Re: Listening to Madness

May 12, 2009

>

> http://www.newsweek.com/id/195694

>

> Listening to Madness

>

> Why some mentally ill patients are rejecting their medication and making the

case for 'mad pride.'

>

along the same lines:

The Wholesale Sedation of America's Youth

By M. Weiss, Skeptical Inquirer. is.gd/yXAW

In the winter of 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association

published the results of a study indicating that 200,000 two- to four-year-olds

had been prescribed Ritalin for an " attention disorder " from 1991 to 1995.

Judging by the response, the image of hundreds of thousands of mothers grinding

up stimulants to put into the sippy cups of their preschoolers was apparently

not a pretty one.

Most national magazines and newspapers covered the story; some even

expressed dismay or outrage at this exacerbation of what already seemed like a

juggernaut of hyper-medicalizing childhood. The public reaction, however, was

tame; the medical community, after a moment's pause, continued unfazed. Today,

the total toddler count is well past one million, and influential psychiatrists

have insisted that mental health prescriptions are appropriate for children as

young as twelve months. For the pharmaceutical companies, this is progress.

In 1995, 2,357,833 children were diagnosed with ADHD (Woodwell 1997) --

twice the number diagnosed in 1990. By 1999, 3.4 percent of all American

children had received a stimulant prescription for an attention disorder. Today,

that number is closer to ten percent. Stimulants aren't the only drugs being

given out like candy to our children. A variety of other psychotropics like

antidepressants, antipsychotics, and sedatives are finding their way into

babies' medicine cabinets in large numbers. In fact, the worldwide market for

these drugs is growing at a rate of ten percent a year, $20.7 billion in sales

of antipsychotics alone (for 2007, IMSHealth 2008).

While the sheer volume of psychotropics being prescribed for children

might, in and of itself, produce alarm, there has not been a substantial

backlash against drug use in large part because of the widespread perception

that " medically authorized " drugs must be safe. Yet, there is considerable

evidence that psychoactive drugs do not take second place to other controlled

pharmaceuticals in carrying grave and substantial risks. All classes of

psychoactive drugs are associated with patient deaths, and each produces serious

side effects, some of which are life-threatening.

In 2005, researchers analyzed data from 250,000 patients in the

Netherlands and concluded that " we can be reasonably sure that antipsychotics

are associated in something like a threefold increase in sudden cardiac death,

and perhaps that older antipsychotics may be worse " (Straus et al. 2004). In

2007, the FDA chose to beef up its black box warning (reserved for substances

that represent the most serious danger to the public) against antidepressants

concluding, " the trend across age groups toward an association between

antidepressants and suicidality . . . was convincing, particularly when

superimposed on earlier analyses of data on adolescents from randomized,

controlled trials " (Friedman and Leon 2007). Antidepressants have been banned

for use with children in the UK since 2003. According to a confidential FDA

report, prolonged administration of amphetamines (the standard treatment for ADD

and ADHD) " may lead to drug dependence and must be avoided. " They further

reported that " misuse of amphetamine may cause sudden death and serious

cardiovascular adverse events " (Food and Drug Administration 2005). The risk of

fatal toxicity from lithium carbonate, a not uncommon treatment for bipolar

disorder, has been well documented since the 1950s. Incidents of fatal seizures

from sedative-hypnotics, especially when mixed with alcohol, have been recorded

since the 1920s.

Psychotropics carry nonfatal risks as well. Physical dependence and severe

withdrawal symptoms are associated with virtually all psychoactive drugs.

Psychological addiction is axiomatic. Concomitant side effects range from

unpleasant to devastating, including: insulin resistance, narcolepsy, tardive

dyskenisia (a movement disorder affecting 15–20 percent of antipsychotic

patients where there are uncontrolled facial movements and sometimes jerking or

twisting movements of other body parts), agranulocytosis (a reduction in white

blood cells, which is life threatening), accelerated appetite, vomiting,

allergic reactions, uncontrolled blinking, slurred speech, diabetes, balance

irregularities, irregular heartbeat, chest pain, sleep disorders, fever, and

severe headaches. The attempt to control these side effects has resulted in many

children taking as many as eight additional drugs every day, but in many cases,

this has only compounded the problem. Each " helper " drug produces unwanted side

effects of its own.

The child drug market has also spawned a vigorous black market in high

schools and colleges, particularly for stimulants. Students have learned to fake

the symptoms of ADD in order to obtain amphetamine prescriptions that are

subsequently sold to fellow students. Such " shopping " for prescription drugs has

even spawned a new verb. The practice is commonly called " pharming. " A 2005

report from the Partnership for a Drug Free America, based on a survey of more

than 7,300 teenagers, found one in ten teenagers, or 2.3 million young people,

had tried prescription stimulants without a doctor's order, and 29 percent of

those surveyed said they had close friends who have abused prescription

stimulants.

In a larger sense, the whole undertaking has had the disturbing effect of

making drug use an accepted part of childhood. Few cultures anywhere on earth

and anytime in the past have been so willing to provide stimulants and

sedative-hypnotics to their offspring, especially at such tender ages. An entire

generation of young people has been brought up to believe that drug-seeking

behavior is both rational and respectable and that most psychological problems

have a pharmacological solution. With the ubiquity of psychotropics, children

now have the means, opportunity, example, and encouragement to develop a

lifelong habit of self-medicating.

Common population estimates include at least eight million children, ages

two to eighteen, receiving prescriptions for ADD, ADHD, bipolar disorder,

autism, simple depression, schizophrenia, and the dozens of other disorders now

included in psychiatric classification manuals. Yet sixty years ago, it was

virtually impossible for a child to be considered mentally ill. The first

diagnostic manual published by American psychiatrists in 1952, DSM-I, included

May 13, 2009

Some general comments on "listening to madness" and 'mad pride'1. For some people, it may be liberation, 'an idea whose time has come' BUT for others it may be enslavement, the source of their downfall.Thus, it may be like many other innovations, bringing good to some and harm to others.2. My own views are colored by my own family upbringing. This is rather long.a) When growing up, I realized my mom was very supicious of people and that she 'heard' things that were not audible to others, & took comments as being made about her. When she was widowed, her doctor advised me to apply to become her legal guardian as he felt she could not cope on her own. I refused to do this, as i had distanced

myself from her for my own well being, but I

did apply to a

government agency in the province where she was, to have "the state" asses her and appoint a guardian for her if

necessary. She was assessed by mental health professionals who deemed her competant, diagnosed her as paranoid schizophrenic, but no danger to self or others. (her own doctor was just an MD not a specialist so he did not count)Thus my mom was able to chose where to live, how to live etc, and if she chose, to give away her savings. I don't know if she was happier this way than if she had been forcibly under a guardian's care and possibly given medication. In her last year of life, her health deteriorated, She did have a person who was legally involved in her life, i forget the term. My mom was hospitalized and put on a low dose of some psychiatric medication. When my husband and I were going through a difficult time, i told him to never try and have me 'committed' to an instutution, but to leave me. ( & that if he did try to have me committed I would leave him) To me

freedom is vital, to live where, how and with others or alone, as I choose.c) One of my dad's sisters was diagnosed as

manic

depressive (now called bi-polar) when she was in her 50's. By then I was living in Alberta and had not seen her for some years, I knew her as a very kind outgoing person. She would periodically be hospitalized against her will, get stabilized on medication, then be released, seem OK for a while and relapse. My aunt tried to kill her husband, but did not succeed. Her grown daughter was afraid of her, even thiough they lived in different cities. My opinion of my aunt's situation is that she could have murdered someone if she had not been treated for her illness.d) my dad was very volatile, moody, emotional, and was violent at times. i do not know if he was ever diagnosed with a mental problem.3. a) My feeling is that if some one is deemed to be a possible danger to themselves or others, them medical intervention is best, but if they are not deemed to be a danger, they have the right to live in freedom.

HOWEVER this leads to the questions: What criteria are to be used??and who is to make the decision?? How is this process to be

truly fair or impartial??4) some of the great scientists of the past might be deemed in need of psychaitric care if they lived today: examplesNicola Tesla, http://http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/Museum/tesla.htmla brilliant physicist who was also an eccentric and lonerMarie Curie (who, when asked if she wanted to be introduced to a member of royalty, replied " I don't see the utility of that") and was so focused on scientific advancement that her health sufferedIf they had lived today, and been co-erced into being under psychaitric care, would they have lost their genius??renaissanzelady"My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God."(adapted from a poem by

Smart)From: environmental1st2003

<no_reply >Subject: Listening to MadnessTo: FAMSecretSociety Received: Monday, May 11, 2009, 3:18 PM

http://www.newsweek .com/id/195694

Listening to Madness

Why some mentally ill patients are rejecting their medication and making the case for 'mad pride.'

By Alissa Quart | NEWSWEEK

Published May 2, 2009

From the magazine issue dated May 18, 2009

We don't want to be normal," Will Hall tells me. The 43-year-old has been diagnosed as schizophrenic, and doctors have prescribed antipsychotic medication for him. But Hall would rather value his mentally extreme states than try to suppress them, so he doesn't take his meds. Instead, he practices yoga and avoids coffee and sugar. He is delicate and thin, with dark plum polish on his fingernails and black fashion sneakers on his feet, his half Native American ancestry evident in his dark hair and dark eyes. Cultivated and charismatic, he is also unusually energetic, so much so that he seems to be vibrating even when sitting still.

I met Hall one night at the offices of the Icarus Project in Manhattan. He became a leader of the groupâ€”a "mad pride" collectiveâ€”in 2005 as a way to promote the idea that mental-health diagnoses like bipolar disorder are "dangerous gifts" rather than illnesses. While we talked, members of the groupâ€”Icaristas, as they call themselvesâ€”scurried around in the purple-painted office, collating mad-pride fliers. Hall explained how the medical establishment has for too long relied heavily on medication and repression of behavior of those deemed "not normal." Icarus and groups like it are challenging the science that psychiatry says is on its side. Hall believes that psychiatrists are prone to making arbitrary distinctions between "crazy" and "healthy," and to using medication as tranquilizers.

"For most people, it used to be, 'Mental illness is a diseaseâ€”here is a pill you take for it'," says Hall. "Now that's breaking down." Indeed, Hall came of age in the era of the book "Listening to Prozac." He initially took Prozac after it was prescribed to him for depression in 1990. But he was not simply depressed, and he soon had a manic reaction to Prozac, a not uncommon side effect. In his frenetic state, Hall went on to lose a job at an environmental organization. He soon descended into poverty and started to hear furious voices in his head; he walked the streets of San Francisco night after night, but the voices never quieted. Eventually, he went to a mental-health clinic and was swiftly locked up. Soon after, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He was put in restraints and hospitalized against his will, he says. For the next year, he bounced in and out of a public psychiatric hospital that he likens to a prison. The humiliation and what he

experienced as the failure of the medication were what turned him against traditional treatment. Since then, Hall has been asking whether his treatment was really necessary. He felt sloshily medicated, as if he couldn't really live his life.

Hall and Icarus are not alone in asking these questions. They are part of a new generation of activists trying to change the treatment and stigma attached to mental illness. Welcome to Mad Pride, a budding grassroots movement, where people who have been defined as mentally ill reframe their conditions and celebrate unusual (some call them "spectacular" ) ways of processing information and emotion.

Just as some deaf activists prefer to embrace their inability to hear rather than "cure" it with cochlear implants, members of Icarus reject the notion that the things that are called mental illness are simply something to be rid of. Icarus members cast themselves as a dam in the cascade of new diagnoses like bipolar and ADHD. The group, which now has a membership of 8,000 people across the U.S., argues that mental-health conditions can be made into "something beautiful." They mean that one can transform what are often considered simply horrible diseases into an ecstatic, creative, productive or broadly "spiritual" condition. As Hall puts it, he hopes Icarus will "push the emergence of mental diversity."

Embracing "mental diversity" is one thing, but questioning the need for medication in today's pill-popping world is controversialâ€” and there have been instances in which those who experience mental extremes harm themselves or others. Icaristas argue that some of the severely mentally ill may avoid taking medication, because for some the drugs don't seem to help, yet produce difficult side effects. And while some side effects like cognitive impairment are surely debilitating, others are more subtle, such as the vague feeling that people are not themselves. Icaristas call themselves "pro-choice" about medsâ€”some do take their drugs, but others refuse.

Mad pride has its roots in the mad-liberation movement of the 1960s and '70s, when maverick psychiatrists started questioning the boundaries between sane and insane, and patients began to resist psychiatric care that they considered coercive. But today the emphasis is on support groups, alternative health and reconsidering diagnostic labeling that can still doom patients to a lifetime of battling stigma. Icarus also frames its mission as a somewhat literary oneâ€”helping "to navigate the space between brilliance and madness." Even the name Icarus, with its origin in the Greek myth of a boy who flew to great heights (brilliance) but then came too close to the sun (madness) and hurtled to his death, has a literary cast.

Although Icarus and Hall focus on those diagnosed as mentally ill, their work has much broader implications. Talking to Hall, I was acutely aware just how much their stance reflects on the rest of usâ€”the "normal" minds that can't read through a book undistracted, the lightly depressed people, the everyday drunks who tend toward volatility, the people who "just" have trouble making eye contact, those ordinary Americans who memorize every possible detail about Angelina Jolie.

After all, aren't we all more odd than we are normal? And aren't so many of us one bad experience away from a mental-health diagnosis that could potentially limit us? Aren't "normal" minds now struggling with questions of competence, consistency or sincerity? Icarus is likewise asking why we are so keen to correct every little deficitâ€”it argues that we instead need to embrace the range of human existence.

While some critics might view Icaristas as irresponsible, their skepticism about drugs isn't entirely unfounded. Lately, a number of antipsychotic drugs have been found to cause some troubling side effects.

There are, of course, questions as to whether mad pride and Icarus have gone too far. While to his knowledge no members have gravely harmed themselves (or others), Hall acknowledges that not everyone can handle the Icarus approach. "People can go too fast and get too excited about not using medication, and we warn people against throwing their meds away, being too ambitious and doing it alone," he says.

But is this stance the answer? Stanley, a director of the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit working to provide treatment for the mentally ill, is somewhat critical. Stanley, who suffers from bipolar illness with psychotic features, argues that medication is indispensable for people with bipolar disease or with schizophrenia. Stanley's group also supports mandatory hospitalization for some people suffering severe mental illnessâ€”a practice that Icarus calls "forced treatment."

Scholars like Kramer, author of "Listening to Prozac" and "Against Depression," also take a darker view of mental extremes. "Psychotic depression is a disease," Kramer says. As the intellectual who helped to popularize the widespread use of antidepressants, Kramer is nonetheless enthusiastic about Icarus as a community for mad pride. Yet he still argues that mental-health diagnoses are very significant. "In an ideal world, you'd want good peer support like Icarusâ€”for people to speak up for what's right for them and have access to resourcesâ€”and also medication and deep-brain stimulation, " he says.

For his part, Hall remains articulate, impassioned and unmedicated. He lives independently, in an apartment with a roommate in Oregon, where he is getting a master's in psychology at a psychoanalytic institute. He maintains a large number of friendships, although his relationships, he says, are rather tumultuous.

Nevertheless, it's not so easy. Hall periodically descends into dreadful mental states. He considers harming himself or develops paranoid fantasies about his colleagues and neighbors. Occasionally, he thinks that plants are communicating with him. (Though in his mother's Native American culture, he points out, this would be valued as an ability to communicate with the spirit world.)

On another night, I had dinner with eight Icarus members at a Thai restaurant in midtown Manhattan. Over Singha beer, they joked about an imaginary psychoactive medication called Sustain, meant to cure "activist burnout." It was hard to imagine at the dinner what Hall had suffered. While he and his "mad" allies were still clearly outsiders, they had taken their suffering and created from it an all-too-rare thing: a community.

Instant message from any web browser! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA

May 13, 2009

" my dad was very volatile, moody, emotional, and was violent at times. i do not

know if he was ever diagnosed with a mental problem. "

Sometimes circumstances make people this way. While there was obviously a

history of mental illness in your dad's family, sometimes being the " normal " one

among them can drive a person crazy.

My mother is an alcoholic and I believe she has fried a significant number of

brain cells. It seems I cannot write her e-mails these days without her not

understanding them. She is not old enough to be going senile, and she does not

present with Alzhiemer's symptoms. She just acts dippy sometimes, and it is very

frustrating for both me and my sister to deal with her. The less I see her, the

more sane I feel, and I am usually in a better mood the less contact I have with

her.

Administrator

May 13, 2009

" my dad was very volatile, moody, emotional, and was violent at times. i do not

know if he was ever diagnosed with a mental problem. "

With a history of mental illness in the family, it is quite possible that if he

was actually the more grounded person among them, him being in that position can

have the unfortunate effect of making him moody and emotional, and sometimes

violent.

I can tell you that my mother drives both my sister and I nuts. My mother is not

senile, nor does she present with Alzhiemer's symptoms, but she is an alcoholic.

I believe she has killed off many of her brain cells.

These past two days I have sent e-mail letters to her which have resulted in

replies that indicated she did not understand the gist of my letters. I write to

her in very plain English. Much plainer than I do here to forestall a lack of

understanding on her part, and nothing frustrates me more when she STILL fails

to understand me.

Do I have to write along the lines of a " See spot. See spot run. " story?

What is especially frustrating for me is that her alcoholism has ALWAYS stood as

a barrier between her understanding me, my sister, or what's going on around

her. She is not that intelligent to begin with, pile on the alcoholism, and

dealing with her all these years has resulted in me having a short fuse. It is

hard for me to honor and respect her with each passing day.

A person looking at my relationship with her might think it rude, or

disrespectful, but they did not see the hypocrisy of her not making the effort

to listen to me while striving to appear normal to people outside of the family.

If she can work so hard to listen to and pay attention to people that do not

matter, then why can't she work that hard for the family?

They would not see all the embarassing things she has said or done which have

alienated friends of mine, like how when I was young I avoided bringing them

over for fear of my mother saying or doing something stupid during her drinking

binges.

The dynamics of a situation really are not that hard to understand. There are

plausible reasons for everyone's behavior. A person just needs to get inside

their heads.

Administrator

May 13, 2009

"my response; for many years I was emotionally bound to my mom, (a counsellor called it emotional incest, as mom treated me as a confidant, while i was groing up) it was not till I was in my 30's that I viewed things more objectively, realized that my mom would provoke my dad, even when he nicley said 'i'm tired after work, let me read the newspaper' she would keep bugging him till he 'exploded'"

I understand the concept of emotional incest from my psychology and educational psychology classes in college. My mother was the same way as your mom. My counselor confirmed this years later in counseling sessions. When I told my mother I no longer wished to hear about her marital problems, she then started blabbing to my sister. My sister's counselor called it emotional incest too. When my sister told her to knock it off, my mother distanced herself from both of us.

"My dad and his sister woud have heated arguments and not speak for years, her bi-polar condition may have been a factor."

Probably. When you have too much stress in one area -or two-, lesser things that would be trifling under other circumstances weigh disproportionately heavy in one's mind.

"After I grew up, people would ask WHY I did not go to visit my parents, but some did not really want to hear my reasons, even when recounted briefly."

Yes. Guest/visitors/other family members/friends etc., seldom believe that what YOU are telling them are true because what they see when they look at the subject of your comments is usually a nice person acting on their best behavior. People generally do not like to think bad thoughts about other people because doing so causes them to question their own moral character, so they are less likely to believe what you say and more likely to turn the discussion to other avenues.

"My husband accused me of trying to turn him against my dad, After my dad died, my husband suggested that I pursue trying to become my mom's legal guardian, bring her to live in our city and go to counselling MYSELF to learn to cope with her, after I had told him I was NOT going to become involved with her again."

People who are abusers, and sometimes people who are mentally ill, hide their personas so well that others believe that your perceptions about them are all in your head. It is good that you stuck to your guns.

"To avoid a hastle, I learned to not discuss my family of origin, or would come up with a semi truthful reply if questioned."

I never lied. But I don't talk about my family too much with anyone because people cannot keep confidences. If I tell them something in confidence, the subject of the discussion knows about it before the day is over. Such is the character of NTs. They are gossippers.

"In one sense, this self imposed secrecy is unfortunate because ther was a lot of good in my parents, they taught me a lot; but when I would tell people about the good things, then there woud be questions of; do you visit often etc etc..."

Yep.

"My mom also would not listen to me, then wonder why i stopped telling her things. OR she would twist what I told her and use it as a weapon against me."

My mom never twisted anything I said to her. She just never kept my confidences and mis-stated or over-dramaticized whatever I told her. So I have kept quiet around her, telling her very little about my life in recent years.

She also has a selective nature in chosing what she tells others about me. I might send her a link to a TV interview, or to a newspaper article where I have appeared, and she never pases THOSE on or even tells anyone about them. But if I screw up in some way, then she immediately calls someone and tells them about it, usually concluding the discussion with "That Asperger's is what the problem is." As in " bought something at the store and discovered at the counter that they rang it up for two dollars higher than they should have, so rather than wait for the person to do a price check, he just had them deduct the item from the tally and left the item there. That Asperger's is what the problem is. He should have just waited for a price check."

The actual facts might have been that I had an appointment and did not want to wait around an extra five minutes for a price check, but she conveniently leaves that out of the discussion.

Asperger's had nothing to do with it, in other words. But with her, Asperger's has EVERYTHING to do with it.

She also messes things up on the few ocassions when she recognizes me for doing something good. My mother's side of the family is very artistic for example. Her father painted and sketched. She paints and sketches. So do I. But out of the three of us, I am the most talented. According to her, it's my AS which makes this so.

I think in regard to my creativity, she may have a point. I can paint, draw, write, and do any kind of art or craft or woodworking project. I can draw up architectural plans with everything being sound according to structural engineering. My ability to see objects and understand HOW they are made to function is probably an AS thing too. But my core creativity on its most basic level is something that runs in the family.

"My mom was probably quite intellegent BUT lacked some life skills and was paranoid."

Here is a word of advice: Don't blame or resent her for her mental illness. My mom is -intellectually speaking - a brick short of a hod, and while this irks me, I don't love her any less for her being unintelligent. But though alcoholism is a disease, it is an acquired one, and one that can be managed, yet instead of managing it, she is putting more nurturing and nursing into it than she ever did with me. It is what I sometimes like to think of as my second sibling. There is me, sis, and my step-brother alcoholism.

I think even people with mental illnesses can control many of the decisions they make, and so they should still be held accountable for those that they make freely. Alcoholism is an example of this.

"This casual friends thing did not work for long, she would tell me people who were out to get her, or she would criticize me for not writing more etc. etc. so i eventually stopped writing, would send an very occasional card."

Your mom is co-dependent. That is why she is so demanding.

"We each live in our own world view, maybe people don't really want to get inside some one else's head. (when their world view is so different from ours)"

True, but I find it easier to understand someone if I dig deep. The downside of this is that people call people who do this judgemental. What you find if you dig deep are usually similar motivations for people's behavior, similar aspirations, similar fears. Once you've seen enough of it, you can see another person and almost on sight you can say "I've seen this before" and be right a good percetage of the time.

"for example: I find it difficult to understand those who have an undying loyalty to an abusive family (inspite of abuse)"

It's a combination of co-dependency and reverse symbiosis. What happens is a person's value is based on how much they feel they can "help" the abuser, and they don't feel any self-worth until the abuser abuses and they are then able to provide the abuser with help, thus they do nothing to stop the abuse completely, and they also subconsciously provoke the abuser.

As part of recovery from abusive situations, the abused are told that the abuse is not their fault and the abuse is entirely the fault of the abuser. The truth is, no one deserves to be abused, but there is seldom a situation where a person cannot remove themselves from an abusive situation when things get thick. In this single respect, a person plays a role in their own abuse. Just their presence makes them open to abuse, and in addition to that, saying something, or doing something, or making some kind of movement, or anything else which may cause an abuser to strike IS the fault of the abused because if the abused was not there to begin with, the abuser would not be able to abuse them.

Of course what I am talking about is abuse between one adult and another that takes place a SECOND time (one abusive encounter ought to be enough to cause the abused person to leave), or abuse between one child and another. A child who is abused by an adult has no ways or means of being independent short of being adopted. They are in a bigger bind.

"second example: people who grew up in a genuinley happy family may not be able to comprehend the view of someone who grew up with an alcoholic parent or a mentally ill parent,..."

This is why I think NTs lack empathy. I also think this is why it IS acceptable to pigeonhole and pre-judge people. You can easily file people according to race, gender, religion, socio-economic status, etc., and just about every single one of them has no conception -nor can they imagine- what it is like to be a person of another race, gender, religion, or socio-economic status.

People are mployed as actuarials to figure out how a person in each demographic will behave. This is how insurance companies can pay out gigantic sums of money and still stay profitable: They kknow more about every kind of person there is than an average person could know. Yet what are insurance companies comprised of? Why, people of course. All a person needs to do is THINK about everything another person is or has and you can get a pretty accurate profile of why that person behaves they way they do.

But this is beyond the mental capacity of the majority of opur population, apparently. Although I do not think lack of intelligence has anything to do with it. I think it is mere laziness on their part combined with an egotistical desire to not be seen as judgemental and prejudiced.

"or it may distress them to consider those situations."

Yes, there are people who have a low threshhold for that sort of thing.

But I have also foundf that there is another sort of person who seems to live in a perpetual state of denial only because they are too wimpy to face their own feelings about such things. I have found by far that these people are like a neighbor who lived down the street, who expressed no emotion when her husband died - was filled with pleasure in fact, because I he was being sent home to Jesus. Promptly she threw out all of his things and sold her house within one year. I do not think she has grappled with her husband's death yet, but prides herself on being a strong woman.

Charities make a killing on people like this. When I worked for a consulting firm for non-profits, I sat in on a meeting with the CEO of one of the world's largest charities. They tried to do things the legitimate way by explaining the plight of starving kids in Africa, but their donations really went up when they showed starving African kids with flies crawling in their eyes on their TV spots.

People need to make an emotional connection, you see. Either they want to donate because they really feel what the starving child must be feeling and want to help them...or they want to get that disgusting little brat off their television screens so they don't have to feel guilty anymore.

I had a friend (now dead -fell off a cliff while rock climbing on his birthday and died of exposure) who joined the US Peace Corps and built bomas for homeless African peasants, parcelled out food, and whatnot. This lack of job irked his parents, but inspired me to go down a more philanthropic path with my life.

I admired him then and admire him now. In some ways, I wish I could be AS philanthropic as he was.

But I admire equally someone who can say without guilt: "I don't give a damn about those starving kids in Africa. They can rot for all I care" because at least they are being honest and have grappled with the inner emotional conflict one faces when confronted with such issues.

Though not Catholic, I was very much inspired to continue to care for my ailing grandmother before she died after a two minute discussion with a Mother Superior. My grandmother, towards the end of her life, was bedridden and in a perpetually foul mood. Most of this was due to all the medications she was on. Food tasted terrible to her. She would not eat anything the nursing home cooked for her. So everyday I was bringing her her favorite soup which I made for her, a newspaper to read, and I would stay and chat with her a while. She was at the very end bitter that she had a good mind but an all but dead body. At 94 she had a better memory that I do at my present age. There was not a dight or a whit wrong with her mind. But her body was so poor she could no longer walk and could hardly breathe.

I had just worked a ten hour day at my job, driven 45 minutes to my home, cooked her soup and then brought it over to the nursing home. The nun who was manning the front desk wished me a good evening as I signed my name on the In/Out sheet, and I looked up to her and was about to say : "It's all right for you to say 'Good evening' to me as you stand there in your habit that was paid for by the Catholic Church. You can just walk across to the convent when you are finished here and get a meal and a bed, etc. But I still have to go home after this and cook, and pay my bills and do some chores and a shitload of other things, so my evening is certainly not 'Good" and by the looks of things, these evenings are only going to get worse as time goes on."

I looked at her directly and just as I opened my mouth to yell at her, I saw her more closely: She was an old nun, and she was dressed all in flowing white. She really did look angelic.

She said: "You're here to see your grandmother?"

"Yes," I said.

"You are a very good grandson," she said. "There are many people here who never come to see their grandparents. You see her everyday, don't you?"

I am not sure how she knew THAT, because I had not said anything. I was then going to go into a long spiel about how hard all this was, and what kind of toll this was taking on me, and how it was threatening my work and my personal life. I had not had a good night's sleep in years. Blah, blah, blah.

Instead, for whatever reason, I felt compelled to keep my mouth shut.

"You have a GOOD evening," she said, and even though I have never felt any sense of duty to obey a Catholic preist or nun (being Lutheran), I understood the conversation was over. But her tone was significant. She indicated that MY evening was full of goodness, despite how much it seemed bad to me. I understood by her tone that what I was doing was inherently good, and by doing so, I was rendering null the badness of the situation. It made that visit and nearly every subsequent visit to my grandmother worth it.

In two short minutes, I was able to understand what one's duty is in terms of how God sees it, and what familial love truly is.

I have a lot of respect for that nun.

There is another type of person I cannot respect however: I despise people who respond to any terrible and tragic situation you tell them about with some stupid Biblical quote or platitude. It seems to me that these people have voided their brains deliberately, the way one empties out a full and irritating bladder, and then refilled it with Biblical quotes as though it were a potion that can protect them against reality.

These people could not face judgement day if it began on their doorstep.

And a person does not have to be religious to hovering away from reality.

-They can also be a coworker who cannot seem to buckle down and do their job unless everyone else in the office is happy. This sort of person makes everyone miserable as they fight to fake happiness just to get him or her out of their faces.

-They can be a person who believes themselves to be a "good sympathizer" and a "trusted and valued friend". These are people who know when to give a kleenex, and when to pat you on the back, but...when they are clueless about what to do when the atmosphere gets too thick. That's when they resort to "Stop crying now! You're a strong woman" or "Buck up now and be a man!" Try to tell them that they are not helping and they will take offense and insult you, as if you are being the jerk for not seeing that they are a master empathizer/sympathizer.

-They are the "good neighbor" who always takes your side and supports you...even when you are in the wrong...because they want you as a friend more than they want to help you...and MUCH more than they want to listen to your own problems.

-Then there are those who actually cause the problems you are trying to fix, and who will not take responsibility for what they have done because doing so would be "too much". And aside from that, they don't think they can do anything wrong.

Well, you get the picture. I guess I am rambling. So I will be quiet for now.

Administrator

May 14, 2009

> " my response; for many years I was emotionally bound to my mom, (a

> counsellor called it emotional incest, as mom treated me as a confidant,

> while i was groing up) it was not till I was in my 30's that I viewed

> things more objectively, realized that my mom would provoke my dad, even

> when he nicley said 'i'm tired after work, let me read the newspaper'

> she would keep bugging him till he 'exploded' "

Mimi says> This is similar to my own mother, although I was her favorite

whipping post as well. Everything could and was blamed on me. (even after it

was found not to be my fault my mother would remember in her head that it was

still my fault) even now all discussions turn to I try to tell her something and

regardless of what it is, somehow it goes back to a fault (usually imagined with

no logic attached to it whatsoever)

Something like: I am worried that Amber's dad is manipulating her emotionally.

Yes (says mom) rememeber when my ex-husband got you to believe he was having a

heart attack and you called the police on me

My brain explodes at this point but

1. her statement about my dead step father is either an example of this

manipulation that parents can use (feel sorry for me) or an example of a

horrific childhood (my mother scrathed him with her nails and he was bleeding

and crying when he told me of the chest pain (so I called people more sane than

those in the house)

2. My mother was now reminising on an attack she felt I had caused to her. I

would like to say I was 15 or so

3. everything comes back to my fault and what is about her and how she lived

though all of my abuse (SIGH)

Parents as I say can be the ones to do the most damage to their children

May 14, 2009

" even after it was found not to be my fault my mother would remember in her head

that it was still my fault) even now all discussions turn to I try to tell her

something and regardless of what it is, somehow it goes back to a fault (usually

imagined with no logic attached to it whatsoever) "

My mother is like this also. She always misremembers events in her favor.

Fortunately, I have occasionally been able to prove her wrong with home videos

and pictures. But I notice that after time passes, she forgets that I have shown

her the home videos or pictures that disproved her remembrance of events and

goes back to believing things happened the way she remembers them.

I think this is less a fault of memory than it is some sort of denial, where she

has to fictionalize life to get through it. Probably her fragile self-esteem is

so low that she has to make stuff up -including flase memories- to make herself

feel better.

Administrator

May 15, 2009

wrote, excerpted:....True, but I find it easier

to understand someone if I dig deep. The downside of this is that

people call people who do this judgemental. What you find if you dig

deep are usually similar motivations for people's behavior, similar

aspirations, similar fears. Once you've seen enough of it, you can see

another person and almost on sight you can say "I've seen this before"

and be right a good percetage of the time.my reply;I don't see what you describe as judgemental in a negative sense, I would call it discernment or wisdom.(sort of like 'profiling') wrote, excerpted;Your mom is co-dependent. That is why she is so demanding.my reply; co-dependency; Yes! That may explain why I seem to attract 'cling-ons,' (would-be friends who are quite needy and clingy). Certainly I am not a 'warm fuzzy' sort of person, so this has mystified me till now.Maybe I give off 'vibes' of suseptable to being part of

a co-dependent realationship. It takes a while for me realize that, while this person has traits that I enjoy, they are really clingy. Then it takes effort for me to distance myself. The other day I was mentioning a current would - be 'cling-on' to another friend, she observed that she seems to attract alcoholics, and wonders why.renaissanzelady"My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God."(adapted from a poem by

Smart)From: environmental1st2003 <no_reply >Subject: Re: Listening to MadnessTo: FAMSecretSociety Received: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 3:41 PM

"my response; for many years I was emotionally bound to my mom, (a counsellor called it emotional incest, as mom treated me as a confidant, while i was groing up) it was not till I was in my 30's that I viewed things more objectively, realized that my mom would provoke my dad, even when he nicley said 'i'm tired after work, let me read the newspaper' she would keep bugging him till he 'exploded'"

I understand the concept of emotional incest from my psychology and educational psychology classes in college. My mother was the same way as your mom. My counselor confirmed this years later in counseling sessions. When I told my mother I no longer wished to hear about her marital problems, she then started blabbing to my sister. My sister's counselor called it emotional incest too. When my sister told her to knock it off, my mother distanced herself from both of us.

"My dad and his sister woud have heated arguments and not speak for years, her bi-polar condition may have been a factor."

Probably. When you have too much stress in one area -or two-, lesser things that would be trifling under other circumstances weigh disproportionately heavy in one's mind.

"After I grew up, people would ask WHY I did not go to visit my parents, but some did not really want to hear my reasons, even when recounted briefly."

Yes. Guest/visitors/ other family members/friends etc., seldom believe that what YOU are telling them are true because what they see when they look at the subject of your comments is usually a nice person acting on their best behavior. People generally do not like to think bad thoughts about other people because doing so causes them to question their own moral character, so they are less likely to believe what you say and more likely to turn the discussion to other avenues.