I am going to use the word ‘armly’ in a sentence at the pub tonight.
*Now *it’s not. Someday it may be tested for prenatally, with an amniocentesis, hormone levels during pregnancy, genetic testing of the parents before conception or who knows what other methods.
I’m not saying it should be thrown out today. I’m saying that, assuming there’s an organic cause (which more and more researchers are suspecting there is), *someday *it will be thrown out as a psychological diagnosis when that/those cause(s) are discovered and testable.
Really, it’s the nature of psychology. Psychology is the realm of the “mind” (whatever that is) and when various disorders once thought to be of the mind are found to be of the body (whether hormones, genes or brain), then the disorder gets taken out of psychology and moved into some other medical specialty. See, for example, epilepsy. People used to be shut away in mental wards if they were prone to “fits”. Now they’re not. (Unless, of course, they have some other psychological condition that warrants residential management.)
Mr. Neville and I both have depression. Mine responds to SSRIs, his doesn’t. I suspect they’re different disorders with similar symptoms.
One psychiatrist I saw thinks that some of the anxiety disorders will be discovered to be two or more separate problems with similar symptoms.
I hope they’ll find a way to measure brain chemicals like serotonin. Right now, we know that serotonin reuptake inhibitors sometimes help with depression, but we don’t have a way of measuring levels of neurotransmitters.
Nitpick: the US’s drinking age is 21, not 18.
well, this is my opinion based on my direct experience with a sample of 1 (my eldest guest who is now moving out into the world) and a few observations of my nieces and nephews, seems like to me schools are a symptom of greater social conditions that lag somewhat behind those conditions. It seems to me that people are starting to choose maybe a slightly lower standard of success over having two incomes when thats possible so therefore are more involved with the kids and that more and more if two incomes are needed its either in order to reach some specific financial goal more quickly and temporary or for what ever reason the lower wage jobs are all that can be found by the wager earners and two incomes are needed to cover the power water sewer trash food and rent bills (oh and phone and automobile related bills) so sometime in the mmmm say 10-15 years maybe? you will see a trend back towards corporal punishment used in schools (as an option with parental consent) less calling the police for stupid shit (kid brings a squirt gun to school, really? the police? you could just take it away from him?) I think in the next decade or so you will see kids not feel good about themselves just because they exist (actually i think this already happens but will become more widespread) but will feel good because they’ve got something to feel good about a job of some kind that lets them get neat stuff or sometning ok, i could go on like this for pages but this is just my not so humble opinion so i have to add the disclaimer that i could be totally wrong
Maastrict-The U.S. drinking age is 21.
ok, realized after getting up to take care of something else that i totally botched my reponse. In fact on further review, my initial statement really is more about social issues than psychological issues:smack: and i therefore retract said statement:o
Disagree to what I bolded. And if you do not meet dx criteria, you don’t have Aspergers. Btw, not all Aspies are, you know, Temple Grandin types. You are most likely just weird, and that is OK.
No, I don’t think that raising genderless kids is going to eliminate GID. Not even Cher, Queen of all things Gay, Nipped & Tucked, was OK with her son being transgendered.
People with GID are going to struggle as children no matter what the rest of the world does.
Now that may get you laid.
Maybe we’ll discover that depression/autism/fibromalgia/take your pick is caused by poor nutrition. Perhaps too much sugar prenatally. Or a lack of saturated fat. Or is a grain intolerance or vitamin D deficiency.
I’m just curious, for example, how randomized controlled trials testing for psychiatric medications don’t fit the definition of a controlled scientific experiment in the same way as, say, a blood pressure medication would. We have pretty clear operational definitions for mental illness thanks to the DSM - the DSM was in fact intended to be used purely as a research tool.
I have a hard time imagining diagnoses as ever being ‘‘erroneous’’ given the fact that they are purely subjective categorizations in the first place. So when I consider how things are likely to change, I’d say it depends on the research trends in psychology. The tool will evolve to meet the need. But if the question is, more generally, ‘‘how will the DSM change?’’ I’d guess personality disorders would get the biggest overhaul because they seem to me to be the most subjective and even value-driven of mental illness diagnoses - for example the Borderline Personality Disorder criterion include ‘‘unjustified anger.’’ Who the hell decides when anger is justified? In this case, it’d be a single, biased therapist. And given how that diagnosis can follow people and has been shown to affect a therapist’s behavior toward a client regardless of the client’s behavior, I’d say that’s a pretty big issue that should be resolved.