Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: sacredcow]
    #11685246 -

sacredcow said:
Btw religion is too statistically prevalent to be considered a mental disorder. in order for something to be a mental disorder according to the DSM-IV it must be significantly abnormal.



Significantly abnormal? Can you give a few example of significantly abnormal behaviors, thoughts, or emotions that are noted in the DSM, and that make the rule that "things" have to significantly abnormal in order to be taken into consideration by DSM?
DSM is a pretty complex method of personality analysis, and if the individual presents himself well on all the rest of the issues covered by DSM (i.e.: functional, balanced attitude), then the person is considered to have a healthy personality.
But if, for example, with DSM, a person is being found with a highly addictive personality, which manifests itself mostly through and due to religiousness, then the individual does have a religion-related problem. Of course, it doesn't mean that religion itself created that, and that if it weren't for religion that person would have been perfectly healthy, because in the same way one becomes addicted to religion or the need to worship god, one can also become addicted to food, drugs, one's parents, wife, or group of friends from high school.


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #11685305 -

MushroomTrip said:
sacredcow said:
Btw religion is too statistically prevalent to be considered a mental disorder. in order for something to be a mental disorder according to the DSM-IV it must be significantly abnormal.



Significantly abnormal? Can you give a few example of significantly abnormal behaviors, thoughts, or emotions that are noted in the DSM, and that make the rule that "things" have to significantly abnormal in order to be taken into consideration by DSM?
DSM is a pretty complex method of personality analysis, and if the individual presents himself well on all the rest of the issues covered by DSM (i.e.: functional, balanced attitude), then the person is considered to have a healthy personality.
But if, for example, with DSM, a person is being found with a highly addictive personality, which manifests itself mostly through and due to religiousness, then the individual does have a religion-related problem. Of course, it doesn't mean that religion itself created that, and that if it weren't for religion that person would have been perfectly healthy, because in the same way one becomes addicted to religion or the need to worship god, one can also become addicted to food, drugs, one's parents, wife, or group of friends from high school.



i'd find my psych text and source the paragraphs that address the requirements of a condition to be considered a mental disorder, but i left it in knoxville. all i'm saying is that the behavior has to be, among a couple other things, statistically deviant to be considered a mental disorder.
Schizophrenia is not normal
Dissociative Identity Disorder is not normal
Alcohol Dependence is not normal
Schizoid Personality Disorder is not normal
Avoidant Personality Disorder is not normal
Look up the prevalence for every single disorder in the book, they are all much, much less than 50%.
Religion on the other hand is something most people partake in.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: sacredcow]
    #11685358 -

Yeah, generally in order for it to be considered a delusion/disorder/whatever, it has to be abnormal within your culture.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: learningtofly]
    #11685397 -

learningtofly said:
Yeah, generally in order for it to be considered a delusion/disorder/whatever, it has to be abnormal within your culture.



I'm not saying I agree with that necessarily, I didn't write the DSM-IV, but it does contain the modern legal and clinical designations of mental disorders. Maybe it'll be different in the new version. Idk much this thread and of human discourse is just clarification about the definitions of words

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: learningtofly]
    #11685399 -

learningtofly said:
Yeah, generally in order for it to be considered a delusion/disorder/whatever, it has to be abnormal within your culture.



So if the majority of Americans became clinically depressed, they would no longer have any kind of mental disorder?  This reasoning seems specious; a disorder should be defined by its negative effects rather than by statistical prevalence.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: deCypher]
    #11685947 -

The general direction of the discussion is correct but the wrong terminology is being thrown around. I'm in second year Psychology, JUST wrote my Fundamentals of Abnormal Psychology final four days ago.

In order for a behavior or condition to be considered abnormal, five prerequisites must be met:
1) behavior violates social norms or threatens/makes anxious those observing said behavior.
2) behavior is also abnormal if it creates great distress and torment in the person experiencing it
3) another component of abnormal behavior is if there is disability (which is to say, impairment in some important area of life)
4) behavior is abnormal when it is unexpected to the situation
5) behavior is abnormal when it is statistically significant.

That last one is the one that was being worded wrong. I believe sacredcow called it 'significantly abnormal' but it's 'statistically significant'. And yeah, definitely too much widespread belief in religion for it to be considered a mental disorder. YET.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: gonzebo]
    #11686083 -

im not crazy im not crazy im not crazy im not crazy just look at my friends


--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: gonzebo]
    #11686085 -

Statistically significant is completely different than what is or isn't "normal", or belonging to the majority.
Judging by how less people are generally motivated, and uninterested in improving their emotions through working on themselves, I would argue that they have some sort of depression. The fact that they are still on an acceptable level of functionality makes them "healthy". This doesn't mean they can't go and ask for the help of a therapist, or learn on their own, how to get rid of the depression and lack of motivation in their lives.
Both mild depression and mild delusion (being religious) still exist as hindrances on the path one's happiness and internal peace, but none of them are serious enough to be labeled as disorders.


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: andrewss]
    #11686094 -

andrewss said:
im not crazy im not crazy im not crazy im not crazy just look at my friends



I'm afraid only you can see them. :lol:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #11686112 -

some people need a lil drama to even live, many of us are drama queens whether we know it or not... its just how sneaky you are about concealing it and/or how much crude serotonin flows thru your cheeky lil brain.... and your history and childhood development.

most anyone has their little spiel on what is fucked up with the world, we all do it, and we even direct criticisms inwards these days for a myriad of reasons... its interesting how many religious people interpret their own little self dialogue, there own voice of reasoning in their head, as at times divinely inspired... and the whole praying to god as if he is truly listening to your prayers as you speak them whenever. Many are very convinced of the reality of that stuff, that sets up quite the mentality as you mature. But then again if you wanna get historical I guess the religious types of people have the reasonable scientific types beat in numbers and such. Being a lil delusional could be considered not that bad, IE when tribal man perhaps meditated on past elders wisdom after they were gone, almost like deifying them, one could suppose there is some utility being high lighted by that primal sensitivity.


--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Edited by andrewss (12/20/09 12:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #11687285 -

xFrockx said:
"Ragheads are considered sane for following some stupid illogical nonsensical bullshit that they didn't come up with,"

racist much?


No, I'm not racist. :arabs:



Kickle said:
Ok, two things...

1) The DSM is not a universally accepted guide to mental health.


Is there one?



Kickle said:
Schizophrenics are not defined solely by the symptoms they display, but also by the consequences these symptoms have on their ability to function in our society.


Key word 'solely'; obviously, the symptoms they experience and the behaviors they exhibit are part of the disorder.



Quote:
Noteworthy said:
But I think the true answer is that so many people agree that god exists. If it was really only a handful of people then they would probably be considered nutty. But as it is, they are just considered 'one of the more nuttier groups of people'


This is sort of the way I see it.




MushroomTrip said:
Poid said:
Sure, but why does the DSM not consider religious people bat shit insane? :nut:



Why should religious people be automatically considered "batshit insane"? I wasn't even aware that the DSM used this terminology. :wink:


I think the psychology of religious people is similar to the psychology of people who have a few of the disorders as described in the DSM in many ways, but yeah, they don't use the term "bat shit insane". :smirk:



MushroomTrip said:
It's pretty narrow-minded to think that every religious person has mental problems...


Is it narrow minded to think that every schizophrenic has mental problems?



MushroomTrip said:
...without a closer inspection of one's cognitive scheme, and the way in which it affects one's feelings and behavior. A person can live a perfectly fulfilling and balanced life, even if they believe in a higher power, as long as this belief doesn't negatively affect their emotions, making them unable to enjoy life and be functional individuals.


I agree with this.



MushroomTrip said:
Religion becomes a problem in the moment in which one gives away from one's personal power to a "higher force", a priest, a guru, or anything of the like. It can also be a problem when one expects their beliefs to do one's tasks instead of them, perform miracles, or bring back the loved one; and the DSM has exactly the right tools of measuring these variables and determining the mental condition of an individual.


Yes. :thumbup:



MushroomTrip said:
Labeling an individual as "batshit insane" or schizophrenic just because they're religious would be very similar to labeling someone as chronically depressed just because they have moments in which they feel sad or helpless.


That's true; I guess I went a little over board by using that term "bat shit insane". 



Chronic777 said:
But of course really they are just hiding their psychotic tendencies under those lovely smiles aren't they :rolleyes:


And of course those non-Christian band  members find absolutely no joy in their lives. :whatever:



MushroomTrip said:
Actually, while I agree that DSM or any other tool that aids in measuring and determining the existence of mental disorders can be very helpful, I believe that at the same time they can be very misused by psychologists, which might be more inclined to become trapped by the terminology of a mental disorder, and give up on their patient just because the disorder sounds bad, neglecting to pay attention to all the other signals and clues exhibited by them.


It seems to me that psychologists don't really listen to their patients much because they have the mentality that since they are the one with the college degree, they are the authority and have the final say on every decision made for the patient's treatment.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: Poid]
    #11687680 -

Poid said:
Kickle said:
Ok, two things...

1) The DSM is not a universally accepted guide to mental health.


Is there one?



At the time being, no.

Poid said:
MushroomTrip said:
Poid said:
Sure, but why does the DSM not consider religious people bat shit insane? :nut:



Why should religious people be automatically considered "batshit insane"? I wasn't even aware that the DSM used this terminology. :wink:


I think the psychology of religious people is similar to the psychology of people who have a few of the disorders as described in the DSM in many ways, but yeah, they don't use the term "bat shit insane". :smirk:



All of us display more than just one or two symptoms that mentally disordered people do. It's also a matter of degree, frequency, etc. Not as dichotomized as you put it.

Poid said:
MushroomTrip said:
Actually, while I agree that DSM or any other tool that aids in measuring and determining the existence of mental disorders can be very helpful, I believe that at the same time they can be very misused by psychologists, which might be more inclined to become trapped by the terminology of a mental disorder, and give up on their patient just because the disorder sounds bad, neglecting to pay attention to all the other signals and clues exhibited by them.


It seems to me that psychologists don't really listen to their patients much because they have the mentality that since they are the one with the college degree, they are the authority and have the final say on every decision made for the patient's treatment.



Ehh. Right AND wrong. SOME psychologists do that. That would be the psychoanalytical psychologists. The reason for this is because psychoanalytical psychologists, who follow Freud and his theories, believe that disorders are rooted in conflicts in the subconcious. When you talk, it is stemming from your conscious. Therefore, what good would it do the psychoanalytical psychologist to pay attention to what you say? Instead, they try to look beyond what you say through certain techniques like, for example, free association. In free association, once again, they wouldn't so much pay attention to what you say, but rather try to pick out where you suddenly change topic (hinting that you were heading towards a topic or subject you were uncomfortable with), etc. Not because they think they're the shit because of a college degree.

However, a behavioral or cognitive psychologist would not act in this manner.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: gonzebo]
    #11687726 -

gonzebo said:
Poid said:
Kickle said:
Ok, two things...

1) The DSM is not a universally accepted guide to mental health.


Is there one?



At the time being, no.


Even if this is true, isn't the DSM still a decent one? :shrug:



gonzebo said:
Poid said:
MushroomTrip said:
Poid said:
Sure, but why does the DSM not consider religious people bat shit insane? :nut:



Why should religious people be automatically considered "batshit insane"? I wasn't even aware that the DSM used this terminology. :wink:


I think the psychology of religious people is similar to the psychology of people who have a few of the disorders as described in the DSM in many ways, but yeah, they don't use the term "bat shit insane". :smirk:



All of us display more than just one or two symptoms that mentally disordered people do. It's also a matter of degree, frequency, etc. Not as dichotomized as you put it.


Yeah, I realized that I made it sound pretty damn dichotomized, when in reality, it actually isn't.



gonzebo said:
Poid said:
MushroomTrip said:
Actually, while I agree that DSM or any other tool that aids in measuring and determining the existence of mental disorders can be very helpful, I believe that at the same time they can be very misused by psychologists, which might be more inclined to become trapped by the terminology of a mental disorder, and give up on their patient just because the disorder sounds bad, neglecting to pay attention to all the other signals and clues exhibited by them.


It seems to me that psychologists don't really listen to their patients much because they have the mentality that since they are the one with the college degree, they are the authority and have the final say on every decision made for the patient's treatment.



Ehh. Right AND wrong. SOME psychologists do that.


I think most do that, but I have no proof.



gonzebo said:
That would be the psychoanalytical psychologists. The reason for this is because psychoanalytical psychologists, who follow Freud and his theories, believe that disorders are rooted in conflicts in the subconcious. When you talk, it is stemming from your conscious. Therefore, what good would it do the psychoanalytical psychologist to pay attention to what you say?


:money:



gonzebo said:
Instead, they try to look beyond what you say through certain techniques like, for example, free association. In free association, once again, they wouldn't so much pay attention to what you say, but rather try to pick out where you suddenly change topic (hinting that you were heading towards a topic or subject you were uncomfortable with), etc. Not because they think they're the shit because of a college degree.

However, a behavioral or cognitive psychologist would not act in this manner.


In which manner do psychiatrists act?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: gonzebo]
    #11687734 -


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: gonzebo]
    #11687742 -

Quote:
Homo religious
Point: Michael Shermer

Did humans evolve to be religious and believe in God? In the most general sense, yes, we did. Here's what happened.

Long ago, in an environment far away from the modern world, humans evolved to find meaningful causal patterns in nature to make sense of the world, and infuse many of those patterns with intentional agency, some of which became animistic spirits and powerful gods. And as a social primate species, we also evolved social organizations designed to promote group cohesiveness and enforce moral rules.

People believe in God because we are pattern-seeking primates. We connect A to B to C, and often A really is connected to B, and B really is connected to C. This is called association learning. But we do not have a false-pattern-detection device in our brains to help us discriminate between true and false patterns, and so we make errors in our thinking. A Type I error is believing a pattern is real when it is not (a false positive) and a Type II error is not believing a pattern is real when it is (a false negative).

Imagine you are a hominid on the planes of Africa and you hear a rustle in the grass. Is it a dangerous predator or just the wind? If you assume it is a dangerous predator and it is just the wind, you have made a Type I error, but to no harm. But if you believe the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator, there's a good chance you'll be lunch and thereby removed from your species' gene pool. Thus, there would have been a natural selection for those hominids who tended to believe that all patterns are real and potentially dangerous.

I call this process "patternicity" (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and "agenticity" (the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents who may mean us harm). This, I believe, is the basis for the belief in souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspiracy theorists and all manner of invisible agents intending to harm us or help us.

People are religious because we are social and we need to get along. The moral sentiments in humans and moral principles in human groups evolved primarily through the force of natural selection operating on individuals, and secondarily through the force of group selection operating on populations. The moral sense (the psychological feeling of doing "good" in the form of positive emotions such as righteousness and pride) evolved out of behaviors that were selected because they were good either for the individual or for the group. An immoral sense (the psychological feeling of doing "bad" in the form of negative emotions such as guilt and shame) evolved out of behaviors that were selected because they were bad either for the individual or for the group.

While cultures may differ on what behaviors are defined as good or bad, the moral sense of feeling good or feeling bad about behavior X (whatever X may be) is an evolved human universal. The codification of moral principles out of the psychology of the moral sentiments evolved as a form of social control to ensure the survival of individuals within groups and the survival of human groups themselves. Religion was the first social institution to canonize moral principles, and God -- as an explanatory pattern for the world -- took on new powers as the ultimate enforcer of the rules.

Thus it is that people are religious and believe in God.

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American and the author of, most recently, "The Mind of the Market."


We die, therefore we are religious
Counterpoint: Francisco J. Ayala

The formal name of the human species is Homo sapiens, or "knowing human." As a consequence of evolution, ours is the most intelligent species on Earth. A likely explanation of how our exalted intelligence came to be has to do with our ancestors of 2 million years ago, known as Homo habilis, who started to make very simple stone tools. Making tools requires seeing such objects as "tools," in other words, something to be used for a particular purpose: a knife for cutting, an arrow for hunting and so on. Seeing something as a tool requires forming mental images of realities not present: the deer I'll seek to kill and the flesh I'll cut for eating. In turn, forming mental images of things not present requires advanced intelligence, which is why so few animals make tools, and the tools they do make haven't developed into anything resembling the advanced technologies of our species.

The evolution scenario suggests that those more intelligent among our remote ancestors were able to make better tools. And those who made better tools survived better because they got more food and were more effective at killing their enemies or defending themselves. Therefore, those more intelligent left more descendants, and genes for higher intelligence increased in frequency for thousands and thousands of years among our ancestors.

Our intelligence is curious: We want to understand the world around us, how things happen and why they happen. We seek causal explanations of natural events. Before modern science came of age in the 17th century, humans attributed natural events for which they did not know the explanation to supernatural agents. Spirits or gods caused rain and drought, floods and storms, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, surely in retribution for human deeds. These beliefs would often lead to worship and rituals.

Seeking causal explanations for events in the natural world was one source of religious beliefs and practices. Humans live in complex societies, which need to be governed by laws and moral norms. Seeking justification for moral norms and social laws was another source of religious faith and cults. Israelites, for example, were told by Moses to observe the Ten Commandments because these were ordered by God.

But there is one more source of religion that also depends on our evolution-endowed intelligence: self-awareness and its consequence, death-awareness. Except for young infants, every person is conscious of existing as a distinct individual, different from other people and from the environment. Self-awareness is the most immediate and unquestionable reality of our experience.

Moreover, we humans are the only animals with full experience of self-awareness, which implies death-awareness. If I know I exist as a distinct human individual, I know I will die because I see other people die. Because we ceremonially bury our dead, we know humans are the only animals that are death-aware. All human societies have burial rituals, although the rites are very diverse. Ritual burial follows from death-awareness: If I know I will die, I will treat other dead humans with such respect because I want to be treated this way when I die.

Because we humans are aware of the transitory character of our existence, we develop anxiety over death. This anxiety is at least in part alleviated by religious beliefs and rituals, which give meaning to one's own life even though life will end. Anxiety about death is further relieved in the many religions that attribute immortality to the soul, either through successive reincarnations or in the form of life beyond death.

Evolution, by making humans intelligent, predisposed us to be religious.




--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: Poid]
    #11687797 -

Poid said:
Even if this is true, isn't the DSM still a decent one? :shrug:




The DSM is decent, yes. It's an approximation is the best way to put it. One of the problems that there is with it is it's general tendency to diagnose everything as a "disorder" which then instantly opens the door for drugs to be diagnosed.

Poid said:
I think most do that, but I have no proof.



In any case I would gamble that it would be more accurate to say that most USED to do that; it's a paradigm that is beginning to be broken out of as behavioral and cognitive therapies are used more frequently. The problem lies that, when there is no research providing support for behavioral and/or cognitive therapies as treatment for a specific disorder, psychoanalytical perspectives (unless drug treatment is involved) are generally accepted. At least until research proves otherwise.

Poid said:
gonzebo said:
That would be the psychoanalytical psychologists. The reason for this is because psychoanalytical psychologists, who follow Freud and his theories, believe that disorders are rooted in conflicts in the subconcious. When you talk, it is stemming from your conscious. Therefore, what good would it do the psychoanalytical psychologist to pay attention to what you say?


:money:



No lol you're missing the point. They wouldn't listen to what the patient says for money because they a psychoanalytical therapist/psychologist doesn't pay attention to what you say straight-up; rather they try to decipher what's going on in the subconscious.
Incidently, that is the same reason that psychoanalytic therapy for the most part takes so long, which is why it costs so much.
Poid said:
gonzebo said:
Instead, they try to look beyond what you say through certain techniques like, for example, free association. In free association, once again, they wouldn't so much pay attention to what you say, but rather try to pick out where you suddenly change topic (hinting that you were heading towards a topic or subject you were uncomfortable with), etc. Not because they think they're the shit because of a college degree.

However, a behavioral or cognitive psychologist would not act in this manner.


In which manner do psychiatrists act?



There is not simply one manner in which psychiatrists act. Generally psychologists/psychiatrists adopt a certain paradigm (perspective) with which they treat patients. Such paradigms are humanistic, cognitive, behavioral, psychoanalytical. A psychiatrist, however, has gone through medical school and can prescribe drugs. He would most likely NOT be the  one doing any therapy, therefore you would not be having talks with him. However, they may be from a biological paradigm, seeing as how that's what they mainly deal with.

When a patient needs drugs as well as therapy, the psychologist performs the therapy, and refers the patient to the psychiatrist for the drug prescriptions.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: gonzebo]
    #11687838 -

gonzebo said:
Poid said:
Even if this is true, isn't the DSM still a decent one? :shrug:




The DSM is decent, yes. It's an approximation is the best way to put it. One of the problems that there is with it is it's general tendency to diagnose everything as a "disorder" which then instantly opens the door for drugs to be diagnosed.


Well I don't know what other reliable metric there is other than the DSM. :shrug2:



gonzebo said:
Poid said:
I think most do that, but I have no proof.



In any case I would gamble that it would be more accurate to say that most USED to do that; it's a paradigm that is beginning to be broken out of as behavioral and cognitive therapies are used more frequently. The problem lies that, when there is no research providing support for behavioral and/or cognitive therapies as treatment for a specific disorder, psychoanalytical perspectives (unless drug treatment is involved) are generally accepted. At least until research proves otherwise.


Why does the involvement of drug treatment make a difference?



gonzebo said:
Poid said:
gonzebo said:
That would be the psychoanalytical psychologists. The reason for this is because psychoanalytical psychologists, who follow Freud and his theories, believe that disorders are rooted in conflicts in the subconcious. When you talk, it is stemming from your conscious. Therefore, what good would it do the psychoanalytical psychologist to pay attention to what you say?


:money:



No lol you're missing the point. They wouldn't listen to what the patient says for money because they a psychoanalytical therapist/psychologist doesn't pay attention to what you say straight-up; rather they try to decipher what's going on in the subconscious.
Incidently, that is the same reason that psychoanalytic therapy for the most part takes so long, which is why it costs so much.


So then we need to do away with such a shitty system? :undecided:



gonzebo said:
Poid said:
gonzebo said:
Instead, they try to look beyond what you say through certain techniques like, for example, free association. In free association, once again, they wouldn't so much pay attention to what you say, but rather try to pick out where you suddenly change topic (hinting that you were heading towards a topic or subject you were uncomfortable with), etc. Not because they think they're the shit because of a college degree.

However, a behavioral or cognitive psychologist would not act in this manner.


In which manner do psychiatrists act?



There is not simply one manner in which psychiatrists act. Generally psychologists/psychiatrists adopt a certain paradigm (perspective) with which they treat patients. Such paradigms are humanistic, cognitive, behavioral, psychoanalytical. A psychiatrist, however, has gone through medical school and can prescribe drugs. He would most likely NOT be the  one doing any therapy, therefore you would not be having talks with him. However, they may be from a biological paradigm, seeing as how that's what they mainly deal with.


I've had talks with psychiatrists.



gonzebo said:
When a patient needs drugs as well as therapy, the psychologist performs the therapy, and refers the patient to the psychiatrist for the drug prescriptions.


That's quite a shitty & inefficient system, IMO. :glittershitz:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: Poid]
    #11687844 -

Those are some good reads. :thumbup:
Thanks for sharing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: Tropism]
    #11687905 -

:mypleasure:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... [Re: Poid]
    #11687939 -

Poid said:
gonzebo said:
Poid said:
Even if this is true, isn't the DSM still a decent one? :shrug:




The DSM is decent, yes. It's an approximation is the best way to put it. One of the problems that there is with it is it's general tendency to diagnose everything as a "disorder" which then instantly opens the door for drugs to be diagnosed.


Well I don't know what other reliable metric there is other than the DSM. :shrug2:



Chapter V of the ICD-10 deals with Mental and Behavioural Disorders.


Poid said:
gonzebo said:
Poid said:
I think most do that, but I have no proof.



In any case I would gamble that it would be more accurate to say that most USED to do that; it's a paradigm that is beginning to be broken out of as behavioral and cognitive therapies are used more frequently. The problem lies that, when there is no research providing support for behavioral and/or cognitive therapies as treatment for a specific disorder, psychoanalytical perspectives (unless drug treatment is involved) are generally accepted. At least until research proves otherwise.


Why does the involvement of drug treatment make a difference?



I worded it wrong; my bad. I should've said that unless there is research for beahavioral/cognitive/drug therapy, then psychoanalytic is  generally accepted.


Poid said:
gonzebo said:
Poid said:
gonzebo said:
That would be the psychoanalytical psychologists. The reason for this is because psychoanalytical psychologists, who follow Freud and his theories, believe that disorders are rooted in conflicts in the subconcious. When you talk, it is stemming from your conscious. Therefore, what good would it do the psychoanalytical psychologist to pay attention to what you say?


:money:



No lol you're missing the point. They wouldn't listen to what the patient says for money because they a psychoanalytical therapist/psychologist doesn't pay attention to what you say straight-up; rather they try to decipher what's going on in the subconscious.
Incidently, that is the same reason that psychoanalytic therapy for the most part takes so long, which is why it costs so much.


So then we need to do away with such a shitty system? :undecided:



Well not entirely! The psychoanalytic paradigm is good for some things, just not all. The main problem is the time vs. money issue, because the therapy is so extensive the majority of the time.

Poid said:
gonzebo said:
Poid said:
gonzebo said:
Instead, they try to look beyond what you say through certain techniques like, for example, free association. In free association, once again, they wouldn't so much pay attention to what you say, but rather try to pick out where you suddenly change topic (hinting that you were heading towards a topic or subject you were uncomfortable with), etc. Not because they think they're the shit because of a college degree.

However, a behavioral or cognitive psychologist would not act in this manner.


In which manner do psychiatrists act?



There is not simply one manner in which psychiatrists act. Generally psychologists/psychiatrists adopt a certain paradigm (perspective) with which they treat patients. Such paradigms are humanistic, cognitive, behavioral, psychoanalytical. A psychiatrist, however, has gone through medical school and can prescribe drugs. He would most likely NOT be the  one doing any therapy, therefore you would not be having talks with him. However, they may be from a biological paradigm, seeing as how that's what they mainly deal with.


I've had talks with psychiatrists.



I don't present absolute truth. Some psychiatrists do engage in therapy with their clients as well, however most either don't at all, or refer them to a psychologist for the therapy.

Poid said:
gonzebo said:
When a patient needs drugs as well as therapy, the psychologist performs the therapy, and refers the patient to the psychiatrist for the drug prescriptions.


That's quite a shitty & inefficient system, IMO. :glittershitz:



I suppose.. but psychiatrists/psychologists tend to be outnumbered in patient:therapist ratios, so there's not much else to be done.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Happiness Delusion? Depression Sane?
( 1 2 all )
DoctorJ 3,325 23 11/15/03 02:18 AM
by jiva
* When does a belief become a delusion?
( 1 2 all )
MOTH 3,909 29 09/15/04 05:21 AM
by redgreenvines
* Pick the psychotic from religious and drug experiences enotake2 1,389 12 02/26/03 02:05 AM
by Grav
* Shrooms: Divine Insight or Delusions of Grandeur?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Sclorch 10,443 86 04/29/03 04:04 AM
by Shroomism
* Has anyone considered becoming a monk? World Spirit 1,010 17 02/23/03 05:32 PM
by World Spirit
* Does psychology attempt to explain the consciousness? Ayrios 1,838 11 09/23/04 01:02 AM
by DigitalDuality
* Umm schizophrenic forum or what?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Debrerebus 8,727 82 09/19/02 09:33 PM
by Larrythescaryrex
* Drug Use in Modern Society
( 1 2 all )
DigitalDuality 5,402 30 05/25/04 08:28 PM
by Redo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,169 topic views. 0 members, 83 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.