Sunday, July 12, 2020

Comments by Eliana Yashgur

Showing 5 of 5 comments.

  • As this article rightfully points out, controlling for previous medications taken is critical. Especially for bipolar disorder, whose symptoms we sometimes see in children as side effects of antidepressants and sometimes stimulants. The question being, whether the bipolar disorder that is organic is the same in terms of etiology as the “bipolar disorder” that develops as a result of psychotropic medication. It is likely that they are not the same. Hence, this history needs to be known in order for an appropriate treatment plan to be developed.

  • Amazing article, so accurate. It is indeed true that psychiatry/clinical psychology in western countries tends to make value judgments, which is not the place of these fields. Psychology/psychiatry is a science that provides theories and information as to the neuroscientific causes of our behaviors. Its role is to say, so to speak, “if one is in circumstance X he/she will do or feel Y provided that Z”. These are facts. They do not say anything about what “should” happen because “should” is subjective. The “shoulds” in life come not from a science like psychology but rather from things like morals, values, religions and cultures, and the personal search for Truth and meaning. The problem is when a part of the world’s research into the science of human behavior begins proposing solutions and views of humanity that imply subjective judgments of the human condition, such as proposing answers to the question of what is normal. This is where “shoulds” about one’s choices of behavior, lifestyle, and attitude/interpretations erroneously come about. This is the unfortunate state of the worldwide mental health industry today.

  • Excellent points raised. It is indeed very true that the way our brain processes an experience may be very different from how *we* define that experience, the latter of which can be heavily influenced by the ethos in the mental health community these days of creating “disorders” where there may not be. The anxiety example given in this article is perfect. Our body and mind are programmed to send an alert in given situations to protect us from harm. The question is how we interpret that alert- we can simply heed the body’s guidance and move on, or label the experience and perhaps even other experiences we link with that one in our minds as evidence of our nervousness and unease. Moreover, one may even define himself based on his/her interpretations of his/her reactions to external stimuli. A lot of subjectivity here, which the article accurately points to.

  • Wonderful post. I agree that sometimes madness is a natural response to one’s surroundings, it is an attempt to find inner balance. The question is whether it is the role of the world of psychology to help one address this. It can be argued that by interfering in one’s life this way, psychology may be making value judgments as to the way one should act. Speaking within a certain range, there are no “shoulds.”