The Rosenhan Experiment.

[Nkz waH.Axs kxi tr ii.U tx xn.tN]

We have to our disposition the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" series of books that will soon categorize everyone with a mental illness, but yet, no doctors, psychiatrists, et cetera in medical science can really, with any doubt, diagnose conditions without referring to the patient's experience. Thus, if a pseudopatient fake a condition, there is nothing to the analysts, doctors, or psychiatrists that can really prove or disprove "distinguish" the diagnosis of sanity, or insanity of the patient or to the pseudopatient (...).

What do you think about this experiment?

......................"On being sane in insane places."

[Autistic Whales]

How is this an experiment?

[Radene]

There indeed is an argument to be made that feigning a mental condition in and of itself is not a sign of sound mind, but I would not call it a mental condition of its own, especialy since, as it's been said, such stuff is sometimes attempted for material gain.

[Kris]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Trickster Of Cheap Tactics:

How is this an experiment?

Basically, there were some pseudopatients sent to psychiatric hospitals to determine if the psychiatrists and staff there could distinguish between real and fake patients. That was the experiment. It didn't end well, as they wouldn't release the "sane" patients before dianosing them with schizophrenia. Basically it showed that back in '73, the system wasn't the best at detecting mental illness/sanity.

[Kris]

Oprindeligt skrevet af WERElektro:

Yes I understand what you mean. But before you get money from the state for being unable to work, various tests are to be made.... Of course these tests are to find out wether the subject is seriously handicapped or just faking it. Unfortunately I know that, despite the testing, the results are not always fair. People with "minor" disorders get into the early retirment program too.... I won't name any of these disorders - but there are quite a few mental disorders that can be treated quite well with medication.
It's a very ... controverse subject.

That's true. It also goes along with my first post, which was how someone without the illness will have difficulty faking it because of these tests. They're very picky it, like you said. I agree, it's not fair sometimes, because I know people with these "minor" disorders as well.

Like I said in another earlier post though, is that there is also some sort of surveillance done in many cases (I don't mean secret security cameras in anyone's house, before anyone tries to call me out), and it's completely okay. They're allowed to take pictures or film you, in many cases, and neighbors can do the same.

[Washell]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nkz waH.Axs kxi tr ii.U tx xn.tN:

that will soon categorize

What ancient article did you lift that from? The DSM is 60 years old at this stage.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nkz waH.Axs kxi tr ii.U tx xn.tN:

We have to our disposition the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" series of books that will soon categorize everyone with a mental illness,

Oprindeligt skrevet af chiefputsi✖️ping:

the DSM is the bible of psychiatrists, if i am not mistaken.

The DSM is a thick (set of) book(s) full of symptoms, and how to group them in terms of severity to get a label of what's "wrong". At some point in time, it's going to be laughed at just as hard, as we laugh at bloodletting and balancing the 4 humors now. It's useful enough as a rough tool in what treatments and drugs may work, and it's useful enough as a tool to manage mental health care through private and national healthcare services. Beyond that, it's fairly irrelevant.

[Kris]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Washell:

The DSM is a thick (set of) book(s) full of symptoms, and how to group them in terms of severity to get a label of what's "wrong". At some point in time, it's going to be laughed at just as hard, as we laugh at bloodletting and balancing the 4 humors now. It's useful enough as a rough tool in what treatments and drugs may work, and it's useful enough as a tool to manage mental health care through private and national healthcare services. Beyond that, it's fairly irrelevant.

I knew someone like this would come along. The DSM is a book based on rigorous research over decades and countless studies, which groups together common symptoms of those going through mental illness. It's not a rule book. It's used as a guide. Have you ever actually read the DSM? If you say you have, I'd have an extremely difficult time believing you, based on what you just said. The most recent DSM is from 2013, which is pretty damn recent. I would argue that people would maybe laugh at older versions (like we laugh at some of the stuff in the initial DSM), but I would be willing to bet that it will never be done away with completely, because mental illness will likely still exist (unless we progress to where mental illness doesn't exist at all) . Sounds to me like you're just hopping on the "psychology isn't a real field" bandwagon.

[Dirty Dan]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Washell:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nkz waH.Axs kxi tr ii.U tx xn.tN:

that will soon categorize

What ancient article did you lift that from? The DSM is 60 years old at this stage.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nkz waH.Axs kxi tr ii.U tx xn.tN:

We have to our disposition the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" series of books that will soon categorize everyone with a mental illness,

Oprindeligt skrevet af chiefputsi✖️ping:

the DSM is the bible of psychiatrists, if i am not mistaken.

The DSM is a thick (set of) book(s) full of symptoms, and how to group them in terms of severity to get a label of what's "wrong". At some point in time, it's going to be laughed at just as hard, as we laugh at bloodletting and balancing the 4 humors now. It's useful enough as a rough tool in what treatments and drugs may work, and it's useful enough as a tool to manage mental health care through private and national healthcare services. Beyond that, it's fairly irrelevant.

Doesn't the DSM only have symptoms, not treatments? Or am I thinking of something else?

[Kris]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dirty Dan:

Doesn't the DSM only have symptoms, not treatments? Or am I thinking of something else?

You're right. That's one of the reasons I'm assuming he's never touched a DSM.

[Profile]

A large part of the problem of diagnosing mental disorders (particualrly those without any physical counterpart in terms of development or hormone/enzyme levels, glandular activity etc.)
Is that these rely on a factored "departure from the norm" where the "norm" is an assumed statistical evaluation which arguably no human being (or thewir mental preowess) actually equates to. Tehrefore, there is case oto be made under which every person is significantly different from the "norm" to warrant a valid, and agreed diagnosis by the leading experts ion the field.

The general concensus in the field is therefore to conisder on case by case situation the specific areas in which the life and capabilities of the patient are affected by their expressed sysmptoms.
The secondary symptoms are given weight to help ascertain the impact of the primary as manifest on the actual routine and lifestyle rather than simply according to the expressed concerns.

The trained expert will be aware of the body language and mannerisms including other physically evident support to help in iderntifying the underlying posssibilities rather than rely on only the patient's perspective - which is unreliable and may even be affected by the disorder itself if apparent.

[Alpha]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ms. Jack Bauer:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Paradox:

Is it really a fun "fact"? Maybe by some diagostic criteria designed by someone who never experienced either?

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nkz waH.Axs kxi tr ii.U tx xn.tN:

For the psychiatrists it make no difference if the voices come from outside or inside the head nor if the voices come from demons asking to do bad thing or voices that will encourage that person like good voices.. Even the inside voices that we all have at some point are considered as pathologic if you are diagnosed schizophrenic before..

Yes it is actually a fact. Many people feigning mental illness will say the voices "in their head". That's a common misconception, and a good psychiatrist will not diagnose hallucinations if you say that. If they're coming from inside the head, they are considered simply thoughts. Spontaneous thoughts that are immensly difficult to control? Maybe. But it is not, by definition, a hallucination. An auditory hallucination is a false perception of sound that comes from the outside world. This is one way they catch many faking the symptoms.

Also there are plenty of psychologists on the "team" with mental illness, including psychosis. Look into Kay Redfield Jamison. One of the most famous clinical psychologists out there. She has experienced hallucinations herself, as a person with Bipolar I with psychosis. So these aren't guidelines simply set by one person who has never experienced anything of the sort.

You're making the further mistake in thinking that everything has been categorized, and the people who have experienced one thing can judge the same for every person. There are also multiple disorders, comorbidities, co-occuring disorders, which one may be answering to one but not the other, and you wouldn't even know.

I think it's quite ridiculous personally that anyone can attempt to make the claim to know what someone else has experienced and judge on it based on some limited diagnostic criteria. And again, as I said in my first point, if the person truly is insane, then how can the answers they give to some question be taken as truth or fact, when there could be something telling them how to answer the questions. So no it is not a fact, it is based on some limited diagnostic criteria, imperfect, and designed by people who have never experienced it, even if there may be some psychiatrists and psychologists who have their own personal and limited conditions and experience.

Just because someone says they hear voices in their head doesn't mean they don't also hear external voices. And to what degree and in what situations would differ greatly between patients. Some may hear a voice right next to them, some may hear voices in another room, some may hear multiple internal voices, which you can say is "just thoughts" but to them it isn't. So I will always be cynical of people who think they know based on something they read, rather than the personal experience of the individual.

[Kris]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Paradox:

You're making the further mistake in thinking that everything has been categorized, and the people who have experienced one thing can judge the same for every person. There are also multiple disorders, comorbidities, co-occuring disorders, which one may be answering to one but not the other, and you wouldn't even know.

I think it's quite ridiculous personally that anyone can attempt to make the claim to know what someone else has experienced and judge on it based on some limited diagnostic criteria. And again, as I said in my first point, if the person truly is insane, then how can the answers they give to some question be taken as truth or fact, when there could be something telling them how to answer the questions. So no it is not a fact, it is based on some limited diagnostic criteria, imperfect, and designed by people who have never experienced it, even if there may be some psychiatrists and psychologists who have their own personal and limited conditions and experience.

Just because someone says they hear voices in their head doesn't mean they don't also hear external voices. And to what degree and in what situations would differ greatly between patients. Some may hear a voice right next to them, some may hear voices in another room, some may hear multiple internal voices, which you can say is "just thoughts" but to them it isn't. So I will always be cynical of people who think they know based on something they read, rather than the personal experience of the individual.

No offense, but you're putting words into my mouth that I never said. You should go back and read some previous posts in this discussion. There is generally more to a diagnosis than just the patient's words. You forget that it's an entire process that individuals are highly trained to go through with. You did not acknowledge what I said at all. I simply stated the definition of a hallucination, which is a fact. I never said people don't have thoughts telling them how to answer. That's the difference. Inside is considered a thought. Outside is a hallucination. It's logic. I don't know why you're over-complicating things. The DSM takes into account that one may have more than one disorder. As I said before, the DSM is not a set of rules. It's a guide. You don't need to fit every single symptom. There are also "not otherwise specified" sections for those that do not fit in the more "concrete-like" diagnosis. Also, you have no idea what I have, so you have no right to imply I get this just based on readings. Also, studies and experiments are not readings, for the record.

[WERElektro]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Fusion:

Oprindeligt skrevet af WERElektro:

.... calm your tits.

No. You're part of the problem.

lmao
cry me river

[Alpha]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ms. Jack Bauer:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Paradox:

You're making the further mistake in thinking that everything has been categorized, and the people who have experienced one thing can judge the same for every person. There are also multiple disorders, comorbidities, co-occuring disorders, which one may be answering to one but not the other, and you wouldn't even know.

I think it's quite ridiculous personally that anyone can attempt to make the claim to know what someone else has experienced and judge on it based on some limited diagnostic criteria. And again, as I said in my first point, if the person truly is insane, then how can the answers they give to some question be taken as truth or fact, when there could be something telling them how to answer the questions. So no it is not a fact, it is based on some limited diagnostic criteria, imperfect, and designed by people who have never experienced it, even if there may be some psychiatrists and psychologists who have their own personal and limited conditions and experience.

Just because someone says they hear voices in their head doesn't mean they don't also hear external voices. And to what degree and in what situations would differ greatly between patients. Some may hear a voice right next to them, some may hear voices in another room, some may hear multiple internal voices, which you can say is "just thoughts" but to them it isn't. So I will always be cynical of people who think they know based on something they read, rather than the personal experience of the individual.

No offense, but you're putting words into my mouth that I never said. You should go back and read some previous posts in this discussion. There is generally more to a diagnosis than just the patient's words. You forget that it's an entire process that individuals are highly trained to go through with. You did not acknowledge what I said at all. I simply stated the definition of a hallucination, which is a fact. I never said people don't have thoughts telling them how to answer. That's the difference. Inside is considered a thought. Outside is a hallucination. It's logic. I don't know why you're over-complicating things. The DSM takes into account that one may have more than one disorder. As I said before, the DSM is not a set of rules. It's a guide. You don't need to fit every single symptom. There are also "not otherwise specified" sections for those that do not fit in the more "concrete-like" diagnosis. Also, you have no idea what I have, so you have no right to imply I get this just based on readings. Also, studies and experiments are not readings, for the record.

Studies and experiments are not fool proof and as you can see on any newspaper headline, can be made to say anything the person doing the study or experiment wants them to say. And I think I did acknlowledge quite a few of your points. And this is nothing personal, so I don't know what you mean by "what I have". I'm speaking generally. The people who say things like "fact" about something that they have read in a book, based on whatever, experiments, studies, they take it as a fact without actual knowledge or experience. Now if you want to get into semanitics about hallucination, I never used the word halluciniation, you did. That's kind of a strawman. I could go into this point more about what I said and how you tried to correct it with a "fun fact" that I do not believe to be a fact.

[Kris]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Paradox:

Studies and experiments are not fool proof and as you can see on any newspaper headline, can be made to say anything the person doing the study or experiment wants them to say. And I think I did acknlowledge quite a few of your points. And this is nothing personal, so I don't know what you mean by "what I have". I'm speaking generally. The people who say things like "fact" about something that they have read in a book, based on whatever, experiments, studies, they take it as a fact without actual knowledge or experience. Now if you want to get into semanitics about hallucination, I never used the word halluciniation, you did. That's kind of a strawman. I could go into this point more about what I said and how you tried to correct it with a "fun fact" that I do not believe to be a fact.

Well then that is my own mistake. I assumed when you said "hear voices", you meant "auditory hallucination". Sorry if you felt like I was correcting you. It was more of just a general statement to the public about the truth of a common misconception about hallucinations.

Edit: "So I will always be cynical of people who think they know based on something they read, rather than the personal experience of the individual."

This is where I thought you were talking to me and implying things, for the record. Sorry about that as well.

[Alpha]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ms. Jack Bauer:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Paradox:

Studies and experiments are not fool proof and as you can see on any newspaper headline, can be made to say anything the person doing the study or experiment wants them to say. And I think I did acknlowledge quite a few of your points. And this is nothing personal, so I don't know what you mean by "what I have". I'm speaking generally. The people who say things like "fact" about something that they have read in a book, based on whatever, experiments, studies, they take it as a fact without actual knowledge or experience. Now if you want to get into semanitics about hallucination, I never used the word halluciniation, you did. That's kind of a strawman. I could go into this point more about what I said and how you tried to correct it with a "fun fact" that I do not believe to be a fact.

Well then that is my own mistake. I assumed when you said "hear voices", you meant "auditory hallucination". Sorry if you felt like I was correcting you. It was more of just a general statement to the public about the truth of a common misconception about hallucinations.

Edit: "So I will always be cynical of people who think they know based on something they read, rather than the personal experience of the individual."

This is where I thought you were talking to me and implying things, for the record. Sorry about that as well.

I was speaking generally about that, in the wider sense, but also concerning your point. Even if you did have some experience, or if a psychologist or psychiatrist had some experience, it would be limited to their own personal experiences and not enough to know the experience of every person. I'm sorry too for being agumentative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txg0XicoJ0