At the risk of running this thread severely off-topic, I did want to
comment on the anti-psychiatry example. First, I think we can all
agree that there is a bit of overdiagnosis going on, which angers me
as well. The fact that the standards of depression are constantly
being lowered by the decade suggest foul-play. By today's standards,
assuming teachers are a good proxy for the general population, 79% of
us would be depressed.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/08/20/28914.aspx
At the same time, studies consistently show that people diagnosed with
mental disorders (such as depression, PTSD, primary insomnia,
schizophrenia, bipolar, etc.) have brain abnormalities different than
controls. I will not bother posting all the studies, since a simple
google search on a meta-study for all these diseases would suffice,
but I will post 2 for punctuality. The only disease that has been
inconsistent that I'm aware of is unipolar depression (more commonly
known as simply depression). However, in severe cases of depression,
brain abnormaliites have been consistent.
http://markspsychiatry.com/brain-abnormality-may-predict-depression/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VM1-4VTWCHB-F0&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1013927639&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2dd79a945c0c80b8dcfd9a6241931c92
So why are abnormalities present in the ones diagnosed, but the
average person can still meet the standards of certain mental
illnesses? Perhaps it is simply the fact that the ones truly
suffering are more likely to seek treatment, and therefore more likely
to receive a diagnosis.
This brings about the chicken and the egg scenario. Does illness
cause these brain abnormalities or vice-versa? It was amazing to hear
that twins of PTSD sufferers not exposed to combat still had the same
brain abnormalities.
http://www.physorg.com/news156452043.html
Studies of the positive effects (both objective and subjective) of CBT
and certain drugs are so numerous that they do not warrant me
searching for them. I will post one for formality purposes.
http://www.realmentalhealth.com/depression/antidepressants_01.asp
My crux is that while foul-play for profits through purposely
mitigating diagnostic standards may be present, it doesn't dismiss the
fact that is a significant number of mentally disturbed out there, if
not the majority of the diagnosed, that genuinely need the help and
would benefit from modern medicine. So far, I have not read any
studies of homeopathic or natural remedies being a superior cure. The
only one effective natural way of treating depression I know of is
moderate exercise, and even these studies have not had conflicting
results.
http://www.articlesbase.com/diseases-and-conditions-articles/study-claims-exercise-does-not-decrease-depression-531480.html
As for creativity, it is true that we all engage in creative
processes. There is also a disagreement as to what exactly creativity
is. IMO, it is simply ones ability to create what is not normally
seen in the physical world, ones ability to invent novel items, or
think of original ideas quickly that can't simply be explained by
experience or knowledge. While it is true that we all engage in this
process, it is not easy to presume we are all equal in this process.
We all engage in cognitive processes as well, yet we still managed to
quantify it and make it comparable among individuals. I suspect, once
definitions of creativity become more standardized, that it is only a
matter of time before we can quantify that as well.
On Sep 14, 4:27 pm, argumzio <
argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I fully comprehend the temporal aspect, so I am quite willing to
> wait for any thorough reply you might have, jttoto.
>
> But to reply in advance, I will state that I did not myself say that
> you were trying to force the idea that "creative people" are "more
> neurotic" through and through. I'm just voicing a concern of mine:
> that people will mistakenly draw the conclusion that it is bar none
> always the case. And I do understand your purpose for relating a few
> anecdotes (I eventually jumped into the fray myself).
>
> Another issue, however, that I accidentally (believe me, it crossed my
> mind before) did not address is that of general wellness or health. I
> may be broaching a touchy subject here, but I suppose it has its
> place. In general, I find the pharmaceutical industry quite at odds
> with some factors to avoid deviancy in the neurological domain (which
> has been inappropriately regarded as "mental", or to an extent
> separate from the biological context of the organism as a whole),
> particularly in regards to its drive to develop patentable and thus
> profitable drugs. Some former members of the APA have specifically
> disassociated themselves from the APA on this point (just to indicate
> that I'm not making this up out of thin air) and align themselves with
> an "anti-psychiatry movement" of sorts. To whittle all this down
> succinctly, other prerogatives such as eating properly, getting enough
> exercise, and living in a health-promoting, health-preserving
> environment have been, to my mind, ignored for far too long
> (particularly in the USA). This is not to say that there are no cases
> in which such special treatment is necessary, but rather that the
> pharmaceutical industry has been largely considered the be all, end
> all of such things as neuroticism, depression, and the like. In sum, I
> think this trend of neuroticism itself is suspect in this respect, but
> I suppose I'm going a little too far with my thinking on this... (or
> perhaps that that was going too far was going too far).
>
> All I'm saying is that we must be extremely cautious when we talk
> about these very knotty, stringy things, where the two ends are likely
> joined together.
>
> argumzio