While doing online research this last week I ran across a series of websites that are dedicated to ridding the world of psychiatry. This is apparently a quite old effort, dating back at least fifty years. Their claims are that psychiatry causes more harm than it does help, that it creates the problems that it purports to treat, and that it medicalizes or pathologizes what is normal human behavior.
The harm that is caused is side effects of medications, all the way from daily negative effects like dry mouth and dizziness to long-term effects like tardive dyskenisia, an involuntary motor movement condition that is permanent; labeling of people that sticks to them and makes it hard to find decent jobs, housing, education, and is the cause for legal wariness; and ultimately gives control over people's lives to that well-educated band, psychiatrists.
As far as creating problems, it is often cited that in earlier editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, or DSM, that homosexuality was earlier classified as a mental disorder, and then when times and public perception changed the diagnosis was reduced to sexual identity disorder or sexual disorder not otherwise specified (NOS). This is evidence, they say, that mental illness isn't so much a biological disorder as it is a matter of public acceptance, which medications really can't be designed to treat. There are disorders which hadn't been identified earlier and are now called diseases, like restless leg syndrome or ADHD. Depression is a normal occurance in life, and before psychiatry we dealt with it without medications.
Along this line, pharmaceutical companies are implicated in the 'badness' of psychiatry. It's no secret that they are among the most profitable and powerful industries in the U.S. They continually lobby psychiatrists to use their medications, and in effect write legislation that regulates themselves.
Having been in the field of psychology for a couple of decades I see the things that are being criticized on these websites. I have grave misgivings about the prevalence of ADHD and oppose the medication of such a large percentage of children in what appears to be behavior control. I oppose the rise of overdiagnosing autism as the next poster affliction to follow ADHD. I believe that situational depression is, indeed, a normal occurance in life and think that we would be better served to work through it (which cultivates strength of character) rather than medicating it. I dislike the amount of power that the medical and pharmaceutical industries have garnered over us, and even believe that the unnecessary altering of human pereption and development with medications is a criminal act.
But I disagree with these websites on a fundamental point: their presentation is black and white, that all psychiatry is bad and wrong, maybe even evil. Several sites are unmistakably motivated by a good deal of barely-concealed anger. There are personal axes being ground. But not all psychiatry is bad and wrong. The sites mention schizophrenia but don't say outright that this disorder is, like the others, a myth. I would challenge anybody who believes all mental illness to be a myth to spend a day with somebody who really is schizophrenic. It's not BS, a manipulation, or anything with a conscious motivation and payoff for these people to have fixed delusions. It's not imagination that these people hear voices (that comment on them negatively, tell them bad things about themselves, tell them that their medications are poison, tell them to kill themselves, and so forth) that results in loss of sleep, withdrawal from family and society, misery, and suicide. On the bell curve of how people are put together physically, chemically, and psychologically, there is bound to be a percentage whose minds don't work just right (just as there are those on the other end of the curve who have superabilities). There are also those who , due to parenting or experiences, don't develop healthy methods of coping. Clinical depression differs from situational depression, and it's not a matter of will, morals. or thinking yourself out of it. These are the truly mentally ill, and they should receive treatment.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Looking for Baggage that Goes With Mine
Last week, as I was outside the sight but not the hearing of my 1:00 therapy appointment, the female client, whom I'd only met with once before, was telling the receptionist that she had an appointment with, well, that really good looking guy. She couldn't remember my name.
This has happened before. The only women who say anything about how they think I look is women who are diagnosed with a mental illness. Question: are such woman just freer to say what they think and 'normal' women are too polite, or does a woman have to be certified crazy to find me attractive?
This leads up to a little event this evening. In a former job duty I often came in contact with a gal who is attractive to me. Not just in looks, but one of those where in her presence I just felt wonderful inside and thought about her for two days afterward, time after time after time. She gave off vibes that the feeling was mutual; a few times she acted goofy around me, and once we connected gazes that were unmistakable and it was infinitely comfortable and warm. In imagination I wondered what I would do if we ran across each other out in public, away from our job roles.
(Why didn't I ask her out? Lots of rationalizations: I've got my sordid history and don't trust my judgment in women; either that or there are so few women who fit my standards that those times I've tried commitment have been disasters. Or the fact that this gal is probably half my age and can't have the amount of baggage I've got. Or she and I are at really different points in life and it couldn't possibly work. Or in twenty years she'll be at her sexual peak and I'll be pushing seventy, and very little else. And so on).
So tonight I ran across her at the mall. She was with a coworker who also kibbitzed with me when our jobs crossed paths, but she's married. I regret that I wasn't goofy enough to hug the young gal in mock joy. We talked for a while. I showed them the newest gem I'd cut, a 6.2 carat synthetic spinel the color of a deep blue zircon cut as an old mine (cushion). They were sitting at the front of a salon at the mall, waiting for haircuts, and the coworker said that they were there to get beautiful. "But you're both already beautiful," I said. Pretty slick, eh, Jasper? But she waved it off and muttered something about how ridiculous that was. Then the conversation died a bit and I smiled and said goodbye. And kicked myself the rest of the evening.
It's too easy to not engage myself, to not take decisive action. It's easy habit by now. I don't miss the expense and drama of being with someone. A cat is an easy roommate. But when regret is as strong as I've felt since then... I spent about an hour on another gemstone this evening then did a session at the piano with Beethoven, Elton John, and Chopin, and the thought of her stayed with me all the way through everything.
In Rent Mimi sang to Roger, "I'm looking for baggage that goes with mine." It's a great line. A great idea. Some friendly hope to frame old dreck in.
As a fellow counselor said this morning, even healthy people have their unhealthy stuff here and there. I hope that one day I can break up this logjam.
This has happened before. The only women who say anything about how they think I look is women who are diagnosed with a mental illness. Question: are such woman just freer to say what they think and 'normal' women are too polite, or does a woman have to be certified crazy to find me attractive?
This leads up to a little event this evening. In a former job duty I often came in contact with a gal who is attractive to me. Not just in looks, but one of those where in her presence I just felt wonderful inside and thought about her for two days afterward, time after time after time. She gave off vibes that the feeling was mutual; a few times she acted goofy around me, and once we connected gazes that were unmistakable and it was infinitely comfortable and warm. In imagination I wondered what I would do if we ran across each other out in public, away from our job roles.
(Why didn't I ask her out? Lots of rationalizations: I've got my sordid history and don't trust my judgment in women; either that or there are so few women who fit my standards that those times I've tried commitment have been disasters. Or the fact that this gal is probably half my age and can't have the amount of baggage I've got. Or she and I are at really different points in life and it couldn't possibly work. Or in twenty years she'll be at her sexual peak and I'll be pushing seventy, and very little else. And so on).
So tonight I ran across her at the mall. She was with a coworker who also kibbitzed with me when our jobs crossed paths, but she's married. I regret that I wasn't goofy enough to hug the young gal in mock joy. We talked for a while. I showed them the newest gem I'd cut, a 6.2 carat synthetic spinel the color of a deep blue zircon cut as an old mine (cushion). They were sitting at the front of a salon at the mall, waiting for haircuts, and the coworker said that they were there to get beautiful. "But you're both already beautiful," I said. Pretty slick, eh, Jasper? But she waved it off and muttered something about how ridiculous that was. Then the conversation died a bit and I smiled and said goodbye. And kicked myself the rest of the evening.
It's too easy to not engage myself, to not take decisive action. It's easy habit by now. I don't miss the expense and drama of being with someone. A cat is an easy roommate. But when regret is as strong as I've felt since then... I spent about an hour on another gemstone this evening then did a session at the piano with Beethoven, Elton John, and Chopin, and the thought of her stayed with me all the way through everything.
In Rent Mimi sang to Roger, "I'm looking for baggage that goes with mine." It's a great line. A great idea. Some friendly hope to frame old dreck in.
As a fellow counselor said this morning, even healthy people have their unhealthy stuff here and there. I hope that one day I can break up this logjam.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Peace Coin
After many years of observing people and politics, it seems that there come issues that defy resolution. In our nation we see the abortion debate and the nuclear weapons nondebate. It seems that each side goes further and further into its own reasoning, which means further and further from the other side of the issue, and after time nobody is listening to each other, which means that nobody's understanding. An extreme example of this is the Israeli-Palestinian issue, which after all this time is so much a cultural passion issue that neither side can hear the other.
Recently I've been thinking about the whole issue of peace. The hawks are trying to settle things in the Middle East and bring about peace. The doves object strongly to the tactics, hoping instead for peace.
Huh?
It seems that each side agrees on what peace is: people being civil to each other so that conflict and violence aren't a problem. Realistically, since we're dealing with humans in all their blessed imperfection, we won't find Uptopia on earth, but in the balance things could be much quieter.
The problem comes in the process. Hawks believe in peace through setting rules, enforcement, and compliance. To a degree very few of us have problems with this...most of us do somewhere around the speed limit. What works here is the threat of negative consequences for breaking the rules. The reward is the greatest amount of freedom allowed when so many people share a common living area. Enforcement can be arranged quickly, given that there is a force that is large, strong, and skilled enough.
Enforcement contains a danger: the overuse of it results in oppression, which breeds anger and resentment. Hardly peaceful. (This is where many doves object to the Bush administration: the Bushies are still arguing for the right to torture, against national edict and international law. This extreme attempt at enforcement crosses the line into damaging, for those tortured, for those who find satisfaction in administering it, and for the society that it is done in the name of).
Doves, on the other hand, believe in cultivating individual and social conditions so that people and groups regulate themselves and don't need an external authority telling them to behave. If this could be acheived on a large scale there would be general civility, not to mention little need of a governing authority. This cultivation takes a long time to accomplish. Longer than a single presidency.
Peace is a single coin with two sides. It's physically impossible to have a one-sided coin. It's folly to pretend that there is one right side and one wrong side.
Both sides are honorable, even necessary. It would be folly to assume that everybody in a society would submit to cultivation, and it is likely that there would be somebody slick enough to pretend and then take advantage of others. Something needs to be in place to limit the behaviors and damages these people perpetrate. Thus enforcement. Cultivation, over time and on a large scale, would generally decrease difficulties in a society and make enforcement a more occasional necessity.
Yet we are at poles in our beliefs about peace and it seems that neither side hears nor understands the other. Thus we are not at peace even with ourselves.
The solution is defined in the problem: we need to sit down together, shut our mouths and open our ears and minds, talk with those not like us until each side is convinced that the other hears and understands, then work together to acheive the common goal that both sides share.
I can imagine a danger inherent in this solution. In redefining peace, or at least the path toward it, we would also have to redefine enemies. So many people are invested in the fight, in the passion, that to give up the thrill of combating an enemy and feeling righteous would be a great loss. In fact, should we learn how to no longer see a brother as an enemy it could generalize to the whole human race. Sheesh. Nobody as an enemy. What would we do for entertainment? Now we have to redefine entertainment. And so on.
Yet what would the Prince of Peace recommend? He certainly didn't advocate for war, literally or figuratively. Even if it's unfamiliar in human history, maybe swallowing our pride and working together is the right thing to do.
Recently I've been thinking about the whole issue of peace. The hawks are trying to settle things in the Middle East and bring about peace. The doves object strongly to the tactics, hoping instead for peace.
Huh?
It seems that each side agrees on what peace is: people being civil to each other so that conflict and violence aren't a problem. Realistically, since we're dealing with humans in all their blessed imperfection, we won't find Uptopia on earth, but in the balance things could be much quieter.
The problem comes in the process. Hawks believe in peace through setting rules, enforcement, and compliance. To a degree very few of us have problems with this...most of us do somewhere around the speed limit. What works here is the threat of negative consequences for breaking the rules. The reward is the greatest amount of freedom allowed when so many people share a common living area. Enforcement can be arranged quickly, given that there is a force that is large, strong, and skilled enough.
Enforcement contains a danger: the overuse of it results in oppression, which breeds anger and resentment. Hardly peaceful. (This is where many doves object to the Bush administration: the Bushies are still arguing for the right to torture, against national edict and international law. This extreme attempt at enforcement crosses the line into damaging, for those tortured, for those who find satisfaction in administering it, and for the society that it is done in the name of).
Doves, on the other hand, believe in cultivating individual and social conditions so that people and groups regulate themselves and don't need an external authority telling them to behave. If this could be acheived on a large scale there would be general civility, not to mention little need of a governing authority. This cultivation takes a long time to accomplish. Longer than a single presidency.
Peace is a single coin with two sides. It's physically impossible to have a one-sided coin. It's folly to pretend that there is one right side and one wrong side.
Both sides are honorable, even necessary. It would be folly to assume that everybody in a society would submit to cultivation, and it is likely that there would be somebody slick enough to pretend and then take advantage of others. Something needs to be in place to limit the behaviors and damages these people perpetrate. Thus enforcement. Cultivation, over time and on a large scale, would generally decrease difficulties in a society and make enforcement a more occasional necessity.
Yet we are at poles in our beliefs about peace and it seems that neither side hears nor understands the other. Thus we are not at peace even with ourselves.
The solution is defined in the problem: we need to sit down together, shut our mouths and open our ears and minds, talk with those not like us until each side is convinced that the other hears and understands, then work together to acheive the common goal that both sides share.
I can imagine a danger inherent in this solution. In redefining peace, or at least the path toward it, we would also have to redefine enemies. So many people are invested in the fight, in the passion, that to give up the thrill of combating an enemy and feeling righteous would be a great loss. In fact, should we learn how to no longer see a brother as an enemy it could generalize to the whole human race. Sheesh. Nobody as an enemy. What would we do for entertainment? Now we have to redefine entertainment. And so on.
Yet what would the Prince of Peace recommend? He certainly didn't advocate for war, literally or figuratively. Even if it's unfamiliar in human history, maybe swallowing our pride and working together is the right thing to do.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Making a Killing
I've been trying to reason out for a couple of weeks how one comes to judge another nation or culture as an enemy (makes no difference if they had been an ally in the recent past) and decide that they have to be killed. On the surface it goes against every law, religious and state, that says 'thou shalt not kill'. So how do you get there?
Maybe it's because my degrees are in psychology, I've had a lifelong interest in religion and spirituality, and in the last twenty years have been increasingly drawn to sociology, but the only conclusion I can reach is that one hasn't resolved the unacceptable negative parts of oneself, and by projection object to it when the same is seen in others. If one has attained a level of authority or power -- the motivation of which could be the same denial of personal negatives and subsequent attempt to control the world around rather than the world within -- and has at one's disposal some 'army', whether military, professional, or religious, one goes about trying to rid the world of the 'enemy' that is a reminder of the unaccetable inner traits or impulses.
What would the world look like if anyone who expressed any perception of an enemy were not allowed a position of authority? Capitalism would fall, of course, as would most governments. Yet when are we going to reach the point where we stop repeating history and allowing those who see demons to use society's resources to fight their own inner struggles (and in the company of those like them, who all band together), a struggle that can't be won because the focus is external when the fight is internal? At what point do we finally say that such people are not the highest examples to lead us?
Over many years I have increasingly been developing the idea that the greatest revolution in history will be when we stop trying to conquer nature and instead conquer ourselves. Fire, electricity, the wheel, the internal combustion engine, cyberspace...all these have made substantial and irreversible changes for humanity, but they are all external. When do we finally transcend what is within us and holds us back?
The writings that guide us in this direction go back at least four thousand years. There's a lot of resource. There's a lot of wisdom already in existence. Gandhi got closer to turning humankind in that direction than most, but things fell off after he died. What will it take to make it not the passion and mission of a single man (in truth, there are thousands of people at any one time trying to lead us there) but to make it the standard of humanity?
It's one of the reasons I write this blog. Doin' my part.
Maybe it's because my degrees are in psychology, I've had a lifelong interest in religion and spirituality, and in the last twenty years have been increasingly drawn to sociology, but the only conclusion I can reach is that one hasn't resolved the unacceptable negative parts of oneself, and by projection object to it when the same is seen in others. If one has attained a level of authority or power -- the motivation of which could be the same denial of personal negatives and subsequent attempt to control the world around rather than the world within -- and has at one's disposal some 'army', whether military, professional, or religious, one goes about trying to rid the world of the 'enemy' that is a reminder of the unaccetable inner traits or impulses.
What would the world look like if anyone who expressed any perception of an enemy were not allowed a position of authority? Capitalism would fall, of course, as would most governments. Yet when are we going to reach the point where we stop repeating history and allowing those who see demons to use society's resources to fight their own inner struggles (and in the company of those like them, who all band together), a struggle that can't be won because the focus is external when the fight is internal? At what point do we finally say that such people are not the highest examples to lead us?
Over many years I have increasingly been developing the idea that the greatest revolution in history will be when we stop trying to conquer nature and instead conquer ourselves. Fire, electricity, the wheel, the internal combustion engine, cyberspace...all these have made substantial and irreversible changes for humanity, but they are all external. When do we finally transcend what is within us and holds us back?
The writings that guide us in this direction go back at least four thousand years. There's a lot of resource. There's a lot of wisdom already in existence. Gandhi got closer to turning humankind in that direction than most, but things fell off after he died. What will it take to make it not the passion and mission of a single man (in truth, there are thousands of people at any one time trying to lead us there) but to make it the standard of humanity?
It's one of the reasons I write this blog. Doin' my part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)