wat

you don't have to be clinically depressed to have mental illness. Their external circumstances are bad enough to deteriorate their mental health to the point of wanting death.

You don't see sane happy content 'normal' people committing suicide. There will liley always be an underlying issue or an acute moment of mental deterioration. A breakdown for instance.

wat

Let's say I'm about to be tortured (to death) for a long period of time and to avoid torture I could kill myself. The external circumstance of facing torture has 'deteriorated my mental health' to the point of wanting death? It's not completely sane to want to die in this circumstance?

The underlying issue can be an external circumstance. All people 'mentally deteriorate' under pressure, it's a matter of degree.

I thought the Hitler example was pretty good. In the event of a Zombie Apocalypse, if the zombies were at your door, I think a bullet would be a rational alternative over getting eaten alive.

The monk example is good. I don't think he did it for an "audience," he did it for a cause. Do you think that a soldier goes on a suicide mission for an audience?

I also think of Million Dollar Baby:

But were you not wondering how it is possible to think about the crash without thinking of suicide? I was just telling you how.

It's martyr. And he doesn't personally gain after he dies, but he does get to help others through death. He doesn't have to believe in an afterlife to see that as a gain.

Look what up? Can you find me the definition of egotistical that you are using, because I can't find one online that really fits what you seem to be saying. I'm also not sure you actually understand the monk's motives. He was doing it for other people in a selfless act. It's very difficult to call that egotistical.

But you know that it's you talking to yourself, not someone externally. Like I did already say when answering your question, "If the monk thought it was someone else's voice, that's an indication that he's lost touch with reality and suggests mental illness." There's a difference between taking a 3rd person perspective and believing that someone else is talking to you.

The monk seemed to function well and act rationally. Outside the suicide (which is the point of contention here), nothing indicated that there was any dysfunction or chemical imbalance in his brain.

Suicide is almost always due to mental illness, but I'm saying it doesn't have to be. Religion is not a mental illness.

I could agree with "usually due" but "almost always" implies that the edge cases are only the monk type cases. I'd say that there are plenty of people who kill themselves because they judge that their lives are not worthwhile to them and/or that it's very unlikely that their lives will become worthwhile in the future given the nature of their problems (problems which are not necessarily mental illness).

That's a good example. But the idea of torture and death should cause a severe decline in mental health. The person would be mentally ill and wish to die because of it.

of course I wasn't

ok. He could still be mentally ill though.

How do you know his motive was not just to be a 'martyre', to get respect from his peers, to feel self value and to do something for an audience under whatever pretense. This is egotistical behaviour.

I don't see the difference. If a voice was saying, 'I must kill everyone', or a voice was saying, 'you must kill everyone', both are nutcases. Again I'm sure people talk to themselves in 3rd persepctive all the time. I do it in poker. Different emotions are like different personalities, agos are made up of lots of egos all pretending to be the same person. It is a continual thing everyone expereinces. 'You' or 'I' should not be relevant. Just the fact that the word 'satan' is used is causing bias/judgement. I never said they were hallucinating and satan was appearing in their reality. They asccociate their own voice with satan as an excuse most likely.



Subjective. And relative. My opinion is different. Maybe illness can occur through too much balance. Extreme apathy would be a mental illness. You get people who need help because they are just incredibly cynical/apathetic.



if certain beliefs result in a decline of health or death, these beliefs should be classed as mental illnesses. Maybe they are not avoidable and can be deemed to cause rational choice, such as in the torture case, but still I think that definition is suitable.

I do actually. Mostly it is god seen as the audience. Or for some concept of honour.

What about killing yourself to stop a nuke exploding in a major city? I don't see how this type of empathy could evolve so strong. I would for sure do it. The idea of all these people dieng, and livin with that knowledge probably induces a mental ilness. Same for the suicide mission also, there has to be such a strong negative future that it causes this breakdown in doing things for survival.

Well there you have it. Anyone caught in a situation were death>painful life=mental disorder.

Evolution concerns genes, not individuals. So if a group of individuals share a gene of self sacrifice, that gene can be passed on if it allows the group to survive.

Too much to respond to while I'm at work on my phone, but this part is bothering me and I want to pull a self-appeal to authority here as a psychiatrist. If you believe the voices are from someone else, your reality testing is off and you are psychotic. If you know the voices are originating from your own head/consciousness, then you are having a normal conversation with yourself. Maybe you won't understand this still, but it is absolutely correct.

Fine you can call the nutcase 'psychotic' if their ego gives itself a 3rd perspective and has a different voice to their main inner voice. Someone is still just as much a nut case if the voice is taking a 1st person perspective and having the same voice, they are sane? Not hardly fair is it one 'nut case' can get away with it on diminished responsibility just because he was exposed to the idea of satan and 'it' (murderous thought process/belief) took that form rather than one which could be deemed 'sane' by a psychiatrist such as yourself. (btw who is anyone to say this 'satan' does not exist)

And Obviously I am not as knowledgeable as you in an academic sense but I am doing mental health nursing degree. Which imo, the academic stuff and general theory on this is pretty, wrong, on alot of levels. Too dependent on charts and objective ****

There is not going to be a biological gene for self sacrifice, there will be a gene within the dna of society- as an entity. A thought process manifested and maintained in culture. Evolution is selfish as ****.

Although maybe that is wrong, there are soldier ants and worker ants and queens. Just hard to imagine it in humans. There is probably genes for group identity/identity, but self sacrifice is going to be learned, with regards to saving people who aren't, themselves or direct family.

You're just making things up here. In the top, you are ascribing traits to the monk that you are pulling out of thin air, and they don't have to apply to a hypothetically similar case anyway. In the bottom, you are claiming that being calm and balanced could be a mental illness, which shows that you either don't have an understanding of what mental illness is or you are reaching all over the place to try to make a case that can't be made.

I have to ask you what you think the purpose of defining something as mental illness to be. I can think of many beliefs that lead to a decline in health or death that are not mental illness. Sometimes people just don't know enough or they're misinformed or they're just more willing to take certain risks in life or they'd rather die than suffer through pain/mental deterioration. If someone is making a rational choice, calling them ill based on that choice seems inappropriate.

For the last time, you are missing the point here. If someone is unable to recognize that the voice is coming from themselves, they are psychotic. If you hear a voice that is in the 3rd person and different from yours, but you know that the voice is coming from yourself and is part of an inner dialogue, then this is normal.

You are doing your future patients a huge disservice by continuing to insist that your preconceived notions of mental health are correct when I, who you agree have more knowledge and experience than you in this field, am telling you that you are wrong. If you are not willing to learn from others, how can you hope to gain the level of understanding that your patients deserve from you?

I don't think you can read what I say properly. If somebody is incapable of emotional change, they are ill. Emotions have purposes. Fear of death is pretty important.



sigh



Why are you repeating yourself? Did you not read the first sentence there where I said 'fine call the 3rd perspective psychotic' (obviously referring to the satan voice in my original examples). It is not relevant they are both nutcases equally. Is it even psychotic, I thought that would fall into skitzo.


The thing is, patients are individuals with unique illnesses, it is complex, but you and the books group them into terms and then prescribe the meds. Its not like broken arms. Have you ever felt insane? Do you know how to become insane? This kind of **** ain't learned in books. I have read books and I will continue to learnt he academic stuff. I will conform and adhere in work, I will conform to the patients perception. I have already spoken about this stuff with my lecturer (who is more than likely more experienced than thou). All beliefs are wiped clean for every new patient. On a theory level in a forum though then I will argue.

I'm not sure this is a coherent thought. I don't get what it means.

If this is the amount of thought you plan on putting in to explore this field, I would not recommend going into it.

First, schizophrenia is one of several psychotic disorders. Simply having auditory hallucinations does not qualify one for schizophrenia, though it is a psychotic symptom and can be due to schizophrenia. Psychosis can also be from drugs, brain tumor, an affective disorder, PTSD, brief psychotic disorder, etc.

Second, I'm repeating myself because you are still not catching it all. Having an inner dialogue that you recognize as such is not in itself a symptom of psychosis or mental illness. One can certainly have mental illness and such an inner dialogue, but mentally healthy people have them too. The point is that if a person has intact reality testing and recognizes that the thoughts/voices in question are coming from themselves, then this is not a sign of psychosis, even if you call them a nutcase for some reason.

You don't know a thing about how I practice psychiatry. I find it nearly insulting that you would presume that I am doing it wrong when you don't know what I'm doing, you show that you don't know what schizophrenia or psychosis are, and you seem to not have a good understanding of mental health overall. This isn't a contest where you have to put me down and mention that you have a professor (as if I don't have at least as many as you). Especially in a field where other people are entrusting their well-being into your hands, it's basically your obligation to them to try to learn more instead of booking a forum win.

I'm going on vacation in about 12 hours, so I'm not sure when I'll be posting again within the week. If the thread's not locked by then...

How do I paraphrase it to make it simpler? confusing.



There is no point in responding when your perception of my expression is so inaccurate. I mean I can't recall any times when you agree with what I say or understand fully. I know this is my problem but it is just de-motivating.



How would you qualify someone for schizophrenia?

Did you miss the part of my example when I said there are murderous thought commands, beliefs, structures? I don't like this categorising of mental illness- based upon if they believe a thought is there's or someone elses. It is just more likely that one is mentally ill,

... let me try to explain myself further, I think alot about this concept of self, have experienced my self changing, people think differently about the self concept. But the books are defining what is correct. We all do this, the only difference with the satan, was that satan is a concept of an entity and so the ill part of the mind- this irrational murderous desire- would take this form. The process behind both examples was- the behaviour of murdering, what form it takes should not mean one is mentally ill and the other not. But this outside labelling/ misunderstanding means one gets a lethal injection and the other gets put on a high security psych ward. IT also relates everywhere, regarding what treatment they et, and how best it is to behave/care around them.

When I said about broken arms, you can see a broken arm and everyone can say it is a broken arm, and it would be consistent with a picture of an x ray in a book of a broken arm. You can't see a mind. Believe it or not but I have developed a good sense of mind reading, not in a psychic way ofc, just that my mind is fluid enough to understand change, and why's. Most people cannot see through their own deception. I can't expect you to understand, an individuals mind, unless you have the capability of mimicking that mind, or aligning with it or have been in a similar 'place' previously, or can see it. If you can see it then you can see the best way out also.

The books are like universal stereotyped perceptions.


I accept that as true. However this forum is irrelevant. Initially taking authority when there are no patients involved, when it is just a conversation, means you are being very hypocritical. We both made assumptions of each other, I have admitted that on an academic level you know more, but I am not so sure about other levels and I have put y argument forth regarding how valid the academic knowledge is and to what extent it is valid.

Ok, enjoy.

I imagine one of the things thats most frustrating about being a psychologist/psychiatrist is that everyone who has taken an undergrad psych class or has read a book or two thinks they could do your job better than you. (I guess this might also be especially true for economists)

I imagine this would be annoying also, because it would suggest that said psychologist/psychiatrist is a moron. However, the point, or question, is a psychiatrist diagnoses problem and prescribes medication. This is all good, but how important is it relative to the stimulation/environment they receive- which likely was the heaviest factor of attaining the disorder in the first place, how do you diagnose something? From some terms in a book, rounding, approximation. I assume diagnosis is done through looking at behaviour, external signals, the brain, rather than understanding the internal mind.

From what I gather it seems there are two types of mental ilness, ones relating to biology- parkinsons ect

and ones relating to the development of thought structures, beliefs.

This is why I'm saying some thoughts or beliefs should be treated as a mental illness if they result in a loss of health, even some parts of religion. Which goes into unethical territory though...

Look at addictions, how much is mental illness and how much is physical problem. Better to treat them or to teach them.

btw realise that each new generation gets smarter, in everything.

the other problem is that they will be diagnosed as such, and immediately these labels will apply but with altered perception, especially when referred to other professionals. And the worst thing to diagnose a depressed person with, is depression.

Why are you differentiating between mental illness and physical problems? Everything about a human (including their thoughts) is "physical" in nature arising from our biology. If educating someone is changes behavior then that means the education is modulating their neurophysiology and addressing the physical problem.

As far as I'm aware, the scientific understanding of everything 'mind' is just not advanced enough. I'm sure one day there will be treatment to stop people wanting to commit suicide, or murder, or lose an unwanted imaginary friend, by changing the physical aspect of the brain responsible. There are mental problems relating to metabolism, biology. And there are metabolic and physiological problems factored by external stimulus, and 'will'. And there are mental problems where science cannot actually see the physical problem/cause. There are mental problems where you don't even know what it is, you just put it in a group with the others which are similar. There are mental problems, which are only problems because someone says it is a problem, not because of anything physical. Mental problems come and go, and so they are only 'physical' in the past. Sometimes the only indicator regarding the physical aspect of a problem is through the interpretation of behaviour.

I would argue using your logic, that alzheimers is not a mental ilness. It's like saying that if the temperature regulator in the brain goes faulty then that is a mental illness.

Almost certainly, (depending on if mind is completely physical/observable)

Put it this way, at any moment, many of us could turn insane, permanently, it would start as an act of abnormality, and then it would become normal. Only a long while after would the physical tells (aside from behaviour interpretation) be observable, the physical cause with todays knowledge would never be found or dated. Medication usually only treats physical biological symptoms, anti depressants often merely hide the mental problem by reducing physical signs... there are other factors.

Hmm. That is very interesting. On the flip of that you would have to prove that not wanting to end your life is normal. But the repressive social system issue is a part of the problem too. I think you should find a way to stop or lessen the pain. This fascist bull about online poker should end. We have a lot of well heeled, grumpy old white men who are scared of everything, and they work very hard to make everyone suffer. And if they let us make money at poker, we will get their seats. They think we are too young to deserve handing over the torch of power.

Maybe I have major depression, and maybe have suicidal suicidal ideation more frequently than embarrassment permits me to admit, and maybe I take a drug that these old white men are more afraid of than online poker, and maybe it helped me.

Do you take the same view when it comes to schizophrenia? What about all the other various rather severe mental disorders that people may have?

So, what do people think of the case of Mitchell Heisman? He wrote a 1,905-page (ignore the fact that the font was massive, because 1,905 pages sounds way too impressive to diminish, heh) work of philosophy which he termed his "suicide note" before killing himself on the steps of a chapel on the Harvard campus in 9/10. The book he left is full of musings on human life past, present, and future. Very little of it is personal, though he does mention having Asperger's and being strongly affected at by the death of his father at age 12 (but given that he waited till his mid-thirties to kill himself and that none of his friends foresaw his suicide, one cannot conclude that he "never recovered" from that single event, or something similarly drastic).

He makes the case that there is no objective reason to prefer life over death (not that that is a difficult case to make), and that therefore his act of committing suicide is merely "an experiment in nihilism".

Ultimately, you could attempt to reduce it to a chicken/egg situation wrt Heisman: Did subjectively painful events in his life lead him to an "unhealthy" commitment to the pursuit of ultimately nonexistent objective meaning, or did that pursuit lead to his subjective pain?

I have great respect for Heisman; while I find some aspects of his writing to be speculative at best, there is no thinker alive for whom that caveat wouldn't have to be said. But returning to the subject of his suicide/posthumous mental health evaluation...does his decaying corpse earn the oh-so-meaningful title of insane, or doesn't it?

The VA hospital system is doing a clinical trial of high dose TMS (trans-cranial magnetic stimulation) in acutely suicidal people with rather good results right now. Give it 15 years and they probably are going to have one in every ER to treat suicidal crisis.

In relation to the rest of your post just because we don't understand how something works doesn't mean its not biological.