Saturday, 1 October 2011

Psychiatric Solutions - Diagnostication and The Threshold of Mental Illness (+ a little)

On Psychiatric Diagnoses

Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-03-30 06:21:45

Apart from the view on Psychiatric diagnostication elsewhere, I start this topic just to see where it goes (or just for the f*ck of it)... nicely alongside the other...

Diagnoses: It's my view that Psychiatric diagnoses are in fact best categorised by the two sides (of two) of Schizophrenia and Depression. It's also inherent that these two categories also contain these two concepts as actual psychiatric illnesses. Thus:

Category: Schizophrenia - Illnesses: Schizophrenia, Bulimia, Psychopathy, Compulsive Obsession (particularly of people), (more?)

Category: Depression - Illnesses: Depression, Anorexia, Stress Syndromes, PTSD, (more?)

This view is a mere suggestion.

(This has first been published on the Philosophy Now forum, by myself, today, 30.03.2011, about 1 hour and 20 minutes ago.)

Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post150.

Philosophy of Psychiatry - The Definite Illnesses!

Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-03-26 05:40:41

...and no blowing of white smoke or mystic diagnostication. Here comes:

Mental illnesses are generally scientifically determined by and pathologically defined by the functioning level of the case in question, being the functioning that is defined by ALL parts of a normal life, i.e., social, work, personal, mental and physical.

Thus, any absurd notion that mental illnesses are in a haze is firmly removed.

The next problem is really the diagnostication. Not only are the the categories unclear/definitely undecided by consensus, but the approach to the patients are not entirely set by procedure either. I have this fourfold suggestion:

1. Cognition of patient's language. You can make good manuals for clues to look for in the patients.

2. Patient's behaviour. This is really the brain-child of B. F. Skinner and is still in good use, although a little more intelligently, like mimicry, possibly by computer pattern recognition.

3. The classic questionnaires incl. (the rather unserious) Rorschach test.

4. Patient's self-reports and general reports about the patient by close friends, family, etc.

Not only are these good, but you can still add the metabolism test from blood sample and new approaches by (f)MRI.

By this, diagnostication should be seen as 100% and there should be little margin of error unless the mental illness is in its very early stages!

You may also want to get acquainted with the much used GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning, fx. by Wikipedia url, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Assessment_of_Functioning.

Cheers! :-)

Note: this has just been published on the Philosophy Now forum and I'm going to add it to both the "Opinions on Science..." and "Psychiatric Views and Findings"!

Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post149.

Note2: notion on GAF added today, 17.07.2011.

On the Distinction Between Cheap Psychology and Expensive Psychology

Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-04-07 20:58:04

I would like to point out the distinction between cheap psychology and expensive psychology!

Some people call themselves "people with great insights into psychology" and thus represent a kind of Folk-Psychology. Yet other actual psychologists don't deliver according to the professional requirements. You should ditch both of these notions and seek the "expensive" psychology, psychology that makes sense and works for you!

"Expensive" psychology comes from psychologists and others with deep, academic insights and they are well-trained in Psychology. Otherwise it may be possible to obtain "expensive" psychology by books and a good deal of efforts of yourself. That is, you make serious efforts toward getting to "expensive" psychology yourself.

This for now! Cheers!

PS: I have the view that, without having profound knowledge of psychology, that it may be rewarding to roll back on psychology to the '50s and '60s and add cognitive progress in the field from today and deducting the awful racist notions from this "early" time, considering the 120 years of the "young" science of psychology.

PS2: I'd also like to add the mere fact that some people make this distinction between cheap psychology and expensive psychology and that there may be important underlying factors that makes it so!

Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post158.

10 comments:

  1. People may be ignoring that there are all kinds of addictions, alcoholism, drug addiction, pedophilia and _addiction to criminal behaviour, to injuring people, to the perverse_, i.e., suckers for sh*t!!! You get it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The "categories" above are now reduced to only two, namely, Schizophrenia and Depression. All disorders now fall under these two categories. Please, take note of this. These 2 categories and the way to set up an analysis chart is an invention and result of _my work_ that started out in 2003, formally on the Internet! Good?

    As for treatment strategy, psychiatric strategy, and given a few hidden assumptions/customs (by the schema of my suicide argument), I think it's fair to have the position that natural death is to prefer over other strategies that involve these hidden assumptions/customs! That is, if alcohol works (along with medication) then easily death too by that vector!

    Please, be considerate over "easily", it's not that "easy", but it follows, possibly and well enough, intellectually to this particular strategy!

    Put "enjoyed" in there, please! The text thus:
    As for treatment strategy, psychiatric strategy, and given a few hidden assumptions/customs (by the schema of my suicide argument), I think it's fair to have the position that natural death is to prefer over other strategies that involve these hidden assumptions/customs! That is, if alcohol works (along with medication) then death can be enjoyed too by that vector! (Perhaps "enjoyed" is to go too far, but I think you get it.)

    I've formerly written that I think that ADMB should file under the Schizophrenic category, although, unknown how far out from the "normal", separating the two categories of Schizophrenia and Depression!
    I have been writing also that I place Psychopathy the furthest out in the Schizophrenia category, at least in lack of any "worse" diagnosis. However, schizophrenia itself can probably be placed in various places in its own category, possibly making this as ugly!

    The "category" of "Other", not being a category, but a "category"/folder/registry for unplotted/uncertain illnesses in this "Other" category. Which these are, is basically for yourself to decide, but I think Autism is a good choice as a start. This "category" reflects uncertainty about the data sets and how a good description is supposed to relate to the above!
    The above relates to The _Two_ Category System of Schizophrenia and Depression!

    This is of course a part of my ongoing analysis and work for a more complete Philosophy of Psychiatry as I've been successful in the past on other projects! I also think the Somatist point is a fine one (emphasising careful personal behaviour and personal physical security)!

    It may be, incredibly enough, that psychopaths, when on the "psycho path by primary inclination, unrestrained by observers or some or not", picks up a trait in the face or head that makes them appear different, like with a forehead extending from the usual image of the forehead of this person!

    This may sound weird and out of place, but these people are "a special club" and "dangerous at that" and that there are _actually_ features, even today, in nature/reality that your little head doesn't know about just yet! Now, it may also be that these people are curiously inclined, because of the _hard_ nature of people they're with, toward "magic with people" and "experiments with people" and that sort, still VERY dangerous and not very known! For you to discover! Be careful!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just like to insert here the notion of "Normative Research Methods of Psychiatry"! Psychiatry, at least by myself, isn't to be considered as some "trip into a jungle". No, there are probably strict guidelines in place for this and that and that psychiatry is usually guided, officially, by the primary councils, The Scientific Council and The Ethical Council. These two bodies are usually attached to the professional Guilds! For research standards, please see NESH! (More on NESH to follow!)

    The NESH URLs:
    http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki
    http://www.codex.uu.se/en/forskningmedicin.shtml ! Good?

    I'm sorry. NESH appears to be a specific Norwegian acronym that translates to The National (of Norway) Research Ethical Committee for the Political Sciences and the Humanities (Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for samfunnsfag og humaniora (NESH)), incl. at least psychology, if not psychiatry directly in this instance because they file under the medical conventions!

    Cheers!

    Further on Telepathy -> Ganzfeldraum and all the rest...
    On telepathy: If telepathy, whatever way you see it, provides nothing, 0 results, _then_ you're justified in NOT believing in it, but if it gives you 10/100 then these 10 results may be worth something very special, on skill, almost the same as when jet-fighter pilots begin using their eyes on the sky and get better in it! Not only this, but what fantastic nature doesn't these 10 results hold? I'm telling you, START believing!!!

    Further on the plotting: Megalomania sorts under Schizophrenia because of the inclinations to see oneself as a kind of God! That is, Schizophrenics has a tendency to overrate one's own capacity, even saying they're Gods who decide over life and death here and there in the World! Concl: Megalomania under the _category_ of Schizophrenia!

    The manic depression, bipolar disorder as it's also named, should be placed under depression. It's really a misnomer to place it elsewhere, I think, because people may become depressed, but pushed upward to a kind of happy manic state by biological inclination toward life (and joy).
    Those who have placed people with schizophrenic symptoms under the label of manic-depression are wrong by this system!!!
    Manic-depression or Bipolar disorder have formerly been placed under Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). I disagree deeply with this because DID blurs up the diagnostic system and I can't see the definite use for the concept of DID in its current form!

    Note: this is now transferred from Whatiswritten777 blog and the project is about 15 days of entering its 7th year, that is, 21.12.2011! Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  4. By now then, I've added Megalomania, Manic-Depression and ADMB to the "chart". You can possibly add "Misopedia" under (F65) Disorders of sexual preference (yet not listed) and into the Schizophrenia category even more far out than Psychopathy even though the two may coincide. Misopedia has been mentioned on CNN recently in relation to the finding of a dead 7 year old girl who turned out to have been sexually abused (and probably various more). You can check out yourself! Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  5. In case misopedia is defined as the absurd treatment of girls and women, I think it's appropriate to add mis_a_pedia as the absurd treatment of boys and men. However, ICD-10 probably places both of these under "Sadomasochism"! Good?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Considering the anti-"old-hate-management", it may very well be that we find ourselves together with fx. Mexico in stifling pains in people by allowing more common access to "pain-relievers" of all kinds, under less doctor-dogmatism, and consequently under more med. administrated programs where the leading principle is "absence of pains", that is, ALL pains of physical and mental kinds, fx. "the child inside me is crying" or "the child inside me is driving me nuts" or other notions of demons and what-have-you, you know, all sorts of mental pains out of the usual social contexts where "crime is not yet at satisfying levels, incl. corruption"!!! Like it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I pertain (and approve of) this definition of "psychosis" /only/ and everything that falls into its scope, that is, description of symptoms, mainly!!! It is (from Wikip. and not "more"): Psychosis (from the Ancient Greek ψυχή "psyche", for mind/soul, and -ωσις "-osis", for abnormal condition) means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People suffering from psychosis are described as psychotic. Psychosis is given to the more severe forms of psychiatric disorder, during which hallucinations and delusions and impaired insight may occur.[2] [You can check up these numbers in brackets yourself. I have only included them so as to be more genuine to the text (at hand)]

    ReplyDelete
  8. As I am the holder of the idea of mSomatism, I have additional information for you concerning it: (my) mSomatism relates to the underpinning of (physical) violence in addition to the standing of morality to the psychology. But physical violence relates also to morality, don't forget, please! Traffic accidents do not (like that).

    On the earliest stages, my writing on mSomatism has held the notions of physical violence, but this has somehow slipped out of the writing.

    So to add: mSomatism in this relation to these illnesses by two categories, is about staying safe/reasonably safe/most safe (contextual) for maintaining sound psychological health, also from "the hand of torture" and all other relations that harm or possibly harm (through the brain) the mind, including perverting yourself by video/audio input and other by various means, the morality aspect again.

    I'm sorry that I'm writing this so late. As you may suspect, I've received little feedback and thus have had little chance to explicate! Also, as I hold a star (here, by the idea, mSomatism) so also I receive the envy!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The /coloristics/ that may be restored as impression only is only a guide for impressions, one that never serves primary input of information, primarily the audio/video input, also feelings. This is the German flag notion and has no crucial relation to mSomatism as such!

    ReplyDelete
  10. For research ethics, see the Helsinki Declaration (they should be standard now, along with procedural demands): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_declaration .

    ReplyDelete