Behaviorism and Mental Health - Latest Comments

Re: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

guest — Wed, 16 May 2012 08:55:22 -0000

Have you heard much about sensory integration disorder? I was wondering what your views on it might be.

Also I know adhd is extremely over diagnosed and is not really an
illness, but I do believe we are all different and some people may have
WAY more energy than others. That excess energy makes it hard to fit
into our cookie cutter society. Adhd is just a label that people tend to
throw around all willy nilly, but I know many people who were given
that label. The common denominator I have found was 'energy' they
couldn't get rid of. My husband was even put on riddlin.(I don't know
how to spell that). He always described it like he just got way more
excited than most kids and it would build up. My friend she was
'diagnosed' she described it as balls of energy throughout her body that
no matter what she did wouldn't go away. My son would probably get
'diagnosed', which is not going to happen. He is about to be six and he
told me "there's alot of energy in there, but all the doors are shut.
All these people had
good disciple and parents. My friend was also
a great student. All I am saying is maybe the diagnosis of adhd is a
little ridiculous and overused, but maybe there are some people who do
have "something" who never get the real help they need. Again love your
site and thank you for reading this.

Re: More Cracks in the Sandcastle

Francisco J 93 — Tue, 15 May 2012 22:55:11 -0000

Also remember how stuttering and "math deficit" its also an "illness", just to remind you how silly the DSM can be. If they put peter pan syndrome it will be the end for the field. The name is even cheesy

Re: More Cracks in the Sandcastle

Francisco J 93 — Tue, 15 May 2012 22:52:49 -0000

OMG these kinds of posts are the ones that inspire me to write essays.
To elaborate more in the "they create the diagnoses" point, I want to say that this sounds a little bit like a tool for social control and "harmony".
I was reading the wikipedia article on "self-consciousness", and it was interesting to read how some psychologists started thinking being self-conscious was good in order to have a harmonic society.
Like some people say here, a little bit of conformity is good, but the way the APA wants things its a bit distressing.
Many of the "illnesses" dont come from satanizing deviations of the norm, or different religious beliefs like ESP etc. Some like the one you mentioned, PMS, are just pure bulk in order to make more money. And I dont doubt some "illnesses" can be bad or distressing, but to call the individual ill its extreme and unwarranted, dont forget unscientific.
I wish there was more mental health experts like you who point these things out.
Take care Mr. Hickey, and I hope more people read this for the sake of awareness ^_^

Re: Cracks in the Sandcastle

Thomas — Tue, 15 May 2012 19:13:48 -0000

Well good choice of words but I think it’s too much. We
shouldn't put much blame on those people when in fact it’s our decision in the
first place. And our parents’ choice too.

Re: Too Much Sex?

Michael Lucente — Tue, 15 May 2012 16:59:02 -0000

Well I find that having a great desire to have sex, and often, is just plain natural. As you said, “who’s to say we’re having too much sex?” Someone who is not having sex? Someone that is having less sex then others? How, and why, would anyone even set a bar for sex? Other than as often as possible, of course! : )Get Busy, Getting Busy!!!Michael Lucente
Author & Creator
The Sex Bucket List

Re: Too Much Sex?

Francisco J 93 — Mon, 14 May 2012 15:31:46 -0000

Now nothing is sane.
This is why I prefer humanistic psychology and client-centered therapy. When I turn into a psychologist I will lean more to the client centered therapy.
This is a big example of how the mental health "experts" want to impose on your mind that you have a problem.

Re: Personality Disorders Are Not Illnesses

Phil_Hickey — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:31:58 -0000

Mike,

Interesting thought. There is also a Greek flavor to the perennial struggle between parent and child: child fighting to retain his self-centered, hedonistic qualities; parent trying to instill qualities like altruism, gratification delay, etc.. What’s particularly interesting is that if the child wins the battle, he loses the war.

Thanks for coming in..

Re: Depression Is Not An Illness

Phil_Hickey — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:17:21 -0000

Canadian gal,

Thanks for coming in with such interesting comments.

First, the disorder/illness terminology. The reason the APA uses the word “disorder”
is that at the time the first DSM was drafted (1952) there was no real consensus
among its members that these various problems should be considered illnesses. The
term “disorder” was chosen precisely because it was neutral with regards to this issue – merely implying that something was not optimal. In fact, almost all the so-called diagnoses in the first DSM contained the word “reaction” – schizophrenic reaction,
depressive reaction, etc. – the implication being that the problem behavior was
in some way a reaction to an environmental stressor. This was probably the most sensible thing the APA ever did, but they abandoned it in DSM II (1968). And they abandoned it for the simple reason that they wanted to promote an illness model – so that they (physicians) could corner the turf in this emerging market. Competition from psychologists, social workers, counselors, etc., was already evident, but medicalizing the field ensured that these other workers could never acquire more than auxiliary status.

So today the APA is stuck with the term “disorder” (for historical reasons), but individual psychiatrists routinely present these so-called diagnoses to their clients as if they were real illnesses. Psychiatrists routinely tell clients, “You have major depressive disorder – this is a real illness just like diabetes – and you need to take anti-depressants in the same way that a diabetic needs to take insulin.” And so on for the other “diagnoses.”

Another indication of the APA’s dishonesty in this regard can be seen by asking the question: Which conditions in the manual are mental illnesses and which are not? As of this time, there has never been any clarification from the APA on this – indeed there has never even been an acknowledgement that there is an issue here. The only way to interpret this is that either there are no mental illnesses, or the terms mental illness and mental disorder are synonymous. Obviously the latter is the APA’s position.

Now the APA could resolve this entire issue tomorrow. All they have to do is issue a press release saying that the “disorders” listed in the book are not illnesses – that they
simply represent sub-optimal clusters of behavior. But they will never do this because their intention is to medicalize as many human problems as public opinion will stomach. Also, in order to prescribe a drug, you have to have a “diagnosis.” You can’t prescribe a drug for a sub-optimal cluster of behaviors. And DSM-5 is just around the corner, promising even more of this dishonest self-serving rubbish.

Your comments concerning physical illnesses that are difficult to detect is beside the point. In those cases there is a reasonable assumption of an injury, malfunction,
structural abnormality, etc.. And the diagnostic procedure consists of searching and educated guesswork to establish the nature of this pathology. But take the example of the condition known as ADHD. The DSM lists this as a “diagnosis,” and although the APA uses the term disorder, psychiatrists routinely tell their clients that they have a brain illness and that the stimulant drugs treat this illness. The fact, however, is that all the criteria for making this “diagnosis” are behavioral – if the child misbehaves in the specified ways, he has the “illness” known as ADHD. Now compare this to your example of tendonitis. Suppose a patient goes to his doctor complaining of shoulder pain. The doctor probes around, asks some questions, and comes up with a diagnosis of tendonitis. Now lets say next visit, some other piece of information emerges, and the doctor revises his diagnosis – say to torn muscle. The point is that there is an underlying pathology which can confirm or refute the initial diagnosis. Nothing comparable can be said of the condition known as ADHD. If the child emits the behavior, he has the illness – period. There is no deeper reality to check the “diagnosis” against.

And that’s the problem. The commonplace assumption is that misbehavior is usually the result of lax discipline/parenting. But what the APA have done is re-label this misbehavior as a disorder (read illness), and they – in concert with the pharmaceutical companies – have sold this lie unashamedly to the public and to the medical community generally. The drugs produce compliant behavior on the part of the child, but do not help with the acquisition of personal control/discipline which is so necessary for success in adult life.

You mentioned anti-depressants. Now I never said that people get the same kind
of high from anti-depressants as from alcohol or cocaine. What I say is that street drugs and pharmaceutical psychotropics have this in common: that they artificially alter people’s moods and/or behavior. They are not medicines – they are drugs.

Anyway, these are complex issues. It’s clear that you disagree with me, and that’s ok. But I do encourage you to browse around the website. Many of the issues you raised, I have treated in greater detail in various places.

Please feel free to come back.

Re: Personality Disorders Are Not Illnesses

mike — Sat, 12 May 2012 20:56:20 -0000

Maybe we should go back to the old Greek Tragedy: human behaviors that cause the character to have an unhappy ending (not to be confused with the English Tragedy which just indicates that the main character dies).

Where the behavior is tied into the character's unhappy ending as opposed to simply being difficult behavior for the parents.

Re: Depression Is Not An Illness

Canadian gal — Wed, 09 May 2012 02:54:47 -0000

You state: "... no evidence has ever been presented that depression is caused by a physical problem in the brain" as the basis of your argument for why depression is not an "illness".

As far as I know, the DSM-IV uses the term "disorder", not "illness" because the term "disorder" means there is demonstrable harm despite no presence of any underlying classical pathology. That's right! I agree with you that there's no "physical problem". The problem with your argument is that a lack measurable objective evidence of a physical problem is not a basis on which to say that one is not suffering from an "illness". If that was the case, most soft tissue injuries like tendinitis, strains and sprains, and conditions like chronic pain, IBS, fibromyalgia could not be recognized as "illnesses" because there undetectable by any test and based solely on the patient's description of symptoms and complaints. Need I remind you that ulcers were believed to be caused by stress and poor lifestyle habits until the 80s when doctors discovered it was the result of H. Pylori? Just because a "physical problem" has not yet been discovered doesn't discredit someone's suffering as "not an illness" and it doesn't mean no physical cause exists. The mental health industry is not a big money grab, at least not in Canada where I live. Healthcare is free here, our tax dollars pay the doctor's reasonable salary and doctors help patients save on drug costs by prescribing less expensive generic antidepressants. Also, antidepressants are not pills like alcohol, cocaine and amphetamines. You don't just pop one and get high. I'm stunned you're a psychologist and don't know this! They take weeks to take effect and when they do, the patient slowly start to feel like his normal self again. Back up for a moment and look at the big picture: wouldn't you rather money line the pockets of doctors and pharmaceutical companies who help sick people instead of spending tax dollars to cover the cost to society caused by untreated mental disorder?

And as far as psychotherapy is concerned, talk therapy isn't for everyone. Some patients fare worse when forced to recall traumatic experiences in their lives. It can also take years before any improvement is seen, whereas antidepressants can improve a depression in 6 weeks. There's place for both types of treatments, sometimes apart, sometimes together. Someone with a severe Axis I diagnosis simply won't be able to participate in psychotherapy. However, someone with an Axis II diagnosis can benefit a lot from psychotherapy. If your article had been "A Personality disorders is not an illness" I might have been more inclined to agree with you.What saddened me the most is how you fail to recognize how damaging and hurtful your post and comments are to those who suffer from depression and other mental disorders. Depressed individuals are already feeling awful and guilty for how they feel; shame on you for telling them it's not an illness, that it's their own fault for not taking better care of themselves! Major depression isn't a motivator for change, it paralyzes its victim with profound hopelessness and despair to the point where some sufferers end their own lives. Or is that what you mean by depression creates a mechanism for change?

Re: Parenting and Psychiatry

Phil_Hickey — Mon, 07 May 2012 12:10:57 -0000

Francisco,

Thanks for coming back with these interesting comments.

Re: Parenting and Psychiatry

Francisco J 93 — Thu, 03 May 2012 01:30:23 -0000

it also reflects how people have become so lazy. they try to blame the ice cream vendor when the fault is on the parents and how they raise the children. The problem is that the way they "raise" their children its a very permissive parenting style or a uninvolved one where the child is left alone watching TV.
I think, like you say, that these problems are just that, problems. the fact is that psychiatrists havent shown to my knowledge any brain abnormality that would indicate there is something wrong with these people. All brains are differently wired, and saying one type of wiring is "abnormal" its just idiotic and reflects a lack of critical thinking on part of the mental health community.
One thing Ive noticed of these psychological "disorders" is that they have no biological basis or anything tangible, except the behaviors. Also take into account that many children might be gifted, and since their intelligence allows them to see the traps of society, obviously authorities are going to pathologize their "disruptive" behavior out of fear of losing in intellectual or ethical grounds. I remember as a child I was diagnosed with ADHD, but it was because the class was so boring that I wanted to go to the school library so bad to read about astronomy. The school didnt know how to deal with me and expelled me, instead of finding a better place where I fit in more.
So all this means that people are just lazy and want the easy way out of things: DRUGS

Re: Schizophrenia Is Not An Illness (Part 1)

Phil_Hickey — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:56:26 -0000

June,

Thanks for coming back with such an interesting observation. But I would have preferred if you’d sent responses to my questions.
If you believe that your position is correct, cite me the references!

Re: Schizophrenia Is Not An Illness (Part 1)

June conway beeby — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:25:01 -0000

with respect, none are so blind as they who will not see.

Re: Bipolar Disorder Is Not An Illness

Phil_Hickey — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:23:22 -0000

Don,

Thanks for coming in. The drugs used to “treat” the so-called mental illnesses do indeed have potential adverse side-effects, some of which can be quite devastating.

Re: Bipolar Disorder Is Not An Illness

Phil_Hickey — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:56:48 -0000

Ian,

My purpose in saying that the condition known as bipolar disorder consists essentially of rudeness and irresponsibility is not to cut anyone down, but rather simply to tell the truth. If you read the DSM criteria carefully, I don’t think you can avoid the conclusion that what’s being described is rudeness and irresponsibility. And Nick wasn’t just “a little rude.” He was downright vicious and obnoxious. But you’re right, I was dismissive, and perhaps I should have been more sensitive.

You go on to mention that you experience thoughts of worthlessness and suicide, and you ask why would you have these feelings. The question has a rhetorical feel to it because you apparently believe the answer is: because you have bipolar disorder. But how do you know you have bipolar disorder? Presumably because of the negative feelings. In other words: you have negative feelings because you have negative feelings. This isn’t getting you anywhere. Furthermore, if you hang around the mental health system long enough, you’ll pick up lots more “diagnoses,” each one as meaningless as the next.

But to get back to your question: why do you have these feelings? The only answer I can give you is I don’t know. I don’t know you and it would be wrong of me to speculate. However, the fact that you have posed the
question (even if it was rhetorical) is a very positive first step towards
finding a resolution. Work with the question: why do you have feelings of
worthlessness? Have you experienced a great deal of failure? Did your parents/teachers set impossibly high standards? Pursue the question. Ask others whom you trust for their input, etc., etc..

Also, since the feelings you describe are more like depression than mania, perhaps you would like to have a look at my post on depression – particularly the seven natural antidepressants.

Also, you say: “…if bipolar disorder isn’t a real illness, and I have to accept these harrowing thoughts as a permanent part of my personality…” You have accepted the fallacy that the only things that can be changed are medical illnesses. Ian, it is a good deal easier to change our behavior than you think. And thoughts are behaviors. One of my biggest points of
contention with the mental health system is the systematic way in which it
disempowers people – exactly as it has done to you. They’ve convinced you that you can’t do anything about your feelings and behaviors without their "magic pills.” The fact is that we can change. People have been changing in fundamental ways since the beginning of history. Read around some of my other posts. You can make your life better. If you feel you need pills, take pills; if not, don’t. But Ian, you’re not sick! You’ve just gone down a side road, and you’ve got to find your way back to the highway. Do come back if you have further thoughts.

Re: Bipolar Disorder Is Not An Illness

Mariaolderman — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:13:42 -0000

Nick,

It seems that you are missing the point to the behaviorist approach of mental illness. As someone who has studied and worked with mental patients, there is no physical proof pinpointing the so called "bipolar disorder." On top of that, the widely used drugs to treat this disorder are directly linked to brain damage. Anyone who is suggested they need lithium as a treatment should seriously consider the side effects. Often than not, patients I have seen treated with drugs for years will admit that they feel much different coming off them prior to ever having taken them. That is because brain damage happens with long term use. Countless patients who were diagnosed with bipolar disorder at one point in time eventually developed schizophrenia years down the road. With speculations, I could only imagine that this is a result of these dangerous drugs used to treat a disorder that has no basis in reality, outside the erratic and offensive behaviors of these individuals emit. I think you should self-reflect your own behavior and come to terms with who you are and how you want to act and then possibly enroll in CBT therapy.

Don

Re: Bipolar Disorder Is Not An Illness

Ian — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:04:26 -0000

While Nick's comment might have been a little rude, I don't think it's right to cut him down by calling him rude and irresponsible. To me a diagnosis of bipolar disorder is a sign of hope. It's a hope that one day my mind will reach some kind of equilibrium and I won't have to constantly jostle with recurrent thoughts of suicide, worthlessness, hopelessness, and guilt. To call a bipolar individual rude or irresponsible will do nothing to help them. While I do believe mental disorders are over-diagnosed, I'm more apt to take the middle road. Why else would a tall, handsome, intelligent person like myself coming from a normal upper-middle class home have chronic feelings of worthlessness and suicide ideation. I mean if bipolar disorder isn't a real illness, and I have to accept these harrowing thoughts as a permanent part of my personality, what's stopping me from killing myself and losing all hope? The only thing that keeps me going sometimes is the thought that things will get better. If there isn't a chance of things to get better because a psychiatrist scammed me, then what reason do I have left to keep living in this hell?

Re: Depression Is Not An Illness

Phil_Hickey — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:39:01 -0000

LaustCawz,

Thanks for coming in, and for your very helpful observations. Certainly too much sunshine can be damaging. Also the concepts “adequate nutrition” and “healthy lifestyles” need to be approached from an individual perspective. I agree with you that there isn’t one nutritional formula that’s right for everybody. Nor is there one daily routine that’s right for everybody. But having said that, there are diets and lifestyles that are truly disastrous and depressive.

Again, thanks for coming in, and best wishes.

Re: Depression Is Not An Illness

LaustCawz — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:10:35 -0000

Thank you very much, Phil, for your refreshing lack of denial, for your boldness in confronting the lie about depression being a "disorder" or "disease". However, keep in mind that, just as our bodies are mortal, vulnerable & not immune to irreversible damage, the same is true of our minds & emotions. Damaged severely enough, any "change" that you might say is warranted might no longer be possible, or might even aggravate the situation. I might add that "sunshine" (at least, in consistently ubiquitous, direct or blinding amounts) is not automatically healing & can be quite irritating & unhealthy for those of us (such as myself) who are a bit photosensitive. As for nutrition, large calorie counts require nothing more than a healthy & high metabolism to burn them off & sufficient activity can still be attained indoors, even in less strenuous or not-so-conspicuously strenuous capacities. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that the carbonation in soda helps my digestion & metabolism & even helps me sleep sometimes (including caffeinated soda). Maybe I'm an unusual case, though.

Re: Cracks in the Sandcastle

Phil_Hickey — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:49:14 -0000

Sweet63,

Thanks for coming back. I think you’re right. Most people who pursue a trade or profession try to present an image of knowledge and competence. Psychiatrists perhaps take it too far, especially given that their insights and explanations are entirely spurious.

Your second paragraph touches on a huge issue. And of course you’re right – a paid professional won’t care about you in the same way as a loved one. But I don’t think that in itself is an insurmountable problem. I myself have been living with kidney failure for the past eleven years, and I routinely see a number of doctors, nurses, etc., just to stay alive. I know these individuals don’t think of me as family – but they do provide competent care based on empirically validated
knowledge. Most of them also treat me with a good measure of kindness and respect, which goes a good way to alleviate the general misery of sickness. The point about psychiatrists, of course, is that all they offer is drugs, and their "treatment” is based on pseudo-science.

And many parents do indeed get sucked into the quagmire, and pass over their parental responsibilities to the drug-pushers.

Best wishes.

Re: Cracks in the Sandcastle

Sweet63 — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:57:31 -0000

I think psychiatrists figure they need to have an answer, even when they don't. Whatever works, right? What good is a discipline like that if it has no answers for common problems?

Also, I don't think you can pay someone to really care about you. It's like parents wanted to assign that part to someone else but it doesn't work.

Re: Cracks in the Sandcastle

Francisco — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:09:13 -0000

http://www.google.com.mx/url?s...

here is one helpful article.

Re: Cracks in the Sandcastle

Phil_Hickey — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:13:34 -0000

Francisco,

Thanks for coming back. You are raising some very profound issues to which I can give only brief responses. I’m not much into psi phenomena. I remember many years ago reading that some individuals appeared to be able to guess which card had been turned at a rate slightly better than chance. But I think the vast majority of psi material is trickery.

But of course you’re right. There are cheaters within the so-called scientific mainstream. Science strives for objectivity but scientists can be swayed by financial considerations. Economics makes cowards of us all. I remember a time when most basic research was carried out by university departments operating autonomously. Today many of these groups receive funding from industrial/commercial groups, and these latter use their financial leverage to manipulate outcomes. This is common in the mental health field and has been exposed in the media many times in the past decade or so. This kind of thing is not true science. It is marketing dressed up to look like science.

I believe the DSM system with its spurious medicalization of ordinary problems of living will fail because it is pure, unadulterated, facile tripe. It has only survived this long
because it seems to legitimize drugs, and – let’s face it – people like drugs. But you can only fool people on this scale for so long.

The Pyrrhonists were Greek philosophers of the 4th century BC who believed that certainty was unobtainable, and who therefore advocated extreme skepticism in order to avoid falling into error. As I said earlier, this is a huge issue. I can remember in high school an elderly teacher telling us that when he was in school he had been taught that the atom couldn’t be split! And so it goes. My own position on skepticism is to tentatively accept replicated scientific findings but to remain open to the possibility of error and even fraud.

Once again, thanks for coming back. Best wishes.

Re: Cracks in the Sandcastle

Francisco — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:00:26 -0000

hello mr. Hickey! I read your post and its really sad that we cant even trust mainstream scientists. lately I have been reading the reseach that has been done in parapsychology, and one thing I learned was that we cant trust either side(skeptics/proponents) completely. For instance, skeptics are right that a lot of times parapsychologists have cheated to get the results they want to, but there is not an unusual frequency of fraud in the feild either, and the evidence for psi phenomena is really convincing. Also, mainstream science also has its cheaters. so who is right??
U mentioned that u have a prediction that indicates this DSM system will fall. can you tell me the reasons for it?
Sometimes I wonder if its better to be a neutral observer, hence a true skeptic in the Pyrrhic sense, or cling to a belief system like many people.