Mental Disorders and Religious Sentiment...

[Dancing David]

The problem with PETS is that you never know if you are seeing the presence of something, or the absence of something else. You never know if something just got switched on, or something else just got switched off.

That is the problem with moods.

That seems to be a moot point, there are theories that depression is caused by an overactivity of certain regulatory systems in the brain, while schizophrenia is theorised to be from a lack of activity in another area of the brain..

I will ask straight up then, why should it matter, depression has observable physical coorelates, which is a reason that you said you feel it is a social construction, but then when I have pointed out that there are observable physical things you just say " poo poo they don't matter'. So if you have a counter theory to the biopsychosocial model of mental illness, lets hear it.

 

[Dancing David]

Not really. I'm saying I don't believe in mental illness. In other words, the actuality of mental illness existence is hardly my concern. That one would expect me to put faith in some subjective experiences while simutaneously rejecting others is illogical. I have no problem with illogical beliefs. I have some myself, but no one should be telling me which ones to have when the evidence for them is on its best day, shoddy.

When I said that it is the interpretation of the subjective experience that is the thoerhetical contention, your response was vauge at best. I am stating that both the experience of god, trees, dogs and moods are biological based in the human nervous system, do you agree with that?

 

[Dancing David]

I've read some of these reports. Unfortunately, they are not consistent. Some people with the same degeneration of dendrites have never been diagnosed as depressed, or shown signs of being depressed.

I hope they find a "definite physiological correlation." I sincerely do. But for now, it just doesn't exist.

Good point, so why do people commit suicide?

BTW all words and concepts are human social construction, it is wether a word or theory has valid predictive qualities that make it useful, what is the difference between the word 'GERD' and the word 'depression'?

 

[Katana]

I'd be quite willing to classify being born again as a kind of psychological state, with a typical set of behaviors and beleifs etc. that is comparable in some ways to being in a state of depression.

Yep. Both evidence of mental illness.

I agree that coercing parents into medicating their children is reprehensible, and that parents and teachers all too often resort to medicating problems that could be treated in other ways, but again to jump from this to the conclusion that mental illness is merely a social construct with no basis in reality, is way too much for me.

Most of my friends in child psych would disagree with this oft-painted picture of what's going on. Their impression is that it is frequently the parents pushing to have their kids put on meds. Unfortunately, it's usually the parents themselves whose actions (or inaction) have created the problems in their children that they then want/expect/demand psychiatrists and teachers to fix.

It is unfortunate that overdiagnosis of psychiatric illnesses and over-reliance on meds has contributed to the impression that all mental illness is bogus. It only hurts those who are genuinely ill. I agree with you in that one cannot conclude from the irresponsible and unethical behavior of some psychiatrists, teachers, and parents that it is just a social construct.

 

[blutoski]

It's about the choice you assume I should make in one category of things as opposed to another. Yet, you offer no real logical reason why I should.

I was trying to get an anchor on your worldview framework. You're rejecting the reification of things like depression, but appear quite satisfied with other reifications, many of which are dubious. ie: PET scanners are used to show some of the structural distinctions that are correlated with schizophrenia. PET scanners rely on the concept of antimatter. This is, in my opinion, way, way, more speculative than the idea that depression is an actual 'thing'.

Why is antimatter - which nobody has ever seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or even theorized existed until two generations ago - so much more 'real' than depression, which has been recorded as a state of mind for all known history?

The reason I'm confused about your argument is that it's a confusing case of special pleading. I ask you specifically to identify what it is that is unique about mood disorders that leads you to concern.

 

[Dave1001]

I ask you specifically to identify what it is that is unique about mood disorders that leads you to concern.

To play devil's advocate

1. There are parties with a huge financial interest in mood disorders as a construct, such as major pharmaceutical companies.
2. I've never experienced what's described as a mood disorder personally. But, I've pretended to be sick in the past for special treatment, such as getting to stay home from school. I'm concerned that people may be pretending to have mood disorders for attention and special treatment.
3. What is called mood disorder may just be mood diversity. Deviation is not necessarily disorder.
4. One could just as well define society as having the disorder and the individual as being fine. Claiming that a mood pattern which clashes with the modern, capitalist industrial society is a disorder is just a quick way to fix elements of our society that aren't producing enough wealth for capitalist elites.

 

[blutoski]

Most of this started when I said that I don't really believe in mental illness. On a skeptics board, no less. Perhaps I would have been better to say I'm a mental illness agnostic??

Not really: agnostics believe there is no way to know about something. They may or may not have a personal opinion on top of this. You seem pretty sure they're not real based on what you think is good evidence against their existence, which puts you squarely in the group called 'psychiatry deniers'.

First came a slew of insults hurled at me as being some kind of uncompassionate person.

Assumption based on experience. The majority of psychiatry deniers are targetting their issues at disorders such as the personality disorders and the anxiety disorders. An example is a coworker who thinks the clinically depressed should just suck it up: that they're just trying to solicit special favours, &c.

All that coupled with assertions that it was real-- most of the strongest defenses came from either:

a) a person who has experienced it
b) a person who works in mental health

When pointing this out, I'm accused of sounding like an ID'r.

'cause it's true. They pull this 'bias' accusation all the time. Avoids the chore of talking about the evidence.

Yet, were this a religious discussion, as a Christian, I expect that my self-reports of anything spiritual in nature would be immediately recognized as biased by my experience. Naturally then, we have to assume that the poster's are trying to tell me that the discussions of religious moods and the discussion of "other moods" are somehow fundamentally different.

Not following. I don't think we've been saying this. Again: I repeat: I think you're conflating four different issues:

1) whether mental states are reified (real)
2) whether some mental states are disorders
3) whether mental disorders have a physical cause
4) whether mental disorders can be abused by authorities

To give you an analogy, let's consider the antivax debate, which is a parallel healthfraud issue.

They argue:
1) chickenpox is a real thing
2) but it is not an illness
3) and it has a physical cause
4) and the classification of it as an illness has led to abuse by authorities

I disagree, of course, but the point is that there are four issues here which are almost orthogonal.

So, for the sake of argument, I'd like you to understand my side of the discussion. I invite you to play devil's advocate (or blutoski's advocate, if you prefer)... is chickenpox an illness?

I reject this conclusion, and it demonstrates the kind of faulty thinking will one day become in future governments, a source of power over people and their moods. All in the name of benevolence.

If you think I'm wrong then ask yourself why do we even need a Child Medication Safety Act?????

And listen to the APA froth at the mouth over it:

http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/cmsa1170.html


So I'm told basically that these mental "states" which exist because of surveys, studies, reports from highly intelligent observers are to be given power over me by my benevolent benefactors??? Sounds like the Catholic Church of the middle ages to me.

Politics, and does not actually address whether these conditions exist or not. See above point four.

There was a time in this country when people with certain genetic conditions were sterilized. The fact that the government was abusing its power did not mean these people did not have these genetic conditions. It is a debate about politics, not science. The laws have long since been repealed, but these people are still genetically identifiable.

I'll use that example, too:

They argued:
1) Down Syndrome is a real thing
2) and it is a disability
3) and it has a physical cause
4) and these people should be sterilized

We now argue:
1) Down Syndrome is a real thing
2) and it is a disability
3) and it has a physical cause
4) and these people should not be sterilized


However, there are support groups that argue:
1) Down Syndrome is a real thing
2) but it is not a disability
3) and it has a physical cause
4) and these people should not receive special treatment

 

[blutoski]

To play devil's advocate

1. There are parties with a huge financial interest in mood disorders as a construct, such as major pharmaceutical companies.
2. I've never experienced what's described as a mood disorder personally. But, I've pretended to be sick in the past for special treatment, such as getting to stay home from school. I'm concerned that people may be pretending to have mood disorders for attention and special treatment.
3. What is called mood disorder may just be mood diversity. Deviation is not necessarily disorder.
4. One could just as well define society as having the disorder and the individual as being fine. Claiming that a mood pattern which clashes with the modern, capitalist industrial society is a disorder is just a quick way to fix elements of our society that aren't producing enough wealth for capitalist elites.

Yeah, but that's all crap, though. With very few exceptions, people with personality disorders are mostly at large to act as they see fit. There's no grand conspiracy to manage them. The point where they come across a professional's desk is either when they collide with the law, or come in voluntarily and ask for help.

Regarding faking illnesses: it's come up on this thread before. I can fake a headache, back pain, blindness... does that undermine the validity of these ideas? No.

Regarding point 3: you're right. Deviation is not disorder. Nobody claims so. Disorder is when the patient has negative consequences.

Again, this is why skeptics get froozled by this debate. Within minutes, psychology deniers run out of good arguments, and it's all conspiracy theories from then on.

 

[Dave1001]

Yeah, but that's all crap, though. With very few exceptions, people with personality disorders are mostly at large to act as they see fit. There's no grand conspiracy to manage them. The point where they come across a professional's desk is either when they collide with the law, or come in voluntarily and ask for help.

Regarding faking illnesses: it's come up on this thread before. I can fake a headache, back pain, blindness... does that undermine the validity of these ideas? No.

Regarding point 3: you're right. Deviation is not disorder. Nobody claims so. Disorder is when the patient has negative consequences.

Again, this is why skeptics get froozled by this debate. Within minutes, psychology deniers run out of good arguments, and it's all conspiracy theories from then on.

Devil's advocacy continued:

Just because someone suggests that powerful interests are vested in a social phenomenon, and may be help shaping society in such a way as to promote that outcome, doesn't necessarilly mean that one is suggesting a "grand conspiracy". For example pharmaceutical company executives may be able to determine independently from each other that the more a concept called medical illness is promoted in society, the more social resources are likely to end up redistributed to their management, and thus most of them are likely to feel vested in promoting the belief in and diagnoses of mental disorders, even if they didn't sit down in a smoke filled back room to plan it all out.

In truth (devil's advocacy cap off), I think many forms of non-strictly utilitarian forms of privilege, and resource and hierarchy advantage are maintained in these sorts of informal ways. Which is why I think it's an unenlightening criticism of folks alleging unfairness to point out the unlikeliness of a grand conspiracy, when such a grand conspiracy may be unecessary to maintain the sort of unfair inequalities that they're alleging.

 

[blutoski]

Devil's advocacy continued:

Just because someone suggests that powerful interests are vested in a social phenomenon, and may be help shaping society in such a way as to promote that outcome, doesn't necessarilly mean that one is suggesting a "grand conspiracy". For example pharmaceutical company executives may be able to determine independently from each other that the more a concept called medical illness is promoted in society, the more social resources are likely to end up redistributed to their management, and thus most of them are likely to feel vested in promoting the belief in and diagnoses of mental disorders, even if they didn't sit down in a smoke filled back room to plan it all out.

In truth (devil's advocacy cap off), I think many forms of non-strictly utilitarian forms of privilege, and resource and hierarchy advantage are maintained in these sorts of informal ways. Which is why I think it's an unenlightening criticism of folks alleging unfairness to point out the unlikeliness of a grand conspiracy, when such a grand conspiracy may be unecessary to maintain the sort of unfair inequalities that they're alleging.

Fair enough. One thing I like to always point out when critiquing conspiracy theories is that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy: Oswald's wife was in on it, too. Some grand conspiracies are real. Watergate comes to mind.

However, the problem is that I'm unable to pin down the distinction between the actual critique of the existence of these disorders from the credible problem of their exaggeration in, say, politics or commerce. These will happen whether or not there is scientific merit for the claim. This is the basic issue about healthfraud: it's the misrepresentation of hypotheses as scientific findings.

But a review of corporate balance sheets does not tell us anything about scientific findings, so I prefer to put that real issue on the back burner and address it in a political forum. Granted: scientific findings inform political debates, but it is a one-directional information flow.

I can't give much credibilty to arguments that look like:

[x is a scientific fact] because [y politics is such]

 

[stamenflicker]

'cause it's true. They pull this 'bias' accusation all the time. Avoids the chore of talking about the evidence.

And makes it a handy-shandy scapegoat for those pointing out the lack of evidence when you can fall back on those with vested interests.

Not following. I don't think we've been saying this. Again: I repeat: I think you're conflating four different issues:

1) whether mental states are reified (real)
2) whether some mental states are disorders
3) whether mental disorders have a physical cause
4) whether mental disorders can be abused by authorities

You are following just fine. 1, 2, and 3 are all related, though you don't seem to want to believe they are. 4 is why it is important, at least to me.

So, for the sake of argument, I'd like you to understand my side of the discussion. I invite you to play devil's advocate (or blutoski's advocate, if you prefer)... is chickenpox an illness?

illness (noun)

1. The condition of being sick

I haven't had the pox since I was a kid, but I've seen kids since that time who did. They have fevers (measurable), they have visible rashes, etc. etc. So if "illness" means the "condition of being sick," then sure they have a short-term illness.

If you or anyone else wants to define "illness" some other way, then be my guest, we can go from there.

Politics, and does not actually address whether these conditions exist or not. See above point four.

I've continually said that they don't, and we agree. I've also continually said, that politics is a fundamental reason to ask the right questions of our "experts."

 

[blutoski]

You are following just fine. 1, 2, and 3 are all related, though you don't seem to want to believe they are.

I disagree. I'll reprint them:

1) whether mental states are reified (real)
2) whether some mental states are disorders
3) whether mental disorders have a physical cause

Whether or not they're "related" is vague. I'm saying they're not dependent. There is a complete mix-and-match in medicine. These factors can be true or false, independent of each other. Some physical conditions are disorders; others are not. Some disorders are real; others are not. Some disorders have known physical causes; some do not.

illness (noun)

1. The condition of being sick

I haven't had the pox since I was a kid, but I've seen kids since that time who did. They have fevers (measurable), they have visible rashes, etc. etc. So if "illness" means the "condition of being sick," then sure they have a short-term illness.

If you or anyone else wants to define "illness" some other way, then be my guest, we can go from there.

No, that's fine, defined as it is. You've defined what illness is. You have not answered my question. I am asking you the same question you asked me about mood disorders, but this time about chicken pox.

Why is chicken pox an 'illness'? Why is fever, rashes, and other symptoms an 'illness'? Isn't this just a social construct for a combination of measureable symptoms? Who are these illness police that decide which set of temperatures qualify as 'fever' and are 'evidence' of 'illness'?

I've continually said that they don't, and we agree. I've also continually said, that politics is a fundamental reason to ask the right questions of our "experts."

Are you an "expert" in illness? You seem pretty comfortable classifying arbitrary temperatures and skin lesions. Is acne an illness? Birthmarks? Scars? Freckles? Why chicken pox?

My wife has a karyotype reversal on one of her chromosomes. It's a measureable, confirmable, biological fact. It is completely abnormal, caused by a mutation. Probably a meiosis error in a parent's germ cell. Is it an 'illness'?

 

[stamenflicker]

I disagree. I'll reprint them:

1) whether mental states are reified (real)
2) whether some mental states are disorders
3) whether mental disorders have a physical cause

Whether or not they're "related" is vague. I'm saying they're not dependent. There is a complete mix-and-match in medicine. These factors can be true or false, independent of each other. Some physical conditions are disorders; others are not. Some disorders are real; others are not. Some disorders have known physical causes; some do not.

But they are all manifested physically in a physical body. Whether its blood, urine, or biopsy we have something to look at. With mental illness we have? Self-report? Behavior? I don't understand why you can't admit that these are fundamentally different.

Why is chicken pox an 'illness'?

Because we note a condition of being sick.

Why is fever, rashes, and other symptoms an 'illness'?

Because these are evidences of a condition of being sick.

Isn't this just a social construct for a combination of measureable symptoms?

Yes to an extent. But its a construct with a definite, indisputable referent.

Who are these illness police that decide which set of temperatures qualify as 'fever' and are 'evidence' of 'illness'?

Alright, I'll bite. I'm assuming you mean the "police" associated with real conditions of being sick? They're called doctors. And yeah, sometimes it's hard to determine just what's going on. You seem to be suggesting that with my train of thought, when my tooth hurts I'd be just as helped by visiting my proctologist. I think the argument is silly.

So if you'd like to consider the "police" associated with real displays of being in a foul mood or a sad mood, then we can call them psychologists. We can also call them bartenders. Or priests. Or a good friend.

Again back to point number one above, the latter group attempts to reify the mood state to gain legitimacy in the professional world. It uses error prone surveys, self-report, and the ability to "fake it" to draw its conclusions. While the former group has normal temperature (98.6) from which to draw its conclusions.

Are you an "expert" in illness?

Nope. Would it matter if I was?

You seem pretty comfortable classifying arbitrary temperatures and skin lesions. Is acne an illness? Birthmarks? Scars? Freckles? Why chicken pox?

They could be if we made them so. For example, if I found obesity to be threatening to my social experiences, and enough people agreed with me, we could institutionalize empirically verifiable fat people. What's your point?

My wife has a karyotype reversal on one of her chromosomes. It's a measureable, confirmable, biological fact. It is completely abnormal, caused by a mutation. Probably a meiosis error in a parent's germ cell. Is it an 'illness'?

Again, it could be if we decided to make it such. But then again, we can't force treatment in conscious subjects can we?

 

[hammegk]

Why chicken pox?

Er, hmm, bacterial or viral, communicable, objectively measureable physical symptoms ... yeah, just like psychoses. ROFL.

 

[Dave1001]

Why chicken pox?

Er, hmm, bacterial or viral, communicable, objectively measureable physical symptoms ... yeah, just like psychoses. ROFL.

Interesting you bring that up. I believe I remember some publicized epidemiological studies a few years back suggesting that some mental illnesses may have viruses as causal factors. Anyone know the latest status on those theories?

 

[blutoski]

Again, it could be if we decided to make it such. But then again, we can't force treatment in conscious subjects can we?

This is where I'm going. So: anything's an illness, if we decide it is?

ie: why is chickenpox not a 'condition' or a 'physical state'? Why is it a medical thingie?

 

[blutoski]

Because we note a condition of being sick.

What is 'sick'? Who decides what is a 'sickness'. You're just going in circles. It's an illness because the person is sick, and the person is sick because they have an illness.

Why is it an 'illness'?

We get viruses all the time. Warts, for example. Why are only some infections an 'illness'?

 

[blutoski]

Interesting you bring that up. I believe I remember some publicized epidemiological studies a few years back suggesting that some mental illnesses may have viruses as causal factors. Anyone know the latest status on those theories?

I'm not saying they're 'just like' psychoses. My question is: why do we consider them an illness, as opposed to, say, having brown eyes, which is a demonstrably physical condition?

Why isn't chickenpox a 'state of body' or 'physical condition'? Why is it an 'illness'?

 

[hammegk]

Interesting you bring that up. I believe I remember some publicized epidemiological studies a few years back suggesting that some mental illnesses may have viruses as causal factors. Anyone know the latest status on those theories?

Are all viruses communicable?

I'd say there is no doubt that some "mental illness" has a physical cause, yet if a specific virus, or chemical, or whatever, is not identified and has actually been proved as causal, the symptoms are mental and subjective more than physical and objective.


And I see bluto still doesn't get it...

 

[stamenflicker]

What is 'sick'? Who decides what is a 'sickness'. You're just going in circles. It's an illness because the person is sick, and the person is sick because they have an illness.

Why is it an 'illness'?

We get viruses all the time. Warts, for example. Why are only some infections an 'illness'?

My question is: why do we consider them an illness, as opposed to, say, having brown eyes, which is a demonstrably physical condition?

Why isn't chickenpox a 'state of body' or 'physical condition'? Why is it an 'illness'?

Now you're asking the right questions. They're important questions. They're questions we should have been asking back when we were sterilizing people. They're the same questions we should be asking now that we're mentally sterilizing people's moods.