It’s interesting how fluid psychological diagnostic criteria are over time where many of the assumptions mental health professionals made about the nature of the human mind and human mental health 75, 50, or even 25 years ago have been substantially revamped and changed as time progresses. You look back and say to yourself how the hell could we have believed that? And yet we did.
Strictly as an opinion question what current mental health diagnoses do you think will be proven to be wrong or off track and will be substantially changed in the future?
Huh? Using hormones and surgery to modify their bodies to match their brains seems a clear acknowledgment that it is a pathology, a treatable one. It’s just medically and ethically simpler to modify their bodies to match their brains than the other way around (especially since we can’t do the latter at all).
Tons of others I can imagine changing eg, arguments that OCD has more than one condition within it, or PTSD doesnt fit within the other anxiety conditions, borderline and antisocial PD really being the one condition expressed in different ways, stuff like that.
But DID is my pick for the most likely ‘what the heck were they thinking’. Personality disorders in general would be my second.
I think that, like others, Gender Identity Disorder may be eliminated eventually not because it’s not real, but because it will be seen a a biophysical disorder, rather than a psychological/mental one. It will move to the realm of endocrinology or neurology (or maybe even neonatology or pediatrics) and no longer be the domain of psychiatrists.
On that theme, I think practically all current “psychological” disorders will be eventually understood as neurogical/psychiatric in nature. The brain is an organ, after all. All psychology is physiological at the end of the day.
And I expect that a lot of reclassification will go on as the underlying mechanisms are understood better. Disorders that appear separate will be discovered to be different manifestations of the same underlying problem, while other disorders will be discovered to be multiple disorders that only look the same from the outside.
I also think that many things that are not now understood to be disorders will be discovered as our understanding of the brain/mind improves. I also suspect that quite a bit of what gets labeled criminal behavior will be relabeled as psychological disorders, both because our ability to identify such will improve and because for cultural and historical reasons we presently tend to over-diagnose antisocial behavior as a moral problem instead of a medical one.
Disagreed! Some people actually do have processing issues.
I don’t see how GID can be removed completely. How is being born into the wrong body not an issue that needs resolving (medically or otherwise)? It would appear that GID results in some serious trauma, and no one gets GID surgery without psychological help/input first.
But I’d like to see so-called ‘classical autism’ out of the DSM and into medical textbooks. It’s a multi-sensory failure. Not a psychological issue.
Well, I’m sure being born with no arms can result in some serious emotional trauma, too. But it’s a birth defect, not a psychological diagnosis. One can have no arms and *also *have a nursing diagnosis of Disturbed Body Image or a psychological diagnosis of Depression or Anxiety or whatever, but the no-arms thing itself isn’t the psychological condition, you know?
If (when) we find the hormonal or chromosomal or whatever issue is causing people to be born into the wrong gonaded body, or the wrong gendered brain, it will be a medical issue, like thalidomide or chromosomal damage causing babies to be born with no arms.
The whole concept of criminal insanity (ie, “not guilty by reason of insanity”) needs to be completely re-evaluated, and probably discarded. It’s based on old Victorian notions of mental health, specifically the idea thay a crazy person doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong. These days, those ideas have about as much currency as phrenology or penis envy, but the idea still lingers in criminal law.
Heh, television is already doing it, apparently it is now up to 1 in 100 kids has autism …
I will admit that high functioning Aspergers is probably the reason for this, but when you say ‘autism’ I immediately think of a kid that screams if you move that pebble on the windowsill 1 inch to the left, and sits in a corner and refuses to respond to anybody. Aspergers to me is very different - it is someone that can more or less be in society with only smallish bobbles in behavior.
To be honest, I have a feeling that the flood of aspergers is actually the current crop of parents being fairly dysfunctional. If you do not train your kids to have proper boundries, proper manners, organizational skills they are dysfunctional. Not DSM afflicted, just dysfunctional.
Please note that I have a fair number of the quirks associated with autism myself, and I will say that I am an undx aspergers mainly on the grounds of the dx criteria - though I do not have any particular antisocial behaviors. I bathe, have boundries, can schedule, and other than some dyscalculia and dyslexia have very little trouble academically. I came very close to maxing my SAT/ACT and I did max the ASVABs. I am a lapsed member of MENSA [bunch of idiots comparing IQpeens].
It is only mentally traumatic because it is treated as shameful. If it was as null as fixing a club foot or cleft palate, psh. Main problem is they know they are <whichever sex> the problem is getting the rest of the world to allow them to be whatever sex they identify with.
I think that if all kids are raised with no gender-pressure, and let to sort themselves out naturally it would be nowhere near as traumatic, it would end up being treated like hitting puberty and getting a nose job or boob job, a little physical flaw that can be surgically corrected. What would make the transition perfect is if they came up with a way to clone the testes/ovaries to implant not to allow reproduction, but to generate the correct hormones instead of maintenance hormone replacement therapy.
Really, other then the body change, I see no reason why it should be that big of a deal. The big deal it should be is making sure all the assorted life paperwork gets changed over to reflect the new sex and name.
Depression will be more specified into several types, and or several underlying human biologies, so it will make sense what anti-depressant will be of use in a particular case. It has to be better then the haphazard trial and error we have now.
I agree with the self-esteem remark. An exampel from the Netherlands. Our legal drinking age is sixteen. Youngsters drinking themselves into an alcohol induced coma is a serious problem here, and many argue to raise the drinking age to the US’s 18. However, some people said that young people drink so much because they are depressed, have low self esteem, etc. Others, and I agree, say this is nonsense. Youth drinks because alcohol is available. Boredom, peer pressure, peer habit and " hey, lets see what happens" is enough to create a drinking problem.
So I think problems will be less seen as “mental suffering acting out”, less as free will and more as the animal mind reacting to (social) circumstances.
I totally see your point, but it’s not like instances of gender-identity disorder are going to be resolved with a blood test at your pediatrician’s office. These people probably need and greatly benefit from the psychotherapeutic aspect of their treatment.
Plus, being born without a limb or a deformity of a limb is a pretty apparent malformation. You aren’t going to have people telling you all the time that you have arms and should use your arms the ways armly people do when you so obviously have no arms.
It is my understanding that one of the big issues in GID is that society tells them that if they have a penis and testicles that they are a man and should be manly and do manly things. Their brain is telling them that they are not a man, and I would imagine that without help this would be rather hard to reconcile.
All of them. Psychology is pseudo-science (not because they’re not trying to treat it with due scientific rigor, they are, but because you just can’t do proper controlled scientific experiments on humans for ethical reasons).