TVAA-you don't know jackshit about mental illness

Mental disorders aren’t necessarily valid
You know, it isn’t enough to have to cope with my disorder, is it? (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).

No, I also have to deal with asshats like TVAA, who go and tell me that I don’t really have anything wrong with me.

So because you can’t see it, that means it doesn’t exist?

I’m so sick of this crap. What the hell does he think, that we make this stuff up for shits and giggles? That I LIKE having fucking panic attacks? That I enjoy having to put my life on hold, having trouble holding a job and getting stuff done?

You’re a real piece of work, TVAA.

:dubious:

So, what TVAA is trying to say is that mental illness is all in our heads? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist. Just cause I have an anxiety disorder doesn’t mean I can’t have a sense of humour.)

I’m not understanding where s/he is coming from, and I ain’t reading three pages plus to figure it out. If s/he is saying that mental illnesses are not a result of physiological problems, then s/he can bite my ass.

My disorder is as valid as a diabetic’s lack of insulin, and just as treatable. Maybe someday when people stop thinking stupid things like this about mental disorders we can get over the stigma attached to them, and I won’t be so shy about telling people that I have one (only my close family {and this board} know at this point).

I wish it were possible for people to have a grasp of what it means to have a mental illness, without developing one themselves. Oh, wait, it is possible! For those who are capable of empathy, and who regularly practice the art of compassion… It says a lot about a person’s character, when such statements are made. Mental notes made, the person will be avoided. Compassion and courtesy should come first, before intellectual debate, it’s an art that can be learned with effort.

Don’t take it bad, Guin.

Moreover, every time I ran into him, I got the impression that he was there only for the discussion with nary an ounce of compassion for the parties involved. He’s quick to accuse and often incorrect in his rebuttals. He has little (if any) credence with me.

Whatever.

There are some supposed mental illnesses that are probably all in the imagination of some ambitious psychological researcher looking to make a name for himself.

And it seems to me that to decide something is a mental “disorder”, we have to define some sort of “normal order” for the mind. I don’t think we’re sufficiently advanced in our knowledge of the mind to do that quite yet.

And I’m highly skeptical about psychotherapy, as well as personally opposed to the use of psychotropic medication to alter the mind.

For all that, however, I don’t see the need to make anything personal out of the issue. I can’t crawl into anyone else’s mind, so I don’t know how they think (or even whether they think, if I want to be really skeptical). If somewhere in that thread, TVAA made it personal, then I understand and agree with your angst, Guin. Otherwise, I think the issues are up for debate in a general way. Courtesy is one thing, but people ought not be afraid even to broach a subject for fear of offending someone with a vested interest in one side or another of the issue. That sort of courtesy is perfect for dinnertable conversation, but here at SDMB we’re free to rustle some feathers.

I understand that people with mental illnesses, however we define that, have faced a certain amount of hostility in society, from various institutions, insurance companies, and so on. I understand in light of that why you might get defensive when you see a challenge to the prevailing notion of mental disease, having fought long and hard to establish it. But I doubt TVAA meant anything personally. If something in that thread indicates to the contrary, please point it out to me and correct my mistake.

You beat me to it, Guin!

I don’t object to a sensible straight-forward argument about mental illness. What I do object to is the technique that TVAA uses:

  1. He makes totally unfounded accusations about mental disorders.

  2. His “support” for these claims consists of bits and pieces of irrelevant information taken from a variety of sources. He makes no effort to make any sense out of it. It is double talk.

  3. He suggests that he has credentials that he doesn’t have. (See thread on ODD.)

  4. There is no honest discussion with TVAA. He presents the worst kind of misinformation.

  5. In my opinion, if he were passing on the same kind of misinformation about a serious physical illness with the same kinds of misrepresentations, he could be seen as a legal liability to SDMB.

I’m not saying that there’s nothing wrong with you. I’m saying that the claims that mental illnesses are physiological diseases with known etiologies aren’t valid.

We do not know what causes panic attacks. We do not know if there is one cause or many. We do not understand precisely what the problem is, which therapies will work in which people, or whether any of the existing treatments actually treat the underlying problem or simply modulate its effects.

But you’re not paying any attention to the arguments being presented in the thread – you’re leaping to the most inflammatory conclusion you can reach after skimming the posts. That mindless kneejerk response is what I’m complaining about!

Yeah, if anyone points out that we can’t currently claim to understand some disorder, they’re obviously saying that there aren’t any problems! Sure, people can exert their wills and click their heels together and fix all of their problems! After all, if we don’t have a complete and perfect explanation for something, it must be purely psychological! And if it’s psychological, people can change it at will! You caught me, Guin, that’s what I was really saying all along – gee, I can’t fool you, can I?

:wally

(Oh, and for the record, Spiritus does NOT understand the implications of the Godel Incompletenes Theorem. You can stuff it, Joe K.)

I’m not saying that there’s nothing wrong with you. I’m saying that the claims that mental illnesses are physiological diseases with known etiologies aren’t valid.

We do not know what causes panic attacks. We do not know if there is one cause or many. We do not understand precisely what the problem is, which therapies will work in which people, or whether any of the existing treatments actually treat the underlying problem or simply modulate its effects.

But you’re not paying any attention to the arguments being presented in the thread – you’re leaping to the most inflammatory conclusion you can reach after skimming the posts. That mindless kneejerk response is what I’m complaining about!

Yeah, if anyone points out that we can’t currently claim to understand some disorder, they’re obviously saying that there aren’t any problems! Sure, people can exert their wills and click their heels together and fix all of their problems! After all, if we don’t have a complete and perfect explanation for something, it must be purely psychological! And if it’s psychological, people can change it at will! You caught me, Guin, that’s what I was really saying all along – gee, I can’t fool you, can I?

:wally

(Oh, and for the record, Spiritus does NOT understand the implications of the Godel Incompleteness Theorem. You can stuff it, Joe K.)

** “I don’t know what this person is saying, and I’m not going to take the trouble to find out.”

What do you mean, “valid”?

In Type I diabetes, we can explain why insulin is not produced in sufficient amounts. We can measure its levels (and that of blood sugar) in the bloodstream. We can objectively observe the damage in the pancreas (usually postmortem). We understand what affects insulin has in the body, and how uncontrolled blood sugar leads to the complications of diabetes. We have plenty of objective measures of treatment success. Type II is more complex, but there are plenty of straightforward ways to measure it, and we know quite a bit about how it occurs and how it’s caused.

I don’t know what disorder you have, featherlou, but I can almost guarantee that our understanding of it is NOTHING like diabetes. (You might have Parkinson’s, or Huntington’s, or Kushing’s Disease, but I’m guessing we don’t.)

** Idiot! There’s no stigma attached in suggesting that we don’t know that these conditions are necessarily physiological – even if they were psychological, that doesn’t reflect on those afflicted with them, and our ignorance doesn’t mean that they’re not physiological.

I recommend you keep your mouth shut until you at least read the linked thread. It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and prove it.

** “I don’t know what this person is saying, and I’m not going to take the trouble to find out.”

What do you mean, “valid”?

In Type I diabetes, we can explain why insulin is not produced in sufficient amounts. We can measure its levels (and that of blood sugar) in the bloodstream. We can objectively observe the damage in the pancreas (usually postmortem). We understand what affects insulin has in the body, and how uncontrolled blood sugar leads to the complications of diabetes. We have plenty of objective measures of treatment success. Type II is more complex, but there are plenty of straightforward ways to measure it, and we know quite a bit about how it occurs and how it’s caused.

I don’t know what disorder you have, featherlou, but I can almost guarantee that our understanding of it is NOTHING like diabetes. (You might have Parkinson’s, or Huntington’s, or Kushing’s Disease, but I’m guessing we don’t.)

** Idiot! There’s no stigma attached in suggesting that we don’t know that these conditions are necessarily physiological – even if they were psychological, that doesn’t reflect on those afflicted with them, and our ignorance doesn’t mean that they’re not physiological.

I recommend you keep your mouth shut until you at least read the linked thread. It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and prove it.

Jesus, **Guin **, all you’ve done is give him another soapbox to rant on ;).

More of the same old crap ad infinitum. It’s not worth taking his posts to heart though Guin. Nobody who has actually dealt with mental illness, the decision to medicate themselves or their children and who has actually consulted the professionals would spout the shit he’s been spewing in that thread and the thread about ODD.

Accursed hamsters. Also typos.

For decades, those triply-accursed Freudians indirectly encouraged the idea amon the general population that needing psychiatric help is a sign of personal failure, that a psychological condition “wasn’t real” (mostly because their diagnoses WEREN’T real in any meaningful sense), and that having a condition and going to therapy look years and had no obvious benefits.

So then people latched onto the idea that their illness were physical – JUST like epilepsy, or diabetes, or some other illness/disease/conditon that got sympathy and understanding instead of contempt and projectile stupidity.

Now questioning whether mental illnesses are actually physiological is nearly impossible, because everyone with them (or who knows someone with them, etc.) perceives it as a personal attack!

Primaflora, you’ve never shown even the slightest suggestion that you understood the debate in the ODD thread – the DSM category is poorly defined and does not reflect the operational standards that people actually use to determine if someone gets that diagnosis.

The same goes for contributing to a message board, TVAA.

I see that didn’t stop you from posting. Shouldn’t you be off lobbying for the right to prescribe, Hentor?

I suppose I shouldn’t take it personally.

However, this is one thing that sticks in my craw-the constant battle people have to fight to even be taken seriously, when they say they have a mental disorder.

I’ve had people tell me to “snap out of it,” to try and “put things in perspective”, to simply go over “afirmations” coughlekattcough, or that I simply need to “find JAYZUZ!!!”

It gets annoying after a while. This is one subject that I have a really hard time biting my tongue on.

I’ll tell you what, Guinastasia, quote the sections of that thread where you think I claimed that certain kinds of mental problems don’t exist. Show me where I claimed that there aren’t any people who fit the general descriptions of mental illnesses. Show me where I claimed it’s all in your head.

No, I’m not being facetious. Post them in this thread, and we’ll analyze them. I don’t think you can do it – instead of responding to what’s in that thread, I’m willing to bet that you’re responding to arguments you’ve heard other people make countless times before, and leaped straight to the conclusion that had worked before.

Y’know, no one’s ever figured out why schizophrenia isn’t necessarily a chronic condition in Africa. I suspect it has something to do with the way it’s accepted by the population, but that’s just a wild guess.

Guinastasia: I understand your position. But as someone who was falsely diagnosed with ADD, leading to me being drugged up and told that nothing I did wrong was my fault, leading to a general lack of discipline that I’m trying to correct, I can understand people who question the treatment and diagnosis of mental illness. I think we’re at the point where we can say with a decent amount of certainty that something’s wrong, but we can’t say why.

We don’t have any rock-solid “normal state” to fall back on. And the drugs seem to be based on trial and error, considering that we don’t know what causes these diseases, physiologically. Maybe people with mental disorders have no mutations or problems per se, and it’s just that their brains, as a result of… Whatever… Became wired differently. We don’t know. This doesn’t mean that they’re not valid and shouldn’t be treated, it just means that we don’t know too much, and I feel (although I’m biased after my wrongful diagnosis) that a lot of people who diagnose these disorders assume far too much, and aren’t really careful about it.

If we were somehow able to prove tomorrow that these conditions were initiated psychologically, that wouldn’t suggest that physiological treatments were inappropriate. If we were somehow able to prove tomorrow that these conditions were initiated physiologically, that wouldn’t suggest that psychological treatments were inappropriate.

And in neither case would we be lead to the conclusion that the conditions were the fault of those that had them. (Well, Type II diabetes actually is the fault of the people who develop it quite often, but we won’t get into that.)