![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by chujoe on June 17, 2010, at 6:11:57
I did use the word "childish" in a thread on the Medications board about the happiness of giving up one's psych meds and I can see how that could be construed as hurtful even though it was not directed at any one person, but at a kind of incohate social movement in the US, which seems to me like a rebirth of Puritanism and is certainly paranoid and anti-intellectual in character. Be that as it may, I was responding to a series of posts that implied those of us who take psych meds are uninformed and ignorant about the medications we take and that if we knew the truth we'd toss the pill bottles in the trash. That is deeply offensive, yet it goes uncensured by the administrator, while my sociological observation earns notice from Dr. Bob. This is not even-handed.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2010, at 8:36:50
In reply to Being condescending is also an attack, posted by chujoe on June 17, 2010, at 6:11:57
> I did use the word "childish" in a thread on the Medications board about the happiness of giving up one's psych meds and I can see how that could be construed as hurtful even though it was not directed at any one person, but at a kind of incohate social movement in the US, which seems to me like a rebirth of Puritanism and is certainly paranoid and anti-intellectual in character. Be that as it may, I was responding to a series of posts that implied those of us who take psych meds are uninformed and ignorant about the medications we take and that if we knew the truth we'd toss the pill bottles in the trash. That is deeply offensive, yet it goes uncensured by the administrator, while my sociological observation earns notice from Dr. Bob. This is not even-handed.
>
cj,
You wrote,[...a rebirth of Puritanism...is certainly xxx and yyy in character..], [...that is ... xxx...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here and if you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What in Puritanism are you referring to?
B. What citeria, if any, do you use to say that what the poster wrote that you are referring to is connected in some way with Puritanism?
C. Then what criteria, if any, are you using to say that it is xxx and yyy in charater?
D. other questions if the above have answers posted here.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 17, 2010, at 9:52:23
In reply to Being condescending is also an attack, posted by chujoe on June 17, 2010, at 6:11:57
I don't disagree with what you say. I post mainly on the Psychology board, and there are times when a poster starts talking about long term therapy, or the therapy relationship, in a way that upsets and offends me. I get some of the same feelings you do. I'm reasonably sure that those who post about short term goals oriented therapy there may get exactly the same feeling.
Maybe it's like talking politics and religion. Different people can see the same facts and come to completely different conclusions. And be so sure of those conclusions, and see them as so self-evident, that they might appear to those who come to different conclusions as condescending or even hostile. It may stem from the very best of intentions, and the intentions at least can be respected?
I sometimes think the Psychology board would be best split into a short term "results" based therapy board and a longer term "relationship" based therapy board. Just like maybe many would be happier if there was a medication board and an anti-medication board. Dr. Bob's preference is that all views be tolerated and open to discussion on one board.
I suppose Dr. Bob has to draw the line somewhere if the level of discourse is to stay at a supportive and educational level. The place he's drawn it is ideas vs. the thinker perhaps? If someone expresses their ideas in a way that seems so certain that it can feel insulting to those who feel differently, he accepts that as long as the poster doesn't actually negatively characterize those who feel differently than he does. And the response to those points of view can express just as much confidence in the rightness of their understanding, so long as they don't negatively characterize the original poster or his ideas.
It's not ideal, perhaps. I'm not sure if there is an ideal, since stifling the free exchange of ideas might also not be ideal. Although I suppose the free exchange of ideas may already be stifled, since Dr. Bob *does* discourage sociological comments that may negatively characterize others. Perhaps it's possible to express the same ideas while staying within the civility guidelines? That you see a movement lately towards a Puritan attitude towards drugs. That people seem to be believing that willpower and right living will cure mental illness. And that you find such an attitude worrying, since you believe that medication has proven efficacious for many conditions? (I don't actually see Puritan as a negative thing, I'm not sure about Dr. Bob. And I'm not sure if I've adequately captured the essence of your sociological statement.)
Although I post mainly on the Psychology Board and Social, I do read and occasionally post on the Medication Board. I wanted to tell you that I enjoyed your sensible and well thought out contributions there.
Posted by chujoe on June 17, 2010, at 10:28:05
In reply to Re: Being condescending is also an attack » chujoe, posted by Dinah on June 17, 2010, at 9:52:23
Thank you, Dinah. I think you make a lot of sense here and I have tried since discovering Psychobabble to be tolerant and supportive.
Like many of the anti-med folks, I am quite skeptical about reductionist, materialist, "scientific" explanations for mental illness. I am quite certain from my research and my reading that psychology is very important, that behavior is very important, that taking responsibility for one's self is very important. Sometimes, for some people, these will suffice to get them through whatever difficulties they are having. These people are the lucky ones, I guess, though if you have to turn yourself and your human agency over to some rigid system of belief, well, I'm not so sure it's a good trade.
I even think that the experience of mental illness -- that's what our culture calls these various states of mind -- can be useful, both to the individual and to the society. Some societies, historically, have made room for such people as shaman, healers, prophets, artists, poets, etc. At the same time, the interior life of such people can be a misery to them, however beautiful the products of their imaginations. And sometimes the very forces that make them creative are so tormenting that they lose all ability to function -- that is what I'd call madness.
Our money-driven society has very little room for the shaman, the witch, or the artist, which makes his or her lot even harder to bear. Ironically, that very capitalist, market-driven society has produced a number of chemicals that can alleviate the mental suffering of some people. And this is where it gets a little weird because two seemingly contradictory things can be true at the same time: 1.) Society has found it convenient to medicate away problems; this is probably better than burning witches and executing artists who offend the king, but it amounts to the same thing. 2.) The medications that have been developed to medicate away problems make life possible for some people who would otherwise find life intolerable. So: Yeah, big phrama is evil, but some of the stuff they sell works.
Finally, as to disagreeing about the facts, you're right, I think, but with this caveat: One dosen't get to make up facts. The Whitiker book many of the anti-med folks cite so often is full of factual errors and misuse of statistics. "Science" and "facts" are put in the service of a cultural Puritanism that goes back to the 17th century in this country, an ideology that despises the body and that seeks to control, not just the behavior but the inner lives of citizens, that banned musical instruments, dancing, wine, beer, and all forms of pleasure because pleasure interferes with work. The new Puritanism believes -- though never states this explicitly -- that if one suffers from mental illness then you are simply destined to suffer (cf. Calvinism), or that perhaps you can work your way to health and mental purity; the new Puritanism despises the idea that suffering might be relieved, or that one might experience pleasure. Pleasure is a waste of time. Just like the medicating society of Big Pharma, the new Puritans seek to control the behavior of their fellow citizens.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2010, at 6:17:01
In reply to Re: Being condescending is also an attack » Dinah, posted by chujoe on June 17, 2010, at 10:28:05
> Thank you, Dinah. I think you make a lot of sense here and I have tried since discovering Psychobabble to be tolerant and supportive.
>
> Like many of the anti-med folks, I am quite skeptical about reductionist, materialist, "scientific" explanations for mental illness. I am quite certain from my research and my reading that psychology is very important, that behavior is very important, that taking responsibility for one's self is very important. Sometimes, for some people, these will suffice to get them through whatever difficulties they are having. These people are the lucky ones, I guess, though if you have to turn yourself and your human agency over to some rigid system of belief, well, I'm not so sure it's a good trade.
>
> I even think that the experience of mental illness -- that's what our culture calls these various states of mind -- can be useful, both to the individual and to the society. Some societies, historically, have made room for such people as shaman, healers, prophets, artists, poets, etc. At the same time, the interior life of such people can be a misery to them, however beautiful the products of their imaginations. And sometimes the very forces that make them creative are so tormenting that they lose all ability to function -- that is what I'd call madness.
>
> Our money-driven society has very little room for the shaman, the witch, or the artist, which makes his or her lot even harder to bear. Ironically, that very capitalist, market-driven society has produced a number of chemicals that can alleviate the mental suffering of some people. And this is where it gets a little weird because two seemingly contradictory things can be true at the same time: 1.) Society has found it convenient to medicate away problems; this is probably better than burning witches and executing artists who offend the king, but it amounts to the same thing. 2.) The medications that have been developed to medicate away problems make life possible for some people who would otherwise find life intolerable. So: Yeah, big phrama is evil, but some of the stuff they sell works.
>
> Finally, as to disagreeing about the facts, you're right, I think, but with this caveat: One dosen't get to make up facts. The Whitiker book many of the anti-med folks cite so often is full of factual errors and misuse of statistics. "Science" and "facts" are put in the service of a cultural Puritanism that goes back to the 17th century in this country, an ideology that despises the body and that seeks to control, not just the behavior but the inner lives of citizens, that banned musical instruments, dancing, wine, beer, and all forms of pleasure because pleasure interferes with work. The new Puritanism believes -- though never states this explicitly -- that if one suffers from mental illness then you are simply destined to suffer (cf. Calvinism), or that perhaps you can work your way to health and mental purity; the new Puritanism despises the idea that suffering might be relieved, or that one might experience pleasure. Pleasure is a waste of time. Just like the medicating society of Big Pharma, the new Puritans seek to control the behavior of their fellow citizens.cj,
You wrote,[...the Whitiker book...is full of factual errors and misuse of statistics...].
I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. If you could post answers to the folowing, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What are the factual errors that you are referring to?
B. What criteria do you use, if any, to determine that?
C. What are the statistics that you say are misused?
D. What criteria do you use to determine that?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on June 18, 2010, at 13:40:45
In reply to Lou's request-dephahm » chujoe, posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2010, at 6:17:01
Some are finding a combination of meds, supplements, herbs, accupucture, theraphy work for them. Everyone is different. Phillipa
Posted by chujoe on June 18, 2010, at 16:32:10
In reply to Lou's request-dephahm » chujoe, posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2010, at 6:17:01
Here is one critique of Whitaker's argument, form a commenter at Salon:
>>This interview is riddled with scientifically questionable. As just one particularly egregious example, the author ignores a major Finnish study published in Lancet last year which shows a clear survival benefit for schizophrenics treated with antipsychotics relative to those that are untreated. And another: his concerns about tardive dyskinesia betray an out of date familiarity with psychiatric practice, as this side effect, caused by now infrequently used first generation antipsychotics, is rarely seen nowadays.
A number of other contentions are equally unsupportable.
This sort of crap is a reminder of how often journalists get in over their head, and how blissfully oblvious they often are to that very fact. Evaluating psychiatric literature without any scientific training predictably produces drivel. The fact that 40% of schizophrenics that are off meds get better without treatment compared to 5% that are on meds does not reflect on the medications! Rather, it is a predictable result of the well-known fact that somewhere around 5-10% of schizophrenics have one psychotic break and never have another relapse. Predictably, these schizophrenics either never take meds or take them only for a very short period during their acute psychosis. Those that are on meds are on meds precisely because they repeatedly end up in inpatient psychiatric units most often due to aggressive and/or paranoid behavior towards others and because they become unable to care for themselves. These patients are part of the much larger subset of schizophrenics who have frequent relapses. They stay on treatment because they have a more severe form of disease, and need the meds to reduce sx and increase function!<<
Here is another:
>>It's disturbing that an award-winning science writer would use logic like this. 10-25% of patients receiving ADHD treatments have mania or psychosis. The meds cause it! 40% of patients with schizophrenia not on medications show recovery vs. 5% of patients on medications. This could mean the medications make people worse, or it could mean that doctors are correctly recognizing when patients have recovered/might recover/are less ill and are not prescribing. In fact, contained in the study is an analysis suggesting that factors associated with better prognosis were connected with recovery and not being medicated. Finally, there were only 64 patients with schizophrenia in the study. There are an estimated 2.2 million people w/schizophrenia in the U.S. alone. This is reminiscent of Mbeki in South Africa claiming anti-retrovirals cause HIV. Illnesses like these are tragedies, this makes it worse.<<There have been other critiques of W's approach to the subject and I'll post them if I can find them online. But beyond his misuse of the facts and inability to understand statistics, Whittaker seems completely uninterested in the actual suffering of actual people. There are plenty of things wrong with the mental health delivery system in the US and this sort of thing detracts from the real issues.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2010, at 1:48:53
In reply to Being condescending is also an attack, posted by chujoe on June 17, 2010, at 6:11:57
> I did use the word "childish" in a thread on the Medications board about the happiness of giving up one's psych meds and I can see how that could be construed as hurtful even though it was not directed at any one person, but at a kind of incohate social movement in the US
Thanks. If something's directed at a movement, it can actually be more hurtful, since movements involve more than one person.
> I was responding to a series of posts that implied those of us who take psych meds are uninformed and ignorant about the medications we take and that if we knew the truth we'd toss the pill bottles in the trash.
I'm glad he apologized:
> Apologies I am new to this forum and I understand that I have been a little insensitive ... It was a little aggressive so I will tone it down and refer to myself and my experience
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20100615/msgs/951272.html
If you're concerned about others, consider phrasing your post to make that explicit. If another poster is uncivil, please use the "notify administrators" button:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help
instead of being uncivil in return. Two wrongs don't make a right. I've valued your contributions and hope to keep seeing thoughtful and intelligent posts from you.
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | 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.