I agree, Tina, to some degree with your comments
criticizing psychiatr as a profession in your various
posts. For instance, that diagnosis 

> is in the interests of psychologists et al to
> define mental
> conditions and treat them.  When their ability to
> 'treat' is exhausted it is
> then in the interests of everyone to have the
> individual in question
> withdrawn from society - they become really bloody
> embarrassing to everyone
> concerned. 

often depends upon labelling or identification of
one's 'problem' and that the categories of
'problems'--mental disorders--has grown exponentially.
With my brother or my uncle, I don't think either were
helped by the psychiatic treatment they received, in
my brother's case, medication, and in my uncle's a
treatment which involved the use of drugs to
precipitate a psychological breakthrough, which was
more like a deliberately induced breakdown on the
theory that repressed material would be released and
then reintegrated. With both of them, the treatment
seemed to help, enough that those who wanted in the
first place not to deal with the problem could feel
that they were 'fine' or 'getting better' and left
them alone with weapons nearby. There's that
well-known phenomena when someone who's having this
sort of difficulty has a 'good day or two,' an upsurge
of energy that is often just enough energy to carry
out the suicidal intent. So in a sense, I think both
the diagnosis and the treatment were erroneous and
resulted in more harm. 

 I'd add though that the language of psychology has so
permeated the culture that people do this all the
time, diagnose others, attach labels and then read the
other's behavior through that particular lens. Often
well-intentioned and not uninformed by their own
experiences with mental illness in others or
themselves, I've been surprised how even in this
virtual world, for instance, the debate over complex
issues devolves into psychological terms, 'hostility',
who's 'irrational' and who isn't, suggestions for
'treatment', and sometimes even, diagnosis based upon
one's internet reading, or a willingness to assume
that the other person's issues are like one's own
bipolar episodes, or whatever one has experience with.
 I'd guess that these lens are used because one
genuinely uses them in regarding the behavior of
others, and oneself. But, often, one doesn't know what
one is talking about, much less have any idea that
one's comments are toxic. Not only are there
psychologists such as you mention but any number of
people feel free to practice psychology without a
license in relationship of all kinds and discourse.
And the factors you note, of dismissing the complexity
of others, of dismissing the validity of their
experiences, etc, pertain there as well. And given
this discussion in the other thread, about the
constructs of gender roles, part of the trouble in the
first place are the ways in which one's realities and
complexities do not 'fit', and are dismissed as
symptoms of character flaws, psychological problems,
etc.

To be fair, I do think that therapy often helps,
particularly unconventional therapies like this
Narrative Therapy, though there are others, and even
conventional therapies can help depending upon the
practicioner. When therapy does help, it helps
precisely because the method grants the person the
validity of his or her own experience and perceptual
and emotional complexity, rather than imposing another
language or interpretative mode upon such a person,
which is, often, part of the trouble in the first
place, 

best,

Rebecca
--- Tina Bass <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Mark,
> 
> I am interested to know where your certainty and
> self-assurance comes from.
> I see so many weaknesses in arguements based on
> statistics/paradigms/theoretical frameworks it is
> hard to know where to
> begin...  You have had experience as a therapist -
> that much is obvious.  My
> experiences, observations and academic study (the
> latter is the least
> important I think) of 'psychology professionals'
> suggests professions based
> on self-sustainment and collegial reinforcement of
> their professional
> expertise.  I'm sure you are aware that the number
> of definitions for mental
> disorders has increased at an exponential rate in
> the last century - in line
> with the increased numbers of professionals able to
> diagnose/treat them,
> perhaps.
> 
> As Alison has said 'our brains are complex to the
> point of complete mystery'
> but it is in the interests of psychologists et al to
> define mental
> conditions and treat them.  When their ability to
> 'treat' is exhausted it is
> then in the interests of everyone to have the
> individual in question
> withdrawn from society - they become really bloody
> embarrassing to everyone
> concerned.  I have recently witnessed the treatment
> of a neighbour who has
> some very apparent problems.  Her behaviour is
> erratic and quite disturbing
> (possibly something to do with being repeatedly
> raped as a child by her
> father and uncles but I wouldn't want to make any
> irrational assumptions
> here).  Her treatment seems to consist of medication
> that puts her into an
> ever more dazed and confused state (a
> docile/non-threatening state?)  When
> she becomes very agitated she tends to make daily
> trips to her doctor.
> Confinement and bouts of electro-shock usually
> follow until she is calm
> enough to be released.  This has gone on for about
> 18 months now and my
> strong suspicion is that her partner (now with a
> drink problem) and her
> doctor are getting ever more hopeful that she will
> kill herself and put them
> out of their misery.  Of course when/if she does I'm
> sure that all concerned
> will be able to say that nothing could be done.
> 
> There are approaches to mental health problems that
> are not about
> maintaining the status quo or maintaining the power
> of professionals.
> Narrative Therapy for instance offers the potential
> for genuine engagement
> with an individual (or a family) and possiblities
> for separating the person
> from any problems.  As it focusses on story-telling,
> results are not easily
> quantified and are therefore easily dismissed by
> many.
> 
> Incidentally, were your patients ever present at
> meetings when they were
> being discussed?
> 
> Tina
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 1:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Feminism: an aside
> 
> 
> > OK, I accept that there may be a factual basis for
> your explanation,
> > but it's a very small foundation for a rather
> baroque edifice.
> > Occam's razor, please.
> >
> > A little more about suicide. It's common for
> therapy patients to
> > express moments of suicidal ideation that may be
> more serious than
> > the everyday ho hum I think I'll kill myself. In
> the US, at least in
> > the jurisdictions I know about, patient
> confidentiality ends the
> > moment the therapist is convinced that a patient
> is seriously a
> > danger to him/herself or others, at which point
> the therapist is
> > required by law to report to the police, which
> leads to involuntary
> > committment. Obviously committment has
> consequences, and you can't
> > commit everyone. So what to do? Here's a comon
> assessment test: you
> > make a deal with the patient that she/he won't
> commit suicide until
> > after the next session. Believe it or not, it
> works. Which doesn't
> > mean that the therapist gets much sleep during the
> intervening nights.
> >
> > For the record, I dealt professionally with dozens
> of suicidal
> > patients, and in mental health outpatient clinics
> where I worked
> > there were hundreds each year, all of which got
> discussed in clinical
> > meetings by clinicians from every imaginable
> theoretical background.
> > I can't remember a single case that fit the
> paradigm you described,
> > and I can't remember any clinician attempting to
> fit a patient into
> > that paradigm.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > At 07:46 PM 3/31/2006, you wrote:
> > >On 1/4/06 9:39 AM, "Mark Weiss"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A much more modest set of claims, Alison
> > >
> > >Hmm. Seems to me that I am saying exactly the
> same thing (that there are
> > >definite links between high male suicide rates
> and traditional
> constructions
> > >of masculinity), but explaining why I think the
> things I do. Scepticism
> is
> > >welcome of course, but I actually have real
> reasons for most of the
> things I
> > >say.
> > >
> > >But you can't write a book every time you make an
> assertion in an email
> > >discussion. Yes, take the complexity of human
> behaviour as read; it
> > >underlies everything I say as an implicit or
> explicit caveat. Our brains
> are
> > >complex to the point of complete mystery. Me, I'm
> having a shower.
> > >
> > >All best
> > >
> > >A
> > >
> > >
> > >Alison Croggon
> > >
> > >Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> > >Editor, Masthead:  http://masthead.net.au
> > >Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
> >
> 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com