mine would be having a hellish time were it not for psychiatry.

I think he meant to say why do you think they call them Shrinks.
yep i did... sorry about the mix up

Psychiatrists have medical degrees and can prescribe drugs.
Psycholgists can have PhD or PsyD but can't prescribe drugs.
Both are highly useful if they're competent and you go to the proper type of psychologist or psychiatrist. And no, psychological medications are highly effective if proper diagnosis has been made and the patient is monitored to make sure the right drug/diagnosis has been given.

Eh

So what exactly is a competent Psychiatrists/Psycholgists? What is the right Psychiatrists/Psycholgists? Are there psychologists or psychiatrists who would realise that they don't quite have the training to deal with your particuler mental disease?

Seems you are supposedly educated on the subject.

What other than being different is enough to declare some condition mentaly unhealthy?

Well, all I can say is that Freud founded psychology. A man who often fell asleep during sessions, or talked about his own problems, is not the best role model.

One friend of mine was studying psychology but then decided that it was all bullshit and quit. But another friend of mine has a bout of schizophrenia but is able to live a normal life thanks to psychiatric help and medication.

Some shrinks are full of shit, and some of the science is lacking, but that friend of mine would be having a hellish time were it not for psychiatry.

Many thanks for that imput.

Eh

So what exactly is a competent Psychiatrists/Psycholgists? What is the right Psychiatrists/Psycholgists? Are there psychologists or psychiatrists who would realise that they don't quite have the training to deal with your particuler mental disease?

Seems you are supposedly educated on the subject.

What other than being different is enough to declare some condition mentaly unhealthy?

Well there's competence in training and knowledge, and there's competence in actually developing a good treatment plan for each patient. It's really a rather subjective thing, but if a particular psych is not someone you are comfortable with, or you feel that the treatment plan they are administering is ineffective, you might think about seeing someone else.
There are many different subfields of psychology/psychiatry, so a "general practicioner" type psychologist should refer you to someone who is a specialist in your area. For example, if the psychologist thinks counseling would be inadequite to help you recover from a major depressive episode, and refers you to a psychiatrist for posible medicinal treatment.
Usually, something is different enough to be considered a mental medical issue when it significantly interferes with your ability to function. Someone who frequently drops their book in class has an annoying habit, whereas someone who has to ritually touch their book (or anything else on the floor) 10 times before picking it up might have obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Heh, last year I took Intro Psych and Abnormal Psych, so this stuff is still relatively fresh in my brain.

Freud founded psychoanaysis, not psychology....

About SAD (seasonal affective disorder): the lack of sufficient sunlight in the winter depresses seratonin levels in your brain, and that's enough to make some people temporarily depressed.

This psychology thing looks to me to be almost as much of a scam as religion is.

Here are some anecdotel screw ups from the past.

It was shrinks who suggested long repetive questioning or actually practiced long repetive questioning when many Children gave up false testamony in the Statanic Ritual Sexual abuse trials of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The McMartin trial was one of those witch hunts to give an example.

It is shrinks who came up with multipul personality disorder than later rejected it. I have heard many people treated for this imaginary disorder actually got worse with treatment.

It was shrinks who suggested homophilia ( homosexuality ) is a disease in need of treatment.

It is shrinks who are right now doping kids with ADHD drugs in order to medicate schools and parents.

It was shrinks who practiced labotomies in order to sedate patients.

It is shrinks who right now never consider the sociel factors in so called sexual abuse but rather regard religously any sexualy pleasurable act engaged in between an adult and child as cuasing intense long lasting psychological truama to the child without the need for any sociel factors to be involved. Shrinks would rather make brownie points with religion than construct an actual model of what happens with intergenerational relationships and adopt treatment plans around the reality of what happens around them as opposed to the makeing treatment plans based around the make believe.

It was shrinks who came up with the idea of facilitated communication of which it was later demonstrated that it was just the facilitater talking to themselves.

People in talk therapy do not fare much better than those who talk to the bartender. Just that the Bartender is cheaper.

It appears shrinks have no working model of what mental health is. It is as if whatever is the norm and acceptable in the culture is mentally healthy. So if an observed pupolation was mostly mentally overwieght and had mental high blood preasure the shrinks would feel the need to treat the few who where not.

Maybe some one more educated than me can fill me in.

Consider for a moment the path from ancient to modern medicine, and some of the misconceptions that came up over time. You could come out and say:

All doctors are quacks!

Here are some anecdotel screw ups from the past:

They used to do things like bleed people with leeches. Then they said that wasn't any good. But now they're deciding that sometimes leeches are needed.

And how about all those amputations they used to perform?

I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

:)

Maybe your question would be better worded as: why is neuroscience proceeding so slowly?

In which cas the answer would be that it's still in relatively early stages of discovery regarding the workings of the brain. But then again, consider how long it took to go from van Leeuwenhoek's discovery of microorganisms until Pasteur set the groundwork fror the Germ Theory (200 years, in case ytou didn't know).

And also consider how long it took to understand the functioning of the organs. Science only really started to do so in depth when they found ways to examine the functioning of living organs.

The technology to examine the functioning of the living brain wasnt even available until about 30 years ago. Until the 70's the brain really was a black box. Modern neuroscience is just starting to figure out how things work (relatively speaking).


As for a definition/explanation of what's normal mental health, see this:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mental-health/MH00042

You know I really don't want to wander into Scientology territory here, but alot of them are full of it. Here at my university they are talking about some crap called SAD--Seasonal something-that-starts-with-A Depression. The symptoms? Feeling down during winter.


Now sure, some look at someone being unhappy and see a chemical inbalance in the brain. I see it as winter being a crappy time of year. It's cold, it's dark, you can't just go mess around outside, you have to pay heating bills, The roads are bitch to drive on, etc.

That would be seasonal affective disorder. And it isn't just the holiday blues. Note the differencses:
Holiday Blues and Stress (http://www.nmha.org/infoctr/factsheets/103.cfm)
Seasonal Affective Disorder (http://www.nmha.org/infoctr/factsheets/27.cfm)

Meh. Mainly the thing I note is how many of my classmates are regularly on drugs for various mental 'disorders', such as short attention span and irritability. Personally, I consider those normal personality traits, not mental problems.

The thing that concerns me is that, in the modern day, medications are prescribed for almost anyone who deviates from the norm. Considering the extraordinary nature of some people who deviated from the norm- Einstein, Washington, Ghandi, and so on- I'm inclined to think that I'll live with a claimed chemical imbalance.

Meh. Mainly the thing I note is how many of my classmates are regularly on drugs for various mental 'disorders', such as short attention span and irritability. Personally, I consider those normal personality traits, not mental problems.

The thing that concerns me is that, in the modern day, medications are prescribed for almost anyone who deviates from the norm. Considering the extraordinary nature of some people who deviated from the norm- Einstein, Washington, Ghandi, and so on- I'm inclined to think that I'll live with a claimed chemical imbalance.

It's not just neuro disorders. Modern medicine has a tendancy to over-nedicate in general. Consider the problem of resistant strains of bacteria - a result of over-prescribing antibiotics. (It's also due to the practices of modern agriculture as well - battery chickens and feedlot cattle are feed large quantities of antibiotics. But that practice is better left for another thread. ;))

Meh. Mainly the thing I note is how many of my classmates are regularly on drugs for various mental 'disorders', such as short attention span and irritability. Personally, I consider those normal personality traits, not mental problems.

The thing that concerns me is that, in the modern day, medications are prescribed for almost anyone who deviates from the norm. Considering the extraordinary nature of some people who deviated from the norm- Einstein, Washington, Ghandi, and so on- I'm inclined to think that I'll live with a claimed chemical imbalance.

True, take all these kids who are apparently diagnosed with ADAH; how many of them actually just a damn good boot up the ass and the parents laying the down the law? I say a damn good number of them.

Back in my day, if I did something wrong, I was given a belt on the behind with a leather strap, and believe me, after a few of those I quickly got the message to get my shit together.

It was shrinks who suggested long repetive questioning or actually practiced long repetive questioning when many Children gave up false testamony in the Statanic Ritual Sexual abuse trials of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The McMartin trial was one of those witch hunts to give an example.
As far as this goes, look up Ralp Underwager on the internet (though possibly not Wikipedia): this man is a liar and a charlatan with a mediocre qualification in a branch of psychology that has nothing to do with child psychiatry, and only ever got used as an expert witness by the defense for pedophiles as no responsible shrink would ever spout any of this crap. There's at least one case of the twerp hiring the defense lawyer because the prosecution demolished him so thoroughly he was scared of being countersued for contempt of court and/or wasting the court's time. His masterstroke was equating coercing accounts of being abused from children with the forms of brainwashing used in the Manchurian candidate, and most psychiatrists hold him to be a terrible embarrasment to their field because he's spent the most visible part of his career bringing their profession into disrepute and because he doesn't know all that much about child psychiatry, which has been demonstrated on several occasions.
It's also (as has been pointed out already) misleading to equate psychiatrists with psychologists: one group have taken a PhD then specialised, the other has an MA in some aspects of psychology and no other medical training.

As far as this goes, look up Ralp Underwager on the internet (though possibly not Wikipedia): this man is a liar and a charlatan with a mediocre qualification in a branch of psychology that has nothing to do with child psychiatry, and only ever got used as an expert witness by the defense for pedophiles as no responsible shrink would ever spout any of this crap. There's at least one case of the twerp hiring the defense lawyer because the prosecution demolished him so thoroughly he was scared of being countersued for contempt of court and/or wasting the court's time. His masterstroke was equating coercing accounts of being abused from children with the forms of brainwashing used in the Manchurian candidate, and most psychiatrists hold him to be a terrible embarrasment to their field because he's spent the most visible part of his career bringing their profession into disrepute and because he doesn't know all that much about child psychiatry, which has been demonstrated on several occasions.
It's also (as has been pointed out already) misleading to equate psychiatrists with psychologists: one group have taken a PhD then specialised, the other has an MA in some aspects of psychology and no other medical training.
The real problem is, that some psychoanalysts and dudes into psychotherapy abuse their skills by manipulating vulnerable patients.

Holy crap!

Are you a Scientologist, or a member of N.A.M.B.L.A?

Holy crap!

Are you a Scientologist, or a member of N.A.M.B.L.A?

Why can't he be both?

Why can't he be both?


See now, THATS liberal thinking!


Way to be outside that box, brotha!

bah psychology is interesting, whether its right or not...
*goes back to experimenting on people's brains*

The real problem is, that some psychoanalysts and dudes into psychotherapy abuse their skills by manipulating vulnerable patients.
I think there was a case in France last year of a psychiatrist having his girlfriend's husband comitted. Unsporting, but rather stylish. (I think he was struck off.)

This psychology thing looks to me to be almost as much of a scam as religion is.

Here are some anecdotel screw ups from the past.

It was shrinks who suggested long repetive questioning or actually practiced long repetive questioning when many Children gave up false testamony in the Statanic Ritual Sexual abuse trials of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The McMartin trial was one of those witch hunts to give an example.
I know nothing of these trials so can't really comment. Long repetitive questioning is not in the guidelines for taking testimony from a child.

It is shrinks who came up with multipul personality disorder than later rejected it. I have heard many people treated for this imaginary disorder actually got worse with treatment.

MPD or Dissociative Identity Disorder as it is now known, is an extremely rare disorder afflicting roughly 1 in 10, 000 (from memory). As such it is very difficult to undertake the rigorous research which should form the cornerstone on any treatment.
The disorder is also likely to be degenerative meaning that over time it gets worse. Treatment could be ineffective and things will get worse regardless. It is quite difficult to comment though when you don't know what treatment was applied or any of a clients details

It was shrinks who suggested homophilia ( homosexuality ) is a disease in need of treatment.
It was also "shrinks" (I don't really like that term) who corrected the mistake. Considering a large part of society still thinks homosexuals are abnormal is it surprising that it wasn't questioned to begin with?


It is shrinks who are right now doping kids with ADHD drugs in order to medicate schools and parents.
Sure ADHD is being over-prescribed, more so in America than elsewhere. But to a large degree that's what parents want since it absolves them from the behavioural problems of a child. ADHD is a genuine disorder and most with it benefit from drugs, but unfortunately not every prescribed case is genuinely ADHD and most psychologists/psychiatrists acknowledge that.


It was shrinks who practiced labotomies in order to sedate patients.

Psychology/Psychiatry has a terrible past, as does Medicine in general. Too often actions were taken without fully understanding the ramifications (e.g lobotomies were used to cure Epilepsy without a full understanding of the behavioural and practical complications of removing parts of the brain). It has come a long way from the early days.

It is shrinks who right now never consider the sociel factors in so called sexual abuse but rather regard religously any sexualy pleasurable act engaged in between an adult and child as cuasing intense long lasting psychological truama to the child without the need for any sociel factors to be involved. Shrinks would rather make brownie points with religion than construct an actual model of what happens with intergenerational relationships and adopt treatment plans around the reality of what happens around them as opposed to the makeing treatment plans based around the make believe.

I'm sorry I don't fully understand what you are indicating here. Psychologists always look at social factors far more than psychiatrists, but good treatment from either party will look at social factors.

It was shrinks who came up with the idea of facilitated communication of which it was later demonstrated that it was just the facilitater talking to themselves.

I'm not aware of what you are referring to here or what has been demonstrated

People in talk therapy do not fare much better than those who talk to the bartender. Just that the Bartender is cheaper.

Reference for this information please as it conflicts with much I've learnt.

It appears shrinks have no working model of what mental health is. It is as if whatever is the norm and acceptable in the culture is mentally healthy. So if an observed pupolation was mostly mentally overwieght and had mental high blood preasure the shrinks would feel the need to treat the few who where not.

No there isn't a working model of mental health. Unfortunately there isn't consensus at the moment to create one. Psychologists are trained to accept something that is empirically demonstrated, however nothing has been sufficiently demonstrated.
For the record, every disorder requires impact to the patient's "occupational, social or emotional functioning". If there is no negative impact there is no disorder. If everything is going great, why would these people be stepping into the psychologists practice? Most treatment is voluntary.

Maybe some one more educated than me can fill me in.

I've majored in psychology so I hope I could shed some light on the matter.

You know I really don't want to wander into Scientology territory here, but alot of them are full of it. Here at my university they are talking about some crap called SAD--Seasonal something-that-starts-with-A Depression. The symptoms? Feeling down during winter.


Now sure, some look at someone being unhappy and see a chemical inbalance in the brain. I see it as winter being a crappy time of year. It's cold, it's dark, you can't just go mess around outside, you have to pay heating bills, The roads are bitch to drive on, etc.

Seasonal Affective Disorder if I remember correctly. Answeredabove.
Eh

So what exactly is a competent Psychiatrists/Psycholgists? What is the right Psychiatrists/Psycholgists? Are there psychologists or psychiatrists who would realise that they don't quite have the training to deal with your particuler mental disease?

Seems you are supposedly educated on the subject.

What other than being different is enough to declare some condition mentaly unhealthy?

There are lot of things required to be competent. The most important is the ability to build rapport with a client.
The right Psychologist/Psychiatrist is one who keeps up-to-date on the research regarding treatment. That's first and foremost.
One of the things I learnt was that if you, for whatever reason, don't think you can help a client refer them to someone who can. This was drilled into us.
Most psychologists tend to specialise in a certain area: e.g adolescents, or drugs, or anxiety disorders and refer everything else. It is a little harder in rural areas where they may be the only viable option.

The main things for diagnosis of a disorder is that the condition impacts to occupational, social or emotional functioning or distresses the patient so much that the distress impacts on those things. There is, however, no "You are mentally ill". A before someone brings it up "insanity" is a legal definition not a psychological one.

Well, all I can say is that Freud founded psychology. A man who often fell asleep during sessions, or talked about his own problems, is not the best role model.
No psychology was founded by Wihelm Wundt in 1897 (from memory). Talk-therapy was founded by Freud but Freud is almost universally ignored these days, even from so-called Neo-Freudians

Considering the extraordinary nature of some people who deviated from the norm- Einstein,

Interestingly Einstein is considered to have suffered from Schizophrenia. This may have contributed to his brilliance. Just because he was brilliant does that mean he was happy? I guess we won't really know, but many brilliant people suffer for it.

I hope I've cleared up some of the misconceptions. You may not agree with everything I say but there is some information in this thread that is just plainly incorrect, and some that I will obviously hold a certain opinion on having studied it.

You know I really don't want to wander into Scientology territory here, but alot of them are full of it. Here at my university they are talking about some crap called SAD--Seasonal something-that-starts-with-A Depression. The symptoms? Feeling down during winter.

Now sure, some look at someone being unhappy and see a chemical inbalance in the brain. I see it as winter being a crappy time of year. It's cold, it's dark, you can't just go mess around outside, you have to pay heating bills, The roads are bitch to drive on, etc.SAD is a genuine ailment and the biological imbalance has been proven in many cases to be biologically correct; the less there sunlight there is, the less serotonin there is in the brain, the less happy you are genuinlely likely to feel. There are also concerns about how light enters the eye and thus travels to the brain. See http://www.sada.org.uk, http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/page.cfm?pagecode=PMNZSA or related links for if you actually want to be informed about this issue.

Holy crap!

Are you a Scientologist, or a member of N.A.M.B.L.A?

What does this mean?

I never offered Scientology as a viable alternative. I think scientology is worse of scam.

Why is it that whenever mass hysteria is questioned some retard pops up to defend it? ( Note I might not be calling you a retard. )

What does this mean?

I never offered Scientology as a viable alternative. I think scientology is worse of scam.

Why is it that whenever mass hysteria is questioned some retard pops up to defend it? ( Note I might not be calling you a retard. )

Personally, Prozac works very, very, very well for me. I would not be able to function as well as I do without it.

I know some people who are bipolar who would be institutionalized with their "chemical imbalance" if it weren't for new drugs like Seroquel. So go figure.

I have the feeling that the psychiatrists who are researching things like psychopharmacology are on the right track. Everything else is a handwave.

snip snip snip snip

I hope I've cleared up some of the misconceptions. You may not agree with everything I say but there is some information in this thread that is just plainly incorrect, and some that I will obviously hold a certain opinion on having studied it.

WoW you really took your time on that one thanks for your imput.

Tell me have you heard of James W. Prescott he did some great work but he seems to be completly ignored by the psychiatric community. He was hated for his research and he was removed from his position through a dirty tricks campain from the people around him.

WoW you really took your time on that one thanks for your imput.

Tell me have you heard of James W. Prescott he did some great work but he seems to be completly ignored by the psychiatric community. He was hated for his research and he was removed from his position through a dirty tricks campain from the people around him.

This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Prescott

BTW, if what he says is true, then my daughter should be an axe murderer.

Isn't the basic tenet of mondern psychology that if you're unhappy, there's something wrong with you?

Isn't the basic tenet of mondern psychology that if you're unhappy, there's something wrong with you?
No, that's the basic tenant of the American culture. It's perfectly fine and healthy to be depressed or otherwise unhappy, it's when it intereferes with your life to an unnatural degree, as clinical depression does, that it is considered bad.

Demosthenes, thanks for biting the bullet and answering the questions. I just got finished a test for my psych course, coincidentally, and was afraid I'd have to answer more questions. It bothers me to a great degree that psychology has become a "pseudoscience" in the eyes of a large number of people, due to laymen trying their hand at it while lacking any experience and training, and the idiots who overdiagnose certain disorders (ADD being the one that comes to mind first and foremost).

And, from what I remember, you're not quite correct saying Freud isn't followed anymore. His therapy methods are still in use, as well as a number of his theories/definitions (fixations being a good example). Do correct me if I'm mistaken.

This psychology thing looks to me to be almost as much of a scam as religion is.

Here are some anecdotel screw ups from the past.

It was shrinks who suggested long repetive questioning or actually practiced long repetive questioning when many Children gave up false testamony in the Statanic Ritual Sexual abuse trials of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The McMartin trial was one of those witch hunts to give an example.

It is shrinks who came up with multipul personality disorder than later rejected it. I have heard many people treated for this imaginary disorder actually got worse with treatment.

It was shrinks who suggested homophilia ( homosexuality ) is a disease in need of treatment.

It is shrinks who are right now doping kids with ADHD drugs in order to medicate schools and parents.

It was shrinks who practiced labotomies in order to sedate patients.

It is shrinks who right now never consider the sociel factors in so called sexual abuse but rather regard religously any sexualy pleasurable act engaged in between an adult and child as cuasing intense long lasting psychological truama to the child without the need for any sociel factors to be involved. Shrinks would rather make brownie points with religion than construct an actual model of what happens with intergenerational relationships and adopt treatment plans around the reality of what happens around them as opposed to the makeing treatment plans based around the make believe.

It was shrinks who came up with the idea of facilitated communication of which it was later demonstrated that it was just the facilitater talking to themselves.

People in talk therapy do not fare much better than those who talk to the bartender. Just that the Bartender is cheaper.

It appears shrinks have no working model of what mental health is. It is as if whatever is the norm and acceptable in the culture is mentally healthy. So if an observed pupolation was mostly mentally overwieght and had mental high blood preasure the shrinks would feel the need to treat the few who where not.

Maybe some one more educated than me can fill me in.

Think of Psychology as an art of trial-and-error where most of the possible errors have already been made.

-snip-

No there isn't a working model of mental health. Unfortunately there isn't consensus at the moment to create one. Psychologists are trained to accept something that is empirically demonstrated, however nothing has been sufficiently demonstrated.
For the record, every disorder requires impact to the patient's "occupational, social or emotional functioning". If there is no negative impact there is no disorder. If everything is going great, why would these people be stepping into the psychologists practice? Most treatment is voluntary.

-snip-

There are lot of things required to be competent. The most important is the ability to build rapport with a client.
The right Psychologist/Psychiatrist is one who keeps up-to-date on the research regarding treatment. That's first and foremost.
One of the things I learnt was that if you, for whatever reason, don't think you can help a client refer them to someone who can. This was drilled into us.
Most psychologists tend to specialise in a certain area: e.g adolescents, or drugs, or anxiety disorders and refer everything else. It is a little harder in rural areas where they may be the only viable option.

The main things for diagnosis of a disorder is that the condition impacts to occupational, social or emotional functioning or distresses the patient so much that the distress impacts on those things. There is, however, no "You are mentally ill". A before someone brings it up "insanity" is a legal definition not a psychological one.

-snip-

I hope I've cleared up some of the misconceptions. You may not agree with everything I say but there is some information in this thread that is just plainly incorrect, and some that I will obviously hold a certain opinion on having studied it.

As far as empirical evidence, the definition of "mental" health, and diagnosis go, I expect brain imaging (MRI, CT, EEG, NMR, TMS, etc.) technology and neurochemistry to provide a straight forward set understanding of the healthy brain. Once we get that, the rest should fall into place. I expect that at somepoint in the future, going to see the psychiatrist will be no different from going to see any other specialist. As someone trained in psycology, care to comment?

Think of Psychology as an art of trial-and-error where most of the possible errors have already been made.

Heh ... that's true of all medicine. They call it "practice" for a reason. :D

Tell me have you heard of James W. Prescott he did some great work but he seems to be completly ignored by the psychiatric community. He was hated for his research and he was removed from his position through a dirty tricks campain from the people around him.

The name seems a little familiar but beyond that I can't say I'm that familiar with him. I haven't done a lot on violence and its causes as my uni doesn't offer any subjects on the Psychology of Criminals. We've touched on it in Social Psychology but only briefly.
I can't really comment on this guys work, what criticisms he has encountered and whether such criticisms are legitimate as I really don't know his stuff.


And, from what I remember, you're not quite correct saying Freud isn't followed anymore. His therapy methods are still in use, as well as a number of his theories/definitions (fixations being a good example). Do correct me if I'm mistaken.

Yes they have borrowed some of his concepts (particulalry around the ego and its defense mechanisms) and have elaborated on those but largely ignored his explanation for the origins of personality.
His style still exists in the form of psychoanalysis but the psychoanalysis of today is largely different from the way Freud practiced it (for example I believe psychoanalysts still look towards childhood as the root of problems, but they don't necessarily look for 'influential' sexual episodes).
I see Psychoanalysis as largely ignoring Freud these days.
To draw a parallel for the way I see Freud, Jung was the first person to come up with the idea of extraversion, but extraversion has since taken on a life of its own (as a concept) and has spawned quite a lot of research. Little of this research, however, takes the Analytical Style that Jung founded. You can't really say its "Jung's Extraversion" anymore.

My personal view is that a large component of Freud's theory was on explaining the origins of behaviour, rather than describing such behaviour, through concepts. It is his concepts that have survived (and to be honest they were the better part of his theory).
I guess whether or not you think he is ignored though depends on what you feel forms the foundation of his particular theory rather than simply the foundation of Psychoanalysis.

As far as empirical evidence, the definition of "mental" health, and diagnosis go, I expect brain imaging (MRI, CT, EEG, NMR, TMS, etc.) technology and neurochemistry to provide a straight forward set understanding of the healthy brain. Once we get that, the rest should fall into place. I expect that at somepoint in the future, going to see the psychiatrist will be no different from going to see any other specialist. As someone trained in psycology, care to comment?
Now we are really getting into the philosophical side of things so all responses should be qualified with: In my opinion.

I believe what you are asking is whether Psychology (and Psychiatry for that matter) will be subsumed under the area of biology. My answer to that is no, but I'll concede it may be wishful thinking on my part since that would largely put psychologists out of a job (since Neurology tends more to rests with Psychiatrists).
Firstly you need to ask, are humans ultimately the same? Is what happens at the neurochemical level exactly the same for two individuals experiencing the same thing? My idea is that it is not. I believe that if you were to manipulate two people so that they had the exact same chemicals, occuring in the same region of the brain, you would not get an identical response. I believe the neurochemicals are best thought of as pushing you in a certain direction (example towards depression) but that the ultimate 'experience' that occurs for the two individuals will also depend upon their history, upbringing, experiences (i.e those things that normally get lumped under the idea of "The Environment).
Now where in the brain is "The environment" stored? Good question and to be honest I don't have an adequate answer. Most likely it is stored at the Neuronal level or within Neuronal Clusters (or even worse at some smaller level we have yet to discover). There are so many neurons and neuronal clusters that trying to map that would take, lets just say, a VERY long time.
And then even mapping that you are brought back to the idea of, are they organised identically? It seems to me that it would be very inefficient to have neurons dedicated to, for example, the ability to play a musical instrument, when so few which actually acquire this talent. I suspect the brain distributes things via necessity rather than through any predetermined plan. The similarity (note not identicality) between certain things such as the location of the visual cortex and the auditory cortex is left over from our evolutionary past. i.e, they are located there because they developed around the time that part of the brain came into existence (Vision exisitng early on is located in the occipital lobe at the back of the brain; language abilities being a newer invention is located in the frontal lobe). That leaves individual memories with no specific home, since they are not actually part of the evolutionary past.

So as you can see, the way I envisage things you need a better understanding of the role of chemicals, you need to map an individual's neurons and their functions and what I've also lightly touched on is the idea of chemical-neuron interaction (which adds a third dimension that could be unique). Then you also have to allow for the fact that we are learning new things and forgetting others so some neural connections are strengthening and others weakening; as well as dying when we consume all sorts of 'toxic' substances. So you need to be constantly updating your 'map' and every map will vary for every individual.

Now this is all looking at the one individual, living in a vacum. You then have to take into account that we interact. How exactly do you describe the process of one individual interacting with one other? For example, can the process of two people talking simply be explained as the neurons and neurochemicals of the two individuals seperately, and if so how does this differ from an individual talking to oneself? Add a third person and it gets infinately more complex again.

Even if my theory is wrong and we do know everything there needs to know about the brain, will people get treatment? I'm sure most people could name others (and realistically themselves) as feeding off certain dramas in their life. There seems to be something peculiar about that which is psychological which means people are more content to live with the problem than seek to fix it as they would a broken arm. Maybe as humans we need a certain amount of suffering (which if I remember correctly was what the Marquis De Sade concluded, although don't quote me on that).

Then to top things off I believe there is levels of severity to a mental disorder rather than the "you either have it or you don't" view the APA takes.

Now I've strayed somewhat from the concept of mental health. My major interest is more normal behaviour. I don't tend to think that normal behaviour and abnormal behaviour are that much different, except that one is more common and more appropriate for the current times (think better adapted to the current environment). At other times and places the reverse could be true.

So where does this theory leave the future of mental health? Ultimately I think what we are really looking for is the best 'rule-of-tumb'. What works best more often than not, and when it doesn't work what might be used instead.

Now of course this theory lacks empirical evidence and to be honest Biological Psychology was not my forte. Consider this a philosophical rant, and I doubt any have read this far.

Now you probably just wanted a simple yes or no and I've just written an essay on the matter. If you were simply asking whether people will come to psychologists and psychiatrists much the same as they visit doctors, then yes I hope both professions achieve that level of stature. But as with my point above, I still think many people need some level of suffering.

It was shrinks who suggested long repetive questioning or actually practiced long repetive questioning when many Children gave up false testamony in the Statanic Ritual Sexual abuse trials of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The McMartin trial was one of those witch hunts to give an example.

Yes, that was a major screw up, but they learned their lesson. It was doctors who championed the frontal lobotomy (ice pick lobotomy), so what's your point? Science often gets things wrong and corrects its self.


It is shrinks who came up with multipul personality disorder than later rejected it. I have heard many people treated for this imaginary disorder actually got worse with treatment.

MPD was renamed DID (Dissociative Identify Disorder) because the previous name for the disorder was somewhat misleading. The symptoms remain the same however, and many people suffer from this disorder.


It was shrinks who suggested homophilia ( homosexuality ) is a disease in need of treatment.

They correctly considered it a disorder and correctly remove it from the list of disorders. This is something lay people have a hard time understanding because they fail to realize how closely psychology is linked to sociology. Psychological disorders are conditions that make it difficult for people to function in society. With the acceptance of homosexuality, it was no longer necessary to help people deal with this issue.


It is shrinks who are right now doping kids with ADHD drugs in order to medicate schools and parents.

Many children do need to be medicated to overcome their ADHD.


It was shrinks who practiced labotomies in order to sedate patients.
No, those were MDs, not shrinks.

It is shrinks who right now never consider the sociel factors in so called sexual abuse but rather regard religously any sexualy pleasurable act engaged in between an adult and child as cuasing intense long lasting psychological truama to the child without the need for any sociel factors to be involved. Shrinks would rather make brownie points with religion than construct an actual model of what happens with intergenerational relationships and adopt treatment plans around the reality of what happens around them as opposed to the makeing treatment plans based around the make believe.


Not true either. There has been and continues to be extensive debate on this topic. Read the debates over the Rind study for one of the more recent examples.

People in talk therapy do not fare much better than those who talk to the bartender. Just that the Bartender is cheaper.

Statistics show otherwise.

It appears shrinks have no working model of what mental health is. It is as if whatever is the norm and acceptable in the culture is mentally healthy. So if an observed pupolation was mostly mentally overwieght and had mental high blood preasure the shrinks would feel the need to treat the few who where not.

It is those things that stop you from being able to function in society that psychologists seek to treat. Of course it is tied closely to society/culture!

Btw, I've been to them twice now and the answer to the title question is: NO THEY BLOODY DON'T!!!

This psychology thing looks to me to be almost as much of a scam as religion is.

Maybe some one more educated than me can fill me in.
Every person I've met who derided the mental health profession was in serious need of its services.

Every person I've met who derided the mental health profession was in serious need of its services.
Agreed. Especially people who use the term "shrink".