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.