Wednesday, December 7, 2022

Comments by NuUpsilonXi

Showing 13 of 13 comments.

  • DSM is a billing guide.
    What it lists in one category in one edition, it will list in another in the next.
    Wait a few years and, under DSM 6, you will all be “wrong”.
    It is not used to determine the reality or interpret the nature of human experience.
    It’s used for insurance.
    edit: this comment was meant as a reply to the previous string of comments.

  • Okay, I do have to say this:
    If you describe “social justice discourse” as “very rigid, destructive, and ultimately narrow”… to the point where you have to put up hella obvious disclaimers against anticipated criticism…
    maybe it’s time to reconsider your concept(s) of “social justice”?
    I dunno.
    Just a thought.

  • Matt, the following are excerpts from an article written by Liberty about what she calls: “Psychiatric Dogmatism”. She offers a perspective that leans neither Left nor Right, but Back.
    In a nutshell, the psychiatric establishment of today mirrors the same forms of institutional and systematic oppression, the same functions of reality-defining, law-making and king-building as the Medieval Church.
    [From the article “Talking Back to Tumblr: Swallowing Salvation”
    First published on Plurality Resource Forums, October 24, 2016]

    Apart from its critics, other fields of science aren’t treated by laypeople with nearly the devotion and certainty as is psychiatry.

    What makes a Freud or a Jung so different than an Einstein or a Hawking?
    Why is DSM called the “Bible of Psychiatry”?
    Is there a “Bible” of Geology? Physics? Biology?
    Why is psychiatry, rather than cardiology or any other field of medicine, used as a method of individual oppression and social control? One can’t be hospitalized against their will and detained indefinitely for having a heart attack.
    What is it about psychiatry that even allows for that to be possible?
    Well, we might have an answer to these questions about the secular mystique that surrounds psychiatry.
    The answer is in the word “Psychiatry” itself.
    “Psych-” “-Iatrist”

    Translated literally, it means:
    “Soul Healer”

    As organized religion lost its appeal, and spiritual understandings of human experience began to fall short of their expectations, laypeople sought meaning elsewhere.
    To the laity, “SCIENCE!™” is almost universally considered as an opposing “either” equivalent to religion’s “or”.
    Essentially, they’re seen as interchangeable.
    Even then, it is still mis-characterized and oversimplified in unscientific terms.
    Either God made us out of dirt, or we are descended from monkeys.
    The Universe is either 6,000 years old or the result of random chance.

    Science and religion are not opposing or interchangeable. They are both attempts to understand the world and human nature. Both science and religion explore the mysteries and come to conclusions based on their theories. When science finds out it’s incorrect, it will change its perspective until a new way of looking at things becomes available; and so on and so forth.
    Since religion deals more with the inter-/intra-personal, the great hereafter, good and evil, sin and salvation, it places such a heavy emphasis on being “correct” that people will murder those who think and speak differently.
    When was the last time a theoretical physicist was thrown from a building for being a proponent of String Theory?
    What is it about religion that makes it such a commonly used method of social control?
    What makes it vulnerable to unthinking beliefs and inhuman acts?
    What is it?
    The opposite of science is not religion.
    The opposite of science is dogma.

    When it comes to the nigh-universal, cross-cultural belief in a “soul” of some sort, science has a readily-available model. And given that it has the blessing and endorsement of “SCIENCE!™”, it can be considered an absolute truth.
    The Mind and the Self became the new soul.

    **Laypeople living in a post-modern desert of meaning have substituted an idolized parody of psychiatry in place of traditional religion. The practice of psychiatry has become their new church.**

    This is no hyperbole.
    In the absence of a church, the trappings of psychiatry have functionally replaced the meaning laypeople derived from the rites and rituals of organized religion.
    This is “Secular Mysticism”.

    By and large, psychiatrists do not see themselves in this way.
    But to the suffering layperson desperately seeking a better life, psychiatrists and psychiatry are the way and the truth.
    This is especially true for those who have been burnt out on religion.
    Despite their irreligion, they are used to having the truth given to them by others.
    They need stand-ins to take the place of what they no longer have.
    The secular apostasy consider a psychiatrist as, literally, a “soul-healer”; and based on their previous experiences with religion, they have every reason to believe so:
    He has a formal title and letters after his name.
    He wears special clothing, unique to his station.
    He has power bestowed upon him by an institution.
    He is wise and knows things you cannot.
    He, by virtue of his status, is deferred to with reverence.
    He is considered a “healer” and practices “medicine”.
    He has a private place where you may disclose and confess your troubles.
    He can see into your soul and knows your shortcomings, your sins; your symptoms.
    He has a book of revealed wisdom he reads from, telling you he is right.
    He gives you validation in the form of a diagnosis.
    He predicts your future in the form of a prognosis.
    He knows how to save you from suffering and live a happy life in the form of a treatment plan.
    He tells you what you must do, and if you fail you will suffer once more.
    You are responsible to him.
    You must comply with everything he says.
    You must not listen to dissenting voices; neither your own nor others.
    You must ingest his medicines, both literally and metaphorically, to keep your “mind/body/spirit” in good health.
    You must keep to meeting with him regularly at an appointed day, place and time.
    You must do all of this, for the rest of your days, or suffer the consequences.
    Much of the same regimen can be found in other area of healthcare.
    However, the gravity behind psychiatric treatment is different from other medical practices, because…

    Your sanity, your self, your mind,
    depends on it.

    This is Psychiatric Dogmatism.

    Get it now?
    -LibertyΝΥΞ (10/24/16)

  • CN: suicide mention

    Jus as an FYI:
    Some people can be very turned off when the second-person is used to address your readers; no matter the tone.
    Your tone was completely appropriate and spot on, but the words were difficult to process for some readers.
    I myself agree with what you are saying, and I understand it.
    But others reading with/through me had to have the words explained; so as to let them know they werent being accused of being things or doing things to which they are morally opposed.
    As I said, the tone was appropriate and justified; it was the use of the second-person pronoun (called “accusatory tense”) that dismayed some of my sisters from reading the article with me.

    [Joy is responding through me. I am providing edits for clarity.-Pride]

    Hi, this is Joy.
    I was one of the people Pride was talking about reading this.
    I was cool with it since I identify w the getting judged because of how you look, but when i though it started getting about me, I got offensive [sic].
    [“Offensive” is the appropriate word for her reaction. She becomes very offensive when she feels offended. -P]
    I had to read it again and now I’m cool with it. It’s ok. But I want to try to tell you why it made me squick.

    If [someone] is too “pretty” they get called a sl*t and get bullied for it. It happens a lot w sex workers, esp [adult-film actresses] but even if the person is totally [chaste] they still get this kind of thing.
    So it’s like “be pretty, but not too pretty to be [desirable]” cuz if you are [desirable] that means you’re a bad person who needs to be [“taken down a notch”/assaulted/murdered].
    What’s that supposed to do? Make people want to [harm/disfigure/intentionally kill themselves] to [achieve moral superiority]?
    Thats whats there that I don’t know if it isn’t there with [sizism] and sanjsm [sic] is an subtle motive to kill “pretty” people. School shooters do it. That [Alt-Right/misogynist] Roger Elliot [sic] did it. He even wrote about it in his big boring story book that that’s what he wanted to do and part of why he did it.

    Ppl hate “pretty” ppl and it’s considered totally socially OK.
    W sizism and saniam [sic] there’s a lot of social rejection, [various other forms of institutional/systemic oppressions] and stigma.

    [What follows is Joy describing her most volatile “trigger” that sends her into a manic “Rage-State”-P]

    W sex workers, you can feel like people want to actually harm them because [non-sexworkers] think [non-sex workers] are better than [sex workers].
    [sex workers are seen as ‘disposable’]
    It hate that. [Repeated 2 times-P]
    It’s sick. [Repeated 3 times-P]
    That kind of morals needs to [be forcefully abolished/anihilated/erased]!

    I don’t know if that’s also common w ppl who get oppressed w sisizm [sic] and sanism, I don’t hear about it that much from them.
    Both victims of sizism and sanism and [those judged morally inferior based on their desirability] get suicide-baited. I know that. But i don’t know if it’s common to have that kind of wanting to kill them.
    I don’t know what to call this.
    Some people call it “Sl*t Shaming”. Some want to reclaim “Sl*t”, but I think it’s almost a slur.

    -Joy (it’s ok that Pride edited for me since they consider this a more “formal” setting but still wanted to let me to talk like I do. Thx-J)

  • CW: self-injury

    We (ΝΥΞ) try to take value-laden language like “bad”, “ill” “sick” and “diseased” out of our understanding of our own experiences.

    We are not our brain.
    We /have/ a brain.

    It’s the only brain we have and the only one we’ll ever have. Because it is the way it is, our brain is very sensitive to psycho-social stimuli and (most often) reacts in ways we do not always enjoy and can make the life we wish to live difficult to attain.

    We’re plural because this is the way our brain developed as a child, and we, ourselves, developed as a plural sisterhood as a response to the trauma of having a brain such as ours.

    Even with all of our safeguards and defense mechanisms, we are still not able to fully control how our brain reacts to things beyond those reactions we deem desirable.

    There are tools available that can help us in more effectively controlling for the ways in which our brain responds to psycho-social stimuli.

    These tools work with our brain at a biological level; a level that we are not well-equipped to address in purely psycho-social ways.
    These tools help stabilize the neuro-electric flux in our brain that keep us from reaching our full potential as individuals and as a plural sisterhood.

    These tools happen to come in pill-form and we deem the risks associated with them as worth taking.
    These pills are not safe, but then again nothing truly is.
    The only thing that has proven to be just as, if not more, effective at keeping us in our Reality is self-injury.

    We see the available psycho-active medicines as a preferable alternative to SI.

    Brain drugs will not solve the psycho-social stressors which we face. They will only work in reducing the neurologically-based challenges we face when attempting to resolve said stressors.
    To us, these drugs are a means to an end.
    Do we wish we did not have to use them?
    But because we have the brain we have, they help us get by and live the lives we wish to live.

    -Liberty, Serenity & Mercy

    In other words: we’re the only people we know who use brain drugs in order to hear voices (our own and each other’s), not silence them.

    We’ve taken issue with the author in the past for being too black-and-white, all-or-nothing in his characterization of his critics.
    We don’t kowtow to psychiatry or it’s practitioners.
    We don’t see ourselves as helpless victims.
    And we certainly don’t use medication as if it were some kind of “cure” for what we experience as neurodivergent people.
    Is there nothing to be said for self-/selves-determination?


  • Another thing that stands in the way of reform/revolution is the quasi-religious reverence that laypeople have for psychiatry.
    Psychiatry, as a political institution, has taken on many of the roles previously filled by the church; especially the roles regarding religion as a means of social control.
    It only has as much power as people give it.
    De-mystify it, and people will (finally) begin to see it as flawed and unworthy of such deference.

    And we can start right now by STOP calling DSM “The Bible of Psychiatry”!
    That epithet alone betrays the way some view psychiatry, even if they claim to be critical of it.
    Every time someone says this, remind all those present that it’s nothing more than a billing guide.
    Start with that.


    Here’s the article I wrote on this very issue.

  • Something about this reminds me of how we ended up in an “opioid epidemic” once the medical field adopted “Pain as the Fifth Vital Sign” and then started prompting every patient to disclose any pain they felt on a totally subjective scale.

    “You’re at Pain-3?! Here’s some Oxy.”
    “You experienced trauma?! Here’s some brain drugs.”


  • The ACEs are, unfortunately, extremely limiting.
    There are many forms of trauma that can cause serious adverse health effects that screening for ACEs would completely miss.
    We experience both Bipolarity and Multiplicity.
    We have an ACE score of zero.
    We’ve experienced many traumas, none of which would show up in a screening for the current set of adverse childhood experiences.
    Until they expand their understanding of trauma beyond abuse and neglect, screening for trauma will result in many false negatives.

    Going off what she said.
    Why do we never hear people talking about the trauma of *having* a “mental illness”?
    Your mind turning against you is a pretty damn horrifying experience. And when it happens when you’re a kid, and no one believes you because (back then) kids don’t get “manic-depression”…?
    Yeah, trauma.

    Another thing. Those of us in the plural/multiple community remember all too well the last time there was a big “fad” about mental health issues later in life meaning something bad happened in childhood.

    It’s a short and slippery slope from “what happened to you?”, to “who did this to you?”
    Too many impassioned laypeople and ambitious docs seize on this stuff?
    You’ve got yourself a moral panic.
    I don’t hear anyone having that conversation or raising those concerns.
    Let’s *not* go there, again.

  • Some of us in ΝΥΞ take issue with the idea of “symptoms” as learned behaviors/coping mechanisms, and applying this to all experiences of extreme states (so-called “mental illnesses”).
    Cognitive distortions, dissociation and emotional dysregulation, all of which we (the authors of this comment) experience, are not learned behaviors.
    They are responses to our environment based on our own individual neurotype.
    With the exception of dissociation, how would cognitive distortions and emotional dysregulation “work” for us?
    Those two are things we have had to cope *with*.
    And thanks to our own “brain-weird” we are able to use dissociation as a safeguard against psychosis.
    Our multiplicity has liberated us. It has been a strength and a gift without which we would not be where we are today:
    Not dependent.
    Not victims
    Not slaves.
    Not fools.
    Not dead.

    Just, us.

    I want to address a problem with this entire conversation happening in the comments; not just the article.

    We’re all asking “does ‘mental illness’ exist?”, but has anyone decided what we mean by “exist”?

    Take numbers for example.
    Numbers don’t exist objectively on their own. They’re not tangible “real” things that exist like rain and nails. Instead, they’re useful illusions that help us make sense of the world around us.

    Mental illnesses “exist” in the same way numbers, dreams and ideas exist.
    They’re concepts. They are artificial constructs we make in our head to describe other things that go on in our head.
    That’s about it.

    They “exist”; just in a different way.
    The problem begins when society starts treating “mental illnesses” as though they are objectively real; “an illness like any other”.

    They aren’t disease entities.
    They’re just a bunch of things that happen in our head that can sometimes make life difficult.

    I don’t want to get into it here, but where it REALLY gets problematic isn’t when they treat certain neurodivergences as “illnesses”; it gets REALLY bad when docs and laypeople start treating “mental illnesses” with the same seriousness and gravity as though they were Mortal Sins.

    I feel that you, Dr. Kelmenson, mean no disrespect to anyone; genuinely, I do. However, were I a more sensitive reader, I would hear your words as a slight bit condescending.
    “Psychiatry” has told us (my sisters and I) nothing.
    When they’ve tried to, we’ve laughed at it.
    As Seri said, we are not fools.
    All my sisters and I have come to believe about ourselves we constructed from our own lived/learned experiences, borrowing here and there from studies, theories, conceptual models, the shared experiences of others and many such things.
    “Psychiatry” cannot tell us anything.
    Only people can.
    People are flawed, imperfect and limited; but when they have letters after their names they are treated as infallible.
    To put it playfully:
    “We didn’t buy their product; it fell off the truck.”
    My sisters and I have found psychiatry to be useful for our purposes.
    It’s importance ends there.
    For us it is a means to an end.
    We are not ill, we are not sick.
    We have the brain we have, and we will have no other.
    If we want to live in this world, it will be in this body, with this brain.
    That is our choice.
    This means we welcome and accept all the difficulties and such what come with having a brain such as ours.