Instalar o Steam
Iniciar sessão
|
Idioma
简体中文 (Chinês Simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês Tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol de Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol da América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Brasil)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar problema de tradução
Regras e Orientações das Discussões
Denunciar este post
Its okay. I was as well. I will agree with you there. About everyone's experience is their own.
And I actually used to listen to her. Lol.
What makes it outdated? What's outdated about evaluating the evaluators? With all due respect, your arguments remind me of other closed-shop professions - "Those old results mean nothing, we have better methods now, just look at how much good we're doing now! Look at our methods!"
I don't look at methods for results. I look at results for results. And do you know what those results tell me? They tell me that the number of mental health patients in the Western world has continuously been exceeding population growth and density, yet the profession fails to show the same increase in rehabilition that it promised.
On a more personal level, I have been a patient of the Veteran's Administration and the private clinics they use to sate demand for care. From both results and experience, I see no improvement whatsoever. In fact, I see the opposite: people being given diagnoses for conditions they don't have, made by doctors who have a couple of really good reasons to give such diagnoses.
Leave behind the sterile world of Rosenhal and primitive psychology for a moment to consider the circumstances of a doctor in the real world. Maybe psychological, maybe an actual medical doctor, doesn't matter. They are both charged with responsibility of their wards. If they screw up or release a patient without trying to give them the utmost care, they are subject to a plethora of legal consequences.
That alone is enough reason to administer something, just so one can say they tried, and contributes not only to the plague of anti-psychotics in this day and age, but antibiotics as well. And if one happens to make a profit on the side, well then there's really not much impetus to deny care at all, is there? Well, unless you're fool enough to believe in altruism, which the results don't bear out.
The problem isn't necessarily the practioners, I'll give any profession that much, but it's not the lame **** they blame, either. Societal changes are the popular scapegoat, but if societal changes override specialty, what need is there for the specialists? It would seem that the society is wrong.
And so it is, but not in the way people like to blame. As with most things in the world, this is a matter of supply and demand. People demand quality healthcare, and of course they would, they have incentive to do so. Biological impetus, even. Self-preservation.
But to effect that healthcare, they create laws. Laws intended to reward the good and punish the bad. That wouldn't be a problem, if they didn't also place their lives in the hands of regulators entrusted with overseeing those professions. Regulators who cannot possibly know everyone's condition any more than they can know everyone's genetics.
Even worse, these regulators and the people they represent fund without question. How could they question anything when they know nothing of the field they are regulating at worst, and simply desire regulation at best? Who picks the regulators?
In every field, it usually ends up being the professionals, who then regulate their own professions, a conflict of interests in and of itself. You could select the best practitioner in the world, but they wouldn't often argue for elimination of their own position. They'd try to regulate it, with all the shortfalls and temptations that allows.
True to form any closed profession suffers from this, and I should know it well. I worked with and now manage union guys. They're barely-skilled laborers, infamous for charging insane wages, doing sub-standard work, and being extremely testy about anyone questioning their results. It's always someone else's fault.
Or you could look at teachers in the US. Same thing. Farmers. Lawyers. Bankers. Students. Shipmasters. Domestic servants. All welll before we get to politicians. Everyone wants job security; even those who claim to have hearts full of mercy and are welcoming of immigrants. Ever notice how they also want unions, which, by nature, are exclusive? Probably not, it's not the social narative, but I'm here to challenge that narrative.
Medical health professionals are no different. Psychologists do not take the hippocratic oath, but the hippocratic oath, if you read it, is the first closed-shop agreement. Apparently you are sworn to help people, but won't teach any of your tricks to anyone unless they take the same oath. Doctors are in violation of it all the time, humanity wins out over imposed codes, but not where anything legal is concerned.
Yet pyschology is trying to get there, get to a point where disastrous results don't threaten psychologists. It's an industry like any other, and for such a thoughtful one, remarkably lacking in insight.
If you want to do your job and be the best you can be at it, no matter the field, you welcome challenges and competition. If you want to be a healthy and stable person, you welcome trials and the judgement of your peers. Everyone is here for that exact reason. There is no reason to talk about nothing in a community if you don't expect some kind of result.
But even psychologists often fail to realize that in themselves. They think they know the game, even as they seek to co-opt it.
As for solutions, I have exactly one to this conundrum of psychologists without valid judgement. Free the market. People may go to a bad doctor once, but they won't go to a bad doctor more than once unless forced, and everyone will hear about it.
At the same time, insurance won't pay for bad claims, or bad doctors. That trend is already being realized even in the most socialistic of systems. Unfortunately, they are forced to rely on rationing of patient care, but where the healtchare market is free, it manifests in demand for healthcare workers of lower skill, lower cost, so when the free market tells who is good for the job and who is not, those who fail are lost without much cost.
There is absolutely no reason psychologists shouldn't take this approach as well. If you really care about people and their mental well-being, there is no need to defend your profession. I took psychology for exactly four years of high-school, and one semester of college. After that, I studied on my own. Psychology deemed my actions unethical because I insisted on blind experiments. I wouldn't follow the narrative they taught, where you must consider the patient a victim.
And you know what? I found out that you don't need that profession to be a psychologist. People are psychologists all the time, whether they realize it or not. Just being a good friend can be theraputic. It's genetic, not professional.
If more psychologists would realize that, if they would do the unthinkable and sacrifice their profession for the sake of core education, where everyone knows the secrets of the human mind, they might lend their empathetic minds to careers more befitting. People will always need psychologists, just not so many, or those so trained.
Again, they don't. Sometimes they just need somebody to talk to.
I say we let the free market handle this. If you know anything about psychology, it's that people are possessed of their own will. They will find the means they need, just like real doctors and the market have, unless some well-intentioned but selfish idiot puts a stumbling block in their way.
I once met a man who served in Vietnam.
Sadly he passed away, but at a chance encounter, he was keen to share his experiences which I found facinating and naturally quite shocking to be honest.
It was a 2 day school reunion for my parents and a few of their parents and partners.
The gentleman in question was the husband of one of the women who went to this particular school.
I was designated a driver for the weekend so was mostly surrounded by older generations reminiscing about their school days so it was a little awkward as I had very little in common with these people and the reason they were there to meet up.
Truth be told I felt a little like an interloper or an outsider although I made pleasant enough conversation and mingled for a while on the first day.
On the second day I must have seemed "politely bored" because for some time I sat outside in the cool evening air drinking german beer.
Then this dude appears and mentions he basically feels the same as I look, disconnected from the events so we start talking as two dudes putting the world to rights.
We spoke a few hours over drinks, he seemed keen to know my opinion on the world and how I saw things as a (then) young man in my early 30s.
The discussion moved to politics, to the Gulf war and a little of the 2nd world war.
I had felt after a while he was testing me somehow, maybe to lead up to something he wanted to share, and at this point the thought entered my mind that this guy had probably seen active service somewhere.
However, I felt somehow "respectfully bound" not to ask him that question, stupid perhaps or maybe polite and figured he would volunteer the information if he wanted to discuss such things although part of me was hoping he would share it with me.
He told me to stay put while he went to get us both another beer.
He came back and sat down, offering me the beer but he also bought something else back with him.
A case containing war medals.
I was silent.
"Do you know what these represent?"
He asked.
I will never forget that moment. Honestly I ♥♥♥♥ you not it was like time stood still in that moment and it burned itself into my memory.
Seriously, how do I answer that I thought.
I knew they were medals but of unknown type to me, I couldnt just say "they are medals, or they look like some medals", simply because that seemed so disrespectful as the truth seemed to dawn on me to describe them as "just medals".
Again I was silent and said something cheesy like "cool, so you have seen active duty"?
Which seemed in my head exactly the kind of thing I wanted to avoid saying so as not to diminish their value.
He didnt seem offended thankfully, and told me Im a decent human being.
I was like "......"
Then he opened up and told me of his experiences in Vietnam, and the after care he was receiving and why.
He shared not a little, but a significant amount, not ony of his service, but also including his current treatment and aftercare.
He was an american, and actually spoke in a way quite highly of the care given - on a medical and financial level - to compensate for the physical and mental problems he had with his health due to proximity with Agent Orange amongst other things.
He did not speak so highly of the care received, in his experience, relating to the "human" level.
I would respectfully never have asked him to share that stuff, as based on what other family members living with veterans have experienced, there is usually a good reason why their experiences are not spoken about, and again I respect that but he wanted to share it, and you are right in that sometimes a friendly non judgemental ear can be helpful.
This man, who had seen the horrors of war at the end of the long conversation thanked me.
Me, a civillian.
For just listening.
We shook hands and that was the last I was to see of him.
Although I have a good degree of empathy, will talk to anyone about anything and am generally a good listener as I have been all my life, occasionally having "specific discussions" where people seem to pour their heart out to me, that experience in particular has stayed with me.
It's outdated exactly because of what I said; techniques and methods have evolved. That's not to say we can't look back and continue to learn from our failures. However, what happened back then would not be allowed to happen today (without repercussions). It is outdated in that aspect. We can always look back though.
This will probably come across as incredibly narcissistic, but I do believe I have some credibility on this subject, as someone who will very soon be attending graduate school for psychology to continue from my undergraduate studies. As a member of the National Honor Society, which I didn't even have to apply for. As someone who took college level psychology courses in high school, and graduate levels as an undergraduate. Also as someone who achieved a full-ride and a free trip aborad going into undergraduate school to study psychology. Finally, I am someone who has been both on the inside and outside. Inside, meaning I have been hospitalized and diagnosed. Outside, meaning I have worked beside psychologists and clinical psychologists. Like I said, sounds narcissistic, but my main point here is that I know what I'm talking about.
I don't feel the need to defend the field by any means. Psychologists have made drastic errors in the past. Psychology still makes mistakes. It is not a perfect field. It won't be for a long time, if it ever even reaches perfection. It's a field where people are always learning and finding something new.
You cannot equate talking to friends as a "therapist" to being a "psychologist". Chances are, even if you're empathetic, you're doing it entirely wrong. I'd give you examples of what you should and should not do (it's a pretty strict "formula"), but I suppose if I do, everyone will be like "I always do that, I'm qualified". Even in college, after taking clinical counseling courses, I can't even say I'm ready to counsel. Neither could any other person in the classroom. It's nothing like just listening to a friend. It's not like giving helpful advice. It's much different, and if you've ever seen a professional psychiatrist, you'd know the difference. Also, on top of that (not that I think you don't know this. But for the sake of this discussion), therapists are not the same as psychologists or psychiatrists. They are usually social workers, and in some cases, don't have college degrees at all. Psychologists aren't always meant to be "therapeutic", but yes, some can perform CBT. You don't go to a psychologist if you just need someone to lend an ear.
I don't know when or where you went to school, but today, they do not consider anyone "victims". In fact, they are called "clients" rather than "patients" among the professionals. Today, they perform blind experiments. They're very common (I'm pretty sure they always have been as well. The notorious Milgram Experiment? That was actually a huge problem at some points, which is why they came out with debriefing - specifically for blind studies) and very useful designs.
Practitioners are very much held accountable, I haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about there. I can even count quite a few examples of people I personally know who have lost their license. They lose their licenses for malpractice all the time, just like any other medical field. That's what they are. Doctors of medicine. If they prescribe a person a medication for a specific diagnosis, and that person commits suicide, the psychiatrist may be held accountable. Therefore, a good, smart psychiatrist will never just "push pills". I'm not saying bad professionals don't exist, however, the majority of them aren't bad. Call it empathy, call it scared of losing their license, but they want to better your life. It affects them positively when they have successful clients.
Wow didn't mean to write that much. Probably my longest post ever.
I have a good deal of respect for the medical profession, the work of the armed forces and many other beliefs, professions and walks of life.
But there seems to be an insistence, either by society or the government, to just ever so neatly collect so much information on people, so as to catolog them like insects or butterflies wihin innumerable little boxes.
That sometimes, within certain public and social domains, to be made to conform, to crush individuality and promote group think (sorry if it sounds tin foil hat, only what I have observed over the years) and to put people away in these neat little boxes?
But we are indviduals and shouldnt all be tarred with the same brush when treating mental illness.
Hollywood and the media do a fine job of propagating lies and misconceptions about mental health.
It could be argued that if a (non medical trained) member of the public takes their views on mental health from those sources, then they are surely fools unto themselves.
But because these stereotypes etc are so often out there in the social media, tv, internet, newspapers etc, certain ill informed studies and perceptions WILL tend to seep into the public conciousness as a whole so people need to work to get their facts right.
But a lot of people not directly involved with, or living with "mental illness" (present forum company excluded) dont bother to actually check sources or look for facts and jump on the sensationlism bandwagons relating to mental illness.
And in some cases that can lead to offence or discrimination sadly.
I am sure the most medical teams work on a case by case basis and surely (hopefully?) take other varibles into consideration when diagnosing and treating an individual?
That being said I have worked in "big pharma" before and am too familiar with the stories of profit making etc from which is after all a business, yet can affect lives.
Maybe its by design, maybe its a symptom of our society, maybe Im putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6 and I have it all wrong.
No, that is actually a very rational response. We are all individuals, and that is also why there is such a wide selection of treatments. The difficult thing is, not everyone responds the same way, and sometimes people get worse. Each person seeking help is an individual, and that's something every professional in the field should acknowledge. For the most part, they take it case by case, but there are awful psychiatrists that are just in the business to make an absurd amount of money. They'll push pills and spend a total of 2 to 5 minutes per person each visit. I've unfortunately met one of these. He didn't even spend time assessing to diagnose. Just listed off a few symptoms and diagnosed when the person nodded their head to them. That's very unfortunate, and he's why these people are often looked at negatively.
In many cases, that's definitely true.
I'm thankful that I do happen to have a very good one though, and he actually keeps me on as few medications as possible. Once when I was younger, my parents came in with me and tried to ask for more for me. He immediately said no, as he wanted me to keep it to a minimum. He did give me another kind one time during a particularly rough period, but took me off it when he didn't think I needed it anymore. He spends 30 minutes per visit with each client, and does CBT at no additional cost. If only every psychiatrist out there could be like him, I'm sure people would respect it more. Psychiatrists also make more money with more clients, so you always want to find one that keeps the number of clients low. That's usually a good sign, that they'll actually spend time with you to get to know you and your needs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ06WNAXuAw
Very well said, and there's nothing wrong with turning to natural solutions. I'd be open to that myself honestly. I don't know if it'd work, but someday I'm hoping to at least try.
It happens eleswhere, so why not the world of medicine?
There are a great many good and decent medical professionals that regularly go above and beyond the call of duty, which here in the UK with out struggling NHS is actually quite a big deal.
But there are also a lot of bad eggs, and problems with administration, postcode lottery of drugs available, number of beds for patients etc....
So Psychiatrists and medicine.
Whilst I dont generally agree - personally- with the concept of trick cyclists, I mean psychiatrists in general, I do accept that for certain things, specific treatments are appropriate, and generally succesful.
When I was about 6 years old, I actually had a mental breakdown.
I recall a friendly enough psychiatrist making regular visits to the house and doing a lot of "talking".
I dont recall taking any medication, but I do recall the process was very long and painfull both for myself and my parents since I wouldnt leave the house without freaking out.
I have said that talking and listening is good, but being so young as I was, im not sure that just talking was the most effective treatment in hindsight.
I am also "extremely" averse or suspicious to the idea of things or processes that may attempt to change my personality or thought processes, like psychology or hypnotherepy and specifically cult like behaviour because I value the concept of my individuality so deeply.
Even if the intention is to help, if I were to have some mental issue in the future I feel this would be a massive barrier.
And yet, I am very open to learning and trying new things and learning why people think as they do.
For example, working with irrational phobias that affect a persons life - one treatment that seems more positive (and natural) than medication for the sake of medication and profit is cognitive behavioural therapy.
CBT works to alter the association with the thing that triggers a panic attack for example.
In my mind, this is more effective because it deals with the actual cause of the issue instead of subduing it with medication.
Of course, in some cases medicines are appropriate for the condition at hand, that goes withut saying - but it should be only after a complete diagnosis by a trained professional, not the secretary on the phone at the doctors surgery ...
(this happens in the UK for problems considered low priority - call the doctor or visit the local surgery reception and the secretary will ask for details of your symptoms, she can decide if you need to see the doctor plus sometimes there are things that you only want your doctor to hear but I digress)
It's easy to get carried away when you feel strongly about something.
That said, I'd agree that your post was narcissistic, because you still haven't answered the argument that having access to better means doesn't necessarily equate to better results. I'm sure you have known people who lost licenses for malpractice, don't doubt it one bit, but how many have you known who err on the side of caution and prescribe for conditions they don't think a patient has?
So I can sell you a shovel just by promising you that the method of its creation was good? And when it breaks, you'll keep coming back? That's not very smart consumer research.
I assume you meant to say that other variables could be involved. I know they could. But across such a broad spectrum of professions, getting the same results over and over again, I am inclined to believe that the problem is imporper motivation and oversight.
edit- oh I almost forgot
You know damn well it doesn't, hence your ability to mock it. Sure, some peope will select the wrong treatment for things over and over again, but that's okay, because they remove themselves as a problem. Everyone else learns.
All I'm saying is that the same should hold true for practitioners.
Oh? That's the reason I sounded narcissistic? That's not what I thought sounded so. I thought it was when I was talking about my credibility. Lol. Well in that case, you sound incredibly narcissistic as well, acting like you know what you're talking about, though I pointed out very obvious flaws in your argument. On top of that, to which, you never addressed. I didn't feel the need to answer that question, as without doing research on your own, you'll never believe from me that results ARE improving. If you think we treat the mentally ill like we did decades ago, I'm sorry to inform you that you are wrong. Do you see many people these days getting lobotomies? Bedlam? Where they practically tortured people because they can't help people who see and hear things that aren't there? Antipsychotics, which you seem to hate so, are like miracles to people who need them, and they actually work. Take away that medication from someone, and you practically ruin their lives. Again. This medication, in many cases, is one of the things that allows metally ill people to live somewhat normal, productive lives. Yes, they can be overprescribed in the US, and I agree that they are. However, you seem to have glanced over the fact that most of these medications overprescribed today have been by general practitioners, not psychiatrists.
As for prescribing for a condition that the person does not have, if you actually read my posts, you would see that is considered malpractice either way, and if something happens to the client related to the wrong prescription, the psychiatrist will be held accountable. He will lose his license, at the very least. So in fact, I do know professionals who have done that, and as a result, lost their license for malpractice. Not sure what your point was there, as I thought I made it clear that I knew people like that. Bit redundant.
I pointed out many parts of your post which were incorrect, and you come back with "I agree you're narcissistic". I think that goes to show how much you know on the subject, so I suggest you don't go further into this without doing research (no confirmation-bias), or having the desire to learn. I could bring professional sources to the table, if you don't want to do it yourself, if you'd like specific sources for my claims.
Obvious to you, perhaps. To me they all looked like ad-hominem backed up by your won expertise. Which you failed to demonstrate at any point. You're right because yo think you have superior training? That's my argument all over again, why tests like Rosenhan are still needed.
I don't give a **** about any of that. Once again, you are saying that improved methods necessarily lead to better results. Does psychology have more patients now or does it not? You make my case for me, by derailing into methods.
Yet that self-regulation has done nothing to slow the skyrocketing cases. You are again making my case for me. Try making it with the teacher's union. I'm sure they'd agree.
Yes, I did say it came across as narcissistic, and I maintain that. As narcissistic as any closed profession or a beneficiary of it. You are more than welcome to cite any number of claims you wish, but you cannot disprove that the number of diagnoses have far exceeded any reasonable correlation in the populace. The evidence isn't there.
Thus I ask you again to consder that maybe the problem isn't with the methods or populace, it's in the practitioners and their motives. Perhaps even with the benefeciaries. Try not to make it personal and derail this time. I already have the answer modern psychology posesses for identifying those who are lying. It's not "We have better methods now." but a far more sensible approach.