nice analysis of the way psychology interacts with morals, science and ethics

[podfish]

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...of-psychiatry/

a couple of quotes:

Psychiatric practice does seem to be based on implicit moral assumptions in addition to explicit empirical considerations, and efforts to treat mental illness can be society’s way of controlling what it views as immoral (or otherwise undesirable) behavior .... there’s no guarantee that even today psychiatry is free of similarly dubious judgments. ... Foucault said that the point of his social critiques was “not that everything is bad but that everything is dangerous.”

and

psychiatric practice makes essential use of moral (and other evaluative) judgments. Why is this dangerous? Because, first of all, psychiatrists as such have no special knowledge about how people should live. They can, from their clinical experience, give us crucial information about the likely psychological consequences of living in various ways (for sexual pleasure, for one’s children, for a political cause). But they have no special insight into what sorts of consequences make for a good human life. It is, therefore, dangerous to make them privileged judges of what syndromes should be labeled “mental illnesses.”

this resonates for me. It's probably what underlies my frequent challenges to posts that purport to apply psychological analysis to current issues.

[Valley Oak]

Fascinating discussion. I would love to read of a couple of specific examples to explore this further.

Thanks again,

Edward

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...of-psychiatry/

a couple of quotes:
and this resonates for me. It's probably what underlies my frequent challenges to posts that purport to apply psychological analysis to current issues.

[Thad]

A good spot to place the thought how -the rapist- hides in the word therapist

The pressure to conform is pervasive

If everyone with mental/emotional difficulties were to be viewed as pain receptors for a diseased system then the cure would not be so constrained to conforming the individual as it would to addressing the source from which the pain originates.

This Normal that we live in is an obscenity.

When a Society has Honor, Intelligence and Care at its head the benefits rain down and there is happiness in the land.

What that means is that there is more time, attention and resources to spend on those around you.

How long has it been that such a thing was?

Imagination is where the battles are won and lost.

Whatever psychological modality has the greatest facility in unfettering this phenome there in lies the hope of the world

I find it odd how little credit is ever given to J.L Moreno who invented the word Psychodrama to name his Science

It will turn out he is in the same category as Tesla who brought so much and was so late honored for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_L._Moreno

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychodrama

Tesla

https://www.wimp.com/coilman/

[WhirledWords]

Thanks for highlighting this topic. A note also: psychiatry is far from a monolithic field and many good psychiatrists and therpists share the same concerns that are raised here. Respect for the individual and a distaste for pigeonholing are as likely to be found as lock-step adherence to the DSM's categories. I am concerned that rejection of therapy's worst manifestations may sometimes keep distressed people from seeking the very real help that is available from this complex and rich healing tradition.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...of-psychiatry/

a couple of quotes:
and this resonates for me. It's probably what underlies my frequent challenges to posts that purport to apply psychological analysis to current issues.

[Hotspring 44]

Everyone, without exception, needs some sort of "psychotherapy".

It is just a matter of what form each individual needs it.
It can be as simple as a good nights of uninterrupted sleep, a trip to the beach, fishing, dance

, solitude in meditation, posting on waccobb, etc, or anything else between, or if it is serious enough, institutionalization for a few that are posing an eminent danger to themselves and/or society.

Pigeonholing people by putting a label of "mentally ill" on so many as we in America have begun to do lately is symptomatic of the mass societal denial of basic human needs to our individual selves and others, and is as a result, being particularly focused onto others (someone else) as an avoidance/denial strategy.
It can get to the point where the vicious cycle of denial, blame, and exclusion has the unfortunate effect of snowballing to more frequent and 'shocking' crisis situations within our population.

We, in America, have made it taboo to refer to a "mentally challenged" person as "retarded", now the new and ever so encompassing term that replaces the discriminatory aspect of the word-term "retarded" is the term, "mentally ill".

"Mentally ill" is now a buzzword that means almost anything the person statementing personally 'deems' it to be at which point, it seems to me that at any given time it inadvertently issues impromptu license to the one saying it: ("mentally ill") righteous claim of being some sort of authority on it but in reality in the vast majority of times that occurs, the person making such claim is not, in reasonable terms, an "authority" who can legitimately make that a "fact" what is in actuality, an erroneous claim.

However; because of the instilled societal fear surrounding the insidious ways the term known as "mentally ill" is so commonly abused and that it is so frequently coupled with the "avoidance/denial" aspect, the weight of the argument, if there is one, goes to the claimant and so the "accused " and all who may sympathize with or represent another explanation are automatically at a strategic disadvantage in the discussion.

The denial of reasonable consideration to everyone's human needs just instills fear and has the consequence of denial to society at large to access the necessary tools to cope with our individual human and societal needs as a whole.

Bottom line in simple terms; 1- the majority of people saying someone else is mentally ill may in fact be scientifically incorrect.
2- it is not so "moral" to use the term of "mentally ill" to launch an ad hominem attack, continue or to create a form of discrimination or hatred.

[Hotspring 44]

Everyone, without exception, needs some sort of "psychotherapy"....

...Even the psychotherapists.
BTW, I did not mean to imply that the "psychotherapy" has to be clinically and from "Dr." I actually meant different than that.

I like what the main article said at the very end:

Finally, we should include those who have experienced severe bereavement, as well as relatives and friends who have lived with their pain. In particular, those who suffer (or have suffered) from bereavement offer an essential first-person perspective. As Foucault might have said, the psyche is too important to be left to the psychiatrists

[Thad]

Emotional fluency

When more of that is around fewer therapists are needed

[podfish]

"Mentally ill" is now a buzzword that means almost anything the person statementing personally 'deems' it to be at which point, it seems to me that at any given time it inadvertently issues impromptu license to the one saying it: ("mentally ill") righteous claim of being some sort of authority on it but in reality in the vast majority of times that occurs, the person making such claim is not, in reasonable terms, an "authority" who can legitimately make that a "fact" what is in actuality, an erroneous claim.

Actually, I think we should be comfortable with talking about the "mentally ill". I really get my hackles up at people who apply a specific diagnosis to people they don't know, which I see a lot. But as far as what the words mean, just take them at face value. Pretty much everyone is "ill" at times. I've got a cold right now. I don't see why anyone sees anything odd about the term being more widely applied. No-one gets too worked up about saying, say, that the economy's sick. It seems obvious that it's part of the human condition that our emotions and cognition aren't always functioning "correctly" but will most likely improve with time or treatment, only to have the problem or a similar one recur eventually. Seems like a fairly non-controversial idea to me.

[Hotspring 44]

Actually, I think we should be comfortable with talking about the "mentally ill"...

I agree, however, I should say that I get a little uneasy when people so loosely use the term "the mentally ill" because it has such a hugely wide range of meanings depending who is "talking" and what circumstances they are referring to are.
It is so easy to spread wrong interpretations which has the unfortunate tendency to lead to a massive amount of discrimination against mostly innocent people who have been tagged with the term "mental illness"and then pigeonholed into the extremely wide ranging category of "the mentally ill". No doubt about it, there is a lot of fear in the mix in regards to how people perceive what mental illness is.

Here's an example: your statement above had the term "the mentally ill"; in it. That is like saying "the blacks", "the whites", "the Chinese", "the Mexicans", "the Arabs", "the Jews" etc.
In other words, by using the term "the mentally ill" is exactly the part of the denial/avoidance schism of which I was talking about on my first post in this thread.
I'm not trying to point any fingers or anything like that.
I'm just saying it's such an easy pattern to fall into, we've all done it at some point; I'm just saying by using the word "the" in front of the term "mentally ill" somehow in my mind has an unintended, dehumanizing effect of which I am sure you and many others who state it in that way do not intend to mean it like that, but that's how it sometimes comes out into the diaspora.

that being said, I feel quite similar to the way you do about the rest of the sentence:

...I really get my hackles up at people who apply a specific diagnosis to people they don't know, which I see a lot.

But as far as what the words mean, just take them at face value.

I suppose that depends upon whose "face" is saying it as to what the societal "value" of it has depends on how it is interpreted and acted upon.
What if it is a pundit, a psychiatrist that wrote 10 books, a well-liked and/or respected politician or whoever else who is highly respected; what can or does it mean then , when what they say inadvertently pigeonholes an innocent segment of our population into something society thinks is close to and or is criminal?

Pretty much everyone is "ill" at times.

as far as psychological is concerned, that is what I meant by "psychotherapy" in the context of which I was stating it; that everybody needs (it) at some point.
It does not have to be a psychologist or psychiatrist or drugs that would have to be the solution most of the times it could very likely be something as simple and basic as a good night's uninterrupted, non-drug-induced, natural, sleep.

I've got a cold right now. I don't see why anyone sees anything odd about the term being more widely applied.

that's because you are reasonable, Unfortunately a lot of people are not knowledgeable enough to be so reasonable when it comes to "the mentally ill".
That is why I personally would prefer to hear the term "mental illness" being used more often rather than "the mentally ill".

Using the term "the mentally ill" stigmatizes mental illness beyond what is reasonable, IMHO.
It's not anybody's in particular fault here, it's just what I have noticed happens all too often in the real world, current conditions.

No-one gets too worked up about saying, say, that the economy's sick.

Yes, and I might add, no one gets too worked up about saying, that dude over there is drunk, screwed up f't-up, or whatever at a particular moment because it's a temporary thing, but because, in general, mental illness has been so stigmatized in our society, many people in our society believe mental illness is an absolute, permanent, and uncurable, despicable thing that somehow has to be denied, hidden, and ostracized as if somehow that is going to "get rid' of enough of it so as not to bother spending tax money on dealing with it.

Unfortunately, part of the denial our society is into right now is using the medical system to throw happy pills at certain mentally ill people and expecting that to actually deal with and work for the underlying reasons why somebody has the so-called mental illness in the first place. That's like putting a Band-Aid on an arterial wound.

It seems obvious that it's part of the human condition that our emotions and cognition aren't always functioning "correctly" but will most likely improve with time or treatment, only to have the problem or a similar one recur eventually. Seems like a fairly non-controversial idea to me.

I totally agree with that but unfortunately, my firsthand experience suggests the bulk of our society has a very long ways to go before they realize the meaning of what I think you just said there.

Society at large can be so unforgiving when it comes to people's difficult psychological conditions particularly when it comes to affecting their ability to go to work (employment, jobs). There is such a ridiculously over emphasized work ethic in this country that I, personally think it has at worst, slowly been killing us and is now coming closer to a boil with the economy is such a bad condition, and at best, holding us as a society way back from a real sense and reality of shared well-being and happiness.

[podfish]

... I get a little uneasy when people so loosely use the term "the mentally ill"

I see your point - but think of it as just a biblical phrasing:
Blessed are the merciful,
...
Blessed are the pure in heart,
...
Blessed are the peacemakers,
....

all groups that are we hopefully are members of on occasion.

[Valley Oak]

Although the following example might be a stretch because it has to do with the practice of medicine and not strictly the "talking cure," I would like to mention it nonetheless. Circumcision is another example of how, even today, the people who are supposed to guard our health and have the knowledge to know better and do the right thing are actually hurting us instead.

Also remember other "practices" throughout recent American medical history, such as lobotomies, the implementation of "Eugenics," unwarranted caesarians, and others horrible trends. There are far too many instances to list.

Actually, I think we should be comfortable with talking about the "mentally ill". I really get my hackles up at people who apply a specific diagnosis to people they don't know, which I see a lot. But as far as what the words mean, just take them at face value. Pretty much everyone is "ill" at times. I've got a cold right now. I don't see why anyone sees anything odd about the term being more widely applied. No-one gets too worked up about saying, say, that the economy's sick. It seems obvious that it's part of the human condition that our emotions and cognition aren't always functioning "correctly" but will most likely improve with time or treatment, only to have the problem or a similar one recur eventually. Seems like a fairly non-controversial idea to me.