Topic: The root causes of mental illness - page 2. (Read 4643 times)

I've become a complete convert to the bayesian way of thinking. I believe once there is a critical mass of researchers thinking in that manner it will go a long way towards improving the system. Second point is that researchers need to reduce their reliance on government funding in every way possible. The very basis of the funding is arguably unethical, on top of that it relies on a relatively easily corruptible, centralized authority that distributes funds for reasons other than merit. Science is very, very sick right now and I know I am not alone in this opinion. I don't have time now but once I have finished my current project I plan to spend some time developing a system to crowdsource funding of individual components of research proposals (to supplement government funding..for now) and crowdsource some of the tedious work when possible. I would encourage others to attempt the same in their free time.

I agree, most psychologists and sociologists don't know what they're doing.  Much of the problem is that psychology and sociology is treated in the classroom as an isolated discipline.  If you try to bring up mathematics and try to use it to support a therapeutic model, good luck.  Believe me, I've tried.  Nobody wants to hear, for example, how the mathematical proof of 'the boundary of a boundary = 0' has implications for therapy.  Moreover, in research and statistics classes where mathematics do come into play, people over-emphasize the importance of mathematics to the point where they ignore the limitations of statistical analysis.  Correlation is often mistaken for causation, validity for soundness, and everyone thinks that just because something is published that it must be correct.

Case in point of the stupidity that I was taught, I had a social policy professor claim that "the cause of oppression and injustice in society is the result of bad social policies," to which she added, "which means that the only way to remove oppression and injustice is to create good social policies."

I raised my hand in class and said "bullshit."  Assuming her premise is true (which it's not), then it would be axiomatic that you need to remove ALL 'bad' social policies and start over from scratch.

I firmly believe that the things I am talking about in this thread are going to become more prominent in the future.  I am making a bold statement when I say this, and I know it can come off as very arrogant.  But believe me, I've put in an incredible amount of time formulating these ideas.  I acknowledge that most of them are not new.  But, they didn't come from the predominant psychological and sociological models.  They come from biology, math, quantum mechanics, philosophy and logic, physics, chemistry, etc. in addition to psychology and sociology.  To this extent, the ideas presented here are comprehensive in scope, and there's a ton of information to support my claims that I haven't yet posted.

That is a work in progress. There are fundamental problems with the current system leading to cronyism, not-enough-funding leading to half assism but not knowing where to put additional funding without wasting it, and just that it is a difficult puzzle to begin with.

Then Reverse Engineer it. For individuals capable, meditation. For healthcare professionals, tests, Q&A, scans.

I 85% agree with you except that there is a solution and it is really simple. I'll give you a hint, a big part of it is why I am in this forum. 

It is because the methods pyschs and sociologists use are largely ineffective and the people who do it know that the literature is not reliable. The anxiety/etc experienced by these people results from realizing they don't know wtf they are doing. There are people with problems who can be helped somehow, but no good, practical algorithm for figuring out how is available. The field needs to focus resources on assessing effectiveness properly and stop throwing a million sociologists with notebooks at the problem. The brain is just a really, really complex machine we don't have the schematics or source code for. If something is worth doing it is worth doing right and I have come to realize over the last year (I am a neuropharm grad student) much of biomed, psychology, and sociology is not being done right. These people need to start figuring out the power of math and real stats.

There have been many studies that say that the most satisfying jobs are those that involve helping people. So why are the psych professions the cause of so much drug addiction by doctors and suicides by therapists? Simple, we have put the weight of the world on their shoulders. Their 'patients' are created by our monstrous social machines that chew us up and spit us out. Anyone left behind is relegated to a community outside their own..... Ya know what... I can't talk about this anymore. This system is totally fucked for the next 5-7 generations and that's only if we start to do something about it today. That's why I quit the system. The only person I can change is me.

I agree.  It's a shame.

Under those conditions, I would say things would be better if that doctor prescribed nothing at all. I have seen multiple people fucked up by bad prescriptions that I would have strongly recommended against if i had been present. For example, giving xanax to someone who drinks... even if they tell you they drink.

Well, that's part of it.  Funding is definitely an issue.  In Illinois where I live, funding has been severely cut to social service departments in recent years and it's not looking to improve anytime soon.  I wasn't paid for my internship at the hospital, and even still we were grossly understaffed.  3 counselors (myself and 2 social workers) are not nearly enough to work with a 30-person inpatient milieu.  It's not just counseling that we're responsible for, its assessments, discharges, case-management, and documenting every single interaction with the patients.  For example, if we have a group counseling session, then a case note is needed for every single person that participates in that group.

On an average day, I had to complete 3 assessments (about an hour-long each), document each assessment in the computer, provide a group counseling session and subsequently type a case note for every patient that attended the session.  These tasks alone would take up about 5-6 hours of my 8-hour work day with a half-hour lunch included.  That only leaves about 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 hours for all case-management related services and discharges.  When all is said and done, there is rarely any time for individual counseling sessions which are desperately needed.  Needless to stay, I often stayed late even when I wasn't required to.

Another issue is an almost complete lack of coordination between the medical staff and the social work staff.  The medical staff uses the medical model which is almost completely opposite of the social work model (though the two could be thought of as complimentary).  So, this adds confusion to the mix because a patient may hear one thing from a medical staff member and then hear something completely different from a social worker, and they're never really given an opportunity to be informed as to how these apparently contrasting pieces of information can compliment each other.

I will say this:  Having actually worked in the inpatient unit, I understand why patients usually receive inadequate treatment.  Given the current system, it's virtually impossible for a patient to really be given the time and attention they deserve.  As a result, you see very high rates of recidivism.  I remember seeing several of the same patients readmitted 3, 4, or even 5 times during the 9-month course of my internship.  It sucks.

Edit:  Another thing to consider is the time given to each patient from the doctors.  Many patients complain that their psychiatrist spends very little time with them.  It's not the doctor's fault.  The lead doctor on our unit works at 4 different hospitals throughout the day, and on average will see 35-40 patients in a day.  This gives him an average of 8 minutes to spend with each patient, and those 8 minutes include all the notes and charting that the doctor must report for each patient.  This means he has about 3-4 minutes each day to listen to a patient and prescribe/adjust medications.  Is 3-4 minutes per day enough?  Fuck no.

I read that as there is not enough funding to go around so people are forced to do half-assed jobs. It is a common phenomenon in science right now.

Solutions:

1) Increase overall funding for [enter field here] so the job can get done right. Disadvantages: Increases waste, costs more.
2) Be more selective in who gets funded and give them more money so the job can get done right. Disadvantages: Less people get to be scientists/councilors/etc leading to less diversity of ideas.

You're probably familiar with gnosticism? They say that true knowledge comes from within. Well, not exactly, but we certainly learn about our own optics there. Breaking dependencies on worldly things are nothing compared to the strange connections that form in human bonding. We are unaware of nothing about our relationships with others until we experience our own relationships between our two brain hemispheres. Let me tell you that the journey is indeed very dark and dangerous, but the rewards are in finding those places your problems dwell. I'm talking about the places where 'others' exist. These are how we perceive each other, where dreams come from, and I suspect where our altered personas sleep. I have never taken hallucinagens, but I do not think they would offer any more connectivity than finding yourself in what we think are the people in our lives.

I don't recommend the journey into deep depression, but if you write what you experience it will help you to become very in touch with yourself and your creative powers.

Good question.

In every-day usage, self-awarness seems to correlate with introspection.  This can be very dangerous.  Becoming too introspective can leave a person trapped in a world of thought.  Many depressed people are this way, and they find themselves catastrophizing their thoughts -- they become so aware of their thoughts that they become utterly drawn to them, and one negative thought can snowball into the next.

Have you ever sat and just watched the clouds pass by?  I'm sure virtually all of us have done this.  Now, have you ever tried to control the clouds, to twist them and mold them into a particular shape?  No?  Well, what would happen if you did?  Do you think that you would become frustrated very quickly once you found out that you can't shape the clouds to your liking?

Now, apply the same logic to your thoughts.  Many people with mental illness will tell you that they get frustrated by their negative thoughts, and no matter how hard they try to control them they fail.  I contend that this is similar to trying to change the clouds in the sky.  The clouds will continually pass by, taking on various forms and shapes, just as your thoughts do.  But, if you can simply observe your thoughts rather than trying to control and manipulate them, you will find that you can calm and relax yourself even when the most negative of thoughts are passing in front of you.

Ideally, I contend that your awareness should be placed on equal-parts subject and equal-parts object.  I believe you need to be aware of your role as an observer at the same time you are aware of what is observed.  As a result, you will be focused on stillness and chaos equally.  Then, you will still be able to navigate the world with your body, intending to reach your goals and accomplishing them whether they are as simple as getting a glass of water when you're thirsty or studying for a doctoral degree.  But, you will also be aware of that underlying stillness that is associated with your very nature as an observer.  This will help you to remain calm among all the chaos unfolding before you.

Edit:  I believe this boils down to focusing your awareness on your direct experience of phenomena.

Believe me, I get what you're saying.  I dislike the DSM-IV as much as you do at the same time I recognize the benefits it can have.  It's a slippery slope...a very slippery slope.

Is there a safe threshold of self-awareness ? the more the better?

Atlas wants to talk to you, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.984122

Forgive my harshness in regards to this topic. It's the industry of mental illness and the educational system that has been coopted by Big Pharm, the prison industry, the insurance industry, and every other self-serving over-bloated bureaucracy that created that abomination called the Bible "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders."

I don't think you are antagonistic enough. While there is some useful philosophy that comes out of studying human behavior, behavior itself is only perceived through our self-prescribed lenses. Correlations don't in themselves prove causation. We have barely scratched the surface with finding tools to allow our organic and fractal gray matter to evolve to keep up with the complexity that our technological civilization has evolved into.

Well, in terms of 'scoring' successes and failures, I haven't done that in an objective manner, no.  I documented therapy sessions with clients in the form of case notes, but none of my roles in the workplace have necessitated such a scoring, nor would I have been allowed time at work to devote to such objective scoring, nor would it have been feasible to even try.  That's definitely the downfall to being an intern -- I could only do so much.  My 'scoring' has only come from feedback from clients. I personally think I was quite successful with many people.  But, the average length of stay for patients at the hospital where I was working is only 5-7 days.  That doesn't really give you any length of time to form baseline data, apply an intervention, collect outcome data, then formulate correlations or conclusions.

Point taken. I don't mean to be so antagonistic really. You are clearly out to help people and just trying to bounce ideas off of others with this thread. It's just talking about abstract concepts that guide human behaviour feels out of date to me. I got out of pysch, etc because noone really knows what works or keeps track very well, so it results in people endlessly arguing with each other with no real evidence supporting either side.

Let me put it this way:
Do you keep a list of successes and failures and score each patient on various parameters, then try to analyze this data to find correlations, followed by building a model of what factors are important in determining the success/failure of a certain approach? If not you should. Last I was involved the field really needed that.