Guest guest Posted March 29, 2001 Report Share Posted March 29, 2001 Before I comment on what a phony crock of shit this nonsense is, here it is for you to read: http://psychiatry.mc.duke.edu/Residents/Depression.html Author: Aiken, M.D. Hysteroid Dysphoria Definition: A subgroup of depressed patients, usually women with histrionic character traits, whose depressions are often precipitated by rejection or loss of romantic attachment. These episodes are brief, improve with attention or praise, and are characterized by oversleeping, overeating (esp. sweets), and inertia or leaden paralysis. History: Proposed by Klein in 1969, he conceptualized hysteroid dysphoria as a state rather than trait condition with a differential response to MAOIs1. Klein argued for its inclusion in the 1980 DSM-III, but it was left out due to a lack of formal data. Spitzer then tested its validity in 1982 by sending a brief questionnaire to 4,000 psychiatrists which asked them to examine two of their patients with mild depression for hysteroid features. " Syndromal validity " was not found, meaning that the 4 basic hysteroid-dysphoric features did not significantly associate together2. Spitzer and Klein continued to argue over these results3, but with Spitzer at the helm of the DSM task force, hysteroid dyphoria was ultimately left out of future editions. Hysteroid dysphoria exhibits overlap with atypical depression, bipolar-II disorder, cyclothymia and personality disorders. While several studies have found evidence of a differential effect of MAOIs on hysteroid dysphoria1,4, this difference was not found in a study that separated atypical from hysteroid depressives5. Fun Fact: The craving for chocolate may come from phenylethylamine, which facilitates l-tryptophan uptake, potentially increasing endogenous antidepressants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2001 Report Share Posted April 4, 2001 Piper, Your post seems a complete non sequitir to me. The definition that Tommy referenced makes no allusaion to psychoanalysis or psychodynamics whatsoever. While the phrase " histrionic character traits " has to be expanded, the rest of the definition is entirely operationally defined with no reference to etiology or psychodynamics at all - surely " romantic attachment " and " rejection " are commonly enough understood terms not to be considered psychodynamic constructs! Hence this definition stands and falls solely on whether such a discernable cluster of symptoms actually occurs often enough to justify recognition as a syndrome. In the rest of the article Tommy referenced research was alluded to suggesting that this is not the case and hysteroid dysphoria was not included in the DSM, which arguably suggests that in fact the hypothesised disorder was actually correctly scientifically assessed and rejected - and hence there are no grounds for an accusation of " cultism " whatsoever. Unless you are party to information you havent shared with us, from the article we have no way of knowing from within what psychological perspective the concept actually emerged - it is possible that it came from strictly bioreductionist psychioatrists who dont invoke psychodynamic concepts at all!. Also in fact quite strong psychological phenomena fail to show up in every study, and I would say it is possible that the concept may be useful. Although I'm male, it otherwise describes me to a T, so I dont care if there isnt another hysteroid dysphoric under the sun, I'll use it as an effective cameo to describe myself. Another factor in its non acceptance is probably that it has been basically subsumed under borderline personality disorder as essentially a milder form of it - perhaps without the dx of borderline, hysteroid dysphoria would have found favor. Again, whether or not it is a legitimate concept is a totally separate question from its etiology and whether psychodynamic descriptions are accurate or whether psychoanalysis would be an effective treatment. Fwiw, I have found considerable relief of symptoms by taking clomipramine - which while clearly indicatin a biological substrate, does not in itself invalidate psychodynamic perspectives. > In a message dated 3/29/01 2:21:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > perkinstommy@h... writes: > > << Definition: > A subgroup of depressed patients, usually women > with histrionic character traits, whose depressions > are often precipitated by rejection or loss of > romantic attachment. These episodes are brief, improve > with attention or praise, and are characterized by > oversleeping, overeating (esp. sweets), and inertia > or leaden paralysis. > >> > > > Groan and moan. Talk about cultists. Freudian psychoanalysis was a cult. > (see Crick, the Astonishing Hypothesis). The fact that any MD (i don't know > of any non mds attempting psychoanalysis---with exception of a few in Freud's > circle lol) might STILL be perpetuating this fraud as a psychiatrist is > unthinkable. Someone call the Better Business Bureau and the Board of > Behavioral Science Medical Examiners. Beware following charismatic leaders > of anything. Psychoanalysis and " psychodynamics " put psychology and > psychiatry back at minimum a decade. Psychoanalysis was debunked by the > National Association for the Sciences. > > Yours truly, > Piper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2001 Report Share Posted April 4, 2001 Piper, Your post seems a complete non sequitir to me. The definition that Tommy referenced makes no allusaion to psychoanalysis or psychodynamics whatsoever. While the phrase " histrionic character traits " has to be expanded, the rest of the definition is entirely operationally defined with no reference to etiology or psychodynamics at all - surely " romantic attachment " and " rejection " are commonly enough understood terms not to be considered psychodynamic constructs! Hence this definition stands and falls solely on whether such a discernable cluster of symptoms actually occurs often enough to justify recognition as a syndrome. In the rest of the article Tommy referenced research was alluded to suggesting that this is not the case and hysteroid dysphoria was not included in the DSM, which arguably suggests that in fact the hypothesised disorder was actually correctly scientifically assessed and rejected - and hence there are no grounds for an accusation of " cultism " whatsoever. Unless you are party to information you havent shared with us, from the article we have no way of knowing from within what psychological perspective the concept actually emerged - it is possible that it came from strictly bioreductionist psychioatrists who dont invoke psychodynamic concepts at all!. Also in fact quite strong psychological phenomena fail to show up in every study, and I would say it is possible that the concept may be useful. Although I'm male, it otherwise describes me to a T, so I dont care if there isnt another hysteroid dysphoric under the sun, I'll use it as an effective cameo to describe myself. Another factor in its non acceptance is probably that it has been basically subsumed under borderline personality disorder as essentially a milder form of it - perhaps without the dx of borderline, hysteroid dysphoria would have found favor. Again, whether or not it is a legitimate concept is a totally separate question from its etiology and whether psychodynamic descriptions are accurate or whether psychoanalysis would be an effective treatment. Fwiw, I have found considerable relief of symptoms by taking clomipramine - which while clearly indicatin a biological substrate, does not in itself invalidate psychodynamic perspectives. > In a message dated 3/29/01 2:21:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > perkinstommy@h... writes: > > << Definition: > A subgroup of depressed patients, usually women > with histrionic character traits, whose depressions > are often precipitated by rejection or loss of > romantic attachment. These episodes are brief, improve > with attention or praise, and are characterized by > oversleeping, overeating (esp. sweets), and inertia > or leaden paralysis. > >> > > > Groan and moan. Talk about cultists. Freudian psychoanalysis was a cult. > (see Crick, the Astonishing Hypothesis). The fact that any MD (i don't know > of any non mds attempting psychoanalysis---with exception of a few in Freud's > circle lol) might STILL be perpetuating this fraud as a psychiatrist is > unthinkable. Someone call the Better Business Bureau and the Board of > Behavioral Science Medical Examiners. Beware following charismatic leaders > of anything. Psychoanalysis and " psychodynamics " put psychology and > psychiatry back at minimum a decade. Psychoanalysis was debunked by the > National Association for the Sciences. > > Yours truly, > 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.