Guest guest Posted April 6, 2001 Report Share Posted April 6, 2001 Ben Bradley wrote: > At 11:36 AM 4/5/01 -0700, Ken wrote: > > > > > >rita66@... wrote: > > >> You know, Ken, I must say I've noticed a tendency in several of > your recent posts, to extrapolate from a handful of anecdotal examples, to > pronouncements about human beings in general. > > You spoke of the unhappy and possibly abusive childhoods of 3 alcohol > abusers -- then used this to claim that therefore *all* alcohol abusers > *must* have had traumatic or abusive childhoods. Now you mention ONE > mother of a schizophrenic, and purport to draw conclusions about mothers of > schizophrenics in general?? > > I noticed that too, but I don't think Ken is just picking incidences > to support a hypothesis. I mostly agree with Ken's opinions, and it seems > that those who disagree are reacting as if Ken were claiming absolute > proof. > I'd like to discuss the actual topic more (childhood experiences and > adult alcohol use and/or general adult behavior), but I feel like I'd > have to write a book to say anything significant. Ben, That is the subject that I've most wanted to research and write about ever since finishing " More Revealed. " Maybe one of these days I'll get to it. Of course, it is getting easier with time because there is now a vast body of research and, surprising to me, much of it is coming from neurologist -- " simple " empirical evidence. You are correct, it really would take a book to say anything meaningful. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2001 Report Share Posted April 6, 2001 Ben Bradley wrote: > At 11:36 AM 4/5/01 -0700, Ken wrote: > > > > > >rita66@... wrote: > > >> You know, Ken, I must say I've noticed a tendency in several of > your recent posts, to extrapolate from a handful of anecdotal examples, to > pronouncements about human beings in general. > > You spoke of the unhappy and possibly abusive childhoods of 3 alcohol > abusers -- then used this to claim that therefore *all* alcohol abusers > *must* have had traumatic or abusive childhoods. Now you mention ONE > mother of a schizophrenic, and purport to draw conclusions about mothers of > schizophrenics in general?? > > I noticed that too, but I don't think Ken is just picking incidences > to support a hypothesis. I mostly agree with Ken's opinions, and it seems > that those who disagree are reacting as if Ken were claiming absolute > proof. > I'd like to discuss the actual topic more (childhood experiences and > adult alcohol use and/or general adult behavior), but I feel like I'd > have to write a book to say anything significant. Ben, That is the subject that I've most wanted to research and write about ever since finishing " More Revealed. " Maybe one of these days I'll get to it. Of course, it is getting easier with time because there is now a vast body of research and, surprising to me, much of it is coming from neurologist -- " simple " empirical evidence. You are correct, it really would take a book to say anything meaningful. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2001 Report Share Posted April 6, 2001 > > > Actually, Ken, my question was directed at the Szasz advocates. If > > you are one of them, I was not aware of it, and missed whatever you > > said about it. > > Kayleigh, > > I don't know if I qualify as a Szasz advocate or not, but I have read > " Manufacture of Madness " and " The Myth of Mental Illness " and was > _very_ impressed by both. It seems to me that the arguments about Szasz > get side-tracked over things that I don't see, at least from the perspective > of > the aforementioned books, that he ever said, or if he did, where in an > entirely > different context. > As things are in the United States right now, I doubt whether large numbers of psychiatrists overdiagnose. Most likely they underdiagnose, given the bias against hospitalization. In the case of substance abuse, overdiagnosis continues, though perhaps to a lesser extent. I am not sure what you mean by " get sidetracked over things that I don't see.... " My simple belief is that if people are in distress they need help, and I don't believe in labeling them while supplying that help. Unfortunately, insurance companies and the like require the labeling. > > The Szasz advocates seem to say, " If you claim this is > > a disease, then show me some organic difference. " This hasn't got to > > do with genes, so far as I know, nor does it have to do with adaptive > > organic differences, like that of your taxi drivers. > > But brain differences are often traipsed out as proof of disease, whether to > Szasz supporters or the general public. > You are right, but that doesn't mean that organic differences don't exist. You can deny that phlogiston exists, but you can't really deny that oxidation exists. Naturally people seek explanations, and naturally not all of them will be correct, perhaps most of them will be incorrect. It's the luck of the draw that some people get caught in the fad of the day, as you and I and most of the rest of the list were caught in the " alcoholism diagnosis " fad. It's too bad, but it happens, and it's something I have to get over, personally, and something that I find it worthwhile to change, though I'm not sure I'm willing to channel as much energy into it as you and , and Jack Trimpey and others. To me that is in part to be still caught up in the syndrome. But that is how I look at it, and I am certainly glad that we have Kens and s and Jacks, and that you guys have the courage to do what you do. I don't know whether I would. > > > > > > I think the point's been made, probably by Pete, that epilepsy was > > once considered a " mental illness. " We know now, of course, that it > > is not. To say that schizophrenia is not a disease until we can show > > organic reasons for the phenomenon is really an exercise in semantics, > > and irresponsible (in my opinion) if some people who really suffer > > from their conditions find no relief. > > > > Wouldn't it also be irresponsible to simply label it a disease and then spend > > millions of dollars gene-hunting and prematurely announce the finding of a > gene with much fanfare when the evidence simply hasn't been found by any > means that hasn't found to provide credible, repeatable results before? > Doesn't > giving the disease label give an impression of helplessness, go counter to > ones efforts at coping? > I agree that this is irresponsible, but as I said before, I was not talking about genes at all. Human beings like simple explanations, it relieves them from having to think, also, I suppose, many can breathe a sigh of relief and say, " Thank God, I don't have that gene " (as if they really knew). In particular, " alcoholism " having been stigmatized as it has, people are even less willing to think about it than they are about, for example, cancer (after all, they might really get cancer). Even so, they still say " cancer " as if it were one syndrome, and it is not, it is hundreds. The gene search makes no sense to me, but then, some of our best minds (assuming our best minds are the ones that we elect to be in charge of the grants and also the ones that receive the grants) either find it plausible or are profoundly cynical about why they do what they do. I think the level of intelligence on this list is way above the norm, and I think we all see through things that many are simply willing to accept. As an example from an unrelated field, I grew up during the height of the Cold War, and when I was in 4th grade, we were distributed a pamphlet that told us what to do in the event of nuclear attack. We were supposed to hide under our desks and cover our eyes. I remember thinking, " Are they nuts? " I knew it wouldn't do any good. I read newspapers -- I saw newsreels. (Anybody on the list remember what those are?) I thought I'd rather be vaporized instantly than suffer radiation disease. But it seemed that every adult that I knew took all this stuff seriously (perhaps my parents didn't, but I didn't ask), and moreover, they took it seriously until the threat of nuclear war seemed to be past. The feeling I had then is very much akin to the feeling of astonishment and alienation that I felt when I went to treatment. > > > > Personally, I try to avoid using the word " disease " unless there's no > > alternative, mostly because I think that using the word in the case of > > " alcoholism " (a word I find both distasteful and undefinable) has let > > people off the hook entirely in considering the effectiveness of the > > solutions they propose to assist a person suffering from that > > condition. > > Isn't " mental illness " as " brain disease " often very similar? > > Ken I try to avoid " mental illness " also, okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2001 Report Share Posted April 7, 2001 In a message dated 4/5/01 11:01:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rita66@... writes: << Sounds like a very annoying and self-involved mother, whom the child would probably not choose to be close with when grown -- but a " schizophrenegenic mother " ?? -- the notion has no scientific merit, was long ago discredited. Peck is a quack if he espouses such tripe. Mothers of schizophrenics, as with mothers of substance abusers, mothers of gays, etc., are as varied and individual in their personalities and styles as human beings at large. ~Rita >> Here Here!! Hi Rita. Piper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2001 Report Share Posted April 7, 2001 In a message dated 4/5/01 11:01:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rita66@... writes: << Sounds like a very annoying and self-involved mother, whom the child would probably not choose to be close with when grown -- but a " schizophrenegenic mother " ?? -- the notion has no scientific merit, was long ago discredited. Peck is a quack if he espouses such tripe. Mothers of schizophrenics, as with mothers of substance abusers, mothers of gays, etc., are as varied and individual in their personalities and styles as human beings at large. ~Rita >> Here Here!! Hi Rita. Piper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2001 Report Share Posted April 7, 2001 In a message dated 4/5/01 11:01:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rita66@... writes: << Sounds like a very annoying and self-involved mother, whom the child would probably not choose to be close with when grown -- but a " schizophrenegenic mother " ?? -- the notion has no scientific merit, was long ago discredited. Peck is a quack if he espouses such tripe. Mothers of schizophrenics, as with mothers of substance abusers, mothers of gays, etc., are as varied and individual in their personalities and styles as human beings at large. ~Rita >> Here Here!! Hi Rita. Piper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.