I struggle with quite a few disorders, but I have always took it to heart that the main thing about something being a disorder is that it causes *significant* distress and disrupt in daily life. But also, it is kind of worrying how we keep making new categories and splitting the older ones, while ignoring actual research into what people need to live better with what they have. Like, if someone has schizophrenia. We knew about that illness for a while, but we still can't offer proper care for the sufferers. We just keep making new types of it.
The British have always been more tolerant of eccentricity, people were just seen as odd or unusual, but still a normal and valued part of society. Not so America, which is driving this pigeonholing, no doubt. Probably the psychiatry/psychology and Pharmaceutical industries driving this.
Yes I think this is going too far as well. I came into psychology in college thinking it would be a place for me to better understand myself and contribute to improving people’s lives, and by the time I graduated I had a very bad taste in my mouth from the deranged motivations dominating so much of the community and discourse. It’s absolutely neurotic. It’s almost like mental health issues have become a consumer product to fill the void and a dogma to live by. People who work in this field need a healthy measure of humility, skepticism, and as much wisdom as they can muster if they wish to do good in the world.
The expansion of diagnostic categories and broadening of criteria is in part the result of reimbursement patterns in the USA. Insurers will generally cover treatment only when there is an identified disorder being treated, not entirely unreasonably. But life has difficulties for everyone and we can often benefit from assistance without having a mental disorder. This creates pressure for more people to be included within the "reimbursable" camp by redefining normal-range functioning as pathological. Though often benevolent in intent, the outcome is a huge number of people who believe they are mentally disordered when, by the standards of any other era, they would never have been considered so.
If a young person is interested in the field of clinical psychology (i.e., becoming a therapist to help people with the difficulties of life) but is turned off by the DSM and and its pathologizing labels, what do you recommend? Get trained as a therapist, make diagnoses for the sake of insurance company reimbursements but otherwise pay them no mind and simply treat the person as a human being who is struggling? Or...something else?
Counselling psychology has less of a focus on the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder, and more on helping individuals navigate the challenges of life. This, in effect, is what many clinical psychologists wind up doing as well. I do think the field benefits from having within it those who can examine the assumptions of the DSM with a critical eye and raise the possibility of alternative perspectives. There is little question that diagnosis can in some instances be useful for more than securing insurance coverage. The distinction between unipolar and bipolar mood disorder is an example. And diagnosis can aid in research, allowing the definition of the population being studied and thus enabling attempts at replication in other settings. As well, in some instances diagnosis can provide signposts to effective treatment, though the diagnostic cutoffs (an inch over the line or short of the line) are seldom particularly useful in this way. I don't think we need anti-diagnosis zealots, but we do need measured thought about the usefulness of what we do.
@@RandyPaterson I'm confused by the use of the word "definition" above, but appreciate your response and believe I get the gist of it. I look forward to further exploring your channel - thanks for putting out this content.
This individual seems primarily interested in the Myers Briggs scheme, which few psychologists studying personality take seriously. (It's often referred to as "astrology for business.") As such, I suspect that focus will continue to be largely tangential to the serious investigation of interpersonal differences.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I struggle with quite a few disorders, but I have always took it to heart that the main thing about something being a disorder is that it causes *significant* distress and disrupt in daily life.
But also, it is kind of worrying how we keep making new categories and splitting the older ones, while ignoring actual research into what people need to live better with what they have. Like, if someone has schizophrenia. We knew about that illness for a while, but we still can't offer proper care for the sufferers. We just keep making new types of it.
The British have always been more tolerant of eccentricity, people were just seen as odd or unusual, but still a normal and valued part of society. Not so America, which is driving this pigeonholing, no doubt. Probably the psychiatry/psychology and Pharmaceutical industries driving this.
Yes I think this is going too far as well. I came into psychology in college thinking it would be a place for me to better understand myself and contribute to improving people’s lives, and by the time I graduated I had a very bad taste in my mouth from the deranged motivations dominating so much of the community and discourse. It’s absolutely neurotic. It’s almost like mental health issues have become a consumer product to fill the void and a dogma to live by. People who work in this field need a healthy measure of humility, skepticism, and as much wisdom as they can muster if they wish to do good in the world.
The expansion of diagnostic categories and broadening of criteria is in part the result of reimbursement patterns in the USA. Insurers will generally cover treatment only when there is an identified disorder being treated, not entirely unreasonably. But life has difficulties for everyone and we can often benefit from assistance without having a mental disorder. This creates pressure for more people to be included within the "reimbursable" camp by redefining normal-range functioning as pathological. Though often benevolent in intent, the outcome is a huge number of people who believe they are mentally disordered when, by the standards of any other era, they would never have been considered so.
If a young person is interested in the field of clinical psychology (i.e., becoming a therapist to help people with the difficulties of life) but is turned off by the DSM and and its pathologizing labels, what do you recommend? Get trained as a therapist, make diagnoses for the sake of insurance company reimbursements but otherwise pay them no mind and simply treat the person as a human being who is struggling? Or...something else?
Counselling psychology has less of a focus on the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder, and more on helping individuals navigate the challenges of life. This, in effect, is what many clinical psychologists wind up doing as well. I do think the field benefits from having within it those who can examine the assumptions of the DSM with a critical eye and raise the possibility of alternative perspectives. There is little question that diagnosis can in some instances be useful for more than securing insurance coverage. The distinction between unipolar and bipolar mood disorder is an example. And diagnosis can aid in research, allowing the definition of the population being studied and thus enabling attempts at replication in other settings. As well, in some instances diagnosis can provide signposts to effective treatment, though the diagnostic cutoffs (an inch over the line or short of the line) are seldom particularly useful in this way. I don't think we need anti-diagnosis zealots, but we do need measured thought about the usefulness of what we do.
@@RandyPaterson I'm confused by the use of the word "definition" above, but appreciate your response and believe I get the gist of it. I look forward to further exploring your channel - thanks for putting out this content.
What do you think about Dario Nardi's work?
This individual seems primarily interested in the Myers Briggs scheme, which few psychologists studying personality take seriously. (It's often referred to as "astrology for business.") As such, I suspect that focus will continue to be largely tangential to the serious investigation of interpersonal differences.