Originally Posted by
War Chief
Schizophrenia of some sort.
I personally believe all diseases of the mind have to do with verbal dialogic thinking. When one starts "talking to himself" it becomes a problem. Even thinking out loud.
The remedy to that is letting-go in a meditative state, but no one has the time, will or patience to do that, including myself.
Schizophrenia ? Psychiatry can only make culturally and historically bound claims. Real scientific phenonemona can happen any time or any place unlike specific kinds of 'schizophrenic' behaviours which may not be seen as abnormal in certain cultures. Real scientific concepts can happen anytime and any place so it goes without saying psychiatry is a political thing not scientific and it's biological model of 'mental illness' or 'mental disorder' is bullshit. For instance, gravity happens in India and the United States but one person may not be considered schizophrenic in India or Nigeria but is considered to be so in America.
The issues with the current state of psychiatric knowledge are -- the disagreements over aetiology and treatment of mental illness, the lack of agreement on what “mental illness” is, and consequently the lack of validity to any category of mental disorder.
A review of the science behind the psychiatric discourse concluded that “no biological sign has ever been found for any ‘mental disorder.’ Correspondingly, there is no known physiological etiology” (Burstow 2015: 75).
Furthermore, the research also showed that psychiatrists could still not distinguish between mentally healthy and mentally sick people, and consequently had failed to define their area of supposed expertise. This issue was highlighted with reference to comments made by Allen Frances, the chair of the previous DSM-IV task force. When the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association 1994: xxi) was published in 1994, it stated that “mental disorder”
was conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom.
However, as the architect of the DSM-IV (bible of psychiatry), Frances was later quoted by Greenberg (2013: 35–36) as stating of the above definition, “[h]ere’s the problem … There is no definition of a mental disorder … it’s bullshit … I mean you can’t define it.” The lack of knowledge on mental health and illness has haunted the entire history of psychiatry. Some have dismissed critics who highlight this fundamental hole in the science of psychiatry as “antipsychiatry” or “mental illness deniers.” Such attacks on scholars who attempt to investigate the accuracy of the central pillars of psychiatric knowledge should further concern us, as it perhaps signals that plenty in the profession are already aware of the flimsy nature on which their “expertise” continues to rest. Together with an understanding of the history of the psychiatric profession—summed up by Scull (1989: 8) as “dismal and depressing”—I would argue that it should be the duty of all social scientists concerned with the mental health field that, in good conscience and putting the needs of the public first, they remain highly sceptical of a psychiatric discourse that poses as expert knowledge on the mind but produces little actual evidence to back up the assertions made.
1.)Burstow, B. (2015) Psychiatry and the Business of Madness: An Ethical and Epistemological Accounting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
2.)Greenberg, G. (2013) The Book of Woe: The DSM and The Unmaking of Psychiatry. New York: Blue Rider Press.
3.)Scull, A. (1989) Social Order/Mental Disorder: Anglo-American Psychiatry in Historical Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Reply With Quote
United States
Bookmarks