Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Comments by Armadillo

Showing 22 of 22 comments.

  • This is now basically an ethical question, if it is allowed to lie in certain situations, e.g. the eighth commandment.
    Already in the bible this is more interpreted, as something you do on purpose with the intention to harm your next one and therefore your community. (Exodus 20/16, Levitikus 19/11, Deuteronomum 19, 16-19 etc).

    The next question is now, if the psychiatrist is part of your “community” or rather it’s enemy and of course if he or she is harmed by you claiming of having “insight”.

    I also forgot to mention before, that in order to get rid of a guardianship, I recommend to of course admit that you have had difficulties in life and a crisis.
    Now however you are much better and thank them very much in their help in this.
    This I think, is also a matter of plain courtesy.

    Regarding alcohol and drugs it is known, that it is much better in court to admit, having had difficulties, and therefore you sought help.
    Then go and be free.

  • I would even assume, some people on this forum did’t have to pay for their trips out of reality at all.

    My understanding of trauma therapy is, that it is about being in here and now, not in the time of flash-backs from many years ago.
    This means grounding in reality, not escaping from reality, the only world we can live in and change.

    Also in Zen, the ultimate state of Zen is, to live at this moment in time and to be aware of it, not being with the mind in a completely different place.
    What I understood from the New Testament of the Bible, God can be only found in the fellow human being.

    Now being under the influence of drugs, both of this is impossible.

    Some years ago were there also a doctor in my country, who performed exactly this MDMA therapy with his patients. He killed several of them, so he went to jail for it and lost his license.

    I met him after all this at an event, which was on spiritual experiences, which I attended out of interest.
    These was however rather for people, who had them for free, so I took the opportunity to chat with him about, what he had done.
    First I was stunned, that he basically sought excuses and there was no real regret behind a superficial varnish.
    He did not claim any spiritual experiences himself, but, that he was in the end so much under the influence of drugs himself, he couldn’t focus on the patients anymore.

    I am even wondering, if he was looking for new customers, as you can perform as a “therapist” without a license, as this is not a protected term.

    The presence of this guy basically blasted the group in the shortest time possible, as it is known, that groups can’t stand the transference of having a murderer among them.
    He seemed anyhow being chased by furies.

    With Ayahuaska I have met people, who were in a permanent psychotic state still years later, and also had colleagues telling me in a whisper, of the most dreadful things, people have done under the influence of drugs.
    I also think, every experience under drugs will be an illusion.

    There will be always people, who want to do drugs. However I think, there is no other way with problems then to tackle and solve them in the real world and not to escape by drugs.

  • I cannot say much, without ever having met Britney, consistent with the Goldwater rule.

    The whole can of course also be a result of alcohol and drugs and Britney is certainly in complete denial regarding this.
    The only thing, which is sure, that one does not present oneself in this manner to a court, especially when there is also a custody battle for children going on.
    Her buddy Paris Hilton gave a better example, what to do, when she was charged with drunk driving, which is usually diagnostic.
    It is not a psychotic mania, but a communication is always a two sided affair and a lot is completely inappropriate.
    I would assume, Britney is an intelligent woman, as the runs a multi-million dollar business and the only other explanation for this presentation would be, that she is as thick as a brick, which is unlikely.

    What would indeed support the possibility of a manic depressive problem, is her past behavior, like that shaving her hair of in public. The counter transference in mania is of course, that it is infectious, but also that the others have the urge to restrict the person in their behavior.
    Also the relentless pushing of her father to have success, from extreme early age, her identifying with it.. etc.

    Britney’s “persona” is also the reincarnation of an American dance Barbie doll, and at the same time, of the ultimate “girl next door”, which was therefore also a tongue in cheek comment of mine.
    We all play theater all the time and being a professional performer, she has not gotten her act together at all.
    This all is really sad and tragic and I feel really sorry for her.

    I just want to remark, that a manic depressive problem is however a difference to chronic schizophrenia with an established delusional building, which has of course a very poor prognosis.

    The only thing, which is certain, is, that Britney was not helped by Psychiatry at all.

  • Hi Maria,

    thanks for elaborating further on this topic, as I have to admit, that I have not read her statement!

    Britney is of course clearly manic, but I explained earlier the classic stressors, which trigger a mania.
    It is the realization, that the relationship to the “dominant other” has completely failed, she has been exploited all along.
    Now explaining the matter to the court to actually get free from her fathers guardianship, she gives an excellent reason to continue it!

    Every lawyer in her right mind, would have advised her not to show up in such a state.

    The topic is however also really interesting for me, as I firmly believe, that a manic person is indeed in deep distress and that it is inhuman not to listen, what they have to say.
    Normally a manic person does tell of the reason of their distress, if you listen and this is also the title of this article!

    As I said, this conflict will drive her insane and it did!

    For getting out of a conservatorship, I just described it, as there might be people on MIA, for whom this might be useful.
    The civic court really just want to know, that you stabilized yourself after a crisis.
    If the conservator agrees to let you off, no assessment is of course needed.

    I forgot to mention: Regarding mania again, an important factor is also the disturbance of sleep.
    After the superego has been pushed aside and the ego is free, a lot of energy is released, so there is not so much sleep necessary anymore.
    The ego is happy and plays with the elements of the id, or the unconscious.
    This is also a lot of fun, but quite dangerous, as the unconscious is a strong force.
    By the lack of sleep gets the ego also weakened and therefore overwhelmed by the unconscious elements.
    Therefore a first aid measure is also to restore the sleep.
    In the end, the conflict, which triggered the crisis, has to be resolved.

    This is just my own theory, Freud himself explained depression as a problem of relationship, which it really is.
    Basically the rage, which should be directed to the other person, who has died, is directed against oneself.

    I was a bit disturbed by your explanation of mania as an iron overload.
    Iron do I associate with hard work, aggression and so on.
    Maybe there is a connection..

  • Addendum:
    I was talking about this book:
    https://www.freepsychotherapybooks.org/ebook/affective-disorders/
    and
    https://www.freepsychotherapybooks.org/ebook/severe-and-mild-depression/

    You will have to provide a name and e-mail address in order to download them, but there are no hidden bills or viruses I could detect.
    They only ask for donations to maintain the site.

    With the first book chapter about “Affective disorders” maybe start with the psychodynamic mechanism around page 45, as the start is a bit cumbersome.
    With Arieti’s book on depression I specifically recommend the chapter on Franz Kafka in order to understand psychotic depression.

    I once recommended in another posting Arieti’s “Interpretation of schizophrenia”, this you can actually also find there.
    https://www.freepsychotherapybooks.org/ebook/interpretation-of-schizophrenia/

    The conclusion regarding Britney is however, that her father should definitely not be her legal guardian, as this will drive her completely insane.

  • First, I of course do not think, it is a good idea to take psychotropic medication in pregnancy, that was a tongue in cheek reference to the authorities for this matter in the UK and USA.

    Lithium is an evil poison and I have seen with my own eyes the most dreadful deaths due to this drug. It only works as a calming substance with many side effects, but less draining then the “major tranquillizers”. After a crisis is over, I see no reason for any of these.

    To get rid of a conservatorship one has to follow the rules of the court.
    That means first to send a written request, that one rather wants to manage one’s own affairs again.
    This only has to be a single sentence and does not need any more reasons.

    Then to undergo an assessment of an psychiatrist or psychologist, who want to know, if you stabilized yourself again after the crisis.
    For this, tidy up your flat, put on a nice dress and tell them everything about being “the girl next door”, best with proof for job, sport club, social life and so on.

    Britney has not done any of these, therefore it is logical, that the courts can not lift the conservatorship.
    I am wondering, if this is all about an aging pop-star being back in the news, or if she should sue her own lawyer for incompetence, for not telling her this.

    Second there were some strange theories about the reasons for being manic-depressive.
    I personally find the explanation of Silvano Arieti best.

    He says, an depression is usually due to one of three stressors: The death of the “dominant other”, the realization, that the relationship to the “dominant other” has completely failed and that the “dominant goal” has existentially failed, which is the political party, the firma or a similar important principle.
    The “dominant other” is usually the spouse, but basically all of these symbolize the primary caretaker, and is of course suppressing the affected individual, but also giving a lot etc.

    With a mania the situation becomes so intolerable, that the person takes a leap out of it into another space. This is different from the schizophrenic psychotic break, as this is all about fun, having the best time of one’s life etc, as the early experiences as a child were different.
    This is but nothing about: Being happy, being more happy, then becoming manic.., but a deep existential trouble and crisis. Classically by talking about, what I going on, it is easy to get the manic person to start crying.

    Arietis book on depression and another on manic-depressive illness can you also find on the website http://www.free psychotherapy books.org which is a good start if you happen to not have the means for books, or the local library is crab, as they also selected legible books.
    As Britney cannot effectively fight for herself in respect of her father, this could be an indication, that she indeed has this problem.

    I found also, after talking to many people, that there is a risk for mania, when a very depressing situation has a sudden little whiff of freedom. That means, a little break of it, like a holiday, a free time from work or a chance of freedom from outside for the whole situation.

    From a practical point of view during an episode of mania:
    Think of the “es-ego-superego” model where ego is in the depression completely suppressed by the demands of the superego.
    In the mania the superego is lifted and to break the mania, it is important to have the superego back over again, this unfortunately de facto also means to straight go back into the depressive state, which can be easier resolved.
    This can only happen in the encounter with others, when the person recognizes himself as manic in the eyes of the other.

    All psychiatric problems are problem of relationships and for the real origin of depression at the end a bit of Melanie Klein .. According to her there is a difference in the development of the child, where the child sees the other not only as supplying goods, but as a person in their own right.
    It can happen in depression that the person uses the other as emotional trash can and in mania the others are just seen as background actors.
    To solve this, is only possible with the help of another, similar as you can’t learn to dance Tango alone.
    Britney should have the means for a therapy.

    Just one addendum to think over: Maybe all the great rock legends, in order to prevent self-destruction, should have been sedated and under the guardianship of their parents!

  • This is of course really appalling, for all the reasons named.

    From a practical point of view to get out of this situation, is however to ” play the game”.
    Judges are in no way enlightened, follow the rules and play it safe, especially in such a high profile case.
    This means therefore, that Britney undergoes such an assessment, she apparently refuses.
    Then just tell them, what they want to hear.
    This is all about being “normal” and nothing about crying every day.
    “Normal” is of course an artificial concept and therefore very easy to fake.
    Also about having a job, a sport club, a partner, a social life and so on.

    What I find specially appalling, is that her father is her legal guardian.
    From a psychological point of view, he more likely caused the problem in the first place.
    This is like “setting the fox to keep the geese”.
    Not all father- or mother-in laws approve of the partner.

    Regarding the pregnancy risk of Lithium: According to the British NICE guidelines the absolute risk for harm in pregnancy is 7 in a 1000.
    The correspondent ACOG practice bulletin states, that about one third of pregnant woman take psychotropic medication at some point during pregnancy. That was in 2008, so the numbers might be higher.
    That’s also regarding “normal”.

    It is usually easier to change a conservatorship, then to get rid of it, once there is no trust.
    That this is a problem here apparently, I think is due to that America romanticizes family relationships.

    For pop-singers it is also more “the norm” to succumb to break-downs and substance abuse.
    Also completely normal.

  • This is of course really appalling for all the reasons named.

    For practical purposes to get out of such a situation, it is really important to “play the game”.
    The judges are in no way enlightened, follow the rules and want to play it safe, especially with such a high profile case.
    That means, to undergo such an assessment, which Britney apparently refuses, and to tell them everything they want to hear.
    So all about being ” normal” and nothing about crying every day.

    “Normal” is of course an artificial concept and therefore quite easy to fake.
    Also about having a job, a sportclub, a partner, a social life and so on.

    Personally I think, it is quite appalling that Britneys father is her guardian, as from a psychological aspect, he is most likely, the person, who caused the original problem.
    That is a bit “to set the fox to keep the goose”.

    Generally father, or mother- in laws do not always approve the partner.
    The exaggerated risk of birth defects with lithium is 7 in a 1000, but this is of course not great.

    Normally it is more easy to change the conservator, when there is no trust.
    One problem is certaintly, that America romantizises family relationships.

  • This is certainly a contradiction, however it is not helpful to make excuses, so you can continue to use drugs.
    Everybody has a hard life.
    Drugs make every problem worse.

    I got the strong impression from the article, that the aim of this community is not abstinence, also it’s leader dwells on the benefits of drugs. and believes in “controlled drinking” etc
    At this point, we are talking about, is abstinence the only option, for exactly the receptor problems the drugs induced.
    It is known, that even after decades of abstinence, people are back within a week to their former level, once they start again.

    I rather have the impression that it’s the people in the community moan about, how good drugs are and that the public sees them as addicts.
    Stats are anyway, that 25% of addicts continue drinking in rehab.

    Dealing with personality disorders requires real training in psychotherapy.
    Being a philosopher might not be enough.

  • I disagree with a few points.

    First the substance abuse of course induces brain changes, which create problems.
    However never underestimate human willpower.

    I am a bit perplexed that the greatest obstacle is that the addict identifies as an addict and has to drop this self-image.
    The very essence of addiction is the denial.
    In my experience the addict believes to the end that he has control.
    There lurks also a dangerous concept around by not calling the addict an addict, like in India apparently, they can come back to social drinking.
    This, as of the brain changes by the substance, is no longer possible. The very idea of continuing the use of a substance, which nearly ruined one’ life, is already an oxymoron.

    To blame the life circumstances is considered one of the classical games by the anonymous alcoholics.

    Principally in it’s severe and self destructive form, addiction has always a basis in a severe early disturbance. So the concept of “poisonous milk” and relationship to the dead object etc..
    This certainly needs to be dealt with after the addiction is discarded.

    I am a bit wondering what happens after the therapeutic community in the real world.

  • I agree 100% with the author.

    In my experience psychiatrists are not secretly plotting to blight people’s life. They really believe in their model, which makes them so dangerous salesman.
    However it takes two to tango.

    The entire basis of psychology is, that you can’t change the other person, you can only change yourself.
    So the abuser does, what he does, but the only option is to look at the own responsibility and to make changes.
    The path to radical freedom is to take radical responsibility.

    Thomas Szasz went so far as to question the entire existence of mental illnesses. He claimed that people are just faking it, to get disability allowances. His prime example was hysteria, in for secondary gain.
    I disagree with Szasz, but I can understand his exaspiration.

  • I think “E. Baden” would have a hard time establishing herself as a psychotherapist in the USA.

    There seems to me the prevailing opinion of this web-side that stopping the psychiatric drugs is all you need.
    Nothing about root causes and tackling the issues, which caused the breakdown.

    It is more easy to define oneself as the poor victim, who after childhood abuse has all the rights to avoid adult responsibilities in all future and behave like a child.

    I am a bit surprised to learn, that there seems to be a hierarchy of mental illnesses among those affected.
    Is bipolar illness and PTSB on the top and schizophrenia at the bottom?
    Quite a bit of projection going on around the “mentally ill” to say his next his lower than themself.
    The “normal person” would see all undesirable.

    For me it is perfectly fine, if somebody is so offended by calling their problem by it’s name, to call it “tra-la-la” instead to continue the conversation.

    Personally I think it is important to recognize, where the problem is, in order to do something about it.
    It is like with a poisoned well that it is important to find it’s origins.

    There are the most excellent descriptions for all the different dispositions in the literature way before biological psychiatry came on. Personally I think the most important was done in the 40es, but regarding personality disorders there is an exception, there have been brilliant workers since then.

    As Steve mentions the different manifestations of schizophrenia, I recommend an American author, who used to be the APA President in that time (sic!), times have changed.
    Silvano Arieti, “Interpretation of schizophrenia”.
    Alone from the title you can see he understood the problematic.

    There are of course other mechanisms, where an ego gets weakened, in order to become psychotic, but the manifestations are different, like by illness, fever, lack of sleep.
    I think therefore to daze the poor weakened ego, who is overwhelmed by it’s own unconscious, even more with “major tranquillizers” is basically contraindicated.
    Regarding the discussion about antidepressiv-withdrawal:Those people did voluntary line up to get a quick fix.
    This must be quite a betrayal to them to realize that this comes with a price.

    Principally everyone has to decide how much they want to dive in to this.
    I certainly did, after I realized that those, who should, really did’t know, what they were doing.

  • This is now an answer to “Daiphanous weeping”:
    Principally the problematic of the schizophrenic has been quite well described, I refer to R. D. Laing, “The divided self”, Harold Searles, Gaetano Benedetti, Theodore Lidz.
    This long before biological psychiatry came on.

    It is seen as a problem of boundaries.
    In the earliest time in life the baby does not experience much difference between the caretaker and her/him. A very dominant person, who does not accept the child as an individual and misinterprets all signs can cause harm.
    The mothers world is the only normal and the child own self is very weak. So it can get easily overwhelmed by the own unconscious.
    Searles and Benedetti therefore describe a period of blurring of boundaries for healing like with the twin-dreams of Benedetti.
    However it is more important thenafter, to see the other as different with different interesting views and to connect and seperate oneself each moment from second to second.
    You seem to see the therapist as the overwhelming mom.

    Please note I am not a therapist, I work in a completely field and happily so.
    I am neither schizophrenic, my problem is different.

    Addendum also: I am uttermost surprised to learn that the concept of a training analysis is new in the USA even for therapists.
    Things have changed a lot since times where psychoanalysis/ psychotherapy was more common.

  • What bothers me about the diskussion regarding orthomolecular therapy, homeopathy and the like is not only the complete lack of evidence but the attitude:
    No need to change anything in your life but again somebody is coming with a magic little pill and again-sim-se-la-bing: everything will be all right!
    Maybe with less side-effects, but the attitude bothers me.

    I am quite shocked to learn, who does psychotherapy in the USA, it explains a lot.

    Here one studies psychology for six years and does the training for psychotherapy afterwards, which takes further three years. To become a specialist physician in psychotherapy it takes five years with masses of lectures and supervised own therapy in quite different settings. There is also a requirement to do one’s own psychotherapy in the field one later wants to practice in. Hopefully this helps with some of the counter-transference or egoistic issues.

    The two disciplins split in the 90es, before also psychotherapy was part of the education for psychiatrists. This is quite sad, as this used to be the expectation, but this was because of the advent of biological psychiatry.

    There is more to psychotherapy than just being supportive. That is rather used for crisis intervention.
    Some blundering of professional bounderies is hoped for by people with a schizophrenic condition, but it is more important to help someone towards independance.

  • To the author:
    I am really sorry for your situation.
    In my experience health care in each country develops as an interchange of patients expectations and those providing the service.
    Unless you are truely masochistic it would be a good idea to specialize in psychotherapy and help the people who really want to change something, instead of focussing on those who don’t.
    However also psychotherapy requires training, which is at least three years. Bad psychotherapists you seem to have encountered enough.
    I am not so familiar with the american regulations, in my country these are two different pathways for specialist recognition as a physician, with the psychiatry option only doing a brief stint in behavioral therapy and the other being a specialist physician in psychotherapy.
    We also have public funds for psychotherapy, as they also realize, that this is cheaper than paying disability pensions.
    However biologistic psychiatry is also dominating the field.
    So first check out how to become a psychotherapist in the USA, there are also patients who prefer this.

  • What makes matters regarding ADHD even more complicated, is, that stats show, that at least a third of these drugs are actually not consumed by the kids but their parents (e.g. mothers little helpers).
    Biological psychiatrists explain this easy: As ADHD is an inherited brain disease, mom also has adult ADHD und needs the pills as well.
    I once was told off, as I prescribed a related slimming-pill on special request, but this woman was at least honest!
    At another rehab facility for this problem both mom and kids were admitted, while mom was recovering from her amphetamine addiction was she personally handing these drugs every day out to her kids.
    However even Freud had a oft spot for cocaine and R.D. Laing, being Scottish, issues with alcohol.

  • I once worked in a methadon program as a professional, which was also a family practice.
    The psychiatrist of the program believed in the existence of “adult ADHD”. Friends of the general practitioner showed up with questionaires, where they were found, that they had this problem and got treated accordingly. None of them appeared to me abnormal.
    Basically also in the methadon program the physician in now the dealer. None of these people ever tapered off or got drug-free. The option was of course there. This is however better for society, as there are less drug related crimes like theft and robbery and less transmittable diseases.
    Things are never easy.

  • I don’t think this is a fair comment.
    In my experience the greatest obstacle are the users themselves, who prefer a parentlike figure waving a magic wand or giving a portion, so all problems are solved.
    There is a minority, who want to face their issues and work them through.
    For them this website and above book provide enough information to realize that pills are not a solution.
    What I am missing in this website and discussion is however the insight, that just stopping the drugs neither solves anything.
    The only option is to tackle the issues causing the crisis and find one’s own way.

  • That’s shocking!
    Same thing happened to me, although a bit cheaper. I got a 4500 Dollar bill for a 10 day involuntary hospitalization. That was for a nervous breakdown as of a bullying situation at work and sleepless nights of stress and worry.
    I never paid that bill, but left the country. (It was in Australia and my visa depended on my employer anyhow.)
    Needless to say, the stay was traumatizing. Nobody talked to me, they did not believe me etc.
    That’s 14 years ago, I am fine since.

  • The bible is also full of stories of ghosts, demons, possession and Jesus exorcising them, by example driving these evil spirits into pigs.
    I had a christian friend, who explained her psychosis as having been possessed by a ghost and continues to believe in them.
    Psychologically I find this concept problematic.
    Instead of accepting these phantasies as the own unconcious, they get externalised, which is also the mechanism of paranoid psychosis.
    It certainly will bring relief, but might worsen prognosis and the way back.