Paranoid psychosis is the technical term most often applied to the condition, but you know the type: a person with a complex and intimately interconnected set of beliefs about the world which, to him, look like TroofTM, as in God's honest, the real deal, everything worth knowing about the world, including what to do about it, while to you, they look like a convoluted, jumbled bag of phantasmagoria with an at bets tenuous, but often totally non-existent connection to the world as it really is.
My dad, for instance. Long story follows.
TLDR: holist's dad is a mad old git. He's been experimenting with being with him in a way that's helpful when he is preoccupied by his paranoid ideation and pretty hyper (i.e. manic episodes) for 30 years or so, with some success, but he would appreciate input.
Dad first went bonkers in 1969, at the age of 30, on the 3rd anniversary of his mother's death. By all accounts she was a truly loving mum and both her sons were deeply shaken by her untimely death. It also happened to be the first anniversary of his firstborn son's birth (that's me!) and his hasty and unpremeditated assumption of the responsibilities of marriage and a child. It was also one year after he, outraged by the events in Czech, publicly renounced his party membership and thereby, in an act of foolish and kitschy, and childish defiance, destroyed the only career he had before him, a promising if unpalatable one at that. His experiences in the holocaust (inclusive of being lost at age 5 in the Budapest ghetto for 5 days in the winter of 1944 and being pulled off a train of displaced children bound for Auswitz at the last minute by an aunt who happened to pass by) also came into it in a big way. I have spent some time and effort reconstructing the events of that fateful night and day. Short version: he ended up nacked, battling demons and attempting to derail a tram by hand in a public square, paranoid to the eyeballs, out of touch with reality. He was sedated and hospitalised for a couple of weeks, and this was repeated every few years while he was still in Hungary, pursuing a line as a member of the "democratic opposition" - a bunch of (old-sense) liberal individuals who got together to scheme a lot and did rather little, but made a big deal out of it, while doing little marginalised intellectual odd-jobs (translation, editing, etc.) to eke out a rather impoverished living.
He left Hungary in 1980. He had had a "western passport" for only a few years then: his making a public fuss about the invasion of Czechoslovakia had cost him that back in '69 - and when the Poles introduced a state of military emergency due to the Solidarity Riots, he got scared that he would be locked inside Hungary again, and, on a whim, bolted to Vienna. His family followed him in a few months, but I did not, though I had been living with him and new wife and kids for 6 years, because at that time I considered him so unreliable I had no doubts about going to live with my mum rather than going with dad along the path of uncertainty that is being a dissident and starting all over in a new place, with an intermittently raving lunatic parent). After a spell in a Vienna refugee camp where he waited for his family to catch up, and a couple of years in Germany, he ended up in Reading, UK, as well-regarded political dissidents were always welcome at the BBC's listening service in Caversham. The Monitoring Service in Caversham was one weird place during the 80's, very Orwellian, Brasilesque: hundreds of people sitting in tiny open-plan cubicles with headphones on, listening to state radio piped in from everywhere around the world, using antiquated recording devices that actually recorded audio magnetically on metal wire and were foot-switch operated (!!), and then using typewriters to type out summaries or, in the case of more important broadcasts, verbatim English translations for British intelligence.
He was in pretty good nick when he arrived. The reason he flipped his lid again was that he had expected a bit of a hero's welcome, and got a truly shoddy deal instead. The job was terrible. 12-hour and 16-hour shifts, ugly, uncomfy headphones on all the time, irregular sleeping hours and hard, hard work for not very much: I think his fate was sealed when he unadvisedly let on that he was good at Russian, too. He was, but not quite native-language good: he could do the same work in the Russian section, where he was frequently placed to fill in, but it was four times more arduous and didn't pay more. He started missing shifts, then acting strange, sleeping on the job, summarising an important speech by Kádár when he should have translated it verbatim: the British bureucracy swung into action (it's funny that the Monitoring Service was actually a part of the BBC), and they fired him in a cold and cruel fashion, I have the correspondence to prove it.
Thus began a career as the scary foreign lunatic in a parochial county town not, at the time, known for its understanding of outsiders, especially mad ones that struggled to keep their clothes on when things went wrong and who could escalate with the best of them.
Through an amazing plethora of any-and-all jobs, he struggled to keep providing for his family for years as barman, night petrol station attendant, hotel cleaner, deafness-awareness raiser, delivery man, milkman, advertising leaflet distributor, paperboy, car-park attendant, cook... and every now and then, when he couldn't handle the stress, he threw a wobbly, ended up sedated and in a warm place with soup. Kinda worked for him. The first few times, he fought like mad for his rights, even acquired a loyal solicitor who believed in him to an extent of taking him on pro bono for years, later on he just accepted that this happened occasionally and learnt to be let out as soon as possible through docility and eager rule-following.
I arrived in Reading six years after him, in 1986, and for years I tried to do the right thing and failed in several ways. My initial fear (he was right scary when he was up to his antics when I was a kid) flipped to anger and the realisation that I am now stronger than he is in every way, and eventually I found that if I have the time and the inclination to be with him 24/7 when he is raving, I can largely steer him out of trouble gently. But he's old and broken now, and doesn't seem to do it anymore... which, in a horrormirthy way, is kinda sad. I'd like to have a go at it with him one last time, to see if I could last the course through a fully fledged psychotic episode. In a childhood totally devoid of role models (and filled with various flavors of broken alcoholics and emotional cul-de-sacs), he was the closest thing. He was mad, at times disgusting, at times truly scary (as manic people skirting the border of psychosis can be), at times unbelievably sad, but he never sold out. Taking on 6 police in riot gear and giving them a run for their money... way to go, dad. Now he's mellowed into an incontinent and fadey old dwarf who spends his time in the valley of the darkness of death, with regular sparkles of surprising wisdom. Took me a long time, but I do appreciate him now. My holocaust syndrome could have been a lot worse, had he acted some other, more conformist way.
At his most sane, holist Snr could present a better-than-passable impression of being a terribly urbane man with both a twinkle and a good humoured insight of what it was to be human. Today, he is certainly not urbane (a fucked up old weirdo is more like it), but the twinkle and the insight has matured and can be elicited on good days. However, at his least, he was everything you don't want from the mad foreigner down the road who will not go away and has seen right through the worst that can be done to him to try to make him different.
The institution that played a sizeable part in destroying his life (for it is largely a train-wreck with a few silver linings, mostly in the shape of offspring who are all faring reasonably) was not a mental one: it was just the system of Communism-Socialism that operated in Eastern Europe from 1946 until the "Change of Regime" in the 1990's. He could have been smarter, a select few have, but I can't really bring myself to blame him for failing... he gave it all he had, which was not all that much, and came out less than a winner. Bless him.
***
Of course, with dad being the way he is, the maniacs and the delusionals have found me regularly ever since. I think I tolerate that flavour of madness much better than most anyone I know (and the exceptions are nutters themselves! and so am I), but the best approach is to treat them as an unreliable, fucked-up child: hang around, show some interest gently, be available, prevent minor and major disasters as they turn up. What do you think?
I'm sorry your father is mentally ill; that's a tough burden for any child, even an adult one.
If you feel that it's part of your calling to shepherd the mentally ill, more power to you. Your approach seems pretty sensible, though it runs the risk of becoming enabling and/or codependent. As long as you're aware and comfortable with it, and are conscious of the possibility of developing a martyr or messiah complex yourself, I'd say roll with it.
On the other hand, a lot of people with severe mental illnesses are quite treatable, and might not need a shepherd if they had access to (and could stay on) the right medication.
If you do find yourself dealing often with people who have severe mental illnesses such as paranoid schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, there are often, depending on where you live, educational opportunities for people who are close to someone struggling with those issues in loved ones.
http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/Helpline1/Coping_Tips_for_Siblings_and_Adult_Children_of_Persons_with_Mental_Illness.htm
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 02, 2014, 04:36:37 PM
I'm sorry your father is mentally ill; that's a tough burden for any child, even an adult one.
Thanks for the commiseration. Actually, it took me a good 35 years, but it doesn't bother me any more. Except for the fact that if he had competent help available at the outset, he could probably have avoided the pattern. And the fact that he's used up his body a lot and is unlikely to be lively ever again, I do regret that. I would probably pay money to participate in a manic episode now. The old (and mad) lion has lost his teeth.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 02, 2014, 04:36:37 PM
If you feel that it's part of your calling to shepherd the mentally ill, more power to you. Your approach seems pretty sensible, though it runs the risk of becoming enabling and/or codependent. As long as you're aware and comfortable with it, and are conscious of the possibility of developing a martyr or messiah complex yourself, I'd say roll with it.
I did the martyr bit when I was six: my mother finally worked up the courage to divorce him, and he talked me into staying with him (my sister, and only sibling) stayed with my mum. It was a bloody stupid thing to do (I mean for my parents) and it kept me in a bind for a very long time before I realised that that was all it was: two loving and rather incompetent parents fucking up.
I did the messiah thing much later, I rescued him from a hospital where he was being ridiculously oversedated and preparing to die (he had successfully sued the mental hospital the previous time: they took their revenge next time they got their hands on him), nursed him back to a semblance of health, then he fucked off again, as he does: it usually begins to begin when something mightily important comes up. I think I'm safe now, though I am about to change track from translator to art therapist. But I actually want to work with less severe cases, at least mostly.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 02, 2014, 04:36:37 PM
On the other hand, a lot of people with severe mental illnesses are quite treatable, and might not need a shepherd if they had access to (and could stay on) the right medication.
I'm not so sure about that. I'm all R. D. Laing, Wilhelm Reich, Thomas Szasz and Sue Gerhardt, not to mention probably quite Michel Foucault about the whole conceptual minefield that surrounds mental health/illness and the ways society deals with it. While there are clearly simple and organic reasons for going mad, and very probably very complex and organic reasons for it as well, I think most people diagnosed with severe mental illness (psychosis, bipolar, monopolar depression, OCD, I could go on) are driven nuts by the society they live in, and while the drugs may help to manage the symptoms (often largely for the benefit of those around the mad person, although I've met more than a few self-confessed happy poppers, too), they could not rightly be called a cure. Which types of severe mental illness did you have in mind?
I was thinking particularly of the two I've mentioned previously, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Both are quite responsive to drug treatment.
While "driven mad by society" certainly is romantic, I doubt it's true on a deeper level, as mental illness appears in every society and has been recorded across history. I would agree that our current modern Western society deals with it poorly and almost certainly exacerbates some forms, while generally excusing/failing to recognize others, even forms that would have resulted in banishment in other cultures and times.
It is likely true that with a compassionate and supportive environment, your father probably would have had a different outcome. It is also likely true that his illness played a major role in the unfortunate treatment he received, which generates a feedback loop. The situation was not created 100% by either game nor player.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:11:39 PM
While "driven mad by society" certainly is romantic, I doubt it's true on a deeper level, as mental illness appears in every society and has been recorded across history.
This is true...But it is also true that, while individual stressors may be less intense than they were in, say, 1600s Germany, people have a far greater NUMBER of stressors than they have in the past, and that trend is likely to continue. "Future shock", as it was first called in the 1970s, causes all manner of mental issues. However - and I am no expert on this - I don't think outright psychosis is one of them.
It would be interesting to find out if there's a link between prenatal stress on the mother's part, with the alleged rise in autism-type disorders.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 03:20:44 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:11:39 PM
While "driven mad by society" certainly is romantic, I doubt it's true on a deeper level, as mental illness appears in every society and has been recorded across history.
This is true...But it is also true that, while individual stressors may be less intense than they were in, say, 1600s Germany, people have a far greater NUMBER of stressors than they have in the past, and that trend is likely to continue. "Future shock", as it was first called in the 1970s, causes all manner of mental issues. However - and I am no expert on this - I don't think outright psychosis is one of them.
It would be interesting to find out if there's a link between prenatal stress on the mother's part, with the alleged rise in autism-type disorders.
Not autism, at least as far as research shows so far. Anxiety disorders, yes.
Do you have some kind of citation for the "greater number of stressors"? I find it a little challenging to swallow, given what life was like in pre-industrial Europe. How are you quantifying stressors?
I also think it's worth mentioning that having studied the history of the treatment of mental illness in Western society, the way the mentally ill were treated in 17th-century Europe was absolutely horrifying. I'm a little concerned that there's some romanticizing of the past going on here. There was very little compassion and the mentally ill were treated largely as brutes and animals, although at least social views were undergoing a shift away from exorcism or simply stoning them to death.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:23:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 03:20:44 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:11:39 PM
While "driven mad by society" certainly is romantic, I doubt it's true on a deeper level, as mental illness appears in every society and has been recorded across history.
This is true...But it is also true that, while individual stressors may be less intense than they were in, say, 1600s Germany, people have a far greater NUMBER of stressors than they have in the past, and that trend is likely to continue. "Future shock", as it was first called in the 1970s, causes all manner of mental issues. However - and I am no expert on this - I don't think outright psychosis is one of them.
It would be interesting to find out if there's a link between prenatal stress on the mother's part, with the alleged rise in autism-type disorders.
Not autism, at least as far as research shows so far. Anxiety disorders, yes.
Do you have some kind of citation for the "greater number of stressors"? I find it a little challenging to swallow, given what life was like in pre-industrial Europe. How are you quantifying stressors?
Nope. No citation. I am definitely talking out of my ass, here, and am operating on memories of books I have read on the subject. That being said:
In pre-industrial Europe, you basically had about 7 daily stressors:
1. Rampaging armies of Tercios killing you.
2. Sectarian mobs killing you/witch hunts/inquisition.
3. Starvation (during the 30 years war, 25% of Germany died, about 80% of whom died from disease or starvation).
4. Plague, smallpox, diptheria.
5. Making enough money to get married.
6. Worst infant mortality rate prior to the Ethiopian famine.
7. Pissing off the local lords (many of whose interests overlapped), who then kill you.
Right now, we don't have anything on that order, but what we DO have is a massive, non-stop bombardment of signal, with advertising designed specifically to create additional sources of stress (which can, of course, be remedied with the product being sold). Oddly enough, the removal of the cold-war armageddon scenario seems to have INCREASED the stress level. It would be interesting to determine if stress caused by life-threatening events is more easily dealt with than information overload. After all, human brains evolved to deal with threats to life and limb (ie, leopards, competing tribes), but not a 24/7 stream of information, most of which involve vague, scarcely-definable fears.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:33:05 PM
I also think it's worth mentioning that having studied the history of the treatment of mental illness in Western society, the way the mentally ill were treated in 17th-century Europe was absolutely horrifying. I'm a little concerned that there's some romanticizing of the past going on here. There was very little compassion and the mentally ill were treated largely as brutes and animals, although at least social views were undergoing a shift away from exorcism or simply stoning them to death.
Hell, you don't even have to go that far back. Just go back to the 1980s.
Some literature on prenatal stress:
https://francais.mcgill.ca/files/projetverglas/Prenatal_Stress_and_Brain_Development.pdf
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdevelopingchild.harvard.edu%2Findex.php%2Fdownload_file%2F-%2Fview%2F469%2F&ei=HbFXVL37G4OZjAKG2oGIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHhjIPW7ohQEDZMX99YgNr2lTMjKA&sig2=0nIUBku2rh7w0mJJACsexg&bvm=bv.78677474,d.cGE
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:40:27 PM
Some literature on prenatal stress:
https://francais.mcgill.ca/files/projetverglas/Prenatal_Stress_and_Brain_Development.pdf
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdevelopingchild.harvard.edu%2Findex.php%2Fdownload_file%2F-%2Fview%2F469%2F&ei=HbFXVL37G4OZjAKG2oGIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHhjIPW7ohQEDZMX99YgNr2lTMjKA&sig2=0nIUBku2rh7w0mJJACsexg&bvm=bv.78677474,d.cGE
Woot! Thanks.
*off to read*
From the first link:
QuoteIn humans, prenatal stress (PS) is linked to an increased
vulnerability for developing various psychosocial problems
that are observed both in childhood and adulthood. In children,
PS is associated with cognitive, behavioral, physical and
emotional problems (King and Laplante, 2005; King et al., 2009;
Laplante et al., 2004, 2008; Talge et al., 2007) as well as with
autism
Ain't life grand when a wild-ass guess turns out to be possibly accurate? :lol:
(reading more now)
Cortisol...The Paesors strike again!
On a serious note, I am seeing more and more references to cortisol. This bothers me, because it implies that my rage (as well as every other emotion I feel) may actually just be a series of chemical reactions. I don't like that. Doesn't mean it ain't true, just means I don't like that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 03:34:02 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:23:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 03:20:44 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:11:39 PM
While "driven mad by society" certainly is romantic, I doubt it's true on a deeper level, as mental illness appears in every society and has been recorded across history.
This is true...But it is also true that, while individual stressors may be less intense than they were in, say, 1600s Germany, people have a far greater NUMBER of stressors than they have in the past, and that trend is likely to continue. "Future shock", as it was first called in the 1970s, causes all manner of mental issues. However - and I am no expert on this - I don't think outright psychosis is one of them.
It would be interesting to find out if there's a link between prenatal stress on the mother's part, with the alleged rise in autism-type disorders.
Not autism, at least as far as research shows so far. Anxiety disorders, yes.
Do you have some kind of citation for the "greater number of stressors"? I find it a little challenging to swallow, given what life was like in pre-industrial Europe. How are you quantifying stressors?
Nope. No citation. I am definitely talking out of my ass, here, and am operating on memories of books I have read on the subject. That being said:
In pre-industrial Europe, you basically had about 7 daily stressors:
1. Rampaging armies of Tercios killing you.
2. Sectarian mobs killing you/witch hunts/inquisition.
3. Starvation (during the 30 years war, 25% of Germany died, about 80% of whom died from disease or starvation).
4. Plague, smallpox, diptheria.
5. Making enough money to get married.
6. Worst infant mortality rate prior to the Ethiopian famine.
7. Pissing off the local lords (many of whose interests overlapped), who then kill you.
Right now, we don't have anything on that order, but what we DO have is a massive, non-stop bombardment of signal, with advertising designed specifically to create additional sources of stress (which can, of course, be remedied with the product being sold). Oddly enough, the removal of the cold-war armageddon scenario seems to have INCREASED the stress level. It would be interesting to determine if stress caused by life-threatening events is more easily dealt with than information overload. After all, human brains evolved to deal with threats to life and limb (ie, leopards, competing tribes), but not a 24/7 stream of information, most of which involve vague, scarcely-definable fears.
I think it would be very difficult to say that there are "more" stressors, because you could also, using your logic, either split all of the internal components of each pre-industrial stressor and count them individually, or you could lump all of the modern stressors you just mentioned into one category, "media". So I think that's a spurious argument with poorly-defined boundaries, and literally nothing to support it.
So lets look at your claim that the end of the Cold War resulted in more stress. Can you support that? What I've read indicates that the opposite is true, except in adults who were raised with the constant fear of nuclear war. The fear remains even after the threat is removed; that's the hallmark of chronic stress.
There is lots and lots of research on stress, how we respond to stress, and how it affects the body. It's true that the immediate threat of attack and death, that is resolved by escape, is handled by the body far better than the stress of, for example, a shitty but not-immediately-threatening work environment, or poverty, or being the target of racism.
But you're still going to be hard-pressed to convince me that overall, blacks or women or the poor are more stressed now than they were in pre-industrial times.
That second link ties directly into what we've been saying about "kids these days".
That one is going to take some serious and uninterrupted reading.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 03:44:18 PM
From the first link:
QuoteIn humans, prenatal stress (PS) is linked to an increased
vulnerability for developing various psychosocial problems
that are observed both in childhood and adulthood. In children,
PS is associated with cognitive, behavioral, physical and
emotional problems (King and Laplante, 2005; King et al., 2009;
Laplante et al., 2004, 2008; Talge et al., 2007) as well as with
autism
Ain't life grand when a wild-ass guess turns out to be possibly accurate? :lol:
(reading more now)
Ah, as of the last book I read on prenatal stress no link had surfaced, that's interesting to know.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 03:34:56 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:33:05 PM
I also think it's worth mentioning that having studied the history of the treatment of mental illness in Western society, the way the mentally ill were treated in 17th-century Europe was absolutely horrifying. I'm a little concerned that there's some romanticizing of the past going on here. There was very little compassion and the mentally ill were treated largely as brutes and animals, although at least social views were undergoing a shift away from exorcism or simply stoning them to death.
Hell, you don't even have to go that far back. Just go back to the 1980s.
I mentioned the 17th century because you brought up 1600's Germany, which was a notably terrible place to be mentally ill in. Essentially, mentally ill people were either put in prison or poorhouses to die, or subjected to inhumane and often fatal "treatments" including trepannation (unsterile and without anaesthetic) and flogging.
The 1980's were a cakewalk by comparison.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:49:10 PM
I think it would be very difficult to say that there are "more" stressors, because you could also, using your logic, either split all of the internal components of each pre-industrial stressor and count them individually, or you could lump all of the modern stressors you just mentioned into one category, "media". So I think that's a spurious argument with poorly-defined boundaries, and literally nothing to support it.
Yes, as I say, I am definitely anally-orating here, I'm just speculating on the subject based on things I've noticed. I am most definitely not ready to publish.
:lol:
QuoteSo lets look at your claim that the end of the Cold War resulted in more stress. Can you support that? What I've read indicates that the opposite is true, except in adults who were raised with the constant fear of nuclear war. The fear remains even after the threat is removed; that's the hallmark of chronic stress.
Yeah, what I was getting at was that it was an imminent threat, a clear and present danger that was easily definable and could be compartmentalasized (SP?).
However, having browsed your first link and part of your second, it's ALSO likely (more likely, actually), that "kids these days" were gestated after the threat of the bomb went away.
QuoteThere is lots and lots of research on stress, how we respond to stress, and how it affects the body. It's true that the immediate threat of attack and death, that is resolved by escape, is handled by the body far better than the stress of, for example, a shitty but not-immediately-threatening work environment, or poverty, or being the target of racism.
That's what I was getting at, and the first section of your second link seems to bear that out.
QuoteBut you're still going to be hard-pressed to convince me that overall, blacks or women or the poor are more stressed now than they were in pre-industrial times.
I was talking in terms of the overall population. And I'm not certain I CAN convince you, because I am by no means certain that it's true or even likely, and I should have worded it that way in the beginning.
In any case, I have some really interesting reading to do.
I would like to clarify, for the sake of setting goalposts, that I am not arguing that stress is not a problem in modern society. Rather, I would argue that stress is the main health problem in modern society. But I am also arguing that this is not because our stressors are worse than they have been in the history of civilization, but because overall, things have improved to the point that we can now turn our attention to stress.
Sort of like how hunger is one of the worst problems facing people in impoverished regions, partly because so many of the other things that were killing them have gone away.
Problems always exist within context. Sometimes, that context is simply that layers of other problems have been peeled back to reveal the one we are now tackling. 150 years ago, stress researchers couldn't have gotten a job. Now it's a respected and expanding field.
FWIW the threat of nuclear holocaust is generally classified as one of those vague looming uncertain chronic stressors, because it was an ongoing external threat that could not be escaped, unlike the kind of blood-pumping adrenaline-releasing threat posed by being attacked by a leopard or being nearly hit by a bad motorist.
Interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140602104857.htm
It's a bit of an aside but you seem to have been spot on!
QuoteSummary:
A new study finds a link between prenatal maternal stress and the development of symptoms of asthma and autism in children. Scientists have been studying women who were pregnant during the January 1998 Quebec ice storm since June of that year and observing effects of their stress on their children's development (Project Ice Storm). The team examined the degree to which the mothers' objective degree of hardship from the storm and their subjective degree of distress explained differences among the women's children in asthma-like symptoms and in autism-like traits.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:49:10 PM
But you're still going to be hard-pressed to convince me that overall, blacks or women or the poor are more stressed now than they were in pre-industrial times.
I was talking in terms of the overall population. And I'm not certain I CAN convince you, because I am by no means certain that it's true or even likely, and I should have worded it that way in the beginning.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but I needed to come back and pull this out, because it's something people frequently do but it leads straight to fallacy; you don't have an overall population if you exclude blacks and women and the poor, and taken together, blacks and women and the poor make up far more than half of the overall population. So if blacks and women and the poor had more stress a century ago, your overall population had more stress a century ago.
Particularly if we're talking about the effects of prenatal stress.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:31:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:49:10 PM
But you're still going to be hard-pressed to convince me that overall, blacks or women or the poor are more stressed now than they were in pre-industrial times.
I was talking in terms of the overall population. And I'm not certain I CAN convince you, because I am by no means certain that it's true or even likely, and I should have worded it that way in the beginning.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but I needed to come back and pull this out, because it's something people frequently do but it leads straight to fallacy;
No worries, I'm good for that. That's why there's a Nigel and an LMNO and a Cain.
Quote
Particularly if we're talking about the effects of prenatal stress.
:lulz:
WHAT DO WOMEN HAVE TO DO WITH PRENATAL STRESS?
In fact, once you exclude blacks and women and the poor, then what you have left, statistically speaking, is middle-class or wealthy white men. Which is exactly the model "average person" researchers have used for the last couple of centuries, leading to an astonishing range of health disparities among blacks, women, and the poor.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 04:33:17 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:31:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:49:10 PM
But you're still going to be hard-pressed to convince me that overall, blacks or women or the poor are more stressed now than they were in pre-industrial times.
I was talking in terms of the overall population. And I'm not certain I CAN convince you, because I am by no means certain that it's true or even likely, and I should have worded it that way in the beginning.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but I needed to come back and pull this out, because it's something people frequently do but it leads straight to fallacy;
No worries, I'm good for that. That's why there's a Nigel and an LMNO and a Cain.
Quote
Particularly if we're talking about the effects of prenatal stress.
:lulz:
WHAT DO WOMEN HAVE TO DO WITH PRENATAL STRESS?
:lulz:
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:02:11 PM
I would like to clarify, for the sake of setting goalposts, that I am not arguing that stress is not a problem in modern society. Rather, I would argue that stress is the main health problem in modern society. But I am also arguing that this is not because our stressors are worse than they have been in the history of civilization, but because overall, things have improved to the point that we can now turn our attention to stress.
Sort of like how hunger is one of the worst problems facing people in impoverished regions, partly because so many of the other things that were killing them have gone away.
Problems always exist within context. Sometimes, that context is simply that layers of other problems have been peeled back to reveal the one we are now tackling. 150 years ago, stress researchers couldn't have gotten a job. Now it's a respected and expanding field.
I'd say that's intuitively obvious, just looking at behaviors in kids back in the day, when things like bullying were institutional in nature, and today.
Another thing that has changed is we're finally getting away from that horrible "that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger" bullshit, both in terms of psychology and physiology (ergonomics, etc).
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:19:40 PM
Interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140602104857.htm
It's a bit of an aside but you seem to have been spot on!
QuoteSummary:
A new study finds a link between prenatal maternal stress and the development of symptoms of asthma and autism in children. Scientists have been studying women who were pregnant during the January 1998 Quebec ice storm since June of that year and observing effects of their stress on their children's development (Project Ice Storm). The team examined the degree to which the mothers' objective degree of hardship from the storm and their subjective degree of distress explained differences among the women's children in asthma-like symptoms and in autism-like traits.
Now, my question is, is autism actually more prevalent now, or is it simply being diagnosed as autism recently?
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:34:07 PM
In fact, once you exclude blacks and women and the poor, then what you have left, statistically speaking, is middle-class or wealthy white men. Which is exactly the model "average person" researchers have used for the last couple of centuries, leading to an astonishing range of health disparities among blacks, women, and the poor.
It's amazing to me that I never thought of that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 04:35:52 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:02:11 PM
I would like to clarify, for the sake of setting goalposts, that I am not arguing that stress is not a problem in modern society. Rather, I would argue that stress is the main health problem in modern society. But I am also arguing that this is not because our stressors are worse than they have been in the history of civilization, but because overall, things have improved to the point that we can now turn our attention to stress.
Sort of like how hunger is one of the worst problems facing people in impoverished regions, partly because so many of the other things that were killing them have gone away.
Problems always exist within context. Sometimes, that context is simply that layers of other problems have been peeled back to reveal the one we are now tackling. 150 years ago, stress researchers couldn't have gotten a job. Now it's a respected and expanding field.
I'd say that's intuitively obvious, just looking at behaviors in kids back in the day, when things like bullying were institutional in nature, and today.
Another thing that has changed is we're finally getting away from that horrible "that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger" bullshit, both in terms of psychology and physiology (ergonomics, etc).
Yes. I think that, although it's hard to see sometimes (especially with the problems that we DO have, which are still bad, bad problems) that things are nonetheless getting better overall.
Our society is trained to breed catastrophists. Something going wrong? The sky is falling! All is lost! The world is going to Hell in a handbasket!
I think that part of the reason for that is that people don't tend to feel like they can tackle catastrophes, whereas if it's presented as a social problem and not a giant out of control snowball of disaster, people will try to do something about it. Those in power are benefited from the status-quo, so the fewer people out there trying to change things, the happier they are.
Shit's changing anyway, because enough people are willing to scream at the ocean.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 04:40:48 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:34:07 PM
In fact, once you exclude blacks and women and the poor, then what you have left, statistically speaking, is middle-class or wealthy white men. Which is exactly the model "average person" researchers have used for the last couple of centuries, leading to an astonishing range of health disparities among blacks, women, and the poor.
It's amazing to me that I never thought of that.
If it's any consolation, most people don't.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 04:38:12 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:19:40 PM
Interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140602104857.htm
It's a bit of an aside but you seem to have been spot on!
QuoteSummary:
A new study finds a link between prenatal maternal stress and the development of symptoms of asthma and autism in children. Scientists have been studying women who were pregnant during the January 1998 Quebec ice storm since June of that year and observing effects of their stress on their children's development (Project Ice Storm). The team examined the degree to which the mothers' objective degree of hardship from the storm and their subjective degree of distress explained differences among the women's children in asthma-like symptoms and in autism-like traits.
Now, my question is, is autism actually more prevalent now, or is it simply being diagnosed as autism recently?
From the research I've read (I'd do a lit search but I have to leave in 12 minutes), both are true. Higher correct diagnosis rates, and a higher actual rate.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:46:49 PM
Our society is trained to breed catastrophists. Something going wrong? The sky is falling! All is lost! The world is going to Hell in a handbasket!
Yep. Also, kids are a socially-acceptable target for horrible generalizations, because they are young and old people resent their youth.
QuoteI think that part of the reason for that is that people don't tend to feel like they can tackle catastrophes, whereas if it's presented as a social problem and not a giant out of control snowball of disaster, people will try to do something about it. Those in power are benefited from the status-quo, so the fewer people out there trying to change things, the happier they are.
Yep. Like LMNO said, you don't need a conspiracy when the game is already rigged.
Quote
Shit's changing anyway, because enough people are willing to scream at the ocean.
I keep telling my dad that. He and all the older liberals I know are always on about doom, how the nutbags have overrun the country, etc, when it's more or less a loud minority.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:48:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 04:38:12 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:19:40 PM
Interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140602104857.htm
It's a bit of an aside but you seem to have been spot on!
QuoteSummary:
A new study finds a link between prenatal maternal stress and the development of symptoms of asthma and autism in children. Scientists have been studying women who were pregnant during the January 1998 Quebec ice storm since June of that year and observing effects of their stress on their children's development (Project Ice Storm). The team examined the degree to which the mothers' objective degree of hardship from the storm and their subjective degree of distress explained differences among the women's children in asthma-like symptoms and in autism-like traits.
Now, my question is, is autism actually more prevalent now, or is it simply being diagnosed as autism recently?
From the research I've read (I'd do a lit search but I have to leave in 12 minutes), both are true. Higher correct diagnosis rates, and a higher actual rate.
Might tie into my "avalanche of information" hypothesis.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 04:49:53 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:46:49 PM
Our society is trained to breed catastrophists. Something going wrong? The sky is falling! All is lost! The world is going to Hell in a handbasket!
Yep. Also, kids are a socially-acceptable target for horrible generalizations, because they are young and old people resent their youth.
QuoteI think that part of the reason for that is that people don't tend to feel like they can tackle catastrophes, whereas if it's presented as a social problem and not a giant out of control snowball of disaster, people will try to do something about it. Those in power are benefited from the status-quo, so the fewer people out there trying to change things, the happier they are.
Yep. Like LMNO said, you don't need a conspiracy when the game is already rigged.
Quote
Shit's changing anyway, because enough people are willing to scream at the ocean.
I keep telling my dad that. He and all the older liberals I know are always on about doom, how the nutbags have overrun the country, etc, when it's more or less a loud minority.
A loud and dwindling minority. All you have to do is look at the social change over the last fifteen years and that much is obvious. But old people tend to get stuck in ideas they picked up in their middle-age, and can have a hard time seeing current reality through the 20-year-old veil over their eyes.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:48:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 04:38:12 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:19:40 PM
Interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140602104857.htm
It's a bit of an aside but you seem to have been spot on!
QuoteSummary:
A new study finds a link between prenatal maternal stress and the development of symptoms of asthma and autism in children. Scientists have been studying women who were pregnant during the January 1998 Quebec ice storm since June of that year and observing effects of their stress on their children's development (Project Ice Storm). The team examined the degree to which the mothers' objective degree of hardship from the storm and their subjective degree of distress explained differences among the women's children in asthma-like symptoms and in autism-like traits.
Now, my question is, is autism actually more prevalent now, or is it simply being diagnosed as autism recently?
From the research I've read (I'd do a lit search but I have to leave in 12 minutes), both are true. Higher correct diagnosis rates, and a higher actual rate.
Might tie into my "avalanche of information" hypothesis.
I don't know... I think that people have more sources of information, but are also getting better at filtering it. I am completely skeptical that it is causing some sort of undue stress level. Research that I have seen specifically points at social helplessness and disempowerment - social hierarchy - as being the main stressor in urban primates.
I'm trying to find the paper by Andrea Lunsford about digital literacy, but I'm out of time. :(
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:54:28 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:48:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 04:38:12 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:19:40 PM
Interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140602104857.htm
It's a bit of an aside but you seem to have been spot on!
QuoteSummary:
A new study finds a link between prenatal maternal stress and the development of symptoms of asthma and autism in children. Scientists have been studying women who were pregnant during the January 1998 Quebec ice storm since June of that year and observing effects of their stress on their children's development (Project Ice Storm). The team examined the degree to which the mothers' objective degree of hardship from the storm and their subjective degree of distress explained differences among the women's children in asthma-like symptoms and in autism-like traits.
Now, my question is, is autism actually more prevalent now, or is it simply being diagnosed as autism recently?
From the research I've read (I'd do a lit search but I have to leave in 12 minutes), both are true. Higher correct diagnosis rates, and a higher actual rate.
Might tie into my "avalanche of information" hypothesis.
I don't know... I think that people have more sources of information, but are also getting better at filtering it. I am completely skeptical that it is causing some sort of undue stress level. Research that I have seen specifically points at social helplessness and disempowerment - social hierarchy - as being the main stressor in urban primates.
My kids filter it better, mostly by being way better with electronic doodads. I don't mean techically better, I mean they're far more comfortable with them.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 04:59:13 PM
I'm trying to find the paper by Andrea Lunsford about digital literacy, but I'm out of time. :(
So post it tomorrow.
On the subject of "society driving people mad" angle (from like a million pages ago because I am a slowpoke:
One really interesting set of statistics to look at is the post partum depression and post partum psychosis rates in the US compared to other countries. What you see is a fairly stable level of psychosis across the board, implying there's a biological thing at work for the ones who go that bad. The rates for post partum depression, though, are through the roof in the US and much lower in countries that do things like have reasonable maternity leave and social support systems.
Stretching that a lot further than it can probably go, I think it's reasonable to ask whether society causes certain kinds of madness, but I don't believe you can blame the "raving mad" level stuff on environment. There was a thread somewhere around here about how people in different countries reacted to auditory hallucinations, too. Folks in industrialized nations hated the voices and the voices were generally dickish, and in some other places the voices were more benign and the people had a much healthier relationship with them. That doesn't change the fact that these people had voices in their heads. Society may exacerbate an individual's perception of their own biochemical problems, but it doesn't change the fact that they have deep seated biochemical problems.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 03, 2014, 05:41:12 PM
Stretching that a lot further than it can probably go, I think it's reasonable to ask whether society causes certain kinds of madness, but I don't believe you can blame the "raving mad" level stuff on environment.(1) There was a thread somewhere around here about how people in different countries reacted to auditory hallucinations, too. Folks in industrialized nations hated the voices and the voices were generally dickish, and in some other places the voices were more benign and the people had a much healthier relationship with them.(2) That doesn't change the fact that these people had voices in their heads. Society may exacerbate an individual's perception of their own biochemical problems, but it doesn't change the fact that they have deep seated biochemical problems.
1 - Here's a thing though, there's quite a few specific psychoses related to a particular environment. I'm sure an underlying biochemical imbalance helps trigger say, Messiah syndrome (Go to Jerusalem or similar and go crazy). While hardly common or the norm, it's frequent enough for me to question if there's not certain societal imprints (Heavy religious environment) which then helps provoke reactions in unexpected ways later. On another extreme consider say the prison system. I can't see it doing a kid much good to be exposed to such an environment at a young age but it's the reality for many, everywhere. What kind of adverse psychological reactions might this foster? I honestly have no idea but I can't expect it to be none at all.
(ETA - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29765623 - Cross post from Random news thread on contract children in Switzerland. Very short version - Many kids taken at various ages and placed in foster homes/work farms. General level of care and attention to welfare of kids not good. Massive fallout affecting many people, whole range of effects. I can't think of a more on the nose example of a bad environment resulting in massive issues in mental health. Even if you were not biologically pre-disposed to it anyway, you're fighting the odds to come through it with no lasting issues.)
2 - I remember that thread, though no idea which/where it is. If I recall correctly the nature of the society played a big part in this too. The general level of social support/contact had a big role in the overall problem being treated in a fairly positive or negative way. I think there was some other stuff about them fulfilling a "shaman" role as well? That may have been getting to woo territory.
Was it this one
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Hallucinatory 'voices' shaped by local culture
For some reason, I seem to recall it being a Sapolsky video?
I think I was thinking of a section in this:
ETA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEnklxGAmak
Holy crap, Lunsford's prolific. I can't find the article I was thinking of, but I found a billion others and a ton of articles referencing it.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201311/why-social-networks-may-be-making-us-smarter
Doesn't exactly support what I was trying to say, but interesting nonetheless.
I can't find any research papers on the effects of media overload on chronic stress levels or mental illness, but I am thinking that Cacioppo's probably a good place to start, since the role of online communication in stress, loneliness, and depression is kind of his ball game.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 04, 2014, 12:44:59 AM
I can't find any research papers on the effects of media overload on chronic stress levels or mental illness, but I am thinking that Cacioppo's probably a good place to start, since the role of online communication in stress, loneliness, and depression is kind of his ball game.
Warren Ellis ranted on this once, and cited some sources. Let me see if I can find them, and you academic spags can tell me if they're full of arse.
(from the parent thread)
Quote from: The Johnny on November 03, 2014, 11:30:07 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 02, 2014, 04:26:06 AM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on October 31, 2014, 06:28:54 AM
It's incredibly sad, when it comes down to it, but paranoid schizophrenics really require specialized help and people who are not trained and don't have backup are rarely capable of helping.
I agree fully with that. Including the bit that untrained people occasionally help paranoid psychotics. Very rarely, but they do. I would like to respectfully request a derail (or should I start a new thread in this instance?) for discussing how they do it, on those rare occasions.
I really think its hit or miss for non proffessionals, and when its miss, its really really bad, i wouldnt reccomend it to anyone.
When you say hit or miss, do you think that there is no lay skill there to be learnt? I.e. someone with experience and some degree of success is just as likely to fail catastrophically in the next incident as someone who has not had dealings with a mad person before? I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, either, but when it's in the family, and when the professional help available seems less than competent and less than humane, there is little choice involved.
Just pointing out that I said "people who are not trained and don't have backup, not "non-professionals". And I mentioned skills training more than once as well as providing a link that was specifically for skills training for loved ones caring for a person with mental wellness issues.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 06, 2014, 04:12:47 AM
Just pointing out that I said "people who are not trained and don't have backup, not "non-professionals". And I mentioned skills training more than once as well as providing a link that was specifically for skills training for loved ones caring for a person with mental wellness issues.
Thanks, and noted, and I will get back to this thread eventually, after the business passes (i.e. Monday). I was interested in The Johnny's opinion and wanted to divert that line to this thread.