Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

Privileging of Psychology

- Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:20:15 EST 7Jz0O/c2 No.207076
File: 1476793215427.jpg -(213604B / 208.60KB, 1600x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Privileging of Psychology
I dislike how much my friends rely on therapy and medication- how they privilege psychological narratives (by that i mean cognitive-behavioural therapy, trait theory, behaviourism, all the things a therapist might use to fit an existing construct over your behaviour and treat it accordingly) over alternative narratives of mental and emotional health. It always feels like such a touchy subject also, like somebody might be offended if i criticise the help they are getting- "i deserve happiness as much as everyone else" - and they just buy into and allow themselves to be psychologised and accept the dominant narrative because they want help.

I don't mean alternative like new-age oil treatment and hippie festivals or whatever, just different ways of looking at "mental health", whether they are sociological or philosophical perspectives or whatever else that i feel make a stronger argument.
Eugene Suttingwune - Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:40:22 EST FSAozKjO No.207102 Reply
I don't quite understand what you're getting at. You think there are better ways of going about these things than traditional psychology? I don't think any psychologist would say that therapy and medication are the only ways to solve human problems or that you shouldn't make use of those other ways.
Thomas Sullerfield - Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:43:21 EST 54PBc7Id No.207103 Reply
OP has mistaken psychology with psychiatry. But what he's essentially saying is he thinks people should do more in terms of lifestyle choices to fix themselves rather than rely on medication. Medication can be very harmful/addictive. But people think it's just so easy to fix a problem by taking a pill for it rather than working hard on it.
Augustus Trotshaw - Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:39:09 EST 0aDGMcny No.207104 Reply
Are you going to sit with them day in and day out? Are you going to let them talk to you about their problems at length? Are you going to give them a hotline number to call you in the middle of the night when they're having a crisis?
Psychiatry is hard work. Yeah, it might not be perfect, but it's also not designed to solve all the problems of the human condition. It is a basic level of medical care. If you aren't willing to provide that to these people, then you have no right to suggest that they stop getting it from someone they are getting it from.
Lillian Fandale - Sat, 22 Oct 2016 03:01:43 EST 4uoHMs04 No.207106 Reply
1477119703761.gif -(1044189B / 1019.72KB, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Psychoanalysis takes into account the influence of the therapist upon their patient, by imposing their subjective perspective on the patient, thereby altering what they'd otherwise put forward.Seeing reality as not being pre-established or absolute.

"Goldberg has written of this paradigm from a self-psychologcal perspective, noting that human beings are makers of meaning and that both analyst and patient are continually interpreting one another in the process of a creation of what he terms a hermeneutic circle. Thus there is no "immaculate perception" but rather there is always some pre-existing set or bias that affects the bi=personal field within the consultation room. Both patients are continuously participating in emotionally charged interpersonal interaction--thus, as Hoffman has asserted, the patient is a plausible interpreter of the analyst's motives and these interpretations should not be defined purely in terms of perceptual or transference distortion."

From Mutuality, Recognition, and the Self: Psychoanalytic Reflections. The author cites case studies from her own patients, combined with analysis.
Jack Cottingtudging - Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:40:18 EST BKJX7E+7 No.207314 Reply
1480092018391.jpg -(148794B / 145.31KB, 445x290) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Medication can also be a really powerful tool to help people to live again. Personally I'm taking SSRIs for my anxiety disorder and let me tell you it works miracles. Together with therapy, taking medication has made me an actual functioning human being.

People have this attitude you mentions with mental issues being resolved with therapy and medication is somehow 'cheating'. Which is objectively a ridiculous view, and in fact very hurtful as it leads some to not seek help at all.

Also OP has no idea what therapy actually is, judging from how he's written his post. It's not about slavishly accepting the psychologist' narrative about your own condition and general life. It's about talking about how you view your condition and the issues it gives you, and then get offered alternate perspectives on the state of things. Sometimes you can get so buried in your own subjective view of the world that you actually need a helping hand to take a step back from it all.
Nicholas Pingersack - Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:20:22 EST 54PBc7Id No.207315 Reply
I wouldn't have a colon if I wasn't taking Biological Chemotherapy drugs regularly. I know the power of drugs.

But I also know that the pharmaceutical industry is obsessed with addicting people to their products, so much so that they willingly drug people who don't need drugs. Plenty of people can get over their issues without drugs through lifestyle changes, while others simply cannot. Yet I see that we live in a world where people really seem to jump on the idea that the drugs will make everything great without lifestyle change, and then those people end up fucked up. Like, lifestyle changes are, in my opinion, not even an option but a necessity if you've got mental issues your dealing with, especially if you want to medicate these issues.

I'm not saying medication is 'cheating'. I'm saying medication doesn't work in every case it's prescribed. I'm saying medication can be a step backwards for people. It was a step backwards for me when I was a child and my parents forced me into Adderall. Adderall really fucked up a chunk of my life thanks to my drug-pusher psychiatrist I had as a child. Only when I was like 16 did I have the capability to realize he was a total drug-addicted legal drug-pusher through his words and actions; before then I had just thought he was 'the good doctor'.
Jack Cottingtudging - Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:25:44 EST BKJX7E+7 No.207317 Reply

So we're talking about two worlds of psychiatry then. You probably got diagnosed with ADD/ADHD right?

My own experience is with personality/emotional disorders. You don't usually get prescribed addicting shit for issues like this. Having tried prescribed racemic amphetamine, buying it from a friend diagnosed with ADD, I know that shit is some bomb ass degree drugs. Crazy that they give it to minors at all.

But when it comes to what I suffer from, and what I'd assume OP is talking about, mental issues ala depression, personality disorders, anxiety or PTSD, drugs + therapy is the best that can be provided. I dunno how they treat psychological issues in America, but at my place they tend to be pretty reluctant at describing medicine without therapy at all. Medicinal crutches are meant to be used with actual treatment.
Shitting Foddlechine - Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:17:34 EST 54PBc7Id No.207324 Reply
Of course I got diagnosed with ADHD haha.

The USA has a fucked up psychiatric set up. Psychiatrists make big bucks prescribing medication, and they usually jump onto the idea of prescribing medication before actually attempting to fix the child without medication. Like literally when I was a kid they just stuck me in a room, gave me an exam, told me I had ADHD and then gave me pills starting the very next day, and that was it.

I'm just concerned because psychiatry is supposed to be medicine, and therefore should uphold the Hippocratic oath at all times, yet they clearly push the oath to the side in the name of profits, like cigarettes.
Phineas Cingerworth - Mon, 28 Nov 2016 15:48:40 EST 0aDGMcny No.207327 Reply
But so does the rest of the medical profession, your GP loading you up with oxycontin isn't doing you any more of a favor than the psych refilling your prozac.
It's almost like maybe it's a bad idea for the pharmaceutical industry to be beholden only to greed? Hmmmm....
Wesley Cennerstutch - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:19:56 EST 54PBc7Id No.207330 Reply
I'm a capitalist. I'm a Rand fan. But Pharmaceuticals don't play fair. They've weaseled their way into the government. They've got power that only comes with politics, and that's just not fair for a business. They've ruined capitalism. They've ruined competition. And they're not looking out for the good-will of the people. They're pushing addictive substances that, while they can help people, don't help most people.
Hamilton Sosslemore - Wed, 30 Nov 2016 01:24:43 EST 0aDGMcny No.207341 Reply
It's true that breaking up the pharmaceutical lobby is one of the few things the left and the right can agree on. It's both bad for business and bad for people.
Legalize all drugs and allow the government to negotiate for drug prices. In a perverse turn of events, market forces actually make people more money, save the sick more money, and make everyone generally healthier, while reducing crime and sacking cartels. It's a win/win
Simon Hammersted - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 09:09:41 EST 54PBc7Id No.207359 Reply
Amen to that my brother.
But fuck knows it won't happen. Not when the pharmaceuticals have so much government sway.
I fucking hate society sometimes. It's so fucking obvious to me that the only way to destroy the black markets and save people from addiction is to literally turn every black market into a fairly-regulated white market. I'd much rather let people consult their doctor about having fun with heroin and getting a tiny dose here and there to have fun with than hitting up fucking Kensington Ave where the rule of law doesn't apply and addicts rule the streets.
But that's too 'radical' of an idea.
Nathaniel Criffingshaw - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:06:21 EST 0aDGMcny No.207368 Reply
Eventually the sentiment will change. They created the anti-drug laws for corporations, but by whipping up a moral frenzy. That moral frenzy has since ended and a counter moral frenzy against the damages of the War on Drugs is gaining steam. Thus the only real obstacle is the entrenched players and money in the system, now that the public will has evaporated.
However, we are on 420chan, so our sample is biased.
Barnaby Surringdale - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:41:11 EST BKJX7E+7 No.207369 Reply
1480718471125.jpg -(88049B / 85.99KB, 568x410) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Private vs universal health care seems to me to be a catch-20 though. Like, the pharma of the US earn shit-tons of money thanks to the free market, which means they can spend more on development of needed and useful drugs Within the market context of course. My country have universal health care, but still the government spend a shit ton of money to buy US medicine.

At the same time, you'd think they'd care more about the health of people if the companies involved where not following the profit motive. Now America is an extreme example on the other end of this spectrum compared to social medicine, but still. I personally think this is a false line of reasoning. Even state-owned operations have to think about budget. So they have a limited amount of money to spend on buying/developing treatment and drugs. If the leaders are good statesmen then of course they're gonna focus on what's best when it comes to spending vs social profit Meaning eventual resulting taxes, as a healthy population is a productive population of the treatment/drugs.

In any case dude American health-care is fucked up beyond relief. That doesn't mean that my stinking European health care is much better. But at least we don't have to deal with doctors pushing some "recognized" drug because the pharma industry pays them to wtf.
Charlotte Siddlehall - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:42:05 EST 54PBc7Id No.207392 Reply
It doesn't have to be so fucked up, though. When I studied insurance back in college, I learned that the government has caps on the kinds of margins you can get from insurance premiums, meaning that insurance can only profit so much. Now, normally I'm completely opposed to things like this, but the point of applying this to the insurance industry was to make sure that insurance was directed toward insuring the country's well-being rather than profiting from the country's problems. The Health Care industry is the opposite, though; they profit immensely off of poor health and health issues as well as pharmaceutical necessity/addiction, so much so that their incentivized to create perpetual victims of health problems rather than permanently/efficiently treating people, and because of this we have immense problems in the pharmaceutical industry. I think the government should have never even fucking attempted universal health care and instead simply tried to actually solve our health care problems by finding a way to actually incentivize health care providers to look into keeping people healthy and to penalize them for requiring constant use of pharmaceuticals and such (unless its absolutely necessary like in my case where I'd lose my colon without my regular dose of biological chemotherapy).
Simon Mabbleville - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:59:57 EST 0aDGMcny No.207400 Reply
>>. I think the government should have never even fucking attempted universal health care and instead simply tried to actually solve our health care problems by finding a way to actually incentivize health care providers to look into keeping people health
That's a nice sentiment, but I don't know if it could ever pan out in reality. It would be basically asking the medical industry to subsidize the health of the whole nation. There's no profit in keeping people healthy, while there's lot of profit in keeping people sick, so unless the medical industry was run as a not-for-profit or the government gave insurance companies some kind of kick-back when people stay healthy, there would be no motive for them to do this.
Nell Duckleforth - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 11:26:06 EST 54PBc7Id No.207408 Reply
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about bonus money being given to insurance companies and doctors who work together to keep a massive amount of people perfectly healthy. I'm talking about fines directed at insurance companies and medical practices that can't help/fix problems with health that aren't like genetic. I'm talking about incentives being given to pharmaceuticals that pressure pharmaceuticals to not have many people depending on them regularly.

I think that sort of set-up could have done a world of good compared to Obamacare, which didn't really do anything besides increase insurance costs everywhere while also insuring an additional like 1 million people. Obama keeps claiming 20 million but the fact of the matter is those people were going to buy insurance whether or not Obamacare existed. Obama sure likes to play with numbers so that he looks more impressive. One of the main reasons I'm so disenfranchised with the Democrats as a whole is because they always fall back on numbers to defend their actions, but when you look into the numbers you realize they're literally all fake.
Cornelius Blecklenudge - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 16:01:49 EST 0aDGMcny No.207412 Reply
Well, if that could actually be enacted, it would be great. Good luck getting them to go along with it though, and I wonder how much higher the final price tag would be.

A lot of people got insurance who wouldn't have otherwise, I know quite a few personally, and that's only looking at the universal mandate. Things like the provisions of pre-existing conditions (which, thankfully, is immune in the Senate) actually were the most significant thing and did a world of good.
Context: my gf couldn't get insurance before ACA because of a pre-existing condition. Because the condition is so rare, the drug for it costs 20K a dose, once per month, and without it eventually she would die. ACA allowed her to get insurance and now (most) of that cost is covered. If ACA were to go wholesale, including the pre-existing condition provision, she would be again looking forward to death sometime in her 20s)

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.