Posted by alexandra_k on September 22, 2006, at 18:34:17 [reposted on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:09 | original URL]
In reply to Re: the brain » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on September 22, 2006, at 12:24:07
> I wish that I had the energy to type here the proof you would need to convince you that bipolar disorder is a disorder of the brain.what do you mean by 'disorder of the brain'? if you mean that if you take a bunch of fMRI's and you image peoples brains and you average the results then the bi-polar bunch looks different to the control bunch then sure. I agree. Does that entail that *everyone* with bi-polar has an abnormal brain? Nope.
Even if you have an abnormal brain I think we have been through how experience (incl. environment and psychology) can change the brain like medication can change the brain.
Even if it is an abnormality in the brain of the individual (and that hasn't been established) that doesnt' entail medication is the best or only way to treat that abnormality.
I think I need to say this again:
If people are taking meds that are working for them then great continue to take them. I'm not saying people should stop taking meds. I'm just cautioning against a biobiobio approach where people think that there is something fundamentally wrong with including psychological and sociological factors into the treatment plan when the biobiobio model really isn't helping them...
If you are helped by that approach then fine.
> Anything short of the full recognition that their illness is of biological origin is to confuse their world and sabotage their spirit.
I see.
Well then...
I don't know what to say...I don't want to confuse anyones world and stabotage anyones spirit.
I don't know whether this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm saying...
Or if it is tied up with notions like... Blame and responsibility and the like. Society is in the grip of many a myth and myths are created in order to make us feel better about ourselves... I don't want anyone to feel bad... I don't know what to say...
> I am very desiring to know your opinion regarding schizophrenia. Do you believe it to be a biological disorder?
I think that the category 'schizophrenia' is a lot like the category 'super-lunary object' or 'yellow things' which is to say that it doesn't pick out a bunch of things that have any interesting features in common. It doesn't pick out a natural kind. It picks out a hodge podge of different things.
Schizophrenia isn't a particularly helpful scientific category. Having some of the symptoms of schizophrenia isn't highly predictive of having other symptoms of schizophrenia. Having a dx of schizophrenia isn't even highly predictive of future course (because if you get better they just put it down to mis diagnosis).
I don't think there are many interesting generalisations you can make about schizophrenia in general. I'm not sure that you can generalise a commom etiology or structural brain abnormality or functional brain abnormality. We already agreed (?) that there wasn't anything wrong with the brains of the people dx'd with 'sluggish schizophrenia' back in Russia.
You are seperating the levels again. Thinking that I'm saying that some illnesses are disorders of one level and other illnesses are disorders of another.
There is a conflation in society where people think that to say something is *psychological* or that it is even partly *psychological* is to say 'it is all in your head and you should be able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps'. That latter bit doesn't follow. But in defending the 'illness of the brain' view (because people KNOW it isn't their fault' they just avoid the stimga around psychological illnesses.
Whatever...
Feeling like I'm bashing my head against a wall and I have no idea why it is that way.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:688931
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060922/msgs/688943.html