1 in 5 Young Adults Have Personality Disorder, Study Finds

[Baby Nemesis]

I hate to be a killjoy, but with so much gobbledegook plaguing the field of clinical psychology these days, I simply don't have the time, energy, or effort to waste anymore reading these grandiose-sounding "get better now" type books unless direct studies exist that have survived critical scrutiny by strong research-minded scientist-practitioners (not just cobbled references to other people's work supporting armchair flights of fancy).

I had never heard of these therapists or the "Human Givens" approach before, so I tried searching for different key words and these authors' names through my university's psychology search engines. The result: not a single peer-reviewed publication came up under these people or this particular approach.

Have these guys ever operationalized any of their ideas or offered any testable hypotheses?

I did find this website, though, which set off the B.S. alarm in my head in more than one area: http://www.hgi.org.uk/archive/psychosis.htm

The schizophrenia section in particular seemed rife with wildly speculative departures from a tiny number of cherry-picked studies with no references or citations of any kind.

While I don't think that positive psychology is complete bollocks, I think some of this teeters on instillation of false hope (e.g., "Enormous savings could be made if those using less effective counselling and psychotherapy methodology were trained so that they could act quickly to stop stress, anxiety and depression triggering major breakdowns in those genetically predisposed to developing psychosis").

I would recommend the following books by these excellent clinical researchers whose high quality work has fared very well through the peer-review wringer for many, many years (there are many more, but here's a good start):

Anxiety Disorders and Phobias: A Cognitive Perspective by Aaron Beck, Gary Emery, and Ruth Greenberg

Mastery of Your Anxiety and Worry: Workbook (Treatments That Work) by Michelle G. Craske and David H. Barlow

Cognitive Therapy of Depression (The Guilford Clinical Psychology and Psychopathology Series) by Aaron T. Beck, A. John Rush, Brian F. Shaw, and Gary Emery

Mastering Depression through Interpersonal Psychotherapy: Patient Workbook (Treatments That Work) by Myrna W. Weissman

Social Skills Training for Schizophrenia, Second Edition: A Step-by-Step Guide (TREATMENT MANUALS FOR PRACTITIONERS) by Alan S. Bellack, Kim T. Mueser, Susan Gingerich, and Julie Agresta

Clinical Handbook of Psychological Disorders, Fourth Edition: A Step-by-Step Treatment Manual by David H. Barlow

The books are actually very detailed, with lots of ideas. They're not just flimsy little things offering overnight fixes.

The authors actually run a college in England, Mindfields College, and do seminars around the country; and a lot of professionals from the health and social services are paid by their organisations to attend. It's a fairly new approach, but they run a diploma course, and in fact their approach is being taken up by the National Health Service, who are investing in their style of therapy in some places. See: Articles on mental health services, CBT, the NHS and effective psychotherapy.

It's true that some of their ideas seem a bit speculative and possibly way-out, such as their views on autism. But the books I mentioned by them are full of good practical common-sense stuff, despite the hype in the titles.

One of their claims is that their approach can be a shortcut around cognitive behavioural therapy, because while CBT makes people use their intellect to change their thinking patterns, mental problems are generally problems of emotions; you can know your thinking is irrational when you're feeling calm; the problem is that when you're emotionally worked up, you can't think clearly, so the CBT approach becomes difficult. So they recommend people do relaxation techniques to calm themselves down before they try doing it, and then it'll come more easily. It's been argued, however, that while originally, CBT may have focused too much on merely changing intellectual thinking patterns, nowadays, it does incorporate relaxation techniques, and a lot of other newer things. Thus, it's been claimed that the Human Givens approach isn't really new and revolutionary, as claimed, but utilises techniques already being used in modern CBT.

Research projects are getting underway as to the efficacy of the Human Givens approach, and it is already in demand by councils and other professional bodies. See: Latest News.

 

[Kopji]

I am not part of the Church of Scientology, nor, as far as I know, is any of the two professors that speak in the videos.
Randi also, like Scientology, claims that there maybe is life in the Universe.
Does this make him a Scientologist?

It does make you a scientologist propagandist. You promote Scientology by using their material and their representatives. If mental illness is a myth, what am I to call someone who promotes themselves as an expert on the subject? (a priest?)

I do not mean to imply that everything from Scientology is wrong; they do excel at syncretism - to borrow teachings from various religious and philosophical traditions and repackage them as if they were new ideas.

As for the other link, I just would like to ask you if the damage in the brain can be the consequence and not the cause of so-called schizophrenia, also considering that many so-called schizophrenics get treated with many drugs..

This thinking seems like conspiracy theory, but instead of shadowy 911 operatives we have cabals of psychiatrists and big Pharma existing only to make themselves rich off of healthy people.

The brain is an organ just like a heart or lungs. Because we think with it, it can cause what we call mental illness when it is not healthy.

"Self help" books - you can probably get more help from reading Epictetus.

The woo is strong here.

 

[Iconoclast08]

Baby Nemesis:

The "articles" you linked to in a previous post were not really "articles" but blurbs on the Human Givens website (along with a link to a video by the authors) without any references or evidence of peer-review by licensed clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, or research-scientists of any ilk. I can't help but remain strongly skeptical of any proponent of whatever novel idea, conceptualization, or framework pertaining to therapy or mental illness who either refuses or is loathe to subject their ideas to critical evaluation in the actual research literature. Like I said, I did several searches, and absolutely nothing came up.

Perhaps I missed something. Would you please type out some direct references or provide links to some articles in peer-reviewed mental health journals? And this does NOT include books. Anyone can publish a book, even Dr. Phil.

I am sure that I am not alone in being skeptical of armchair musings on a website, which suspiciously contains no external references to the research literature directly testing operationalized hypotheses.

The books are actually very detailed, with lots of ideas. They're not just flimsy little things offering overnight fixes.

Many books are detailed. Many books have lots of ideas. Lots of books sound sexy and may make a lot of "intuitive" sense, but that just isn't enough for me. The problem is quantity of ideas and level of detail do not always relate to quality, usefulness, or accuracy of ideas or detail. The $exiness factor is the rea$on that the general public buy$ their book$.

The authors actually run a college in England, Mindfields College, and do seminars around the country; and a lot of professionals from the health and social services are paid by their organisations to attend. It's a fairly new approach, but they run a diploma course, and in fact their approach is being taken up by the National Health Service, who are investing in their style of therapy in some places. See: Articles on mental health services, CBT, the NHS and effective psychotherapy.

Bolding mine. I've thought up a new paradigm fusing CBT with Kabbala and Star Trek. It's a fairly new approach, but I'll offer a diploma to anyone who wants to pay me. Humorously flippant, but you get my drift with regards to your logic here.

I visited both sites. The "Mindfield" site sent off more B.S. bells, especially with the big blue quote on the first page:

"This human givens approach is new to me but it makes such perfect sense." ~PSYCHIATRIC NURSE

Sorry there, sister. I'm gonna need more than that.

There are numerous diploma mill colleges like this that take people's hard-earned money left and right without firm evidence that their approach is any better than traditional CBT/behavioral modification approaches. Most of them offer social work or counseling-type Masters degrees. The site just seems like a sexy repackaging of a few legitimate ideas (and lots of bad ones) cobbled together with a re-heated humanistic flair and pictures of enrollees with enthralled facial expressions. For some reason, the fields of social work and counseling are falling harder for woo than ever before. Just look at the "spirituality" literature in social work and psychiatric nursing journals and see what I mean (e.g., serious discussions about how to measure "soul growth", whatever the eff that means).

Does one have to pay to attend a seminar before actually learning what they mean when they claim that their ideas and skills derive from the "latest psychological knowledge and insights derived from scientific research"?

It's true that some of their ideas seem a bit speculative and possibly way-out, such as their views on autism. But the books I mentioned by them are full of good practical common-sense stuff, despite the hype in the titles.

It may feel like common sense to you and the psychiatric nurse who was quoted on the website, but is that really enough? Where's the evidence backing the common sense?

One of their claims is that their approach can be a shortcut around cognitive behavioural therapy, because while CBT makes people use their intellect to change their thinking patterns, mental problems are generally problems of emotions; you can know your thinking is irrational when you're feeling calm; the problem is that when you're emotionally worked up, you can't think clearly, so the CBT approach becomes difficult. So they recommend people do relaxation techniques to calm themselves down before they try doing it, and then it'll come more easily. It's been argued, however, that while originally, CBT may have focused too much on merely changing intellectual thinking patterns, nowadays, it does incorporate relaxation techniques, and a lot of other newer things. Thus, it's been claimed that the Human Givens approach isn't really new and revolutionary, as claimed, but utilises techniques already being used in modern CBT.

Agreed. It isn't new. And CBT approaches these days don't ignore emotions, at least not the sound CBT approaches. But I'm sorry. This human givens thing is just another expen$ive, trite repackaging of a few sound ideas with a heaping dose of nonsense and armchair theorizing with no evidence that their approach is any sounder or more effective than any other. Occam's Razor nicely dispenses with all the unnecessary fluff.

Research projects are getting underway as to the efficacy of the Human Givens approach, and it is already in demand by councils and other professional bodies. See: Latest News.

Maybe they should stop charging for their workshops and degrees until they have some data, then. Would make a nice blurb on their website. "Research projects are underway as to the efficacy of the Human Givens approach". Translation: no evidence yet.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

It does make you a scientologist propagandist. You promote Scientology by using their material and their representatives. If mental illness is a myth, what am I to call someone who promotes themselves as an expert on the subject? (a priest?)

I do not mean to imply that everything from Scientology is wrong; they do excel at syncretism - to borrow teachings from various religious and philosophical traditions and repackage them as if they were new ideas.



This thinking seems like conspiracy theory, but instead of shadowy 911 operatives we have cabals of psychiatrists and big Pharma existing only to make themselves rich off of healthy people.

The brain is an organ just like a heart or lungs. Because we think with it, it can cause what we call mental illness when it is not healthy.

"Self help" books - you can probably get more help from reading Epictetus.

The woo is strong here.

It isn't going to help your cause to take a position at the extreme polar opposite of that of the videos and other things said here.

The brain isn't the kind of organ where once it's developed, it won't change unless it's damaged by something pathological. The chemical balance in the brain alters all the time, and a chemical balance altered by stress, for example, could be classified as damage, but won't necessarily need a drug to fix it.

For example, from an article called Blood Pressure Drug May Curb Brain Damage From Alzheimer's, Depression And Schizophrenia by ScienceDaily:

... Scientists believe stress activates a neurochemical response in the brain that triggers the release of glucocorticoids in the brain, and that high levels of glucocorticoids in blood serum are associated with such psychiatric conditions as schizophrenia, depression, PTSD [Post traumatic stress disorder] and Alzheimer's disease. This mechanism
has been linked to decreases in cognitive performance in older people who are not suffering from clinical dementia.

"Our hypothesis is that just being afraid of being blown up all the time means you have high levels of steroids all the time," Berger said, referring to PTSD among military personnel.

Low levels of glucocorticoids have anti-inflammatory effects in the brain, but high levels can trigger inflammatory mechanisms that damage nerve cells by activating an enzyme that causes oxidative stress. Even a single exposure to a high dose of glucocorticoids can be sufficient to damage nerve cells: A
previous study showed synthetic glucocorticoid therapy to treat autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis can induce mood disorders, including psychosis, and cognitive impairment known as "steroid dementia" in severe forms. ...

For one thing, to suggest that anyone claiming drugs could cause brain damage is talking "woo" is just not scientific, as illustrated by the article.

And from an article called The Causes of Schizophrenia:

Experts now agree that schizophrenia develops as a result of interplay between biological predisposition (for example, inheriting certain genes) and the kind of environment a person is exposed to. These lines of research are converging: brain development disruption is now known to be the result of genetic predisposition and environmental stressors early in development (during pregnancy or early childhood), leading to subtle alterations in the brain that make a person susceptible to developing schizophrenia. Environmental factors later
in life (during early childhood and adolescence) can either damage the brain further and thereby increase the risk of schizophrenia, or lessen the expression of genetic or neurodevelopmental defects and decrease the risk of schizophrenia. In fact experts now say that schizophrenia (and all other mental illness)
is caused by a combination of biological, psychological and social factors, and this understanding of mental illness is called the bio-psycho-social model.

Your position would seem to be that notwithstanding the multi-factorial causes of the exacerbation of such conditions, the only solution is medication, rather than also protecting yourself from things in the environment that might worsen your symptoms - things you could get advice about from a good self-help book.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

The "articles" you linked to in a previous post were not really "articles" but blurbs on the Human Givens website (along with a link to a video by the
authors) without any references or evidence of peer-review by licensed clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, or research-scientists of any ilk.

Only one of them was. The other one was on a "professional counselling" website. There may be a misunderstanding here, because you seem to think I gave Kaylee the links to them in order to prove the Human Givens approach is a good thing. But I wasn't posting because I was recommending the Human Givens approach. I merely linked to those articles, and the books beforehand, because I posted some information from them about conditions that they say can increase mental health, and which can help create the conditions where mental illness can develop if they are absent, and Kaylee asked me the source of the information. Maybe you didn't read the whole conversation or in particular, my initial post. So I will link to it so you can do so. Here it is. The claims in the post may not be peer-reviewed, but I would be a little surprised if there's anything in that post you can seriously object to. Here's some of what I said about what some psychologists claim are people's emotional needs:

• Security: The feeling that we have a safe territory around us, so we can live our lives without fear as far as possible, and enjoy privacy whenever we need to.

• Control: We need to feel as if we're in control of our lives and that we're free to make our own decisions about what we do in them, at least to some extent. They say the more interests and activities we're involved in, the more we can maintain that sense of control, because then, if someone loses control
of one part of their lives, for instance if they lose a job, they'll at least know they can determine what they do in other parts of their lives. ...

• Connection to the wider community: They say we need to feel as if we're part of something bigger than ourselves. That could include working for a cause
or charity, or being part of a team - anything that takes our focus off ourselves, and gives us a sense of belonging and purpose in life.

• They say we need to have a sense of competence or achievement: That'll make sure we don't suffer from low self-esteem. They say we can achieve this by
investigating and learning new things and improving the skills we already have. That will increase our sense of purpose in life, and make us more confident that we're reasonably talented so we can feel good about ourselves. ...

I started the post by saying,

Some psychologists think everyone has basic emotional needs that have to be met to a certain extent, at least sometimes in people's lives, for us to be mentally healthy, claiming that anyone who has them all met is a lot less likely to get mentally ill.

("Mentally ill" there is defined as the OP defines it, covering a broad range of conditions(.

It was the post that was put up for discussion, not the books. I linked Kaylee to the books and articles simply because she wanted to "read more" about the specific claims I'd made, so I gave her a way of verifying that I hadn't just made them up.

You may well say that just naming the books in response to her request for the source of my information was irresponsible if the approach they use hasn't been peer-reviewed. OK, let me give you an idea of the kinds of things in them, and perhaps you'd like to tell me if you think there's anything serious to worry about:

Here's a sample of what's in the book • How to Lift Depression ... Fast by Joe Griffin & Ivan Tyrrell with Denise Winn:

One of its big claims is that depression can be made worse in a big way by worrying a lot, partly since REM sleep is a way to discharge the emotions of the day so people can feel refreshed the next morning, but if there's too much emotion, the amount of REM sleep needed to discharge them will wear the person out, which is a reason why depressed people can feel so unmotivated and unenergetic in the mornings, and then sometimes feel better as the day goes on. A novel claim, certainly, though they point to research that was done that showed that depressed people surveyed felt less depressed in the morning after they were woken up when they went into REM sleep so they didn't have so much, and they also say anti-depressants diminish REM sleep which partly accounts for any success they have.

A novel claim though, perhaps. ... But what is their solution? Is it something dubious and new? ... No. It's the old old "Do relaxation techniques before you go to sleep and at other times during the day". An old old recommendation, probably made by psychologists for years, as are the actual relaxation techniques they suggest. Old recommendations, but since they're made along with all the other advice they give, conveniently packaged.

The rest of the book equally illustrates that there is nothing to worry about, and not much that is actually new in what they say. In fact, while they claim in the hype on their website that their approach is "new and revolutionary", they don't say that about many of their ideas. They claim their ideas are drawn from what has been proven to work in other schools of psychology. Instead of using one model of psychology and trying to fit clients into that, they claim to fit their approach to each individual client, taking what has been proven to work from other models as deemed appropriate for each one.

To give more examples from what's in the depression book:

• Old old cognitive behavioural techniques on stopping worrying;
• A recommendation to look for amusing things to lift the mood;
• Good old-fashioned recommendations on handling negative criticism;
• Well-known information on how some drugs, food, exercise and alcohol can affect the mood;
• A fresh and plausible twist on what is basically the conventional recommendation to think about what past associations trigger depression and do a few CBT techniques to break the pattern of how the reminder of something bad in the past triggers off current depression.

There are a few more issues covered, some of them self-help recommendations, and a part on professional help. In that part, for example, the book talks about how for less motivated people, or for people with particular problems like trauma, therapy might be best. It goes into detail about one trauma-relieving technique called the "rewind technique". It was adapted from a neuro-linguistic programming technique, and is quite widely known now. You can look it up. It basically involves talking someone into deep relaxation, and then asking them to imagine part of their trauma is being played on a television screen and they're watching someone watching it. This double disassociation from it, along with the relaxation, makes it far, far less stressful to be re-exposed to the trauma in order to get it out of the system than the horrible conventional counselling techniques of prompting people to re-live it without the aid of any of that, which can re-traumatise them.

If you'd like to look into all this, and then come back to me if you suspect any of it can have harmful side effects, I'll be interested in taking what you say on board. But I very much doubt you'll find anything to worry about.

I can't help but remain strongly skeptical of any proponent of whatever novel idea, conceptualization, or framework pertaining to therapy or mental illness who either refuses or is loathe to subject their ideas to critical evaluation in the actual research literature.

An admirable and proper sentiment. Thankfully, here you have nothing to worry about, since A. they actually encourage research into the efficacy of their techniques, and research is this very day being carried out; see, for example, The HGI Research Practice Network; and B. though they do propose a few new things, I re-iterate that the bulk of what they do, as per their claims, is to take already-existing techniques from different psychological models of practice, and draw them together to fit each individual person as they deem appropriate. You may have been misled by all the hype on their website. They go severely overboard on that. But in fact much of what they do isn't that different from what other therapists do, because many therapists, though they may have been trained in one specific therapy technique, don't stick to one theoretical model of treatment, but use differing techniques according to what they perceive the needs of the particular client they're treating at the time to be.

Many books are detailed. Many books have lots of ideas. Lots of books sound sexy and may make a lot of "intuitive" sense, but that just isn't enough for
me. The problem is quantity of ideas and level of detail do not always relate to quality, usefulness, or accuracy of ideas or detail. The $exiness factor is the rea$on that the general public buy$ their book$.

Indeed, and I fully support your scepticism of self-help books, since I expect there are lots out there that don't really do much good. On the other hand, research has found that for more motivated clients, the self-help industry in general has been a boon, since a lot of people have been able to get over problems without therapy. See this article, for example: Does Self-help Help? (From a website about the latest developments in psychology:

Although the pace seems to have slackened in recent years, self-help books are a staple of the American diet.* Judging from the promotion blurbs on back covers, you can: lose weight, overcome co-dependence, quit drinking or using drugs, fight off fear, and ward off anxiety.* If the sales figures are any indication, the programs must be phenomenally successful.* But what does the research say?

Previous reviews on this website have found that self-help is generally as effective as professionally guided treatment when it comes to depression, anxiety–even alcohol and drug problems.* Recently, researcher Scogin (2003) reviewed the growing literature in this area and found much the same.* Self help books, manuals, tapes, computer programs, and videotapes have proven effective for depression, anxiety, alcohol abuse, smoking cessation, and child and family problems "for less intensive cases and more motivated clients."* In the case of alcohol problems, bibliotherapy–reading that it was not found to be any more effective when it was augmented with consultation with a professional! ...

The [human givens] site just seems like a sexy repackaging of a few legitimate ideas (and lots of bad ones) cobbled together with a re-heated humanistic flair and pictures of enrollees with enthralled facial expressions.

To a certain extent, you're correct, in that there's a lot of hype on their website, and in fact I consider their seminars to be over-priced. I've been to some of them, and I haven't considered them value for money really. What they do do, however, is package some very sound self-help techniques together in their books in a way that could seriously help some people. For instance, you can see the book referenced in an article about research into the efficacy of certain therapy techniques for people who self-harm from the Nursing Times called Solution-focused therapy for clients who self-harm:

This article outlines the development of a service using solution-focused therapy by a liaison psychiatry team for clients admitted to hospital following deliberate self-harm. It summarises the early development of the service and the results of a study on the therapy's effectiveness. It also reports on
further developments made since the study was undertaken, including the use of follow-up sessions, feedback letters to service users and changes in clinical supervision. Future plans for the service are also described.

*

Just look at the "spirituality" literature in social work and psychiatric nursing journals and see what I mean (e.g., serious discussions about how to measure "soul growth"

I haven't seen any of that, but on the face of it, it sounds bad. These books are purely practical though.

Does one have to pay to attend a seminar before actually learning what they mean when they claim that their ideas and skills derive from the "latest psychological knowledge and insights derived from scientific research"?

Thankfully no. Their books, though not cheap, are much cheaper than their over-priced seminars. :-7 I think you're totally right to be scornful of all their hype. But they do draw together some valuable techniques.

Maybe they should stop charging for their workshops and degrees until they have some data, then.

Hey, what a great idea. I certainly think they ought to be a lot cheaper, especially bearing in mind you can get a lot more from one of their books than you do from one of their seminars on the same subject. But bearing in mind that although the actual approach is claimed to be new, many of the ideas are already tried-and-tested, the research factor isn't such a great concern as it could be. You're right to raise the concern that they're just making money from the public with what are essentially mostly well-known ideas. But I expect that if you read their books, you'll agree they package together a lot of useful information.

 

[luchog]

And from an article called The Causes of Schizophrenia:

In fact, that's garbage. You're also misreading that website you linked to, since it does not agree with your assessment. You are taking things out of context. From another part of the site: "Medications and other treatments for schizophrenia, when used regularly and as prescribed, can help reduce and control the distressing symptoms of the illness."

The first thing a true expert will tell you is that "schizophrenia" is not a monolithic entity, but instead is a spectrum of disorders that share a common manifestation and progression, and appear to have similar eitiologies. The eitiologies for schizophrenia and other schizoform disorders is a complex one, but at base are best described as

You also either misunderstood or misrepresented the information you quoted, in that you failed to acknowledge that nearly all of the "environmental" factors that you erroneously referred to are pre-natal influences. That is, they are an influence only during early development. Post-natal influences have not been demonstrated to have a substantial effect on the manifestation of schizophrenia.

The website also promulates information that has been disproven, or is now known to be inaccurate. For example, as noted in another thread, cannabis has been demonstrated to have no causative effect on schizophrenia, and may have no effect whatsoever. There is also no reliable scientific evidence that shows any recreational drug causing or exacerbating the progress of schizophrenia. Drug abuse is frequently co-morbid with schizophrenia, due to the tendency of sufferers to self-medicate. This has led many people who lack adequate knowledge of the disorder and it's eitiology to confuse correlation with causation.

Your position would seem to be that notwithstanding the multi-factorial causes of the exacerbation of such conditions, the only solution is medication, rather than also protecting yourself from things in the environment that might worsen your symptoms - things you could get advice about from a good self-help book.

To be more accurate, the only solution that has demonstrated, proven efficacy is medication to stabilize neurological dysfunction, combined with alterations to one's environment to control exacerbating factors; advice on which is better obtained from a professional trained and experienced in the treatment of neurological disorders and mental illness, than from the latest self-help fad book written by someone whose credentials are questionable at best.

 

[OneShotKi11]

I feel if the disorder is anywhere near that common then its not a disorder, its normal life!

 

[tesscaline]

I feel if the disorder is anywhere near that common then its not a disorder, its normal life!

I have to wonder if you would use similar logic about other problems. For example, if one in five lakes was undrinkable due to chemical contamination would you then say "if it's that common, its normal"?

Based upon my own experiences with college age persons (which is extensive, as I was a university administrator for quite some time), I would agree that there is an extremely high percentage of the student population of colleges that are suffering from some sort of mental/emotional problem severely enough that it impacts their ability to function. My own sister had to drop out of college due to a "nervous breakdown" (to put it vaguely). Several of her friends had similar problems. I've been the one returning fellowship monies to their donors due to students needing to take time off "for personal reasons" (personal reasons involving severe mental/emotional distress). I've seen the binge drinking that goes on at frat parties, and even the binge drinking that goes on in private.

Sure, I'm not a psychiatric professional. Do I have to be one to know that people giving themselves alcohol poisoning (practically) every weekend, suffering from stress and anxiety related problems so badly that they need to drop out of college permanently, or suffering from depressive episodes that prevent them from going to class or completing term papers is unhealthy and most definitely not normal? Do I have to be a psychiatric professional to see that the number of people experiencing these problems is rising? No. When you deal with hundreds of students every week, you can see it for yourself. Yeah, its anecdotal. But its an anecdote that happens to be supported by a very reputable study that included more than 5000 subjects who were each interviewed by trained interviewers.

As others have pointed out already, the study isn't just talking about annoying personality quirks. Its talking about mental and emotional issues that seriously impact a person's quality of life, and could even be life threatening.

Saying "if its that common, its normal" belittles the problem, and the lives of the people that are being impacted.

Maybe you should ask yourself: Is being suicidal "normal"? Is crying for an hour before and after each and every class "normal"? How about drinking two fifths of vodka in one evening? Going into a full on violent and physically destructive rage over getting a 3.9 instead of a 4.0? Punishing yourself for one wrong answer on a test by not eating for three days? Those are the things that you're saying "if it's that common, it's normal" about.

 

[OneShotKi11]

If since the beginning of time when lakes were first developed by our planet 1 in 5 were undrinkable, then yes i would say its normal to find undrinkable lakes.
If your talking about a chemical spill causing 1 in 5 hypothetical lakes to be undrinkable then your question has outside influences that would also play on my logic and change my answer.
As for your next paragraph, not to sound snotty but i really dont care to take into account what you have seen in your personal life. It really doesnt tell me much statistically about the topic and just because you say you know alot of people who get "alcohol poisoning every weekend", doesnt mean i believe you.
I would naturally have so many questions to ask of you if i wanted to try and have you prove your case/statements. More then likely you couldnt prove it so you just gave your opinion, just like i gave mine.

Can you statistically for me now differentiate the amount of people within the study suffering from "drinking two fifths of vodka in one evening?"
Can you give me the amount of people out of the 20% that go "into a full on violent and physically destructive rage over getting a 3.9 instead of a 4.0."
I would like to see numbers for those who "Punishing yourself for one wrong answer on a test by not eating for three days?"
If the case was that 20% of the population was doing those 3 things only then it would be a problem, but i would still say its part of normal everyday life because of how many are doing it, but thats also beside my point. My point being is that the 1 in 5 statistic isnt referring only to the symptoms and illness you mentioned, those individuals actually need help.

How can you be so sure that the study wasnt filled with people who suffer minor forms of things like obsessive/compulsive tendencies or anti-social behavior. They even deemed fit to throw in that people suffer from anti-social behavior that can sometimes lead to violence, but cant any type of person or behavior lead to violence? Seems like a really stupid thing to have associated that with anti-social behavior. I mean it is obvious it could lead to it because any behavior can lead to violence.

A quote stolen from the OPs profile:
"I sincerely wonder if it every dawned on the psychiatric community, who seem to think a good percentage of us are "ill," that it is perhaps their ignorance of genetics that is the real problem. The human family is as diverse as the stars, for good reason. It's called SURVIVAL."

Do you actually believe that all those individuals are ill and need treatment?
I can assure you i fall into that 1 in 5 category with more then 2 types of what they classified as "illnesses".
Not going for treatment because im not really ill.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

In fact, that's garbage. You're also misreading that website you linked to, since it does not agree with your assessment. You are taking things out of context. From another part of the site: "Medications and other treatments for schizophrenia, when used regularly and as prescribed, can help reduce and control the distressing symptoms of the illness."

The first thing a true expert will tell you is that "schizophrenia" is not a monolithic entity, but instead is a spectrum of disorders that share a common manifestation and progression, and appear to have similar eitiologies. The eitiologies for schizophrenia and other schizoform disorders is a complex one, but at base are best described as

You also either misunderstood or misrepresented the information you quoted, in that you failed to acknowledge that nearly all of the "environmental" factors that you erroneously referred to are pre-natal influences. That is, they are an influence only during early development. Post-natal influences have not been demonstrated to have a substantial effect on the manifestation of schizophrenia.

The website also promulates information that has been disproven, or is now known to be inaccurate. For example, as noted in another thread, cannabis has been demonstrated to have no causative effect on schizophrenia, and may have no effect whatsoever. There is also no reliable scientific evidence that shows any recreational drug causing or exacerbating the progress of schizophrenia. Drug abuse is frequently co-morbid with schizophrenia, due to the tendency of sufferers to self-medicate. This has led many people who lack adequate knowledge of the disorder and it's eitiology to confuse correlation with causation.

To be more accurate, the only solution that has demonstrated, proven efficacy is medication to stabilize neurological dysfunction, combined with alterations to one's environment to control exacerbating factors; advice on which is better obtained from a professional trained and experienced in the treatment of neurological disorders and mental illness, than from the latest self-help fad book written by someone whose credentials are questionable at best.

OK, let me go into more detail about what I meant. Making incautious accusations which you may discover later were erroneous will only make you look bad.

Here's some information on non-drug treatments that have been proven to help schizophrenic patients in combination with medication. There are treatments out there that can both reduce the amount of medication needed, and can help with symptoms medication doesn't help with. I'll elaborate on non-drug treatments:

From an article called Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia

Hallucinations and delusions are the most obvious symptoms of schizophrenia. But such psychotic or “positive” symptoms are not necessarily the most important or disabling ones. Another set of symptoms, called “negative” symptoms, are much more pervasive and persistent—and they have a much
greater effect on a patient’s quality of life, reports the July issue of the Harvard Mental Health Letter.
... Positive symptoms make treatment seem more urgent. But negative symptoms are the main reason patients with schizophrenia cannot live independently, hold jobs, establish personal relationships, and manage everyday social situations. These symptoms are also the ones that trouble them
most,” says Dr. Michael Miller, editor in chief of the Harvard Mental Health Letter. ...

From an article called Cognitive remediation (From the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and Rethink)

Cognitive remediation is an intensive type of therapy that can help people with schizophrenia cope better with everyday life. It aims to help the patients improve cognitive deficits such as difficulties remembering things, poor concentration or a low attention span. People may have problems making plans or taking decisions, correcting mistakes they have made, or responding to new situations. All these are core features of schizophrenia and can make everyday activities like shopping extremely difficult. ...

• Cognitive flexibility - the ability to switch from one task to another - can be improved, for example, by practising to correctly delete odd or even numbers from a list.
• A better working memory - thinking about one task while carrying out another - can be achieved by honing your skills of remembering sequences of tokens and then lining them up in a different order.
• Planning in everyday life can be helped by learning to think ahead when faced with the task of moving tokens to a certain position following a set of rules. ...

Researchers at the Institute of Psychiatry and the Maudsley Hospital have found that it helps patients with severe problems with concentration and attention. ...

From an article called A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Remediation in Schizophrenia:

Cognitive impairment is a core feature of schizophrenia, with converging evidence showing that it is strongly related to functioning in areas such as work, social relationships, and independent living. ...

Currently available pharmacological treatments have limited effects on cognition in schizophrenia and even less impact on community functioning. ...

From an article called Schizophrenia:

... Schizophrenia is now officially categorized as a brain disease, not a psychologic disorder, and drug treatment is the primary therapy. Studies indicate, however, that an integrated approach is superior in preventing relapses compared to routine care (drugs plus monitoring and access to rehabilitation programs). In one study, this approach involved the following:

• Motivational interviewing to encourage the patients commitment to change.
• Use of antipsychotic medications (generally atypical or novel antipsychotics) with monitoring.
• Community-based rehabilitation.
• Cognitive-behavioral therapy, which aims to reduce delusions and hallucinations.
• Family interventions.

In the study, relapse rates were 33% in the integrated group and 67% in the group who received routine care. ...

The fact that relapses can be prevented when non-drug treatmentss are added to a medication regimen suggests that things in the environment are contributing to relapse.

Not only that, research is still investigating the possibilities that things like stress trigger off first episodes of psychosis in people with a genetic vulnerability. For instance, from an article called Raised Incidence Of Psychoses Among Migrant Groups In UK Revealed By Research:

... Professor Coid said: "This research shifts the emphasis away from genetics and brain structure to social stress factors experienced by minority groups and the protective factors that buffer them against these stresses. All migrants are at risk of discrimination and other forms of social exclusion and mental health can be adversely affected by these experiences. But why should some minority groups be at greater risk than others? It may be that those who are at greater risk have fewer protective factors. The most likely factors buffering vulnerable persons against social stress include cultural factors relating to that minority group in the population, such as religious and other cultural practices. But family structure is probably the most important protective factor for coping with adverse experiences."

You acknowledge that the word schizophrenia is in fact a term for a spectrum of diseases similar in manifestation, and then you go and talk about it as if it's a single entity, by denying cannabis could possibly have an effect on it. In fact, some experienced scientists and psychiatric workers have concluded that there is a form of schizophrenia which is brought on by cannabis, a little different from the usual.

For more information on the latest research, see, for example: Schizophrenia Linked To Dysfunction In Molecular Brain Pathway Activated By Marijuana

Alterations in a molecular brain pathway activated by marijuana may contribute to the cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia, according to a report in the July issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. ...

"Heavy marijuana use, particularly in adolescence, appears to be associated with an increased risk for the later development of schizophrenia, and the course of illness is worse for people with schizophrenia who use marijuana," said David A. Lewis, M.D., corresponding author of the study and UPMC Endowed Professor in Translational Neuroscience, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. "We wanted to understand the biological mechanisms that could explain these observations, and with this study, I believe that we can narrow down at least part of the 'why' ...

And here's just one of those people who thinks there's a form of schizophrenia related to substance misuse: 'Substance Dependency-Induced Psychosis' (SDIP)

... SDIP resembles schizophrenia, which it's usually diagnosed as. It is also nearly as common as schizophrenia. One third of the SDIP cases I have treated have enjoyed a complete remission -- which is usually permanent. Most of these cases had already been diagnosed as schizophrenic. The good results were a combination of their receiving the proper treatment, and the fact that SDIP patients are usually less ill than schizophrenia patients.

Most cases of "full recovery from schizophrenia" are actually cases of SDIP, where the persons have stopped their addictive substance use. However, lifelong abstinence is often not sufficient for any remission of the psychosis. ...

From the website whose information you unfairly disparaged:

Complementary Schizophrenia Treatments

It splits them up into:

• Schizophrenia Treatments that Have Shown Some Benefits in Scientific Testing
• Possible Schizophrenia Treatments that have shown some early positive results in studies
• Future Potential Therapies
• Disproven (or Unproven) & Overmarketed "Schizophrenia Treatments"

It lists several under each heading.

Incidentally, I myself commented on one particular cognitive behavioural technique in ... ahem, ... a post in another thread once - not a thread specifically about mental illness. I said:

... Actually, reality checking is one technique some therapists use with schizophrenics to try to cure them of their delusions. For instance, if someone believes everyone around them when they're walking down the street always talks about them while they're walking past, a therapist might walk a few paces behind them with a tape recorder to record conversations that are going on around them, and then they'll play it back afterwards so the person with schizophrenia
can tell whether people really were talking about them. And if they find they aren't after all, they can sometimes be very reassured.

There are several other interesting techniques out there.

a "self-help" book doesn't necessarily mean a book that says you have to do everything it suggests by yourself.

 

[bigred]

One expert said personality disorders may be overdiagnosed.

ya think???

evidence has suggested mental problems are common on college campuses and elsewhere.

er contrary to what movies and TV usually portray, in real life many college students actually bust their butts to get a degree as a huge first step to building their lives. Also almost all are on their own for the first time ever. In other words, quite a few highly significant reasons to be highly stressed. Gee and "mental problems" aren't rare? Wow go figure.

Happily, I think (hope) most are wise enough to know that if they simply tackle things one step at a time and work hard vs reaching for some idiotic quack dishing out happy pills or labelling them with yet another blah-blah "syndrome" and reading things into their psyche that aren't even there, they will be fine.

PS and oh btw that is not to discount or in any way minimize people who do have severe, not-circumstance-specific mental problems and their need to get help. But IMO "over-diagnosis" is a GROSS understatement re. today's society and people's "mental problems" IMO. I think perhaps the biggest "mental problem" is reaching for a quick fix when things get rough vs just dealing with it. ie real life is hard and I suspect many so-called mental problems are with kids whose so-called parents did a poor job instilling that knowledge (usually by spoiling them rotten and/or simply doing a poor if any job of teaching their kids about life).

/rant

Doctors and public heath organizations want as many people labeled "mentally ill" as possible for the money and political power that comes from treating them.

Funny how they all seem to have their own weird anxieties and sexual deviance. Who would guess that they'd want young boys to come out as gay and need their counseling services....

BINGO on both counts. There's an old saying that the people who need psychologists most are psychologists, and believe me it's true. (anecdote: I once went to see a one when I was having a hard time dealing w/the death of a family member; he introduces himself and explains how he's writing a novel that is "erotic horror." Needless to say I didn't go back)

 

[bigred]

One expert said personality disorders may be overdiagnosed.

ya think???

evidence has suggested mental problems are common on college campuses and elsewhere.

er contrary to what movies and TV usually portray, in real life many college students actually bust their butts to get a degree as a huge first step to building their lives. Also almost all are on their own for the first time ever. In other words, quite a few highly significant reasons to be highly stressed. Gee and "mental problems" aren't rare? Wow go figure.

Happily, I think (hope) most are wise enough to know that if they simply tackle things one step at a time and work hard vs reaching for some idiotic quack dishing out happy pills or labelling them with yet another blah-blah "syndrome" and reading things into their psyche that aren't even there, they will be fine.

PS and oh btw that is not to discount or in any way minimize people who do have severe, not-circumstance-specific mental problems and their need to get help. But IMO "over-diagnosis" is a GROSS understatement re. today's society and people's "mental problems" IMO. I think perhaps the biggest "mental problem" is reaching for a quick fix when things get rough vs just dealing with it. ie real life is hard and I suspect many so-called mental problems are with kids whose so-called parents did a poor job instilling that knowledge (usually by spoiling them rotten and/or simply doing a poor if any job of teaching their kids about life).

/rant

Doctors and public heath organizations want as many people labeled "mentally ill" as possible for the money and political power that comes from treating them.

Funny how they all seem to have their own weird anxieties and sexual deviance. Who would guess that they'd want young boys to come out as gay and need their counseling services....

BINGO on both counts. There's an old saying that the people who need psychologists most are psychologists, and believe me it's true. (anecdote: I once went to see a one when I was having a hard time dealing w/the death of a family member; he introduces himself and explains how he's writing a novel that is "erotic horror." Needless to say I didn't go back)

 

[bigred]

Do you think the internet has something to do with this? I know I've joined web sites recently and gotten slammed for not liking Angelina Jolie's movie for example. The women come out with claws and daggers. I could see if I had been ragging on their favorite celebrity but I didn't say too much. The vitriol was palatable. I see this often on websites.

Quite a few people on this one seem really seriously mentally ill. (I'm sure a few would say that about me as well! LOL) But do you think that this whole "anonymous culture" has sort of created a split in people's personalities that upon close investigation is easy to see and diagnose? We have the angry young man online and then the normal guy in real lfe, but if a conversation that's been discussed online comes up the person rants?

wow. Extremely astute of you. Seriously. Understand I use "the net" as much as the next guy so this is not a high n mighty statement, but while it has many useful purposes, socially speaking it's not an exaggeration to say the internet is like a cancer. I rarely say this on any internet forum because I know most will not get it and so dismiss it. Tragic IMO.

Let's see....we don't have to fight lions or bears anymore unless we want to. Some of actually seek fighting lions and bears for the "thrill," and some think that's missing from our lives now.

There are a lot of us. So many, we can't form the close bonds in small, tight-knit communities we used to have to form a few thousand years ago to survive. We don't know each other, and that's scary. There's too damned many of us to know anymore.

We don't work the way we used to. We sit a lot. We ride a lot. We mostly don't farm, don't hunt, or even have to get our own water.

We end up with a lot of repressed hostility, anxiety, confusion...we have too many toys, too many things to plug in and program and pay for. We have too many of us to compete with, to the point the competition stops centering around who does the best job, but silly things like who looks better, speaks better, or knows the right people. We don't know how to get what we want, and half the time, we don't even know what we want or why we even want it.

Who would all this, and more, not make a little crazy?

Also very astute and spot on. Sadly.

Some psychologists think everyone has basic emotional needs that have to be met to a certain extent,

WHOA out on a limb there

Don't take this wrong BN nothing on you at all, just wondering how is most if not everything that was quoted in your post stating the obvious? Psychologists get paid (well) to say stuff like this? Let me guess, there was some lengthy/pricey study that was done first and....

Hey everybody FYI water is wet. OK somebody pay me.


I have to say it's nice to see at least that most here "get it." I have to wonder if most of us here would make as good if not better psychologists than many of the ones out there now.

PS pardon the double-post - #$@ server

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Don't take this wrong BN nothing on you at all, just wondering how is most if not everything that was quoted in your post stating the obvious? Psychologists get paid (well) to say stuff like this? Let me guess, there was some lengthy/pricey study that was done first and....

LOL. Yes, I expect a lot of what psychologists say is just vastly over-priced common sense.

Still, they didn't just do the study and then leave it at that. The ones who wrote the books I've been talking about go into a lot of detail in them about how people might not be getting all their emotional needs met, and how they should sit down, decide which ones aren't being met, and then think through how they can slowly improve things.

For instance, they say that thing about how people need a sense of autonomy and control in their lives, and then they ask questions like,

For instance, do you have sufficient responsibility in your work life or too little or too much? Can you take the responsibility for important decisions in your life? Does someone in your life have too much influence or power over you? Have you recently lost your sense of control, perhaps because of
unexpected illness or the arrival of a new person at work or the introduction into your life of difficult in-laws? Do you feel you should be able to control things that, in fact, you can't
control - such as how well your children do in exams - and berate yourself if things don't go as you think they should?

It might be common sense that people need to feel a sense of control in their lives, but still, people can find it useful to have that kind of stuff written down so they can contemplate it.

The authors give quite a bit of advice on how to go about making the decision as to how to change things, after they've talked about all the emotional needs people have.

Then in their book about depression, they tell the story to illustrate the way they recommend people gradually go about improving things, of a man who got depressed after he had to retire from work early with a back injury. He just moped around for a while. But then he saw a therapist, who asked him a question that's quite common in certain types of therapy: If you woke up one morning and something wonderful had happened overnight and you weren't depressed, what would be the first little things you'd notice that would make you realise things had changed?

The man said he'd be getting out of bed in time to have breakfast with the children like he used to, and talking to his wife about her day like he did before.

Thinking about more things that would change, he said that even though he couldn't work long hours any more because of his back, he'd be doing a bit of work around the house and garden to make his contribution.

He realised that just doing those things would cheer him up a bit. That was the psychologist's cunning plan.

So he decided that the first steps he'd take to make himself feel better would be to set his alarm clock to wake him up in time to have breakfast with his children; to ask his wife three questions during the day about how it was going or how it had been; and to find one DIY task to do every day.

Deciding what to do around the house gave him even more to discuss with his wife, and he had to get out to buy things he needed for the DIY tasks. These things helped him come out of the self-pity he'd been in that had made him withdraw from everyone, because he had to start thinking about other things and engaging with other people. And it gave him a sense of meaning and purpose in life again. Because he wasn't spending so much time just lying around working himself up with worry, his sleep improved. His mood improved a lot.

That's just one little motivational story they tell to illustrate what can happen when people start working step-by-step towards getting all the emotional needs they mention met in their lives.

They don't say it'll be that simple all the time, by any means. But they say it can be.

 

[Iconoclast08]

...There may be a misunderstanding here, because you seem to think I gave Kaylee the links to them in order to prove the Human Givens approach is a good thing. But I wasn't posting because I was recommending the Human Givens approach. I merely linked to those articles, and the books beforehand, because I posted some information from them about conditions that they say can increase mental health, and which can help create the conditions where mental illness can develop if they are absent, and Kaylee asked me the source of the information. Maybe you didn't read the whole conversation or in particular, my initial post. ...The claims in the post may not be peer-reviewed, but I would be a little surprised if there's anything in that post you can seriously object to.

Bolding mine. And yes, I read the original post.

To be clear, what I was going after was dubious information that you offered as reference material. The conditions that these people say "can increase mental health" in the way that they stand formulated are untested as far as I could discern, and some are just downright professionally irresponsible. If you don't agree with it or are skeptical, why not offer a strong cautionary note up front? It seems to me that you are attempting to carve out a rather generous amount of wriggle room here for yourself.

"The claims in the post may not be peer-reviewed, but I would be a little surprised if there's anything in that post you can seriously object to.[/QUOTE]"

Again, you really, really, really should be mindful of your reasoning here. "Well, ok, it hasn't been offered up for scrutiny in the scientist-practitioner community...but hey! You would just be hard pressed to object to this!"

Sounds like we're getting close to that "common sense" trap again...

It was the post that was put up for discussion, not the books. I linked Kaylee to the books and articles simply because she wanted to "read more" about the specific claims I'd made, so I gave her a way of verifying that I hadn't just made them up.

Yep. And any claims made by you or anyone else that are based on faulty, untested reference material admixed with sexed up "self-help" fluff are questionable.

You may well say that just naming the books in response to her request for the source of my information was irresponsible if the approach they use hasn't been peer-reviewed. OK, let me give you an idea of the kinds of things in them, and perhaps you'd like to tell me if you think there's anything serious to worry about:

I wish it were that simple, but it's not just about what I think or if the ideas "appeal" to me or strike me as so convincing that it would just be too irresistible to deny. Rather, it's about what a group of critically-minded scientist-practitioners way smarter than me and way better versed in research methodology, statistics, and philosophy of science have to say after putting *operationalized ideas to the test* across multiple contexts in a (preferentially) double-blind fashion using different methodological variations.

Here's a sample of what's in the book • How to Lift Depression ... Fast by Joe Griffin & Ivan Tyrrell with Denise Winn: One of its big claimsis that depression can be made worse in a big way by worrying a lot, partly since REM sleep is a way to discharge the emotions of the day so people can feel refreshed the next morning, but if there's too much emotion, the amount of REM sleep needed to discharge them will wear the person out, which is a reason why depressed people can feel so unmotivated and unenergetic in the mornings, and then sometimes feel better as the day goes on. A novel claim, certainly, though they point to research that was done that showed that depressed people surveyed felt less depressed in the morning after they were woken up when they went into REM sleep so they didn't have so much, and they also say anti-depressants diminish REM sleep which partly accounts for any success they have.

Bold mine. Big claim? Big leap of faith. This is so riddled with confounds, armchair speculation, and a priori acceptance of unsubstantiated claims that I don't know where to begin. First, for this to be an even remotely tenable hypothesis, the authors need to show a causal link between increased emotion (holding constant factors such as physical exertion throughout the day and other extraneous influences) and increased REM sleep via experimental paradigm. Second, that depressed people are unmotivated and unenergized throughout the day may have little to do with REM sleep and everything to do with aberrant neurophysiological functioning. There's oh so much more wrong with this dreadful chain of reasoning, but I'd be typing for pages. Where are the studies that isolate and disentangle these measured variables? Has any of this been shown and, at best, replicated with positive results? If so, where's the direct evidence (not loaded, peripheral armchair speculation pulling together peripherally related results not directly bearing on the question at hand)? And if not, why should I buy it? And why should you even entertain this as you are doing in this post right now? Because it sounds sensible?

I'm sorry, BabyNemesis, but this is just getting too woo-ish to be taken seriously. Trephining (boring holes in people's skulls to release Satanic spirits) used to sound "sensible". So did primal scream therapy. So did Freud. So did the observation that the sun moves around our planet ("Just LOOK at it, Cave Jane, it's MOVING in the SKY! How can you DENY it! It's common-freaking-SENSE!"). But we now know lots of previously labeled "common sense" or "obvious" or "sensible" ideas to just be flat-out false via the scientific method, which I'll take over gut instinct any day of the week.

Again, the confounds here are simply too numerous to attempt to detail. I would strongly suggest that you read a basic text in clinical psychology research methodology and think twice about this. The one by Alan Kazdin (clinical psychologist at Yale University) is excellent, as are the classic texts by Donald Campbell and Thomas Cook (not clinically-oriented per se, but excellent foundations).

A novel claim though, perhaps. ... But what is their solution? Is it something dubious and new? ... No. It's the old old "Do relaxation techniques before you go to sleep and at other times during the day". An old old recommendation, probably made by psychologists for years, as are the actual relaxation techniques they suggest. Old recommendations, but since they're made along with all the other advice they give, conveniently packaged.

Complete non-sequitur. And woo-ishly packaged, I'd amend.

The rest of the book equally illustrates that there is nothing to worry about, and not much that is actually new in what they say. In fact, while they claim in the hype on their website that their approach is "new and revolutionary", they don't say that about many of their ideas. They claim their ideas are drawn from what has been proven to work in other schools of psychology. Instead of using one model of psychology and trying to fit clients into that, they claim to fit their approach to each individual client, taking what has been proven to work from other models as deemed appropriate for each one.

Most psychologists worth a hoot already tailor treatments to individual clients using multiple techniques. That's common. The "schools of psychology" day is dying quickly, thankfully. The fact that these guys do what most others do by mixing approaches is not so much relevant as the sloppy conclusions that they draw and formulations concocted by mixing approaches.

To give more examples from what's in the depression book.

• Old old cognitive behavioural techniques on stopping worrying;
• A recommendation to look for amusing things to lift the mood;
• Good old-fashioned recommendations on handling negative criticism;
• Well-known information on how some drugs, food, exercise and alcohol can affect the mood;
• A fresh and plausible twist on what is basically the conventional recommendation to think about what past associations trigger depression and do a few CBT techniques to break the pattern of how the reminder of something bad in the past triggers off current depression.

Which can all be found in non-woo ridden texts by many legitimate scientist-practitioners in clinical psychology who don't make careers out of selling hasty, irresponsible claims and generalizations based on gross armchair speculation in self-help sections.

There are a few more issues covered, some of them self-help recommendations, and a part on professional help. In that part, for example, the book talks about how for less motivated people, or for people with particular problems like trauma, therapy might be best. It goes into detail about one trauma-relieving technique called the "rewind technique". It was adapted from a neuro-linguistic programming technique, and is quite widely known now. You can look it up. It basically involves talking someone into deep relaxation, and then asking them to imagine part of their trauma is being played on a television screen and they're watching someone watching it. This double disassociation from it, along with the relaxation, makes it far, far less stressful to be re-exposed to the trauma in order to get it out of the system than the horrible conventional counselling techniques of prompting people to re-live it without the aid of any of that, which can re-traumatise them.

References, please (author names at least)? Sounds interesting on the surface, but the "get it out of the system" claim with regard to trauma has been roundly rejected by most serious researchers as unsubstantiated and pseudo-analytic. Repressive coping has actually been found to be effective for certain people. Look at any study by George Bonanno at Columbia University and his colleagues to get a detailed understanding of the widespread illogic of "getting it out of your system".

...On the other hand, research has found that for more motivated clients, the self-help industry in general has been a boon, since a lot of people have been able to get over problems without therapy. See this article, for example: Does Self-help Help? (From a website about the latest developments in psychology:

"...for less intensive cases and more motivated clients."

Plus, the blurb did not mention that the "self-help" label is a bit too broad as it has also lumped in books and manuals written by Ph.D. level clinical-scientist psychologist-researchers (who are located at accredited universities and run APA-monitored clinics and/or oversee NIMH funded research) such as the ones I mentioned earlier. And many are CBT-oriented. I was referring more to the books of the ilk you mentioned on the "Human-Givens" approach, not by clinician-researchers.

Also, see Redding et al. (2008). Popular self-help books for anxiety, depression, and trauma: How scientifically grounded and useful are they? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(5), 537-545.

Thankfully no. Their books, though not cheap, are much cheaper than their over-priced seminars. :-7 I think you're totally right to be scornful of all their hype. But they do draw together some valuable techniques.

That remains to be shown. SHOW ME THE DATA!

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Firstly, I would like to suggest you be a bit more respectful. I have worked on a help-line for people with anxiety disorders, after receiving a qualification endorsed by the Institute of Psychiatry ... unless you're going to suggest that they're also a bunch of no-good woo amateurs. (Well, actually that was the conclusion I came to as well, but I'm not going to let on.) But I suggest that before you jump into a thread and erupt into scathing scornfulness, you at least find out if the person you're attacking is likely to have some idea about what they're talking about.

Incidentally, though you will probably become offended at me for saying this, one very serious point is that when I was doing my help-line work, I spoke to far, far too many people who told me in distress that they'd had therapy for their problems, sometimes for a long time, often paying for it themselves, and it hadn't worked, or had even made them worse. It was very obvious it hadn't worked from the amount of distress they were in because of the anxiety disorders they still had. I've heard too many bad therapist stories. Thus, not that I would ever have done so before, but I will Never, Never, never buy into the lie of a blanket "self-help bad, therapy good" ideology, or any such thing.

To be clear, what I was going after was dubious information that you offered as reference material. The conditions that these people say "can increase mental health" in the way that they stand formulated are untested as far as I could discern, and some are just downright professionally irresponsible.

I linked to the articles because I thought it was courteous to link to something where Kaylee could read more about what I was talking about without paying for it. Sorry, but this conversation has suddenly struck me as being rather amusing. For one thing, there's one person criticizing that stuff for just being plain old common sense that psychologists should never have charged for, and there's you, inferring it's dangerous information that's professionally irresponsible to publicise. LOL. And you criticize without actually giving any reasons why the specific information I linked to could be harmful. No surprise there. What could possibly be harmful about suggesting that making sure you feel safe, for example, will improve your mental health. Really, it is basic stuff.

I said I didn't like their hype, not that I was sceptical of the actual information provided. I did give Kaylee a hype warning.

Again, you really, really, really should be mindful of your reasoning here. "Well, ok, it hasn't been offered up for scrutiny in the scientist-practitioner
community...but hey! You would just be hard pressed to object to this!"

Sorry, but my sense of merriment is increasing here. Again, that stuff really is just common sense. It's the kind of thing psychologists must have been saying for years. Why would you have to peer-review a finding that increasing your emotional connection to others in the outside world, doing things to give yourself a sense of belonging, and finding intellectually stimulating things to do, will improve your sense of well-being, for example? LOL again.

Yep. And any claims made by you or anyone else that are based on faulty, untested reference material admixed with sexed up "self-help" fluff are questionable.

Yep, that stuff about how eating more healthily, doing more exercise and getting more sleep can improve your mental health was terribly irresponsible to link to! Just think what terrible consequences it could have led to if you hadn't stepped in to warn people off! Really, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide examples of exactly what it is you're objecting to, and explain why. Just scare-mongering isn't going to help your case.

I wish it were that simple, but it's not just about what I think or if the ideas "appeal" to me or strike me as so convincing that it would just be too
irresistible to deny. Rather, it's about what a group of critically-minded scientist-practitioners way smarter than me and way better versed in research
methodology, statistics, and philosophy of science have to say after putting *operationalized ideas to the test* across multiple contexts in a (preferentially)
double-blind fashion using different methodological variations.

So now we have one person in this thread being scathingly critical because psychologists have been paid good money to come up with the finding that, for example, doing something that gives you a sense of status in life will give you a greater sense of well-being; and we have another person warning that unless such findings have been subjected to scientific double-blind studies using different methodological variations, they could be dangerous, and it's irresponsible to even mention such things.

Bold mine. Big claim? Big leap of faith. This is so riddled with confounds, armchair speculation, and a priori acceptance of unsubstantiated claims that
I don't know where to begin. First, for this to be an even remotely tenable hypothesis, the authors need to show a causal link between increased emotion (holding constant factors such as physical exertion throughout the day and other extraneous influences) and increased REM sleep via experimental paradigm.

Frankly, since you haven't read the book, you have no idea what research they use to back up such claims as the claim that worrying increases depression. To scare-monger again is thus unreasonable. If you want to have credibility in your criticisms, I suggest you go to your local library and take out or order the book. Then read it. Then get back to me. Until you do, all your bold assertions about their lack of evidence are really just speculations. You have no grounds for your sweeping condemnations.

In fact, the zeal with which you condemn such things on the basis of very little evidence suggests to me that your objections are ideological, rather than being grounded in objectivity.

Second, that depressed people are unmotivated and unenergized throughout the day may have little to do with REM sleep and everything to do with aberrant
neurophysiological functioning. There's oh so much more wrong with this dreadful chain of reasoning, but I'd be typing for pages. Where are the studies
that isolate and disentangle these measured variables? Has any of this been shown and, at best, replicated with positive results? If so, where's the direct
evidence (not loaded, peripheral armchair speculation pulling together peripherally related results not directly bearing on the question at hand)? And
if not, why should I buy it? And why should you even entertain this as you are doing in this post right now? Because it sounds sensible?

Goodness you're right! Just because the book was written for members of the general public, people suffering from depression who may well be finding it difficult to concentrate and focus on anything complicated, why shouldn't it have been packed with lengthy technical detail about how the evidence has been disentangled and replicated in numerous studies. Why shouldn't it have belaboured its points with pages and pages of statistics, references to various scientists and minutia about the various research methods and findings the scientists used to reach their conclusions. Yes, why shouldn't the authors have in fact made it bearly readable for the member of the public who just wanted a bit of advice. Indeed.

I'm sorry, BabyNemesis, but this is just getting too woo-ish to be taken seriously. Trephining (boring holes in people's skulls to release Satanic spirits)
used to sound "sensible". So did primal scream therapy. So did Freud. So did the observation that the sun moves around our planet ("Just LOOK at it, Cave
Jane, it's MOVING in the SKY! How can you DENY it! It's common-freaking-SENSE!"). But we now know lots of previously labeled "common sense" or "obvious"
or "sensible" ideas to just be flat-out false via the scientific method, which I'll take over gut instinct any day of the week.

You're scare-mongering again. Again, since you haven't actually read even one paragraph of the book, and since, as I explained to you in my previous post to you, most of the things in the book are in fact tried-and-tested things that psychologists have used with patients for years, I have no reason to take what you say seriously. Your posts are simply alarmism. My guess is that you've read a few self-help books that weren't very good, or been warned about such things by others, and now you're panic-generalising to condemn them all. In truth, the quality of self-help books is enormously variable. I have read several, and I know from experience they vary a lot in quality.

Again, the confounds here are simply too numerous to attempt to detail. I would strongly suggest that you read a basic text in clinical psychology research
methodology and think twice about this. The one by Alan Kazdin (clinical psychologist at Yale University) is excellent, as are the classic texts by Donald Campbell and Thomas Cook (not clinically-oriented per se, but excellent foundations).

I haven't given you anywhere near enough information on the book for you to be able to make such a bold assertion about the amount of "confounds" in it. Your reaction does seem rather knee-jerk. And how old are the clinical psychology texts you mention? Research moves on rather quickly in psychology. They may themselves be outdated.

Complete non-sequitur. And woo-ishly packaged, I'd amend.

There's that alarmist cry of "woo" again. Who was it who likened the repetitive cry of "woo woo" to the alarm whistle of an oncoming steam train the other day!

The fact that these guys do what most others do by mixing approaches is not so much relevant as the sloppy conclusions that they draw and formulations concocted by mixing approaches.

Again, you have not given actual reasons why you have reached the conclusion that their conclusions are "sloppy". If you want to convince me that you have a genuine concern, you will need to illustrate one. If you read the books, you might be pleasantly impressed. Or if you want to criticize them, you will at least be able to back your criticisms up.

Which can all be found in non-woo ridden texts by many legitimate scientist-practitioners in clinical psychology who don't make careers out of selling hasty,
irresponsible claims and generalizations based on gross armchair speculation in self-help sections.

Again, my sense of merriment at your post is increasing. You're incredibly scornful of what the authors say for someone who hasn't read any of their books. I will say, however, that in their books, there's none of the silly hype of the type found on their website. Their books, in contrast to it, are practical and down-to-earth. Thinking about it though, if you're judging the books by the fluff on their website, it's understandable that you're scornful of them. The website is just like an advert really. Much in the same way that an advert on the television will often not give one a true idea about what the product is really like, the fluff on their website doesn't, and in fact arguably does an injustice to the books if they're judged by it, because the books are far more down-to-earth.

Still, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to what you're condemning the books for, - unresearched fluff based on gut instinct, or old tried-and-tested ideas they have no business repackaging and charging for as if they're their own.

References, please (author names at least)? Sounds interesting on the surface, but the "get it out of the system" claim with regard to trauma has been
roundly rejected by most serious researchers as unsubstantiated and pseudo-analytic. Repressive coping has actually been found to be effective for certain
people. Look at any study by George Bonanno at Columbia University and his colleagues to get a detailed understanding of the widespread illogic of "getting it out of your system".

No no no! I'm not talking about anything Freudian here! I'm talking about a much, much gentler, non-invasive version of that horrid practice so common in psychological therapy today of prompting people to talk in-depth about what traumatised them to re-experience it; the practice that as you suggest, can be counter-productive. Indeed it is better to repress some experiences than go through that at the hands of some therapists. One example is of a man who was in the Vietnam war, and a "therapist" was prompting him to re-live his experiences in great detail. He was doing so, re-living a time when his unit was being attacked and a friend of his was killed, and he felt bad because he hadn't been able to protect his friend because he'd run out of ammunition. He suddenly realised during the "therapy" that if he'd only picked up the rifle of someone who was already dead, he'd have been able to protect his friend. He felt very guilty that he hadn't thought of that at the time, so much so that he spiralled down into a suicidal depression. That's what his therapy did for him.

In fact, counselling that encourages people to talk about the reasons they're upset at length can also have a similar effect, because remembering all that stuff can prime people to go away and ruminate on it all week till they get mega-depressed. One reason I advocate self-help books - if they stop people falling into the hands of such "therapists", and help them along the way, they have to be a good thing.

Still, the rewind technique. Since you didn't look it up after I suggested you did, I will indeed provide you with a reference to make it easier for you. Here you are. See what you can find about it to be scornful of.

I once explained it to someone who'd had a traumatic experience who'd been trained to teach others relaxation techniques. I said it was something a counsellor might do. But she did it on herself and felt a whole lot better afterwards. Still, that's just an anecdote, and we all know how scornworthy they are when discussing things that need to be properly scientifically measured.

Plus, the blurb did not mention that the "self-help" label is a bit too broad as it has also lumped in books and manuals written by Ph.D. level clinical-scientist
psychologist-researchers (who are located at accredited universities and run APA-monitored clinics and/or oversee NIMH funded research) such as the ones
I mentioned earlier. And many are CBT-oriented. I was referring more to the books of the ilk you mentioned on the "Human-Givens" approach, not by clinician-researchers.

But you don't know what qualifications the "Human Givens" Researchers/psychologists have.

That remains to be shown. SHOW ME THE DATA!

Much as I would love to, if I did, I'd be swept from the board in a dramatic and legally-correct gesture by one of the moderators for breach of copyright, since it would entail extensive quotation from the books. That's why I suggest you get them from a library and look at them yourself if you want to criticise them further.

 

[Cainkane1]

I have obsessive compulsive disorder myself and in my day we had no mental health services in college or anywhere esle unless your parents sent you to a psychiatrist. This dosorder cost me decent grades and while I dod get a college education my GPA was only 2.8.

 

[ConspiRaider]

So if 1 in 5 young adults are half-baked, and 3 in 5 medium adults are wackaloons and 4 in 5 old adults are bonkers, then logically we must conclude:

Run away! Run away!

 

[Iconoclast08]

Towering LOL'ing straw men!

...But I suggest that before you jump into a thread and erupt into scathing scornfulness, you at least find out if the person you're attacking is likely to have some idea about what they're talking about.

Many people on this forum who question half-baked ideas and armchair conjecture get all sorts of "you big meanie!" type responses launched at them, and I'm no exception. You may have your area of expertise, but that does not immunize you from credulity and/or falling for dubious claims.

...when I was doing my help-line work, I spoke to far, far too many people who told me in distress that they'd had therapy for their problems, sometimes for a long time, often paying for it themselves, and it hadn't worked, or had even made them worse. It was very obvious it hadn't worked from the amount of distress they were in because of the anxiety disorders they still had. I've heard too many bad therapist stories. Thus, not that I would ever have done so before, but I will Never, Never, never buy into the lie of a blanket "self-help bad, therapy good" ideology, or any such thing.

I, I, me, me, I, I, I. Anecdotal. You can buy into whatever you want, just please don't expect clear-thinking people to do the same. And you either didn't fully consider or understand my last post concerning the self-help issue. What I said is that the reason for "self-help" effectiveness is category lumping of the crummy books WITH the good books by legitimate therapists working from an evidentiary base that is not solely anecdotal. So if you define self-help in this fashion, then yes, it is helpful. These more legitimate references may be skewing results in the favor of self-help... that is, a few diamonds in the self-help dunghill may be skewing the "self-help" results positively.

This was a more nuanced point of mine that you tried to turn into a straw man. Please refrain from turning this into some puerile "ideology" name-calling game. There truly is a lot of garbage out there masquerading as "self-help" that is professionally irresponsible whether you choose to realize it or not.

I linked to the articles because I thought it was courteous to link to something where Kaylee could read more about what I was talking about without paying for it. Sorry, but this conversation has suddenly struck me as being rather amusing. For one thing, there's one person criticizing that stuff for just being plain old common sense that psychologists should never have charged for, and there's you, inferring it's dangerous information that's professionally irresponsible to publicise. LOL. And you criticize without actually giving any reasons why the specific information I linked to could be harmful. No surprise there. What could possibly be harmful about suggesting that making sure you feel safe, for example, will improve your mental health. Really, it is basic stuff.

If this is truly what you got out of what I wrote, then you are truly having a reading comprehension difficulty with my posts. Either that or you are deliberately erecting straw-men because you are bereft of a good argument. I'm not sure which.

What I conveyed (if you understood my posts) was that pawning off armchair conjecture with no peer-review or direct evidence in its favor under the aegis of professionalism was irresponsible. I never said that it was "dangerous" to publicize common sense, but rather, what you see as "common sense" based on dubious references is not quality evidentiary support. Rather, peer-review, the scientific method, theoretical parsimony, and double-blind studies pitting different approaches against each other should be the emphasis and not gut feelings, appeals to emotion, and superficial appeals to "common sense" ("it feels right...it's obvious...it's common sense", etc.).

Sorry, but my sense of merriment is increasing here. Again, that stuff really is just common sense. It's the kind of thing psychologists must have been saying for years. Why would you have to peer-review a finding that increasing your emotional connection to others in the outside world, doing things to give yourself a sense of belonging, and finding intellectually stimulating things to do, will improve your sense of well-being, for example? LOL again.

The authors' claims go well beyond this according to that laughable REM-emotion blurb you posted and what they say on the Givens website, so you can cut the minimization and LOL'ing at false targets of your own construction.

Yep, that stuff about how eating more healthily, doing more exercise and getting more sleep can improve your mental health was terribly irresponsible to link to! Just think what terrible consequences it could have led to if you hadn't stepped in to warn people off! Really, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide examples of exactly what it is you're objecting to, and explain why. Just scare-mongering isn't going to help your case.

Same straw man, different angle. You know the claims go beyond this. Stop making cartoon characterizations of my position because you can't respond appropriately.

Frankly, since you haven't read the book, you have no idea what research they use to back up such claims as the claim that worrying increases depression.

Based on your summary and the websites, it sounds like re-heated old ideas mixed with humanistic flair and a healthy dose of nonsense, which I stated before. Of course there could be a smattering of micro-truths in the steaming pile of donkey dung. What I was going after were the half-baked ideas mixed with the old ideas and mini-truths such as the silly REM-emotion business and other silly stuff mentioned on the website. But since you've misunderstood my posts, there may be a chance that you've equally misunderstood and miscommunicated their book content.

In fact, the zeal with which you condemn such things on the basis of very little evidence suggests to me that your objections are ideological, rather than being grounded in objectivity.

Here we go The ultimate "yo mama!" response. Those darned ideological questioners and skeptics of armchair conjecture!

Goodness you're right! Just because the book was written for members of the general public, people suffering from depression who may well be finding it difficult to concentrate and focus on anything complicated, why shouldn't it have been packed with lengthy technical detail about how the evidence has been disentangled and replicated in numerous studies. Why shouldn't it have belaboured its points with pages and pages of statistics, references to various scientists and minutia about the various research methods and findings the scientists used to reach their conclusions. Yes, why shouldn't the authors have in fact made it bearly readable for the member of the public who just wanted a bit of advice. Indeed.

One can certainly write a more simplified book for the layperson based on direct evidentiary support somewhere in the research literature. But where are those articles containing evidence backing their souped-up claims (NOT the simple diamonds in the dunghill) directly? There's the rub. Don't make this an all-or-nothing.

...I have no reason to take what you say seriously...

Erm, ditto.

I haven't given you anywhere near enough information on the book for you to be able to make such a bold assertion about the amount of "confounds" in it. Your reaction does seem rather knee-jerk. And how old are the clinical psychology texts you mention? Research moves on rather quickly in psychology. They may themselves be outdated.

Nice deflection. The blurb you typed out was loaded with potential rival alternative explanations. You insinuate that I am an ideologue while you won't so much as acknowledge the glaring problems you wrote about from the book? You'll just claim that ah, the critical thinking about research is outdated?

And no, the fundamentals of research methodology (i.e., internal and external validity and the threats posed to them, reliability, replication, parsimony, etc.) haven't changed that radically in the past decade. Should I start relying on anecdotal stories instead? Are those superior to critical thinking and the scientific method?

There's that alarmist cry of "woo" again. Who was it who likened the repetitive cry of "woo woo" to the alarm whistle of an oncoming steam train the other day!

Oh, this is definitely justified as woo-ridden... I don't regret that comment one bit. Take a serious look at that REM nonsense you posted and the claims made on that website after you've read the outdated books on critical thinking about research.

...Thinking about it though, if you're judging the books by the fluff on their website, it's understandable that you're scornful of them. The website is just like an advert really. Much in the same way that an advert on the television will often not give one a true idea about what the product is really like, the fluff on their website doesn't, and in fact arguably does an injustice to the books if they're judged by it, because the books are far more down-to-earth.

Ok... now we're getting somewhere. You're claiming the websites are just not measuring up to the books. If that's the case, and you truly are not accurately representing what you typed out from the books... and they DO contain direct evidentiary support for their ideas, which you have not provided despite my requests, then I will check out those books and prepare to undo my ideology and see the LIGHT can-I-get-a-hallelujah!!!

Still, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to what you're condemning the books for, - unresearched fluff based on gut instinct, or old tried-and-tested ideas they have no business repackaging and charging for as if they're their own.

Both. Mainly the unresearched highfalutin claims (the highly irresponsible part). So you did get the gist. You straw-manned me, then.

No no no! I'm not talking about anything Freudian here! I'm talking about a much, much gentler, non-invasive version of that horrid practice so common in psychological therapy today of prompting people to talk in-depth about what traumatised them to re-experience it...

That piece of it was interesting, as I said, but it did smack of the old analytic "get it out of your system" nonsense. I'll need to dig into this in more detail in the literature since studies on this seem to actually exist.

In fact, counselling that encourages people to talk about the reasons they're upset at length can also have a similar effect, because remembering all that stuff can prime people to go away and ruminate on it all week till they get mega-depressed. One reason I advocate self-help books - if they stop people falling into the hands of such "therapists", and help them along the way, they have to be a good thing.

Can be, but not always... and depends on the source and quality of information therein.

I once explained it to someone who'd had a traumatic experience who'd been trained to teach others relaxation techniques. I said it was something a counsellor might do. But she did it on herself and felt a whole lot better afterwards. Still, that's just an anecdote, and we all know how scornworthy they are when discussing things that need to be properly scientifically measured.

No, not scorn-worthy, just skeptic-worthy. And not of the same value as multiply observed, replicated results. In Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, he writes about how anecdotes, or stories recalled to support a claim, do NOT equate to science. More anecdotes are not better than fewer, and anecdotes are recounted by very fallible human beings with very fallible cognitive abilities that are prone to all sorts of heuristic biases. That's why we have things like that nasty, horrible peer-review process, and yucky controlled experiments with scary numbers and statistics are used to isolate critical independent variables as best we can from extraneous, confounding influences and ascertain as "clean" an impact as possible of one variable upon another.

 

[bigred]

BN you have to remember where you are. At JREF a lot of people have what I call a "test tube" mentality, ie they don't even consider believing anything if it hasn't been dissected to death via multiple studies (all must be online of course) blah etc. Not a bad mindset per se, but taken too far it's very myopic, and at times I suspect used as some sort of social identity boost - which is OK, we all have those, but yeesh - the idea of questioning some of these things is like questioning if water is wet.

Hey yeah - how do you know water is wet? Do you have a study that proves it?? Did peers sign off on this?? I don't buy it.

Again I think much of what you have stated here could easily be grasped by the average 12 yr old - the idea of being "skeptical" over such simple truths I find pretty curious too, but to each their own I guess.