![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 85. Go back in thread:
Posted by trouble on February 24, 2002, at 8:37:35
In reply to Re: You won't believe this!, posted by Willow on February 23, 2002, at 21:12:21
Willow, I'm curious about your opinion about the majority of the pb community being marginally or moderately afflicted.
Can you talk more about this impression?Thanks, trouble
Posted by OldSchool on February 24, 2002, at 10:36:36
In reply to Neurologists versus Psychiatrists » christophrejmc, posted by spike4848 on February 24, 2002, at 7:55:27
>
> > I don't see why it matters if one sees a neurologist or a psychiatrist. I don't know of many psychiatrists who do psychotherapy, so it's basically a matter of who's shoveling out the Prozac. What can a neurologist tell me that a psychiatrist cannot?
>
> A neurologist understands the various functions of each part of the brain and how they interaction. They also understand the pathophyisiology of brain disease (and depression is a brain disease). So they are much better equipt to finally uncover the cause of depression and how to sucessfully treat it, whether it be with meds, ECT, VNS, etc.This is exactly correct and what I have been saying. Im SICK of going to psychiatrists and telling them I have all these sleeping, energy level, eating, sex drive and cognition problems and its taken in a psychological context. I have figured out most psychiatrists do not medically understand mental illness very well beyond a basic, descriptive approach. Its sickening.
Im looking for a brain expert...instead what I get is some asshole who dx's me with the psychology based DSM manual and puts me on brain chemistry altering medications.
>
> Psychiatrists have *NO* working knowledge of the brain, and therefore have know way determining the cause of depression. So they basically just "shovel" out what ever med the pharmaceutical company gives them. And these companys often give out medications that are marginally effective for depression. SSRIs and serzone are such meds, often giving patient only partial relief. I know many patient who took SSRI for years with little success, and once they started a TCA/MAOI they finally felt relief. So these people suffered for years on SSRIs and lost many years of there life. It is really sad.This has been my impression over the years. Psychiatrists know jack shit about the brain. They know all about the "mind" however. I dont get it...its beyond me. Hell Im confused.
>
> Unforunately, many pdoc are brainwashed into only prescribing SSRIs and effexor. I have heard some pdoc state they will never prescribe a TCA/MAOI. That is malpractice!Well I only go to my psychiatrist nowadays to get antidepressants prescribed to me. I do not listen to much of what they tell me anymore, because they've been so wrong before. And because gradually I have figured out psychiatry is heavily BS. Again, its the lack of neurological science rigor and the emphasis on "behaviors" and psychology crap that has made me totally lose respect for the mental health field as it currently exists.
If you have any doubts about what Im talking about, just get your Websters dictionary out and look up the official definitions of psychiatry and neurology. Which branch of medicine would you prefer to be working on your severe mental illness? Someone who actually is interested in and studies brain/neuroscience? Or someone well steeped in psychology BS?
Old School
Posted by OldSchool on February 24, 2002, at 10:42:50
In reply to Freud was a Neurologist, posted by trouble on February 24, 2002, at 8:18:55
Freud was a Neurologist in title and name only. The technology available in his time was extremely crude by today's standards. In Freud's day the technology available was simply not sufficient to study, research and learn about the brain and CNS. There were no computers back then, no diagnostic imaging equipment beyond X-ray machines, no SPECT scans, there was no NASA type space technology back then as there is now.
So Freud did the best he could do considering the technology of his day. And he invented psychobabble. Which just happened to attract all the freaks in the world. Freudian BS. And sometimes Freud prescribed the best drugs available at that time, like cocaine, opiates, etc.
Give me a break, Freud was no real Neurologist. Freud was more psychologist than Neurologist.
Old School
Posted by spike4848 on February 24, 2002, at 10:56:06
In reply to Re: Neurologists versus Psychiatrists, posted by OldSchool on February 24, 2002, at 10:36:36
And back to the "psychiatrist are lazy", in medical school most students who went on to psychiatry were at the bottom my class or foreign graduates and wanted to go into psych because of the easy lifestyle. One person actually told me, "I am doing Psychiatry and I will never get sued .... do you think they will believe someone who is CRAZY over me."
I personally do not wanted to be treated by someone who is an underachiever and lazy by nature.
Spike
Posted by trouble on February 24, 2002, at 12:15:58
In reply to Re: Freud was a Neurologist, posted by OldSchool on February 24, 2002, at 10:42:50
Posted by Krazy Kat on February 24, 2002, at 14:40:11
In reply to Was it something I said? (nm), posted by trouble on February 24, 2002, at 12:15:58
Absolutely not!! Your post was wonderful. Old School sems to "have a chip on each shoulder" as Russel Crowe so aptly put it in "A Beautiful Mind."
Posted by OldSchool on February 24, 2002, at 14:44:58
In reply to Psychiatrists are Lazy .... again! » OldSchool, posted by spike4848 on February 24, 2002, at 10:56:06
> And back to the "psychiatrist are lazy", in medical school most students who went on to psychiatry were at the bottom my class or foreign graduates and wanted to go into psych because of the easy lifestyle. One person actually told me, "I am doing Psychiatry and I will never get sued .... do you think they will believe someone who is CRAZY over me."
>
> I personally do not wanted to be treated by someone who is an underachiever and lazy by nature.
>
> Spike
My problem with psychiatry, and the entire mental health profession in general, is that these people just are barking up the wrong tree. Where is the Neurology? Where is the brain science behind this stuff? I dont think there is any. I just have a problem with the whole entire way this stuff is thought of. Thats my beef.Im like "HEY...I am physically sick here. My illness is real." And the typical response you get is its a "psychological" problem, then the next time you turn around you read pharmaceutical company ads for antidepressants claiming that depression is a medical problem, controllable via medication. LOL
If its a medical problem, then WHY are we being diagnosed with psychology?
Ive noticed that the researchers into this new depression treatment stuff like VNS, rTMS and functional neuroimaging refer to these problems as "Neuropsychiatric disease." I think thats a step in the right direction. But Id really like to see the psychiatric word dropped completely.
Words like "psychiatric," "psychological," "emotional," and most of all "behavioral" should all be dropped totally by the mental health community. Instead these problems should be referred to as "Neuropsychiatric" problems or hell just "Neurological" problems.
I cringe with irritation when I see signs advertising mental health clinics or hospitals that have "behavioral" in them. Makes me wanna puke. I guess my medical illness of major depression is a "behavioral" problem huh? LOL
We all have "behavioral" problems because we cant sleep good, lose weight without trying, lose our sex drives and become stupid as shit from cognitive deterioration! LOL HAHAHAHAH!!!
Old Schol
Posted by trouble on February 24, 2002, at 15:53:13
In reply to Re: Psychiatrists are Lazy .... again!, posted by OldSchool on February 24, 2002, at 14:44:58
Hey Old School,
Are you looking for answers here?
> If its a medical problem, then WHY are we being diagnosed with psychology?
If you've had it w/ discussion and just want to bark that's one thing. But if you're still open to argument for the sake of discovery, then hey, there's a lot of material to cover in the above question.
> Words like "psychiatric," "psychological," "emotional," and most of all "behavioral" should all be dropped totally by the mental health community.
I'm against these words myself, how their usage is contrived to make the consumer stand up and salute whatever's behind their invocation. They're so amorphous and empty, no one knows what these words mean, which, uh, I take it that was your point.I also go ballistic when the word behavioral is used to promote indivudual well-being; my initial reflex being F*CK YOU!, the word behavioral being way too close to the directive BEHAVE for my tastes.
I will also raise heck when they start "improving" my negative cognition, negative having shown itself the more accurate point of view in studies done on reality testing. I think it's significant that I have NEVER characterized my cognition as negative, (or positive), I wish the psychologists would "own" this one, but that would mean admitting their problematization of something in me they don't like, and them having the one true solution of course.
Nice work if you can get it.That's not to say I'm inflexible on these views, just very forbidding when the best-selling authors come to call.
Sorry if I failed to give you something to rail against, I'll try to do better next time.
love, trouble
>
> We all have "behavioral" problems because we cant sleep good, lose weight without trying, lose our sex drives and become stupid as shit from cognitive deterioration! LOL HAHAHAHAH!!!
>
>
>
>
> Old Schol
Posted by noa on February 24, 2002, at 16:43:46
In reply to Re: For Judy, posted by OldSchool on February 23, 2002, at 14:46:26
And I think there is something wrong with either-or thinking.
Our brains and the illnesses we have, are complex. Each of our brain illnesses, though called the same thing, might be quite different. What we call "depression" might in fact be a heterogeneous group of illnesses yet to be understood. And our brains are certainly quite complex and unique.
The relationship between "nature" and "nurture" is only beginning to be understood, but there IS enough knowledge at this point in time to lead us to not think of it as either-or.
Nature and nurture, psychological/emotional experience and physiology/neurology are constantly interacting and mutually influential. For each of us, the degree to which our psychology or our neurology is the most reasonable point of entry for intervention, is going to be different.
The science/art of therapy is inexact for sure, but so is the science/art of psychopharmocology (The author of Noonday Demon likens it to a game of dart board).
For some, medication only is the treatment of choice. For others, therapy only is the treatment of choice. For others still, a combination of the two is the treatment of choice. And there are many reasons for choosing one approach or another--all based on the needs of the individual.
And, a comprehensive plan of treatment isn't just limited to therapy/and or medication. There may be other aspects to the treatment, like exercise, diet modifications, developing more social support, practicing meditation, etc. What works for me isn't necessarily going to work for you and vice versa, just as this is the case with our choice of which medication to take and how much.
The recent PBS special on the brain (The Secret Life of the Brain) did a good job, imho, in its 4th episode, of illustrating just how intricately connected are feelings and thoughts and psychological experiences and physiology. They used PTSD to illustrate this--how the interplay between physiology and psychology lead to symptoms and how the interplay between the two can be harnessed in treating the symptoms.
We are complex creatures and the complexities of our our brains function is something we are only beginning to understand. For me, the either-or approach just doesn't fit. It is true that I am so grateful for my medications--without them I would be dead. But if I were just on medication and not in therapy, I'd probably be dead too. And without therapy, I certainly would not be able to work through just how much this illness has caused me to suffer. Or to be able to take better charge of my life. Both forms of treatment have been essential for me in my recovery process. But I recognize that what works for my treatment may not be the thing that works for your treatment, and I fully respect that--we are each so unique that it would be impossible for me to assume that what works for me would necessarily be what works for you. I hope that you will be able to recognize that, too, and not dismiss the value of what has been valuable in my treatment, just because it is not necessary or valuable in your treatment.
Posted by noa on February 24, 2002, at 16:57:54
In reply to You won't believe this! » OldSchool, posted by spike4848 on February 23, 2002, at 18:50:28
See, to me, it didn't sound like the therapist is asking you to "trash" psychotherapy---it sounds to me like he is asking you to join the two forms of treatment for stronger effect!
I also am starting to wonder about how geography plays into this. I find myself wondering where y'all live that you are meeting psychiatrists who only like to do therapy! That is very different from my experience! Sure, there are some here and there who do therapy and very little medication, but most psychiatrists I've heard of are doing a lot of psychopharm and very little therapy. Has been this way for about a decade.
Or therapists who have had their heads in the sand for the past few decades and have a bad attitude about depression being a medical illness??? Not in my experience! On the contrary, most I've encountered see their role as providing what is often part of a total treatment plan that involves medication when indicated.
Every so often, I hear about therapists who do have a bad attitude about meds. A friend of mine extricated herself from a bad therapy situation in which the therapist's philosophy was that if you take medication you are avoiding the real issues and if you need medication you should be seeing a psychiatrist instead of her. She even communicated this philosophy in her printed literature. Personally, I think it is malpractice, but the way she actually worded the statement in print can be defended legally.
But for the most part, I think that therapist is not the norm in today's mental health world, at least as I've experience it. So that is why I asked about geography.
Posted by noa on February 24, 2002, at 17:11:12
In reply to Re: You won't believe this!, posted by OldSchool on February 23, 2002, at 19:32:49
>>I just cannot believe with the severe symptoms I have had that some people honestly believe that talking will make things better...
You are right. With my symptoms, too, talking would NOT make it better. Not without medication, anyway. But with medication, for me, the medication makes it better, but not better enough in the sense that there are things that medication cannot help me accomplish in the process of recovering from depression that therapy can and does.
But if you have had what sounds like an incredibly frustrating experience of working with professionals who suggested that therapy would suffice for you, then I understand the anger that I sense in your posts. That kind of thing can really be maddening, as though people are telling you that the incredible pain you are suffering will go away if you would only just work harder in therapy. That kind of thing is crazy making, to be sure. (but, per my previous post, don't discount the value of therapy just because you've had the misfortune of this kind of crazymaking treatment by some therapists).
The truth is that while I strongly believe that therapy can be a powerful healing part of treatment for some people, I know that for many of us, it is impossible to find it useful without establishing some kind of minimum "floor" of neurochemical functioning. For many of us, when we are very depressed, talking is pretty useless except to establish basic safety and support structures to get us through the low-functioning time. As successful as I believe therapy has been for me, it would not be so without my medication (and vice versa).
And it sounds like you are having a rough time finding the right formula of meds. I know from experience how frustrating and demoralizing that process can be. Many times, I thought it impossible to find something that would work for me, and it took a long time, but it did happen. For whatever that's worth. I guess I'm trying to be encouraging--keep the quest going.
Posted by Dinah on February 24, 2002, at 17:13:05
In reply to Re: To each his own...., posted by noa on February 24, 2002, at 16:43:46
That was a wonderfully articulate and well thought out post, noa.
Thanks!
Posted by noa on February 24, 2002, at 17:18:59
In reply to Re: Psychiatrists are Lazy .... again!, posted by OldSchool on February 24, 2002, at 14:44:58
Where is the brain science?
It is there! Brain science is in its infancy, is hte problem---whether you are talking about a psychological approach or a psychopharmocological/neurological approach (Andrew Solomon's "dart board"). But what is beginning to finally emerge is that the brain science IS showing that it is a two-way street between experiences/feelings/thoughts and physiology/neurochemistry.
Posted by spike4848 on February 24, 2002, at 20:36:52
In reply to Re: You won't believe this! » spike4848, posted by noa on February 24, 2002, at 16:57:54
> See, to me, it didn't sound like the therapist is asking you to "trash" psychotherapy---it sounds to me like he is asking you to join the two forms of treatment for stronger effect!
Quite the opposite. Most of his patients have been stuck in therapy for years without improvement. Now he has seen myself and one other patient who were aggressive with finding the right meds and now are back to normal. So he wants me to talk to these individuals who have been brainwashed into thinking "meds are bad/they just cover the problem" and "therapy is the only way to improve" and try to get them to get the meds they *NEED*.
I mean it is common sense. Your not going use *TALK* therapy for a diabetic to get his or her blood sugar back to normal and get them out of a diabetic coma! No, you going to give them insulin!
> I also am starting to wonder about how geography plays into this. I find myself wondering where y'all live that you are meeting psychiatrists who only like to do therapy! That is very different from my experience! Sure, there are some here and there who do therapy and very little medication, but most psychiatrists I've heard of are doing a lot of psychopharm and very little therapy. Has been this way for about a decade.
Actually quite the opposite again! I am from the north east USA were freudian therapy still is alive and well. Forunately, people are realizing *IT DOESN'T WORK* and get the help they need with medication.
Frankly, I think you and others by supporting the notion that "therapy is important" are prolonging the suffering of patients who listen to this crap.
Of course this is just my option as a physician and a patient.
Hope this helped.
Spike
Posted by spike4848 on February 24, 2002, at 20:41:23
In reply to Re: To each his own.... » noa, posted by Dinah on February 24, 2002, at 17:13:05
> That was a wonderfully articulate and well thought out post, noa.
> Thanks!I disagree. As I mentioned in my prior post, I think by supporting "talk therapy" you inadvertly prolong the suffer of other patients who listen to this crap. Are you going to treat a patient with asthma or diabetes with talk therapy .... of course not!
Hope this helped.
Spike
Posted by Dinah on February 24, 2002, at 21:08:22
In reply to I think that was CRAP! » Dinah, posted by spike4848 on February 24, 2002, at 20:41:23
My goodness, Spike.
You know, my post was directed to Noa, who obviously put a lot of effort into a very reasonable post backed up by a lot of science. I appreciated the thoughtfulness, and wished to tell her so. In fact, I wanted to post again after her other replies to compliment her for her compassion and empathy as well. I am quite impressed.
She explained her reasoning very clearly, did not use obscenities even once, and didn't resort to shouting down the people she was conversing with. Now that is what I call a dialogue. What is that commercial - something about "raising your voice when you should be reinforcing your argument"?
Now mind you, I am not a bit put off by your language. And you didn't insult me. I wish you had. I would have found that merely amusing. But now the Don Quixote in me is stirred. I do believe that you owe Noa an apology. In fact I find myself quite exercised over the entire matter.
I shall post no more about this. But if you have anything further to say to me, kindly say it about me.
Posted by Shar on February 24, 2002, at 21:35:02
In reply to Re: To each his own...., posted by noa on February 24, 2002, at 16:43:46
I think your first line here is invaluable, Noa. There is hardly any place where either-or, black-white thinking is useful or helpful. It must be the polar opposite of 'thinking outside the box.'
Shar
> And I think there is something wrong with either-or thinking.
>
> Our brains and the illnesses we have, are complex. Each of our brain illnesses, though called the same thing, might be quite different. What we call "depression" might in fact be a heterogeneous group of illnesses yet to be understood. And our brains are certainly quite complex and unique.
>
> The relationship between "nature" and "nurture" is only beginning to be understood, but there IS enough knowledge at this point in time to lead us to not think of it as either-or.
>
> Nature and nurture, psychological/emotional experience and physiology/neurology are constantly interacting and mutually influential. For each of us, the degree to which our psychology or our neurology is the most reasonable point of entry for intervention, is going to be different.
>
> The science/art of therapy is inexact for sure, but so is the science/art of psychopharmocology (The author of Noonday Demon likens it to a game of dart board).
>
> For some, medication only is the treatment of choice. For others, therapy only is the treatment of choice. For others still, a combination of the two is the treatment of choice. And there are many reasons for choosing one approach or another--all based on the needs of the individual.
>
> And, a comprehensive plan of treatment isn't just limited to therapy/and or medication. There may be other aspects to the treatment, like exercise, diet modifications, developing more social support, practicing meditation, etc. What works for me isn't necessarily going to work for you and vice versa, just as this is the case with our choice of which medication to take and how much.
>
> The recent PBS special on the brain (The Secret Life of the Brain) did a good job, imho, in its 4th episode, of illustrating just how intricately connected are feelings and thoughts and psychological experiences and physiology. They used PTSD to illustrate this--how the interplay between physiology and psychology lead to symptoms and how the interplay between the two can be harnessed in treating the symptoms.
>
> We are complex creatures and the complexities of our our brains function is something we are only beginning to understand. For me, the either-or approach just doesn't fit. It is true that I am so grateful for my medications--without them I would be dead. But if I were just on medication and not in therapy, I'd probably be dead too. And without therapy, I certainly would not be able to work through just how much this illness has caused me to suffer. Or to be able to take better charge of my life. Both forms of treatment have been essential for me in my recovery process. But I recognize that what works for my treatment may not be the thing that works for your treatment, and I fully respect that--we are each so unique that it would be impossible for me to assume that what works for me would necessarily be what works for you. I hope that you will be able to recognize that, too, and not dismiss the value of what has been valuable in my treatment, just because it is not necessary or valuable in your treatment.
Posted by OldSchool on February 24, 2002, at 21:41:43
In reply to I think that was CRAP! » Dinah, posted by spike4848 on February 24, 2002, at 20:41:23
> > That was a wonderfully articulate and well thought out post, noa.
> > Thanks!
>
> I disagree. As I mentioned in my prior post, I think by supporting "talk therapy" you inadvertly prolong the suffer of other patients who listen to this crap. Are you going to treat a patient with asthma or diabetes with talk therapy .... of course not!
>
> Hope this helped.
>
> SpikeSpike, unfortunately I hate to say this talk therapy/psychology mindset is so well lodged into mental health that it might take another hundred years to overcome. Too many people just cant comprehend what real mental illness is, too many people just cant deal with the fact everything you are originates in your brain. Your whole entire personality, thoughts, moods, emotions, feelings, SLEEPING, EATING, SEX AND COGNITION...its all CNS (brain) based and controlled.
Talk therapy and psychology has been romanticized in the past. Mental illness has been "intellectualised" going all the way back to Freud. Ive noticed women in particular go for this sort of thing, maybe because women just like to talk about themselves, I dont know.
I get frustrated too by it. I swear if I ever get better, Im going to do something about it. I might form my own lobby group or something, dedicated towards formally merging psychiatry into Neurology and ending this sick lie called psychiatry that masquarades as a branch of medicine.
Old School
Posted by Dinah on February 24, 2002, at 22:22:34
In reply to Re: I think that was CRAP!, posted by OldSchool on February 24, 2002, at 21:41:43
> Spike, unfortunately I hate to say this talk therapy/psychology mindset is so well lodged into mental health that it might take another hundred years to overcome. Too many people just cant comprehend what real mental illness is, too many people just cant deal with the fact everything you are originates in your brain. Your whole entire personality, thoughts, moods, emotions, feelings, SLEEPING, EATING, SEX AND COGNITION...its all CNS (brain) based and controlled.
>
> Talk therapy and psychology has been romanticized in the past. Mental illness has been "intellectualised" going all the way back to Freud. Ive noticed women in particular go for this sort of thing, maybe because women just like to talk about themselves, I dont know.
>
> I get frustrated too by it. I swear if I ever get better, Im going to do something about it. I might form my own lobby group or something, dedicated towards formally merging psychiatry into Neurology and ending this sick lie called psychiatry that masquarades as a branch of medicine.
>
> Old SchoolNow spike, here is an example of someone who is trying to be civil - a bit sexist perhaps, but civil. Thank you old school.
Now I really do love to talk about myself. You are right there. And I love to learn everything there is about myself. I find myself endlessly fascinating.
BUT, it would be a gross generalization to say that all women like to talk about themselves as much as I do. Just as it would be a gross generalization to say that all men like to compare the size of their..... suffering.
Other than that little point, I thought Old School's post was quite civil.
Posted by Zo on February 24, 2002, at 22:23:12
In reply to Re: I dont relate well to the mental health commun, posted by OldSchool on February 23, 2002, at 11:07:54
Wait a minute!
I was just over on Admin posting to your popping off at Judy1. .. only to find you'd already posted to me here in the same disrespectful way.
It will not do, Old School. It just will not do. You went off on a rant not only in ignorance of my usage of the word psychic, which is one thing, but--I find this more offensive--in order to do so, you had to ignore the thought behind the whole post. As if I had no meaning to convey at all. Just flapping my gums in the breeze. You manufactured something to disagree with, and you ran--in the exact wrong direction--in response to a post that was only underscoring your own.
A move I now regret. Get a grip.
Best,
Zo
Posted by spike4848 on February 24, 2002, at 22:28:11
In reply to Re: I think that was CRAP! » spike4848, posted by Dinah on February 24, 2002, at 21:08:22
Dear Noa/Shar/Dinah/PsychoBabbleMembers,
I apolized for the my choice of words. My posts are not intended to insult or offend anyone. I am truely sorry if I did insult or offend you. I really enjoy reading others views on things, I learn everyday on this board.
I am trying to voice my opinion to help others as well. But after reading your post, I realize my language was inappropriate. Sorry.
Please keep the dialogue going. I really do learn from everyone here.
Spike
Posted by spike4848 on February 24, 2002, at 22:30:15
In reply to Sorry for My Language Noa/Shar/Dinah!, posted by spike4848 on February 24, 2002, at 22:28:11
Posted by Dinah on February 24, 2002, at 23:08:41
In reply to Sorry for My Language Noa/Shar/Dinah!, posted by spike4848 on February 24, 2002, at 22:28:11
Well, as I said, you didn't insult me at all. And I can't speak for anyone else.
But it would be ungracious of me to refuse to accept such a gracious apology. It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong.
I'm not sure that I have anything further to offer this conversation, but I will read it with interest. And if I feel I can contribute in any way, I will be happy to throw in my $.02.
Posted by kiddo on February 24, 2002, at 23:21:47
In reply to Re: I think that was CRAP!, posted by OldSchool on February 24, 2002, at 21:41:43
> Spike, unfortunately I hate to say this talk therapy/psychology mindset is so well lodged into mental health that it might take another hundred years to overcome. Too many people just cant comprehend what real mental illness is, too many people just cant deal with the fact everything you are originates in your brain. Your whole entire personality, thoughts, moods, emotions, feelings, SLEEPING, EATING, SEX AND COGNITION...its all CNS (brain) based and controlled.
>Here we go again....since 'real' mental illness is a medical condition I don't understand why it's being discussed here...(you say it's medical) I reiterate, psychological issues can CHANGE things in the brain.
> Talk therapy and psychology has been romanticized in the past. Mental illness has been "intellectualised" going all the way back to Freud. Ive noticed women in particular go for this sort of thing, maybe because women just like to talk about themselves, I dont know.
>
Maybe by some it's been romanticized and intellectualized, but women bashing is a little extreme don't ya think? If that isn't a stereotype I don't know what is...seems to me there are plenty of men in therapy, plenty of others that should be, and still plenty others that like to talk about themselves, but, of course, maybe this is just one woman's view of hearing herself talk :-)> I get frustrated too by it. I swear if I ever get better, Im going to do something about it. I might form my own lobby group or something, dedicated towards formally merging psychiatry into Neurology and ending this sick lie called psychiatry that masquarades as a branch of medicine.
>
> Old SchoolI think it's great you want to stand up for what you believe in. What I don't understand is why you frequent a Psychiatrist's site for support if it's a sick lie. I'm surprised you haven't started your own discussion board about it. Care to enlighten me?
Kiddo
Posted by Dinah on February 25, 2002, at 0:50:27
Old School,
I am going to say now what I was trying very hard not to say in my early posts, because I thought, rightly or wrongly, that saying it might hurt you. I based that conclusion solely on my experience with my father, and you really do remind me of him. So if I'm wrong, please forgive me for being mistaken. And if I'm right, please forgive me for saying it.I hear the pain behind your anger and it saddens me that you have to feel it. I know the pain that both results in and results from either/or thinking and it is very deep. And I know the pain that results from alienating those who want to reach out to you and I wish sincerely that I could stop you from making that mistake. There are very kind people on this board, people who have in fact, said this more plainly than I have, since oddly enough I was trying to spare you my compassion. But I do have compassion for you and your very real suffering. It must hurt so bad to be so full of rage.
So I really did try to explain the real benefits people find in therapy. And I really did understand your need to vent your frustration. And I really was happy when I "heard" you laugh on the admin board.
And I really do hope that neither you nor Spike think that I was being hurtful or sarcastic to you. I was really just trying to protect you.
That being said, I also have very real compassion for those who are hurt by your assumption that their pain is not equally real and deep. I'm not sure you understand that that is the message they are getting from you.
Now if I'm right, and you are like my dad, I'm guessing you'll be very angry by this post and go on the offensive. And I want you to know that that's OK with me. I really do understand where that anger comes from. No one likes to be vulnerable. Just target it at me, please.
And if I'm wrong, and you are nothing like my dad, perhaps we can lower the tone a bit and have a real discussion.
And this is an interesting exercise in complete and total honesty.
With all sincerity,
Dinah
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.