right.....the more men in suits back you up mean you MUST be right. Did you know that's a marketing/psychological ploy? To convince people you have powerful or vast groups supporting your "product", "service" etc?
Whether you know it's a trick or not, I know....
In the end, opinions remain opinions.
Did you know the moon landing never happened?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The fallacy of the "objective" view, Ahnimus, that you rely so heavily upon is that it rests upon your own personal subjective preferences, and isn't any more objective in actuality than anyone else's.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
ah...the "revert to the methods epitomized in the videos" ploy, huh? Revert to the ole social-psycho control, eh??
*smiles and nods*
Angelica, your whole philosophy is hypocritical. I'll find the statement here where you said "If someone calls you imbalanced, they are imbalanced". Talk about a self-refuting statement. Not to mention that the person who claims others are "imbalanced" the most, is you.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The fallacy of the "objective" view, Ahnimus, that you rely so heavily upon is that it rests upon your own personal subjective preferences, and isn't any more objective in actuality than anyone else's.
If you honestly believe that, then you should take a page from OutOfBreath and not assent to any claims. Save yourself from the hypocracy of your current philosophy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post: 97 If someone tries telling another that due to their ideas or point of view that the individual is imbalanced, or even sick, that is a power play. The one embarking on the power play is coming from an imbalanced position of looking down on the other, and has entered the "rescuer/victim/persecutor" triangle. They will continue to cycle through these three imbalanced positions.
A brief look at the posts where you have used the term "imbalanced" mostly directing the allegation at an individual.
Thread: The Morals of an Atheist
Post:162
When you "justify" poor behaviour by saying your eyes are on the future, at the expense of what IS--reality--you show the faulty premises that create your imbalanced actions at this time.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Angelica, your whole philosophy is hypocritical. I'll find the statement here where you said "If someone calls you imbalanced, they are imbalanced". Talk about a self-refuting statement. Not to mention that the person who claims others are "imbalanced" the most, is you.
I fully own my observations, self-refuting or not. I'm well aware that as a human being with all kinds of diverse aspects to my nature, that I do and say hypocritical things all the time. I'm not a logical process. I'm a human being.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
While we're discussing human beings, you know, Ahnimus, that human beings are supposedly addicted to their thoughts. And also that they find conflicting thoughts from others to be discordant, and they experience dissonance. You know that applies to you. So to, at the same time, consider yourself scientific and objective given the conflicting nature existing within you is also a hypocritical view. No one is perfect. And frankly no one is better or worse.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The following is relevant and taken from The Engine of Reason, The Seat of the Soul: A philosophical Journey into the Brain by Paul Churchland. The text is from the final chapter Neurotechnology and Human Life, specifically the subsection Medical Issues: Psychiatric and Neurological Medicine. The following paragraphs are founded on the previous ten chapters explaining the philosophical position of Churchland and the history of our understanding of the brain, as well as the current models in neuroscience. An understanding of all this is ideal for the reader to interpret the text and to have a decent opinion on it. I recommend this book to everyone as an introduction to neurophilosophy and a primer on neuroscience.
The first place we will feel the effects is in psychiatric and neurological medicine, the domain of damaged or dysfunctional brains. As we saw in chapter 7, these disciplines already have the shape they have by virtue of the theoretical knowledge we possess and the technologies we command for observing the brain and for intervening, in a benign spirit, it its activities. Developments now coming on line will accelerate their development.
The following few paragraphs outlines the advancements in brain imaging techniques I mentioned earlier. fMRI, MEG, how they work and the pros and cons of them.
These new ways of monitoring and manipulating neural activity especially when used in conjunction with pharmacological modulation of the biochemical soup in which that activity takes place, will eventually give the psychiatrist and the surgeon a much better understanding of the dimensions and mechanisms of normal brain function. This will inevitably lead to better and safer techniques for detecting and fixing failures of normal function. And perhaps for heading them off before they ever occur.
Is there a dark side to all of this? Of course there is. Ignorant psychiatrists will occasionally presecribe dangerous drugs. Clumsy surgeons will occasionally damage vital neural subsystems. Confused theory will legitimize some irrelevant and retrograde medical practices. Bureaucratic policy will occasionally attempt to solve chemically what can only be solved socially. Some welcomed cures will prove to have disastrous long-term side effects. A black market in neuroactive drugs and devices will flourish. A subculture of abuse, however small, is inevitable. All of these things will happen. Only their frequency is uncertain.
In the face of these inevitable frustrations we might be tempted to slam the lid on the entire project, research and technology alike. That decision, of course, would have consequences of its own. Wise psychiatrists would be denied the drugs to restore dysfunctional brains. Skilled surgeons would be denied the information necessary for pinpoint interventions. Accurate theory would never sustain a more enlightened medical practice. Bureaucratic policy would frustrate its itself trying to solve socially what can only be repaired chemically. There would be no welcome psychiatric cures at all, with or witout long-term side effects. And finally, we are already up to our ears in a vicious black market of insidious and self-destructive drugs. Without neural research and improved health care, we may never replace them with more benign drugs, nor find treatments that will stop addiction in its tracks.
The problem is one we have faced many times before, ever since the discovery of fire. Any new technology brings the potential for careless accidents and deliberate abuse. In the early stages, when society barely understands the new technology, apprehension and outright fear are the natural reactions. But subsequent public understanding regularly replaces fear with comfort; subsequent government regulation of practice brings confidence; and a subsequent flood of public benefits eventually brings a strong commitment to the new technology. What we need to do with neurotechnology, as with any other, is learn to use it responsibly.
Everyone should read this book from the MIT press. You might even find that you agree with some of it, if you read the whole book.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
While we're discussing human beings, you know, Ahnimus, that human beings are supposedly addicted to their thoughts. And also that they find conflicting thoughts from others to be discordant, and they experience dissonance. You know that applies to you. So to, at the same time, consider yourself scientific and objective given the conflicting nature existing within you is also a hypocritical view. No one is perfect. And frankly no one is better or worse.
Do you have an example, or is this just another assent to an unfounded claim?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Unfortunately, psychologically speaking, the whole problem is that humans deny aspects of themselves which don't fit their ego idea of who they are, and thusly, they block off parts of themselves which then operate unconsciously and beyond their own awareness. Integration is about the willingness to own all parts of one's self, not just the parts that are logically (or morally) acceptable.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Unfortunately, psychologically speaking, the whole problem is that humans deny aspects of themselves which don't fit their ego idea of who they are, and thusly, they block off parts of themselves which then operate unconsciously and beyond their own awareness. Integration is about the willingness to own all parts of one's self, not just the parts that are logically (or morally) acceptable.
So, no, you don't have any examples. Rather you are making a claim about my "Self" to which you have no introspective capacity. Forget about claiming that an apple is red, here you are assenting to a claim you have no sense of. You are asserting that I have internal conflicts, which only I would know, unless you can show behaviorally that I have exhibited conflict. In which case you would be practicing Behaviorism. Wouldn't that be ironic?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So, no, you don't have any examples. Rather you are making a claim about my "Self" to which you have no introspective capacity. Forget about claiming that an apple is red, here you are assenting to a claim you have no sense of. You are asserting that I have internal conflicts, which only I would know, unless you can show behaviorally that I have exhibitid conflict. In which case you would be practicing Behaviorism. Wouldn't that be ironic?
Ahnimus, you know those psychological tests that they give people and how they weave in the "truth" questions that indicate whether the person is lying or not....For example, when they ask "have you ever lied before?". So if/when the person answers "no", they know it's a lie, due to basic human awareness. The same goes for inner conflict and contradiction. If you are denying it, you are denying it to yourself. We can see the conflict--you act out unconsciously (to yourself) but overtly to us, all over the board. Just as you can see my conflicts. These are known human traits. Period. You're welcome to keep up the facade and the denial, though.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahnimus, you know those psychological tests that they give people and how they weave in the "truth" questions that indicate whether the person is lying or not....For example, when they ask "have you ever lied before?". So if/when the person answers "no", they know it's a lie, due to basic human awareness. The same goes for inner conflict and contradiction. If you are denying it, you are denying it to yourself. We can see the conflict--you act out unconsciously (to yourself) but overtly to us, all over the board. Just as you can see my conflicts. These are known human traits. Period. You're welcome to keep up the facade and the denial, though.
I'm just asking you for an observational example. I'm also pointing out the fact thus such inferences are the brain-child of B.F. Skinner and Behaviorism.
You are referring to the lie-detector test here, which as I understand tests galvanic skin response and EEG. Both of which are rather unreliable methods of lie-detection and hence why it is rarely admissable in court. It takes a very well trained physician to properly analyze GSR and EEG results.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm just asking you for an observational example. I'm also pointing out the fact thus such inferences are the brain-child of B.F. Skinner and Behaviorism.
You are referring to the lie-detector test here, which as I understand tests galvanic skin response and EEG. Both of which are rather unreliable methods of lie-detection and hence why it is rarely admissable in court. It takes a very well trained physician to properly analyze GSR and EEG results.
No I am not referring to a lie detector test. I'm referring to the psychological tests spoken about frequently in true crime books. Written tests.
Observational examples....let's just say I'll leave that one alone....... Just trust that people can see the contradictions, conflicts, etc that you deny to yourself. Do you think you are the only one to see it in others?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
No I am not referring to a lie detector test. I'm referring to the psychological tests spoken about frequently in true crime books. Written tests.
Even more unreliable. Darren Brown might get away with it in his editted for TV illusionist pranks. But I doubt that it is used much in any field. Body-Language experts or Kinesiologists might be called in from time to time for criminal investigation, but this is referred to as circumstantial evidence, no smoking gun.
Observational examples....let's just say I'll leave that one alone....... Just trust that people can see the contradictions, conflicts, etc that you deny to yourself. Do you think you are the only one to see it in others?
No, I don't think so. There should be a distinction made between a change of opinion, or paradigm shift, and a directly hypocritical view. I think, the wise thing to do, is to acknowledge specific "conflicts" and work to resolve them. Difficult to do without an awareness of them, which makes observational examples critical in progression. Of course, there is always the option of externalizing that conflict by making the claim that everyone else is also in "conflict".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Even more unreliable. Darren Brown might get away with it in his editted for TV illusionist pranks. But I doubt that it is used much in any field. Body-Language experts or Kinesiologists might be called in from time to time for criminal investigation, but this is referred to as circumstantial evidence, no smoking gun.
You doubt it, so it must not exist....
I've read literally 100's of true crime books, and interestingly the same test was mentioned in numerou s (at least 20) of these books, many times explaining the "lying" control aspect of the test that the test-taker was unaware of. The point is that a human who says they've never lied is a liar.
and I'm talking about a directly hypocritical view.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I've read literally 100's of true crime books, and interestingly the same test was mentioned in numerou s (at least 20) of these books, many times explaining the "lying" control aspect of the test that the test-taker was unaware of. The point is that a human who says they've never lied is a liar.
and I'm talking about a directly hypocritical view.
I don't see how that is relevant. I've never claimed that I've never lied, nor have I claimed that I've never been a hypocrit. But it's not a question of my distant past, it's a question of my current state. You usually try to force us into talking about what IS and totally ignoring the past. But here and in this thread, you are asking us to do the opposite. Ignore what IS and focus on the past.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't see how that is relevant. I've never claimed that I've never lied, nor have I claimed that I've never been a hypocrit. But it's not a question of my distant past, it's a question of my current state. You usually try to force us into talking about what IS and totally ignoring the past. But here and in this thread, you are asking us to do the opposite. Ignore what IS and focus on the past.
It's clear you are not seeing the power imbalances that myself and others see in psychiatry. To each their own.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's clear you are not seeing the power imbalances that myself and others see in psychiatry. To each their own.
By saying that there are imbalances in psychiatry, does that make you imbalanced, based on the premise set forth in post 97?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
There is a difference between acknowledging a state of affairs, for example someone experiencing delusions, or experiencing pyschosis, and with adding a degrading element of lowering someone or putting them down, or using power plays.
And likewise there is a difference between holding psychiatry accountable for the power plays put forth in the name of the profession, and between degrading psychiatry.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
To elaborate, if I say I am a victim and have been a victim of psychiatry, I am taking the victim role of the "victim/rescuer/persecutor" triangle. Then I automatically and unconsciously will cycle through the other stages. i.e.: I will feel like a victim and think it give me the right to then persecute psychiatry and it's practitioners, thusly being persecutory.
On the other hand, according to power issues of transactional analysis, it's always okay to consider someone or thing to be equal and call them on their behaviour if not done in a degrading, or exalting manner.
I do not claim victimhood to anyone or anything. I don't claim I ever was a victim to psychiatry. I fully participated in the system at all stages of the game while I did so. I was a full equal in the process. And I still call it and it's practitioners on their behaviours. Note when I mentioned in this thread that I've been committed falsely against my will. Even in that situation while I hold those accountable for doing so, I don't blame anyone, or feel like I was a victim, nor did I imply that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
To elaborate, if I say I am a victim and have been a victim of psychiatry, I am taking the victim role of the "victim/rescuer/persecutor" triangle. Then I automatically and unconsciously will cycle through the other stages. i.e.: I will feel like a victim and think it give me the right to then persecute psychiatry and it's practitioners, thusly being persecutory.
On the other hand, according to power issues of transactional analysis, it's always okay to consider someone or thing to be equal and call them on their behaviour if not done in a degrading, or exalting manner.
I do not claim victimhood to anyone or anything. I don't claim I ever was a victim to psychiatry. I fully participated in the system at all stages of the game while I did so. I was a full equal in the process. And I still call it and it's practitioners on their behaviours. Note when I mentioned in this thread that I've been committed falsely against my will. Even in that situation while I hold those accountable for doing so, I don't blame anyone, or feel like I was a victim, nor did I imply that.
Angelica. I've also been falsely admitted against my will. It didn't do me any harm, and by exhibiting normal behavior, I was released after two weeks. On the contrary, I was able to meet with real mentally ill people. A paranoid schizophrenic named Steve who was there by his own deliberation. I became friends with him, on occasion Steve would admit himself to the psychiatric ward for assistance. He functioned well with the help of pharmacological aid.
I'm the first one to suggest that ADHD is overdiagnosed and overmedicated. But that alone isn't reason enough for me to lobby against pyschiatry. Rather, it's a reason for me to stay informed and to support the education of the public on mental health. Rather, I support the increase of funding of psychiatry.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Angelica. I've also been falsely admitted against my will. It didn't do me any harm, and by exhibiting normal behavior, I was released after two weeks. On the contrary, I was able to meet with real mentally ill people. A paranoid schizophrenic named Steve who was there by his own deliberation. I became friends with him, on occasion Steve would admit himself to the psychiatric ward for assistance. He functioned well with the help of pharmacological aid.
I'm the first one to suggest that ADHD is overdiagnosed and overmedicated. But that alone isn't reason enough for me to lobby against pyschiatry. Rather, it's a reason for me to stay informed and to support the education of the public on mental health. Rather, I support the increase of funding of psychiatry.
Everything has a dark side, including psychiatry and it's fair to address it.
The problem with being committed, especially falsely!, against one's will is it's a huge power thing. It's an abuse of power. Again, I understand the situations where I was committed against my will, and all the variables involved that I've barely even held those involved accountable, and certainly not with anger. And my hospitalizations were some of the best experiences of my life, ironically.
As for the "imbalance" stuff you've been throwing at me these past few pages, I did not understand what you were getting at, until my prior two posts. The words I said in post 97 I said thinking of a professional minimizing a patient. My choice of the word "imbalanced" was not a good choice, given that word, or the word "delusions" etc. can be neutral and useful words. The problem comes in when they are used to keep one out of power, for example, in order to "convince" (coerce) a patient to take meds when they are not comfortable with the idea. When information is slanted to stack the decks against the patient that is unethical and has consequences of an imbalanced situation. Someone pays the price, and someone dodges their rightful ownership of a power play.
I fully realize that often/mostly these imbalances of power take place unconsciously. The people acting out power imbalances whether victim, or rescuer are opposite sides of the same coin and will come together naturally, without blame being relevent. In the case of psychiatry and other authoritarian situations, it is stacked in the odds of the "rescuer", in terms of being socially acceptable. Just like a workaholic married to an alcoholic gets the credit for being the "functional one" when really they are both contributing to the imbalance present. It's about our general level of awareness at this time. And our social "norms". For this reason, I support any movements that takes steps towards evening the playing field. I don't subscribe to anti-pyschiatry at all, and I never have. However the points in the videos needn't be swept under the rug and dismissed so easily. And I am soooo fortunate to have been through the mental health system after those like Thomas Szasz and Eric Berne added their two cents of holding psychiatry accountable.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I understand why you are taking the position you are though. Your behavior is characteristic of someone with mental health issues. You carry on conversations with yourself, make totally irrelevant, yet provocative statements and you get a kick out of antagonizing people into a useless arguement. Sounds like you need some Fluoxetine bud.
I didn't start with the petty insults. I've never had a problem with you. I do think your posts nowadays are 99.9% boring googled BS. But when I do dare to bother with them, I've been finding, lately, it seems as though you are trying to come across as a sort of self-appointed messiah of science on this board. You can no more speak for science than Jerry Falwell can speak for God, and it makes you both look ridiculous.
So, keep on making an ass out of yourself. No skin off my back.
There is a difference between acknowledging a state of affairs, for example someone experiencing delusions, or experiencing pyschosis, and with adding a degrading element of lowering someone or putting them down, or using power plays.
And likewise there is a difference between holding psychiatry accountable for the power plays put forth in the name of the profession, and between degrading psychiatry.
I know I said I was done with this conversation, but I can't help myself.
Angelica in the instance of someone experiencing delusions or psychosis, what other option is there than to exhert power over them in their best interest? In such a situation, if the pysician were to ask the patient permission to treat them, the patient would most likely decline because of the delusion and psychosis. So if forcing the patient to comply isn't acceptable to you, what should the doctors, family, friends do?
"When you're climbing to the top, you'd better know the way back down" MSB
I know I said I was done with this conversation, but I can't help myself.
Angelica in the instance of someone experiencing delusions or psychosis, what other option is there than to exhert power over them in their best interest? In such a situation, if the pysician were to ask the patient permission to treat them, the patient would most likely decline because of the delusion and psychosis. So if forcing the patient to comply isn't acceptable to you, what should the doctors, family, friends do?
They could become the leader of a new holocaust. Nobody stopped Hitler and clearly he was mentally ill.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I know I said I was done with this conversation, but I can't help myself.
Angelica in the instance of someone experiencing delusions or psychosis, what other option is there than to exhert power over them in their best interest? In such a situation, if the pysician were to ask the patient permission to treat them, the patient would most likely decline because of the delusion and psychosis. So if forcing the patient to comply isn't acceptable to you, what should the doctors, family, friends do?
I understand there are many tough questions in terms of mental health issues. In my personal opinion, I would probably think differently than what I advocate for professional policy. Ultimately, I can say for the sake of the argument, I understand the sometimes questionable choices that are made when someone is unable to think for themselves due to active mental illness. Including the sometimes questionable choices people made on my behalf, when I was actively mentally imbalanced. Choices I know were made in my best interests, and for example, afforded me the ability to keep my children, unlike some who were less fortunate and lost custody of their children.
At the same time, I can understand the human rights issues and that such standards cannot be lowered. So I understand why, in Canada, at least, we cannot force treatment on someone unless they are a harm to themselves and or to others. And as far as my own role in the mental health arena, I am always supportive, which includes supporting all manner of things I disagree with personally, unless a person is a danger to themselves or to others.
My concerns that I am referring to regarding psychiatry in general, and throughout this thread are not about what happens in crises. My concerns are how people with a "mental illness" are treated "normally". What I mean is when illness is not manifest, or active. People are STILL pathologized. Their ability to choose for themselves is STILL questioned. For example, it's okay to say things like "mentally ill people are practicing transference, etc" or "they can't choose for themselves" or "they are not making rational choices". These comments are stereotypes, and generalizations, and apply to all kinds of so-called "normal" people. My mother was ostracized, pressured and coerced constantly through her life for her decision made over and over and over during periods of INACTIVITY of illness, to not take psychiatric medication. In crisis it was easy to convince her to take meds (at the hospital, not at home) The power issues are ongoing in interactions all the time, once someone knows about the psychiatric past.
If you had thought I was a mental health professional, and did not know my past as a patient as well, you would not have opted to tell me I am diseased and always will be. This type of thing is prevalent, and because of it I live to reverse stigma and raise awareness. I mean I literally live to do this. I decided a long time ago that I would heal and get empowered so I could change the myriad imbalances of power stacked against individuals who are struggling to get their footing, and need a supportive environment in order to thrive.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My concerns that I am referring to regarding psychiatry in general, and throughout this thread are not about what happens in crises. My concerns are how people with a "mental illness" are treated "normally". What I mean is when illness is not manifest, or active. People are STILL pathologized. Their ability to choose for themselves is STILL questioned. For example, it's okay to say things like "mentally ill people are practicing transference, etc" or "they can't choose for themselves" or "they are not making rational choices".
This is the attitude that I simply do not understand from you and other "groups" or "advocates" who run with such a concept.
In the field of mental health, the goal of the practitioner is to get the patient to a point of self sufficency. Not a single colleague that I have ever known or read has promoted otherwise. It simply isn't the concept of Psychiatry as a whole to "keep the patient down."
The most important ethical qualities of medicine is "first do no harm". So to accuse doctors of the mind as getting their jollies by making zombies or victims of their patients is ludicrious.
The only time these comments that you fear are uttered is when the patient is indeed displaying such qualities.
"When you're climbing to the top, you'd better know the way back down" MSB
Comments
Did you know the moon landing never happened?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Angelica, your whole philosophy is hypocritical. I'll find the statement here where you said "If someone calls you imbalanced, they are imbalanced". Talk about a self-refuting statement. Not to mention that the person who claims others are "imbalanced" the most, is you.
If you honestly believe that, then you should take a page from OutOfBreath and not assent to any claims. Save yourself from the hypocracy of your current philosophy.
A brief look at the posts where you have used the term "imbalanced" mostly directing the allegation at an individual.
http://forums.pearljam.com/search.php?searchid=1684169&pp=25
Case in point
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The following few paragraphs outlines the advancements in brain imaging techniques I mentioned earlier. fMRI, MEG, how they work and the pros and cons of them.
Everyone should read this book from the MIT press. You might even find that you agree with some of it, if you read the whole book.
Do you have an example, or is this just another assent to an unfounded claim?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So, no, you don't have any examples. Rather you are making a claim about my "Self" to which you have no introspective capacity. Forget about claiming that an apple is red, here you are assenting to a claim you have no sense of. You are asserting that I have internal conflicts, which only I would know, unless you can show behaviorally that I have exhibited conflict. In which case you would be practicing Behaviorism. Wouldn't that be ironic?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm just asking you for an observational example. I'm also pointing out the fact thus such inferences are the brain-child of B.F. Skinner and Behaviorism.
You are referring to the lie-detector test here, which as I understand tests galvanic skin response and EEG. Both of which are rather unreliable methods of lie-detection and hence why it is rarely admissable in court. It takes a very well trained physician to properly analyze GSR and EEG results.
Observational examples....let's just say I'll leave that one alone....... Just trust that people can see the contradictions, conflicts, etc that you deny to yourself. Do you think you are the only one to see it in others?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
but...but...i saw the film footage.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Even more unreliable. Darren Brown might get away with it in his editted for TV illusionist pranks. But I doubt that it is used much in any field. Body-Language experts or Kinesiologists might be called in from time to time for criminal investigation, but this is referred to as circumstantial evidence, no smoking gun.
No, I don't think so. There should be a distinction made between a change of opinion, or paradigm shift, and a directly hypocritical view. I think, the wise thing to do, is to acknowledge specific "conflicts" and work to resolve them. Difficult to do without an awareness of them, which makes observational examples critical in progression. Of course, there is always the option of externalizing that conflict by making the claim that everyone else is also in "conflict".
I've read literally 100's of true crime books, and interestingly the same test was mentioned in numerou s (at least 20) of these books, many times explaining the "lying" control aspect of the test that the test-taker was unaware of. The point is that a human who says they've never lied is a liar.
and I'm talking about a directly hypocritical view.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't see how that is relevant. I've never claimed that I've never lied, nor have I claimed that I've never been a hypocrit. But it's not a question of my distant past, it's a question of my current state. You usually try to force us into talking about what IS and totally ignoring the past. But here and in this thread, you are asking us to do the opposite. Ignore what IS and focus on the past.
It's clear you are not seeing the power imbalances that myself and others see in psychiatry. To each their own.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
By saying that there are imbalances in psychiatry, does that make you imbalanced, based on the premise set forth in post 97?
And likewise there is a difference between holding psychiatry accountable for the power plays put forth in the name of the profession, and between degrading psychiatry.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
On the other hand, according to power issues of transactional analysis, it's always okay to consider someone or thing to be equal and call them on their behaviour if not done in a degrading, or exalting manner.
I do not claim victimhood to anyone or anything. I don't claim I ever was a victim to psychiatry. I fully participated in the system at all stages of the game while I did so. I was a full equal in the process. And I still call it and it's practitioners on their behaviours. Note when I mentioned in this thread that I've been committed falsely against my will. Even in that situation while I hold those accountable for doing so, I don't blame anyone, or feel like I was a victim, nor did I imply that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Angelica. I've also been falsely admitted against my will. It didn't do me any harm, and by exhibiting normal behavior, I was released after two weeks. On the contrary, I was able to meet with real mentally ill people. A paranoid schizophrenic named Steve who was there by his own deliberation. I became friends with him, on occasion Steve would admit himself to the psychiatric ward for assistance. He functioned well with the help of pharmacological aid.
I'm the first one to suggest that ADHD is overdiagnosed and overmedicated. But that alone isn't reason enough for me to lobby against pyschiatry. Rather, it's a reason for me to stay informed and to support the education of the public on mental health. Rather, I support the increase of funding of psychiatry.
The problem with being committed, especially falsely!, against one's will is it's a huge power thing. It's an abuse of power. Again, I understand the situations where I was committed against my will, and all the variables involved that I've barely even held those involved accountable, and certainly not with anger. And my hospitalizations were some of the best experiences of my life, ironically.
As for the "imbalance" stuff you've been throwing at me these past few pages, I did not understand what you were getting at, until my prior two posts. The words I said in post 97 I said thinking of a professional minimizing a patient. My choice of the word "imbalanced" was not a good choice, given that word, or the word "delusions" etc. can be neutral and useful words. The problem comes in when they are used to keep one out of power, for example, in order to "convince" (coerce) a patient to take meds when they are not comfortable with the idea. When information is slanted to stack the decks against the patient that is unethical and has consequences of an imbalanced situation. Someone pays the price, and someone dodges their rightful ownership of a power play.
I fully realize that often/mostly these imbalances of power take place unconsciously. The people acting out power imbalances whether victim, or rescuer are opposite sides of the same coin and will come together naturally, without blame being relevent. In the case of psychiatry and other authoritarian situations, it is stacked in the odds of the "rescuer", in terms of being socially acceptable. Just like a workaholic married to an alcoholic gets the credit for being the "functional one" when really they are both contributing to the imbalance present. It's about our general level of awareness at this time. And our social "norms". For this reason, I support any movements that takes steps towards evening the playing field. I don't subscribe to anti-pyschiatry at all, and I never have. However the points in the videos needn't be swept under the rug and dismissed so easily. And I am soooo fortunate to have been through the mental health system after those like Thomas Szasz and Eric Berne added their two cents of holding psychiatry accountable.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So, keep on making an ass out of yourself. No skin off my back.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Angelica in the instance of someone experiencing delusions or psychosis, what other option is there than to exhert power over them in their best interest? In such a situation, if the pysician were to ask the patient permission to treat them, the patient would most likely decline because of the delusion and psychosis. So if forcing the patient to comply isn't acceptable to you, what should the doctors, family, friends do?
They could become the leader of a new holocaust. Nobody stopped Hitler and clearly he was mentally ill.
At the same time, I can understand the human rights issues and that such standards cannot be lowered. So I understand why, in Canada, at least, we cannot force treatment on someone unless they are a harm to themselves and or to others. And as far as my own role in the mental health arena, I am always supportive, which includes supporting all manner of things I disagree with personally, unless a person is a danger to themselves or to others.
My concerns that I am referring to regarding psychiatry in general, and throughout this thread are not about what happens in crises. My concerns are how people with a "mental illness" are treated "normally". What I mean is when illness is not manifest, or active. People are STILL pathologized. Their ability to choose for themselves is STILL questioned. For example, it's okay to say things like "mentally ill people are practicing transference, etc" or "they can't choose for themselves" or "they are not making rational choices". These comments are stereotypes, and generalizations, and apply to all kinds of so-called "normal" people. My mother was ostracized, pressured and coerced constantly through her life for her decision made over and over and over during periods of INACTIVITY of illness, to not take psychiatric medication. In crisis it was easy to convince her to take meds (at the hospital, not at home) The power issues are ongoing in interactions all the time, once someone knows about the psychiatric past.
If you had thought I was a mental health professional, and did not know my past as a patient as well, you would not have opted to tell me I am diseased and always will be. This type of thing is prevalent, and because of it I live to reverse stigma and raise awareness. I mean I literally live to do this. I decided a long time ago that I would heal and get empowered so I could change the myriad imbalances of power stacked against individuals who are struggling to get their footing, and need a supportive environment in order to thrive.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
In the field of mental health, the goal of the practitioner is to get the patient to a point of self sufficency. Not a single colleague that I have ever known or read has promoted otherwise. It simply isn't the concept of Psychiatry as a whole to "keep the patient down."
The most important ethical qualities of medicine is "first do no harm". So to accuse doctors of the mind as getting their jollies by making zombies or victims of their patients is ludicrious.
The only time these comments that you fear are uttered is when the patient is indeed displaying such qualities.