Does the BIP actually change who we *are*?

[Cain]

I have done extensive research on the subject, the biggest being "having" schizophrenia.

I like her take on it, so take that for what it's worth.

OK.

But I would still like some maths.  Anecdotes are too easy to create, and so easy to dimiss.

[Cain]

Cool.

I dunno..  maybe you'd like R.D. Laing's work (I think a lot of it has been discredited but it's still interesting).

There's a site called the society for Laingian studies.  They used to have a forum, too, but I'm not sure if they do anymore.

http://laingsociety.org/

Enjoy.

Laing is pretty good.  I don't always agree with him, but he makes a convincing case.

[Cain]

Hunter, would you like an upload of the Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences?  Its a big ol' file (11.5 MB....about 1000 pages), but it may interest you.

[hunter s.durden]

Anecdotes are too easy to create, and so easy to dimiss.

I know Cain:

I like her take on it, so take that for what it's worth.

[hunter s.durden]

I can't upload stuff, I don't own a computer.

[Cain]

I can't upload stuff, I don't own a computer.

Ah OK.

And thats kind of my point.  If it is true, and it can be proved to be true, then that is a lot more helpful than otherwise, where people can and will dismiss it.

[hunter s.durden]

In all fairness, you can't prove it's a disease. You can't even get consistent diagnosis.

There's no "hard" science either way, which is why I was saying I simply liked the viewpoint.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that's one of the things I find most funny about the popular views among many 20something USAians. That is, out of one side of their mouth they rant about evolution and Dawkins and FSM and teh evil ID'ers... and then anytime someone says "Maybe you don't actually need to be on Ritalin or Buspar..." they respond with "IT'S A CHEMICAL IMBALANCE!!" (which can't be tested, nor can we identify the chemicals... nor can we know how imbalanced, nor precisely how much is required to bring it into balance...)

I sometimes think we could replace "chemical imbalance" with "energy imbalance" and we'd have a bunch of Pagans. 

[hunter s.durden]

I sometimes think we could replace "chemical imbalance" with "energy imbalance" and we'd have a bunch of Pagans. 

Pretty much.

[BootyBay]

The chemical imbalance myth is similar to the ancient 4 bodily fluids myth in early medicine.  I think Breggin pointed that out.. not sure.

I'm always a little suspicious of people who, on one hand, would say cocaine and meth are terrible drugs and should be avoided at all costs (not saying they aren't), and, on the other, claim their kids need amphetamines (or meth, in the case of Desoxyn) to pay attention in school.

I guess Huxley would be earning a fortune in royalties if he were alive today. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The whole "chemical imbalance" thing is ridiculous. I mean, sometimes it's documentably true, because some gland is producing too much or too little of something and you can use a supplement (or suppression) of that chemical to correct the problem. Other times, though, it's like someone got hold of that phrase and decided to use it arbitrarily because "we don't know why he acts that way, but we noticed that this drug seems to alleviate the symptoms" doesn't sound very official.

For instance, I have ADHD and I'm pretty damn sure it's not because my brain isn't producing enough Methylphenidate, even though Methylphenidate seems to make me act more "normal" (feels abnormal to me, but it's all about other people's perceptions, right?)

Scientists, including doctors, really don't like to say "We have no fucking idea, in fact we don't even think everyone we're calling "Schizophrenic" is suffering from the same thing."

Even less do they like "Well, this drug seems to work, but we don't actually know how or why".

But a lot of the time, it's true.

[BootyBay]

I recommend watching parts 1 and 2 of "The Trap: What Happened to our Dream of Freedom" to get some insight into the current ideas regarding psychiatry.  The percent of people that could be considered "mentally ill" has risen to 50%.  Not to mention the probable connection between genetics and eugenics (why identify "the genes responsible for schizophrenia" if they don't want to wipe them out?  but that's just me).
In short, society would be much better off if the trap of being "mentally ill" didn't cast such a wide net, thereby making people believe the very essence of "who they are" is diseased and inferior.

[hunter s.durden]

The whole "chemical imbalance" thing is ridiculous.

WZRFE, it sounds like you have a bit of a chemical imbalance... 

[Cainad (dec.)]

The whole "chemical imbalance" thing is ridiculous. I mean, sometimes it's documentably true, because some gland is producing too much or too little of something and you can use a supplement (or suppression) of that chemical to correct the problem. Other times, though, it's like someone got hold of that phrase and decided to use it arbitrarily because "we don't know why he acts that way, but we noticed that this drug seems to alleviate the symptoms" doesn't sound very official.

For instance, I have ADHD and I'm pretty damn sure it's not because my brain isn't producing enough Methylphenidate, even though Methylphenidate seems to make me act more "normal" (feels abnormal to me, but it's all about other people's perceptions, right?)

Scientists, including doctors, really don't like to say "We have no fucking idea, in fact we don't even think everyone we're calling "Schizophrenic" is suffering from the same thing."

Even less do they like "Well, this drug seems to work, but we don't actually know how or why".

But a lot of the time, it's true.

My mom is a doctor, and I second this statement. Doctors tend to assume that people need the dumbed-down explanation of everything, which, frankly, a lot of people do.

If you really want to be sure that your doctor is giving you "the whole story" behind why he/she is giving you a certain prescription (or why they aren't giving you a prescription you expected to get), educate yourself a little bit in whatever area of medicine you're having problems with. Then during the appointment, you can say, "Do you think it might be a problem with <insert body part or function here>," and even if you're completely wrong, they might feel obligated to explain why you're wrong.

[BootyBay]

If you really want to be sure that your doctor is giving you "the whole story" behind why he/she is giving you a certain prescription (or why they aren't giving you a prescription you expected to get), educate yourself a little bit in whatever area of medicine you're having problems with. Then during the appointment, you can say, "Do you think it might be a problem with <insert body part or function here>," and even if you're completely wrong, they might feel obligated to explain why you're wrong.

Think of the lawsuits from "psychotics" with TD they got from taking antipsychotics.  Not once have I been alerted to that risk when prescribed an antipsychotic.