Personality Cafe banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Have you ever met those people who have a narrow criteria of what constitutes appropriate behavior, causing said individual to blow up or exaggerate these flaws, mistakes or social oddities in humanity, causing them to search for answers to fix said individuals, regardless of whether or not these individuals need fixing? This leads to infidelity of people, and even themselves, since everyone is horrible and mentally ill, causing labels to fix these people and blend them into the general consensus, regardless of if this general consensus is an introverted detail the individual wants to push onto the general consensus out of the betterment and engagement of society.

My mother is one of those people, and I hid my friends from her the entire duration of my childhood as a result. Constant nitpicking of my friends based on how others "should" act, and if the behavior was not align with such criteria, it led to scrutiny aided by psychological labels. Many of my friends received diagnoses. She has diagnosed the entire family, to try and "fix" all of us and improve our quality of life, make it "easier". She goes through thousands of labels, finding a book about discussing a certain diagnostic flavor of the month (much like the Oprah book club) to find the answer to fix us all. She did this in her beauty school, diagnosing her teacher as a bipolar sociopath. I used to do the same thing, until I realized how much of a reflection of my mother I was becoming, prompting me to be more wary and even question the high diagnostic rate of people. Regardless, it's annoying. She loves to diagnosis people, and despite the caring undertone of her opinion, I find it limiting of a person's individuality and potential. It may not be the quality of life she thinks others should have, but if people are happy with their life on their own terms and they aren't destructing or harming others in the process, why the label? Does everyone need to have a developmental or psychological label? Why is this?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,980 Posts
Everyone doesn't have a developmental or psychological label. People like you who say these things tend to believe that mental illness isn't real, and most of them are stupid conspiracy theorists too. If ANYONE told me my depression isn't real, I'd say "fuck you" because they have no idea what the fuck I feel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Everyone doesn't have a developmental or psychological label. People like you who say these things tend to believe that mental illness isn't real, and most of them are stupid conspiracy theorists too. If ANYONE told me my depression isn't real, I'd say "fuck you" because they have no idea what the fuck I feel.
You misunderstood me.

I meant there are people who seem to believe everyone has a psychiatric label, as if they're trying to get to the essence of why a person does not respond to the general consensus or their own personal idea of how people should "behave". I'm discussing pseudo-psychologists, not psychology itself.

As for diagnostic rates, I'm not saying mental illness does not exist in children, but you cannot deny that the rates have doubled, or even tripled, over time. I believe there are multiple factors contributing to this (better knowledge, understanding and awareness of mental illness, for example), but I also question if there are children themselves with parents who misunderstand them, and think a mental illness would be the missing puzzle piece, rather than allowing their children to independently problem solve how to fit into society themselves. I've known people who drag their children to psychologists unnecessarily, to the point of doctor shopping until they find the label they want for their child. But that doesn't mean disorders don't exist in children.

It's like my mother diagnosing someone with sensory processing disorder because they had problems at work, "speak too loudly" (you could argue that's the person's temperament, as they are an emotional, excitable person whom engages with the outside world readily, and that my mother is projecting her annoyance onto this person, thinking something "must be wrong", even though this aspect of the person's behavior doesn't impair with person's functioning), is a cautious driver (she argues she drives "fucked up" by her criteria. This person has never gotten into an accident and rarely breaks driving rules, but she drives slowly. My mother has decided she has the spacial impairments associated, just because she dislikes her driving style that doesn't interfere with the individual's safety of themselves or others at all and has awareness of the road, to my knowledge), and is "overwhelmed easily" (she's been threatened to lose her job at work because of her attitude with people, as people upset her easily. I've tried to nitpick how this correlates to sensory overdrive, and absolutely fail to see it).

This is what I mean. The unqualified loosening the criteria to apply it to everything, until it loses real purpose and meaning (e.g. I organize my pencils; I have ocd!). This was not meant to refute or debunk mental illness as a whole.

I apologize for the over-explaining.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
I felt like there were a lot of people like that in my life growing up. I didn't think like other people, so it had to be because something was "wrong" with me. I remember once as a teenager being told I had a spatial perception problem. I asked the person why she thought that, and she mentioned an incident in my childhood where I had been in gym class and we all had to run in a weaving pattern through a line of three cones. There were three lines of cones in order to accommodate the rather large number of children in the group. I hadn't run through them in the right order. I explained that I'd been distracted when the teachers were giving the instructions and then when I saw the other kids doing the exercise, I thought it was strange that everyone was only using three of the cones when there were nine. I came up with this elaborate plan to use all nine of them. I was really proud of myself. But then, the teachers got mad at me when I actually did it, and apparently later, they told my mother that there was something wrong with me.
And for what it's worth, I didn't get the impression that you thought mental illnesses weren't real. Not at all. There's a huge difference between saying that not everyone has a mental illness and saying no one does.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,428 Posts



Allen J Frances: DSM 5 Is Guide Not Bible—Ignore Its Ten Worst Changes

991 pp. List Price $199.00, APA Member Price $159.20; APA Resident-Fellow Member Price $149.25

This is the saddest moment in my 45 year career of studying, practicing, and teaching psychiatry. The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association has given its final approval to a deeply flawed DSM 5 containing many changes that seem clearly unsafe and scientifically unsound. My best advice to clinicians, to the press, and to the general public - be skeptical and don't follow DSM 5 blindly down a road likely to lead to massive over-diagnosis and harmful over-medication. Just ignore the ten changes that make no sense.

Brief background. DSM 5 got off to a bad start and was never able to establish sure footing. Its leaders initially articulated a premature and unrealizable goal- to produce a paradigm shift in psychiatry. Excessive ambition combined with disorganized execution led inevitably to many ill conceived and risky proposals.

These were vigorously opposed. More than fifty mental health professional associations petitioned for an outside review of DSM 5 to provide an independent judgment of its supporting evidence and to evaluate the balance between its risks and benefits. Professional journals, the press, and the public also weighed in- expressing widespread astonishment about decisions that sometimes seemed not only to lack scientific support but also to defy common sense.

DSM 5 has neither been able to self correct nor willing to heed the advice of outsiders. It has instead created a mostly closed shop- circling the wagons and deaf to the repeated and widespread warnings that it would lead to massive misdiagnosis. Fortunately, some of its most egregiously risky and unsupportable proposals were eventually dropped under great external pressure (most notably 'psychosis risk', mixed anxiety/depression, internet and sex addiction, rape as a mental disorder, 'hebephilia', cumbersome personality ratings, and sharply lowered thresholds for many existing disorders). But APA stubbornly refused to sponsor any independent review and has given final approval to the ten reckless and untested ideas that are summarized below.

The history of psychiatry is littered with fad diagnoses that in retrospect did far more harm than good. Yesterday's APA approval makes it likely that DSM 5 will start a half or dozen or more new fads which will be detrimental to the misdiagnosed individuals and costly to our society.

The motives of the people working on DSM 5 have often been questioned. They have been accused of having a financial conflict of interest because some have (minimal) drug company ties and also because so many of the DSM 5 changes will enhance Pharma profits by adding to our already existing societal overdose of carelessly prescribed psychiatric medicine. But I know the people working on DSM 5 and know this charge to be both unfair and untrue. Indeed, they have made some very bad decisions, but they did so with pure hearts and not because they wanted to help the drug companies. Their's is an intellectual, not financial, conflict of interest that results from the natural tendency of highly specialized experts to over value their pet ideas, to want to expand their own areas of research interest, and to be oblivious to the distortions that occur in translating DSM 5 to real life clinical practice (particularly in primary care where 80% of psychiatric drugs are prescribed).

The APA's deep dependence on the publishing profits generated by the DSM 5 business enterprise creates a far less pure motivation. There is an inherent and influential conflict of interest between the DSM 5 public trust and DSM 5 as a best seller. When its deadlines were consistently missed due to poor planning and disorganized implementation, APA chose quietly to cancel the DSM 5 field testing step that was meant to provide it with a badly needed opportunity for quality control. The current draft has been approved and is now being rushed prematurely to press with incomplete field testing for one reason only- so that DSM 5 publishing profits can fill the big hole in APA's projected budget and return dividends on the exorbitant cost of 25 million dollars that has been charged to DSM 5 preparation.

This is no way to prepare or to approve a diagnostic system. Psychiatric diagnosis has become too important in selecting treatments, determining eligibility for benefits and services, allocating resources, guiding legal judgments, creating stigma, and influencing personal expectations to be left in the hands of an APA that has proven itself incapable of producing a safe, sound, and widely accepted manual.

New diagnoses in psychiatry are more dangerous than new drugs because they influence whether or not millions of people are placed on drugs- often by primary care doctors after brief visits. Before their introduction, new diagnoses deserve the same level of attention to safety that we devote to new drugs. APA is not competent to do this.

So, here is my list of DSM 5's ten most potentially harmful changes. I would suggest that clinicians not follow these at all (or, at the very least, use them with extreme caution and attention to their risks); that potential patients be deeply skeptical, especially if the proposed diagnosis is being used as a rationale for prescribing medication for you or for your child; and that payers question whether some of these are suitable for reimbursement. My goal is to minimize the harm that may otherwise be done by unnecessary obedience to unwise and arbitrary DSM 5 decisions.

1) Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder: DSM 5 will turn temper tantrums into a mental disorder- a puzzling decision based on the work of only one research group. We have no idea whatever how this untested new diagnosis will play out in real life practice settings, but my fear is that it will exacerbate, not relieve, the already excessive and inappropriate use of medication in young children. During the past two decades, child psychiatry has already provoked three fads- a tripling of Attention Deficit Disorder, a more than twenty-times increase in Autistic Disorder, and a forty-times increase in childhood Bipolar Disorder. The field should have felt chastened by this sorry track record and should engage itself now in the crucial task of educating practitioners and the public about the difficulty of accurately diagnosing children and the risks of over- medicating them. DSM 5 should not be adding a new disorder likely to result in a new fad and even more inappropriate medication use in vulnerable children.

2) Normal grief will become Major Depressive Disorder, thus medicalizing and trivializing our expectable and necessary emotional reactions to the loss of a loved one and substituting pills and superficial medical rituals for the deep consolations of family, friends, religion, and the resiliency that comes with time and the acceptance of the limitations of life.

3) The everyday forgetting characteristic of old age will now be misdiagnosed as Minor Neurocognitive Disorder, creating a huge false positive population of people who are not at special risk for dementia. Since there is no effective treatment for this 'condition' (or for dementia), the label provides absolutely no benefit (while creating great anxiety) even for those at true risk for later developing dementia. It is a dead loss for the many who will be mislabeled.

4) DSM 5 will likely trigger a fad of Adult Attention Deficit Disorder leading to widespread misuse of stimulant drugs for performance enhancement and recreation and contributing to the already large illegal secondary market in diverted prescription drugs.

5) Excessive eating 12 times in 3 months is no longer just a manifestation of gluttony and the easy availability of really great tasting food. DSM 5 has instead turned it into a psychiatric illness called Binge Eating Disorder.

6) The changes in the DSM 5 definition of Autism will result in lowered rates- 10% according to estimates by the DSM 5 work group, perhaps 50% according to outside research groups. This reduction can be seen as beneficial in the sense that the diagnosis of Autism will be more accurate and specific- but advocates understandably fear a disruption in needed school services. Here the DSM 5 problem is not so much a bad decision, but the misleading promises that it will have no impact on rates of disorder or of service delivery. School services should be tied more to educational need, less to a controversial psychiatric diagnosis created for clinical (not educational) purposes and whose rate is so sensitive to small changes in definition and assessment.

7) First time substance abusers will be lumped in definitionally in with hard core addicts despite their very different treatment needs and prognosis and the stigma this will cause.

8) DSM 5 has created a slippery slope by introducing the concept of Behavioral Addictions that eventually can spread to make a mental disorder of everything we like to do a lot. Watch out for careless overdiagnosis of internet and sex addiction and the development of lucrative treatment programs to exploit these new markets.

9) DSM 5 obscures the already fuzzy boundary been Generalized Anxiety Disorder and the worries of everyday life. Small changes in definition can create millions of anxious new 'patients' and expand the already widespread practice of inappropriately prescribing addicting anti-anxiety medications.

10) DSM 5 has opened the gate even further to the already existing problem of misdiagnosis of PTSD in forensic settings.

DSM 5 has dropped its pretension to being a paradigm shift in psychiatric diagnosis and instead (in a dramatic 180 degree turn) now makes the equally misleading claim that it is a conservative document that will have minimal impact on the rates of psychiatric diagnosis and in the consequent provision of inappropriate treatment. This is an untenable claim that DSM 5 cannot possibly support because, for completely unfathomable reasons, it never took the simple and inexpensive step of actually studying the impact of DSM on rates in real world settings.

Except for autism, all the DSM 5 changes loosen diagnosis and threaten to turn our current diagnostic inflation into diagnostic hyperinflation. Painful experience with previous DSM's teaches that if anything in the diagnostic system can be misused and turned into a fad, it will be. Many millions of people with normal grief, gluttony, distractibility, worries, reactions to stress, the temper tantrums of childhood, the forgetting of old age, and 'behavioral addictions' will soon be mislabeled as psychiatrically sick and given inappropriate treatment.

People with real psychiatric problems that can be reliably diagnosed and effectively treated are already badly shortchanged. DSM 5 will make this worse by diverting attention and scarce resources away from the really ill and toward people with the everyday problems of life who will be harmed, not helped, when they are mislabeled as mentally ill.

Our patients deserve better, society deserves better, and the mental health professions deserve better. Caring for the mentally ill is a noble and effective profession. But we have to know our limits and stay within them.

DSM 5 violates the most sacred (and most frequently ignored) tenet in medicine- First Do No Harm! That's why this is such a sad moment.

(Source)
 

·
MOTM Feb 2016
Joined
·
10,008 Posts
Have you ever met those people who have a narrow criteria of what constitutes appropriate behavior, causing said individual to blow up or exaggerate these flaws, mistakes or social oddities in humanity, causing them to search for answers to fix said individuals, regardless of whether or not these individuals need fixing? This leads to infidelity of people, and even themselves, since everyone is horrible and mentally ill, causing labels to fix these people and blend them into the general consensus, regardless of if this general consensus is an introverted detail the individual wants to push onto the general consensus out of the betterment and engagement of society.

My mother is one of those people, and I hid my friends from her the entire duration of my childhood as a result. Constant nitpicking of my friends based on how others "should" act, and if the behavior was not align with such criteria, it led to scrutiny aided by psychological labels. Many of my friends received diagnoses. She has diagnosed the entire family, to try and "fix" all of us and improve our quality of life, make it "easier". She goes through thousands of labels, finding a book about discussing a certain diagnostic flavor of the month (much like the Oprah book club) to find the answer to fix us all. She did this in her beauty school, diagnosing her teacher as a bipolar sociopath. I used to do the same thing, until I realized how much of a reflection of my mother I was becoming, prompting me to be more wary and even question the high diagnostic rate of people. Regardless, it's annoying. She loves to diagnosis people, and despite the caring undertone of her opinion, I find it limiting of a person's individuality and potential. It may not be the quality of life she thinks others should have, but if people are happy with their life on their own terms and they aren't destructing or harming others in the process, why the label? Does everyone need to have a developmental or psychological label? Why is this?
I honestly don't know, but I've known people like that. I think it's easier for humans to generalize each other. We get by on the basis of making generalizations. This may just be one such form of it, and quite an awful one at that. We have this bias as humans, where we often attribute the negative behavior of ourselves to circumstances whereas we attribute the negative behavior of others to their personalities. I think it's quite easy to slap a label on somebody and then re-interpret all of their actions through that label. It's easy, but inaccurate. No, I'd agree with you in saying that the label is unnecessary, and I agree with you that it's limiting. It marginalizes them. They are stripped of their humanity and person-hood in the perpetrator's mind. That has the unfortunate effect of making it easier to treat them on the basis of the applied label. Again, I'm not so sure why that specifically happens, outside of our natural tendency to operate on generalizations, but I'm thoroughly against it. Furthermore, I seek to strike that down wherever I see it, and just like you, I'm very wary of labels.

Labels should be used as short-hand explanations of particular characteristics, such as within medical fields. They should not, however, be used to solely define a person or to over-simplify their personality.

"Everything should be made simple, not simpler", right?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,801 Posts
Yes there are many people who think there is one right way to be. I at once applaud the psychiatric community even while also maintaining a healthy disapproval or questioning of certain things. There are people who are one of two extremes, the ones who say mental illness isn't real but just various levels of emotional health in different temperaments ( Keirsey ) and the other is the APA using Big Five and dismissing other personality theory gives unhealthy reverence to ENFJs, who of course are already prone to messianic complex, NOT HELPING TO GLORIFY THEM AS THE IDEAL HUMAN.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,801 Posts
Oh in relation to us keeping a healthy balance of seeing the psychiatric community as a human, fallible one with pluses and minuses...my therapist friend was talking about the cultural crazed fear of Satanic ritual abuse in the 1980s that psychiatrists actually created. It's fucking freaky.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top