how relevant is introspection to mental health?

[livinggg]

Introspection is "the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes", if someone is mentally ill, can they obtain accurate introspection and realize they are ill?

And if that happens, are they actually ill or just making a conscious decision based on logic and reason?

It appears to be a fallacy, that outside of nervous system problems or other bodily function, recognizing ones own mental illness could be possible outside of consciously making a decision?

If any of the above are true and someone is actually "mentally ill" and they know it, would simply not persisting the thought that is supposedly "ill" cure the illness?

And since no one actually knows what you are thinking outside of neural link monkeys (rip) how could anyone know besides yourself whether or not you were or still are ill, based on the fact above?

And if only you the patient are truly able to know, doesn't that "circle-back" to the beginning making mental illness as a premise at worst impossible completely?

[Stranger]

introspection and self-distance go hand in hand. it's difficult to accurately assess oneself if one cannot take a step back from their circumstances, and the assessments of others cannot replace introspection.

it's the ability to view these problems from an outside perspective which often gives rise to both novel solutions as well as the accurate assessments of circumstances and realities which can inform them.

often times simply being able to see a situation for what it is renders a solution unnecessary. it was the misperception of the circumstances which made a solution seem necessary at all.

[livinggg]

Цитата допису Stranger:

introspection and self-distance go hand in hand. it's difficult to accurately assess oneself if one cannot take a step back from their circumstances, and the assessments of others cannot replace introspection.

it's the ability to view these problems from an outside perspective which often gives rise to both novel solutions as well as the accurate assessments of circumstances and realities which can inform them.

often times simply being able to see a situation for what it is renders a solution unnecessary. it was the misperception of the circumstances which made a solution seem necessary at all.

wow thats a good answer. thanks stranger.

[Morkonan]

Цитата допису bisder:

.. if someone is mentally ill, can they obtain accurate introspection and realize they are ill?

That can't really be answered. It could go either way, from time to time. Many times a mentally ill person will realize they were mentally ill, but maybe not at the height of their abnormal behavior. They could also easily rationalize their conflict and create all sorts of delusions. There isn't a firm answer for all mental illnesses.

And if that happens, are they actually ill or just making a conscious decision based on logic and reason?

Not likely. That "logic" and "reason" is often twisted, obeying rules that don't exist in reality. So, bring that to bear... the person is not going to be likely to do much on their own except reinforce their own delusions. Though, that's for deeply troubling mental illness. One could, for instance, rationalize one's depression and lift oneself up by one's bootstraps, so to speak. That may not mean one is suddenly free of depression, but one may be able to function for awhile. And, the longer one can do that, the more likely acute depression will recede or be manageable. The same could be said for some other issues, but once again - You can't easily generalize things like this.

..If any of the above are true and someone is actually "mentally ill" and they know it, would simply not persisting the thought that is supposedly "ill" cure the illness?

No. At least not within any acceptable margin in the case of those who pose a danger to themselves or others due to the severity of their disorder.

You seem to be assuming that there is some level of awareness within that kind of person that is free of the illness. There isn't. They are generally functioning on a teeter-totter... You imply that logic exists. The structure of logic may exist, the notion that they feel they are acting logicl could exist (not usually), but the formation of its principles is often delusional in some cases and nonsensical in many others.

To some, it is logical to try to hit the person standing next to them because the man on the television is talking about politics and that makes them upset and the person standing next to them is a demon and they are Satan and they must defeat demons. Because they are also Jesus, it's OK for them to do that.

What if you're the Queen of China? The Queen of China writes Lord of the Rings books, so you must write them. You must write them every day, because that is what the Queen of China does. Only by writing these books will you and China be saved from some terrible thing you won't talk about...

Perfectly logical reasoning. Cause, effect, action, empowerment, necessity - These basic principles function but what drives them is delusional, so they can never be adequately brought to bear to cure the illness within. This is why medication and therapy is necessary for many severe mental problems. Mental Illness is not something that is easily subjective to be "thought through." Solving the problem requires rational thought to exist and if that does not exist, that problem does not get solved.

...how could anyone know besides yourself whether or not you were or still are ill, based on the fact above?

Psychology is the study of human behavior. One does not need to directly know and measure a person's inner-life in order to diagnose them. There are also tools to directly measure certain things, like an FMRI. (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imagery.) There are some patterns of areas of the brain being excited/working that are very closely associated with mental disorders.

And if only you the patient are truly able to know, doesn't that "circle-back" to the beginning making mental illness as a premise at worst impossible completely?

No. You've established false foundations and circled around to then claim they, alone, provide a proof for your argument. :)

[livinggg]

Цитата допису Morkonan:

No. You've established false foundations and circled around to then claim they, alone, provide a proof for your argument. :)

Well in my own defense, that is why I was asking, because I didn't establish a foundation at all, was just something I was thinking about and I thought input would be fun.

Also, what is being described as "illness" could also be proper function that we don't completely understand. In your examples above you abuse this abstract construct of "mental health". When I said someone used logic, I didn't specify complete logic, but to suggest the use of incomplete logic is "ill", that is ill in the sense you can catch a cold and then drink some ginger ale, where the ginger ale is reasonable logic.

But I don't disagree completely and thanks for the answer.

[意味のない人生]

Seeing as "mentally ill" is far too broad of an umbrella, these questions require more specific context if there's any hope for a real answer.

[AerSilver ♞]

It helps with the decision-making process for sure, so in a way it does affect it

[The Processor]

Цитата допису bisder:

just making a conscious decision based on logic and reason?

In my day (middle aged) there was no alternative to logic and reason. What is there now?

Recent articles concerning the focus of health rather than illness yields beneficial results. (focusing on illness leads to more illness)

[Stranger]

Цитата допису Gamer:

Цитата допису bisder:

just making a conscious decision based on logic and reason?

In my day (middle aged) there was no alternative to logic and reason. What is there now?

Recent articles concerning the focus of health rather than illness yields beneficial results. (focusing on illness leads to more illness)

qualifying health won't magically create more of it though.

if anything it stigmatizes deviations from the qualification, such as illogical people being considered insane categorically and a lack of logic in one's life being the root cause of brain degeneration. a popular belief the field had to grapple with, publicly, at the same time it was treating cocaine as a therapeutic cure-all (it stimulates the brain and thus 'helps it resolve itself') and simulated abuse as a method of treatment for abuse (any repeated phenomena will degrade, so one must simply forcibly break down a patient's ability to protect themselves from abuse. Then they'll be immune. This should start as early as possible, ideally by [WARNING MODS HYPOTHETICAL HISTORICISM]slapping your baby so hard their skull cracks [WARNING MODS HYPOTHETICAL HISTORICISM].)

As such the definition of illness and health is itself fraught, and as a field for pathological disease treatment, ie treatment of a disease whose origins are known, undesirable, and whose effects can be traced, it falls flat. You can't declare someone who adds 2 and 2 to get 4 by multiplying by ten and dividing by 20 to get a multiple of 4 delusional. They just overcomplicate their math problems, probably because it's the easiest and least-painful way for them to do the math because it lets them skip primes. Or they just like doing it and there's no logic involved at all.* But if you take the 'all deviation is disease' rubric, suddenly that person is mentally ill and it's ruining their life by making them take 10 minutes longer on math tests. Despite testing 10 years better than their age. They're retarded now. They're 'slow.' And if you knew how the brain worked to manipulate these circumstances, you'd probably want more of these 'math geniuses.' Not less.

As such it's more or less just pattern recognition loosely attached to the social rubric, which imo is a terrifying thing and people are fearful of and concerned towards the field for good reason. Your psychologist, fundamentally, isn't anything more than a brain that qualifies other brains according to its own subjective rubric which has been informed by other subjective rubrics under an objective presentation by way of data quantization. And, as such, the idea of qualifying or managing abuse becomes impossible. There's no objective standard either way, save what a patient feels. And the patient may feel they are the president of the world and that any impingement on their ego is a planetary-class threat, not an outcropping of narcissism which is negatively impacting their reign.

Given the field's existence as a profit motive however, this is fine. Customer's always right; back at square 1.


*the issue here is that there's an overfocus on logic, since illogic doesn't provide an objective treatment path. just soft skills for interfacing, hardly a technical profession deserving of all your money. (i am aware of the inversion of hard and soft skills in the economy; the people getting paid well for soft skills are largely the product of market favoritism, and people with technical skills and low pay the result of market wage maximization for in-demand skills.)

furthermore, when there's a logic you can repeat it out loud. you can explain what's happening. when there's no logic you can't, you can just repeat what's happened and maybe what triggers it. maybe. so logic is preferred, even if we lack most of the information we might need for that to be a holistic and effective treatment path.

the delineation of 'active' and 'passive' logic has helped, but realistically what's meant by 'passive logic' is "you are a computer," and this is a highly problematic assumption to have embedded in the concept.

[qb]

inb it starts from inability to discern right from wrong and it rocks like a boat until it flips over. if you look at whole countries, societies degrade a lot just on that thing alone, at first you see little steps out of morally ambigous things, then it grows until the whole culture fails to grasp its own "roots of existence".

[kingjames488]

if you don't think the same way as the people making the rules you're "ill"... pretty much is how it seems to work.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Цитата допису kingjames488:

if you don't think the same way as the people making the rules you're "ill"... pretty much is how it seems to work.

This isn't true.

[livinggg]

Цитата допису AerSilver ♞:

It helps with the decision-making process for sure, so in a way it does affect it

If a single person can perform introspection and rectify issues in their own life, how would groups of people who make decisions perform such a task, and should this process be monitored to ensure proper "mental health" of our corporations?

[kingjames488]

Цитата допису SlowMango:

Цитата допису kingjames488:

if you don't think the same way as the people making the rules you're "ill"... pretty much is how it seems to work.

This isn't true.

more or less.

[Stranger]

Цитата допису kingjames488:

if you don't think the same way as the people making the rules you're "ill"... pretty much is how it seems to work.

more or less, but the focus of the field since the 90s has been creating controls to try and avoid this possibility.

opinions differ on sucess rates, and generally speaking the most-accessible outlets for psychological help operate on outdated information. similar to how many doctors who conduct their residency at hospitals and universities owned and operated by pharmaceutical companies tend to have a poor grasp of the last 50 years of advancement in pharmatherapy. the people who taught them are still pushing their profit motive over the facts, and they were trained to behave the same way.

[Morkonan]

Цитата допису bisder:

...
Also, what is being described as "illness" could also be proper function that we don't completely understand.

There have been suggestions that some of the reasons we may have certain "abnormal" behaviors are that they could provide a beneficial function for a group of humans. But... that's pretty far-fetched for some, since the resulting behavior is erratic and often dangerous in a group... /shrug

Those things we do not understand do not have to ultimately have a beneficial interpretation. The reason I say this is that people often say "well, we don't know" and imply that ignorance must lend some beneficial quality to that thing we don't know. That's false and a dangerous assumption to make. It's best to simply accept ignorance, continue to investigate, and proceed with caution. :)

In your examples above you abuse this abstract construct of "mental health". When I said someone used logic, I didn't specify complete logic, but to suggest the use of incomplete logic is "ill", that is ill in the sense you can catch a cold and then drink some ginger ale, where the ginger ale is reasonable logic.

Both examples were of patients I personally dealt with in a mental hospital. The first was also mentally deficient (one can't write retarded here Edit: Ah, I see we can, now.) and the other was a man who produced reams of "Lord of the Rings" "like" manuscripts, complete with drawings. It was mostly nonsensical stuff, but it was fairly amazing to witness. I never learned, truly, why he had that compulsion. He'd sometimes not engage in it for days, then would demand his notebook to continue working on it.

*

But I don't disagree completely and thanks for the answer.

YW!

* I am not a licensed mental health-care professional.